Kenya Institute of Management Research Paper
Kenya Institute of Management Research Paper
SEPTEMBER 2020
DECLARATION
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
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
UN - United Nations
GF - Global Fund
x
VRCWSP - Volta Region Community Water Supply Programme
xi
CHAPTER ONE
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.
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.
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).
3
project management, while others come as external threats. This paper articulates the
dilemma of project sustainability from different perspectives in the subsequent chapters.
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.
(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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
12
activities that will be undertaken and what level of success will be needed for each result
to produce the final intended impact.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
The Figure 2.1 above shows the conceptual framework of the proposed study.
41
2.6 Variables Explanation
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.
2.6.3 Monitoring
2.6.4 Evaluation
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.
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.
The table 3.1 above shows the total number of respondents of the proposed study.
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.
46
CHAPTER FOUR
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).
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
Female
25%
Male
75%
Male Female
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.
48
Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents by age
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
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.
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
9.21; 9%
Certificate
Diploma
Undergraduate
25.1; 25% Postgraduate
Other
65.69; 66%
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.
52
Table 4.4: Number of Years lived in the Lungalunga sub county
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
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
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.
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%
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).
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
58
Figure 4.6 community participation and sustainability of Community Based
Projects
33.71; 14%
65.35; 28%
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).
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%
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
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
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.
No Extent 7 2.9
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.
65
Table 4.10 Monitoring and evaluation and sustainability of Community Based
Projects
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
66
Figure 4.10 Effects of Project Monitoring and Evaluation on Sustainably of
Community Based Projects.
Sales
34.5; 14%
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
76
Githinji, C. M. (2013). Factors affecting sustainability of community-based projects a case study
of Mutomo District of Kitui County. Kenya, Kenyatta University.
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.
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.
INSP, (2005). Theory of Change Tool Manual, (full Version). Retrieved on 10th March 2015
from: www.insp.efc.be/toc.
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.
Keith, T. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. PEARSON Allyn & Bacon.
Kiama, H. (2016). May, 5. Tanzania Daily News: Bagamoyo ; Msoga irrigation fail Bagamoyo,
Tanzania.
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.
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.
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.
National Building Specification (NBS), National BIM Report (2012). Report of National BIM,
Dar es Salaam, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
82
Wema, C. F. (2010). Women participation in project planning and implementation, A report of
Rufiji district – Rufiji, Tanzania.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. (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
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
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
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
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)
89
TANGO International. (2008c). Oudomxai Community Initiatives Support Project: Laos case
study report. Tucson, AR
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
Augustus M. Kimanzi
Nairobi, Kenya.
Dear respondent,
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.
2. Age: (a) Below 24 Years [ ] (b) 25-29 Years [ ] (c) 30-34 Years [ ]
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
[ ]
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
94
implementing Neema borehole water project
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
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.
96
Moderate Extent
Great Extent
Very Great Extent
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
D9 I Don't Know
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.
98
No. Date Activity
5. July, 10th – August, 21st 2020 Data analysis and editing report writing.
99
APPENDIX 5: CASH BUDGET
4. Printing/Binding 15,000
4 Miscellaneous 3,500
5 TOTAL 61,120
100
THANK YOU.
101
102