Analysis of Community Participation in
Projects Managed by Non Governmental Organizations
A Case of World Vision in Central Tanzania
Zacharia Samwel Masanyiwa
George Frank Kinyashi
Eldis Document Store, 2008
IDS, Institute of Development Studies, UK
Authors Contacts
Institute of Rural Development Planning
P.O.Box 138
Dodoma, Tanzania
Emails:
masanyiwazs@yahoo.com
georgekiny@yahoo.com
Website:
www.irdp.ac.tz
www.eldis.org
ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION IN PROJECTS MANAGED BY NON
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
A Case of World Vision in Central Tanzania
1
Zacharia Samwel Masanyiwa
George Frank Kinyashi
1
2
Masanyiwa, Z.S is an Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Rural and Regional Planning of the Institute of Rural
Development Planning, Dodoma, Tanzania
2
Kinyashi, G.F is Lecturer in the Department of Rural and Regional Planning of the Institute of Rural Development
Planning, Dodoma, Tanzania
i
Zacharia Samwel Masanyiwa, George Frank Kinyashi
Analysis of Community Participation in Projects Managed by Non Governmental Organizations: A Case
of World Vision in Central Tanzania
© Authors
Online publication – www.
ISSN
ii
Abstract
Participation has now become an established orthodoxy in development thinking and practice.
But what exactly is it and how best should be pursued in development interventions to improve
the livelihoods of the poor remains contestable. This work is the product of a study conducted in
two World Vision rural development programmes (one fourteen year old and one three year old
programme) in Central Tanzania to analyse the effectiveness of participatory development
processes. The study was aimed at finding out how participation is perceived among local
communities and how they participate in the NGO’s development interventions in their
communities. Data for the study was collected from project staff, community committees and
community members using open ended questionnaires and focus group discussions. A total of 65
respondents participated in the study.
Research findings indicate that ‘community participation’ in the study programmes takes on
different forms in different stages of the project cycle. Despite the time difference between the
old and new programme, the nature and extent of participation for the majority of local
communities in both programmes is generally limited to information giving, consultation and
contribution. Local communities are generally not actively involved in decision making,
planning, monitoring and evaluation processes. Key factors identified as facilitatory in promoting
stakeholders’ participation are the NGO’s long term commitment in working with the poor, staff
with knowledge and skills on participatory approaches, continuous community sensitisation and
mobilisation, and perceptions that interventions being implemented are addressing participants’
needs. Poverty was seen to be main factor limiting local communities’ participation. Other factors
are contradicting policies and approaches of different agencies working in the same area, non
flexible organisational policies, poor community leadership and dependency syndrome.
Based on these findings, it is concluded that participation of local communities in WVT
interventions is generally limited to ‘contribution’ and therefore not ‘empowering’ to the local
communities to take control of the development process. The researchers recommend some
changes in terms of management structures and human capacity to help widen the scope of
participation for local communities.
iii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................iv
List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................................. v
Part 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 WORLD VISION TANZANIA’S APPROACH AND PROFILE ............................................ 3
1.3 USEFULL CONCEPTS IN ANALYSING NGOs PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES............. 5
Part 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 7
The Framework of Analysis ............................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Conceptualising Participation .................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Participation as Means or as End ............................................................................................ 7
2.2.2 Participation as Contribution or as Empowerment ................................................................. 9
2.2.3 Levels of Participation .......................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Gender and Participation .......................................................................................................... 12
2.4 NGOs and Participatory Development ..................................................................................... 13
2.5 Evaluating Participation ........................................................................................................... 14
2.6 Barriers to effective participation ............................................................................................. 15
Part 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Community Participation in the Case of World Vision Tanzania .................................................. 16
3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Perceptions of participation ...................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Participatory approaches used in WVT programmes ............................................................... 20
3.4 Forms of participation in the project cycle............................................................................... 21
3.4.1 Participation in problem identification .................................................................................. 21
3.4.2 Participation in the planning process .................................................................................... 26
3.4.3 Participation in project implementation ................................................................................ 26
3.4.4 Participation in monitoring and evaluation ........................................................................... 27
3.5 The effect of time on the quality of participation..................................................................... 28
3.6 Factors promoting stakeholders’ participation ......................................................................... 28
3.7 Factors hindering stakeholders’ participation .......................................................................... 30
Part 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 33
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 33
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 35
iv
List of Acronyms
ADP
-
Area Development Programme
AI
-
Appreciative Inquiry
AIP
-
Annual Implementation Plan
CCI
-
Community Capacity Indicators
DMPP
-
Dodoma Micro Projects Programme
FAO
-
Food and Agriculture Organisation
FGD
-
Focus group discussion
IMF
-
International Monetary Fund
INADES
-
Institut Africain pour le Développement Economique et Social
MIGESADO -
Miradi ya Gesi ya Samadi Dodoma
NGO
-
Non Governmental Organisation
OVC
-
Orphans and Vulnerable Children
PCC
-
Programme Coordinating Committee
PRA
-
Participatory Rural Appraisal
SFP
-
Special Funded Project
TANGO
-
Tanzania Association of Non-Governmental Organisations
TASAF
-
Tanzania Social Action Fund
VEO
-
Village Executive Officer
WAMMA
-
WaterAid Maji Maendeleo
WDC
-
Ward Development Committee
WEO
-
Ward Executive Officer
WVI
-
World Vision International
WVT
-
World Vision Tanzania
v
Part 1
Introduction
1.1 General background
This work is the product of the study conducted in two World Vision rural development
programmes in Central Tanzania. The first programme had 14 years old and the second had
three years old. The aim of the study was to analyse the effectiveness of participatory
development processes as practiced by NGOs. Specifically the study focused on generating
knowledge on the model of participation used in NGOs projects/programmes; perceptions of
‘participation’ among different stakeholders in development programmes; the way
stakeholders at the grassroots ‘participate’ at different stages of the development process; and
factors promoting or hindering ‘participation’ of stakeholders in development programmes at
the grassroots.
The concept of people’s participation is not a new phenomenon as far as rural development is
concerned; it has been talked and written about since the 1950s or even before (Guijt and
Shah, 1998; Nelson and Wright, 1995). In recent years however, there has been a convergence
of opinion as to the importance of participation in rural development and there now exists a
widely shared set of participatory approaches and methods. Participatory approaches have
been widely incorporated into policies of organisations from multilateral agencies like the
World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), bilateral agencies, to the smallest
people’s organisations (Blackburn and Holland, 1998; Dalal-Clayton et al., 2003; Holmes,
2001; Kumar, 2002; White, 1996). Indeed, some observers have argued that, in terms of
thinking and practice about development, we are currently in the ‘age of participation’ and it
is the ‘paradigm of people’ (Muraleedharan, 2005; Oakley, 1991).
The issue prompted this analysis is that while many authors and development agencies argue
that genuine people’s participation can increase the efficiency, effectiveness, self-reliance,
coverage and sustainability of development projects and programmes (Kumar, 2002; Oakley,
1991), there is a wide spectrum of views on the concept of participation and the ways of
achieving it. One example is given by Ngujiri (1998, p.470) who comments that, “despite the
increase in the number of NGOs, participatory methodologies, and after many years of
poverty alleviation, poverty continues to be rife and communities continue to languish in it”.
1
There is no doubt then, that something is wrong. It must either be that NGOs and/or
participatory approaches, the ‘tools of their trade’ are ineffective, or that NGOs use
participatory approaches wrongly.
In the view of the above it seems despite the aims of participatory rural development to
involve people in development that affects them directly, quite often, the reality of
participation differs from the rhetoric, on many counts (Chambers, 1997; Nelson and Wright,
1995). According to Pretty (1995), the dilemma for many development agencies is that they
both need and fear people’s participation. They need people’s agreements and support, but
they also fear that this wider involvement is less controllable, less precise and so likely to
slow down planning and implementation process. Shepherd (1998) argues that, participation
is usually asserted, not demonstrated, as few development organisations have time to examine
the indicators or follow the process of how participation happens, and what its effects are on
participants and in the wider society. The major question in many development programmes
and projects as Bunch (1995) postulates is therefore not whether to increase participation but
how to achieve effective participation.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been on the forefront to embrace and practice
participation as an ‘alternative development’ strategy. Some commentators like Mosse (1996),
Nelson and Wright (1995) and Shepherd (1998) have hailed NGOs for their commitment to
the direct involvement of local people in development projects and programmes. However, a
fundamental problem in assessing the experience of NGOs in participation, as Nelson and
Wright (1995) question, is that the concept is unclear in practice. In other words, what is
participation and what are we trying to achieve in promoting it.
As a result, this work presents the analysis of the effectiveness of participatory development
processes practiced by NGOs using the example of two World Vision Tanzania (WVT) rural
development programs in Central Tanzania namely Mpunguzi and Mundemu ADPs. The
work provides an understanding on how participation takes place at the grassroots, who
participates and how, what motivates some individuals and community groups to participate
and what hinders others from participating actively in NGOs funded interventions in their
communities.
2
1.2 World Vision Tanzania’s development approach and profile
World Vision Tanzania is a development, relief and advocacy NGO. WVT is also a member
of World Vision International (WVI) which is a partnership of programs and offices in over
100 countries worldwide which are overseen by their own national boards. Established in
1981, the organisation implements integrated development interventions in twelve regions of
Tanzania namely Arusha, Manyara, Kilimanjaro, Singida, Dodoma, Tanga, Morogoro, Dar es
Salaam, Kagera, Shinyanga, Tabora and Kigoma. WVT seeks to bring about holistic
sustainable transformational development among the poor and marginalised communities. It
is anticipated that by addressing the root causes of poverty, the organisation is helping to seek
‘life in all its fullness’ for the poor (World Vision, 2004).
WVT supports long term development interventions through area development programmes
(ADPs) and special funded projects (SFPs). The ADP is the main and increasingly important
approach through which World Vision facilitates community development. While SFPs are
specialized interventions, usually lasting two to five years and are organized around specific
sectors such as water or food security, ADPs are more integrated, cover a wider geographical
area, and usually take up to 15 years. The aim of ADPs is to empower local communities so
that they can eventually own their development process. A committee of elected
representatives from each village with equal number of men and women is established to
work with WVT project staff. Currently, WVT is working with over 60 ADPs in 36 districts
in the country which are further divided into five administrative zones (World Vision, 2004).
WVT Central Zone which covers Dodoma, Singida and part of Morogoro region, has a total
of 13 ADPs which are located in 7 districts (see appendix 2 for a list of ADPs in Central
Zone). Figure 1 below is a generalised account of how World Vision programs and projects
work, although details may vary from one project to another.
World Vision recognises ‘community participation’ as vital in development, one of the
principles in its policy on transformational development, and as a prerequisite for community
ownership of their development process (World Vision, 2002). This is affirmed in its core
values that state: “we seek to facilitate an engagement between the poor and affluent that
opens both to transformation. We respect the poor as active participants, not passive recipients
in this relationship” (ibid. p.1).
3
Figure 1: A generalized account of World Vision’s development approach
World Vision is approached by the
community
An individual in the community, a group, or
local government authority may request World
Vision for help. This signals that the
community has a need and they have heard of
World Vision’s work.
AND/OR
World Vision approaches the
community
 As part of their work in a cluster
of villages or
 To start a new project as part of
the World Vision’s country
strategy.
Relationship building
After the initial contact World Vision staff visit the community to build relationships,
determine the abilities of the community and address immediate needs.
Information gathering
World Vision staff work with the
community to:
 Determine what they consider their
strengths.

Dream about what and how they
might progress.

Examine things that are preventing
development and how these might
be overcome.

Determine how they could work
together and what resources they
can contribute e.g. labour, materials,
money.

Community committee
A community committee is established to work
with World Vision project staff to set goals,
make plans for implementation, identify ways
progress will be measured and track
improvement. Ideally both men and women are
involved in the committee.
Project implementation
World Vision staff work with the community
providing advice and arranging training for
community committees and local leaders on
project management and leadership skills.
Expansion of project
After having established a working relationship
(one to two years) and developed capabilities a
broader program is undertaken. Child
Sponsorship as a long-term funding source is
introduced. The community has the
responsibility to select the children most in
need to avoid jealousies and division within the
community.
Gather information on local issues
such as birth rates, agricultural
production levels, yearly weather
patterns, distribution of work, roles
of men and women, incidence of
diseases etc.
Project reporting and evaluation
The community records achievements quarterly
in relation to goals and financial statements are
prepared and monitored.
Source: Adapted from World Vision (2003, p.2)
4
According to World Vision (2003), participation is most effective when it respects people’s
knowledge and skills, empowers people to take control of their lives by focusing on training,
resourcing and supporting people to make their own decisions, includes all of the people in
the community i.e. men and women, aged and disabled, religious and ethnic minority groups,
is flexible, not bureaucratic, adapted to the local circumstances not bound by outsiders’ rules
and timelines.
1.3 Useful concepts in analysing NGOs participatory processes
Participation
Participation is a rich concept that means different things to different people in different
settings. This study uses the definition adopted by the World Bank’s Learning Group on
Participatory Development which defined participation as “a process through which
stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and
resources which affect them” (World Bank, 1996, p.3). The broad aim of participation in
development is to actively involve people and communities in identifying problems,
formulating plans and implementing decisions over their own lives (DFID, 2002; Guijt and
Shah, 1998).
Stakeholders
According to DFID (2002, p.2.1), a stakeholder is “any individual, community, group or
organisation with an interest in the outcome of a programme, either as a result of being
affected by it positively or negatively, or by being able to influence the activity in a positive
or negative way”. Stakeholders can be divided into three broad categories as primary,
secondary or key stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are individuals and groups who are
ultimately affected by an activity, either as beneficiaries (positively impacted) or nonbeneficiaries (adversely impacted). Secondary stakeholders include all other individuals or
institutions with a stake, interest or intermediary role in the activity. Key stakeholders are
those who can significantly influence or are important to the success of an activity (DalalClayton et al., 2003; DFID, 1995; 2002).
Empowerment
Empowerment has been defined by Slocum et al., (1995, p.4) as a “process through which
individuals, local groups and communities, identify and shape their lives and the society in
which they live”. It is a “measure of people’s capacity to bring about change, which is
5
concerned with analysing and addressing the dynamics of oppression and assisting groups and
individuals to play an active role in the decisions which affect their lives” (Eade and
Williams, 1995, p.12). In the context of development work, empowerment means that people
are able to organise and influence change on the basis of their access to knowledge, to
decision making processes and to financial, social and natural resources (Dale, 2004; Slocum
et al., 1995).
Sustainability
In the context of development programmes and projects, sustainability can be defined as “the
continuation of benefits for an extended period of time after financial, managerial and
technical assistance from a donor has been withdrawn” (AusAid, 2000, p.1). The focus of this
definition is on the flow of development projects’ benefits into the future which need to be
appropriate, owned by stakeholders and supported on an ongoing basis with locally available
resources.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
‘NGO’ is an umbrella term which encompasses a broad array of organisations, varying
enormously according to their purpose, philosophy, sectoral expertise and scope of activities.
In the development field, NGOs range from the large international organisations and charities
(mostly based in developed countries) to small community based self-help groups in
developing countries (Nelson and Wright, 1995; World Bank, 1996). In this study, we will
consider the World Bank (2001, p.1) which defines NGOs as “private organizations that
pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the
environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development”.
Literature on NGOs makes a distinction between operational NGOs which are engaged
primarily in designing and implementing projects, and advocacy NGOs whose main purpose
is to defend or promote a specific cause (World Bank, 1996). NGOs have also been classified
according to whether they are more relief or development-oriented; whether they are religious
or secular; whether they stress service delivery or participation, and whether they are more
public or private-oriented (Nelson and Wright, 1995).
6
Part 2
The Framework of Analysis
2.1 Overview
This chapter presents a brief survey of the literature on the theory and practice of participation
in rural development projects. It provides a conceptual understanding of participation, issues
of gender and participation, NGOs and participatory development, evaluation of participation,
and concludes by discussing the barriers to effective participation.
2.2 Conceptualising Participation
A review of literature on the ways in which participation is operationalised in different
interventions reveals multiple conceptions of participation. Pretty et al., for example, argue
that: the term participation has been used to build local capacity and self reliance, but also to
justify the extension of control of the state. It has been used to devolve power and decision
making away from external agencies, but also to justify external decisions. It has been used
for data collection and also for interactive analysis. But more often than not, people are
dragged into participating in operations of no interest to them, in the very name of
participation. Pretty et al., (1995, p.60).
This shows how this ‘all-embracing’ concept is used and practised in different ways. An
understanding about the concepts as discussed in the next sections will serve to provide some
perspectives of the process and the dynamics involved in it.
2.2.1 Participation as Means or as End
One of the common distinctions made by authors and development practitioners is that of
‘participation as a means’ and ‘participation as an end’ (see for example Burkey, 1993; Cooke
and Kothari, 2001; Dalay-Clayton et al., 2003; Kumar, 2002; Nelson and Wright, 1995;
Oakley, 1991). Participation as means implies the use of participation to achieve some predetermined goals. It is a way of harnessing rural people’s physical, economic and social
resources to achieve the aims and objectives of development programmes and projects more
efficiently, effectively or cheaply (Burkey, 1993; Nelson and Wright, 1995; Oakley, 1991).
7
Participation as an end is viewed as an active, dynamic and genuine process which unfolds
over time and whose purpose is to develop and strengthen the capabilities of rural people to
intervene more directly in development initiatives (Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Oakley, 1991).
As an end, participation is seen as the empowerment of individuals and communities in terms
of acquiring skills, knowledge and experience, leading to greater self-reliance (Burkey, 1993;
Karl, 2000). The proponents of this view often maintain that development for the benefit of
the poor can not occur unless the poor themselves control the process, the praxis of
participation. It is argued that by establishing a process of genuine participation, development
will occur as a direct result (Burkey, 1993; Cooke and Kothari, 2001). Table 2.1 provides a
comparative analysis which summarises the differences between these two concepts.
Table 2.1: Comparative Analysis: Participation as Means vs. End
Participation as Means
 It implies use of participation to achieve
some predetermined goals or objectives.
Participation as End
 Attempts to empower people to
participate more meaningfully.
 It is an attempt to utilise the existing
 The attempt is to ensure the increased
resources in order to achieve the objectives of
role of people in development
programmes/projects.
initiatives.
 The stress is on achieving the objective and
not so much on the act of participation itself.
 The focus is on improving the ability
of the people to participate rather than
just in achieving the predetermined
objectives of the project.
 It is more common in government
programmes, where the main concern is to
mobilise the community and involve them in
improving of the delivery system.
 This view finds relatively less favour
with the government agencies. NGOs
in principle agree with this viewpoint.
 Participation is generally short term.
 Viewed as a long term process.
 Appears to be a passive form of participation.
Source: Adapted from Kumar (2002, p.26).
 Relatively more active and long term.
However, the distinctions between these concepts are neither clear-cut nor mutually exclusive.
They represent different purposes and approaches to promoting participatory development.
While many development agencies give equal weight to both, some emphasise on one or the
other. Burkey (1993) for example, observes that until recently the notion of ‘participation as
means’ dominated development practice. Although he concedes that some economic
development was achieved as a result of this strategy, he also argues that, only a few
8
development projects achieved meaningful participation and benefits by this means. In his
view, this strategy has not resulted in meaningful participation of the poor. Nelson and Wright
(1995) believe that the extent of empowerment and achievement of the local population is
more limited in ‘participation as means’ than it is in ‘participation as an end’.
2.2.2 Participation as Contribution or as Empowerment
Drawing on Oakley (1991) and Dale (2004), perspectives on participation in development
work may also be captured by juxtaposing two notions, participation as contribution and as
empowerment. Participation as contribution may be enlisted primarily in the implementation
of programmes and projects or in the operation and maintenance of created facilities. The
contribution may be entirely voluntary, induced to various extents or even enforced. It may be
provided in the form of ideas, judgements, money, materials, or unpaid or lowly paid labour
(Dale, 2004). Indeed, this notion may also be seen as ‘participation as means’ to get things
done.
According to Bretty (2003, p.5), participation is an empowering process in which “people, in
partnership with each other and those able to assist them, identify problems and needs,
mobilise resources, and assume responsibility to plan, manage, control and assess the
individual and collective actions that they themselves decide upon”. As a process of
empowerment, participation is concerned with “development of skills and abilities to enable
the rural people to manage better, have a say in or negotiate with existing development
systems” (Oakley, 1991, p.9). As Eade and Rowlands (2003) argue, powerlessness is a central
element of poverty, and any focus on poverty, inequality, injustice, or exclusion involves
analysis of and/or challenging/changing power and power relations. Participation as
empowerment can therefore help to amplify unacknowledged voices by enabling the rural
people to decide upon and take the actions which they believe are essential to their
development (Oakley, 1991; Slocum et al., 1995). According to some FAO (1997) studies,
small informal groups consisting of members from similar socio-economic backgrounds are
better vehicles for participation in decision making and collective learning than
heterogeneous, large scale and more formal organisations.
9
2.2.3 Levels of Participation
Development agencies and authors distinguish different dimensions, spaces, degrees and
levels of participation. The typology of participation (see table 2.2), which positions
participation on a seven step ladder is useful in analysing these degrees (Bretty, 2003; Kumar,
2002; Pretty et al., 1995; Wilcox, 1994). Comparing these levels with the ‘participation as
means and ends’ analysis shown in table 2.1, the first four levels on the ladder can be
interpreted as ‘participation as means’ while the last three levels fall under ‘participation as an
end’. Some suggest that the ‘manipulation’ which is often central to types one to four implies
that they should be seen as types of ‘non participation’ (Pretty, 1995).
Bretty (2003, p.5) conceptualises these levels in terms of ‘weak and strong participation’.
According to his views, weak participation involves “informing and consulting” while strong
participation means “partnership and control”. He argues that, in practice agencies managing
complex projects find it hard to move from the ‘weak end’ of the continuum and tend to
assume that, intended beneficiaries will be consulted during the project design to take into
account their felt needs and aspirations. Wilcox (1994) cautions that, information giving and
consultation are often presented as participation leading to disillusionment among community
interests.
However, the problem with levels of participation is that they imply coherence, when most
development organisations operate simultaneously in a wide range of participatory modes
(Mosse, 1996). One level on the continuum is not necessarily better than any other as different
levels are appropriate at different times and contexts to meet the expectations and interests of
different stakeholders (Wilcox, 1994). Oakley (1991) cites an analysis of a Danish funded
rural water supply project in Tanzania, where he observes that participation had ranged from
non-participation and manipulation over information and consultation to some degree of
partnership and delegation of power. In another study of Malawi Social Action Fund
(MASAF) projects, Dulani (2003, p.12) concluded that, the level of community participation
was limited to being informed what had already been decided by other key players which
implied “passive participation by consultation”.
10
Table 2.2: Typology of Participation
Level
1. Passive
Participation
Characteristics of each type
People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already
happened. It is a unilateral announcement by leaders or project
management without listening to people’s responses or even asking
their opinion.
2. Participation in
Information
Giving
People participate by answering questions posed by extractive
researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People
do not have opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the
research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy.
People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to
views. These external professionals define both problems and
solutions, and may modify these in light of people’s responses. Such a
consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making,
and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people’s
views.
People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return
for food, cash or other material incentives. It is very common to see
this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging
activities when the incentives end.
People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives
related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion
of externally initiated social organisation. Such involvement does not
tend to occur at the early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather
after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be
dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become selfdependent.
People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the
formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing
ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek
multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured
learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions, and
so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.
People participate by taking initiatives independent of external
institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external
institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain
control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilisation
and collective action may or may challenge existing inequitable
distributions of wealth and power.
3. Participation by
Consultation
4. Participation for
Material
Incentives
5. Functional
Participation
6. Interactive
Participation
7. Self-Mobilisation
Source: Adapted from Pretty (1995, p.1252) and Kumar (2002, pp.24-25).
11
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is a myriad of aspects of participation.
This means that great care must be taken when using and interpreting the term. It should
always be qualified by reference to the type of participation. In addition, observers seem to
agree that the application of participatory approaches further calls for an appreciation of the
social dynamics and diversities such as gender, age, social status, ethnicity, disability and
power amongst others.
2.3 Gender and Participation
Gender relations define amongst other things, how both men and women have access to
control of resources in the community. According to Shepherd (1998, pp.150-151), gender
analysis comprises: “information to access and control over resources for men and women;
division of labour within the household and community; and the participation of men and
women in public decision making and organisations”. Despite the importance placed upon
people’s participation in development programmes, many agencies still experience poor
participation of women (Guijt and Shah, 1998; World Bank, 1996). According to Slocum et
al., (1995), many participatory approaches such as participatory rural appraisal (PRA) do not
explicitly address issues of social relations including gender. Rarely do these methodologies
take into account gender analysis, gender based differences in labour allocation, and gender
differences in access to and control over resources and their benefits. Gender is usually
hidden in seemingly inclusive terms, ‘the people’, or ‘the community’ while in most cases
what is referred to as ‘the community’ actually means ‘male community’ (Guijt and Shah,
1998). Oakley’s (1991) analysis of the rural water supply project in Tanzania for example,
showed that despite efforts to mobilise women to take an active part in all project activities,
this was only successful with respect to self-help labour contributions as most women in the
village water committees kept a low profile.
According to World Bank (1996), gender biases in participatory development projects may
exist in the form of customs, beliefs, and attitudes that confine women mostly to the domestic
sphere; women’s economic and domestic workloads that impose severe time burdens on
them; and laws and customs that impede women’s access to credit, productive inputs,
employment, education, information, or medical care. Since women comprise the majority of
rural inhabitants, and they are the major contributors in agricultural production in Tanzania,
there arises an urgent need to encourage their involvement in development activities. Burkey
(1993) recommends that participatory development projects should seek to improve gender
inequalities through providing a means by which women can take part in decision making
12
processes. As Guijt and Shah (1998) argue, greater involvement of women and attention to
gender-differentiated needs holds the promise of more effective and equitable processes of
participatory development.
2.4 NGOs and Participatory Development
The role of NGOs involved in relief and development work has received increasing attention
in recent years, to such an extent that some scholars (Nelson and Wright, 1995, p.181) have
termed the 1980s “the decade of the NGOs”. This reflects a widely held opinion by many
authors and development agencies that NGOs are in some way better at relief and
development work than other bilateral/multilateral aid agencies. The World Bank (2001)
estimates that over 15% of total overseas development aid is now channelled through NGOs.
Since the 1990s, Tanzania has experienced a rapidly growing number of NGOs. According to
Reuben (2002), between 1961 and 1980, there were only 25 registered NGOs in Tanzania. By
2000, this number had risen to over 10,000. The Tanzania Association of Non-Governmental
Organizations (TANGO) currently has a proxy membership of 1500 NGOs most of which are
regional and district networks (TANGO, 2006).
Analyses of NGOs have identified several reasons why it is thought that NGOs might be
better able to put participation into practice than the public sector. According to Nelson and
Wright (1995), NGOs claim to be innovative, flexible, not weighed down by bureaucracy and
they are independent/autonomous. This may allow them to follow non-conventional policies
when compared to governments and official aid agencies. Most NGOs are already operating
at the grassroots level, close to the poorest of the poor. This ‘people first’ orientation may
enable NGOs to have a clearer understanding of poor people’s livelihoods strategies and
perceived needs and better rapport with the poor (Shepherd, 1998; Nelson and Wright, 1995).
Further, many NGOs have experience in participatory project design and skills in
participatory research, community mobilisation, facilitation skills and group dynamics (World
Bank, 1996).
Some limitations of NGOs as vehicles for participatory development have also been identified
although it is difficult to generalise about the sector as a whole. According to World Bank
(1996), some NGOs have limited financial and management expertise and institutional
capacity. Others work in isolation, communicating or coordinating very little with other
organisations (including government agencies). Many may be confined to small scale
interventions and may not fully understand the broader social and economic context in which
13
they are working. Another limitation of NGOs is that most of them are resource constrained
organisations, dependent on external funding. This poses what Craig and Porter (1997, p.219)
call the problem of “double accountability”, to the beneficiaries and to the source of funds.
Balancing these two aspects is challenging for most organisations, as most NGO funded
projects tend to be more ‘managed’ than ‘participatory’. As a result, NGOs may end up being
more accountable to the donors than to the stakeholders (Shivji, 2004). Blackburn and
Holland (1998, p.82) argue that, “NGOs face difficulties when adopting participatory
approaches if their funding agencies are not sufficiently flexible to accommodate the changes,
especially if such changes entail adjusting funding policies and procedures accordingly”.
The World Bank (1996) identifies some indicators for participatory effectiveness in NGOs.
They include a flat management structure with decentralized authority; organizational
structures at the community level to which funding and/or other decisions are delegated; use
of iterative planning, involving consultation with local communities, contributions of cash,
labour, raw materials, or local facilities by community members and organizations, making
them clients rather than beneficiaries of the NGO; staff recruitment criteria, incentives, and
training that support participation; strong field presence outside metropolitan areas with a
high proportion of staff of local origin; and community leaders and members have a positive
perception of the NGO.
2.5 Evaluating Participation
There is now a growing recognition that if participation in one form or another is an objective
of development projects and programmes, it must be evaluated (DFID, 1995; FAO, 1997;
Karl, 2000). Karl (2000) has identified three main aspects of participation in rural
development projects and programmes that need to be evaluated namely, the extent and
quality of participation, costs and benefits of participation to the different stakeholders, and
the impact of participation on outcomes, performance and sustainability. DFID (1995)
suggests that, in evaluating participation, it is important to consider the quantitative,
qualitative and time dimensions of participation. This is because participation is a qualitative
process that cannot be measured using only quantifiable indicators. While quantification in
relation to project outputs may be sufficient, the qualitative dimensions of participation
should also be evaluated because project success depends on empowering participants to take
on greater responsibility and control.
14
2.6 Barriers to effective participation
A host of factors have been identified as obstacles to effective participation in development
programmes and projects. Oakley (1991) discusses three major obstacles to people’s
participation which are structural, administrative and social barriers. Structural obstacles form
part of the complex and centralized organisational systems that control decision making,
resource allocation and information, and are not oriented towards people’s participation. This
situation is usually typified by a ‘top-down’ development approach. Administrative obstacles
relate to bureaucratic procedures, operated by a set of guidelines and adopt a blue print
approach, providing little space for people to make their own decisions or control their
development process. The social impediments include mentality of dependence, culture of
silence, domination of the local elite, gender inequality, and low levels of education and of
exposure to non-local information.
Another obstacle is “standardization of approaches” (Guijt and Shah, 1998, p.5) which
contradicts the original aims of participation, to move away from the limitations of blue print
planning and implementation towards more flexible and context-specific methodologies.
According to Cooke and Kothari (2001, p.53), participation has been translated into
managerial “toolboxes” of procedures and techniques. This limited approach gives rise to a
number of critical paradoxes: projects approaches remain largely concerned with efficiency,
and focus attention only on the highly visible, formal, local organisations, overlooking the
numerous communal activities that occur through daily interactions and socially embedded
arrangements. Dale (2004) identifies other barriers such as power structures within local
communities, rigid professional attitudes among programme and project staff, little awareness
among people of rights they may have or opportunities they may exploit, and little emphasis
on qualitative achievements of participation. These barriers are situation-specific, and need to
be carefully analysed in particular contexts.
15
Part 3
Community Participation World Vision Tanzania Projects
3.1 Overview
This part presents detailed discussion on how community participation happens in the case of
World Vision Tanzania projects. It focuses on what have been the perceptions of
participation, the nature and extent of stakeholders’ participation, and issues promoting and
those hindering stakeholders’ participation in the two WVT development programmes.
3.2 Perceptions of participation
One of the important focuses of this work is to demonstrate how participation is perceived
among different stakeholders in WVT development programs. A majority of community
respondents (women, men and youth) in both study ADPs indicated to be generally aware of
WVT funded interventions which are being or have been implemented in their villages. This
participants’ knowledge helped to provide reference points during discussions as we sought to
explore the nature and extent of local communities’ involvement in such activities. Table 3.1
presents some quotes from respondents showing how they perceive the term participation in
relation to these interventions in their communities.
Despite the clear definition from the organisation’s point of view, study findings indicate that
there is no shared meaning among different stakeholders at the grassroots as to what is exactly
meant or expected of them as far as participation in development activities is concerned. A
closer look at the perceptions shown in table 3.1 suggests that, WVT project staff perceive
participation in a more theoretical way or what is supposed to be (the rhetoric of participation)
while local communities’ perceptions of participation are based on what they experience in
reality. This argument is based on the results which show that concepts of participation given
by staff used terms like “involvement of people” or “community involvement” without
clarifying how this ‘involvement’ actually happens in reality. On the contrary, community
members’ respondents were more focused in explaining what participation means to them as
they used phrases like “we attend village meetings”, “we collect water, sand and stones” or
“participate through our labour and cash contributions”.
Similarly, concepts of participation given by WVT project staff, used words like ‘community’
which is an ‘all-embracing’ term with divergent interpretations. While it clear that, it is people
16
who do things, decide things, say things, and not ‘projects’ or ‘communities’, terms like
‘community participation’ are often used when in fact it is certain individuals who decided or
did something. These individuals are often men, and those who are relatively powerful and/or
wealthy in the community or what Chambers (1997) calls the ‘local elites’. This was made
more explicit when men respondents in one of the FGDs noted that they: “participate in
decision making through involvement in village meetings or as members in village committees
like village council, school committee, or the village water committee”.
Table 3.1: Respondents’ perceptions of participation
Respondents
Project staff
Perceptions of Participation
“Participation is an approach that recognises community members
as owners of the development process and project staff as only
facilitators”.
“Participation means involvement of the people from the beginning
of the project i.e. in the designing, planning, implementation and
evaluation”.
“A development approach that seeks great community involvement
in WV interventions”.
ADP Committees
“Participation means development initiatives start from the village
level, when villagers realize that there is a problem and find ways to
solve it”.
“Participation means community involvement in planning,
implementation and evaluation of development projects in their
villages”.
“Participation means use of people’s labour and their resources to
implement development projects in their communities”.
Women
“We attend village meetings where we identify and discuss
development projects which we think can be supported by the ADP”.
“We collect water, stones and sand whenever there is an on going
construction project in our village like school classrooms for our
children”.
Men
“When a project is being implemented in our village, we participate
in decision making through our involvement in village meetings or
as members in village committees like village council, school
committee, or the village water committee”.
“Most of us participate through our labour and cash contributions”.
Youth
“Involvement of various community groups in planning and
implementation of development projects”.
“We have been involved in construction of school classrooms
through our labour”.
“Some of us participated on a seminar on entrepreneurship skills
that was organised by the ADP”
17
Guijt and Shah (1998, pp. 7-8) have criticised how the term participation is defined in many
development projects when they observed that, “participation is ill defined and meaningless
when it comes to implementation. Despite the stated intentions of social inclusion, many
participatory development initiatives do not deal well with the complexity of community
differences including age, economic, religious, caste, ethnicity and in particular gender”.
According to their views, community is viewed naively, or in practice dealt with as a
harmonious and internally equitable collective, as a unit of analysis and intervention. In
reality, rural communities are composed of individuals and groups, and often with opposing
interests.
Linking these results to the typology of participation discussed in part 2, it can be argued that,
project staff and ADP committees’ perceptions of participation are more oriented towards the
higher levels of participation, levels five to seven on the participation ladder (see also figure
3.1). According to their views, community members are “involved in all stages of the project
cycle”; there is “greater community involvement” in all World Vision projects, and that
community members are “the owners of development projects”. While these claims may be
indicative of what ADPs aim to achieve in their efforts to promote participation i.e.
participation as both ‘means and end’ or ‘empowerment’, the views and opinions of
community respondents indicate that, their nature of involvement in these interventions is still
limited to the first four levels. They participate by attending meetings, labour or monetary
contributions and few of them (mostly men) in decision making processes which can be
interpreted as ‘passive participation’, ‘information giving’, ‘consultation’, or ‘participation as
contribution’ (Pretty, 1995; Oakley, 1991, Dale, 2004). Indeed, these forms of participation
can also be described as types of ‘weak participation’ (Bretty, 2003) or even forms of ‘nonparticipation’ (Pretty, 1995).
These results can also be analysed from a gender perspective. It was shown that women in
Mpunguzi and Mundemu ADPs participate more in ‘productive’ and ‘social care’ activities
aimed at meeting ‘practical gender needs’ which relate to unsatisfactory living conditions and
lack of social care services such as water, education and health (Moser, 1993). This indicates
that there is a clear gender based division of labour in these communities. Although women
are represented in ADP committees, village councils and WDCs, it was not clearly established
whether they have any great say in such ‘political’ and decision making fora. Similarly, it was
not clearly explained how children who are said to be the main beneficiaries of ADP
interventions participate in the development process. Despite the fact that WVT has been
18
promoting ‘gender mainstreaming’ and ‘children’s participation’ in its interventions and areas
of operations, these results suggest that, such efforts have not been translated into a ground
reality to bring about change in perceptions, attitudes and power relations among community
leaders and members.
Figure 3.1: Participation ladder
Action BY,
being in control;
little or no input
by others
Action WITH,
partnership; work
with others to set
priorities and
course of action
Action
FOR/WITH,
Action ON,
being
manipulated;
no real input or
power
Decided by
ourselves
CO-OPERATION
PARTNERSHIP
CONSULTATION
being consulted;
others analyse and
decide action
Action FOR,
being informed or
set tasks; others
set the agenda and
direct the process
CONTROL
COLLECTIVE
ACTION or
CO-LEARNING
Participants as Subjects
'Participants' as Objects
COMPLIANCE
INFORMING
?
CO-OPTION
COERCION
Decided by
others
?
Source: Adapted from DFID (2002, p. 7.5).
While it is clear from these results that WVT as an organisation and its staff view
participation as a process that involves men, women, boys and girls in all stages of the project
cycle or as ‘means and an end’, community members perceive themselves as participating in
the problem identification through their involvement in village meetings or baseline surveys,
and the implementation stage either through their contributions or as recipients of WVT
services. This suggests that there is a gap between what is on paper in terms of organisational
policies and strategies, and what is actually happening at the grassroots, where officials speak
of the ‘rhetoric of participation’ while in practice exhibit behaviour which is hierarchical
19
and/or non-participatory (Craig and Porter, 1997; Nelson and Wright, 1995). Some important
questions at this stage which will be explored further in the next sections are; who is involved
in the planning, decision making, and monitoring and evaluation stages?
What are the
opportunities or ‘participation spaces’ available for primary stakeholders to engage
themselves in these stages of the project cycle? Before discussing these issues, the following
section identifies the different participatory approaches used in WVT ADPs as was revealed
in this study.
3.3 Participatory approaches used in WVT programmes
All project staff in the two ADPs regardless of the time they have been in WVT; have been
trained on, and were using participatory approaches of one type or another in their work.
Commenting on this, one respondent said: “I was trained on participatory rural appraisal
and community facilitation skills as part of my orientation when I joined WVT”. This shows
that WVT is committed to promoting participatory approaches in its interventions at the
grassroots by enhancing the capacities of its staff in participatory approaches. As Dearden and
Kowalski (2003) have argued, skills and knowledge on participatory planning tools and
approaches are essential for staff both at the grassroots and higher levels. This requires
extensive training and coaching of staff at all levels accompanied by continued commitment
to their use.
Box 1 below shows the common participatory approaches used in WVT ADPs as mentioned
by staff respondents. It was highlighted by these respondents that PRA exercises are often
conducted at the inception of ADPs as part of baseline surveys where a wide range of
community members (men, women, boys and girls) and their leaders are invited to participate
in the process. Some community respondents in Mundemu for example, recalled their
experiences when they participated in PRA exercises in their villages three years ago when
the ADP was starting.
Committee and staff respondents also explained that, WVT has been working with the ADP
communities to help them develop community capacity indicators, which they use to assess
their own ability to plan, carry out, and evaluate their development process. ADP committees
respondents in both ADPs acknowledged to have participated in a number of training
programs including some on AI/CCI, and that each committee in collaboration with ADP staff
have developed a set of indicators that help them to track progress in their development
process. One ADP staff in Mpunguzi affirmed this as he observed that: “we have trained the
20
ADP committees and village leaders on AI/CCI approach and work with them to help develop
community capacity indicators”.
Box 1: Participatory approaches used in WVT ADPs

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

Participatory Learning and Action (PLA)

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Community Capacity Indicators (CCI)

Community facilitation skills
While PRA and AI/CCI are useful participatory approaches that can help local communities
to participate meaningfully in the development process to higher levels of ‘partnership’ and
‘control’ (see figure 3.1), it seems that their current use in WVT programmes is limited to the
time of project inception and/or to a few workshops involving committees and community
leaders. It appears that these approaches have not been used to help empower the local
communities control their own development process.
3.4 Forms of participation in the project cycle
Table 3.2 below summarises the nature and forms of stakeholders’ involvement in the project
cycle. Table 3.3 translates further these forms of participation into a stakeholders’
participation matrix. Because of the varied nature and scope of development activities being
undertaken in WVT programmes, results show that different stakeholders participate in
different ways in different stages of the project cycle.
3.4.1 Participation in problem identification
World Vision (2002) argues that, one of the crucial design principles in its programmes and
projects is that local communities must play a key role in the identification of development
activities. Both WVT and community respondents revealed that, local communities
participate in the problem identification mostly through community meetings. These meetings
are often organised by village leaders and may also be attended by ADP staff. Whether local
communities’ voices are heard and taken into consideration depends upon the approach used
to facilitate the meetings. Some community respondents noted that, village meetings tend to
exclude and marginalise the ideas of other community members (e.g. children, the elderly,
people with disabilities and women) who because of some reasons do not attend such
21
meetings. Therefore it seems likely that top down approaches were used and that
‘participation as contribution’ and not ‘empowerment’ were the outcomes of such meetings.
Community respondents identified other participation avenues available for them in the
problem identification stage such as involvement in PRA exercises and baseline surveys
either as questionnaire respondents, key informants or FGD participants during project
inception or evaluations. Although most respondents acknowledged that they often participate
in the identification and prioritization of needs upon which ADP activities are based, some
argued that this was a one-off activity at the time of baseline survey or annual budgeting
process. From this point of view, the respondents felt that on-going involvement in decision
making about activities is currently limited as they do not play a ‘key role’ in such processes
which implies that the ‘stick’ has not been ‘handled over’ to them (Chambers, 1997).
This suggests that participation in the problem identification stage ranges from ‘passive’ to
‘participation by consultation’ (refer table 2.2). This limited nature of community
involvement in problem identification could also be viewed as ‘weak participation’ as it does
not lead to people’s empowerment (Bretty, 2003). These findings are more or less similar to
what Pretty (1995) had observed in a study involving 230 rural development institutions
employing some 30,000 staff in 41 countries in Africa, where he found that participation for
local people was most likely to mean simply having discussions or providing information to
external agencies.
22
Table 3.2: Forms of participation in the project cycle
Stages in the Project Cycle
Stakeholders
Community members
Identification
 Attend village meetings
(men, women, boys  Participation in PRA exercises
and girls)
 Respondents in baseline surveys
Planning
 Represented by ADP
Implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation
 Contribution in terms of
 Receive reports from village
committees, village councils,
labour, locally available
leaders and ADP committee
WDCs and other committees.
construction materials and
representatives during village
cash.
meetings
 Being consulted in identifying
 Recipients of services
locations to build community
provided by the ADP
service structures like water wells
 Respondents in project
reviews and evaluations.
 Participants of different
or bore holes
training programs organised by
the ADP.
Village leaders
 Organise and participate in village  Prepare village plans to be
meetings to identify priority needs.
 Consulted by project staff and ADP
committee representatives.
 Supervise implementation of
 Report back to community
submitted to ADP committee
projects’ implementation in
members on implementation
and other NGOs in the area
their villages in collaboration
progress during village
for assistance.
with ADP staff and ADP
meetings
 Sit in decision making
forums at the village and
ward.
committee members
 Collect contributions from
community members.
 Identify and mobilise
 Institute penalties to
resources to implement
community members who fail
development interventions in
to pay their contributions as
their villages.
agreed upon.
23
 Consulted
during
project
reviews and evaluations.
Stakeholders
Stages in the Project Cycle
Identification
ADP committees
 Organise
village
Planning
meetings
Implementation
to  Consolidate village plans to
identify needs
come up with AIPs
 Participate in PRA and baseline  Decision making and ADP
surveys
 Work in collaboration with  Prepare community capacity
village leaders to mobilise
indicators to monitor
resources and supervise project
progress.
 Provide feedback to local
activities
management in their
 Consulted by ADP staff
Monitoring and Evaluation
 Recipients of capacity building
quarterly meetings
communities.
programs aimed at enhancing  Involved in evaluations as
their management capacities.
community representatives
 May also be consulted by
external consultants.
ADP staff
 Collect community views, opinions  Prepare final AIPs for
and
needs
meetings,
through
PRA
village
exercises
and
baseline surveys.
 Involved in the day to day
 Overall
coordination
of
approval by WVT
running of ADP activities
monitoring and evaluation
authorities.
including community
activities in the ADP.
 Custodians of WVT policies
mobilisation.
at the ADP level
Government
 Consulted at project inception
departments
 Participate in baseline surveys and
 Consulted for technical input  Technical
and government policy issues
supervision
of 
project activities
reports

PRA
Other NGOs
 Consulted during baseline survey at  Consulted
project inception
for
technical  Consulted
for
e.g.
Receive reports during PCC
providing
meetings.
assistance
experiences in certain sectors
training services in certain
24
Involved in evaluations
technical 
assistance based on their
areas of expertise
Receive project progress
Table 3.3: Stakeholders’ participation matrix
Type of Participation
Inform
Consult
Partnership
Control
M, W, B and G
M, W, B and G
District council
WVT Staff
Village leaders
Village leaders
Village councils
ADP committee
District council
Religious leaders
WDCs
Extension workers
District council
ADP committees
Other NGOs
ADP committees
Other NGOs
Stages in Programme
Identification
Other NGOs
Planning
Implementation
Monitoring
M, W and Y
Village councils
District Council
ADP committee
Village leaders
WDCs
Village councils
WVT staff
Other NGOs
District council
WDCs
ADP committee
Other NGOs
ADP Committees
M, W, B and G
M, W and Y
District council
WVT Staff
Village leaders
Village leaders
Village councils
District Council
District council
District council
WDCs
ADP committees
Other NGOs
ADP Committees
M, W, B and G
District council
External consultants
District council
Other NGOs
WVT staff
Community leaders
ADP Committees
M, W, B, and G
and Evaluation
Other NGOs
Key: M-Men, W-Women, B-Boys, G-Girls, Y-Youth
25
3.4.2 Participation in the planning process
The second phase at which local communities are supposed to take a direct and active part is during
project planning. In the two programmes, community respondents revealed that communities
generally consider project planning and decision making to be the responsibility of the village
councils, ward development committees (WDCs), ADP committees and ADP staff. As a result,
most community members seek no direct or active involvement for themselves at this stage. The
ADP committee in Mpunguzi for example commented that: “community members are represented
in the ADP committee by two representatives (male and female) from each village. It is this
committee that makes decisions on their behalf and gives feedback to villagers on all decisions
reached in the committee”. Youth respondents in Mundemu observed that: “planning and decision
making is done by the village councils, ADP staff and ADP committee where we have our
representatives”. Similar responses were also obtained from staff respondents who conceded that
participation in planning and decision making is mainly through the ADP committee meetings.
This suggests that participation in the planning and decision making processes could be described as
‘representational participation’ through the ADP committees and community leaders. Hickey and
Mohan (2004) argue that, much of what is considered participatory in development projects and
agencies is a process whereby large numbers of people are represented by a relatively small group
of participants. According to their views, electoral representation offers a particularly limited form
of participation, as representational systems and procedures often exclude the poor and therefore
lacks the substance of a broader set of participatory engagements. While Bunch (1995) supports this
view, he also cautions that, although local representation may be set up, the real ‘power behind the
throne’ often remains in the hands of the outsiders. Feedback mechanisms from the ADP
committees to communities and vice versa may also present another problem, and as such some
project activities approved for implementation may only reflect the interests and priorities of the
minority community leaders and not the entire local communities they represent.
3.4.3 Participation in project implementation
This is perhaps the part of the project cycle that majority of community members ‘participate’.
Community participation in project implementation was said to be through provision of unskilled
labour during various construction works, contribution of cash to pay local masons, participation in
various training programmes, and actual implementation of programme activities as recipients of
WVT assistance. The ADP committee FGD participants in Mpunguzi for example, explained that a
26
recent programme audit established that total community contribution (labour, materials and cash)
was estimated at 25% of the ADP annual budget spent on construction activities. This gives an
impression that participation at this stage is mainly used as ‘a means’ to achieve project goals
effectively and cheaply; which in the view of Oakley (1991) and Dale (2004), such kind of
participation is a prototype of ‘participation as contribution’. In some cases, this form of
participation has exhibited some traits of ‘coercion’ as community leaders enforce some sanctions
and penalties to community members who do not contribute voluntarily (refer figure 3.1).
Some aspects of what Pretty (1995) calls ‘functional participation’ (refer table 2.2) can also be seen
at this stage especially where project implementation has involved formation of small interest
groups such as women and youth income generation (IGA) groups. Women and youth respondents
in Mpunguzi, an old ADP, for instance, explained that the programme has helped to mobilise them
to form small self-run groups of 8-15 members and through these groups, they have been trained on
various issues. Proudly commenting on this, women respondents said: “ADP staff have mobilised
us to form income generating groups, they visit us, train us and we are now registered at the district
level”.
These responses gives an impression that that participation in small groups is more effective as all
members have equal opportunities to play a direct, active and influential role in the group processes.
Despite the fact that Mundemu ADP is only in its third year of implementation, ADP staff have
started sensitising and mobilising formation of small groups as was revealed by youth respondents
some of whom identified themselves as members of a carpentry group. These initiatives provide
some examples where participation can be seen as ‘an end’ or as an ‘empowering processes, or even
evolving to higher levels on the participation ladder like ‘interactive participation’ and ‘self
mobilisation’. Elsewhere, van Heck (2003) argues that, participation of ‘the poor’ in small groups
lead to their empowerment. Through their groups and organisations they obtain not only access to
resources, but also decision making and bargaining power as well as base for sustained self
development efforts.
3.4.4 Participation in monitoring and evaluation
WVT and community respondents explained that monitoring of project activities is mainly done by
project staff, community leaders and ADP committees who report back to the local communities.
As is the case with baseline surveys, local communities participate mainly as respondents to provide
27
information during monitoring and evaluation processes. This is another stage in the project cycle
where participation of community members can generally be seen to be limited to the lower rungs
of the participation ladder amounting to ‘passive participation’, ‘information giving’ or
‘consultation’ as local communities do not play an ‘active role’ in these stages. This implies that the
current WVT monitoring and evaluation set up does not give enough space for local communities to
play an active role in these stages.
3.5 The effect of time on the quality of participation
Another factor to be considered in this analysis is whether time has any effect on the depth of
participation in the two programmes. Community respondents in Mpunguzi showed to have been
involved in many activities because their ADP has been in operation for 14 years, compared to
Mundemu which is only in its third year of operation. Similarly, it was shown that many IGA
groups have been formed in Mpunguzi drawing more participants than in Mundemu. Apart from
these differences, the nature and extent of local communities’ participation in the two programmes
was generally seen to be more or less the same, involving ‘information giving’, ‘consultation’ and
‘contribution’. This situation could be due to WVT policies which are likely to be framing the type
and ‘participation spaces’ available for local participants. Indeed, as Craig and Porter (1997, p.229)
argue, “development projects and organisations construct a framework of control for potential
participants, which rigidly shapes and bounds the kind of participation that is possible, and the
directions in which people can go with development projects”. Because of power that comes from
the simple fact of having funds, outside agents can justify their presence and dictate the means and
ends participatory development (Slocum et al., 1995). As such, there was a feeling that, with
fourteen years of operation in a fifteen years long programme, community participation in
Mpunguzi should have started taking a more functional form that is more empowering than what
has been happening.
3.6 Factors promoting stakeholders’ participation
Information obtained from the interviewed community members (table 3.4) revealed that WVT long
term commitment to working with the poor and respect for people is one of the key factors
promoting participation of various community groups in these ADPs. Respondents in Mpunguzi for
instance, commended WVT and its staff for their commitment to ensuring that communities are
empowered to manage their own development process. Because of the organisational set up that
requires ADP offices to be based in the villages where it works, it was argued that, this community
28
‘rootedness’ provides opportunities for ADP staff to live within the beneficiary communities which
allows for meaningful and on going rapport building, consultations and interactions with local
communities. As it has been argued in part two, NGO presence at the grassroots, close to the
poorest of poor is important in promoting participation (Shepherd, 1998; Nelson and Wright, 1995).
According to Burkey (1993, p.ii), meaningful participatory development process requires
development facilitators or change agents to “go to the people, live with them, learn from them,
work with them, start with what they know, and build on what they know”. Continuous community
sensitization, mobilization and general awareness creation initiatives done by ADP staff in
collaboration with community leaders on various development issues were also said to have helped
in motivating and increasing the level of community involvement in such initiatives. In addition,
most ADP staff have working knowledge and experience in using some participatory approaches,
facilitation skills and community mobilisation, which puts them in a better position to promote and
facilitate participatory processes.
Table 3.4: Issues perceived as promoting stakeholders’ participation
Factors
 WVT long term commitment to working with communities in the
rural areas.
Respondents
Men, women, committees,
and youth in Mpunguzi.
 Most ADP staff have knowledge and skills on participatory
approaches.
 Continuous sensitization meetings undertaken by ADP staff in
collaboration with community and government leaders in each
village within the programme area.
 Community perception that development interventions address
their needs.
Staff in both ADPs
 Realized benefits from project undertakings are shared within the
community
Mpunguzi committee and
staff, Mundemu youth.
Staff in both ADPs,
Mpunguzi committee
Staff in both ADPs
 People see the changes taking place as a result of development Mpunguzi youth
initiatives being implemented
 Sense of ownership through active involvement of community
members at different stages of the project cycle
Staff in both ADPs,
Mpunguzi committee
 Support from community and local government leaders
Staff and committees in
both ADPs.
Youth in both ADPs, men
in Mundemu
 Direct benefits accrued from such development interventions
29
It was further highlighted that community members participate effectively when they perceive that
interventions being undertaken by the ADP address their immediate needs as identified in
community consultation processes. Despite the hard work involved, women respondents for
instance, were grateful that their participation in construction of dispensaries in their villages has
helped bring closer health services as they now do not walk long distances to get medical services.
Similarly, they were proud of their involvement in construction of school classrooms commenting
that they are happy to see their children studying in good school environments.
As some women respondents commented: “Even when World Vision is gone, it will be remembered
for the infrastructure they have constructed in this area, these schools and hospitals which are now
close to our homes are a big relief for us”. Participation of community members, particularly
women and youth in the small IGA groups was said to be motivated mainly by the fair distribution
of benefits gained from their activities. As such, more community members are now coming up to
seek advice and guidance on how they can organise themselves into small self-run groups having
learnt from others who have been successful in the already established groups.
3.7 Factors hindering stakeholders’ participation
A number of issues limiting active participation of some primary stakeholders in the ADP
development activities were also identified (see table 3.5). A major impediment to people’s
participation in Mpunguzi and Mundemu according to the views of many respondents is poverty.
Most community respondents were concerned that their involvement in WVT interventions entails
some costs in terms of their time, labour and resources. Because of high levels of poverty among
communities where WVT works, most community members fail to involve themselves in
development initiatives especially when such involvement requires cash contributions.
As such, it was observed that some construction activities for example, delay to be accomplished
because mobilization of community resources which are required as part of their contribution in
such structures takes long time. In one of the FGDs, respondents explained that: “one of the
contributory factors to the low levels of community contribution is poverty. If the ADP can focus on
activities that will help households to raise their income, community contribution is likely to
increase and be given timely”. It was highlighted in FGDs that at times village leaders have to
institute penalties to community members who fail to meet their obligations. Despite these
challenges, project staff were of the opinion that most community members are now generally
30
aware of their roles in their own development process, and felt that their involvement in such
activities will help communities to own and sustain these projects after the ADP phase out.
Table 3.5: Issues perceived as limiting stakeholders’ participation
Factors
 High levels of poverty for most community members.











Respondents
Staff and women in both
ADPs, Mundemu youth
and Mpunguzi committee
Frequent and prolonged droughts in the area causing household Staff and women in both
ADPs, youth in Mundemu
food insecurity.
Contradicting approaches of different NGOs working in the same Staff in both ADPs
area e.g. some pay allowances to community members.
Strict and non flexible World Vision policies especially on Mpunguzi committee
budgeting and funding procedures
Ignorance or lack of information i.e. not knowing the meaning and Staff in ADPs, committee
importance of development initiatives being undertaken or what is and youth in Mpunguzi
going on the ADP.
Poor road and transportation infrastructures in our areas limiting our Men, youth, staff and
movement to and from the ADP office and for ADP staff within the committee in Mundemu
ADP area.
Poor community leadership in some villages that does not give Staff and women in
Mpunguzi, youth and men
feedback to community members.
in Mundemu
‘Dependency syndrome’ among some community members as a Committee and staff in
Mpunguzi
result some development agencies giving handouts.
Lack of transparency and accountability among community leaders Youth and men and
Mpunguzi
especially on funds contributed for development projects.
Failure on the side of the ADP management to involve a wide range Men and youth in
Mundemu, committee in
of community members in its development initiatives.
Mpunguzi
Youth in Mpunguzi,
Some age groups like children and the elderly are more excluded.
women in Mundemu
Low level of education for the majority of community members Staff in both ADPs
(large number of illiterate persons)
Another constraint to people’s participation in these ADPs was said to be the contradicting
approaches used by different NGOs working in the same area. WVT respondents explained that
while WVT does not pay community members for attending meetings, workshops or provision of
unskilled labour, some NGOs provide some incentives such as ‘food for work’ or money to
community members for their involvement in NGO activities. This contradiction in policies in turn
creates confusion and tensions among community members as others feel being exploited in
participating in WVT projects without such incentives. It was however noted by project staff that
31
this issue has often been brought up and discussed in PCCs and other stakeholders meetings to try
to harmonise their approaches.
WVT policies were also mentioned as another factor that may be contributing to low participation
of some community groups. Of particular concern here were issues of financial and budgeting
procedures which were said to be strict and not flexible to accommodate community proposals.
ADP committees explained that although they are supposed to be the main decision making
structures at the ADP level, some decisions are often done for them by WVT higher authorities and
they are just informed in meetings. For example, it was reported that during the process of
developing annual implementation plans (AIPs), all villages are consulted and it is the ideas of the
community through the ADP committees whose ideas are ultimately reflected in the final
documents. Although they acknowledged that the final AIPs bear their views, they also noted that
some activities proposed by the community are dropped out and not reflected in the approved
programmes if they are not in harmony with WVT priorities. According to the views of some ADP
committee members, their presence in the ADP consultative processes does not represent effective
participation but more of information dissemination procedures by WVT staff. This suggests that
WVT ADPs are likely to be more ‘managed’ than ‘participatory’ (Craig and Porter, 1997).
32
Part 4
Conclusions
This work has been concerned with the perceptions of participation, the nature and extent of
stakeholders’ participation, and issues promoting and those hindering stakeholders’ participation in
two WVT development programmes; the following conclusions can therefore be drawn.

Although WVT and its staff perceive participation as both ‘a means’ and ‘an end’ aimed at
empowering local communities to take an active role in the development process, this study
has shown that the dominant interpretation of participation for the majority of primary
stakeholders in the Area Development Programmes (ADPs) is that of ‘participation as
means’ or ‘contribution’.

The nature and extent of participation in the project cycle for majority of local communities
in both ADPs is generally limited to problem identification through ‘information giving’ or
‘consultation’ and project implementation through their ‘contribution’ to achieve
predetermined goals. Local communities do not play an active role in the planning, decision
making, monitoring and evaluation processes which implies that efforts to promote
participation in WVT ADPs have not evolved to higher levels where participation could be
seen as ‘empowerment’.

Participation in planning and decision making processes is mainly ‘representational’ through
the village councils, Ward Development Committees (WDCs) and ADP committees. This
form of participation has shown to offer limited space for local communities to engage
themselves in the development process, and depends on how well representation takes place.
As such, some community groups like children, women, people with disabilities and the
elderly seem not to be adequately represented and/or have no voice in these decision making
structures.

There don’t seem to any participatory approaches in use other than PRA and AI/CCI, and
not at any other time than at project inception and during some community leaders and
representatives’ workshops. This situation raise a question as to how can empowerment be
taking place during the life cycle of projects?

Time does not seem to have any significant effect on the quality and depth of local
communities’ participation in WVT programs. This study has shown that despite the big
time difference between the two study ADPs, the forms, nature and extent of primary
stakeholders’ participation was generally seen to be more or less the same in both ADPs.
33
WVT policies and management structures are therefore likely to be determining and framing
the ‘participation spaces’ for local communities. As such, development interventions are
likely not to be sustainable after ADPs phase out since majority of beneficiaries (men,
women and youth) who are not on committees have not been empowered to control their
development process.

Formation and nurturing of small income generating activities (IGA) groups was seen as an
important approach for promoting local communities participation than activities organised
at the village level which offer limited scope of participation for most community members.
Group members in their small groups are likely to have more opportunities for decision
making leading to their empowerment and sustainable self reliant development efforts.

Some key factors in promoting local communities’ participation include the NGO’s
presence at the grassroots, its long term commitment to working with the poor, staff with
knowledge and skills in participatory approaches and equitable distribution of benefits
accrued from beneficiaries’ engagement in development projects. Factors that are hindering
active participation of some stakeholders are contradicting policies and approaches of
different NGOs working in the same area, bureaucratic and inflexible WVT policies, and
lack of transparency and accountability among NGO staff and community leaders.

Apart from project beneficiaries, participation of secondary and key stakeholders such as
government agencies and other NGOs is very important if participation is to be effective and
interventions address people’s needs and at the same time comply with the government’s
regulations. WVT can be seen as a good example of an NGO working with a range of key
individuals, organisations and other institutions. This close relationship between WVT and
the various district departments may have contributed to its wider acceptability and trust
among local communities and government alike.
34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AUSAID (2000) Promoting Practical Sustainability. Quality Assurance Group, AusAid.
BLACKBURN, J. and Holland, J. (eds.) (1998) Who changes? Institutionalising Participation in
Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.
BRETTY, E.A. (2003) Participation and Accountability in Development Management. The Journal
of Development Studies, 40 (2), pp. 1-29.
BUNCH, R. (1995) Two Ears of Corn: A Guide to People-Centred Agricultural Improvement.
Third Edition. Oklahoma: World Neighbours.
BURKEY, S. (1993) People First: A guide to Self-Reliant, Participatory Rural Development.
London: Zed Books.
CHAMBERS, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
CLAYTON, A., Oakley, P., and Pratt, B. (1997) UNDP Guidebook on Participation [online].
Available
from
<http://www.undp.org/cso/resource/toolkits/empowering/intro.html>.
[Accessed on 5th July 2006].
COOKE, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001) Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books.
CRAIG, D. and Porter, D. (1997) Framing Participation: Development Projects, Professionals and
Organisations. Development in Practice, 7(3), pp. 229-236.
DALAL-CLAYTON, B., Dent, D. and Dubois, O. (2003) Rural Planning in Developing Countries.
London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
DALE, R. (2004) Development Planning: Concepts and Tools for Planners, Managers and
Facilitators. London: Zed Books.
DEARDEN, P. N. and Parker, J. (1991) In Service training needs assessment: A guide to the
successful assessment of training needs. Report by AETU of University of Wolverhampton
for the Training Division, Ministry of Forestry and Environment, Nepal.
DFID (1995) Stakeholder Participation and Analysis. London: Social Development Division,
DFID.
DFID (2002) Tools for Development. A handbook for those engaged in development activity.
Performance and Effectiveness Department, DFID.
DULANI, B. (2003) How Participatory is Participation in Social Funds? An analysis of three case
studies
from
Malawi
Social
Action
Fund
[online].
Available
from
<http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/events/participation03/Dulani.doc>.
[Accessed on 12th May 2006].
35
EADE, D. and Rowlands, J. (eds) (2003) Development Methods and Approaches: Critical
Reflections. Oxford: Oxfam GB.
FAO (1997) Participation in Practice: Lessons from the FAO People’s Participation Programme
[online]. [Accessed on 25th June 2006]. Available from
<http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/PPdirect/PPre0043.htm>.
GUIJT, I. and Shah, M.K. (eds) (1998) The Myth of Community: Gender issues in participatory
development. London: ITDG Publishing.
HICKEY, S. and Mohan, G. (eds) (2004) Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation?
Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development. London: Zed Books.
HOLMES, T. (2001) A participatory approach in practice: Understanding field workers’ use of
participatory rural appraisal in Action Aid the Gambia. IDS Working Paper No. 123.
Sussex: Institute for Development Studies.
KARL, M. (2000) Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture and Rural
Development
Projects:
A
literature
review
[online].
Available
from
th
<http://www.fao.org/sd/PPdirect/PPre0074.htm>. [Accessed on 4 June 2006].
KRUEGER, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.
London: Sage Publications.
KUMAR, S. (2002) Methods for Community Participation: A complete guide for practitioners.
London: ITDG Publishing.
MOSER, C.N.O. (1993) Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training.
London: Routledge.
MOSSE, D. (1996) People’s Knowledge in Project Planning: The limits and social conditions of
participation in planning agricultural development. Research Issues in Natural Resource
Management. Swansea: Centre for Development Studies, University of Wales Swansea.
MOSSE, D., Farrington, J. and Rew, A. (eds.) (1998) Development as Process: Concepts and
methods for working with complexity. London: Routledge.
MURALEEDHARAN, K. (2005) Participatory Rural Development: Some observations on the
Reality and Rhetoric of Participation from Real World Experiments [online]. NIRD
Foundation Day Seminar on Rural Development and Social Change, November, 2005,
Hyderabad: NIRD. Available from <http://www.nird.org.in>. [Accessed on 3rd June 2006].
NELSON, N. and Wright, S. (eds.) (1995) Power and Participatory Development: Theory and
Practice. London: ITDG Publishing.
NGUJIRI, E. (1998) Participatory methodologies: double-edged swords. Development in Practice,
8(4), pp. 466-470.
OAKLEY, P. (1991) Projects with people: The practice of participation in rural development.
Geneva: ILO.
36
PRETTY, J.N. (1995) Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development,
23(8), pp. 1247-1263.
PRETTY, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, L. (1995) Participatory Learning and Action.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
REUBEN, J. (2002) NGOs and Africa in the New Millennium: Lessons from Tanzania [online].
Presentation at the Panel on Re-thinking African Development. CODESRIA General
Assembly Meeting, Kampala: December, 2002. Available from <http://www.codesria.org>.
[Accessed on 20th June 2006].
SHEPHERD, A. (1998) Sustainable Rural Development. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
SHIVJI, I. G. (2004) Reflections on NGOs in Tanzania: What we are, what we are not, and what we
ought to be. Development in Practice, 14(5), pp. 689-695.
SLOCUM, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (eds) (1995) Power, Process
and Participation. London: ITDG Publishing.
TANGO (2006) About Tanzania Association of NGOs
<http://www.tango.or.tz>. [Accessed on 22nd June 2006].
[online].
Available
from
Van HECK, B. (2003) Participatory Development: Guidelines on Beneficiary Participation in
Agricultural
and
Rural
Development
[online].
Available
from
th
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ad817e00.htm>. [Accessed on 15 July 2006].
WHITE, S.C. (1996) Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation.
Development in Practice, 6(1), pp.6-15.
WILCOX, D. (1994) Community Participation and Empowerment: Putting theory into practice.
RRA Notes No. 21, pp. 78-82. London: IIED.
WORLD BANK (1996) World Bank Participation source book [online]. Available from
<http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbintro.pdf>. [Accessed on 6th June 2006].
WORLD BANK (2001) Categorizing NGOs: World Bank Criteria [online]. Available at
<http://docs.lib.duke.edu/igo/guides/ngo/define.html>. [Accessed on 21st June 2006].
WORLD VISION (2002) Transformational Development Indicators Field Guide. Washington:
World Vision Development Resources Team.
WORLD VISION (2003) Participatory Development: Power to the People [online]. Available from
<http://www.worldvision.com.au/resources/files/participatory_dev_2003.pdf> [Accessed on
3rd June 2006].
WORLD VISION (2004) Who is World Vision Tanzania? [online]. Available from
<http://www.worldvisiontanzania.org/wvtanzania>. [Accessed on 3rd June 2006].
37