FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS & STATITICS

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF

LIVELIHOOD IMPROVING PROJECTS: CASE OF KYETUME COMMUNITY

BASED HEALTH CARE PROGRAMME (KCBHCP)

BY

KASOZI CEDRIC YIGA

09/U/6210/EKE/PE

A RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND

STATISTICS IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENT FOR AWARD

OF BACHELORS OF ARTS IN ECONOMICS OF KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY

SEPTEMBER 2012

DECLARATIONI, Kasozi Cedric Yiga, do declare that I am the sole author of this Research Report, and that

where other people’s work has been used, this has been acknowledged, and I further declare that,

to the best of my knowledge, this has not previous been presented for any academic award.

Signed…………………………………………………………..

KASOZI CEDRIC YIGA

09/U/6210/EKE/PE

This ………..day of ………………. 2012

i

APPROVAL

I hereby confirm that this research report “An Assessment of the Factors Affecting Sustainability

of Livelihood Improving Projects: Case Study of Kyetume Community Based Health Care

Programme in Nakisunga Sub County has been carried out entirely under my supervision and

guidance and submitted with my approval.

Supervisor: Mr. Kaleebu Nasiib………………………… Date…………………

ii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated first and foremost to my late grandparents Mr. and Mrs. Lameck and

Florence Kiyimba. Your love and care during my formative years will always be remembered

and cherished.

I also dedicate this work to my family Isaac, Patience, Meghan, Maria, Ms Nalugga Sarah and

Mr. Nyombi M. Thank you so much for standing by me through all difficult times and giving me

the courage to keep moving forward. May the good Lord bless you and protect you always.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Sincere gratitude to the following for their life-enhancing, technical, material and moral support

that yielded completion of this report.

I wish to pay tribute to Kyetume Community Based Health Care Programme and in particular to

the Directors (Mr. and Mrs. John Kiyimba) for supporting me throughout this study and

Kyetume CBHCP staff for their unconditional cooperation through out the field study.

Special thanks also go out to my supervisor Mr. Kaleebu Nasiib who unrequited guidance and

time commitment was very useful from the start to the end of the study.

I also thank my friends and classmates especially Moreen, Brenda, Meta, Richard, Julian,

Fortunate, Jalia, Andrew, Julius, Flavia, Marval, and many others. Your friendship will always

be cherished and your constant desire to learn has always pushed my threshold to new heights.

I also thank my Research Assistants, Ms Nabitaka Anne and Mr. Mugambe John, who helped in

data collection in the field. I would also like to pay tribute to the residents of Nakisunga Sub

County and in particular Kyetume Parish who generously spared their precious time to respond

to our questions and for the valid data of which without them, this work would not have been

complete.

Above all, to the: Almighty, Ever Lasting and Loving God, for granting me knowledge, wisdom,

good health and seeing me safe thus far. I thank God for enabling me to complete the whole

course.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

DECLARATION........................................................................................................................................ i

APPROVAL............................................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION.......................................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................viii

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................................viii

CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................................................8

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................8

1.1 Background of the Study...................................................................................................................8

1.2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................................8

1.3. Objective of the Study......................................................................................................................8

1.4 Specific Objectives.............................................................................................................................8

1.5 Scope of the Study.............................................................................................................................8

1.6 Significance of the Study....................................................................................................................8

1.7 Justification of the study....................................................................................................................8

1.8 Hypotheses........................................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER TWO.......................................................................................................................................8

2.0 Literature Review..............................................................................................................................8

2.1Definition of Community Based Health Care......................................................................................8

2.2 History of Community Based Health Care in Uganda.........................................................................8

2.3 The Role of Community Based Health Care in Communities.............................................................8

2.4 Meaning of Sustainability and Project Sustainability.........................................................................8

2.4.1 Types of Sustainability...............................................................................................................8

2.4.2 Determinants of Sustainable Livelihoods...................................................................................8

2.5 Factors Affecting Sustainability of Livelihood Projects.......................................................................8

2.5.1 Management Styles.....................................................................................................................8

2.5.2 Community Participation and Involvement................................................................................8

2.5.3 Financing....................................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER THREE...............................................................................................................................8

3.0 Methodology.....................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Research Design.................................................................................................................................8

3.2 Population.........................................................................................................................................8

3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Technique................................................................................................8

v

3.4 Data Collection Techniques...............................................................................................................8

3.5 Data Collection Tools.........................................................................................................................8

3.6 Data Quality Control..........................................................................................................................8

3.6.1 Pre-testing the Data Collection Tools.........................................................................................8

3.6.2 Training of Research Assistants..................................................................................................8

3.7 Data Analysis and Presentation.........................................................................................................8

3.8 Ethical issues......................................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................8

4.0. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS...…8

4.1. Effect of Community Participation and Involvement on Sustainability of Livelihood Improving Projects..............................................................................................................................8

4.2. Effect of Management Style on Sustainability of Livelihood Improving Projects...................8

4.3. Effect of Financing on Sustainability of Livelihood Improving Projects.................................8

CHAPTER FIVE....................................................................................................................................8

5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................8

5.1 Summary and Conclusion........................................................................................................8

5.2 Policy Recommendations.........................................................................................................8

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................8

APPENDIX................................................................................................................................................8

Appendix 1: Questionnaire No.1 for Beneficiaries...................................................................................8

vi

LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 4.1.1: Age bracket of Beneficiaries……………………………………………..30

2. Table 4.1.2: Gender of Beneficiaries…………………………………………………..30

3. Table 4.1.3 Distribution of Beneficiaries by Village………………………………….31

4. Table 4.1.4 Distribution of Beneficiaries by Type of Project………………………...32

5. Table 4.1.5 Duration with Project……………………………………………………..32

6. Table 4.1.6 Does the Project Still Exist?.......................................................................32

7. Table 4.2.1 (a): Did beneficiary Participate in Project Initiation?................................33

8. Table 4.2.1 (b): Beneficiary Role in project Initiation………………………………33

9. Table 4.2.2: Who Controlled Project Implementation……………………………….34

10. Table 4.2.3 (a) Does Community Participation Affect Project Sustainability?...........34

11. Table 4.2.3 (b) Relationship Between Community Participation and Project

Sustainability………………………………………………………………………….34

12. Table 4.3.1 Relationship Between Management and Beneficiaries…………………35

13. Table 4.3.2 Management Style in Project…………………………………………….36

14. Table 4.3.3 (a) Does Management Style Affect Project Sustainability……………...36

15. Table 4.3.3 (b) Effect of Management Style on Project Sustainability……………..36

16. Table 4.3.3 (c) Correlation Between Management Style and Sustainability……….37

17. Table 4.4.1 Does your Project Have Adequate Financing?.........................................38

18. Table 4.4.2 (a) Effect of Inadequate Financing on Sustainability…………………38

19. Table 4.4.2 (b) Chi-Square Test between Inadequate Financing and Sustainability..39

vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

1. CBHC Community Based Health Care

2. FGD Focus Group Discussions

3. ICT Information and Communications Technology

4. IPDET International Program for Development Evaluation Training

5. KCBHCP Kyetume Community Based Health Care Programme

6. LIPs Livelihood Improving Projects

7. NGO Non Governmental Organization

8. OVCs Orphaned and Vulnerable Children

9. PLHs People Living with HIV

10.PMTCT Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission

11.SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

12.STDs Sexually Transmitted Diseases

13.TASO The AIDS Support Organization

14.UCBHCA Uganda Community Based Health Care Association

15.UWESO Uganda Women’s Effort to Save Orphans

16.WASH Watershed Approach to Stream Health

viii

ABSTRACT

This research is about the factors affecting the sustainability of livelihood improving projects in

Kyetume Parish, Nakisunga Sub County.

The overall objective of the study was to establish the factors affecting the sustainability of

livelihood improving projects. Specifically, the study sought to examine the effect of

management styles on the sustainability of livelihood projects, to find out the effect of

community participation and involvement on sustainability of livelihood improving projects and

to analyze the effect of financing on sustainability of livelihood improving projects.

The study took a cross-sectional survey research design based on qualitative data. It used both

primary and secondary data. A sample of 50 respondents was used due to the qualitative nature

of the study. The sample was chosen using purposive and snowball sampling.

The study found that the management style applied in a project and financing had a significant

positive effect on the sustainability of livelihood improving projects while there was no

correlation between whether Kyetume CBHCP or the project beneficiaries controlled project

implementation and sustainability of livelihood improving projects. The study further found that

Kyetume CBHCP did not prepare the beneficiaries well for phase-out of the projects and

therefore the incidence of dependence led to failure of the projects.

The study was unable to cover all outreach posts of Nakisunga Sub County due to limitations of

time and resources. Some respondents were also unwilling to provide information.

Future studies about sustainability of livelihood improving projects should focus on the

relationship between community participation and sustainability of livelihood improving projects

since a lot of literature has suggested that one cannot exist without the other but this study found

no correlation between the two variables.

ix

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

This chapter includes the background to the study, statement of the problem, research objectives,

scope of the study, and significance/justification of the study.

1.1 Background of the Study

A sustainable livelihoods framework drawn by the UK Department of International Development

views livelihood to include tangible and intangible assets that people draw upon, strategies

people develop to make a living, the context within which a livelihood is developed, and those

factors that make a livelihood more or less vulnerable to shocks and stresses.

A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and

maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining

the natural resource base. (Chambers and Conway, 1991)

In Uganda, the AIDS scourge with a prevalence average rate of 6.7% with 7.7% among women

alone (Ministry of Health, 2011 est.), long running wars in northern and western Uganda and

other factors, have resulted in widespread poverty, vulnerability and orphanhood. (National

Development Plan) As a result, many community-based initiatives have sprung up to provide

intervention and improve the livelihoods of underserved people through various projects. These

include Child Support Africa (CSA), Community Shelters Uganda (CSU), UWESO, TASO,

Save the Children, Feed the Children, etc. However, most of the benefits of the projects such as

assets created and outcomes to beneficiaries are not sustained beyond intervention stage.

1

In Mukono district, HIV prevalence is 10.3% which is above the national average of 6.7%

(Ministry of Health, 2011 est.) According to the 2002 Census, Orphans in Mukono constituted

15% of the children population. As a result of high prevalence of HIV, many women are

widowed and vulnerable to violence and land grabbing. (Mukono OVC Strategic Plan 2008-13).

To provide intervention, Community Based Organizations such as Nagojje Community Care,

ANPPCAN, Empower and Care Organization (EACO) have started projects such as Facilitating

Economic Sustainability for Vulnerable Women & Children in Mukono to improve their

livelihoods but over dependence on donor funding limits their sustainability.

Kyetume Parish is located in Mukono South Constituency in Nakisunga Sub County. The

primary industry in the sub-county is agriculture, with fishing dominating along the coastline of

Lake Victoria. Many of the Mukono South residents are extremely impoverished, limiting their

access to education, food, and transportation necessary for them to seek out both preventative

and therapeutic health resources. (Global Health at MIT 2010) Kyetume Community Based

Health Care Programme was therefore started in 1994 to help the underserved people through a

number of livelihood improving projects aimed at the underprivileged such as orphan and

vulnerable Children (OVCs), people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHs), youths and women. These

projects include the NOSP Heifer Project where heifers are given to orphans to improve their

livelihoods, Microfinance Project which aims at improving the wellbeing of PMTCT mothers,

Emma and Greg Resource Centre where youths get vocational training in tailoring and ICT,

women’s craft initiative where women living positively with HIV are involved in cooperative

handcraft activities, water sanitation project where target groups are provided with reservoir

tanks. (Kyetume CBHC Strategic Plan, 2009-14). Like many intervention projects countrywide,

these projects are not resilient to external shock and this study seeks to explore why.

2

1.2 Statement of the Problem.

Kyetume CBHCP has a number of projects including NOSP heifer project, Emma and Greg

resource centre, women craft initiative, and the water sanitation project among others. Through

these projects, orphans are able to attend school, youth acquire valuable skills and HIV positive

women are able to live longer through improved livelihoods among other benefits. With all this

in place, project beneficiaries are expected to make the project benefits sustainable.

However, most of these projects are short-lived. Once Kyetume CBHCP ends its involvement,

the majority of the target groups are unable to sustain the benefits and tend to shrink back to pre-

intervention state. Whereas many studies have been done on key success factors on community

based interventions and the role they play in improving community livelihood, little has been

done to explore factors affecting CBHC projects in Kyetume. This study therefore investigated

the factors that affect the sustainability of CBHC projects in Kyetume Parish, Nakisunga Sub

County in Mukono District.

1.3. Objective of the Study

The overall objective of the study was to establish the factors that affect the sustainability of

livelihood improving projects in Kyetume Parish, Nakisunga Sub County.

1.4 Specific Objectives

To examine the effect of management styles on the sustainability of livelihood improving

projects.

To establish the effect community participation and involvement on sustainability of

livelihood improving projects.

To analyze the effect of financing on sustainability of livelihood improving projects.

3

1.5 Scope of the Study

The study was conducted in Mukono District. Mukono was chosen because of its high

percentage of orphaned children and widowed women due to high prevalence of HIV/AIDS

(6.5% above the national average of 5.1%) (Source: Mukono OVC Strategic Plan 2008-13). This

has attracted a number of Community Based Organizations such as Nagojje Community Care,

ANPPCAN, Kyetume CBHCP, among others to provide intervention to underserved and

vulnerable communities. Mukono district is composed of 2 counties namely Mukono County and

Nakifuma County. Mukono County was chosen due to its higher concentration of livelihood

improving projects. Mukono County consists of 5 sub counties namely Nakisunga, Nagojje,

Ntunda, Kyampisi and Kimenyedde. Nakisunga was chosen due to its high percentage of

vulnerable women and children compared to other sub counties. Nakisunga has 8 Parishes

namely Kyetume, Kyabalogo, Kiyoola, Namuyenje, Seeta-Nazigo, Wankoba, Katente, and

Namayiba. The study will be carried out in Kyetume Parish due to.

The study covered projects commissioned between 2001 and 2010. This gave the researcher a 10

year period to effectively analyze livelihood projects that were incepted earlier and how many

are still surviving and to establish reasons why some failed while others are still in existence.

The study was limited to livelihood improving projects that have been set up in Kyetume Parish

and their sustainability. This is because such projects are meant to provide intervention to

vulnerable people and their sustainability is necessary to ensure beneficiaries don’t shrink back

to pre-intervention state.

4

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study explored factors limiting sustainability of livelihood improving projects in Nakisunga

Sub County. The findings of the study should be useful in the following ways:

The findings of the study will help policy makers in Kyetume Parish and Mukono District

as a whole develop intervention strategies. This is because the study would highlight the

immediate needs of the people upon with the policy makers can base their decisions.

The findings of the study will help future researchers on related topics to expand on the

findings and fill any gaps. This would be achieved by adding to the literature on

livelihood improving projects by community based organizations which is hitherto

limited.

The findings of the study will also help donor and other funding organizations to direct

funds to areas here help is needed most and hold project implementers accountable for

the funded projects.

1.7 Justification of the study

With the AIDS scourge, the number of widows, orphans and vulnerable people has increased

limiting the achievement of Millennium Development Goals. (National Development Plan,

2010) Many Community Based Organizations have emerged to provide intervention except

that the benefits of their projects don’t exceed the intervention stage. The researcher felt the

need to carry out the study to explore why the livelihood improving projects do not exceed

the intervention stage. The researcher was best positioned to carry out the study because of

his proximity to these livelihood improving projects and the study needed to be carried out at

this particular point as most of the projects were in their 10 th year is inception and there was

need to assess their impact on the livelihoods of the people of Nakisunga Sub County.

5

1.8 Hypotheses

1. Management styles have a significant effect on the sustainability of the livelihood

improving projects.

2. Community participation and involvement has a significant affect on sustainability of

livelihood improving projects.

3. Financing has a significant effect on sustainability of livelihood improving projects.

6

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

This chapter looked at what others have written about the study objectives, identified gaps

between what was written and what is actually on ground and unanswered questions and built on

their findings

2.1Definition of Community Based Health Care

According to World Health Organization (WHO, SEARO Regional Publication No.40, 2004),

community based health Care (CBHC) is defined as an integrated system of care designed to

meet the health needs of individuals, families and communities in their local settings. It includes

primary prevention, i.e. prevention of health problems and/or diseases before they occur (health

promotion and disease prevention); secondary prevention, i.e. early detection of problems or

diseases and intervention (curative care and support); and tertiary prevention, i.e. correction and

prevention of deterioration, rehabilitation and terminal care (rehabilitative care). It is

underpinned by the partnership between health workers, clients/patients and members of the

local community.

CBHC can be provided in numerous settings in the community, by various people including

health professionals, care assistants, and non-formal caregivers such as volunteers and family

members

2.2 History of Community Based Health Care in Uganda

Activities of community based health care started in Uganda around 1992 by Christian

Missionaries (World Gospel Mission, 2009). This was based on three main premises:

7

As in many Third World countries, large numbers of people in Uganda are affected by

preventable diseases. Health care workers with CBHC are dedicated to teaching people

how to live healthier lives.

In addition, community health workers help people identify their community’s needs and

find appropriate resources to meet those needs. The workers are also trained to sell

medicines for common diseases such as malaria, colds, flu, and diarrhea. The main

emphasis of their training is to improve personal, family, and home conditions in order to

prevent common diseases.

Because of the HIV/AIDS death toll, 60 percent of the population is under the age of 16.

This presents a challenge in the provision of health care, schools, and teachers and

improvement of people’s livelihoods.

2.3 The Role of Community Based Health Care in Communities

The role of community based health care has been widely known to center around provision of

preventative and curative health care services to the people in their community. According to the

Uganda Community Based Health Care Association (UCBHCA Newsletter, 2009) improved

health outcomes in the community are the basis upon which the achievements of community

based health care activities are measured.

Overtime, the activities of CHBC programmes have metamorphosed beyond providing better

health outcomes. According to a Rajiv Gandhi Mahila Vikas Pariyojana (RGMVP) 2010 report

concerning the extent of CBHC role in people’s livelihood, the needs of the people vary beyond

improved health outcomes. The report emphasized the need for CBHC programmes to adjust

their activities to suit the needs of the people by including income generating activities,

education, living standards and other activities which will complement better health with

8

improved way of life. As Mr. Chris Ssengedo, the executive director UCBHCA put it, “when the

economic lives of community members are healthy, health care outcomes will be healthy as

well”.

2.4 Meaning of Sustainability and Project Sustainability

Sustainability refers to the continuing ability of a project to meet the needs of its community

(Bracht et al., 1994), and embraces the concept of doing this beyond the time of donor agency

involvement (Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith, 1992).

AACPS Development Office (2005) defines sustainability as the ability of a system of any kind

to endure and be healthy over the long term. It further defines project sustainability as the ability

to maintain the outcomes, goals and products of a project and institutionalizing the process well

after the grant funding has stopped. Project sustainability doesn’t mean maintaining staff

positions, maintaining all activities or depending on grant funding.

In sustaining a project, not only the implementers but also the people within a community must

know what is being done. The outcomes that need to be sustained must be clear with data

available to support the results of the project. The fiscal and management needs of the project

must be known with clear knowledge of who the champions of the project are. The aggregate

effects of the project and whose interests the project is supposed to serve must be known

(AACPS Development Office 2005).

Hawkins examines sustainability from a personal and family perspective and defines it as the

ability to maximize full potential in order to realize long-term economic, physical, psychological,

and social well-being.

9

2.4.1 Types of Sustainability

Benefit sustainability - This deals with how to ensure that the benefits accrued to

society/communities from the work of development practitioners continue/are sustained

without the programs or organizations that initiated the benefits.

Organizational institutional sustainability - Entails ensuring that the organizations

created through the work of development practitioners continue to work/become

sustainable for the length of time necessary to fulfill their mission.

Financial sustainability - A component of organizational sustainability-the two are often

confused. It is a measure of an organization’s ability to raise resources from a variety of

sources (earned income, local, national, international, private and public) with increasing

amounts of local funding and earned income.

Community sustainability – Focuses on the importance of ensuring that communities

are empowered to create Community Based Organizations to provide services and/or

effectively advocate with governments or private sector entities to provide the desired

services.

2.4.2 Determinants of Sustainable Livelihoods

Resilience in the face of external shocks and stresses

Independence of external support

Maintenance the long term productivity of natural resources and

Ability not to undermine the livelihoods or compromise the livelihood options open to

others.

10

2.5 Factors Affecting Sustainability of Livelihood Projects

2.5.1 Management Styles

The need to manage has existed for as long as there have been workers and bosses. The

development of management theory dates back to the early 20th century.

Following and perhaps as a result of various 20th century management theories such as Taylorism

(1900), Hawthorne effect (1940), Drucker Management Theory (1954), a number of

management styles have evolved and are now prevalent in a lot of project work.

Douglas McGregor (1964) came up with the X and Y theory, a type of management process. The

theory looks at how a manager motivates their team members and perceives how one should

accomplish a task. A manager's style is strongly influenced by their beliefs and assumptions,

about how their employees should operate.

If a manager feels their employees dislike work, they will use an authoritative (autocratic) type

of management. This is called the theory X style. This style allows managers to intervene with

actions to get things done. Managers that use this type of style, assume their team dislikes work,

avoids responsibility and needs to be supervised in every way. They feel the employees need to

be controlled and enticed to produce results. If these actions don't happen, the manager may feel

their team has no ambition to work. (Theory X and Theory Y, 2011) The X theory type of

organization tends to have a lot of overhead, and has managers that micro manage others. X

Theory pros include, delivers commitments, works with facts, self disciplined, appraises overall

work while its cons include unhappy employees, deadline-driven demands, never asks, only

deals with facts and figures

11

.The Y theory explains a manager's style, of managing, as assuming the employees are happy to

work. They are self-motivated and creative. The employees enjoy working and like bigger

responsibilities. Employees seem to be more creative and imaginative, with this type of

management style. People at lower levels of a company are more able to make decisions, have

more responsibility and are more productive, in this work environment.(Theory X and Theory Y,

2011). More companies use the Y theory type of manager. Y Theory pros include employees will

be committed, job enlargement, participating management, delegating time and objectives while

its cons include may not see true barriers from employees, projects can slip from deadlines,

responsibility is not taken, employees may see work as play.

A manager should have a little of both styles to properly manage. Not all employees need

guidance and structure, but some do. Everybody's personalities are different. A good manager

will use the appropriate style for those employees. Many team members thrive on the Theory Y

management, while others need the Theory X management. (Theory X and Theory Y, 2011)

Using these theories in an extreme manner will not work in today's work environment. These

ideas, are just a guide to positive approaches of managing.

Being able to differ the X and Y theory can be beneficial to a manager. Dictating orders will not

get things done, in a progressive organization. Being firm and considerate will get projects done,

with understanding and wanted participation. (WordiQ.com, 2011) One cannot always be

democratic. People are not perfect, they make mistakes, even managers. As long as a manager

doesn't put their personal opinions and values in front of their decision making, they will be able

to manage in a democratic way.

12

A Democratic Management style focuses on providing employees flexibility so that the team

can work and evolve together.  This management style provides employees with a sense of

ownership because they have a role in decision making and task management. Managers

employing a democratic style use team-building skills and cooperation to achieve objectives. The

advantages of this management style include: authority is delegated to workers which is

motivating and useful when complex decisions are required that need specialist skills while a

disadvantage is that mistakes or errors can be made if workers are not skilled or experienced

enough.

The Paternalistic Management style is demonstrated in environments where the boss tries to

act as a father figure to his employees with the goal of having happy and committed employees.

This particular management style addresses a person’s social needs as identified by Maslow. The

advantages of this style include two-way communication which is so motivating and workers

feel their social needs are being met while disadvantages include slowing down decision making

and it’s also quite a dictatorial or autocratic style of management

An Autocratic Management style exists when the manager makes unilateral decisions with

little or no regard for employees. In these situations, the decisions are a reflection of the

manager’s personality and opinions. While an autocratic manager may appear to have a well-

managed group or business as well as project an aura of confidence, this management style can

be stifling for employees who crave a level of autonomy. Advantageous in that there is quick

decision making and it’s effective when employing many low skilled workers while its

shortcomings include lack of two-way communication so can be de-motivating and it creates

“them and us” attitude between managers and workers.

13

2.5.2 Community Participation and Involvement

Approaches used to achieve community participation are numerous and diverse in their

objectives, operational strategies, and results. It is important to understand how different

participatory strategies work and what they can be expected to accomplish from the perspective

of both the beneficiaries and the extension agent. Four strategies are defined according to the

extent of control which is assumed by the beneficiaries (Donnelly-Roark, 1992):

Mobilization strategy: The project is planned and designed without consulting the beneficiaries,

who are then mobilized to endorse and support. Since full control remains in the hands of

external agents, there’s no real participation here, although this very common approach is taken

with the mistaken belief that there is.

Community development strategy: Surveys or meetings are used to gain a better understanding

of community opinions about a problem which has been identified by outside agencies as an

obstacle to development. Beneficiaries are then invited to contribute parts to the design of the

project and to share some responsibilities, but the external agents decide how much.

Organizing strategy: Local groups, without the help of an outside agent, organize themselves in

cooperatives, unions, and community-based NGOs in response to a felt need. Beneficiaries then

share control with representatives of these organizations.

Empowerment strategy: Community-based groups, perhaps assisted by an outside facilitator,

initiate a learning/empowerment process that enables them to define their own goals, assess

options, and assume responsibility for actions to achieve desired objectives. This strategy places

control in the hands of the beneficiaries who claim their rights and responsibilities.

The question from a sustainability perspective is where control should reside. The mobilization

strategy, leaving external agencies essentially in control, gives them responsibility for

14

sustainability. The community development and organizing strategies, by sharing some control

through negotiation, gives beneficiaries a say in sustainability. The empowerment strategy, by

turning over full responsibility for the process to the beneficiaries, grants complete autonomy at

the community level. National policies that adopt the empowerment strategy and direct regional

institutions to carry it out are key ingredients to sustainability.

Ultimately the question becomes, "How much autonomy is desirable at the community level?"

The answer is that communities should be given (or take) as much autonomy as they can

assimilate, but that no community can be totally self-sufficient. Each community must interact

with certain other governmental bodies and often must rely on outside assistance to meet its

needs. The best example is the community's need for spare parts to repair pumps. Usually these

parts are imported and distributed through a network of businesses or agencies which must be

organized and monitored by a national institution. A local community with a pump must have

spare parts but cannot arrange this intricate network on its own. It can, however, decide if it

wants a pump and accept the implications of this decision if community members have adequate

experience and knowledge in this area. Local knowledge is often underestimated by outside

agencies, but training in certain subjects is sometimes.

2.5.3 Financing

The financing process, i.e., raising and maintaining adequate funds for project facilities and

activities, is clearly of critical importance to sustainability. Insufficient financing is a major

factor in poor maintenance which, in turn, is often cited as a reason for project failure. The

commitment of resources, particularly financial resources, by beneficiary communities is seen as

an important indicator of the expected value of the project to these communities. (WASH

Project, 1990)

15

Where income levels are sufficiently high and/or continued subsidies are not assured, the

depreciation and finance costs of repayment (principal and interest) or replacement (sinking

fund) are also recurrent costs. 'In-kind" contributions can be valuable additions to a project, but

cash is required for many items including equipment and fuel.

In this regard it is important that a balance exist between a community's desire for project

services and its ability to pay for them.

Availability of credit from private sources may be a determining factor when major breakdowns

occur or system components need replacing. Access to credit is a significant limiting factor for

community organizations and special arrangements with the banking sector may be needed.

In the current fiscal climate in many countries, it is unrealistic to assume projects can continue to

attract subsidies justified for social reasons. Even in rural areas there is increasing support for the

view that high existing pre-project costs paid by consumers mean that willingness to pay is

adequate to cover all the costs of simple systems. The key is to provide a range of options to

match that demand. In projects, there is a move away from using infrastructure services

provision as a means of redistributing income.

Subsidies, although motivated for the best of reasons, often appear to inhibit the development of

sound financial management practices and conservation of resources based on their economic

value.

16

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Research Design

The study used a cross-sectional survey research design and was qualitative in nature. This

enabled the researcher to make inferences about the target population at different times during

the study. It also helped build a holistic, largely narrative, description to inform the researcher’s

understanding of social or cultural phenomena and the depth and richness of the data was

necessary to satisfy the purpose of the study.

3.2 Population

The study population included the people of Kyetume Parish in Nakisunga Sub County. This is

because they are the ones directly and indirectly affected by the livelihood improving projects.

The target population included beneficiaries of livelihood improving projects, Project Steering

Committee members, coordinators, volunteers and sub county officials. The choice of population

the target was because these are the beneficiaries, implementers and policy makers involved in

the livelihood improving projects.

3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Technique.

The study, being qualitative in nature, used judgemental or non-probabilistic techniques to select

the samples. This study employed snow ball sampling. The researcher based samples on

particular groups of individuals with known experience in livelihood improving projects. These

then led the researcher to others to give their own experiences with the projects. This technique

was chosen because it is easy to collect enough information from a population where respondents

may not be easy to find.

17

This study used a sample size of 50 individuals directly involved in the livelihood improving

projects. This included targeted beneficiaries of the projects as well as people responsible for

implementation and policy of these projects such as volunteers and coordinators of the projects.

The sample size of 50 was selected because the study was qualitative and therefore not

representative of the population. The findings however were be representative of the body of

experience investigated.

3.4 Data Collection Techniques

The study used both primary and secondary data using qualitative methods.

Primary data was obtained from the project beneficiaries, project coordinators, volunteers and

Sub County officials using questionnaires. This would enable the researcher make informed

conclusions by getting direct information from those directly involved in the projects.

Secondary data was obtained from the review of journals, textbooks, newsletters and evaluation

of Kyetume CBHCP reports. This helped contextualize the study within a wider body of

knowledge on the subject on related issues while helping identify gaps in management of

livelihood improving projects. The review also gave perspective to the study and also acted as a

basis upon which collection of primary data was configured.

3.5 Data Collection Tools

The study used structured questionnaires as the major tools of data collection from project

beneficiaries. This study used two questionnaires; one for the projects beneficiaries and another

for the key informants such as project coordinators, volunteers and sub county officials. The

questionnaire for the beneficiaries contained 30 close-ended and open-ended questions while that

of the key informants contained 15 close-ended and open-ended questions. The questionnaires

18

were administered by both the researcher (helped by 2 research assistants) and the respondents.

This was chosen because it provides facts about people’s beliefs, feelings and experiences in

certain projects given that the researcher was not looking to quantify the experiences but to

obtain people’s unbiased views. It is also economical and it is easy to minimize interviewer bias

and thus increasing the response rates.

3.6 Data Quality Control

3.6.1 Pre-testing the Data Collection Tools

The researcher piloted the questionnaires with beneficiaries of the projects of Suubi

Development Agency, a charitable organization that constructs and renovates schools

around the country with particular focus on Namirembe Nursery and Primary School

in Rubaga. This enabled the researcher to find out if the questionnaire would provide

the required responses and to restructure any abstract questions.

3.6.2 Training of Research Assistants

The researcher took two days to train the two research assistants in interview

techniques, questionnaire administration, recording of findings and clear

understanding of the study objectives. This enabled them to gather the best possible

data necessary to meet the study objectives.

3.7 Data Analysis and Presentation

After collection, the data was cleaned, sorted and coded. The data was then entered into the

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for further analysis using simple descriptive

statistics. This software was chosen due to its user friendliness and vigor. The data was analyzed

19

within itself for frequencies and with other variables for tendencies. Data presentation was

guided by use of bar graphs, frequency tables and pie charts using SPSS.

3.8 Limitations

Due to resource and time constraints, the researcher was not able to cover all outreach posts of

Kyetume CBHCP. The research was therefore restricted to posts within Nakisunga Sub County.

Some respondents were unwilling to disclose information. This was solved by assuring the

respondents that information given would be treated with utmost confidentiality. This catalyzed

the respondents to disclose the information.

3.8 Ethical issues

The researcher presented an introductory letter from the university to all the respondents assuring

them of the academic purpose of this proposed project. This enabled the researcher to convince

the respondents that the information provided would be treated with utmost confidentiality.

The study avoided asking touching (life pinning) questions so as to obtain unbiased responses.

The interviewer also minimized presence in order to eliminate interviewer bias

20

Table 4.1.1 (a) Beneficiary participation in project initiation

30 60.0 60.0 60.0

20 40.0 40.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Yes

No

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 4.1.1 (b) Beneficiary role in project initiation

16 32.0 48.5 48.5

12 24.0 36.4 84.8

5 10.0 15.2 100.0

33 66.0 100.0

Approached KyetumeCBHCP to support theproject

Participated in projectimplementation

Participated in PRAexercise

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

4.1. Effect of Community Participation and Involvement on Sustainability of Livelihood Improving Projects.

4.1.1. Beneficiary Participation in Project Initiation

Source: Primary data

From table 4.1.1 (a), 60 percent of the beneficiaries said they participated in project

initiation while 40 percent never participated.

From Table 4.1.1 (b), the beneficiaries were asked at what level of initiation they were

involved. 32 percent said they approached Kyetume CBHCP to support the project while

24 percent said they participated in needs assessment. 10 percent said they participated

in PRA exercise.

21

Table 4.1.2: Who controlled the project implementation?

26 52.0 52.0 52.0

24 48.0 48.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Kyetume CBHCP

both beneficiaries andKyetume CBHCP

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 4.1.3 (a) Does community participation affect project sustainability

37 74.0 74.0 74.0

13 26.0 26.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Yes

No

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 4.1.3 (b) Relationship between community participation and project sustainability

20 40.0 54.1 54.1

12 24.0 32.4 86.5

5 10.0 13.5 100.0

37 74.0 100.0

Contributes to projectownership

Beneficiaries learn theproject fundamentalsNew projects can spawnout of the old project

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

4.1.2. Who Controlled Project Implementation?

Source: Primary data

The majority of the respondents, 52 percent, said that implementation of their projects

was entirely controlled by Kyetume CBHCP while 48 percent said implementation of

their projects was controlled by both Kyetume CBHCP and the beneficiaries. This means

Kyetume CBHCP limits beneficiary participation in the majority of the projects

4.1.3. Effect of Community Participation on Project Sustainability

Source: Primary data

22

Correlations

1.000 -.119

. .412

50 50

-.119 1.000

.412 .

50 50

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

N

Does your project stillexist

Who controlled theproject implementation

Does yourproject still

exist

Who controlledthe project

Implementation

From table 4.1.3 (a), 74 percent of the respondents agreed that community participation has an

effect on project sustainability while only 26 percent said it does not.

In table 4.1.3(b), of those who said community participation affects project sustainability, 40

percent said it defines project ownership in that, projects which beneficiaries deem as their own

tend to last longer compared to those they deem to be imparted on them. 24 percent said their

involvement helps sustain projects by teaching them the project fundamentals while 10 percent

said they can easily develop other smaller projects from a project they have been involved in

which makes it last longer.

H0: There is no significant relationship between whether the project still exists and who

controlled project implementation.

H1: There is a significant relationship between whether the project still exists and who controlled

project implementation.

Conclusion: Since the p-value (0.412) is greater than the quoted level of significance (0.05), we

accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. We therefore conclude that there

is no significant relationship between whether the project still exists and who controlled project

implementation.

23

Table 4.2.1 Relationship between beneficiaries and management

9 18.0 18.0 18.0

24 48.0 48.0 66.0

17 34.0 34.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Cordial

Businesslike

Distant

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 4.2,2 Management style in project

12 24.0 24.0 24.0

19 38.0 38.0 62.0

9 18.0 18.0 80.0

8 16.0 16.0 96.0

2 4.0 4.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Democratic

Autocratic

Consultative

Paternalistic

Laissez faire

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

4.2. Effect of Management Style on Sustainability of Livelihood Improving Projects

4.2.1. Relationship between Management and Project Beneficiaries

Source: Primary data

48 percent of the project beneficiaries said they had a businesslike relationship with project

management. 34 percent claimed to have a distant relationship with management while only 18

percent reported having a cordial relationship with management. This implies that Kyetume

CBHCP project management does not relate effectively with the project beneficiaries.

4.2.2. Type of Management Style in Project

Source: Primary data

On the management style employed in their projects, the majority of the beneficiaries, 38

percent, said it was autocratic, 24 percent said it was democratic, 18 percent said they were

consulted on decisions, 16 percent reported a paternalistic decision making process and the

minority, 4 percent, said the decision making process was laissez faire.

24

Table 4.2.3 (a) Does mode of management affect project sustainability

50 100.0 100.0 100.0YesValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 4.2.3 (b) Effect of management style on continuity

5 10.0 10.0 10.0

11 22.0 22.0 32.0

6 12.0 12.0 44.0

9 18.0 18.0 62.0

13 26.0 26.0 88.0

6 12.0 12.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Low capacity building

High capacity building

Quick decision making

Slow decision making

High project ownershipLow project ownershipTotal

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

4.2.3. Effect of Management Style on Continuity and Sustainability of Projects.

Source: Primary data

In table 4.2.3 (a), beneficiaries were asked if the management style used in the projects affected

the sustainability of the project. All 50 beneficiaries said yes.

In table 4.2.3 (b), the beneficiaries were asked what they perceived as the effect of management

style on project sustainability. The majority of the beneficiaries, 26 percent, said the mode of

management style used in their projects contributed to high project ownership followed by 22

percent who said it contributed to high capacity building. 18 percent of beneficiaries said it slows

decision making. This means that according to the beneficiaries, the management style may

positively or negatively affect sustainability of the project.

25

1.000 -.381*

. .024

35 35

-.381* 1.000

.024 .

35 35

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

N

Mode of decisionmaking in project

Effect of managementstyle on continuity

Mode ofdecisionmaking inproject

Effect ofmanagement

style oncontinuity

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

*.

Table 4.2.3 (c) Correlation relationship between management style and its affect on sustainability of projects

H0: There is no significant relationship between management style and its effect on project

sustainability

H1: There is a significant relationship between management style and its effect on project

sustainability.

Conclusion: Since the p-value (0.024) is less than the quoted level of significance (0.05), we

reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. We therefore conclude that there

is a significant relationship between management style and its effect on project sustainability.

Correlation/Relationship: Since the Pearson correlation coefficient (-0.381) is negative, we

conclude that there is a negative relationship between management style and sustainability of the

project, that is, the stricter the management style, the lower the ability of beneficiaries to sustain

the project.

4.3. Effect of Financing on Sustainability of Livelihood Improving Projects.

4.3.1. Status of project financing

The beneficiaries were also asked what they thought about the status of financing of

their projects.

26

Table 4.3.1: Does your project have adequate financing

16 32.0 32.0 32.0

34 68.0 68.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Yes

No

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 4.3.2 (a) : Effect of inadequate financing on project sustainability

9 18.0 26.5 26.5

13 26.0 38.2 64.7

7 14.0 20.6 85.3

5 10.0 14.7 100.0

34 68.0 100.0

reduces productivity

reduces access tokey services

limits market

misuse ofborrowed funds

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Source: Primary data

The majority, 68 percent, said financing of the projects was inadequate while only 32 percent

said financing of their projects was adequate.

4.3.2. Effect on Inadequate Financing on Project Sustainability

Source: Primary data

From table 4.3.2 (a), the beneficiaries who said there was inadequate financing of projects were

also asked how this inadequate financing can affect project sustainability. The majority, 26

percent, said inadequate financing reduces access to key services (such as veterinary services for

the NOSP Heifer Project) while 18 percent said it reduces productivity of the project. 10 percent

of the beneficiaries said when finances borrowed for the betterment of the project are inadequate,

they tend to be misused which affects the project going forward. 6 percent said that inadequate

financing limits their access to markets for their product arising out of the projects.

27

40.714a 12 .000

41.334 12 .000

2.878 1 .090

21

Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood Ratio

Linear-by-LinearAssociation

N of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Table 4.4.3: Means to sustain project financing

19 38.0 38.0 38.0

13 26.0 26.0 64.0

4 8.0 8.0 72.0

14 28.0 28.0 100.0

50 100.0 100.0

Increasing access tocredit

Beneficiaries contributingto project financingProcuring alternativedonors

Financial training

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Table 4.3.2 (b): Chi-Square Test between Inadequate Financing and Sustainability of

Project

H0: Inadequate financing has no relation to sustainability of project

H1: Inadequate financing is related to the sustainability of project

Conclusion

Since the p-value is less than 0.05, that is 0.00<0.05, we reject the null and conclude that

inadequate financing is related to the sustainability of project.

4.3.3. Means to Sustain Project Financing

Source: Primary data

From table 4.3.3, the respondents were asked how projects could sustain their financing. 38

percent said there should be increased access to credit facilities, 28 percent said beneficiaries

28

should get training in financial management, 26 percent said beneficiaries should contribute to

project financing while only 8percent said beneficiaries should procure alternative donors.

29

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary and ConclusionKyetume CBHCP is a human oriented organization with the quest of contributing to human

development and the nation at large has been implementing projects in the communities

called community based livelihood improving projects, which are aimed at improving the

education, health, water and sanitation, gender and development, agriculture, micro-

enterprise development, and orphan care. Kyetume CBHCP community projects are not

meant to continue perpetually as they have a period in which they have to be implemented

and after which expect the community to manage or sustain them after phasing-out.

Unfortunately, this study revealed that some projects collapsed shortly after phasing-out. The

survey of project coordinators, steering committee members, volunteers and local political

leaders showed that out of 47 projects that were implemented in their villages between 2002

and 2011, only 23 (less than 50%) were still in existence. An attempt has been made in this

report to establish factors affecting sustainability of community based livelihood improving

projects in Kyetume Parish, Nakisunga Sub County.

The livelihood improving projects have had a big weakness for their failure to be sustained.

The failure of the projects to be sustained lies in Kyetume CBHCP’s inability to meet its

intended goals by the time of phasing-out, poor planning of the project activities, fact finding

is done half way at the time of initiating the project, budget not concomitant with the

gestation period of the project, communal ownership, poor evaluation strategy of the

projects, no follow up after phasing the project among many others.

30

On the other hand, the evaluation assessments have regularly found that, with the

involvement of Kyetume CBHCP, in the community based livelihood improving projects,

there is speedy implementation and improved programme management, but the sense of

ownership, responsibility, and capability of the community is undermined and not understood

properly. This is not community oriented as Kyetume CBHCP has taken over the decision-

making, planning and implementation of the project by running very fast as opposed to

walking with the community.

If community development is to be made sustainable, it should be basically taken as a

democratic process as this need not to be an imposed decision on the people. Community

development would only reach maximum effectiveness only if the principle of democracy

prevails as it emphasizes the desirability of decision making on the basis of general

consensus or general agreement rather than on the basis of unilateral decisions that will tend

to divide the community. If sustainability is to achieved the should be open participation, felt

need and aspiration by the community members, it should an educational process, it should

have both process and task goals, the philosophy of self-help, self-reliant, self-dependency

and participation by the members of the community, it should be problem solving oriented

and above all community development sustainability is based on community participation

rather than any one group of the total population.

5.2 Policy Recommendations

5.2.1. Community Participation and Involvement

Beneficiaries should be empowered to increase their involvement in all aspects of the

project right from needs assessment, choosing the projects they feel will best meet their

needs, choice of location, implementation and running of the projects. With this, they will

31

deem the project as their own rather than one that has been forced on them hence

improving chances of long term sustainability.

5.2.2. Management Style

Management of projects should be more inclusive and democratic so that ideas can be

diverse rather than unilateral. In as much as this may delay decision-making and hence

implementation of the project, it fosters acceptability of the projects. Involving

beneficiaries in decision making from the onset empowers them to use the same practice

after phasing out of the projects to ensure their long term sustainability.

Capacity building in management of projects should be carried out towards the end of the

project life so as to provide tools to the beneficiaries to carry on with the projects with

independence and ability.

5.2.3. Financing

Access to credit should be improved through awareness exercises so that beneficiaries

have enough funds to keep the projects running and beneficial.

The beneficiaries should also be trained in financial management, debt management and

savings skills so that they can run the projects beyond the phase-out stage without

seeking more donor funds which may not be available.

32

REFERENCES

1. AACPS Development Office (2005), Introduction to Project Sustainability

2. American Indian Development Associates (2001), Program Sustainability: Developing

Strategies for Maintaining Programmes over the Longer-Term.

3. Becker, G. "Making a Difference in the World." Saint Benedict's Magazine. Summer

2006: 8-9. Web. 29 Oct. 2009.

4. Brinkerhoff & Goldsmith (1992), Project Sustainability.

5. Collins D.L et al (2007), 'The financial impact of HIV/AIDS on poor households in South

Africa', AIDS 21 Suppl 7

6. Corbetta, P (2003) Social Research: Theories, Methods and Techniques. Vanderbilt

University Press

7. Creswell, J.W (2009) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches

8. Deborah Mesce (2007), Lessons Learned from a Community Based Health Care Project

9. Dr. Knapp, K (2008) Project Management: The Managerial Process

10. Egan, M., & Kadushin, G., (2007), Social Work Practice in Community-Based Health

Care Haworth Press; Data di Pubblicazione

11. Global Health at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010)

12. Gloyd, S. (2003), Community-Based Health Care: Lessons from Bangladesh to Boston.

Boston, Management Sciences for Health Publications.

13. Kervin (1999) Research Methods: Uses and Limitations of Questionnaires

14. Maxwell, J.A (1998) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach

15. Mubazi, J. K (2009) Research Methods; Makerere University Press

33

16. Rajiv Gandhi Mahila Vikas Pariyojana (RGMVP). (2010), Annual Report. Working for

Poverty Reduction and Women Empowerment.

17. Rev. Sam Simon Sakala (2004), Towards Establishing Sustainability Of Community

Based Development Projects With Special Reference To Chisankane Community Project.

Research Report Submitted to St. Clements University.

18. Saunders et al (2000) The Theories of Research

19. South African National AIDS Council (2011) National Strategic Plan 2012-2016

20. UNAIDS (2010) UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic

21. Wash Project Staff & Jonathan Hodgkin (1994), The Sustainability of Donor-Assisted

Rural Water Supply Projects. Wash Technical Report No. 94

22. World Health Organization. (2004), Comprehensive Community and Home Based Health

Care. SEARO Regional Publication No.40

34

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Questionnaire No.1 for Beneficiaries

SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION

Please tick where appropriate

1. Gender

a) Maleb) Female

2. Marital status

a) Singleb) Marriedc) Divorcedd) Widowede) Separated

3. For how long have you been involved in Kyetume CBHCP Projects?

a) Less than 5 yearsb) 5 to 10 yearsc) More than 10 years

4. Project Involved in

a) NOSP Heifer Projectb) Cooperative Handcraftc) Water And Sanitation Projectd) Emma And Greg Resource Centere) Microfinance Project

5. Does your project still exist?

a) Yesb) No

35

SECTION B: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT

6. Did you actively participate in project initiation and implementation? a) Yesb) No

7. If yes, what role did the community play in initiation of the project?a) Approached Kyetume CBHCP to support the projectb) Participated in PRA exercisec) Participated in Project Implementationd) Other (please specify)……………………………………………………………………

8. Who controlled project implementation?a) Community Membersb) Kyetume CBHCPc) Both Community Members and Kyetume CBHCPd) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………………

9. Do projects with community participation necessarily last longer?a) Yesb) No

10. If yes, how does community participation ensure project sustainability?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

SECTION C: MANAGEMENT STYLES

11. How would you best describe the management style of the project you are involved?

a) Democraticb) Autocraticc) Consultatived) Paternalistic

12. How would you best describe your relationship with the project managers and coordinators?

a) Cordialb) Businesslikec) Distantd) Frosty

36

13. Does the management style affect project sustainability?a) Yesb) No

14. If yes, how would this affect continuity of the projects?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………SECTION D: FINANCING

15. Do you think the project you are involved in has adequate financing?a) Yesb) No

16. If the answer is no, how do you think, this affects sustainability of the project?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

17. Specify means in place, if any, that can sustain financing of the project in the long term?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

37