INFLUENCING SUSTAINABLE CHANGE: EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Author:

Philip Ndeta; Learning and Development Kenya, [email protected]

SUMMARY This paper argues that more often projects implemented to eradicate poverty are not sustainable in the long run because “best practices” or reforms are imposed on the communities and thus undermining their incentive to develop their own capacity. It further argues that by involving the community it means bringing in the planning process new ideas that are very useful for the project but may not necessarily be known to the staff of the implementing agency that live outside the community area. Yet other researchers argue that as much as “participation” or collectivist is advocated for, it has its own disadvantages - “there are times when autonomy and individual responsibility are more important than participation and team responsibility” [Rosabeth Kanter – the changemasters, 1983; p140]. The paper discusses at length the “American ethic of individualism” – declining social capital that poses a challenge to social entrepreneurs in their effort to involve communities in the project participation process.

KEYWORDS Social-entrepreneur; Social-Capital; Participation; Empowerment; Community

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My special thanks and sincere appreciation goes to Dr. Lester Salamon, Carol Wessner, and Andrew Green who worked with me all along through my research period at Johns Hopkins University and enabled me to come up with this research document. I’m indebted to Patrice Flynn, Ph.D., my class instructor on nonprofit sector in America who skillfully provided the essential background information on the sector that led to my better understanding of the nonprofit organizations in the United States of America. I also wish to recognize the special contribution of Joyce Moody and other staff of the Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies, Center for Civil Society Studies.

1

ABSTRACT This paper argues that more often projects implemented to eradicate poverty are not sustainable in the long run because “best practices” or reforms are imposed on the communities and thus undermining their incentive to develop their own capacity. The paper further argues that by involving the community it means bringing in the planning process new ideas that are very useful for the project but may not necessarily be known to the staff of the implementing agency that live outside the community area. The paper discusses at length the “American ethic of individualism” – declining social capital that poses as a challenge to nonprofits in their effort to constantly involve communities in the project participation process. Nonprofit leaders interviewed, while in agreement with the concept of participation and community involvement, had a feeling that “real” community participation still remains elusive and only aspirations of the nonprofits. However, major efforts are being done by nonprofits in Baltimore to involve communities in solving their own problems through participation in project implementation.

Comparison between nonprofits in America and NGOs in Kenya reveals different levels of poverty between the people of the two countries. What is perceived as a “basic need” in Kenya is not necessarily a basic need for the poor population in America. The level of illiteracy is quite high in Kenya as compared to America. The most significant difference is the funding sources readily available for American nonprofits with viable projects. This lacks in Kenya, making NGOs to heavily rely on foreign funding that sometimes come with unrealistic conditions that disregards the prevailing local conditions and cultures, jeopardizing the local NGO’s efforts towards creating as well as influencing sustainable change in the communities through implementation of poverty reduction projects.

INTRODUCTION “Experience demonstrates that by directly relying on poor people to drive development activities, community-driven development has the potential to make poverty reduction efforts more responsive to demands, more inclusive, more sustainable, and more cost-effective than traditional centrally led programs” (World Bank, 2003:3). This research paper is based on the literature review, analysis of eight successful nonprofit organizations in Baltimore and interviews with nine nonprofit leaders (social entrepreneurs) regarding community participation in poverty alleviation projects with a view to sustaining them after phase out of 2

the implementing agency. Sustainability in this context refers to the ability of the projects implemented to remain intact as well as continue to meet the originally intended purpose, after the official phase out of the implementing agency. More often project sustainability has remained a major challenge after phase out of implementing agency within a given area or community. Projects tend to fail altogether because most of the times “best practices” or reforms are imposed on a community and thus undermining the community’s incentives to develop their own capacities. The research aimed to establish how effective “community participation model” works in the United States in the design, planning and implementation process of poverty alleviation projects implemented for and with the community to ensure sustainability. While participation is highly advocated for as the best means to sustain the projects implemented, it was found that there remains a huge challenge among the community organizations to bring people together to fully participate in the project planning and implementation process as a majority of them have their own day-to-day duties that enables them and their families to sustain their own living. “The role of individuals versus groups or collectives in facilitating entrepreneurship in organizations may also be culture-bond. Individualism is an intrinsic aspect of American culture, which helps to explain the relatively intensive amount of independent activity in the U.S” (Birch 1981; Birch and McCracken 1982; Reynolds and Freeman 1987; Peterson 1988).

Other challenges include the current welfare dependency culture among the Americans as well as the increasing decrease in trust by the public in the work of the nonprofits caused by a series of highly publicized scandals - “A series of highly publicized scandals seemed to sour public attitudes towards nonprofit organizations, threatening the public confidence on which they ultimately rely” (Salamon, 1997:57).

This paper concludes by comparing the challenges currently facing NGOs in Kenya. The main noticeable challenges which include high illiteracy level of the people at grassroots level, lack of financial resources because of the limited number of community foundations if any, and the imposed ideas that are unlikely workable within the Kenyan environment, given to the NGOs by its partners from the north who provides financial assistance needed for project implementation.

3

BACKGROUND In addition to ensuring sustainability, “participation” is necessary for a fully effective, society-wide development transformation. “Open, transparent, and participatory processes can play an important role in preserving or, if necessary, re-establishing social capital. Participation itself can help create a sense of community, a sine quo non for high level of social capital. If individuals believe that they have had meaningful participation in the decisions that are affecting them, they will be more willing to accept changes even if they are adversely affected” (Stiglitz, 2002:174). Community participation also brings in the planning process new ideas that may not necessarily be known to the staff of the implementing agencies that live outside the target community. “It is not only that such participation brings to the project relevant information that outside development agencies (or even governments) are not likely to have. Participation also brings with it commitment, and commitment brings with it greater effort - the kind of effort that is required to make the project successful” (Stiglitz, 2002:168). “In a firm where unity of interest is the dominant theme, emphasis on the creating of diversity, heterogeneity, and internal organizational friction are necessary to get the supply of new ideas required for continual achievement” – Tropman and Morningstar (1989: 123).

American citizens are busy with their own jobs and other personal things to take care of that make it difficult for a majority of them to attend and participate in the project planning and implementation process. This, it has been established, is a scenario that emerged in the most recent years. Before robust civic engagement was a distinguished mark of American history from the beginning of the republic. Robert D. Putnam in his book “Bowling alone: America’s Declining Social Capital” argues that there is significant decline in social capital especially at the local community level, which would mean that direct participation in projects by Americans is decreasing day after day. He states: “The most whimsical yet discomfiting bit of evidence of social disengagement in contemporary America that I have discovered is this: More Americans are bowling today than ever before, but bowling in organized leagues has plummeted in the last decade or so. Between 1980 and 1993 the total number of bowlers in America increased by 10 percent, while league bowling decreased by 40 percent. The raise of solo bowling threatens the livelihoods of bowling-lane proprietors because those who bowl as members of leagues consume three times as much beer and pizza, not the balls and shoes. The broader social significance, however, lies in the social interaction and even occasionally civic conversations over beer and pizza that solo bowlers forgo. Whether or not bowling 4

beats balloting in the eyes of the Americans, bowling teams illustrate yet another vanishing form of social capital (Putnam, 1995:70). He then concludes that “the available survey evidence confirms our earlier conclusion: America social capital in the form of civic associations has significantly eroded over the last generation” [Putnam, 1995:73].

There is therefore striking evidence of the increasing erosion of social capital in America as established by other researchers as well who then have concluded that this trend of events has led to notable decline of the American civil society over the past several decades. Sirianni for example gives yet another reason why there is decline in urban social capital in America – “The dispersion of second and third-generation ethnic communities in many cities, as well as the decline of local unions, party clubs, and women’s clubs has further depleted important forms of urban social capital” (Sirianni and Friedmand, 2001:36). Eberly cites many other reasons that are contributing to declining trust and therefore social capital in America. He says, “frequently cited are political corruption, crime, economic dislocation, racial discrimination, and the lack of roots for a large segment of American society” (Eberly, 1998:45) These observations are in sharp contrast of the American society’s way of life over one hundred and fifty years ago as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 in his book, Democracy in America when he wrote: “As soon as several of the inhabitants of the United States have taken up an opinion or a feeling which they wish to promote in the world, they look out for mutual assistance; and as soon as they have found one another out, they combine. From that moment they are no longer isolated men, but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve for an example and whose language is listened to”(Torqueville, 1835:56). Even then Tocqueville recognized the importance of community participation in decision making process: “If men are to remain civilized or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased” (Tocqueville, 1835:57).

While researching on community participation in the design, planning and implementation of poverty alleviation projects that are designed to bring positive change to impoverished communities I have attempted to work within the conclusions arrived at by both Putnam and Sirianni regarding the increasing erosion of social capital in America. I have also attempted to analyze the implications of this scenario from the community development perspective that 5

advocates for citizen’s participation in the project planning and implementation process as advocated for by Stiglitz, The World Bank, and other researchers.

During the research it also clearly came out that integration had the intention to break up the African American community. “Urban social capital has been eroded in other ways. Many in the black middle class deserted urban ghettos once the civil rights revolution lowered employment and housing barriers, thus thinning out cross-class networks and community assets for neighborhood revitalization” (Sirianni and Friedland 2001:36). Before the civil rights revolution, it was noted, the African American lived together and those successful were looked upon as role models within the community. But with the integration they had to move away from the community and leave behind those who didn’t have energy to move. “Capital flight, postindustrial development, and federal housing policy have contributed to further isolation and concentration of the urban poor” (Sirianni and Friedland 2001:36).This in essence means that the American Society has drastically changed and although the trends in American life is regarded as “harbingers of social modernization” (Putnam, 1995:65), it is for sure not the same society that the Frenchman Alex de Tocqueville talked about when he wrote, “I met with several kinds of associations in America of which I confess I had no previous notion; and I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object for the exertions of a great many men and in inducing them voluntarily to pursue it” (Tocqueville, 1835:54). Salamon confirms this change in life of the Americans when he wrote “social capital, i.e. those bonds and reciprocity that seem to be pivotal for a democratic society and a market economy to function effectively, but that American ethic of individualism would otherwise make it difficult to sustain” (Salamon, 1999:17).

Researchers and social entrepreneurs have since discovered that community participation in decision making process is fundamental for sustainability of poverty reduction projects initiated for and with the less vulnerable people in the society. “Participation and involvement is not just a matter for government or managers (read nonprofit leaders); it needs to reach deeper to include those who are often excluded and who are key to the strengthening of social and organizational capital.” (Stiglizt, 2002:169). Eberly on his part argues that “lack of participation breeds suspicion and distrust, which in turn decreases people’s sociability and community involvement” (Eberly, 1998:45). And by emphasizing trust as a social good he says: “Trust is intangible asset, preserved through unwritten and unspoken habits and 6

customs. It is immeasurably consequential, difficult to build up, hard to preserve, costly to lose, and deeply challenging to replenish once depleted” (Eberly, 1998:45).

Nonprofit leaders agree that participation of community members in the planning and implementation process is essential but that meaningful or real community participation still remains elusive. The exclusion of community members in the planning and implementation process therefore means that members or beneficiaries are poorly prepared at the start and less empowered by the time they are left to remain on their own to run or manage the project. The inclusion of the members is meant to empower them, and through the process, make them able to run the project (s) in the future and hence giving the project a better chance to remain sustainable. “Empowerment – through inclusion, voice, and accountability – can also promote social cohesion and trust, qualities that help reduce corruption, reinforce government and project performance, and provide a conducive environment for reform, with consequential benefits for development effectiveness and economic growth (World Bank 2002:3). Empowerment, the World Bank further argues, “is the expansion of assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and hold accountable institutions that affect their lives. (World Bank 2002:11).”

With the vanishing form of social capital in America as confirmed by leading researchers in the field, it remains a challenge to many American nonprofit organizations to continuously involve the beneficiaries in the participation process during project implementation. The more the people at grassroots level are left out of the process the riskier it becomes for nonprofits as they are more likely to be isolated from the public and hence members they purport to serve, leading to very poor understanding of their work by the communities they work in and therefore significantly reducing the very trust that they need from the community. This eventually reduces the support they so much need from the public. “Continued public support depends on continued public trust in the bona fides of the not-forprofit sector. That trust can be gradually undermined by instances of fiscal irresponsibility, mismanagement, wastefulness, and fraud within the sector, as well as by the huge recent increase in assets held by not-for-profit organizations” (Fleishman, 1999:172).

Challenges being faced by nonprofits in mobilizing community members to participate in the project planning process need to be addressed. Continued exclusion of the people at grassroots level in the entire process for whatever valid reasons would mean that the interests 7

of the poor people are not adequately represented. This will then mean that such projects would have a less impact on poverty reduction and are unlikely to remain sustainable. There is therefore increasing need for nonprofits to involve the target population in the entire process of the project to enable provision of services that are responsive to demand expressed by poor people. This, it is argued, enhances project sustainability. “Community-developed facilities such as health centers, schools, and water supply system tend to have higher utilization rates and are better maintained than when investment decisions are made by actors outside the community. Experience also demonstrates that demand is better articulated when communities contribute to investment costs and control investments choices” (World Bank, 2003:5).

METHODOLOGY

A. Literature review To understand the cultures and trends in American life, I reviewed literature documented through books and journals by the America researchers; and to comprehend the history of the nonprofit sector in the United States of America I reviewed additional literature by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America. Overall, I reviewed publications by: The World Bank; Lester M. Salamon; Joseph E. Stigliz; Robert D. Putnam; Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland; Don E. Eberly; and Joseph L. Fleishman and others.

B. Existing case studies I analyzed the available literature on the eight of the nine organizations that I visited to understand their work as well as their methodology in working with the local communities to achieve their mission and goals.

C. Interviews I conducted face to face interviews with social entrepreneurs of leading nonprofit organizations in Baltimore area (except for Safe and Sound Campaign that was carried out vie phone) to get the information included in this paper.

MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS

8

The following research questions were formulated based on literature review, existing case studies and interviews with social entrepreneurs:

1. Why has project sustainability remained a major challenge after phase out of implementing agency within a given area or community? 2. Does decrease in social capital at the local community level affect project sustainability concept? 3. How is community participation in the design, planning and implementation of poverty alleviation projects that are designed to bring positive change to impoverished communities enhance project sustainability? 4. How true is it that “lack of participation breeds suspicion and distrust, which in turn decreases people’s sociability and community involvement”? 5. What challenges are encountered in involving communities in the project participation process?

RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS

Advantages of Community Participation: When communities are largely represented there is adequate sharing of information, power and responsibility and this is ideal for future project sustainability. This also creates a free working relationship and understanding among all parties (donor, implementing agency and the community) involved in the project implementation. This helps to solve problems encountered during project implementation without apportioning blame to one particular group and thus significantly improve on the future projects for the community. Community participation also brings about strong community leadership desired to diversify the funding sources of the community projects that will see project sustainability after phase out of the implementing agency. Participation is important as it helps both parties involved in the process to clarify the outcomes of the project at the beginning of the planning process, to avoid distrust that has always been identified with the communities once left out of the project implementation process. Community participation during the design, planning and implementation of projects helps to build leadership at community level that guarantees project sustainability. It was recommended that the staff of the implementing agency assume the role of a facilitator during the planning process. This brings to the project “outside 9

neighborhood influence” that is helpful for realizing effective organization at community level. Participation, it has been confirmed through research, helps to reduce corruption, reinforce project performance, and provide an enabling environment for reform. The lack of it breeds suspicion and distrust, which in turn decreases people’s sociability and community involvement. And yet, participation or collectivist has its own disadvantages too, “at the extreme, a strong collectivist environment may actually give rise to an anti-entrepreneurial bias. Group performance and reward systems can encourage “free-rider” or “social loafing” syndromes on the part of specific individuals [Early 1989; Jones 1984; Albanese and Van Fleet 1985]. Further tasks become over-segmented, such that individuals lose sight of the larger project and concentrate only on their assigned duties [Peters 1988; Waterman 1987; Whyte 1956].

Strategies used for involving community in the participation process: A majority of organizations I visited use door to door visits to reach community members. Other organizations organize workshops or combine both door to door visits and workshops in involving the community in the project implementation process. While other organizations reach the community through information dissemination, some of them organize get-together planning meetings that have involved city, political and business representatives in charting the way forward and establishing the pressing community needs. Other methods frequently used by the organizations to encourage community participation include the organization of community meetings by the implementing agency. This method helps the communities to come up with their own ideas and leadership while the staff of the implementing urgency plays the role of a facilitator.

Challenges in involving communities in the project participation process: It was pointed out that where there is less community representation in the planning meetings community leaders who usually represent the entire community in such meetings have been found not to be good at sharing information with other community members. This leads to inadequate sharing of responsibility within the community project during the implementation process and is likely to jeopardize the chances of sustainability of the project being implemented. To create any meaningful change within a community it takes time building the capacities of the local people and it is approximated that a minimum of ten years is required to realize the intended change within a given community after implementation of a project. 10

This therefore requires patience and commitment from all the participating parties; the donor, the implementing agency as well as the community itself.

Throughout the research period it came out that a majority of the projects implemented in the communities have not been sustained once funding comes to an end because the community was partially involved in the process especially up to the time of identifying their needs. Since a majority of the community members have their own jobs and therefore lack time to attend and participate in the consensus meetings, there is always a communication breakdown along the line during the implementation period leading to difficulties in sustaining community participation through the entire process.

Another hindrance observed towards involving community participation in the project implementation process is the professional language used by the nonprofit staff. This demoralizes the continued participation in the discussions by the community members. Other challenges that face community participation in the project planning and implementation process include lack of transportation to the meeting venues as well as the involvement of the Americans in other personal things that are usually given priority over such community meetings – “ the American ethic of individualism” (Salamon, 1999:11). The lack of interest by the Americans due to prevailing culture among the communities was also cited by some of the interviewees as a challenge towards involving the community in the project participation process.

People in the community have always expected the nonprofits staff to do everything and ensure that the program stays, after giving the initial information required for the project to start. Where projects are affected due to cuts in funding, the community’s morale has been lowered and this has led to distrust between the community members and the implementing agency. And where projects are taken by the professionals from the community especially in advocating for additional funding to sustain the project, the process has ended up being a non community-driven process. The American community welfare dependency attitude was also cited as one of the reasons that largely contributes to minimal community participation and therefore contributing to the negative project sustainability.

The nature of the idea or project being implemented also came in as a challenge towards involving the community in the participation process. For example, most of the activities of 11

Banner Neighborhoods Community Corporation require intensive staff time that the community may not be able to practically provide. This threatens the sustainability of the project if the agency phases out from the community. Funds for this particular organization are constantly raised from foundations, something that may not be effectively done if the process is left to the community to handle by itself. Finally, the end results of the lack of the required community participation in the project planning and implementation process is distrust by the community and therefore the public of the noble work of nonprofit organizations in creating sustainable change.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This research paper has argued for the involvement or participation of the poor population in the planning and implementation process of poverty reduction projects to enhance sustainability. Participation is an empowering process for the community “The long-term objective of every community action program is to effect a permanent increase in the capacity of individuals, groups, and communities afflicted by poverty to deal effectively with their own problems so that they need no further assistance” Sirianni and Friedmand, 2001:37). The empirical evidence suggests that such participation especially in the planning process helps to bring new ideas and relevant information to the project that may not be known to staff of the nonprofit staffs that live outside the community. It is also confirmed by researchers that participation also brings with it commitment, a greater effort required to make the project successful.

It remains a major challenge however, for nonprofit organizations working with vulnerable communities to involve them in the project planning and implementation process to facilitate project sustainability. Project sustainability is essential and this is achieved through asking the community their needs and letting them solve their pressing issues by themselves. Professor Yash Pal Ghai, the chairman of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, while commenting on the high participation of the ordinary Kenyans in giving their views to the commission on the constitution they wanted said: “As their (ordinary people) confidence grew, so did the sense of empowerment, a marvelous augury for the democracy to which everyone pays lip service” (Daily Nation, 07 May 2004). As it stands now and from the results of the research, I conclude that nonprofits are still paying lip service as regards to involving community participation in the project implementation process. It was confirmed by the interviewees that community participation in the entire process is still elusive. Martha 12

Holeman, Senior Policy and Research Advisor at Safe and Sound campaign had a feeling that communities are usually involved in projects but not fully as they should. “Community participation is healthy and highly recommended but it is difficult to sustain the process. Meaningful community participation remains elusive and only aspirations of the nonprofits”, she said.

Most organizations seem to get community needs from the community and the process of involving the community in the project planning and implantation seems to end at this point. For example, the initiative comes from the community which then enables The Family of Baltimore City and project leaders to decide on the activities of the project. This leaves out the people that should be empowered through participation in the project planning and implementation process. Other organizations like Banner Neighborhood Community Corporation have slipped off from community empowerment process to provision of service delivery through job creation. It is important to continuously readdress community participation by coming up with new services for the community during the project implementation process to be able to sustain meaningful community participation during the entire implementation process.

Some of the challenges cited by the interviewees that has led to lack of community participation included high expectations from the community at the beginning of the project that always never come to “reality” for reasons of cuts in funding or just because the expectations of the beneficiaries were too high. This can be solved by involving the community from the beginning and being realistic about the outcomes well in advance before the implementation starts. The other challenge in Baltimore, and therefore within the America society is mainly based on the lack of personal commitment of the community members as they are involved in other personal issues that promotes their own lives. This denies them time to meet on the table with others and share ideas as a community. Lester Salamon points this culture of the American society in his book America’s nonprofit sector, when he stated, “social capital i.e., those bonds that trust and reciprocity that seem to be pivotal for a democratic society and a market economy to function effectively, but that the Americans ethic of individualism would otherwise make it difficult to sustain (Salamon, 1999). This, it has been correctly argued, has led many of the American citizens into bowling alone. This trend, as we have found out, has a high cost to nonprofit organizations, including the increasing lack of trust by the public in their noble work - of creating as well as influencing sustainable 13

change in the society. “Trust and engagement are two facets of the same underlying factor – social capital “(Putnam, 1995).

It is however difficult to make a reasonable comparison between the poor communities in Kenya and those in Baltimore because what is perceived as a “basic need” for the Kenyan poor population is not necessarily a basic need for those considered poor in the American setup. NGOs like Learning and Development Kenya that work with urban and rural poor populations in Kenya are still struggling to provide these communities with the most basic needs like classrooms, dormitories, learning materials, VIP latrines as well as water tanks to create conducive learning environment and enhance learning. These services are readily available for even those considered poor in the United States of America. The high level of illiteracy within the populations that NGOs work with is yet another significant challenge that NGOs face in Kenya. This does not appear a major challenge in America. Simply put, the level of literacy is quite high in the United States as compared to that in Kenya. Since literacy level helps people to understand their needs better as well as provides them with better skills on how to fight poverty (through project planning, employment, business creation, etc.), and therefore contributing positively to sustainable development, it will be inappropriate to approach the issue of “community participation” in projects of the “poor communities” of the two countries from the same perspective since they have totally different cultures as well as different education backgrounds. In a nutshell, NGOs in Kenya have a more challenging role of involving the less informed population in the project planning and implementation process than their counterpart nonprofits in the United States of America.

While the declining social capital poses as a challenge to the nonprofits in America, the cohesiveness of the communities in Kenya is a major strength for local NGOs if they utilized the opportunity well to involve communities in the project planning and implementation process. It has been confirmed that while a majority of the families live in abject poverty, they still have managed to take over orphaned children of their relatives who had no hope left after the death of their parents through AIDS. This is an additional burden that contributes heavily to depleting further any meager resources that such families may have but it confirms the existing cohesiveness and the strong social capital that still exists among Kenyan communities as opposed to the American society.

14

The other significant challenge that local NGOs face that seems not to affect the American nonprofit organizations relates to the conditions that are sometimes imposed by the donors or the now popularly known as partners of the local NGOs in the developing countries. These conditions have been found to be more of imaginations of the partners or donors and are made without due regard to the local conditions, traditions, and cultures. In the process there is failure to recognize the immense experience and knowledge of the local staff. This tends to undermine the local staff incentives to develop their own capacities. It further weakens their confidence in using their own intelligence. The imposed conditions by partners also threaten to break the trust of the local people and make the work of the local implementing local NGOs difficult. It is even more complicated with lack of local foundations, leading to over dependant of local NGOs on foreign funding to implement poverty reduction projects in poor communities.

More research is needed to get the best approach towards involving poor communities with less understanding of their own basic needs in the participation process during project implementation period. There is also need for flexibility and understanding from both the local NGOs and their development partners who provide funding for project implementation in poor communities if the objective to reduce poverty through implementation of community projects is to be achieved. The current approach by partners where conditions are specified on funding without due regard to the prevailing local circumstances has been found wanting and unfavorable to development initiatives by local NGOs in the poor countries and in Kenya in particular. The approach should be redefined to look more-friendly and enhance community participation in the entire process. Funding organizations in the United States of America work very closely with the implementing local agencies, offering the required technical assistance as well as adjusting the grant period if this can help to improve the services offered to communities by the local nonprofits. These should be the approach for organizations working in partnership with local NGOs in poor countries.

It was however, profoundly shocking to learn from this research that to some degree, the challenges NGOs in Kenya working with local communities both within the poor urban and the rural areas face (particularly in engaging communities in project planning and implementation process), are quite similar to those faced by nonprofit organizations in the United States of America despite the extreme variations in culture and literacy levels of the people of the two countries. 15

From the research therefore, I conclude that the way forward in sustaining projects implemented with and for vulnerable groups is to involve a majority of the members in the entire process - from designing, planning, through implementation. This approach boosts the morale of the local people who gains knowledge and confidence in themselves through capacity building and during the period of project implementation that is necessary to ensure project sustainability after phase out of the implementing ageny. Successful sustainability also depends on the kind of projects being implemented. Some projects will require the continuous involvement of the implementing agency and once the agency decides to phase out the project it will automatically cease to exists however much community members were involved. Fighting poverty is a noble cause and creates the desired change among the poor in our society. Creating whatever change takes time and is a long process. It therefore requires patience and commitment to be able to influence change, of whatever magnitude. “Development represents a transformation of society, a movement from traditional relations, traditional ways of thinking, traditional ways of dealing with health and education, traditional methods of production, to more modern ways” (Stiglitz, 2002:164).

REFERENCES - World Bank, The., “Community-Driven Development” (2003): 3 - Salamon, Lester M., “Private Action / Private Good: Maryland Nonprofit Sector in a Time of Change,” (1997): 57 - Stiglitz, Joseph E., “Participation and Development: Perspectives from the comprehensive Development Paradigm,” (2002): 174 - Putnam, Robert D., “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy 6 (1995): 70 -

Sirianni, Carmen., and Friedland Lewis, “Civil innovation in America: Community

Empowerment, Public Policy, and the Movement for Civic renewal,” (2001): - Eberly, Don E., America’s Promise: Civil Society and the Renewal of American Culture” (1998): 45 - Tocqueville, Alex de., “Democracy in America: Of the use which the Americans make of Public Associations in Civil life,” (1835): 56 - Rosabeth Kanter: “The changemakers” (1985): 410

16