THE PLANNING AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL ALLIANCE (CSA) PROJECT: (CASE STUDY OF AJUMAKO-ENYAN-ESSIAM DISTRICT, GHANA)

Abstract

This study was on the planning and the management of the community school alliance. Four objectives were raised which included; Examine the nature of community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED, determine the factors that affect community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED, evaluate how community participation promotes effective project planning and management and recommend strategies that will improve the functioning of the CSA Project. A total of 77 responses were received and validated from the enrolled participants where all respondents were drawn from of Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam district, Ghana. Hypothesis was tested using Chi-Square statistical tool (SPSS).

Chapter one

Introduction

1.1Background of the study

People today have an urge- an impatient urge- to participate in the events and processes that shape their lives. And that impatience brings many dangers and opportunities (UNDP 1993). In order for pro-poor development to become a reality, poor people themselves must not only be involved as respondents, but must also have access to the information generated, a role in its analysis and in identifying the practical implications for change (Chambers & Mayoux, 2005). The need for stakeholder ownership is now well established within the donor community. This is based on the fact that people are the central theme of projects. They are the actors, the beneficiaries or the victims. The essence of people’s involvement in the development process is enhanced through their participation in the financing of projects. This generates a sense of ownership and awareness to share responsibility for the future organisation and management of project investment (Barbisa, 1995; Oakley, 1991).

Ownership of a project by stakeholders involves ensuring the widest possible participation of those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the project. The essence of ownership is that the recipients drive the process. That is, they drive the planning, designing, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of 2 the project. Initiating and organising for development means that the people should participate in all facets of the project cycle. Projects are implemented by people and for people. Even where they are not the actors, they may become the beneficiaries or the victims. It is, therefore, essential to include them in the planning process. Projects are the building blocks of a development plan. Projects must be started or identified and prepared; and there is the need to undertake feasibility studies to ascertain the viability and the sustainability of projects before implementation. At the implementation stage, projects must be monitored and evaluated to ensure that they are on course and set goals are being attained. Effective project planning and management has been a problem for developing countries for decades. Development projects on water and sanitation, health, agriculture and education, provided for communities, were based on what urban-based planners felt were the needs of these people. The popular thinking among the urban-based planners was that rural people were poor, backward, and primitive and believed in tradition. Based on the above, these planners viewed them as old fashioned and, for that matter, they lacked the ability to think and develop their communities (Chambers, 1994). As a result, it was common for community members to wake up to see facilities like bore holes, market centres, health post, schools and toilets (Kumasi Ventilated Improvement Pit ), constructed behind their windows by governmental and non-governmental organisations for them. The concomitant effect of this approach to development was that such projects were not sustainable. Rather, in the view of Chambers (1983), urban-based professionals and officials not only do not know the rural reality; worse, they do not know that they do not know. This top-down approach made it difficult for community members to identify themselves with such projects leading to their unwillingness to contribute materially and non-materially to their maintenance and management. Also, such projects were wrongly sited and, therefore, the supposed beneficiaries felt reluctant to patronise them. Again, some of the technologies were not userfriendly and were also inimical to the physical environment. In brief, urban-based planners prescribed inappropriate antidotes to community problems, which, therefore, affected the planning and management of development projects at the community level. The limited successes achieved by these development initiatives, based on the top-down approach, were attributed to the failure to involve beneficiaries in the design and implementation of these projects and programmes (Cernea, 1991; Egerton University, 2000).

Though it is impossible to pinpoint changes in development thinking with any historical accuracy, there is no doubt that the mid-1970s saw a start of a fundamental shift away from the domination of the top-down approach to development thinking and intervention towards a systematic search for alternatives. The past twenty years witnessed a searching re-examination of the nature and purpose of development, and this re-examination has correspondingly influenced practice. The literature, which has recorded this re-examination, is prodigious, and many academics have immersed themselves in the new theoretical and conceptual horizon that has been provided. The re-examination threw up a whole new form of analysis-dependency theory that has steadily influenced the different dimensions of development interventions. The work of Hague (1977) was instrumental in giving structure to this re-thinking and this has been further developed by successive researchers such as Pearse and Stiefel (1979), Galjart (1981), Bhasin (1985), Verhagen (1985) and Oakley (1991). The central theme for this search for a development alternative was that development has become capital-centred; it had by-passed or even marginalised people in its concern to build and construct. The counter-argument stated that, although physical development was important, it must be approached in such a way that people had both a central role and some control over it (Oakley, 1991). While it is possible to show that many of these capital-centred efforts have improved the lives of some rural people, in most Third World countries, the majority has benefited a little or has even become worse off. Schumacher (1973) and (Economic Commission of Latin America, 1973) has argued that development did not start with these physical goods but “with people and their education, organisation, and discipline”. In other words, people should be central to any kind of development process. This capital-oriented development helped to improve the material livelihood of some and to develop their talents, skills and abilities, but it has not been successful in promoting people’s involvement in the development process (Oakley, 1991). The failures of the top-down approach led to the emergence of a new paradigm to development often called participatory development. This approach begins with the assumption that “sustainable development ultimately depends on enhancing people’s capacities as individuals and as groups to improve their own lives and to take greater control over their own destinies” (Nyerere, 1968). The participatory development strategy encourages the involvement of beneficiaries in the design and implementation of community development projects. This makes the beneficiary communities directly involved in their development. According to Ellison (1997), it is rare to find a development strategy these days which does not refer to community participation. A body of evidence confirms that community participation in the initiation, planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation leads to sustainable development. Policies of many developing countries, governments and donors have emphasised on the need to increase the access of the beneficiaries to development services. For communities to continue developing there is the need to pay more attention to strategies that will encourage and empower the beneficiaries to manage, maintain and sustain their development, in the absence of development partners. Hence, active participation in sustainable development ensures that those who are affected by the changes are the ones determining the changes. The result according to Evans (1997) is the enjoyment and sharing of the benefits and products generated by the change. Participation is not exclusive, ensuring equitable input, self-determination and empowerment of both genders and all races and cultural groups.

The essence of people’s involvement in the development process is enhanced through their participation in the financing of projects. This generates a sense of ownership and awareness to share responsibility for the future organisation and management of project investment (Oakley, 1991; Barbisa, 6 1995). How this is best achieved is often based on the approach and strategy used in implementing the projects. It is, therefore, necessary to reinforce the concern by highlighting the role that community participation can play in planning and managing developmental projects like the Community Schools Alliance projects in the Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam District (AEED).

The Community Schools Alliance (CSA) was formed to encourage policy formulators to work with school boards, municipal and district councils to develop a better system for making decisions about school projects in various communities. The Alliance aims at promoting districts and municipal councils to have a more meaningful role in those decisions. It provides opportunity for school boards and municipalities to work together to develop policies addressing issues such as planning for declining enrolments, a review of funding to rural and small community schools and establishing a working relationship between municipalities and school boards that provides transparency and accountability (CSA, 2004).

Statement of the problem

The community participation approach to development encourages the involvement of all the stakeholders in the design and implementation of projects. Before the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) government’s introduction of the decentralisation policy in Ghana, power and authority as well as the distribution of resources were centralised in the national capital. The community participation approach came into being as a result of the emergence of the participatory development approach. Fowler (1998) indicates that community participation ensures that beneficiaries are involved in their own development so that they would not only have a say in their development but also be able to take charge and control of the management of such projects in their communities. According to the strongest advocates of participatory development, ‘normal’ development is characterised by biases which are disempowering (Peet &Watts, 1996). Ever since the introduction of the community participation approach to project planning and management, the expected gains seem to be fizzling into a grand illusion. Community participation has become a tool to manipulate local people to “rubber-stamp” preconceived ideas of the urban elite and international institutions. Community members have been compelled to forgo their economic activities and attend long meetings which, at the end of the day, have little or no impact on the predetermined stands of these facilitating agencies. It is clear that development partners leave out the beneficiaries in the planning and management of projects and, for that matter; there is minimal involvement of community members in the planning and management of community development projects. The absence of such coordination between the various stakeholders has made it very difficult for development projects to be well managed in the absence of the facilitating agency. Chambers (1983) and Hirschmann (2003) intimated that ‘putting the last first’ was the only way to achieve rural development. This study seeks to evaluate the nature and importance of community participation in the planning and management of the Community Schools Alliance (CSA) Project in the AjumakoEnyan-Essiam District (AEED).

Objective of the study

The objectives of the study are;

1. Examine the nature of community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED
2. Determine the factors that affect community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED
3. Evaluate how community participation promotes effective project planning and management
4. Recommend strategies that will improve the functioning of the CSA Project.

Research hypotheses

HYPOTHESIS 1

H0: there is no nature of community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED.

H1: there is nature of community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED

HYPOTHESIS 2

H0: there are no factors that affect community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED.

H1: there are factors that affect community participation in the planning and management of the CSA Project in the AEED

Significance of the study

Most NGOs and even governmental organisations in the district have implemented projects which are now white elephants. Examples of such projects include a KVIP project in Enyan Denkyira, a market at Nyamebekyere and a guest house in Enyan Kwanyarko. Though there had been studies on project planning in NGOs and community development, studies on the planning and management in the CSA Project are yet to be done. The study, therefore, looked at the peculiar nature of project planning and management in the CSA Project and also adds new knowledge to existing literature in order to enhance the planning and management processes in community development in the AEED. The study also looked at the community participation approach to development and this will serve as a learning material for community development workers, District Assemblies and NGOs. This will no doubt enhance the value of community project to last longer and benefit the people greatly.

Scope of the study

The study centred on community participation in the planning and management of the Community School Alliance Project in Ajumako-EnyanEssiam District. The study was restricted to the four Partnership School Communities (PSCs) of the Community School Alliance (CSA) Project in the district, namely: Besease, Aworodo, Fawomwnye and Esiam.

Definition of terms

Community: The lowest level of aggregation at which people are organised for a common effort or goal.

Participation: A process in which beneficiary or client groups influence the direction and execution of a development project with the view to enhancing their well being in terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish.

 Planning: It is an advanced and conscious way of allocating scarce resources to achieve desirable goals.

Project Planning: An activity or a set of related activities which are implemented as an identifiable whole.

Management: It refers to utilising resources efficiently and effectively to achieve the desired outputs

Related Project Topics :