INFLUENCE OF DECENTRALISATION FACTORS ON SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN OSUN AND KWARA STATES, NIGERIA BY WALIU NIYI BELLO N.C.E (OYO), B.Ed, M.Ed (U.I) MATRIC NO.101948 A thesis in the Department of Adult Education, Submitted to the Faculty of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D) Of the UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. February, 2013 INFLUENCE OF DECENTRALISATION FACTORS ON SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN OSUN AND KWARA STATES, NIGERIA WALIU NIYI BELLO ii CERTIFICATION I certify that this study was carried out by Waliu Niyi Bello, (Matric No 101948) under my supervision, in the Department of Adult Education, Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. ……………………… Supervisor I. A, Abiona, Ph.D Adult Education Department University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. iii DEDICATION This research work is dedicated to: - Almighty God, the Alpha and Omega who has saved my life till today. - The fond memory of my dearly appreciated father – Prince Isiaka Olaniyan Bello and my adopted father – Rev Dr. Okeyemi J.O. - My caring mother for her parental care. - My amiable, peace-loving, loyal and dedicated wife Mrs. Abibat Olaniyan Bello. iv ABSTRACT The quest for decentralisation rests on the capacity to enhance grassroot participation in development programmes and community integration to facilitate even spread of developmental projects. In spite of the adoption of the decentralisation strategy, the physical and socio- economic conditions in most of these communities in Kwara and Osun states do not seem to have improved significantly. Previous studies had focused more on impacts of decentralisation on ethnic conflicts and secessionism rather than on implementation and sustainability of community development. This study, therefore, investigated the influence of decentralisation factors (grassroot participation in development programmes, need for unity, community integration, devolution of power, delegation of authority, development equity and easiness of decision-making process) on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states, Nigeria. The survey research design of ex post facto type was adopted. The stratified random sampling technique was adopted to select 1,984 respondents (community leaders 266; change-agents 569; members of community based organisations 1,022; political representatives 127) in nine communities each from Osun (964) and Kwara states (1,020). Two instruments: Decentralisation Factors’ Scale (r =0.87) and Community Development Sustainability Questionnaire (r =0.76) were used. These were complemented with 18 sessions of Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KII) with residents and change-agents. Two research questions were answered and two hypotheses tested at 0.05 level of significance. Data were analysed using Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation, t-test, multiple regression and content analysis. Decentralisation factors significantly correlated (R = .554) with sustainability of community development programmes (F (7, 1975) =125.152; p< 0.05) and accounted for 31% variance in the dependent measure. Relative contributions to sustainability of community development programmes were as follows: unity (β =.710), grassroot participation in development programmes (β=.453), delegation of authority (β =.304), devolution of power (β =.103), community integration (β = .-065), easiness of decision-making (β = .-265) and development equity (β= .-661). No significant difference was found in sustainability of community development programmes through decentralisation between Osun and Kwara states. However, taking the two factors together, Kwara State ( x = 20.37) performed better than Osun State ( x = 20.33). Furthermore, political instability (r =453; p< 0.05), leadership problems (r = -230; p< 0.05), communal clashes (r =.136, p< 0.05), inadequate funding (r = 129; p< 0.05) and poor accountability(r =.121; p< 0.05), all impeded the influence of decentralisation factors on the sustainability of community development programmes in the two states. FGD and KII results revealed that there are problems of communication gap and lack of adequate understanding of the basic principle of the decentralisation process among the inhabitants. These have hindered the expected level of citizen participation in developmental projects arisen from decentralisation process. Decentralisation factors enhanced sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states and served as potent instruments for programmes. However, the problems of political instability, leadership, inadequate funding, communal clashes, accountability, and communication gap should be considered when planning community development programmes. Besides, there is the need for the provision of community education. Keywords: Decentralisation factors, community development programme, sustainability, Osun and Kwara. Word count: 497 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My absolute gratitude goes to God almighty the beneficent, the merciful for sparing my life to this moment and for bestowing on me grace, good health, zeal and knowledge with which I started and completed a significant landmark academic status of this importance. I acknowledge the contributions of my supervisor, Dr I.A Abiona. My special appreciation goes to Professor M.O Akintayo. I appreciate Dr J.E. Oghenekohwo’s support. In the same vein, my profound appreciation goes to Dr K.O Kester. I am also grateful for the academic and technical support I enjoyed in the course of this study from the academic and non-academic staff of Adult Education Department. My gratitude goes to Professor R. Aderinoye; Dr. A.A. Sarumi; Dr. O.E. Olajide; Dr. K.O. Ojoketa; Dr. P.B. Abu (JP); Dr. T.A. Akanji; Dr. J.A. Ayangunna; Dr. O.A. Adegbesan; Dr. S. Akande; Dr. M.K. Akinsola; Dr. A. Aremu; Dr. O. Adelore; Dr. M. Momoh; Dr. D.A. Egunyomi; Mr. A.F. Aito and Mr. S. Olayiwola. I acknowledge all my bosom friends, associates, professional colleagues and other academic advisers – Professor M. Alabi; Dr. E.O. Ojo; Dr. S.O. Ajakaye; Dr. B.C. Akpunne; Mr. E.D. Mobayoje; Mr. O.O Okoji; Mr. M. Adesokun; Mr. S.A Adepoju; Mrs. E.O. Oyelaran; Pastor O.T. Ojo; Mrs. J.F. Adeyemo; Mr. J. Abina; Mr. E.O. Jegede; Mr A. Vincent and Mr. Ayo Odewumi.. Also, I thank the numerous participants in the various discussions conducted in Osun and Kwara states. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Sanni Mohammed and Alhaji Suaib Ibraheem for their assistance, cooperation and support on this work. vi Finally, the largest debt is owed my family, my peace-loving and supportive wife, Bello Olaniyan Abibat, my sons- Seleem, Muiz, my daughters- Faridat, Hamidat and Isbat as well as other relatives for their moral and spiritual support. Thank you all. Waliu Niyi. Bello vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES Title page i Cover page ii Certification iii Dedication iv Abstract v Acknowledgements vi Table of contents viii List of figures ` xiv List of Tables xv List of Abbreviations xvi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1:1 Background to the Study 1 1:2 Statement of the Problem 9 1:3 Objectives of the Study 11 1.4 Research Questions 12 1:5 Significance of the Study 12 1:6 Scope of the Study 14 1:7 Operational Definitions of Terms 15 viii CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2:1 The Concept of Decentralisation 17 2.1.1 The Concept of Sustainability of Development 21 2.1.2 Social Indicators of Sustainable Development 27 2.1.3 Economic Indicators of Sustainable Development 29 2.1.4 Environmental Indicators of Sustainable Development 30 2.1.5 Institutional Indicators of Sustainable Development 30 2.1.6 Historical Antecedent of Decentralisation Process in Nigeria 31 2.1.7 Decentralisation Structures and Community Development Organisation in Nigeria 36 2.1.8 Decentralisation Factors in Nigeria 43 2.2.0 Grassroot Participation in Development Programmes and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 46 2.3 Development Equity and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 54 2.4 Attainment of Peace, Unity and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 59 2.5 Community Integration and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 68 2.6 Delegation of Authority and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 70 ix 2.7 Devolution of Powers and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 73 2.7.1 The Roles of Three Tiers of Government on Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 76 2.8 Easiness of Decision-making Process and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 82 2.9 The Challenges of Decentralisation and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 87 2.10 Empirical Studies 91 2.11 Theoretical Framework 96 2.11.1 System Theory 96 2.11.2 Modernisation Theory 99 2.12 Model for Decentralisation Factors and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes 102 2.13 Appraisal of Literature 106 2.14 Research Hypotheses 107 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design 108 3.2 Population of the Study 108 3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique 108 3.4 Instrumentation 110 3.4.1 Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews 112 x 3.4.2 Selection of Focus Group Discussion Participants 112 3.4.3 Focus Group Discussion Diary 113 3.4.4 Key informants Interview (KII) 115 3.5 Administration of Instrument 115 3.6 Method of Data Analysis 115 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF MAJOR FINDINGS 4.1 Analysis of Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents 117 4.2 Results and Discussion of Findings 124 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary 161 5.2 Policy implications 164 5.3 Conclusions 165 5.4 Recommendations 167 5.5 Contribution to Knowledge 169 5.6 Limitation of the Study 169 5.7 Suggestions for Further Studies 170 REFERENCES 171 APPENDICES I-II 184 APPENDIX III & IV 197 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: A Model for Decentralisation Factors and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Osun and Kwara States. 102 Figure 4.1 Distribution of Respondents by Sex 118 Figure 4:2 Distribution of Respondents by Educational Qualifications 119 Figure 4:3 Distribution of Respondents by Age 120 Figure 4:4 Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status 121 Figure 4:5 Distribution of Respondents by Occupation 122 Figure 4:6 Distribution of Respondents by Class of Community Stakeholders 123 xii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1: Indicators of Sustainable Community Development 26 TABLE 2.2: State Creation and Local Government in Geo-Political Zones 34 TABLE 3.1: Population and Sample Size 110 TABLE 3.2: Focus Group Discussion Locations: Local Governments and Communities 113 TABLE 4.1a: Joint Influence of Decentralisation Factors on Sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Osun and Kwara States. 124 TABLE 4.1b: Relative Influence of Decentralisation Factors on Sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Osun and Kwara States. 124 TABLE 4:2: Relationships between Decentralisation Factors and sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Osun and Kwara States. 133 TABLE 4.3: Difference in Sustainability of Community Development Programmes through Decentralisation Process between Osun and Kwara states. 146 TABLE 4:4: Relationships between Sustainability of Community Development and Factors Impeding Decentralisation Process In Osun and Kwara States. 151 xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADP: Agricultural Development Project AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome BLP: Better Life Programmes CDB: Community Development Bank CDA: Community Development Association CDCS: Community Development Councils CDCs: Community Development Committees DFRRI: Directorate for Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure DSCU: Development Support Communication Unit FGD: Focus Group Discussion FOS: Federal Office of Statistics FRN: Federal Republic of Nigeria FSP: Family Support Programmes GDP: Gross Domestic Product GRP: Green Revolution Programmes HDG: Human Development Groups HDI: Human Development Index HIV: Human Immune Virus KII: Key Informant Interview LGAs: Local Government Areas MAMSER: Directorate for Mobilisation, Social and Economic Recovery MDG: Millennium Development Goals xiv NALDA National Agriculture Land Development Authority NCDP: National Community Development Policy NERFUND Nigeria Economic Recovery Fund NPC: National Population Commission NCDCN: National Community Development Council of Nigeria NYSC: National Youth Service Corps OFN: Operation Feed the Nations OPEC: Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries PB: Peoples Bank PHC: Primary Health Care PPMC: Pearson Product Moment Correlation RWS: Rural Work Services UBS Urban Basic Services Programmes UNDP: United Nation Development Programmes. UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNO: United Nations Organisation WHO: World Health Organisation xv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Study The transformation of communities to improve their lives has become the main challenge to the economic and social development efforts of developing nations like Nigeria. This challenge arises from the need to promote people‟s welfare particularly in the rural community for improved standard of living (Onabanjo, 2004; Adegboye, 2005; Mbacham, 2010). To this end, many countries, especially, the developing ones such as Nigeria have embarked on different pragmatic programmes to improve the lot of citizens at the grassroots, particularly, in the areas of physical development of communities. Notably, government alone cannot provide all the needs of her citizens and also embark on community development projects without active participation of the beneficiaries (Olasupo, 2000; Egenti, 2001; Adegboye 2005; Adedokun, 2009). To achieve these objectives, many countries of the world have adopted various strategies of development in their communities, the most appropriate being community development (Onabanjo, 2004). Community development is an old practice that could be traced to the tradition before the advent of colonial administration (Egenti, 2001; Otite, 2002; Onabanjo, 2004; Abiona, 2009; Adedokun, 2009; Akpunne, 2011). The traditional community development effort evolved in form of voluntary routine exercise in which able- bodied, young and old individuals participated in the traditional tasks of clearing road-paths and compound surroundings for protection of land and property. However, with the growing complexity of our society, coupled with increase in population and urbanisation, with attendant high taste of the people for modern basic and social amenities, community 1 development witnessed a significant leap and has become more complex in process, form and scope in recent years. Its scope and form witnessed rapid transformation from mere provision of rudimentary services to complex governments‟ efforts in the provision of basic and social services (Egenti, 2001; Sarumi, 2003; Onabanjo, 2004; Abiona, 2009; Akpunne, 2011). Some community development programmes include rehabilitation of roads, skill acquisition, community education and community security programmes (Ottite, 2002; Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004; Onabanjo, 2004; Abiona, 2009; Mbacham 2010). It also involves social services and activities like organisation of literacy classes, youth forum, cultural and aesthetic shows by individuals and interest groups with the various communities (Otite, 2002; Onabanjo, 2004). In a bid to foster sustainable community development at the grassroots, government at all levels over the years have intervened in the sustenance and strengthening of meaningful and pragmatic community development programmes. Government policies encouraged local communities to be deeply involved in the development of their areas as succinctly stated in the Nigerian Second National Development Plan (1970-1974). The objectives of the government were to sustain these efforts and to foster a more sustainable development consciousness among the masses, especially, in the rural areas and small towns. As reported in the plan, initial community development had been based on inarticulate and “spasmodic voluntary efforts”. Consequently, the impact on the social and economic development of the communities had not been felt as it could have been (Egenti, 2001; Onabanjo, 2004). During the Third National Development Plan period (1975-1980), conscious efforts were made by the Federal Government to translate the official recognition 2 of community development into action-oriented projects by integrating it into the national development planning framework (Egenti, 2001; Onabanjo, 2003; Ujo, 2008). In addition to the National Development Plans, different successive governments in Nigeria adopted the principle of decentralisation as a strategy through re-organisation of political and administrative units to enhance grassroots participation in development programmes and community integration to facilitate even spread of developmental projects (Adeyeye, 2000; Mukoro, 2000; Omotosho, 2004; Onabanjo, 2004).This policy requires creating separate planning, executing and monitoring units for the operation of community development programmes. This could mean separating and classification of power and duties at the central, states and local government areas (Akinyemi, 1990). Decentralisation is a principle as well as the best management strategy for large organisations such as government, as it facilitates development in a country (Awotokun, 2000; Akai & Masayo, 2002; Adamolekun, 2002; Omotosho, 2003; Sharma, 2005). In the next paragraph the decentralisation factors covered in this study are discussed: Grassroots participation in development programmes: The local people should take part in planning, execution, utilisation and assessment of the social amenities or facilities designed to improve their welfare. Local participation and involvement are important ingredients of community development. This means those who are to benefit from the development effort should participate to make them committed. It is such participation that gives the people pride of ownership of facilities completed in the process of community development (Egenti, 2001; Akintayo & Oghenekohowo, 2004; Mbacham, 2010; Adedokun, 2009; Akpunne, 2011). 3 The need for Unity and Peace: Many people are involved in sustainability of community development programmes when peace, unity and tranquility prevail. Also, where people live in harmony, peace and unity, interact and cooperate will promote as well as serve as spring board for human development but where there is war, crime and social disorder, it is difficult to sustain most development projects (Henry, 2008). Delegation of Authority: This is an extensive form of decentralisation. Through decentralisation, central government transfer responsibility of decision-making and administration of public functions to lower levels of government for administrative efficiency (Okojie, 2009). Devolution of power: Transfer of power functions and resources by the central government to other lower administrative levels like state and local government to ensure even development, community integration and local participation in development programmes (Bello-Imam, 1996). Ease of Decision-making Process: People should be active participants in decision- making process with regards to the development of their community. Decision-making process is a strong factor which determines the nature of leadership, the level of authority, the span of control and the degree of participation in development programmes (Oyelami, 2007). Development Equity: The need for even development has become the common policy of government; this involves the structuring of society in such a way that will improve the material well-being of citizens in all facets of life. It also demands improvement in physical, social and economic conditions mostly basic infrastructure like electricity, water supply, good road network, the number of schools and health centres (Egenti, 2001; 4 Onabanjo, 2004; Babajide, 2006; Akinpelu, 2002; Ujo, 2008; Adedokun, 2009; Olatumile, 2010; Akpunne, 2011). Community Integration: Its main aim is the integration of the social, political, economic and cultural aspects of community effort to achieve accelerated grassroots development. This calls for the effective coordination of all human and material resources available in any community for the achievement of maximum improvement of developmental projects. In the process, community members are enabled to grow, to become active member of their community and over time they become powerful to change it and to control the social forces in the community (Otite, 2002; Babajide, 2006). In spite of all decentralisation factors and community development programmes, provided through government efforts to achieve meaningful development at the grassroots, Akinyemi, (1990); Ugwu,(2000); Otite,(2002);Maureen,(2005) observe that many communities are still in a pathetic state of stagnation and neglect. On the part of the government functionaries, government was unable to mobilise the people for community work, many community projects were abandoned mid-way due to poor logistics, poor planning and management, dwindling revenue inflow to the state, constant disruption and interruption in developmental programmes concomitant with unstable policies and plans for community development activities. On the part of the communities, some problems were noticed to have impeded community development programmes such as nonchalant attitude to maintenance, migration of people from rural to urban area, wrong belief of people that government was capable and should provide all their needs, inability to comtribute to fund community projects and illiteracy (Akinyemi, 1990; Otite, 2002). 5 The underdevelopment of rural communities in Nigeria is evident in many ways. It is observed that many states and local governments are deficient in basic infrastructure such as electricity supply, pipe-borne water, schools while other social services have drastically degenerated with many of the hospitals being death rather than medical centre while many of the roads are in deplorable condition. The number of beggars along the streets has increased drastically and its attendant general restiveness has become a menace to social and economic development (Obianigwe, 1999; World Bank, 1995; Adeyeye, 2000; Mukoro, 2000; Ugwu, 2000; Maureen, 2005; Babajide, 2006; Adedokun, 2009; Abiona & Oluleye, 2009). The foregoing scenario constitutes the background against which this research is anchored as one observes with growing interest, that for over 52 years of Nigeria‟s political independence, the country‟s geopolitical structure has been altered several times with little or no socio-economic transformation associated with such decentralisation. In spite of the large number of community development administrative units via decentralisation with their purported benefits as envisioned, many Nigerian communities still remain underdeveloped. Many citizens are still agitating for more administrative units. Essentially, most people in Nigeria believe it is the responsibility of government to provide, maintain and sustain infrastructure. Hence, there is over-dependence on government for development. In such an instance, there is no link between sustainability of projects provided by the government and the interest of the people. Projects provided by the government in many communities could not be sustained because there is no commitment on the part of the people; sustainability is virtually ignored in the scheme of things. Sustainable community development requires interest of citizen in the programmes to ensure 6 its sustainability. Members of a community should be interested in the programme that affects their welfare and participate actively in the identification of their needs, planning, execution of programmes, utilisation and evaluations. Thus, participation yields greater interest in community‟s desire to sustain a project (Akinyemi, 1990; Adedokun, 1998; Otite, 2002; Abiona, 2009). Adedokun, (1998) stresses that, for sustainable community development programmes to be recorded, there is need for decentralisation of policy-making concerning community development as this will afford people the opportunity to participate actively in their own development programmes from planning through implementation and maintenance. It was further stressed that sovereignty resides with the people and that for the rural populace to be able to exercise sovereignty and assume responsibility for development; they must have necessary resources-grants as well as technical aids from the federal, state, local governments and internal ability of the people to generate revenue locally. This will make communities responsible for their development and desire to sustain such a development project. The level of sustainability of community development programmes in Nigeria has not been given prominence in most studies, to the best of the researcher‟s knowledge. This study is therefore, concerned with the extent to which decentralisation factors such as grassroots participation in development programmes, the need for development equity, unity, community integration, devolution of power, delegation of authority and ease of decision-making process have influenced sustainability of community development programmes. Some of the components of community development programmes as idenified (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004); Community Development Agency, (2007); Abiona, 7 (2009) are such programmes as physical, social, health, educational, economic, communication, environmental protection, human development activities and community security. These community development programmes are better articulated and more effective when community people are involved in various stages of activities which include identification of felt needs, systematic planning of the needs, mobilising and harnessing of resources, implementation and execution of the projects, monitoring and evaluation of projects. Relatedly, UNO, (1999) highlights indicators of sustainability of development as: Social indicators such as access to education, quality of life, health care delivery service, women empowerment programmes and skill development programmes. Economic indicators such as integrated good road network, regular supply of electricity, self-reliance programmes, economic empowerment programmes and group formation through cooperative society. Institutional Indicators such as integrated decision-making process, capacity to form partnership, cooperation, easy integration among the people, access to information and policy formulation. Environmental indicators such as access to supply of land food and environmental sanitation. Previous studies focused mostly on effects of women empowerment programmes on community based development projects (Akinboade, 1994; Aromolaran, 2010). Several researches were also conducted on citizen participation, community education; self-help projects in community development (Akinyemi, 1990; Adedokun, 1998; Egenti, 2001; Otite, 2002; Adegboye, 2005; Oyelami, 2007; Akpunne, 2011) but these studies have not adequately established the level of sustainability of community development programmes. This study therefore, attempts to examine the level of sustainability of community development programmes through decentralisation in Osun and Kwara states, Nigeria. Most 8 studies on decentralisation focused on the impact of decentralisation on ethnic conflict and secession (Brancatti, 2005). Study also exists on administrative problems of state creation: A case of Osun and Ekiti states (Omotosho, 2003). Notably, studies on influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes have not been given in-depth attention. This study therefore, identifies a gap to be filled; investigation was therefore carried out on influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. An in-depth investigation was also made on factors such as communal clashes, inadequate funding, political instability, poor accountability and leadership problems that have impeded level of sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. On this basis, the concern is to ascertain if decentralisation factors in Nigeria have impacted in any dimension on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara state. 1.2 Statement of the Problem In Nigeria, it is observed that successive governments have been involved in the principle of decentralisation as a management strategy for institutional arrangement of development units at all levels of government. Decentralisation has been attributed to the attempts at solving the problem of over-concentration of power at the federal level of government. Many well-planned projects have been disrupted as a result of bottlenecks created by government officials operating where functions and duties are not well spelt out. In most cases, this prevents adequate participation especially where there is no easy demarcation in the areas of operation between government agents and the members of the rural community. For effective administration, decentrlisation is adopted to prevent delay, 9 red- tapism and unnecessary conflicts in the process of carrying out orders and functions that affect the generality of the grassroots. Decentralisation equally stresses the need for flexibility in planning for executing community development programmes across all levels of government. This principle is conceived by the public as a developmental effort expected to bring governance and development to the people. In spite of the fact that Nigeria is one of the largest populated countries in the African continent with a number of different community development administrative structures put in place at different point in time in the past at the national, state and local government levels which resulted from decentralisation policy, many communities still remain underdeveloped without significant socio-economic and infrastructural transformation, while a large proportion of the federating units still agitate for the creation of more political units. Notably, in spite of decentralisation to improve local welfare of people at grassroot level; till date, this noble objective has not been achieved. Observably, projects sustainability at this level has been poor. In order words, it has not been impressive. This is one of the fundamental reasons for undertaking this study. Further, community involvement in projects conceptualization, decision-making, implementation and monitoring is marginal and mostly not reckoned with. This is a cardinal reason for the failure of programmes at grassroot levels. Another problem is that decentralisation still accommodates top-down approach in conceiving of projects at grassroot level. This approach is ineffective instead of this approach decentralisation should concomitant with bottom-up approach. This latter approach will ensure the participation of community people in decision-making and 10 implementation of projects. This will arguably promote sustainability. Thus, this study is concerned with the extent to which decentralisation factors (grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration and unity, devolution of power, delegation of authority and ease of decision-making) have influenced sustainability of community development programmes in terms of rural transformation and mass participation in grassroots governance. Besides, most studies have been conducted in areas of impact of citizens‟ participation, community education, women empowerment and self-help on community development programmes and decentralisation with little or no effort on ensuring the sustainability of community development programmes. Therefore, this researcher will examine the influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states, Nigeria, thereby extending the frontier of knowledge. 1.3 Objectives of the Study The general objective of the study is to determine the influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states, Nigeria. The specific objectives are to: 1. determine the extent to which decentralisation factors influence the sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. 2. establish the relationship between each of the decentralisation factors (grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration/cohesion, peace/unity, devolution of power, delegation of authority, ease 11 of decision-making) and sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. 3. identify the differences (if any) in influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes between Osun and Kwara states. 4. determine the extent to which factors such as communal clashes, poor accountability,leadership problems, political instability and inadequate funding impede sustainability of community development programmes through decentralisation in Osun and Kwara states. 1.4 Research Questions The underlisted research questions were raised to serve as anchor for this study: RQ1: To what extent do decentralisation factors influence the sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states? RQ2: Do factors such as communal clashes, poor accountability/transparency, leadership problems, political instability and inadequate funding impede sustainability of community development programmes through decentralisation in Osun and Kwara states? 1.5 Significance of the Study The study is significant in that most studies have been conducted in areas of community development with little or no efforts focused on the dimension of decentralisation factors and sustainability of community development programmes. Therefore, the expected finding of this research should provide vital empirical information 12 on decentralisation factors and its impacts on sustainability of community development programmes. The anticipated research finding of this research should provide an insight into the impacts of good governance on community development and sustainable grassroots development. The three tiers of government are therefore challenged by this study to make a better proactive strategy that will enable government improve where there are lapses for better participatory and sustainable community development programmes among various communities in Nigeria. The expected findings of this study should assist in identifying political functionaries at the grassroot thereby facilitating sustainability of programmes. The expected findings of this study should be of economic value. Decentralisation should have a multiplier effect on the economy through employment generation of women and youth empowerment programmes and many small-scale industries would emerge. The anticipated research outcome should provide justification for the encouragement of more community development centres and community-based organisations through public policies which should result from decentralisation this will therefore create awareness for more community empowerment programmes in all spheres of life. The study‟s output is anticipated to provide the need for effective local leadership in the planning and implementation of community development programmes in all decentralised administrative units across the nation. Another significance of this research is that the expected finding should provide the reasons that will enhance a better understanding on why many communities still remain under-developed in spite of various decentralisation processes through the creation of states 13 and local government areas in Nigeria. Finally, this research should serve as a point of reference for policy-makers on developmental and research purposes. 1.6 Scope of the Study The study focused on the extent to which decentralisation factors influenced sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states Nigeria. The two states were chosen out of the available record which shows that community development mechanisms have been adopted among the inhabitants through community- based resources without outside intervention. Also, the study ascertained and identified the extent of sustainability of community development projects in each of the nine selected local government areas (LGAs) of Osun and Kwara states, Nigeria. The study also identified some sustained community development projects related to physical, social, economic, health, educational and security activities provided by the communities through self-help. The selection of these communities was based on their similar predisposition and aspiration to development locally through self-help and initiatives with different kinds of bearing on participation in community development programmes. The choice of some local governments was based on their urbanised nature where community development activities are predominant with availability of various data, considered central to examining the research questions and achieving the objectives of the study. These communities were relatively ease to access. These communities are Osun West senatorial district: Ede North and Ede South LGAs. Osun East senatorial district, Ife Central and Ife East LGAs. Besides, the study was delimited to two states in the South-West and North- Central Nigeria as a result of being subjected to decentralisation through 14 institutional arrangement of administrative and other political units. Kwara State was created in 1967 from the former Northern Region while Osun State was created in 1991 out of the former Oyo State. Therefore, the influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes in the two states selected was determined in relation to their differences. The study focused on decentralisation factors that will impact sustainability of community development programmes such as grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, the need for unity and peace, community integration and cohesion, delegation of authority, devolution of power and ease of decision- making process. The study will also examine indicators of sustainability of community development programmes such as social, economic, institutional and environmental. The study was also delineated by time frame to cover programmes on ground in the two states between 1999 and 2005. 1.7 Operational Definitions of Terms The following terms were operationally conceptualized in line with their contextual meanings in this research to avoid ambiguity and misconception. Change Agents: It implies community development agents and other government officials who are responsible for community development activities in any community assigned to them. Community Development: It refers to social actions which involves people‟s voluntary participation to organise themselves for planning actions, defining their common and individual needs and solving their problems, by executing these plans with community 15 resources which may be supplemented with resources when necessary with services and materials from government towards achieving the community goals. Community Development Programmes: It refers to services embarked upon by the community people themselves to meet their needs and interests towards achieving a better condition of life. Besides, similar services may be designed, planned and executed by the government without imposition to improve community life. Community Participation: This refers to playing active roles in community decision- making, sharing of knowledge on local issues, involvement in all ramifications of development and the process of governance. Decentralisation: This refers to principle of political and administrative arrangement of leadership through devolution of specific powers, functions and resources by the central government to other segments of the society such as states, local governments which have affected community development structures across the nation. Decentralisation Factors: This refers to the following factors: grassroots participation in development progammes, development equity, the need for community integration, unity, and devolution of power, delegation of authority and ease of decision-making process. Sustainability of Community Development Programmes: These are development programmes designed, planned and executed by the active involvement of the community- based organizations (CBOs). Such development programmes must focus on the people whereby they assume responsibility, possess decision autonomy, control and continue alignment of the programmes activities to affect the lives of the communities for a long period. 16 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter contains literature review and theories related to the study. The review of these concepts and theories help in the identification of the relevant variables for investigation. The theoretical background provides the basis upon which the study hangs. The objective here is to raise propositions and models separately, that will provide the main framework for the study. 2.1 The Concept of Decentralisation In a modern society, the functions of government are fast becoming increasingly complex and expansive. It therefore, seems almost impracticable to concentrate all these functions in the hands of a single government, as a result of this, the idea of decentralisation of governance was conceived (Olasupo, 2000). Going by the definition of decentralisation in the context of community development, it involves political and institutional arrangement of community development structures into many development units so that government will be able to galvanise the people into its self sustaining action for economic growth in the rural areas. It becomes a collaborative effort in which government finance and people‟s will and effort enhance rural development (Adedokun, 1998). Such administrative arrangement involves creation of states, LGAs and other small administrative units which have affected community development structures at all levels of government. Therefore, this process enhances local participation in development programmes and easy decision-making process. Adedokun, (1998) further stresses that when policy is decentralised, the local people will have better opportunity of participating in grassroots development. It is freedom to live, choose and be 17 responsible. In taking active part in development, the masses participate from identification stage till the implementation stage where resources are pooled together. Local participation mainly involves attendance at meetings, financial contributions, and use of the individual/ human resources. The premise of decentralisation is to enhance administrative efficiency as measures in terms of accelerated development through creation of local effective political units. Decentralisation depicts dispersing decision-making governance close to the citizenry. It implies political arrangement of transferring authority and responsibility of public functions from the central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government such as regions, states and local governments for development and influences in the formulation and implementation of policies (Bello-Imam, 1996; Sharma,2005). Decentralisation is a principle as well as the best management strategy for large organisations such as government, as it facilitates all facets of development in a country. Within the decentralisation system: legislative, executive and administrative functions are locally and directly executed by elected representatives for effective democratisation in their constituents (Bello-Imam, 1996). Through decentralisation, citizens‟ participation in governance is enhanced, thereby ensuring effective planning, financing and management of public functions, from the central government and its agencies, to local governments and semi-autonomous public authorities (Bello–Imam, 1996; Bulamin, 1995; Awotokun, 2000; Akai & Masayo, 2002; Adamolekun, 2002; Sharma,2005). The concept of decentralisation has several uses when employed in the context of a public administration for which Adamalekun, (1999) stresses as, administrative and political decentralisation. 18 First, it can be used to refer to an administrative measure involving the transfer of management responsibilities and resources to agents of the central government located outside the head quarters at one or more levels (province, region, division, and district). This administrative decentralisation is commonly referred to as deconcentration, and field offices of the central government established in the process of deconcentration are also referred to as field administration. Second, the term decentralisation is used to refer to a political arrangement involving the devolution of specific powers, functions, and resources by the central government to the sub-national level government units. Sub-national government includes regional, state or provincial governments and local governments or municipalities. In many cases, these sub- national government units are substantially independent of the central government and have a legal status. Examples of such are Nigeria, Ethiopia, Canada, Australia, and South Africa (Adamalekun, 2002). Decentralisation, according to Bello-Imam, (1996) is the transfer of authority on a geographical basis. This takes two forms that is, deconcentration and devolution, while the former refers to the delegation of authority to feed units of the same department or level of government, the latter refers to granting of some measure of autonomy to local government unit or special statutory bodies. Political decentralisation entails a comprehensive decentralisation of the federal system in order to endow the nation„s constituent segments with the opportunities and resources needed for self-governance. Such decentralisation does not imply an endorsement or legitimating of ethno-co federal, secessionist or other destructive and divisive centrifugal formulas. In essence, ,political decentralisation in the Nigeria setting would entail the politico-economic empowerment of the country„s anaemic and virtually moribund state and local governments, the divestment of 19 the federal government of many of it‟s current „extraneous‟ responsibilities with derogation from the autonomy of sub national governments, and transformation of the present barely concealed unitary system of federalism into a more authentic system of federalism (Suberu, 1996); Brancatti, (2005); Riker, (1965) stresses that political decentralisation is a system of government in which there is a vertical division of government among multiple levels of government with independent decision-making power over at least one issue area. Decentralisation has become a key issue in development policy in the last two decades. It is a process of transitioning from a governance structure in which authority to make decisions and implement them is shifted to lower level governments or agencies. It consists of public functions from high to low tiers of governance (Okojie, 2009). Decentralisation can mean building the capacities of sub-national institutions to enable them respond to local needs. It can lead to more autonomous local authorities that would be less dependent upon central institutions. Decentralisation can mean more innovations and flexibility at the local level: it allows local governments to design and implement programmes customised to the unique needs of the locality (Brillanties, 2001). Decentralisation can manifest itself in various forms. The World Bank Institute, (2001) identifies four major types of decentralisation: fiscal, political, administrative and market. However, political decentralisation occurs when political power and authorities are decentralised to sub-national levels. Brillanties, (2001) emphasises that devolution is referred to as political decentralisation. This entails the transfer of powers to low level political institutions specifically the local governments. Decentralisation is about good governance, it can be a powerful frame-work to operationalise citizen participation accountabilities by local and national authorities and encourages responsiveness, efficiency 20 and equity, all hallmarks of good governance. A study by Kahkonen, (2001) cited in Brillanties, (2001) concludes that whether it improves public service delivery or not “depends on institutional arrangements governing its implementation”. However, decentralisation is a federal approach to governance, Bulamin, (1995) clarifies that decentralisation is a desirable political objective often associated with self- reliance, democratic decision making, popular participation in government and accountability of public officials to citizens; it reduces overload and congestion and also improves government responsiveness to the public and increases the quality and quantity of the services it provides. Decentralisation is seen as a way of mobilising support for national development policies by making them better known at the local levels. According to Rondinelli, (1981) cited in Bulamin, (1995), decentralisation involves: the transfer or delegation of legal and political authority to plan, make decisions and manage public functions from the central government and its agencies to field organisations of those agencies, subordinate units of government, semi-autonomous public corporations, area wide or regional development authorities: functional authorities, autonomous local governments or non-governmental organisations. 2.1.1 The Concept of Sustainability of Development and Decentralisation Factors Recently, development in literature emphasises sustainability of development. Sustainable development connotes development that endures and lasts one that will not roll back or recede, even, in the face of threatening reversal waves (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004; Omotola, 2006). It is development that can guarantee the protection of the environment and resources. It is also one that is self-sustaining and meets the need of present and future generations (World Bank, 2008). Sustainable development is multi- 21 dimensional and seeks to promote spatial, social, political, economic and psychological linkages not only among the different sectors of the economy but also among the different regions of the national economy. As such, it encourages equitable distribution of wealth rather than merely emphasising Gross National Products (GNP) alone .Sustainable development connotes a programme of development which caters for immediate and future generations in a community. It denotes maintenance of already established statutes to accommodate changes and planning steady growth in the community (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004; Omotola, 2006; Olatumile, 2010). The principle underlying the concept of sustainability is that conventional approaches to development would gradually be changed to focus on people as the ultimate target of development. Development should be based on the needs and vision of the people through citizen participation and self help. Babashola, (1998) states that it depicts a vision of development of people, largely by their effort as participants, stakeholders and beneficiaries. The concept also emphasises cognisance of the natural environment, socio-cultural, economic and political structure, participation, the institutional framework and other factors of sustainability that can make development meaningful. Sustainable development means the powerless getting empowered. As power comes through unity- development means the poor getting organised to fight for their rights, to tilt the balance of power in their own favour. A major contribution to sustainability should come from the grassroots organisations, whereby programme beneficiaries gradually assume increasing responsibility for project activities during implementation and particularly following completion. These grassroots should, for their growth, possess some forms of decision autonomy and self-reliance: a measure of beneficiary control over measurement of 22 the programme and continued alignment of the programme activities with the needs of beneficiaries (Akinboade, 1994). The sustainability of many communities is tied up with doing things as they have always been done. This is important to them. In trying to help them, there is need to start from what really matters to them. It is easy for development workers, whether indigenes or expatriates, to think they know what is good for the people. People‟s input must be considered in making the final choices that will have direct impact on their lives and planning systems must be designed to be responsive to their voice, not only because their involvement is essential to gaining their commitment, but also because they have relevant information which may be unavailable to the planners (Akinboade, 1994). Generally therefore, sustainable development has to do with participatory development, human development and environmental protection. An approximate measure that tends to capture these ingredients was formulated by UNDP in 1990. It is known as the Human Development Index (HDI), which aims to capture the broad picture of human welfare by considering three indicators; life expectancy, literacy and living standards. The foregoing pool of paradigms and definition reveal certain basic principles underlying the axiomatic endorsement of sustainable development. These principles which constitute the theoretical and empirical bulwark of sustainability in development include: equity, stability, food security, co-evolutionary growth and participation. Rural development policy makers and implementers in Nigeria face the formidable task of reversing the cycle of poverty, environmental degradation and human misery that characterise rural areas. Strategies and actions needed to carry out this task will as a matter of necessity, address simultaneously the various dimensions of sustainable rural 23 transformation highlighted in the proceeding section. This is because, pursuing action along one dimension (say technological) without adequate attention to the other fronts that is, economic, human, institutional and environmental) cannot achieve sustainable development. Policies and programmes designed to promote sustainable development should therefore recognise the interwoveness of the various facets of rural problems. Such inter-relation could then be exploited to foster equity, stability, participation and progress in rural societies (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004; Onabanjo, 2004; Babajide, 2006). According to the same authors, imperatives and strategies for sustainable rural development in Nigeria would therefore include the following: - investing in human development to alleviate rural poverty, human misery and stabilize population; - ensuring food security (not just food – sufficiency) through rural compensation measure like selective poverty- targeted relief‟s; - creating incentives for rural growth and employment by improving access to production resources and institutional services; - empowering rural people via participatory and community oriented development that is woven around local principles, skills and technologies and - Protecting the environment by generating the facilities for appropriate resources management systems. Therefore, sustainable rural transformation encompasses several aspects or dimensions which Eboh, Okoye, Ayich, (1995) itemise as economic, human, environmental, technological and institutional. Sustainable development would require simultaneous progress along each of these dimensions. 24 The concept of sustainable development has become a great intellectual challenge for several scholars and policy analysts as it originated uniquely in the wake of events limiting existing non-classical development models and theories. Among those existing are: the failure of non-classical models to address key development issues such as poverty, human welfare, environmental health and the failure of economic growth. The Brundtland commission defines it as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs. In the view of Ballara, (1991), cited in Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, (2004) sustainable development is humanity‟s ability to survive by means of the rational use of renewable resources by refraining from disrupting the ecosystem of over-exploiting natural resources and by refraining from activities that destroy cultures or society and instead allow them reach their potentials. UNDP, (1999) constructed an index to gauge the progress of nations known as Human Development Index (HDI), using the expectancy, education and living standard as an indicator. The U.N.O, (1963) identifies some indicators of sustainability which include social, economic, institutional, and environmental. 25 Table 2.1: Indicators of sustainable development SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL Education Fresh water/ground water Employment Agriculture/secure food supply Health/water supply/sanitation Urban Housing Coaster zone Welfare and quality of life Marine environment/coral reef protection Cultural heritage Fisheries Poverty/income distribution Biodiversity/biotechnology Crime Sustainable forest management Population Air pollution and ozone depletion Social and ethical value Global climate change/sea level rise Role of women Sustainable use of natural resources Access to land and resources Sustainable tourism Community structure Restricted carrying capacity Equity social/exclusion Land use change ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONAL Economic dependence/indebtedness/ODA Integrated decision-making Energy Capacity building Consumption and production patterns Science and technology Waste management Public awareness and information Transportation International convention and cooperation Mining Governance/ role of civic society Economic structure and development Institutional and legislative frameworks Trade Disaster preparedness Productivity Public participation Adapted from: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Testing the CSD indicators of sustainable development interim analysis: Testing Process Indicator and Methodology Sheets. Technical Paper Prepared For the Division for Sustainable Development, 25 January 1999. 26 2.1.2 Social indicators of Sustainable Development Programmes Social dimension of the social indicators of sustainable development include education, employment, health/water supply/sanitation, housing, welfare and quality of life, cultural heritage, poverty/income distribution, crime population, social and ethical value, role of women, access to land and resources, community structure, equity social/exclusion (UNDP, 1999). The objective of the community and social development project for Nigeria is to sustainably increase access of poor people to social and natural resources and infrastructural services. There are three components to the project. The first is the federal level-coordination and programme support. At the federal level, this component will be supervised by the federal ministry of finance, while the direct responsibility of implementation will rest with the existing Federal Project Support Unit (World Bank, 2008). The thrust of current Nigeria government policy against poverty is to enable the poor and more vulnerable sections of society achieve sustainable livelihoods. The approach is to economically empower communities, families, and individuals through sustained, well coordinated, and comprehensive programmes of poverty alleviation. On-going Government activities related to poverty have been regularly featured in the National Rolling Plan beginning with the 1990-1992 plans. They include programmes such as: economic programmes for the empowerment of women: primary health care(PHC) programme, whose purpose is to bring health care, particularly preventive health care to the grass roots of the Nigerian society; establishment of the Agricultural Development activities in cities, towns and villages; establishment of the Nigeria Economic Recovery Fund (NERFUND) which provides easy access to credit by small and medium scale enterprises establishment of the National Directorate of Employment (NDE),a self employment promotion programme 27 which has largely promoted waste to wealth employment activities; education of itinerant communities such as the Fulani nomads and ljaws, establishment of the River Basin Development Authorities, provision of rural access roads, and establishment of the National Agriculture Land Development Authority (NALDA) aimed at promoting integrated rural development (World Bank Group, 2011). The activities of the Nigerian Government through the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing are highlighted under the relevant programme areas: providing adequate shelter for all; improving human settlement management; promoting sustainable land use planning and management; promoting the integrated provision of environmental infrastructure such as water, sanitation, drainage and solid waste management; promoting human settlement planning and management in disaster prone areas; promoting sustainable construction industry activities and promoting human resource development and capacity building for human settlement development (World Bank,2008). In addition to efforts of the Government toward the achievement of the objectives of programmes under the Infrastructural Development Funds Programme, the Urban Basic Services Programme (UBS) is being undertaken in the country to promote the integrated provision of environmental infrastructure, water, sanitation, drainage and solid waste management. The project involves the identification of core areas in some cities and the packaging of improvement programmes targeted at women and children. Other facilities for survival provided by the FSP at the state level include: rehabilitation centres; widowhood centres; homes for the handicapped/disable, abandoned and motherless children; psychiatric asylums; resettlement homes for the aged, and destitute; leprosy patient homes; fish farms; youth amusement and recreational centres, and parks; medical and health centres; 28 multipurpose development centers for women and children; rural water schemes and deep well pumps; low cost housing schemes; agro-processing and packaging centres (World Bank,2008). 2.1.3 Economic Indicators of Sustainable Development Programmes Economic dimension has traditionally been used to calculate the net benefits of development for the community; however, social indicators provide another element of the definition of sustainable development which is an improvement over the traditional explanation (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004). Economic dimension would mean the commitment of resources towards continued increases in rural outputs, productivity and incomes. It entails tackling rural-urban disparity in physical infrastructure and in economic opportunities by making economic resources like credit, land and other productivity capital available to rural producers, adequately and timely (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004; Olatumile,2010). The economic indicators of sustainable development include economic dependence/indebtedness, energy, consumption and production patterns, waste management, transportation, mining, economic structure and development, trade, productivity (UNDP, 1999). Another stage is to characterise economic dimension of sustainability in terms of stable gross national and gross domestic products and per capital income. This implies stability in the levels of production of goods and services of a country. 29 2.1.4 Environmental Indicators of Sustainable Development Programmes Environmental dimension means protecting the natural resources (including land or soil, forests, water bodies and wild life) while they are being presently exploited so that the future generations can meet their needs from the same resources. Sustainable development is a nullity without a strong human capital base. By improving education and health services, combating hunger and alleviating poverty, the social well-being and welfare conditions of rural people will significantly be better (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004; Olatumile,2010). The environmental indicators of sustainable development include fresh water/ground water, agriculture/secure food supply ,urban, coaster zone ,marine environment/coral reef protection ,fisheries, biodiversity/biotechnology ,sustainable forest management, pollution and ozone depletion ,global climate change/sea level rise, sustainable use of natural resources, sustainable tourism , restricted carrying capacity and land use change(UNDP, 1999). 2.1.5 Institutional Indicators of Sustainable Development Programmes Institutional dimension of sustainable development gives room for innovations that create and maintain rural growth which includes the empowerment of local groups, indigenous associations and community–based organisations to ensure their full, direct and active involvement in rural development planning and implementation. Sustainable development along the technological dimension will succeed only when local technologies and knowledge are the starting points. Sustainable development cannot be helped by the introduction of exotic, inappropriate, unreachable and incompatible techniques, tools or implements and practices. Emphasis will be on labour intensive, energy efficient and low- 30 cost technologies for productivity as well as conserve the natural resources base (Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004). The institutional indicators of sustainable development include integrated decision-making, capacity building science and technology, public awareness and information, international convention and cooperation governance/ role of civic society, institutional and legislative frameworks, disaster preparedness and Public participation (UNDP, 1999). 2:1:6 Historical Antecedent of Decentralisation Process in Nigeria Nigeria, a politically arranged country is the product of a British political experiment. Nigeria was made up of three parts, administered by separate authorities. The colony of Lagos with its Yoruba hinterland was administered by the colonial office. By 1900, it became the colony and protectorate of Lagos. The Niger coast protectorate comprising the Bight of Benin and Biafra with their hinterlands was administered by the foreign office. In 1900, it became the protectorate of Southern Nigeria and came under the colonial office. What was later known as Northern Nigeria was originally administered by The Royal Niger Company. In 1900 it became the protectorate of Northern Nigeria and also came under the colonial office. Thus, the whole territory now known as Nigeria came under one administration in 1900 (Ayoade, 1998). Nigeria‟s present geographical boundaries were established in 1914 with the amalgamation of the two contiguous British protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria, rising ethnic and regional antagonisms within the new Nigeria state necessitated the progressive decentralisation of the polity, leading ultimately in 1954 to establishment of a 31 three-region federal system, which survived to independence in 1960 (Filani, 1995; Adedipe, 2002; Omotosho, 2003; Suberu, 1994). Federalism was introduced by the 1954 Oliver Littleton constitution which laid the foundation of classical federation for the country. The three-unit federal structure was designed to grant regional autonomy and hegemony to the country‟s three major ethnic groups namely, the muslim hausa-fulani of the northern region, the christian igbo in the south-east (eastern region) and the religiously bi-communal yoruba in the south-west (western region). Therefore, regionalism in Nigeria had given rise to federalism (Ojo, 2005; Osarhieme, 1998; Suberu, 1994). However, in 1963, the mid-west region was created out of the western region. This was possible because of the virtual disintegration of the Action Group as a result of the deep intra-party crises and the subsequent declaration of a state of emergency in the western region in 1962, by the federal government. Nigeria remained a four-region structure until military intervention in 1966. These regions were, North, East, West and Mid-Western (Ugwu, 1998). On May 27, 1967 General Gowon divided Nigeria into a 12 state structure from the four former regions. (Suberu, 1994; Uwgu, 1998; Omotosho, 2003; Alabi, 2006). The states created were East-Central, South-East, and Rivers state created out of the former Eastern region, Lagos and Western states created out of the former Western region, while North Central, North-East, North-West, Kano, Benue-Plateau and Kwara states were caved out of the former Northern region. The Mid-western region became Bendel state. On 3rd February, 1976 General Muritala Ramat Mohammed created seven more states out of the existing 12 states therefore the total number of states in the federation 32 became 19. The 19 states created by the regime were Imo, Anambra, Rivers, Cross River, Bendel, Oyo, Ondo, Ogun, Lagos, Kano, Sokoto, Kaduna, Bauchi, Benue, Plateau, Gongola, Kwara, Borno and Niger (Suberu, 1994; Ugwu, 1998 and Omotosho, 2003). On August 27th, 1991, 9 more states were created by the same administration bringing the number to 30 states. The states included Enugu, Abia, Jigawa, Delta, Osun, st Yobe, Kebbi, Taraba and Kogi (Suberu, 1994) .Thus, on October 1 , 1996 General Abacha created additional six states which included Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Ekiti, Nassarawa, Gombe and Zamfara (Suberu, 1994). Associated with this state creation is growth in the number of LGAs as „local government is a product of decentralisation of administration” It is the level of government closest to the people at the grassroots level‟ (Ugwu 1998). However, the most significant among the local government reforms was the 1976 exercise which formed a watershed in the evolution of local government reform (Bello-Imam, 1996; Ugwu, 2000). Based on different recommendations and the 1976 local government reform, Dasuki, (1984), Adamolekun, (2002) observe that: the federal government has increased the number of LGAs from 229 in 1970 to 301 in 1976 to 449 in 1987 to 589 in, 1991 and subsequently to 774 in, 1996 to- date. 33 The various geo-political zones, states and LGAs in Nigeria are provided in the Table below. Table 2.2: State Creation and LGAs in Geo-Political Zones Geo-political Zones States Number LGAS North Central Benue 23 Kogi 21 Kwara 16 Nasarawa 13 Niger 25 Plateau 17 North East Adamawa 21 Bauch 20 Borno 27 Gombe 11 Taraba 16 Yobe 17 North West Jigawa 27 Kaduna 23 Kano 44 Kastina 34 Kebbi 21 Sokoto 23 Zamfara 14 South East Abia 17 Anambra 21 Ebonyi 13 Enugu 17 Imo 27 South South Akwa Ibom 31 Bayelsa 8 Cross river 18 Delta 25 Edo 18 Rivers 23 South West Ekiti 12 Lagos 20 Ogun 20 Ondo 18 Osun 30 Oyo 33 TOTAL 36 774 Source: Adapted from Okunoye, J. (2007): Nigeria from Colonialism to Post Independence (Geopolitical Restructuring, Ibadan, 2007:42-43) 34 Constitutional provision of decentralisation in Nigeria The constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria chapter 1 part 2 section 7 sub- section 9 states thus: A bill for an act of the national assembly for the creation of a new state shall only be passed if – a. A request, supported by at list two-thirds majority of members (representing the area demanding the creation of new state) in each of the following, namely- i. The Senate and House of Representatives, ii. The House of Assembly in respect of the area, and iii The Local Government Councils in respect of the area is received by the National Assembly; b. A proposal for the creation of state is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two- third majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the state originated; c. The result of referendum is then approved by a simple majority of the members in each Local Government Council in the majority of all Government Councils in the state; d. the result of the referendum approved by a resolution passed by two- third majority of members of each House of the National Assembly (Federal Republic of Nigeria,1989.). 35 2:1:7 Decentralisation Structures and Community Development Organisation in Nigeria Dentralisation system in Nigeria comprises of the federal, state and the local governments. The federal government includes the president, federal executive council, the civil service, a federal judiciary made up of federal high courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court and the legislative bodies. The locus of power is the president. The state Government consists of the governor, a cabinet of the civil service, state judiciary, and the legislative. In most policy matters, and finance, the state governments had to abide by the federal directives and are subject to coordination by the National council of states. The local government has elected management councils comprising a chairman, vice chairman and councillors. The supervisory councilors are assigned specific areas of responsibility, for example health, education and rural development. The local governments remain subordinate to the state and federal governments and can be described as administrative agencies of these two higher levels of government. There are constitutionally assigned responsibilities among the various tiers of governments. There is an exclusive list of issues on which only the federal government can legislate. Similarly, there is a concurrent list of legislation on which the federal and state governments can legislate. The local government can make laws on a list of assigned residual issues (Adamolekun, 2002). (a) Local Government in Community Development Decentralisation is a feature of federalism. The central theme of decentralisation in Nigeria is to enthrone democracy at the grassroots level. Local government councils are governments at the base level of the society. The idea of local government stems from the fact that the central government cannot possibly attend to every detail of local administration 36 nor give full weight to local preferences and prejudices on every issue therefore, through decentralisation of governance, local population through their local government have the capacity by constitution to manage and control their own local affairs within the context of national political system (Chinkendu, 2003). Local government is the product of decentralised administration of the three-tiers of government-federal, state and local governments. Local government provides the greatest scope of grassroots development. It is that level that the practice of democracy has the greatest possibilities as they offer tremendous opportunity for popular participation (Bello-Imam, 1996; Ugwu, 2000; Sarumi, 2003; Onabanjo, 2004). Arising from the role of local government in community development is effective structural link between the state government and the people for reconstruction, social transformation and economic recovery. This level of government remains the level of public authority in a political system which can be described as the government that is nearest to the people. It provides definite channels of information, understanding, confidence and support between the central and state governments and the people in the municipal, urban and rural areas of society. Activities permeate the daily life of the people (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo, 2004). In pursuing this directing role for rural improvement, the local government has to help its rural population identify desirable ends. (Anyanwu, 1992; Bello-Imam, 1996; Mukoro, 2000; Onabanjo, 2004; Abiona, 2009) identify some objectives of the local government among which include, to: - Create favourable conditions or democratic self-governance at local level, and to develop initiative and qualities of leadership among the people. 37 - Mobilise human and material resources through the involvement and participation of the local people in programmes geared toward the development of their communities. - Enable the people respond to services and development activities in their communities through their representative bodies - Enhance a sense of belonging and security through effective communication between the local communities and the three levels of government in Nigeria. - Bring government nearer to the people and to guarantee reasonably adequate functions which may enable the local government carry its local communities along in the march towards nation building. (b) Community Development Organisation Structure in Nigeria Community development is basically democratic in its philosophy. This doctrine explains widespread citizen participation to achieve community goals. The root idea is that the people should be actively involved in the planning and execution of programmes designed to foster their well-being. It is through such involvement that the people can master the process of community development and learn to help themselves while growing in the process (Egenti, 2001; Paul, 2005). Within the community development framework, planning is generally organised, based on certain procedures. The procedure ensures that the people have the responsibility for working out their own development programmes. In planning, there is need for setting up committees at the various levels of community development administration; such committees may take care of the organisation and administration of community development at the village, local government, state and national levels. The organisational structures of community development in Nigeria therefore are within the village, local government, state and national levels. Committees are 38 set up at the village, local, state and federal levels, this idea corroborates the definition of community development review, (1956) International Cooperation Administration of the United States define community development as: a process of social action in which the people of a community organised themselves for planning an action, define their common and individual needs and solve their problems, execute these plans with a maximum reliance upon community resources and supplement these resources when necessary with services and materials from government and non-government agencies outside the country. This implies that the stimulus needed for the success of development programme has to come from the people and from governmental authorities. The committee set up has the principal purpose of bringing about desirable changes for better living among the people, the committees are actively involved in the planning, execution, utilisation and assessment of any project designed to improve their welfare . However, community organisation is imperative in the process of community development as it performs a formidable role. It therefore, remains a catalyst by which sense of confidence, participation and responsibility is engendered which gives a positive reaction for the betterment of the community people. Community organisation is based on democratic philosophy. It entails that peoples‟ will prevail at all stages of community development. This enhances the development of democratic values and processes which promote the idea of ultimate control by the people and widespread citizen participation (Sarumi, 2003; Onabanjo, 2004; Mbacham, 2010; Akpunne, 2011). 39 (i) Community Development Organisation at the Village Level. The village level is the starting point from which new ideas are injected in to the community development activities. In examining the community development organisation at the village levels, these features can be viewed: - Community development association is organised at the village level. - Membership is open to every interested member of the community including non- residential indigenes. - Executive members are directly elected by the people while the village head is usually the patron of a community development association. - Holding periodical and emergency meetings. - It emerges as a formal body only when it has secured the backing of the community. - Membership is not restricted at the initial stage (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo,2004) The components of community development association include: - Local farming, industrial, cooperative and trading groups - Representatives of religious, social, youth and women‟s organisation; - Political leaders outside the village group; - Members of the local government body; and - Members of the technical service, including community development workers and change agents (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo, 2004). (ii) Community Development Organisation at the Local Government Level The executive organisation at the local government level should be better called a committee, as the body can be formed by direct local government action. In practice the features include; 40 - Delegates are selected from each community development association in the LGA. - Intermediate body may be established between the village association and the local government committees to scrutinise the suggestions and decisions of the village associations. - Findings and recommendations are passed to the local government committees - Local government committee is headed by the chairman of the local government - Officers are elected democratically. - Other members include: Community development officers, members of local government council, representatives of local communities and organisation, local farming, commercial, cooperative interests groups, social, youth and women organisations, and; - Representatives of community development associations (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo, 2004). The general functions of the committee may be identified among others as to, - advise and guide community development associations on the various aspects of self- help programmes; - ensure that community development programmes are relevant to the overall development plans of the local government; - examine community development projects proposal submitted by Community development associations, and make recommendations on financial assistance and technical advice; 41 - liaise with relevant government agencies within the local government area for technical advice and assistance, for effective and prompt execution of community development programmes, including the selection of sites for new projects; - control and disburse all community agents from the local government and other agencies; - evaluating and supervising grant-aided projects in the LGAs (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo, 2004). (iii) Community Development Organisation at the State Council The executive organisation at the state level is called the Community Development Council. The state commissioner responsible for community development may be the chairman of the state community development council while the state director of community development may serve as the secretary of the body. The body comprises representatives of community development committees, as well as people from related government and private agencies in the state. The membership includes: The chief community development officer; members of local government bodies, representatives of local communities; representatives of farming, commercial, cooperation, and industrial interests; representatives of religious, social youth and women‟s organization; and state technical staff (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo, 2004) The functions of state council may include: - coordinating the planning and execution of community development projects in the state; - ensuring that projects conform to government policies and programmes. - advise the state government on matters relating to community development. 42 - give close attention to the training of partners and project leaders. - deal with matters and requests referred to the councils by community development committees. (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo,2004). (iv) Community Development Organisation at the National Level The executive organisation at the national level may be called the National Community Development council. This consists of Commissioners responsible for community development, representatives of state councils, federal ministries, such bodies as DFFRI, MAMSER, the Better life programme and international agencies. The Minister of Culture and Social Welfare may be the chairman of the national council while the federal director of community development may serve as the secretary. Their functions may include, to; - Review and evaluate community development activities nationwide. - Advise the federal government on policy issues relating to community development (Anyanwu, 1992; Onabanjo, 2004). 2.1.8 Decentralisation Factors in Nigeria The official rationale for political decentralisation in Nigeria were identified Adejuyigbe, (1979); Adeyeye,(2000); Mukoro,(2000); Omotoso, (2003) mention such reasons namely: pursuit of the federal characters; promotion of even development; the need to bring government nearer to the people; the principle of self-determination; the need for balanced federalism; the need for attainment of unity in the country; the need to minimise conflict between and within states the operation of constitutionalism; the imperative of 43 national integration; the factor of self-fulfillment; the need for devolution of power ;the need for delegation of authority and the need for mobilisation of human and material resources It should, however, be noted that local government constitutes the most critical level of government at which the momentum to sustain national development can be created. A number of reasons are often advanced for decentralisation by devolution Bello-Imam, (1996) identifies four basic reasons among which include: - to enhance grassroots democracy; - to promote economic development from below. - to promote political integration and nation-building; and - to promote local freedom of action/ autonomy. The official rationale for 1967 state creation by General Gowon were, - an urgent need to under-cut the secession bid by the people of Eastern region led by General Chukwu Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu from the federation. - to ensure stability of the country. - to reduce the fear of domination of the minorities by the major ethnic groups. - the need to ensure that no one state was in a position to dominate or control the federal government. He enunciated four other principles namely: - each state should be geographically compact; - recognition should be given to administrative convenience, the facts of history and the wishes of the people; - each state should be in a position to discharge effectively the functions allotted the regional government; 44 - new states should be created simultaneously (Suberu, 1994; Uwgu, 1998; Omotosho, 2003; Alabi, 2006). In 1976, General Muritala Ramat Mohammed considered some official rationale for the creation of seven more states out of the existing 12 states. The basic motivations or considerations for these exercises were: - the need to bring government nearer to the people; - the need to ensure even development with a federal structure of government; and ; - the need to make creation of new state a „one time operation‟ that would minimise future agitations for new states In establishing two new states in 1987, the Babangida administration only made references to, the national interest; political expediency; and the maintenance of peace among the people of Nigeria. In 1991, the reasons given by federal government are based on three principles namely; strict adherence to the principle of social justice; even development and balanced federation. General Babangida also explained that the exercise was informed by a combination of the following factors or considerations; - the realignment of the boundaries of the old colonial provinces, where such realignment is considered politically desirable; - the expressed wishes of the people, especially when such preferences were based on objectives like common socio-cultural-ties or institutions; - the historical association of communities at the time of independence from colonial rule; 45 - geographical contiguity especially the need to avoid “divide and rule” syndrome inherent in the present power structure and resources allocation system; and; - the need to achieve a measure of relative balance among the state in population and resources distribution (Suberu, 1994) In 1996, General Abacha justified these state creations on the following grounds. - an inevitable feature of the country‟s post-independence government and politics. - respect for the yearning and the popular demand for states and localities for improving the administrative machinery of government. - to minimise the volume of unresolved issues that could impede the stability of the democratically elected government. - the need to ensure a fair spread and balancing within the geo-political zones of the country, applying such criteria as population and landmass, among others; and - bases for power sharing in the proposed fourth republic (Suberu, 1994). 2.2.0 Grassroot Participation in Development Programmes and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes The term, people‟s participation has become rhetorical in recent times. Different people in different contexts use it to connote different things. The following connotes people‟s participation based on their experience Fayenuwo, (2008) identifies different levels of participation as: - attending meetings, call to discuss matters relating to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of natural resources management; 46 - contributing money, labour, or both to activities /projects of common interest to the group community; - seeking new knowledge and information and sharing it with other members of the group/community as well as within the project authority concerned; - following the rules and regulations set by the group/community /organisation in consultation with the local people; - adoption of technologies and practices recommended by the project authority; - abstaining from doing any harm or damage to the common property or asset created as a result of participatory efforts; - serving on the joint management committees constituted by the project authority for natural resources management Egenti, (2001) identifies some of the objectives and functions of participation which include making local wishes known, generating development ideas, providing local knowledge and testing proposals for feasibility and improving them. Others are increasing the capability of communities to handle their affairs and to control and exploit their environment, demonstrating support for regime, doing what is required of government to be done, extracting, developing and investing in local resources (labour, finance, and managerial skills among others) and promoting desirable relationships between people, especially through cooperative work. Participation is about change that is effective, authentic and enduring and is the kind of change that is talked about when explaining notions like sustainability. Bird, (1997) stresses that this aspect of change is always challenging, it is sometimes easier to devote time and energy, even money to resisting it than to devote possibly greater amount of time, money and effort to embracing it. Since it 47 involves all stakeholders, then participation is about everyone. It is about all people involved, directly or indirectly. In the context of organisational development, Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, 2004; Paul, 2005; and Akpunne, (2011) refer to citizens‟ participation as an active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development projects rather than merely receiving a share of the project benefits. Thus, it can be said that citizens‟ participation in organisational development programmes entails the involvement of the people or their representatives in the formulation and development of proposals, planning of programmes and its implementation. Citizens‟ participation in development programme is therefore an obvious strategy for programme success, as it is a powerful tool for mobilising new and additional resources within the organization (Egenti, 2001; Paul, 2005). The principle of citizens‟ participation therefore implies that the workers have to supply the necessary and needed stimulus for programme success. Paul, (1999) observes that citizens‟ participation is mainly used to achieve effectiveness, efficiency and cost sharing with little emphasis placed on empowerment and beneficiary capacity building. A consideration of these definitions of citizens‟ participation and the extent to which project implementation has incorporated participation into project strategy are indications of the minimal practical application of the concept in project design and implementation. Participation according to Osuji, (1992) has been perceived as the involvement of members of project communities in all stages of decision making relating to development programmes in their areas, what this means in effect is that development programmes and projects should not be imposed on people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of development efforts. Beneficiary populations should not be made passive recipients of 48 services; rather they should take part in all activities concerned with the development of their areas. On the issue of participation, Egenti, (2001) and Paul, (2005) contend that community participation may be encouraged by governments as well as non governmental organisations for reasons which include: empowerment, capacity building, effectiveness and efficiency purposes. Egenti, (2001) enumerates some basic principles or strategies for successful promotion of citizen/community participation. He asserts that as a developmental strategy to combat poverty, citizens‟ participation must be kept distinct from classical charity and welfare approaches which attempt to channel aids to the poor. Participation can be promoted effectively among the underprivileged who with external assistance from change agencies, can modify their present living conditions by means of self organisation and self help. Also, participation should be in design as well as in execution. Participation starts at the stage of deciding what to do and how to do it. It should continue throughout the project implementation allowing feedback control and adjustment. Various forms of community participation have been established by different scholars in the field of community development. Egenti, (2001) suggests that the levels or forms of 'real community participation are: - Partnership: - Delegated power, and - Control. The United Nations, (1996) identifies three modes of community participation as - local elite decision-making, - people as advisors; and - people controlling or sharing in the control of decisions 49 Community stakeholders’ participation in governance and development programmes It is a procedure whereby members of a community participate directly in decision- making about development that affects the community. These are essential tools through which people can achieve community empowerment and ownership. It covers a spectrum of activities involving people in their communities, from passive involvement in community life to intensive action. Community participation means some form of involvement of people with similar needs and goals in decisions affecting their lives. The theory of community participation underlines that the local community should be given an active role in programmes and improvement directly affecting it (Egenti, 2001; Sarumi, 2003; Onabanjo, 2004; Babajide, 2006; Oyelami, 2007). It is only rational to give control of affairs and decisions to people most affected by them. Besides, since no government or authority has the means to solve all the public problems adequately, it is necessary to involve people in matters that affect them. Since people are involved, the process of participation helps to promote sense of ownership and control among the people. The advocates of community participation therefore believe it brings many lasting benefits to people instead of only a means of getting things done. Community participation associates with citizens‟ partnership with the citizen power and control as “the re-distribution of powers that enables the have-not citizens presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future (Paul,2005; Babajide, 2006; Oyelami, 2007; Mbacham, 2010; Akpunne, 2011). Effective community participation in governance at the local level in Nigeria started in1976. Hitherto, the authority and legitimacy of the local governments had always been threatened by the traditional rulers who had always competed with the local governments for 50 the loyalty and resources of the localities. Traditional rulers as local institutions got state and national recognition under different regimes. They were invited to participate in the constituent Assembly. The outcome of the participation of traditional rulers in this Assembly was the extension of their advisory functions from the local to the state level and also its documentation or entrenchment into the 1989 constitution. A national council of traditional rulers was constituted and aimed at acquiring the rule of a standing national advisory committee on a wide range of issues such as diplomacy, politics bureaucracy and economy. Empowerment of the local and formal institution was extended to other local informal institutions (Olasupo, 2000). In addition to the existing indigenous institutions at the local level, the family support programme, Better life for rural women among others were created to raise women‟s consciousness of their social and political rights. They were organised into associations to attract government support and enable them pursue their collective interests better. Individual votes at the local level were not left out of this empowerment to ensure good governance at the local level and even at the national levels. It ensured effective monitoring of elections by preventing abuses of impersonations and multiple voting (Olasupo, 2000). Economically, local institutions (informal) and the citizens were assisted by the establishment of the People‟s Bank to provide credit for disadvantaged people who could not meet the usual conditions of the normal commercial banks. Community banks systems were established to provide banking services to needy communities. The community banking system was a self sustaining financial institution owned and managed by a community or groups of communities, for the purpose of providing credit, deposit, banking 51 services to members, largely on the basis of self-recognition and credit worthiness. Emergence of the civil society based on region, religion, sub-nationalities and other primordial loyalties came into limelight with those registered with the government and there are those not registered with government. Those who participate in governance among the citizens are elected official, public administrators and individuals in the relevant community who do not occupy governmental position. However, community participation is concerned mostly with individuals who do not occupy governmental positions among which are development associations, family support programme, and better life for rural women and cooperative societies (Olasupo, 2000; Paul, 2005; Babajide, 2006). Community participation in decentralisation process The agitation for more political units in the country is not just a recent phenomenon or a post- independence political problem. It had been in existence before this period. There were growing demands for the creation of new states during the colonial era as they were after independence. The restructuring of the nation is very old indeed. The ethnic polarisation in Nigeria led to the growing demands for states among minority groups particularly before independence. Most of the ethnic groups were concerned about the development and progress of their areas (Oyovbaire, 1985; Suberu, 1994; Omotoso, 2004; Henry, 2008). Ever since 1954, when the minorities in the country first bombarded the then colonial government with an avalanche of requests for the creation of their autonomous divisions, in order to ensure equity and justice in an unfolding Nigeria federal structure; the demands for creation of additional states and localities to the already existing ones by Nigerians have become a fad. Nevertheless, the Nigerian federation has been bedeviled with considerable instability resulting in internal restructuring of the 52 boundaries of the constituent states six times since independence that is 1963, 1967, 1976, 1987, 1991 and 1996; at the end of all those balkanisations, the country has metamorphosed into a complicated 37units along with the federal capital territory and 774 LGAs arising primarily from separatist agitations (Bello- Imam, 1996; Alabi, 2006). It is also pertinent to note that an important feature of federal frame-work of 1954 was the three- regional structures for which the country was bedeviled by problems arising from fear of domination. For example, the minorities in eastern region formed the Calabar- Ogoja-Rivers (COR) state movement and demanded a separate state. In the northern region, minority groups formed various associations to demand for the creation of a middle-belt state. In the western region, the mid- west state movement demanded the creation of Mid- West state. The pressures from this movement led to the establishment of the Willink Commission to investigate the fears of minorities and the means of allaying them. The report of the commission confirmed there was convincing evidence of fears among the minorities but insisted that the creation of the new state would delay the proposed granting of Nigeria‟s independence, because of their desire for self –rule, the nationalists could not wait for new states or regions to be created (Oyovbaire, 1985; Osarhieme, 1998; Suberu, 1998; Omotoso, 2003). There were a lot of proposals for state creation, many Nigerians clamoured for the creation of their dream states from the existing ones. Agitation for creation of new states soon became a political issue and newly emergent politicians used the issue to canvas for votes and political support in their bid to gain the rein of governance. The agitation and creation of states continued as follows: - Demands for new states (1963 State Creation Exercise); - Minority agitation for another region in northern Nigeria; 53 - Minority demand for state in eastern region; - 1967 12 – state framework; - The 1976 state creation exercise; - Demand for new state in the second republic (Omotosho, 2003). 2.3 Development Equity and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes. Since Nigeria‟s independence on October 1 1960, the issue of decentralisation has been one of the most constantly and intensively discussed. Decentralisation as one of the government policies is often justified as a mechanism for bringing governance close to the grassroots and for development purposes. Different successive governments have embraced the strategy as an instrument par excellence for rural transformation and democratisation at the grassroots. Omotosho, (2003) cited Federal Republic of Nigeria report, (1976) observe thus: Reorganisation of states is believed officially to promote even development in that the creation of states spread socio-economic amenities and opportunities to the new states, particularly the capital cities, the experience in Nigeria over the years particularly since 1963 till now has shown that once a state is created, people will move down to the capital cities and there will be rapid development (pg14). In the same vein, Suberu, (1998) contends that: Perhaps the only real argument for new states and localities lies in their presumed capacity to spread federal resources and development undertakings more evenly among territorial communities in the federation. However, the concept of development has been viewed as “multi-dimensional, referring to positive changes which affect the majority and which lie in the social, economic, political and cultural spheres of societal life” (Alabi, 2006). Essentially, development is not 54 limited to the economic sphere but also to non-economic components of social life and that a higher level of urbanisation, widespread literacy, relatively high per capital income, geographical and social mobility, a high degree of commercialisation and industrialisation, extensive mass communication network and participation in a modern social and economic process are important features of development (Alabi, 2006). Development, according to Alabi, (2006) connotes a multi-dimensional process involving major changes in social structures, political attitudes and national institutions as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality and the eradication of poverty .The concept of development includes not only economic, social and political changes, but all-embracing transformation of the society. It connotes the totality of societal improvement which starts in man. Development involves the structuring of society in such a way that will improve the quality of lives as well as the satisfaction of psychological wants of members of any given rural area. Development therefore, can be viewed as physical and human improvement. Physical improvement in terms of community infrastructure and human improvement in terms of improved nutritional and health status, improved knowledge, and positive attitudes towards life, (Ugwu, 2000; Otite, 2002; Paul, 2005; Hassan, 2009; Olatumile, 2010). The orthodox or traditional model puts us on guide on some development indices. The model views development in material and economic terms. By this model, a nation is developed if it has a healthy balance of payment, a sizeable foreign exchange reserve, and an internationally acknowledged per capital income. Other indices consist mostly technological infrastructures like electricity, water supply, good road network, efficient mass transit system and the number of schools in the nation. (Akinpelu, 2002; Hassan, 2009). 55 The concept of development has been defined as a social change in which new ideas are introduced into a social system to produce higher per capital income; levels of living and man‟s capacity to expand his consciousness (Hassan, 2009; Oyebamiji, 2009). The idea of development which embodies all attempts to improve the condition of human existence in all its ramifications was supported by Gboyega, (2003) thus: It implies improvement in the material well-being of all citizens. It also demands that poverty and inequality of access to the good things of life be removed or drastically reduced. However, the concept of under- development has been given prominence by many scholars as UNDP, (1996) and Akinpelu, (2002) observe that a nation is described as either developing, less developed, under- developed or traditional to the extent that it does not satisfy the predetermined indices. The various indicators of measuring under-development are to use statistical index Ujo, (2008) identifies the following criterion: Economic indicators of under-development: A high proportion of the population in agriculture, over population in agriculture, considerable disguised unemployment, very little capital per head, low income, low savings, major proportion of expenditure is on foods export of raw materials, low volume of trade, poor credit facilities and poor housing, Demographic indicators of under-development: High fertility rates, high mortality rate, poor nutrition and poor hygiene. Cultural and political indicators of under-development: Child labour, wide gap between the rich and the poor, women occupy inferior status, predominance of traditional values and political instability. Technology indicators of under- development: Low technology in agriculture, low technology in industry and crude technology. 56 Considering the above indicators of under-development, over decades many communities in Nigeria have remained under-developed as presented in different studies. Empirically, the UNDP, (2004) cited in Maureen, (2005) rates Nigeria low on human capital development; it was reported by UNDP that: Nigeria ranks 151 on the Human Development Project (HDI) and falls within the lower Human Development Group (HDG) of about 30 African states. The UNDP‟s report shows a vivid picture of the under development trends or development patterns among the masses of Nigeria who mostly reside in the rural communities. This under development as manifest in the report is becoming very disturbing that despite the fact that Nigeria has the greatest quantity of physical, human and natural resources, she is still lagging behind among countries like Libya, the Phillipness, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, Gabon and Sao Tome in terms of human development. The issue is, why is Nigeria backward in terms of her socio-economic transformations? Why is Nigeria retaining or retrogressing instead of progressing and enhancing in her development effort(s) (Maureen, 2005). The Nigerian economy has retained all the characteristics of the central problem of under-development with its narrow; disarticulate production base and a mono-cultural production structure, a degraded environment and the predominance of subsistence and commercial activities. On all objectives criteria such as real per capita GDP, the human development index and poverty index, Nigeria is a member of the club of the least developed countries; it is only because it is an OPEC country that the international community has been restrained from classifying it as such (Adeyeye, 2000). According to the Federal Office of Statistics (FOS) and the World Bank, the population of the poor, which 57 was 34.7million in 1992, has jumped to 55.8million in 1997. Of these, over 37million Nigerians are in extreme poverty. As a result of this development, Nigeria is one of the 25 poorest countries in the world with almost 40 per cent of the population being the worst victims of physiological deprivation, particularly lack of ability to satisfy the need for bare physical survival: Food, shelter, potable water, basic health care and sanitary facilities (Adeyeye, 2000). Similarly, debt has become one of the major obstacles to Africa and needless to add Nigeria‟s development and competitiveness. Nigeria‟s external debt, was $1.27billion in 1978, before the Obasanjo military administration took its exit the following year, it escalated from $15 billion to $33.26billion. During the four – year reign of General Abacha, it increased to approximately $37billion in spite of unilateral action on the part of the government to revise downward, its external debt obligation (Adeyeye, 2000). On poverty level, Ugwu, (2000) observes that, the 1996 World Bank report has indicated that Nigeria presented a paradox of being a rich country but the people are poor. It showed that per capita-income in 1996 was around the same level in 1970. About the level of under-development in the rural communities in Nigeria, Obianigwe, (1999) notes that: In Nigeria, the features of the rural areas are depression, degradation, poverty and deprivation. In most rural areas in Nigeria, like in other rural settings in the developing nations, basic infrastructure, where they exist at all, are inadequate for any meaningful development Obianigwe, (1999) contends further that rural dwellers often depend on shallow wells and untreated water. The villagers, most of who are farmers work from sunrise to sunset only to produce food for the uncontrollable teeming city population. 58 In Nigeria, most of the urban communities are under-developed Ugwu, (2000) notes thus: Today, many urban dwellers live under the bridges in Lagos some live in batchers, uncompleted and abandoned buildings and some find homes in parked vehicles along the roads or in mechanic villages. On unemployment issue, Ugwu, (2000) stresses that “Today, University and other tertiary institutions‟ graduates equally flock the cities in search of elusive job vacancies” . In the similar view, Chinkendu, (2003) notes that: “The level of social disequilibrium in Nigeria today is quite unprecedented and alarming, disenchanted and unemployed youth have been on rampage in many parts of the country particularly in the Niger-Delta areas; ethnic armies and religious bigots have precipitated root on many parts of the country leading to loss of lives and destruction of properties”. 2.4 Attainment of Peace, Unity and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes Peace, which is, without question, a major explanatory factor for the phenomenon of collapsing states, characterised by persistent civil war, civil strife, and political crisis. Peace, in addition to the credibility of policies of governments based on electoral legitimacy, helps to ensure that political executives are able to pay attention to tackling the problem of underdevelopment, including the nurturing of public administration capacity as an instrument for achieving results (Henry, 2008). Peace has become a valuable "commodity". It is unimaginable the amount of resources expended on achieving peace in finance and human resources., For an in-depth understanding of conflict intervention to be gained, it suffices to examine the meaning of peace. Peace was considered a situation where conflict is absent which is a negative peace (Henry, 2008). 59 Social disruptions in communities like war, crime and corruption divert resources from areas of great human need, damage the capacity of societies to plan for the future, and generally threaten human well-being and the environment. Broad-based strategies for more sustainable social systems include: improved education and the political empowerment of women, especially in developing countries; greater regard for social justice, notably equity between the rich and the poor both within and between countries and intergenerational equity. Depletion of natural resources including fresh water increases the likelihood of “resources wars”. This aspect of sustainability has been referred to as environmental security and creates a clear need for global environmental agreements to manage resources such as aquifers and rivers which span political boundaries, and to protect shared global systems including oceans and the atmosphere (Henry, 2008). The Need for Peace/Unity and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes Unity and peace among community members are factors that can bring sustainable development. If there is peace within the community it attracts government attention to the needs of the people for sustainability of community programmes. Many people get involved in programmes when there is harmony in a community. In a community where there is war, sustainability of community development programmes becomes difficult. Lack of peace and unity are barriers to sustainability of community development programmes. Peace and unity serve as springboard for human development. The need for peace and unity in a community influence capacity to interact, cooperate and ensure sustainability of community development programmes. Misunderstanding among community members impedes the sustainability of most community development programmes; where there is crime and social disorder it is difficult to sustain community development programmes (Anyanwu, 2002). 60 Anyanwu, (2002) and Abiona, (2009) identify some characteristics of a state of community disorganisation, in such communities, urban or rural, there is the possibility that social relationship is less intimate with those outside people‟s kinship groups. Community in which social relationship loses the grip of intimacy tends towards states of disorganization or conflict, the characteristics are as follows:  People in such a community feel as if their, is stay is only temporary. They usually rent the place they dwell in, and develop a nonchalant attitude towards the property. This squatter or tenant- property relationship is accompanied by disinterest in the ownership of personal property.  People are indifferent to group and community relationship. This may breed an atmosphere of suspicion, distrust and jealousy in personal and group relations.  Communication between neighbours is very often minimal, while malicious whispering and propaganda may become the major activities of peer groups.  Loyalty and a sense of commitment are retained in people's communities of origin. The paradox, however, is that in a disorganised community, many families produce children who have never even visited their parents' community of origin. In this instance, such children grow up, without any knowledge of the language spoken in their parents' community of origin. Thus, lost in the anonymity of urban populations, they never learn to feel any sense of responsibility or loyalty to any community.  In many African townships, there may be several ethnic groups forming rival factions. This leads to an inefficient socia1 organisation. Most of them not only struggle to survive, but are also marked by lack of coordination. 61  There is a marked feeling of indifference towards the community's past. Hence, there is little civic pride or loyalty to the community. This leads to generalised apathy towards the solution of community problems.  Lethargic attitude towards the community's problems often leads to frustrated agitation or fanatic idealism by radical groups who may not even be ashamed to ally with law-breakers to make life uncertain and insecure in the community.  Illiteracy is likely to predominate, with manifestation in a wasteful exploitation of natural resources, leading to a decline in standards of living as well as widespread poverty.  Belief in magic and superstition can be a general phenomenon. This has the potency of scuffling the benefits of community education, particularly in the area of health where superstitious beliefs can lead people to rely on the manipulation of witch doctors and juju priests instead of having confidence in health visitors.  Social services are apt to be inadequate and inefficient, with conflicting organisations operating in an atmosphere of exclusiveness.  With unequal distribution of wealth, mass poverty has to be widespread. This may be evident in the decadence of local industries and the poor living conditions of the people.  Community leaders are more interested in power sharing and the retention of positions than in the solution of community problems, hence, with lack of intelligent and imaginative local leadership, the administration of a disorganised community can be frustrated by low morale, apathy and outright neglect. 62  There is a general state of stunned awareness of political responsibility. The result is a disorganised community, manifesting in nepotism and various forms of corruption in public services.  Indifference to religion can also be visible with a mixture of illiterate, half-educated and possibly a few educated individuals and in an atmosphere of suspicion, distrust and jealousy and superstition, it must be difficult to establish any meaningful religious guidance, (particularly where there is no social unity). In such a situation, people are apt to fall prey to such anti-social habits as drunkenness, drug addiction and lawlessness.  In a disorganised community, there can be high rate of disease, delinquency, crime and illegitimacy. The community lacks social stability.  There is no room for a aesthetic expression. A community that is prone to confused and wasteful exploitation of natural resources, and in which people have little or no civic pride, cannot aspire to the beauty of planned layouts. And from a community that is generally mobile, one cannot expect anything higher-than overcrowded dwelling in an ugly environment (Anyanwu, 2002; Abiona 2009). Governance and ethnic violence in Nigeria Governance implies the way people of any society are being governed, over distribution or authority and resources within it, and the legitimacy of these in the eyes of members of the society. Good governance will make less conflict possible while in contrast, bad governance will give room to conflict possible (Henry, 2008). Governance has a close link with legitimacy, which makes production of stable relationship network 63 possible. Legitimate and durable relationships are those, which are accepted, valued and retained without coercion and which do not need to be maintained by threat or use of force. However, governance can only succeed, if people governed are pleased with the performance of the government of the day. This performance however, depends upon the ability of the government to meet the needs of the people. In a multi-ethnic nation as in most parts of Africa, to achieve collective interest has been difficult, because of diverse of needs and interest. Therefore, conflict is likely to emerge where there are insensitive policies from government and where the structural pattern of governance is of centralised power and authority. Osaghae, (1999) stresses that ethnic conflicts tend to be more severe and rampant in countries where power is centralised than in those where it is decentralised. Decentralisation does better because it creates more than one centre of power. On the other hand, decentralisation sustains and intensifies ethnic diversity, which may be valid in the short run. Governance in Nigeria has not been easy, because of the multi-ethnic setting that it assumes. The Nigerian multi-ethnic situation underlined the cause for the complexity in achieving good governance. In Nigeria, under ethnic influence, the fastest way, to lose credibility and legitimacy in government is to neglect ethnic attachment, and liberal mindedness, not paying attention to one's ethnic “constituency” (Henry, 2008). For example yoruba, igbo and hausa, existed with political undertones. In most of these ethnic conflicts, their aim is self-determination, reclaiming of land and dominance struggle between early and late settlers. What led to this division between this formerly peaceful co-existence has been blamed on over-centralisation of political control, poor representation of all ethnic groups, and over-lucrative nature of partisan politics, which degenerated to winner, takes it 64 all, for himself and ethnic group (Osaghea, 1999). This was demonstrated by military junta that ruled Nigeria by military autocracy since 1964, handed over in 1979 to a "democratic" government that lasted for just two out of four years before they were ousted again by the military in 1983 and stayed until 1999. Causes of ethnic conflict in Nigeria The manifestation of ethnicity and ethnic conflicts in Nigeria is probably one of the most complicated in the world with many ethnic groups (Otite, 2000). Apart from this ethnic and linguistic division, there also exists religious division, mainly between Christians and muslims. Henry, (2008) declares that in Nigeria, communal groupings are mobilised on the basis of shared perception thereby selling people apart on the basis of ethnicity, religion, language, place of origin and common historical experience that could reach the threshold of irreversibility. Henry, (2008) adds that elites take advantage of certain events and disadvantages (political) and communal difference for selfish interests of ambitions. He describes ethnic manifestations of conflicts in Nigeria in two ways, vertical and horizontal, vertical is the conflicts emerging from the centralisation of authority with the central government which only caters for majority groups‟ interest, and neglects the minority, while the horizontal manifest of the ethnic conflicts are those arising amongst constituent communities in a struggle for domination and subordination. He also declares that in Nigeria, the state plays significant role in generating conflicts either at horizontal or vertical level (Henry, 2008). The second is that which occurs between major or dominant group, they fight the minority groups over control or power, which should have claims to any development than 65 the other. Often dominant groups would oppress and dominate minority groups, but when minority groups begin to dominate, major groups, conflict and violence will begin. The communal ethnic conflicts between Ife-Modakeke, Ijaw/Ilaje, Ijaw / ltsekiri / Urhobo, Tiv /Jukun, are typical examples of heavily armed and organised ethnic warfare ever noticed in Nigeria. Apart from extensive use of modern warfare equipments, there was also a vast use of war tactics, which included the strategic killings of in-laws and children who are products of such inter-marriages. This act was intended at severing any blood relationship of union between the two communities, where there had been a great permeation of cultures and acculturation blood ties through inter-marriages between adversary communities before violence conflict broke-out. These acts of ethnic cleansing are similar to those of Hutu/ Tutsi ethnic conflicts in Rwanda (Henry, 2008). The manifestations of ethnicity-ethnic conflict, in Nigeria is probably one of the most complicated in the world (Henry, 2008) with different ethnic groups including three major ethnic groups (Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba) and several minority groups (Otite, 2000). Apart from this ethnic and linguistic division, there is also the religious division, mainly between the christians and muslims (Henry 2008). Armed conflict in Nigeria started, with the Biafran civil war, which broke out after, some internal disagreements in the rank and file of Nigeria Army, as an aftermath of the vacuum created by the coup against General Aguyi lronsi led military government. This conflict marked the first move by any ethnic group - the Igbos (one of the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria) to attempt a break away from the country. The consequences of the war have led to a long and continued discrimination and struggle for political supremacy by these three ethnic groups (Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba). 66 The ethnic rivalry by the major ethnic groups have also affected other minority groups, who seem to have been associated to them by geographical location and politically dominating all affairs of politics and economics, leaving minority groups to wander over their domination. This state of affairs welcomed the extensions of conflict between ethnic majorities to that of intra-ethnic conflicts (conflicts within ethnic groups), and to those of communal conflicts. Communal conflicts become very obvious and raised great concern for the country's corporate existence, which was heading towards an eminent disintegration. Communal ethnic conflicts became incessant in the 1990s, during creation of new states and local governments, within five years, 1998 to 2003 of the newly gained democratic governance, there had been over 50 ethno-religious conflicts in Nigeria (Henry, 2008). From the Modakeke-Ife crisis in the south-west, to the Itsekiri-Ijaw and Urhobo conflict in the south-south, to the religious mayhem in Kaduna and Aba reprisal riots of year 2000, Jos and Kano Mayhem of year 2002 and now to inter-ethnic crisis in Benue and Wukari, Taraba State between Tiv and Jukun, Zango-Kataf crisis in Kaduna State, Ogoni-Adoni in Rivers State, Chamba-Kuteb in Taraba State, Aguleri-Omuleri in Anambra State, Yoruba-Hausa conflicts in Oke-Ogun, Oyo state, and in Idiaraba in Lagos State, Ijaw-ilaje conflict in Ondo State and so on (Henry, 2008), the number of such clashes in the past five years is clearly much higher than those that had occurred in the history of the country. The explosion of ethnic and communal conflicts in Nigeria can be categorised into five, conflict over land, political marginalisation from federal appointments, religious, judiciary (Sharia judicial system in the north), the National structural system of centralisation of power, which favoured the three major ethnic groups and resource 67 control. National conflicts, around the world today, are determined by economic, social, political, and, cultural, factors. They also determine to what extent the conflict could be resolved and sustained. These factors, politics, economy, social and culture, brings man to interact with each other, overlap with governance, resources control, ideology, religion, and identity of the people (Otite, 2000; Osaghae, 1999). 2.5 Community Integration and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes The problem of acrimonious existence among the diverse groups and interests in the federation of Nigeria leading to mutual distrust and inter-community conflicts has become perennial and endemic in the nation‟s politics and has initiated against the political stability of the country since independence. The fear of domination of one ethnic group or section of the country by another and the national question of who gets what and how the national cake should be shared constitute a major factor of this problem. This situation hampers efforts at national integration as it applies to the building of a nation out of the disparate ethnic, geographic, social, economic and religious elements in the country. The doctrine or principle of federal character was formulated and put into use by the government to address and hopefully mitigate this problem so as to ensure a peaceful stable and integrated Nigeria (Agbodike, 2004). Nigeria is a nation created as a result of British colonial enterprise in the territory and consists of a conglomeration of ethnic groups and fatherlands which are heterogeneous in many respects. These include the diversity or pluralism of language, religion, socio-political and economic for motives as well as administrative style, social norms and personality 68 types, there are also diversities among them resulting from factors of historical evolution, disproportionate population sizes, unequal economic resources and educational attainments. There are diversities too in social wants, needs and preferences as well as in talents and opportunities. These differences tend to generate mutual suspicion and misunderstanding which has given rise to conflicts (Agbodike, 2004). One significant feature of Nigeria which impinged on the stability of the country was its unbalanced nature where the northern region alone had more than half of the country‟s population and was larger than the other regions put together. This, in effect ensured vertical built in control of the federation by that region, surely this was a detective political framework for nation building especially as the North-North which benefited from that amendment held on to it and used it even after the attainment of independence, to redress the claimed disadvantages of its people. The relationship between majority and minority groups was also an avertable source of instability in Nigeria. The majority groups endeavoured to assert their separatedness and clamoured for a political structure which would free them from the domination of the major ethnic /cultural configurations. Much of the instability of Nigeria is due to factional struggle and lack of unity within the ruling class. On acquiring political control of the federation after independence, this class embarked on the use of political machinery to pursue their class interests (Agbodike, 2004). The successive governments of Nigeria were not unmindful of the explosive state of affairs in the country and so took steps to experiment on social and political engineering that would not only promote harmonious existence among the various ethnic groups and diverse interests but would also bring peace, unity and stability to the country. The quota system 69 was also introduced and practiced around 1958. The measure was intended to ensure equitable representation of the various groups in the country. Agbodike, (2004) stresses that the system was meant to give opportunities in education, appointment and employment to disadvantaged group and areas and to enable them compete and catch up with the more advanced areas and sections of the nation. The quota system was also used for recruitment into the army, the police force and other defense, security services and civil service (Agbodike, 2004). However, the federal character principle is a normative expression of the equal rights of all Nigerians to participate in the political, administrative and economic affairs of the country. The principle aimed at promoting national loyalty thereby ensuring national integration, stability and social harmony among Nigerians. 2.6 Delegation of Authority and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes. This process transfers managerial responsibility for specifically defined functions to organisations that are outside the regular bureaucratic structure and that are only indirectly controlled by the central government. Delegation implies that a sovereign authority creates or transfers to an agent, specific functions and duties which the agent has broad discretion to carry out. However, ultimate responsibility remains with the sovereign authority. Under this arrangement, decision- making and management authority for specific functions are delegated to organisations that are only under the indirect control of central government ministries. More often than not, these organisations to which public functions are delegated have semi-independent authority to perform the responsibilities ,and may not even be 70 located within the regular government structure .More appropriately therefore, delegation implies the transfer or creation of broad authority to plan and implement decision concerning specific activities or a various activities within specific spatial boundaries to an organisation that is technically and administratively capable of carrying them out (Bulamin,1995). Delegation of authority is an extensive form of decentralisation. Through delegation, central government transfer, responsibility for decision- making and administration of public functions to semi- autonomous organisations not wholly controlled by the central government but ultimately accountable to it. Government delegate responsibility when they create public enterprise or corporations, housing authorities, transportation authority, special service districts, semi- autonomous school district, regional development corporations, or special project implementation units usually these organisations have a great deal of discretion in decision- making (Bulamin, 1995). Delegation of authority includes management responsibility for specific functions to organisations outside the central government structure such as management boards for schools and hospitals in (Ghana, Malawi, Senegal, Zambia, and Zimbabwe). This term is also used to refer specifically to the transfer of responsibility for budgets, financial decision from the high to low levels of government. In any organisation, no individual can perform all duties and accomplish all tasks by himself/herself. It is physically impossible for an individual to look after the affairs of a large business. His/her skill lies in his/her ability to get things done through others. As an organisation grows in size and the manager's job increases beyond his/her personal capacity, his/her success lies in his ability to multiply himself/herself by training his/her subordinates and sharing his/her authority and 71 responsibility with them. The only way he/she can achieve more is through delegation - through dividing his/her work-load and sharing responsibilities with others. The sharing of power or authority with another for the performance of certain tasks and duties is known as delegation of authority. To delegate means to grant or confer; hence the manager who delegates, grants or confers authority on others (subordinates) to accomplish certain duties in the form of work. It is an authorisation to a subordinate manager to act in a certain manner independently. The delegation of authority is the delivery by one individual to another of the right to act, to make decisions, to acquire resources and to perform other tasks in order to fulfill job responsibilities. Delegation has an entrustment of a part of the work, or responsibility and authority to another and the creation of accountability for performance. Responsibility is the work assigned to a person. Authority is the sum of powers and rights entrusted to make possible the performance of the work delegated. Accountability is the obligation to carry out responsibility and exercise authority in terms of performance of the standards established. It is the obligation of an individual to render an account of the fulfillment of his/her responsibilities to the boss to whom he/she reports. Just as no one person in an enterprise can do all the tasks necessary for accomplishment of goals, so it is impossible, as an enterprise grows, for one person to exercise all the authority for making decisions. There is a limit to the number of persons managers can effectively supervise and make decisions. Once this limit is passed, authority must be delegated to subordinates, who will make decisions within the area of their assigned duties. The question is how authority is delegated when decision-making power is vested in a subordinate by his/her superior. Clearly, superiors cannot delegate authority they do not 72 have. It is equally clear that superiors cannot delegate all their authority without, in effect, transferring their position to their subordinates. The entire process of delegation involves four steps. They are: - The determination of results expected from persons in a position - The assignment of tasks to persons - The delegation of authority for accomplishing tasks - The holding of people responsible for the accomplishment of these tasks. Therefore, delegation is the process that a manager follows in dividing the work assigned to him/her so that he/her performs that part, which because of his/her position he/she can perform effectively. There is a difference between delegation and work assignment. Delegation constitutes a master-agent relationship while work assignment constitutes master-servant relationship. An employee's work assignment may be reflected in his job description while delegated duties may not form part of the employee's normal duties. Delegation is legitimate authorisation to a manager or employee to act in specified ways. It enables him/her to function independently without reference to the supervisor but within the limits set by the supervisor and the normal framework of organisational objectives, policies, rules and procedures. http://jacobkuttyta.hubpages.com/hub/Delegation- of-Authority 2.7 Devolution of Power and Sustainability of Community Development programmes. Devolution is the process by which powers are conferred on formally constituted local authority and public corporations to discharge certain specified or residual functions .This means devolution has two main tributaries of equal importance ,namely: local government 73 authorities and public or statutory corporations (Akinbade, 2008). Devolution according to Buliamin, (1995) is the creation of strengthening -financial or legal sub- national units of government, the activities of which are substantially outside the direct control of the central government. Under devolution, local units of government are autonomous and their legal status makes them separate or distinct from the central government authorities, however, they frequently exercise indirect supervisory control over such units .In normal circumstances, local governments have clear and legally recognised geographical boundaries within which they exercise an exclusive authority to perform explicitly granted or reserved functions. In addition, they have corporate statutory authority to raise revenue and make expenditures. Further, it should be pointed out that devolution establishes reciprocal and mutual benefiting relationship between central and local governments .In other words, local government are not merely subordinate administrative units, they also have the ability to interact on equal basis with higher units of governments in the political system of which they are part. Thus devolution implies: the divestment of functions by the central government and the creation of new units of government outside the control of central authority. According to Buliamin, (1995) it has certain characteristics which are as follows:  It requires that local government be given autonomy and independence and be clearly perceived of as a separate level over which central authority exercise little or no direct control.  The local units must have clear and legally recognised geographical boundaries over which they perform public functions. 74  Local governments must be given corporate status and the power to raise sufficient resources to perform specified functions.  Devolution implies the need to develop local government as institutions in the sense that they are perceived by citizens as organisations providing services that satisfy their needs and as government units over which they have same inference  Devolution is an arrangement in which there are reciprocal, mutually benefiting and coordinated relationships between central and local governments. This means the local government has the ability to interact reciprocally with other units within the system of government of which it is a part. Buliamin, (1995); and Adamolekun, (2002) stress that devolution of power involves devolving of specific powers, functions and resources by the central government to sub-national government units. Sub national government include regional, state, or provincial governments and local governments or municipalities .In many cases, these sub national government units are substantially independent of the central government and have a legal status (personality).Normally the existence of provincial, regional or state governments is enshrined in constitutions in federal and quasi federal or hybrid states (that is states with elements of both federal and unitary systems). There are examples of federal and unitary states that finally provide for the establishment of local governments and municipalities in their constitutions. Examples of federal or quasi federal states in sub- Sahara Africa (S.S.A) are Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa. Outside the (S.S.A) region, Australia, Canada, Germany and the United states are commonly cited among the “old” Federal systems and Brazil and India are cited as examples of “new” federal system (Adamolekun, 2002). 75 Devolution is also referred to as „political decentralisation‟, this entails the transfer of powers to lower level political institutions specifically the local governments. Local governments partake of institutions of a political nature when they fulfill the following criteria.  They have a set of elected officials for example elected local chief such as the mayor and/or the local legislative body;  The local governments have jurisdiction over a specifically defined geographical area.  They have clear responsibility for the performance of certain functions and delivery - and finances -of basic service and are held accountable for such; and  They have the power to generate revenues and levy taxes. Local governments are clothed with a certain amount of autonomy that enables them decide on local matters without interference by the centre. The imposition of taxes should be authorised by the local legislative assembly (Brillanties, 2001). 2.7.1 The Role of Three tiers of Government on Sustainability of Community Development Programmes. The three tiers: Federal, State and Local have distinct roles to play in achieving national community development policy objectives. The roles of federal government according to the policy include to: - Co-ordinate and monitor community development activities in the states; - Make adequate provision, grant and other forms of support for self-help projects in the states; 76 - Facilitate and monitor activities of international agencies in community development projects; - Encourage, promote and fund research planning; - Provide for staff development programmes and materials for the facilitators and the communities; - Promote exchange programmes among states; - Recognise communities with best practices; - Support the activities of the community development council of Nigeria - Establish/stretching a national data bank on community development programmes (Onabanjo, 2004; Community Development Agency,2007) The state government roles shall include - supervision and monitoring community development activities in the local government; - assist project by making adequate annual budgetary provisions; - promote and fund research and planning activities; - register and supervise community development associations (CDAS); - establish community development councils (CDCS); - collect data on community development programmes and submit to the federal government; - promote functional literacy courses and leadership training; - establish and maintain rural work service (RWS) units; - encourage corporative activities, especially of occupational groups; - encourages integrated community development; 77 - establish development support communication units (DSCU); and - support national community development council of Nigeria (NCDCN) (Onabanjo, 2004; Community Development Agency, 2007) Local government roles in community development shall include: - monitor community development activities at the community level; - make budgetary provision for grant to community projects; - establish Community Development Committees (CDCs); - encourage education and training of field workers and community leaders; - promote functional literacy courses and leadership training; - establish rural work service units; - encourage the establishment and growth of model villages; - sensitise communities to form CDAs and - collect data on community programmes and forward same to state governments. (Onabanjo, 2004; Community Development Agency, 2007) In order to achieve a holistic community development, some programmes were identified by Community Development Agency, (2007) among which include: - physical infrastructure development programmes, such as construction and rehabilitation of roads, construction of culverts, building market stalls, modern market, electricity, drainage facilities and palaces. - Social development programmes which include town hall, library, television viewing centres, school bus facilities, sports facilities, juvenile delinquency rehabilitation centres, day care centre and security post. 78 - Health programmes which include campaign against HIV/AIDS, cerebral meningitis, water-borne diseases and bird flu - Educational programmes that involve changing the mental capacity of the people such as literacy campaign, vocational training centres, post-literacy centres and building of schools. - Economic programmes that involve formation of co-operative societies and community banking system. - Communication development programmes such as postal agencies, telephone centres and internet services. - Environmental protection programmes such as garbage collection, community latrine and community parks - Human development activities such as community mobilization and public enlightenment. - Community security and conflicts management which include neighbourhood protection (vigilante), local system of conflicts resolution and Police community relation committee. - Water supply programmes such as sinking of boreholes, construction of walls, construction of earth dams, and pipe-borne water (Anyanwu, 1992, Abiona, 2009). Stages of activities in community development programmes There are many stages of activities in community development programmes like other development programmes. Participation in development programme can take place at any of the following stages. These range from: 79 - Identification of felt needs: This is the stage whereby ideas on development programme are discussed before the selection of the one that will best solve the identified problem of the community. This stage is very important because it is like the foundation of a building. This is the stage at which tactical routine decisions on problem solving are taken. - Systematic planning of the needs: Activities at this stage involve identifying appropriate people to be notified of the idea; they will then bring people together to participate in the other stages. - Mobilisation stage: Participation at this stage is very important because people would need to be mobilised to share the idea of carrying out the development programmes. Leaders are mostly involved in this mobilisation assignment. - Implementation and execution of projects: This is the stage at which plan of the project has been obtained and financial estimate is known. The people will be required to contribute cash or kind (that has an economic value) towards the execution. - Monitoring and evaluation of projects: It is a detailed accountability of the progress of a project including the state of financial expenses on it. It is also part of monitoring as collection of information on the available resources and the people‟s response to the call on the project. Monitoring finds out if the standards laid down are being achieved at each stage of the project (Akintayo & Ogbenekohwo, 2004; Adegboye, 2005) In Nigeria, the federal government is giving adequate attention and incentives to rural community improvements through its various agencies which include the Directorate 80 of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI), Directorate for Mobilisation of Social and Economic Recovery (MAMSER), National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), local government council, youth, clubs, women organisations, federal and state ministers and parastatals. Towards this end, the Directorate of Food, Roads, and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), aims at opening up the rural areas by assisting states and local government to provide access roads, rural electricity, pipe borne water and other amenities. The federal government is advocating the setting up of small scale industries in the rural areas by school leavers, many of whom could not secure jobs as a result of the economic recession which has compelled majority of industries to produce below their optimum level (Egenti, 2001; Onabanjo, 2004). To this end, government has started to encourage young school leavers to take up agriculture as a career, Onabanjo, (2004) reports that government has set up a Directorate for self employment to supplement the efforts of the local government. In a country like Nigeria there are three major levels; national (federal) state and local. These three levels are inter – related and interact to form a spatial hierarchy. At the federal level, the problems of under-development have been of great concern, successive National Development plans made reference to rural planning as a component of National Development Planning in Nigeria. It is the concern for rapid development at the grassroots level that gave birth to programmes such as Green Revolution Programmes (GRP), “Operation Feed the Nation” (OFN). The River basing Development Authority, Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) . There are other important efforts made by the federal government towards improving the rural sector. Those experiments include Mass Mobilisation for Social and Economic Reconstruction (MAMSER), National Directorate of Employment (NDE), Better Life Programmes (BLP), Family Support Programmes (FSP), People‟s Bank, 81 Community Development Bank and Agricultural Development Projects. (ADP) (Anyanwu,1992; Onabanjo, 2004). Apart from the above, some state governments undertook many policies and international re-organisation to further development at the grassroots level. These include the setting up of agro services, provision of agricultural credits schemes, provision of markets, roads among others. The local government has a great deal of influence on the way community life is improved. The importance of local government is that it is at the grassroots level, a level where it is important to create the necessary atmosphere for community development these includes engagement in infrastructures such as roads, water and electricity (Egenti, 2001; Onabanjo, 2004). 2.8 Easiness of Decision–making process and sustainability of community programmes Decision-making process is one of the most important roles of the community stakeholders. Every administrative act, whether it concerns government officials, change agent, programmes, services or resources, requires taking decision. Decision-making precisely is an act of choice between alternative courses of actions. To be able to decide what action to take on any administrative matter; the community stakeholders need to know not only the various alternative action that exist, but also what type of decision to make, who should make the decision, how the decision should be made and how decisions would be carried out effectively. Decision- making process is a strong factor which determines the nature of leadership, the level of authority, the span of control, the degree of participation and/or co-operation, the level of supportiveness, and the possibility that decision should be carried out (Oyelami, 2007). 82 Decision-making is one of the defining characteristics of leadership, It is not that people do not have the capacity to make good decisions. Decision-making is a distinctly human activity. A decision is a choice between two or more alternatives, you only have one alternative, you do not have to make a decision. Good decision-making requires not only knowing the facts, but understanding the limits of your knowledge. The effective decision does not, as so many texts on decision-making proclaim, flow from a consensus on the facts. The understanding that underlies the right decisions grows out of the clash and conflict of divergent opinions and out of the consideration of competing alternatives. Leaders should focus on creating the dynamics that support organisational decision quality-on putting in place a decision framework and process that supports organisational decision quality-rather than raking through the detailed minutia of specific decisions. This allows leaders spend their time declaring the right decisions, providing a set of common criteria, and testing the key assumptions of each decision (Olaniyi, (2000); Akintayo & Oghenekohwo, (2004) and Oyelami, (2007). There are several ways of describing or analysing decision making, generally, the major issues in decision making analysis and study concern; what type of decision? Who makes or should make decisions at what level and how are decisions made?. Oyelami, (2007) classifies decision under; (a) organisation and personal decision; (b) basic and routine decisions and (c) programmed and non programmed decisions. Oyelami, (2007) categorises decision under intermediary (coming from top management downwards), appellate (coming from any member of the group as a result of insight or creativity. Oyelami, (2007) cited in Olaniyi, (1994) stresses that decisions made by an administrator may be organisation or personal decision. An organisation decision is made for a developing 83 country where majority live in rural areas. The success of democracy hinges principally on rural dwellers‟ capacity to gain power and achieve great possibilities to participate in policy and decision-making process. Indeed, in the search for new appropriate institutional framework for national democratising, rural socio-economic settings must be understood and assessed. It could be argued, therefore, that if rural dwellers are to play active and meaningful roles in national governance and development, it becomes imperative that they need to be effectively mobilised, motivated and invigorated. Mobilisation is critical given that dwellers live in widely dispersed areas and in remote parts of the country. Anyanwu, (1992) maintains that the rural community, for example, offers an ideal setting for the working of the effective democratic participation. The principle of citizen participation creates faith in common understanding. It enhances the possibility of success in the execution of programmes, designed for better living in rural communities. It promotes the ultimate satisfaction of personal and community motives. It reassures the integrity of objectives and it embraces faith in the superiority of community purpose, made manifest in the personal aims of individual citizens. The principle of citizen participation hence extols collective efforts for community improvement as the catalyst by which human efforts can pursue the interchanges of energies and satisfactions for the growth of communities and the development of the wide society. Participation becomes necessary in the implementation of development programmes Paul, (1999) identifies some reasons among which are: - The need for more intervention programmes will be accomplished - Participation has intrinsic value among community members - Participation leads to a sense of responsibility for the project. 84 - It guarantees that a felt need is involved According to the same author, nine reasons were highlighted why community participation is necessary in the implementation of development programmes .The reasons include, more will be accomplished; services can be provided at lower cost; participation is a catalyst for further development effort; participation leads to a sense of responsibility for the project; it guarantees that a felt need is involved; it ensures that all things are done in the right ways; makes use of indigenous knowledge and expertise; provides freedom from independence on professionals and fosters people‟s understanding of the nature of the constraints which hinder their escape from poverty. The element of participation in a general conception according to Osuji, (1991) involves: - The citizens‟ participation in the mobilisation of resources and planning of projects to be undertaken. - The community‟s participation in the activities to implement and the project in place. - Community members‟ participation in identifying their own needs, Villagers' participation in decision -making process, according to Osuji, (1992) it could be; expressed in having knowledge of local issues, attendance at public meetings, related attempts to influence proposed measures through individual or group actions; belonging to groups and committees, and labour and financial contributions towards community projects. In this perspective, the community members are those who know where their shoes pinch, they are those who know the local untapped resources (whether human or material) they can use to move themselves out of the shackles of underdevelopment. In the above submissions, one can deduce that community participation serves as a tool for convincing the people that only 85 they and others will reap the benefits of development project(s) in their communities. Communities have people who are informed and member communities regarded these people as their source of inspirations, they serve as opinion leaders and their information bank. Decision-making of the people in a community regarding their needs is an important aspect of participation in self-help projects. People of the community are encouraged to identify their wants and needs and to work cooperatively at satisfying them. Projects are not predetermined but develop as discussion in communities is encouraged, proceeds and focuses the concerns of the people. As wants and needs are defined and solutions sought, aid may be provided by national government‟s internal organizations (Adegboye, 2005). Participation is an action of individuals that enables him/her have input the decision- making process and play significant roles in improving the quality of lives of his/her community people by taking part in the initiation and implementation of the decision(s) and cooperative funding of the project/programme. It is through participation that beneficiaries of any development programme have input the priority setting, planning, implementation, consumption and of evaluation (Adegboye, 2005). Generally, people‟s participation in decision-making is an attribute of democracy (Ayoade, 1998). It especially has to do with the ability of the people to control decision- making (Omotola, 2006) which explains why Osaghae, (1999) asserts that the central thing about democracy is to ensure power actually belongs to the people. Democracy emphasises freedom of the individuals in various aspects of political life, equality among citizens and justice in elections between the people and the government and the participation of the people in choosing those in government (Omotola, 2006). This presupposes that democracy 86 is hinged on the active participation/involvement of the people in governance. The inalienable attribute of good governance and democracy that can facilitate community participation in decision -making among others include - Accountability - Transparency in government procedures - Expectation of rational decisions. - Predictability in government behaviours. - Openness in government transactions. - Free flow of information - Respect for the rule of law and protection of the civil liberties - Freedom of the press - Decentralisation of power structure and decision-making (Babawale,2007) However, community participation in governance is based on - Broad representatives, accommodating various shades of interest and opinion. - Consultation and consensus building. - Enlightened discussions, debates and contributions. - Active involvement of the good society (Attahiru, 2007). 2.9 The Challenges of Decentralisation and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes. The quest for governmental decentralisation has become a frequent theme among several ethnic groups in Nigeria. Since independence from Britain in 1960, decentralisation through states and local government creation is yet to attain a stable national consensus. The distributive imperatives and advantages of new states and the sheer multiplicity and 87 exhaustibility of ethnic and sub-ethnic groups for legitimising statehood aspirations or claims, have combined to make the establishment of new states a persistent, strident and pervasive theme of Nigeria National Politics (Suberu, 1994). The negative structural implications of the proliferation of new states in Nigeria are apparent and broadly acknowledged. Suberu, (1994) stresses that: Government over decentralisation, growing ethno-political fragmentation, financial dissipating, bureaucative constipation and disintegration and the intensification of pressure for further territorial reorganisations. (pg79). However, these issues of decentralisation through the creation of states and LGAs have short comings, such as multiplication of personnel, problem of infrastructural facilities, excessive high wage bills, dwindling budgets and massive corruption (Suberu, 1994; Omotoso, 2003). Local government which is the third-tier level of government in Nigeria has proved perennial problems to successive government in Nigeria. Most critical in this connection are pecuniary distress, inadequate executive capacity, suffocative control by the state and federal governments, sometimes, conflicting directives from higher tier of government to them, irregular participatory democracy at the level of governance and lack of political will on the part of the elected councillors and chairman to transfer their mandate into reality (Bello-Imam, 1996). It has been noticed that Nigeria local governments are not sufficiently local, despite fragmentation of these areas of authority and multiplication of their numbers. Further, it has made local people apathetic towards local performance, (Bulamin,1995) corroborating this problem. However, Akinyemi, (1990) stresses that people are beginning to recognize the limitation of government in providing all the impetus and resources which are basic to development. They are becoming more actively concerned with finding solution to development problems on a more collective basis than ever before (Pp 100). 88 According to Adeyeye, (2000) to a large extent, this situation is a manifestation at the local level, of the crisis of legitimacy and governance that currently assail the Nigeria post-colonial state. Indicators of the crisis among others include: - Incapacity to provide basic social services and amenities; - Incapacity to extract needed human and material resources from immediate communities; - Excessive reliance on transfer from the federal and state government; - Minimal adherence to the principles of accountability evident in pervasive corruption on the part of the council leaders and officials; - Repeated reforms and restructuring leading to constant policy changes and even territorial re-organisation, that give little or no time for the operation of the system and target communities to master the system; The Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission policies give support to decentralisation through statutory fund allocation to the three tiers of Government. The new National Policy on Integrated Rural Development (NPIRD) and the Rural Development Sector Strategy for Nigeria also identify and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the federal, state and local governments as well as the communities in rural development. The ministries and agencies, which are involved in agriculture and rural development at the state level, seem to play the same role as those at federal level. A major problem therefore, is overlapping of responsibilities. This creates policy conflicts, duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. Duplication also arose from the creation of specialised agencies by external financiers/donors, while leaving the functions of ministries or agencies performing those functions before the creation of the new agencies virtually 89 unchanged. Another fundamental institutional problem is lack of decentralisation of management. At federal and state levels, project planning and implementation decisions are headquarters-based without adequate consultations with the local communities. Lack of mechanism for co-ordination of related services provided by different agencies/ministries to the same community is another problem. In a number of cases, harmonisation of related functions within an institution to ensure synergy is not reflected in the organisational arrangements. Other problems, as mentioned earlier, are rooted in severe resource constraints (human, material and technological) which limit the ability of the local government to fulfill their statutory responsibilities. In Nigeria and the developing world generally, sustainable community development can only succeed where there is transparency and accountability in all sectors. Many programmes have been poor in quality or abandoned midway due to corruption, embezzlement of fund, nepotism and other vices. It means the collective interest of the people and their needs should be foremost in the minds of the leaders and politicians. Transparency and accountability will make members of the community develop psychological interest in the mobilisation programme of government towards self-help projects (Abiona, 2009). A key element of sustainable development is an effective political system where good governance is upheld. This brings enduring democracy with people- oriented policies. Sustainable development requires a political system that ensures citizen participation in decision-making. Where there is stability in government, policies are implemented even when there is a change in administration (Abiona, 2009). Political stability anchors development in any nation. This means there should be smooth transition of government from one administration to another without violence. There 90 should be equity and distributive justice at all levels. Also of importance is prevalence and institutionalisation of human and democratic rights. These presuppose a political system that provides effective citizen participation in decision-making process. Therefore, there should be continuity in policies of government of different administrations. In this instance, the atmosphere is favourable for sustainability of existing projects and plans for future development. In Nigeria, changes in administration from the civilian to military on a number of occasions resulted in political instability and frequent changes of policies on the economy, development, education and other spheres. Such changed policies affected efforts geared towards sustainable community development. People develop apathy to programmes of development as they perceive those in power as adventurers seeking to loot the government coffers (Abiona, 2009). 2.10 Empirical Studies There are over-whelming empirical evidence to demonstrate that decentralisation in Nigeria has been a frequently and constantly reoccurring exercise. The practice of federal experiment in the world society with all its global attendant challenges such as that of decentralisation is evident in Nigeria political model. Going by history, there is an ample evidence to support the experiences of most established democratic and prosperous economies of the west which has shown that a reasonable level of economic development is pivotal to democratic transition and consolidation. Federal solutions to the problems of governmental organisation had been pursued th over the ages before Philadelphia in the city states of ancient Greece, date-back to the 5 century BC in Italian cities of the Middle Ages, in an almost continuous development of the 91 Swiss confederation from the 13th century. British imperial history is dominated by this theme; in contemporary society, Switzerland is the oldest federation, a similar experiment also began in Canada in 1867 and this proved successful, it was tried in Australia and encouraged in South Africa. After the abolition of Unitary System in Nigeria, the country adopted federalism in 1954 (Ramphar, 1979; Osuntokun, 1979). Indeed, the experiences have shown that a reasonable level of grassroots democratisation is pivotal to economic development. Several quantitative cross-national researches have been conducted in that regard and it was consistently found that a country‟s level of economic development is associated positively and strongly with the extent to which the political system manifests properties of democracy Gboyega, 2003). The pioneering work of Lipset, (1959) cited in Alabi, (2006) established a correlation between wealth and democracy. These twin issues were also investigated and analysed by (Huntington, 1991; Fukuyama, 1992, cited in Alabi, 2006). The theory holds that “poverty, widespread illiteracy, and a deeply hierarchical social structure” all features of under-development “are inhospitable conditions for the functioning of grassroots democracy” (Alabi, 2006). Decentralisation has become more or less a perennial feature of Nigeria federalism. Nigeria began as a loose confederation of three strong self-administered regions but evolved under centrifugal pressures into a federation of an ever-growing number of states. This incessant territorial reconfiguration in Nigeria has been buttressed by several studies (Adejuyigbe, 1979; Oyovbaire, 1985; Suberu, 1994; Joshua, 2000; Omotoso, 2003) In spite of the phenomenal expansion in the number of constituent federal units in Nigeria since independence from Britain in 1960, the country is yet to attain a stable national consensus in its internal territorial configuration; and many communities still 92 remained under-developed (Suberu, 1994; World Bank, 2001; Obianigwe, 1999; Ugwu, 2000; UNDP, 1996; Chicendu, 2003). The parameters of sustainable community development empirical evidence were emphasized in the study of Adedokun,(1998) which emphasises the relationship between decentralisation of policy making and community development. Akinyemi, (1990) examined the variables that promote effective participation in community development. Other several studies were carried out on community development variables by many scholars (Are, 1972; Ahmed, 1988; Atata, 1995; Abisoye, 2008). Past empirical studies showed a vivid picture of under-development nature of many communities despite incessant increase in the number of states and LGAs in Nigeria. Research in Nepal indicates government support in establishing a broad cross-section of society to engage in formulating and implementing effective approaches to sustainable development in the context of the decentralisation process. In one direction, it was established that there was improvement in healthcare, education facility to all. In another direction, new business opportunities were initiated, there was easy access to services and resources without collateral (National Strategies for Sustainable Development, 1998). Research studies around the world show Kenya‟s lesson on decentralisation traced back to pre-independence time and later based on principles of devolution which aimed at given powers of self-governance to the people at the local levels to enhance participation of communities and to ensure democratic and accountable exercise of power (Ademola and Stephen, 2003).Culling from the experience of decentralisation of some countries surveyed by Brillanties, (2001). The past decade has seen many developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America adopt decentralisation as a reform strategy (World Bank, 2000 Cited in 93 Brillanties, 2001). As pointed out by Ebel, (2001) cited in Brillanties, (2001) in the developed countries and the western world, decentralisation is seen as an alternative to provide public services in a more effective way. Developing countries pursue decentralisation reforms to counter economic inefficiencies, macro-economic instability and ineffective governance. Post communist transition countries embrace decentralisation as a national step in the shift to market economies and democracy. Latin America decentralised as a result of political pressure to democratise. Decentralisation is seen by African states as a path to national unity. There was much evidence to show that many countries identified decentralisation as development strategy for more responsive governance. Indonesia passed law towards decentralisation in 1903 aimed at fundamentally altering national local relations. The decentralisation plan of Pakistan was embodied in the 2000. Local government plan under the aegis of the National Reconciliation Bureau aimed to fundamentally restructure national local relations. In 1987, contribution of Thailand mandates decentralisation, it was operationalised in various subsequent acts and policies enacted in 1999, in the Philippines Republic Act 7160 transferred the delivery of many basic services to the local government and fundamentally altered national-local relations. Similar strategy was adopted in Vietnam. Advanced industrialised nations in Asia, notably Japan and Korea also emphasise decentralisation strategy as part of their on-going administrative reform and strengthening local governments. For instance, in Japan, in 1993, the house and diet resolutions on decentralisation were passed based on the premise that the centralised administrating system was unable to cope with rapid developments at the local level (Brillanties, 2001). 94 In a related study, Oyelami, (2007) examines the extent of community participation in the provision of education services and facilitates on school system performance in Oyo and Osun states, Nigeria. The study observed there was a significant influence of community participation in the planning, monitoring, findings, decision - making and provision of the school resources on school system performance. Oyelami, (2007) points out that community participation should be encouraged in the provision of education services. Similarly, in a research carried out by Akinboade, (1994) on the effect of women empowerment on participation of community based development projects in Ondo and Kogi States of Nigeria, the researcher asserts high degree of women empowerment and their participation in community based Development projects although it varies from place to place. A research was conducted by Adedokun, (1998) on sustainability of community development programmes in Oyo state. The study reveals that since development is people centred, there is need for decentralisation of policy making concerning community development. Also, there is need for community participation in development programmes for sustainability of such programmes to be recorded. Relatedly, Akinyemi, (1990) examines the determinants of citizen participation in community development activities in Ondo State, Nigeria. The researcher investigated various community development activities embarked upon by individual groups, women organisations, N.Y.S.C members and youth organisations. The study identifies some problems affecting implementation of community development programmes such as lack of funds, bad leadership, lack of land and lack of unity. A study conducted by Otite, (2002) partnering in community development: A study of three rural communities in Delta state, Nigeria. The result reveals there was an increase in awareness and enthusiasm in community 95 development where several individuals and sections shared in the responsibility for community development. There is an increasing emphasis on the reliance of communities on the leading and stimulating role of town associations and their branches in community development. Egenti, (2001) carried out a study on the influence of citizen participation in self- help projects on the welfare of people in Imo State, Nigeria .The study revealed that there was a significant relationship between the citizens involvement in planning, implementation, evaluation stages and effective planning in self help projects for improved welfare of the people in Imo State. 2.11 Theoretical Framework The following theories were examined as the study anchored on them. These are: - Systems theory; and - Modernisation theory of development. 2:11:1 Systems Theory Several people have been credited with having fathered the General Systems Movement. To Owen, (1981), Bertalanffy, (1950) was the first to outline the notion of General Systems Theory (GST) in research work. Systems Theory is one conceptual framework that studies the nature of complex systems, society and science. It perceives organism not simply in isolation but as an integral part of complex ecological systems. Myers, (1954) draws from a general system theory and ecological perspective when she discusses the interrelatedness of individual and the environment. She emphasises a person‟s “connectedness” and maintains thus: “the person is connected to others, as well as to the 96 social institutions, cultural forces and the physical space that make up his or her environment” . Systems Theory is a framework by which one can analyse and or describe any group of objects that work in concert to produce some results. This could be a single organism, any organisation or society. It focuses on an arrangement of relations between the parts which connect them to a whole. It gives primacy to the interrelationship and to the elements of the system. Therefore, Systems theory recognises the interdependence between groups of individuals‟ structures, and processes that enable an organisation perform. It consists of elements that are so interdependent, that a change in one element is likely to produce a change in other elements. The idea being that any part of an organisation‟s or society‟s activities affect all other parts (Ukeje, Okojie and Nwagbara, 1992). Systems Theory focuses on the enormously complex interdependencies that exist between sets of variables and processes required to identify predictable relationship among all variables in almost every entity in the environment. This has produced a mode of thought that is not only interdisciplinary in nature, but also conceptually rich and ultimately practical. The theory conceived a system as an entity that is composed of a number of parts…The relationship of these parts, and the attributes of both parts and relationship. Thus, a system may be defined as an assemblage of a set of constituents or elements or active organised interaction as a bounded entity so as to achieve a common goal or purpose which transcends that of the constituent in isolation (Ukeje, Okojie and Nwagbara, 1992). However, System Theory puts one on guard against the strong tendency to ascribe phenomena to a single causative factor. It is essential to deal with different levels of insight when we seek to understand and describe phenomena. This concept of sub-systems and the 97 concept of multiple-causation are central to Systems Theory (Ukeje, Okojie & Nwagbara, 1992; Immergart, Glem, Francis and Pilecki, 1973). All systems, whether open or closed exhibit some general characteristics referred to as Universal Systems Properties, they are system environment, time and space, boundaries, variables and parameters sub-systems, supra systems and entropy (Ukeje, Okojie and Nwagbara, 1992). The Systems Theory is relevant to this study in the following ways. First, it emphasises decentralisation of authority to sub-systems. Nigeria as one of the countries in the Africa continent is a system with many sub-systems, which includes geo-political zones, states and local government areas that are created for effective governance. The states and local governments have functions, attributes and boundaries; this corroborates (Ukeje, Okojie and Nwagbara, 1992).. All systems (except the smallest systems) have subsystem, a sub-system is a bounded entity that consists of a set of interrelated parts, attributes and functions . Within a Sub-system, there are also some other subsystem. Their boundaries are also arbitrarily determined on the bases of the utility and visibility and these boundaries are more or less precise, and in some cases some systems may be overlapping one another. Second, the application of these attributes of Universal System Properties enables the citizenry to understand the essence of decentralisation of authority for administration efficiency. Third, there is the assumption that an event may be caused by many other factors that are in themselves interrelated and independent and the possibility that casual factors may, in turn, be affected by things they caused through feedback. Appropriate application of this enables the researcher understand some factors affecting decentralisation in Nigeria which are interrelated and serve as a guard for geo-political structure. 98 Fourth, Systems Theory is also significant in this study as it acknowledges respect for the use of objective (common goals or purposes) for events; this is relevant as different governments that are involved in decentralisation in Nigeria have certain rationale such as the grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration and cohesion, unity and peace, devolution of power, delegation of authority and easiness of decision-making process. Finally, one of the elements of systems theory states that whatever affects a part will affect the whole; therefore, within the context of decentralisation in an administrative set-up, this theory is relevant because any principle of government that affects a department will cut across all other development units. 2:11:2 Modernisation Theory of Development Modernisation theory emerged in the 1950s and 1960s as the dominant paradigm of economic and cultural change. Some scholars who have been credited with Modernisation Theory are, Parsons, (1951). To some extent, Modernisation Theory is an intellectual response to the two world wars and represents an attempt to take an optimistic view about the future of mankind. It is a development theory that seeks to explain the internal structures of development in different parts of the world. The theory attributes the source of under- development or economic stagnation to factors within countries rather than factors outside the countries. The factors include illiteracy, traditional agrarian structure, the traditional attitude of the population, the low division of labour, lack of communication and infrastructure among others. Consequently, a change of these endogenous factors is the strategy for development (Ingemar, 1983). 99 The theory is predicated on a dualist assumption that set a distinction between rural and urban, poor and rich, underdeveloped and developed, traditional and modern. Modernisation is therefore an idea of universal development that placed all human societies in the world on a single and shared continuum from least to most developed, on the same trajectory towards a common development (Fayenuwo, 2008). Another tenet of this theory is that development can be achieved by following the processes of development that are used by the currently developed countries. The theory treats the nation-state as an autonomous unit and focused on the relationship between holding modern values and development process (Ingmar, 1983). One key factor in Modernisation Theory is the belief that development requires the assistance of developed countries to aid developing countries learns from their development (Parsons, 1951). The theory lays claim that western capitalist value and practice are the basis for “modernising” third world countries and helping them become self-sustaining. It is also emphasised that the rest of the world need to look at the western model of modernisation and pattern their society like the West in order to change, but must also respond to that change. It looks at internal dynamics referring to social and cultural structures and the adaptation of new technologies. Besides, it is a description and explanation of the processes of transformation from traditional under-developed societies to modern societies and therefore primarily focused on ways in which past and present pre-modern societies become modern (i.e. Westernised) through processes of economic growth and change in social political and cultural structures. This informs Fayenuwo, (2008) that the process of modernisation can be characterised as revolutionary (a dramatic shift from traditional to modern) complex, multiple causes, systematic and globally affecting all societies, phased advance through 100 stages homogenising (convergence) inevasible and progressive. Despite the various criticisms of modernization theory, patterns of socio-economic and cultural change in Africa and other Third World countries have continued to follow the development models of the west. The dysfunctional changes in the cultural system of the study area, therefore could not have found better explanation in any other development paradigm other than the modernisation theory. First, another tenet of the modernisation theorist is that development should be a structural transformation of traditional societies from underdeveloped societies to productive urban industrial societies (Fayenuwo, 2008). This tenet of modernisation is relevant to this study as the process of decentralisation in Nigeria focuses on administrative efficiency towards socio-economic transformation of rural areas into urban characters. Second, Modernisation theory attributes the source of under-development to factors within countries rather than to factors outside the countries. This is in line with the situation in Nigeria; many rural areas are under-developed due to factors envisioned within the country such as illiteracy, poor medical facility, erratic power supply, inadequate water supply. This corroborates Obianigwe, (1999) and Abiodun, (1998) views on the nature of under-development in Nigeria, the process of modernisation. Third, acquisition of modern values for developmental purposes has given prominence to modernisation theory. This is relevant to Nigeria situation because the principle of decentralisation has been the common practice of most Advanced Industrial Nations especially where federal political model is adopted. Therefore, this decentralisation strategy was also adopted in Nigeria for more responsive governance, local participation and rapid development. 101 2.12 Model for Decentralisation Factors and Sustainability of Community Development Programmes A CONCEPTUAL MODIFIED MODEL ON DECENTRALISATION FACTORS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN OSUN AND KWARA STATES, NIGERIA FEED BACK SUSTAINED OUTPUT SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. (DEPENDENT VARIABLES)  SOCIAL PROGRAMMES INPUT PROCESS Access to community education programmes Community security programmes (vigilante) 1. DECENTRALISATION FACTORS 2. STAGES OF (INDEPENDENT VARIABLES) Construction of Palace COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Access to water supply  Gr assroot Participation in Dev. Sinking of borehole & well  Identification of felt- Programmes Construction of community health centre. needs  ECONOMIC PROGRAMMES  Th e Need for Peace /Unity  Systematic planning Skill Acquisition  The Need for Devolution of Power of the Needs Construction of culverts & drainages  Mobilisation Stage Buying of electrical poles  Th e Need for Delegation of Authority Access to credit facilities such as community  Implementation and banking system and co-operative societies  Th e Need for Community Integration Execution of the Self-help projects such as dying, sewing, soap  Th e Need for Development Equity. Projects making  Monitoring and Access to food supply.  Ea siness of Decision-Making Process Evaluation of  ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMMES projects Environmental sanitation Access to land Free from disaster.  INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMMES Participation in decision-making process Access to information Government partnership with community Involvement in policy making FEED BACK SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM OTITE, (2002) PARTNERSHIP IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Figure: 2.1 102 The first segment contains independent variables; these are the decentralisation factors such as grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration, unity, devolution of power, delegation of authority, and easiness of decision-making process. These factors are considered necessary for the achievement of sustainability of community development progammes The second segment contains the process and stages of activities in community development programmes. There are many stages in community development like other development programmes. The stages are identification of felt needs by members of a community, systematic planning of the needs, mobilising and harnessing of resources, implementation and execution of the projects, monitoring and evaluation of the projects. First principal stage is one of systematic discussion of common felt needs by members of a community: At this stage, the morale of the people may be raised to the point of desiring to make meaningful achievement to satisfy their needs. The feeling of need usually arises from of dissatisfaction with the ways in which they are actually living. Discussion therefore, centres on the belief among the people that they can make effort on their parts to achieve betterment for themselves. This simple but necessary first step can be started by an individual or group of few people and the discussion may be tentatively shared with others. It may be noted that an effective community begins to form at this stage where objectives begin to be formulated around problems that generate needs. The clue lies in perception of the problems facing the people, and willing to come together to combat the problems. The second stage usually features systematic planning to select what the people want to do to satisfy their needs. The important aspect of this stage is that, the people must have 103 the ability to articulate and think out the most feasible projects within the context of their available local resources and initiatives which must enhance their development in their community. Also derivable from this stage is the emergence of local leadership which directs the mobilisation force needed for the development activities. The third stage is the mobilizing and harnessing of the physical, economic and social potentialities of the community to build up social services. This process usually harnesses the people‟s voluntary labour and subscriptions, with technical and monetary assistance from government and other agencies where possible. This is the stage that combines study with action. The fourth stage may be identified as the availability of more resources for the maintenance of the services established at the previous stage. Inherent in this endeavour is the necessity of the people to develop the aspiration and determination to undertake additional community development projects. It is at this stage that the growing effect of community interest and effort is clearly felt. The maintenance of services may necessitate property taxation or rating, or some other ways of raising recurrent revenue for communal purposes. Such a measure must be considered necessary, as this is a very important stage in community development. Many people may be willing to make the initial effort to provide public services, but few are prepared to put up the continuing effort required for the maintenance of such facilities. The fifth stage may be identified as the monitoring and evaluation stage. Monitoring and evaluation are twin words that are very important in any self help projects and other developmental programmes. Monitoring of project finds out if laid down standards of projects are being achieved at each stage of the project. It also involves collection of 104 information on the available resources and people‟s response to the call on the project while evaluation on the other hand is the assessment of the significance of the project. Evaluation simply means determining how well or otherwise a job has been done. Evaluation is an essential part of the organisational process for any activity. Its chief purpose is to point the way to progress. In community development, it enables people handle their projects effectively. It makes it possible for them to test their community goals, methods and procedures against needs and accomplishments. It helps them change or modify these goals, methods and procedures in the light of what findings they may have made in the process of executing their programmes. Hence, evaluation provides a sound basis for measuring the effectiveness of programmes. These relate to those that measure the fulfillment of objectives and those that measure the efficiency of operation. Monitoring and evaluation shows the state of a project at any given time. It is a detailed accountability of the progress of projects including the state of financial expenses on it.The combination of all the stages of activities in community development programmes will facilitateits sustainability. The third segment of this model contains the dependent variables which are referred to as sustained outcome: Social indicators: access to community education programmes, community security programmes, access to water supply, sinking of bore holes and wells, construction of palaces, construction of school buildings, community health centres, employment generation scheme and rehabilitation of roads. Economic indicators: construction of culverts and drainages, buying of electrical poles, skill development programmes, access to credit facilities such as community banking and cooperative societies, self-help projects such as dyeing, sewing and soap making 105 The other sustained outcome include Institutional indicators such as Public participation, role of government, the role of civic society and access to information, integrated decision-making, capacity to form partnership, cooperation, easy integration and involvement in policy making. Environmental indicators are garbage collection, environmental protection programmes and access to land utilisation. In this study, the conceptual framework helped in understanding the broad goal of decentralisation factors (grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration, unity, devolution of power, delegation of authority, easiness of decision-making process) which have helped to influence sustainability of community development programmes. 2.13 Appraisal of Literature The review of literature indicates various concepts and issues on decentralisation and sustainability of community development programmes. The literature also seeks to reveal the historical antecedent of political decentralisation through creation of states and LGAs in Nigeria. The literature reveals decentralisation factors on grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration and cohesion, unity and peace, devolution of power, delegation of authority and easiness of decision-making process in facilitating sustainability of community development programmes in Nigeria. Literature also emphasises and reveals the challenges of decentralisation and sustainability of community development programmes in Nigeria. The analysis of the empirical studies and the appraisal of the variables relevant to this study were carefully reviewed. 106 A critical appraisal of the literature indicates that the researcher adopts some theories. The theories adopted included: The Systems and Modernisation Theories of development. The two theories are somehow interrelated and they rest on system theory which explain federal political model within the system approach and the need for modernisation approach to achieve sustainability of community development programmes. In a nutshell, relevant theories and literature review on the variables of decentralisation and sustainability of community development programmes in Nigeria support the need for testing of hypotheses and research questions raised upon which this research is anchored. 2:14 Research Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were tested in of this study. Ho1. There is no significant relationship between each of the decentralisation factors (grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration, unity, devolution of power, delegation of authority, and easiness of decision-making process) and sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. Ho2. There is no significant difference in sustainability of community development programmes in the decentralisation process between Osun and Kwara States. 107 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research design, population, sample and sampling technique, instrumentation, procedure for data collection and methods of data analysis to be used for the study. 3.1 Research Design Descriptive survey research design of ex-post facto type was adopted for the study. This method described, examined, and analysed the variables of decentralisation and its influence on sustainability of community development programmes. In this study there was no manipulation of variables of interest because these events had already taken place. The independent variable was measured in retrospect for its possible influence on the dependent variable. 3.2 Population of the Study The target population of this study comprised members of community based association community leaders, change agents and political functionaries in selected nine communities each from Osun and Kwara States based on the available record which shows arrays of participation in community development projects among the inhabitants. 3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques The multi-stage sampling procedures were adopted for this study. The first stage involved cluster sampling technique, whereby two states were selected purposively, namely: Osun from South-West and Kwara from North-Central geo-political zones. The purposive sampling of these states was based on past record of decentralisation and different 108 community development programmes‟ availability. The second stage involved the stratification of these states into six zones along the existing senatorial districts among which three senatorial districts were selected from each of the States. To ensure adequate representation, three LGAs were selected from each senatorial district, which resulted to nine local governments from each state. The selection of the LGAs was based on the intensity and availability of community development projects. The choice of some local governments was based on their urbanised nature where community development activities are predominant with availability of various data. These communities were relatively ease to access, thus making the research work affordable. These communities are Osun west senatorial district: Ede north and Ede south LGAs. Osun east senatorial district: Ife Central and Ife East LGAs. The third stage involved a simple random sampling of specific respondents in proportion to their participation in community development programmes along the basis of being a member of community-based association, change agents, community leaders and political functionaries. The proportion sample size was 50% of population of (4,100), and the total sample for the study was 2,050 respondents (see Table 3:1) 109 Table3.1: Population and Sample Size Selected for the Study S/N State Senatorial Local Community Change Members of Political s District Governme Leaders Agents Community Leaders nt Areas Development selected Association Po Sampl Pop. Sampl Pop. Sampl Pop. Sampl p. e Size e Size e Size e Size 50% 50% 50% 50% 1. Osun Osun West Ede North 22 11 50 25 96 48 10 5 Ede South 20 10 46 23 92 46 8 4 Ejigbo 30 15 70 35 116 58 14 7 2. Osun Osun Osogbo 34 17 74 37 124 62 20 10 Central Ifelodun 26 13 52 26 110 55 12 6 Ila 18 9 42 21 70 35 6 3 3. Osun Osun East Ife North 32 16 72 36 120 60 18 9 Ife East 50 25 82 41 152 76 26 13 Ife central 38 19 78 39 128 64 22 11 4. Kwa Kwara Ilorin 48 24 84 42 134 67 22 11 ra Centra South 44 22 80 40 130 65 20 10 Ilorin East 54 27 92 46 172 86 30 15 Ilorin West 5. Kwa Kwara Mooro 24 12 56 28 104 52 12 6 ra North Pateggi 28 14 60 30 114 57 14 7 Edu 40 20 76 38 124 62 18 9 6. Kwa Kwara Offa 10 5 42 21 74 37 8 4 ra South Oyun 14 7 44 22 100 50 10 5 Irepodun 32 16 70 35 120 60 16 8 TOTAL 282 585 1,040 143 Source: computed from field data @2008 3:4. Instrumentation Two sets of questionnaire were employed in this study for data collection, complemented with Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Key Informant Interview (KII). The first questionnaire was tagged “Decentralisation Factors‟ Scale (DFS) contained 113 items. This DFS contained eight sections drawn on a four points rating scale of Strongly 110 Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). It is a self developed scale. To ensure the validity of the instrument, adequate efforts were made to ascertain that the items of the questionnaire were related to the objectives of the study. The items were reviewed by experts in Adult Education, Community Development and Social Sciences to ensure that the items correlate with the variables expected. The comments, corrections and recommendations of the supervisor and the experts consulted were put together and taken into consideration in drawing up the final instrument. To ensure reliability of the instrument, a test re-test method was conducted on 50 randomly selected respondents in Osun and Kwara states within the interval of four weeks. After the second test, the two questionnaires were subjected to reliability analysis using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of reliability. The correlation index recorded for DFS was 0.87 which was classified as very high score for data collection. (ii) The second questionnaire was tagged Community Development Sustainability Questionnaire (CDSQ) which contained 26 items. Community Development Sustainability Scale (CDSS) is a self- developed scale with 26 items. The scale was on a four point Likert rating of Strongly Agree (S A) Agree (A) Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (S D). The face and content validity of the instruments was carried out by the experts for scrutiny, comments and corrections; who assured that all the items on the questionnaire correlated with the objectives and questions raised for the study. Similarly, the instrument was given to some experts in the field of Adult Education, Community Development and Social Sciences of the University of Ibadan, Ibadan for confirmation of the construct, content and faces validity of the instruments. The comments, corrections and 111 recommendations of the supervisor and the experts consulted were put together and taken into considerations which were certified valid. In establishing the reliability of the instrument, the test-retest measurement technique was carried out on 50 randomly selected respondents from outside the scope of the study but with similar background and experience on the subject investigated. The test was conducted after an interval of four weeks; the instrument was administered again to the same group of respondents. Two sets of data were collected and the coefficient was calculated for reliability using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of reliability. The correlation index recorded for CDSQ was 0.76, considered sufficiently high to confirm the instrument as reliable. 3:4:1 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) AND Key Informant Interviews (KII) Additionally, the questionnaire was complemented with FGD and KII to elicit important and useful information from respondents, deemed relevant to the study. 3:4:2 Selections of Focus Group Discussion participants The FGD participants were selected through contact persons from different communities who were residents of the area. The change agents, community leaders and particularly the government officials at the local government secretariats assisted in mobilising participants. The FGD conducted comprised males and females, 29 years of age and above who had lived in these communities consistently for more than five years and who were members of community-based organization CBO, political functionaries and change agents. This was to ensure they had a good knowledge of the community 112 development activities. The respondents were arranged in groups of eight to twelve. The researcher used interview guide to administer the FGD. Table 3.2 FGD centres used across 18 local governments. s/n Local government Locations Number of participants 1 Ede North Alusekere primary school, Ede 12 2 Ede South St. Peter‟s primary school, Ede. 9 3 Ejigbo Bricklayer‟s association, building, Ejigbo 12 4 Osogbo Gbongan road, osogbo 12 5 Ifelodun Ikirun 9 6 Ila Oke-Ejigbo, Ila. 9 7 Ife North Ife road, Ifetedo. 9 8 Ife East Ipetumodu. 9 9 Ife Central Lagere. 9 10 Ilorin South Radio Kwara Studio, Ilorin. 12 11 Ilorin East Ilorin East, Local Govt. Secretariat. 12 12 Ilorin West Ilorin West Local Govt. Secretariat, Emirs 12 palace, Ilorin. 13 Mooro Sobi road Shao town. 10 14 Pattegi Lande ward 1, Pattegi. 9 15 Edu Tsaragi ward, Laffiagi. 9 16 Offa Offa L.G. secretariat 12 17 Oyun Ilemona L.G secretariat. 11 18 Irepodun Ilorin road, Ajase ipo 12 Source: computed from field data @2011 3:4:3 Focus Group Discussion Diary Focus Group Discussions (FGD) sessions were conducted across 18 LGAs. The 189 participants were from different political wards in Kwara and Osun states. The participants belonged to different age-groups, ranging from 29 to 60years of age. Many of the participants were married; a few were single consisting members of different community development associations, community leaders, political representatives, community development agents. The various locations used for the FGD are displayed in Table 3.2. The choice of these sites was to obtain data on FGD that would cut across all LGAs where there 113 are a number of community development programmes. The work field was carried out between January 11, 2011 and February 29, 2011. FGD assistants comprised of moderator, note taker, change agents, trained research personnel, photographer and audio and video coverage assistants. There were many issues raised in each group. The FGD sessions covered such questions are:  Are local political units like states and LGAs necessary in helping communities through self–help projects and other community development programmes?  Are your community development associations being neglected in the process of decision -making at the local level through political decentralisation process?  Since the creation of states and LGAs, what are the benefits you derived in your community through self-help and peoples initiatives since 1999 to 2005? (Physical, social and economic programmes)  What are the community development projects which have been sustained in your community?  In what ways do you think community development programmes can be sustained in your community through political decentralisation process?  Do you encounter any problem in sustaining community development projects and programmes through political decentralisation process?  During the FGD sessions many issues were raised and gaps were filled. The moderator presided on the sessions. The researcher highlighted the issues on each group for the study. The note taker took the records of the process. Audio and visual materials were used to cover the FGD sessions. Photographs of different respondents and groups were taken these are displayed in Appendices13-15. 114 3:4:4 Key Informants Interview (KII) Key informant interview (KII) was also conducted across six senatorial districts of the investigated areas. Eighteen KII were chosen from various communities spread over different political wards in all the six senatorial districts. The respondents comprised residents of the communities who are community leaders, members of different community development associations, political representatives and change agents. Some issues similar to decentralisation and sustainability of community development programmes were raised. They included the extent of participation in governance and community development programmes; Influence of decentralisation on physical, socio -economic development in communities. Some projects that were sustained were identified. Problems and ways of sustaining community development programmes through decentralisation process were examined. 3:5 Administration of instruments. Some copies of the questionnaire were personally administered with two trained research assistants in Osun and Kwara States. Out of 2,050 administered copies 1,984 copies were retrieved 964 Osun State and 1,020 copies from Kwara State, 66 copies were discarded. 3.6 Method of Data Analysis The demographic variables were analysed using the frequency counts, simple percentages, bar and pie charts. Data were analysed using Pearson‟s Product Moment Correlation, t-test, multiple regression and content analysis. The hypotheses generated were tested at 0.05 level of significance. 115 The FGD discussion was transcribed verbatim from the tape recorded by an expert along with the researcher. The content analysis was done by identifying themes and indicators used by the respondents during the discussion. Those responses which were deemed relevant to variables of the study were sorted out for discussion of the findings. 116 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS This chapter deals with results of data analysis and the discussion of findings based on the questionnaire administered and the data obtained from field through FGDs and the KIIs. Discussion was also focused on the demographic characteristics of the respondents which were presented in figures using frequency counts, simple percentages, bar and pie charts. However, Data were analysed using Pearson‟s Product Moment Correlation, t-test, multiple regression and content analysis. The hypotheses postulated were tested at 0.05 level of significance. 4.1 Analysis of Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents This section presents the demographic variables of respondents such as sex, age, educational qualifications, marital status, occupation, state of origin and community stakeholders with references and deductions. The demographic information of the respondents show better understanding of the quality of response to items on the questionnaire. 117 Figure 4.1: Distribution of Respondents by Sex Figure 4.1 shows that 1,426 (71.9%) of the respondents were male while their female counterparts were 558 (28%).The implication is that more male took active role in community development programmes than the female gender. This is a reflection that women are committed to multiple domestic roles at home than engaging in community development programmes. It can also be inferred that males have more responsibilities in the society and are more favourably disposed to participation in community development than women folk. The finding of this study is in congruence with the study of Akinboade, (1994) which stresses that community development and agricultural development projects are often directly aimed towards men. This finding also buttresses the experience in Nepal programme, it has shown that in higher castle, community women remained in the background and were dominated by men in any community development programme “the amount of capacity building that would take place among the women is sometimes over shadowed by the men”WWW.nnssd.net. 118 Figure 4.2: Education Qualification Figure 4.2 shows that 15(0.8) of the respondents were Ph.D certificate holders, 91(4.6%) were M.A and M.Ed, holders, 446(22.5%) were B.A and B.Sc holders, 472(23.8%) were HND holders, 438(22.1%) were OND holders,419(21.1%) were NCE certificate holders, 102(5.1%) had Secondary School Certificates, while 1(0.1%) had Other certificates other than the aforementioned. The figure 4.2 shows that majority of the respondents (99%) were educated .The implication is that a large number of the respondents are literate therefore they were able to understand the elements and concepts of community development. 119 Figure 4.3: Distribution of the Respondents by Age In figure 4.3, 203(10.2%) of the respondents‟ whose ages were between 20 and 29 years, 645(32.5%) were of age range, 30 and 39 years, 779 (39.3%) were of age range, 40 and 49 years 272(13.7%) were of age range, 50 and 59 years, 85(4.3%) were 60 years and above. Figure 4:3 reveals that most of the respondents fell within the age bracket of 40 years and above. This indicates that a large percentage were elderly people. The implication is that most community development associations in Kwara and Osun States considered of mature people. It implies therefore, that members of the CDA comprised of people who would be able to organise, make reasonable decisions, manage the affairs of association and make good things happen. 120 Marital Status Figure 4.4: Distribution of the Respondents by Marital status From figure 4.4, 221(11.1%) of the respondents were single, 1,705(85.9%) were married, 23 (1.2%) were divorced, 29 (1.5%) were widow while 6 (0.3%) were widower. The deduction made from this figure is that a high proportion of respondents, 1,705 (85.9%) were those that are highly responsible and experienced mothers and fathers who are capable of making positive contributions towards the process of the CDAs within their different localities. 121 Figure 4.5: Distribution of the Respondents by Occupation In figure 4.5, majority of the respondents were civil servants and were followed in succession by public servant, private sector employee, self employed, farmers, and lastly Traders. From the figure above, out of the sampled population, 1,047 (52.8 %) of the respondents were civil servants, 179 (9.0 %) were private sector employed, 65 (3.3 %) were self-employed, 44 (2.2%) were traders, public servants 629(31.7%) and 20(1.0) were farmers. The figure 4.5 reveals that greater percentage were civil servants. The implication is that most of the respondents were educated, enlightened and highly intelligent, who understand the concepts and principles of community development and who are capable of liaising with government at all levels for community development activities. High population of employed respondents in figure 4.5 is significant in that employed people will make meaningful contribution to Community Development programmes and projects. According to Akinyemi, (1990), civil servants could be easily 122 pinned down at their places of work. Also, they are articulate and enlightened. Therefore, their contributions to community development activities count much. Figure 4.6: Distribution of the Respondents by Community Stakeholders Figure 4.6 shows that majority of the respondents were members of community based organisations (CBOs) 1,022(51.5%) and were followed in succession by community leaders 266(13.4%), change agents 569(28.7%) and political functionaries 127(6.4%).The Figure 4.6 shows a high proportion of the respondents were members of community based organisations. The implication is that there were many people involved in community based organisations in Osun and Kwara States, Nigeria. 123 4.2 Results and Discussion of Findings Influence of Decentralisation Factors on Sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Osun and Kwara States The Table 4.1a and 4.1b below as well as the discussion that follows provide explanation for the understanding of the data collected on objective I and research question 1 Table 4.1 a: Joint Influence of Decentralisation Factors on Sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Osun and Kwara States. Model Sum of squares DF Mean Square F Sig. 11593.352 7 1656.193 125.152 .000 26136.065 1975 13.233 37729.417 1982 Source: computed from field data @2011 Table 4.1 b: Relative Influence of Decentralisation Factors on Sustainability of Community Development Programmes in Osun and Kwara States. Mode Unstandardised Standardised T SIG. coefficient Coefficient B Std. error (constant) 6.371 .878 7.255 .000 Grassroots participation in .335 .015 .453 22.786 .000 development programmes -.663 .052 -.661 -12.758 .000 Developmenmt equity .554 .041 .710 13.622 .000 Need for peace and unity -6.14e-02 .020 -.065 -3.039 .002 Community Integration .101 .021 .103 4.887 .000 Devolution of power .179 .036 .304 5.040 .000 Delegation of authority -.210 .048 -.265 -4.383 .000 Easiness of decision-making process Source: computed from field data @2011 124 It is shown in the Table 4.1a that the joint effect of independent variables (i.e. grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, peace and unity, community integration and cohesion, devolution of power, delegation of authority, easiness 2 of decision-making process) is significant (F (7, 1975) = 125.152; R = .554, R = .307; P< 0.05). About 31% of the variation was accounted for by the independent variables. The combined effects of the independent variables had positive significant joint influence on sustainability of community development programmes. However, the remaining 69% could be due to error or extraneous variables. It can be deduced that decentralisation variables combined effects on sustainability of community development programmes did not occur as a result of chance or error. Therefore, the linear combination of independent variables were highly related to sustainability of community development programmes having yielded a coefficient R of .554 and multiple regression R2.307 The result in Table 4.1b shows the relative contributions of each of the independent variables (grassroots participation in development programme (β = .453, P < 0.05), development equity (β = -.661, P < 0.05), need for peace and unity (β =.710, P < 0.05), community integration and cohesion (β = -.065, P < 0.05), devolution of power (β =.103, P< 0.05), delegation of authority (β = .304, P < 0.05)and easiness of decision-making process (β=-.265, P < 0.05) on dependent variables. It is shown in Table 4.1 b that all the independent variables, correlated with sustainability of community development programmes. The Table 4.1b shows that among the decentralisation factors, the variable with the strongest influence on sustainability of community development programmes is the need for peace and unity (β = .710. t = 13.622, P < 0.05) followed in succession by grassroots participation in development programmes (β = .453, t=-22.786, p< 0.05), 125 delegation of authority (β = .304, t = 5.040, P < 0.05,) devolution of authority (β = .103, t= 4.887, P < 0.05), community integration (β= .065, t = -3.039, P< 0.05), easiness of decision- making process (β = .265. t = -4.383, P < 0.05) and development equity (β = -661, t =- 12.758, P < 0.05). The implication is that sustainability of community development programmes has been greatly influenced by the independent variables in Osun and Kwara states. The result in Table 4.1b shows that the independent variable, community integration (β = -.065, P < 0.05) has a relative contribution on sustainability of community development programmes. The implication of this result is that each of the instruments of community integration has the potential to influence sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states, Nigeria, hence, the study revealed that through decentralisation, communities develop capacity to form partnership, cooperation and easy integration among the people. Community integration creates conducive environment and facilitates individual well-being. The study revealed effective community organisation that community members are capable of promoting interrelationship among members. The study revealed that security was provided in communities through community development efforts. New skills and ideas were generated for development, there was cooperation among communities, youths were integrated into community development activities and development of local leadership enhanced. All these constituted the community Integration variables as engendered by the findings. Corroborating these findings UNDP, (1999) analyse some social indicators of sustainable development as welfare and quality of life, role of women, equity and social inclusion, power and income distribution. Similarly, Otite, (2003) observes in a study conducted in three rural 126 communities in Delta State, Nigeria that the youth in general act as vigilante unit of their communities and make positive contributions in various degrees with respect to the achievement and general enlightenment of the entire members of the communities. The findings of this study also reveals that most communities have access to information through market places, village heads, religious institutions, friends and family from urban and rural areas through telephone call, personal contacts and document delivery. This result corroborated the views of Atimo, Dahwa, Jimba, (1996), Leach, (2001), Okiy, (2003), Tandson, (2002) that rural dwellers do embrace interpersonal sources of information. According to Okello, (2007), with access and adequate use of information, rural women can be mobilised to gain access to land, resist eviction, manage savings and credit or raise fund to build their own houses. The research in Nepal community development programme has shown that communities have easy access to services and resources through community development programmes (National Strategies for sustainable development, 1998). This finding is in conformity with the FGD and KII conducted in some communities in Osun and Kwara States. Another FGD participant stressed: Truly, the decentralisation process has been of benefits .Our blessing are many especially we have come together to form a formidable group for mutual understanding and self help programmes we erected television view centre and recreational centre to improve our social conditions.(member of community based organisation). Male FGD participant in Kwara State/Sango I Ward/47 years/January 8, 2011/Time 10:30 am (see plates 7 and 8 appendix iii). 127 At another FGD session, one participant stated; I need to add that the issue of creation of states and local government areas is effective in area of access to information. We are now closer to the government than before (community leader) Male FGD participant in Osun State/Oloki /45 years/January 8, 2011/Time 10:20am (see plates 19 and 20 appendix iii). On the issue of devolution of power, Table 4.1b shows a relative significant influence (β=103; p < 0.05) of devolution of power on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and kwara States, Nigeria. The results show that devolution of power has significant influence on sustainability of community development programmes, majority of the respondents. It was discovered that through decentralisation, community development units were established at the state and local government levels; CDC were established at state and local government level; grants were provided through local government to support community development programmes; rural development services were provided by local government in most communities. The finding revealed that community development agents assisted in mobilising people to participate in the development of their areas. Committees were mobilised through local political units to monitor development activities. The findings are consistent with the views of Otite, (2002); Akinyemi, (1990); and Adedokun, (1998). The findings of this study is in contrast with the study of Abisoye, (2008) on the ratings of government efforts at improving the lots of the people that there was no government impact on development, the study poorly rated government efforts at improving the social life of the people. Nevertheless, the findings in Table 4.1b are in line with various responses from the FGD in Osun and Kwara states. 128 A member of the FGD responded thus: Local government gives us support and encouragement in providing educational programmes like seminars , workshop to most of our community leaders concerning the need for community development associations, this has helped us to understand our roles and responsibility we are supposed to perform in our communities. (member of community based organisation). Male FGD participants in Kwara state/Agbeyangi ward/ 39years/ Jan 6, 2011/ time 12:20am. (see plates 7 and 8 appendix iii) Another FGD participant said: Yes, I believe the local political units are necessary. The state and local governments at the grassroots provide essential services. They help us in financing some projects we initiated, with the additional efforts from the community. The electrification project in our area was first started by the community we bought some electrical poles. But we could not complete the project, we call on government and they assisted us (Member of Community based organisation). Male FGD participant in Osun state/Ifedapo Community/49years/Jan 7, 2011/Time 2:00Pm (see plate 18 appendix iii). There was overwhelming support from the FGD and KII participants on the benefits derived from decentralisation. Nevertheless, majority of the KII participants suggested that many benefits can be acquired through creation of states and local government areas, that it would bring development undertakings and decision-making close to the grassroots. A Male KII participant replied thus: We cannot undermine creation of local and state governments because of their importance. The policy has helped in many ways to transform our rural areas. (Member of community based organisation). Male KII participant in Kwara state/Balogun Fulani/56 years/Jan 9, 2011/Time 2:10pm. (see plates 5 and 6 appendix iii) 129 A KII member said: I hope, communities will move closer to the government through this policy of state and local government areas and this will enable people to forward their needs to the government for development purposes. (Member of community based organisation). Male KII participant in Osun state/Oloki/49yrs/Feb., 18, 2011/Time 2.05pm (see plate 14 appendix iii). On the relative influence of development equity, the result in Table 4.1b shows a relative significant influence of development equity (β = -.661, p < .05) on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. The need for development equity was found to significantly and relatively predict community development programmes. It has served as an instrument which can facilitate sustainability of community development programmes. It has been observed that people need development, therefore within the context of decentralisation process there will be improvement in the level of socio economic development of the community. Also, on the need for decision–making process, the result in Table 4.1b shows relative significant contributions of ease of decision-making process (β = .265. t = -4.383, P<. 0.05) on sustainability of community development programmes.The implication is that sustainability of community development programmes has been influenced by ease decision–making process in Osun and Kwara states. Ease decision-making process also played significant role in promotion of sustainability nof community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. According to the result obtained in Table 4.1b, ease decision-making had contributed relatively to sustainability of community development proigrammes. Indeed, ease decision-making process is one the important decentralisation factors that can be used to foster sustainability of community developmet programmes. The 130 finding therefore established that ease decision-making process has influenced sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. On grassroot participation in development programmes, the result in Table 4.1b shows relative significant contributions of grassroots participation in development programmes (β = .453, P < 0.05) on sustainability of community development programmes.The implication is that sustainability of community development programmes has been influenced by grassroots participation in development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. The relative contributions of the grassroot participation to development programmes show that all the variables contributed significantly to the sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. The grassroot participation in development programmes will ensure peoples involvement in decision making process; formulation of policies; involvement in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects in their communities. This form of participation will enable members of the communities to involve in sustainability of community development programmes. On the need for peace and unity the result in Table 4.1b shows relative significant contributions of grassroots participation in development programme (β = .453, P < 0.05) on sustainability of community development programmes.The implication is that sustainability of community development programmes has been influenced by the need for peace and unity in Osun and Kwara states. The need for unity was found to significantly and relatively predict sustainability of ncommunity of community development programmes. The need for unity is imperative for community development programmes. The idea ensures unity among community member which promote peace and this will foster sustainability of community development programmes. Unity among community members is a potent factor that can 131 facilitate sustainable development and also attracts government attention to the needs and aspirations of the people. On delegation of authority (β = .304, P < 0.05, the result in Table 4.1b shows relative significant contributions on sustainability of community development programmes.The implication is that sustainability of community development programmes has been influenced by delegation of authority in Osun and Kwara states. Delegation of authority is also a variable that can promote sustainability of community development programmes. Table 4.1b shows that delegation of authority was found to be significantly and relatively predict sustainability of community development programmes. Through delegation of authority, functions and duties of government are transferred from higher officer to lower officer at the community level for development purposes. 132 The Relationship between Decentralisation Factors and Sustainability of Community Development of Programmes Table 4.2 and the discussion below gives a clearer understanding of the information obtained from the respondents on objective 2 and hypothesis 1. Table 4.2: Relationship between Decentralisation Factors and Sustainability Community Development Programmes. Sustaina- Grassroot Equity Peace/ Community Devolu Delegation Decision bility Participation Unity Integration tion of of making power Authority Sustainability 1 Participation 170 *** 1 Equity 068** 186** 1 Peace 182** 227** 931** 1 Comm. 013 028 008 019 1 Integration Devolution of 025 -129** -009 -010 411** 1 power Delegation of 125** 112** -065* -028 324** 255** 1 Authority Decision - 112** 148** -010 012 318** 263** 948** 1 Making Mean 20.352 20.365 18.875 30.625 23.703 31.464 47.736 35.842 Std. Dev. 4.3.3 5.897 4.346 5.590 4.589 4.459 7.414 5.502 Source: computed from field data @2011 In the above Table 4.2 it is shown that there was a significant relationship between decentralisation factors (Participation, Equity, Peace/Unity, Delegation of Authority and Decision-making but none with Community Integration and Devolution of Power. It has been established in this study that grassroots participation in development programmes has facilitated sustainability of community development. The result shows that there was a 133 significant relationship (r = .170; P > 0.05) between grassroot participation in development programmes and sustainability of community development programmes. The result from Table 4.2 is also in agreement with the submission of Adedokun, (1998) that there is a relationship between grassroots participation in development programmes and sustainability of community development programmes and further stresses that when there is decentralisation of policy statement concerning community development, the tendency for people‟s participation will be raised or enhanced. This finding corroborates Akinyemi, (1990) that contends that there is encouraging attitude in community participation among rural dwellers and further opines that community participation has become a crucial factor in any meaningful development efforts in recent times. People are beginning to recognise the limitation of government in providing all the impetus and resources which are basic to development. They are becoming actively more concerned with finding solutions to development problems on a collective basis than ever before. Adedokun, (1998) equally supports the findings of this report and asserts that for people‟s participation to be improved in development programmes, decentralisation is a basic strategy. The finding affirms the report of Akinyemi, (1990) which emphasises the need for decentralisation, that decentralisation is necessary in community development activities because of the better experiences of the people in the hands of government agents and further agitates that people were actively involved in the decision- making process and the implementation of the projects due to determination of people to bring about a transformation of their socio economic development. Also, the research carried out by Egenti, (2001) is in line with this study that there is a significant relationship between 134 citizens‟ involvements in planning, implementation; evaluation stages and effective participation in self- help projects for improved welfare of the people in Imo state. The findings in Table 4.2 on grassroots participation in development programmes also buttress the experience in Nepal programmes. It was discovered in Nepal programmes that democracy was practiced through community development, the community leaders come together once in a month to discuss issues and share experiences, which is a powerful forum for expressing the needs of the village ‟www.nnssd.net. The findings from this study revealed that community leaders were always involved in policy formulation and decision–making process in decentralisation for development purposes in Osun and Kwara states. Community development agents were always involved in organising community development activities and people were given the right to nominate their political representatives for effective grassroots development. This empirical finding was buttressed by focus group discussion Another FGD participant said: In my ward, our community is involved in decision -making at local government level through our associations. The community leaders, political leaders, members of community development Association are always involved (Member of community based organisation). Male FGD participant in Kwara state/ Offa/40years/January 10, 2011/Time 12:00am (see plate 11 appendix iii) One FGD participant remarked thus; Our community is involved in broader decision-making and consultative forum relating to our needs at the local level (community leader). Male FGD participant in Osun state Babanla/Agete Ward 5/ 30 years/Feb7 30, 2011/Time 3:20pm (see plates 19 and 20 appendix iii). 135 The aggregate views of FGD respondents and the results of the findings analysed in Table 4.2 was in conformity with the KII responses obtained in various communities investigated. One of the KII participants said: Communities are involved in decision-making at the local level particularly the community leaders and some politicians among us. (Member of community development association). Male KII participant in Kwara/Ganmo/43yrs/January 16, 2011/Time 2.30pm Another KII participant remarked thus: I have observed that many community leaders and community members were involved in development programmes when decisions are taken which are related to the communities (Change Agent). KII participant in Osun/Ejemu/feb. 26, 2011 (see plate 17 appendix iii). The summary of all the views expressed by the FGD and KII participants was that community participation in development programmes facilitates sustainability of community development programmes. Community leaders were involved in extensive deliberation and consultative forum relating to decision-making process. The submission of the FGD and KII responses is correlative with the results in Table 4.2. On the need for peace and unity for sustainability of community development programmes; from table 4.2 it was shown that peace as a decentralization factor has significant relationship with sustainabilty of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states Nigeria (r = .182 P > 0.05).The study established that the need for unity among the community members is a vital factor that can facilitate sustainability of community development programmes, if there is peace in the communities; this attracts government attention to the needs and aspirations of the people. The findings revealed that 136 many people are involved in community development programmes when there is harmony but communities where there is war, crime, political instability, leadership problem and other social disorders impede sustainability. The study established that unity serves as springboard for human development, enhance capacity to interact and cooperate. This corroborates the research findings of Otite, (2002) that community development can not occur in the absence of peaceful cooperation in the community, among the people and external development agencies. Hence, conflict is a big threat to the prospect of development in the communities. This study is in line with the responses of most of the FGD and KII participants in Osun and Kwara states. One of the FGD participants said: Since the creation of state and local government area, we have gained a lot of experiences, we are in peace and harmony and it has helped us to improve our socio- economic conditions (community leader). Male FGD participant in Osun State Babanla/Agete Ward5 / 40 years/Feb 7, 2011/Time 3:20pm (see plates 17 and 18 appendix iii). One of the FGD participants stressed thus: In my opinion, I have observed that most of our Communities live in peace, no social disorder and land dispute. It has helped us to maintain co-operative existence. (Member of Community based organisation). Male FGD from Kwara state / Pategi Ward Three / 47 years / Jan 7, 2011 / Time: 11.00am (see plates 14 and 15 appendix iii). The aggregate views of the FGD held in Babanla/Agete community in Osun state and Pategi Ward in Kwara state confirmed that unity among the community has great influence on sustainability of community development programmes. The finding revealed 137 that many communities lived in peace and harmony. However, the FGD and KII findings are in conformity with the results analyses obtained in Table 4.2 Another member of KII participants said; We have taken the issues of security very serious. Thieves are not common in my area. We have set up committee on vigilante group who will monitor each of the three major junctions in my area. Apart from this, we bought electric poles to complement government efforts in order to avoid darkness at night. (Member of Community based organisation) Male KII participant in Osun state/ilawo/49 years Feb16; 2011/3:20pm Also, the data revealed that community integration had no influence on sustainability of community development programme in Osun and Kwara states. From Table 4.2 it was shown that community integration had no significant influence (r = .013, P > 0.05). This shows that community integration as one of the factors considered had no relationship with sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara state Nigeria. The results in Table 4.2 shows that devolution of power has significant influence on sustainability of community development programmes (r = .025; P > 0.05). From the various variables considered for devolution power as one of the factors of decentralisation, the study revealed that many community dvelopemnt centres were established; government has facilitated community development programmes through financial material and technical support; communities were mobilised for development purposes. The findings are in agreement with the view of Adedokun, (1998). The result in Table 4.2 shows that the need for delegation of authority is significant (r =.125; P < 0.05) to the sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and kwara states, Nigeria. This implies that when authority is delegated from the higher administration to the lower administration for development programmes in communities this 138 influenced sustainability of community development programmes. The more authority is delegated; to the lower units the more people feel belonged and therefore enhance sustainability of community development programmes. Proper planning and organisation through delegation of authority fosters sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states.The FGD and KII conducted corroborate this study. One of the FGD participants responded thus; Actually as part of our own mandate, we sensitise the community on the needs to add value to their community. Because by virtue of the creation of state, local governments and wards, we feel sense of belonging would be encouraged when community also participates in the development. Most of the government installations would be protected when communities are being carried along in security, monitoring and other issues. So, I have been stationed here to mobilise the community on the role to sustain whatever in their community and to encourage pulling resource together in order to move the community forward. (Community Development Agent). Male FGD participant in Kwara state/Pattegi Ward one/47years/Time2.42pm. (see plates 14 and 15 appendix iii) The view of the FGD held in Pattegi community in Kwara state confirmed that delegation of authority has great influence on sustainability of community development programmes. However, the findings from the FGD and KII are in conformity with the results analyses obtained in Table 4.2. 139 One of the A KII participants responded thus: We appreciate our Community Development Agents, who have been delegated to help us in mobilising people to participate in the Community Development Associations. Male FGD in Osun state/Asunmo/52yrs/Feb. 20, 2011. /Time 3.20 (see plate 18 appendix iii) On the need for development equity, It is shown in Table 4.2 that the need for development equity correlates with sustainability of development programmes (r=.068, p<0.05). The study reveals that there was improvement in socio-economic conditions of the communities through decentrailsation This findings reveal and establish that communities are motivated in construction of some physical infrastructural facilities for their improvement which include construction of well, sinking of boreholes for water supply, rehabilitation of rural roads through direct labour, construction of culverts and drainages, building of palaces and construction of health centres The views expressed above is in congruent with survey conducted by Alamina , (1999) cited in Otite ,(2002) that the people of the area embarked on various development projects and programmes such as renovation of roads, schools building , town halls and markets. Adedokun, (1998) confirms a significant relationship between people‟s involvement in CDP and their standard of living. This finding affirms the experience demonstrated in Nepal programme where communities were involved in construction of community projects such as building of schools, public health facilities, latrines, and toilets (National Strategies of Sustainable development, 1998).The results obtained in Table 4.2 are correlated with FGD conducted on the level of developmental projects in Osun and Kwara states. 140 Another FGD participant said: We all know that decentralisation of government is to bring development closer to the people. The development cannot be as quick as expected, the community themselves need to initiate some projects after which government comes later to assist. In my own community, we executed many projects through self-help. We contributed money; this money is not meant for merry-making but to provide for community needs. We sunk five bore-holes in our ward. We also built health centre. Government also assisted us to recruit staff to manage it. Member of Community based organisation). Male FGD in Kwara State/ Lande Ward four/ 42years/ Jan 6, 2011/Time 2:10pm. (see plate 14 and 15 appendix iii) Another FGD participant said thus: In my community, through self- help we contributed money to buy electric poles that have been damaged by rainstorm, efforts were made to reconstruct damaged culverts (Member of community based organisation) Male FGD participant Osun State/ Ejemu Ward/ 6/38yrs/Feb 9, 2011/Time 2:30pm./ (see plate 17 appendix iii) It is noteworthy that the KII conducted with some prominent community leaders equally supported the results of the Pearson correlation analyses in Table 4.2 Another discussant of KII said thus: We have found it necessary to build a school in our community because our community has no school and our children use to go to near- by town before getting to school. (Member of community based organisation). Male KII participant in Kwara State/Ganmo/43yrs/Jan. 16, 2011/3.55pm. (see plate 12 and 13 appendix iii) 141 Another KII participant in Osun State noted: Our community suffered a lot in the area of water supply for many years, we have made frantic efforts to provide water within our own limit we constructed two bore -holes through our own efforts. Male KII participant in Osun State/Ejemu ward 3/53yrs/Feb. 18, 2011/3.05pm The FGD and KII responses conducted were to further ascertain the influence of decentralisation on sustainability of community development programmes. The findings from the FGD and KII revealed that communities were involved in many physical programmes such as water supply scheme, construction of school buildings, health centres, drainages, culverts, bus stops, market centres and town halls. This finding corroborated the results of the analysis in Table 4.2. On the need for ease decision-making as one of the factor‟s of decentralisation for sustainability of community development programmes; from Table 4.2 it was shown that ease decision-making as a decentralization factor had significant relationship with sustainabilty of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states Nigeria (r=.112 P > 0.05).This result implies therefore that community people encourage dialogue in decision-making process for sustainability of community development programmes. Community leaders always carry out critical analysis of collected information for development. In addition, most communities get involved in collective decision-making to facilitate programme sustainability. The result in Table 4.2 is in line with the FGD and KII conducted. 142 One of the FGD participants said: In my area, whenever government intends to provide any social amenity to the community. Our community leaders are always involved. The Magaji who will inform members of the community with extensive deliberations on the need of the community. Our community always participates in governance through community development programmes. (Member community based organisation). Female FGD in Kwara state/Apado Ward/37years/Jan 11/2011/Time 11:30am. (see plate 7 and 8 appendix iii) This study observed some sustained community development projects in selected communities in Osun and Kwara states. At an aggregate level, achievements in self help projects appear very impressive in Osun and Kwara states. In Kwara state some projects were identified, planned, implemented and sustained by Omupo community in Ifelodun LGA which included town Hall (see plate 16 appendix iv), community palaces (see plate 3 appendix iv), community bore hole (plate 8 appendix iv) and cooperative society building (plate 1 appendix iv). Some projects were identified and sustained by Ganmo community which included rehabilitation of street and construction of culvert (see plates 11 and 9 appendix iv), community bore hore (see plate 10 appendix iv), community secondary school (plate 13 appendix iv), community primary school (see plate 22 appendix iv) and community Arabic schools (see plate 24 appendix iv). Other sustained projects were Ajase community cow market (plate 14 appendix iv) and Elerinjare lbobo cow market (see plate 23 appendix iv). Also, in Ilorin –West LGA, some sustained projects were observed such as culvert in Galadima area (see plate 32 appendix iv), borehole (see plate 18 appendix iv) and culvert in Gaa-Odota (see plate 15 appendix iv). In Offa LGA, communities were involved in the sustainance of community cooperative society building (see plate 2 appendix iv). In Oyun LGA, communities were involved in sustenance of 143 community projects in Ira community which included community school (see plate 4 appendix iv), community town hall (see plate 5 appendix iv) and maintenance of water works project (see plate 6 appendix iv). In Ilorin East LGA, particularly in Oke-Ose, the community engaged in sustenance of some projects such as community cow market and abattoir centre (plate 7 appendix iv), community well (see plate 17 and 30 appendix iv), community well at Oke-oyi (see plate 27 and 28 appendix iv), community health centre (plate 19 appendix iv), community postal agency (see plate 20 appendix iv), community food processing centre (plate 26 appendix iv) and community bore hole (plate 21 appendix iv). In Mooro LGA, communities participated and involved in the sustenance of many projects such as bridge construction at Lanwa community (plate 29 appendix iv), construction of drainage (see plate 31 appendix iv) and community health centre at Onikoko (see plate 25 appendix iv). In Osun State, sustainability of community development projects also recorded a remarkable success. Many communities were involved in construction of projects through self-help. In Ejigbo LGA, some projects were identified such as construction of culvert at Gaa area (see plate 50 appendix iv), extension of electrification projects in Akinlabi (plate 45 appendix iv), Oke Itunu communities (see plate 37 appendix iv) and community well at Gaa Area (see plate 46 appendix iv), community sinking well at Ilawo (plate 52 appendix iv) and rehabilitation of street at Ika community (see plate 44 appendix iv). Also, in Ede South LGA, some projects were sustained such as electrification projects at country home (plate 33 appendix iv), community abattoir centre at Oke Egan (see plate 36 appendix iv), construction of culverts (see plate 34 appendix iv), rehabilitation of road in Owode communities (see plate 49 appendix iv) and community market centre at sekona (see 144 plate 53 appendix iv). In Ede North LGA of Osun state, the communities were involved in sustenance of community projects which include community bank (plate 38 appendix iv), community town hall (see plate 35 appendix iv), and community sinking well at Ikirun (plate 51 appendix iv). In Irepodun LGA of Osun State, efforts were geared towards sustenance of many projects such as electrification projects in Eweta community (plate 41 appendix iv), Iwajowa community based organisation centre in Obagun (plate 40 appendix iv), Obagun community sinking well (plate 54 appendix iv), erection of community based organisation centre in Laase community (plate 43 appendix iv), construction of community development based organisation shopping complex in Abomide (plate 42 appendix iv), extension of drainage at Obaagun community (plate 39 appendix iv), Monday periodic market at Ikirun (plate 47 appendix iv) and rehabilitation of road at Seke community (plate 48 appendix iv). 145 Differences in the Level of Sustainability of Community Development Programmes through Decentralisation Process between Osun and Kwara States. Table 4.3 below as well as the discussion that follow provide explanation for the understanding of the data collected on objective 3 and hypothesis 2 Table 4.3: Difference in Sustainability of Community Development Programmes through Decentralisation Process between Osun and Kwara States. Variables State of N SD DF T P origin deviation Sustainability of Osun 964 20.3299 4.3541 .223 community development Kwara 1020 20.3735 4.3728 1982 NS programmes Source: computed from field data @2011 The result in the Table 4.3 shows there is no significant difference in the level of sustainability of community development programmes in the process of decentralisation between Osun and Kwara states (t = .223, df =1982, P < 0.05 level of significance). The calculated t value was .223. The mean score for Osun was 20.3299 while that of Kwara was 20.3735. The P value was calculated at .958 greater than 0.5 level of significance. This shows from the analysis that there is no significant difference in the level of sustainability of community development propgrammes between Osun and Kwara states. The findings reveal that in Osun and Kwara states, there was impressive performance in the level of sustainability of community development programmes. In the first instance, most communities in Kwara state made adequate contributions to physical projects and thereby increased the number of basic and social amenities in most communities. During the FGD session in Lanwa community of Mooro Local Government in 146 Kwara state. The FGD conducted revealed a massive contribution of the community in the sustainability of community development projects. Many communities embarked on construction of roads, bridges and culverts along Oke-oyi community road to Lanwa village. Similar efforts on sustainability of community development projects were recorded in Ganmo, Ira, Oke-oyi, Jooro, Onikoko, Erin-ile and Ilemona communities. In these communities, most community projects were sustained such as, schools, post office, electrification projects, palaces, community town hall and community banks. Similarly, in Osun State, the level of sustainability of community development projects was also impressive. Most of the communities investigated showed interest in the sustainability of community development projects. In Ejigbo, Ilawo, Ede North and South, Ife central, Ife North, Ikirun, Osogbo and Ila, many communities contributed meaningfully to the socio-economic and physical development of the areas. However, most community development projects were sustained. Community projects such as schools, culverts, roads, Town hall, palaces, abattoirs and electric poles were sustained. However, on the average, Kwara state performed better than Osun state in the areas of sustainability of community development programmes. This corroborates the findings of Akinyemi, (1990) in a study carried out in Ondo which showed high level of performance in the provision of tangible and physical projects. Also, Otite, (2002) reveals impressive performance in community development programmes in three oil producing rural communities: Afiesere, Ekakpamre and Otor-Owhe. The FGD and KII findings revealed that communities in Kwara and Osun states were actively involved in physical development programmes which included construction of culverts, drainage and community water schemes, town halls, road rehabilitation, sinking of 147 boreholes and wells, erection of bus-stop, television viewing centres and abattoirs, building of schools, palaces, post office, buying of electrical poles and health centres. Communities were involved in different social programmes such as women participation in self-help projects, youth involvement in self-help and communal projects, formation of vigilante group, skill development programmes and access to information such as document delivery centres, the radio, market place, village heads, religious institution, friends and family from urban and rural areas. One of FGD participants said: In my community Okelele, through our own efforts, we contributed money to dig wells in our various homes to alleviate this problem. But during the dry season this problem still persist, we later organised meeting to construct bore-hole, later our local government also assisted us, this problem is gradually becoming things of the past (Community leader). Male FGD participant in Kwara state /Balogun Alanamu /45 years/Jan.8, 2011/Time 2:00pm. (see plates 7 and 8 appendix iii) One of the FDG participants said thus: There have been some works done in the areas of providing water supply in our community. People involve in the sinking of well through mutual self help to make water available for home use (Member of community based organisation). Female FGD participant in Osun State/Ejemu Ward 4/47yrs/February 9, 2011/Time 2:10pm (see plate 17 appendix iii). The FGD discussion in Osun and Kwara states is also in line with the views of the KII conducted on the provision and sustenance of social amenities. 148 A KII discussant said: Few years ago, some areas in my community did not have electrical poles, the Community based organisation contributed money to buy some electrical poles, so, we are involved in physical programmes to improve our condition. Male KII participant in Osun State//Arulogun, Ede/49yrs/Feb. 16, 2011/2.30pm (see plate 14 appendix iii). However, the level of sustainability of community development programmes in Kwara state was much pronounced than that of Osun state as indicated in Table 4.3. The quantitative research shows that the mean score for Kwara state is 20.3735 while that of Osun is 20.3299. Therefore, Kwara State performed better than Osun state in terms of sustainability of community development programmmes. The high level of sustainability of community development programmes in Kwara state can also be accounted for based on the high population threshold and high intensity of community development activities put in place from the record available in the area investigated for study. These are: Kwara Central Senatorial District: Ilorin South LGA 208,691, Ilorin East LGA 204,310, Ilorin West LGA 364,666. Kwara North Senatorial district: Morro LGA 108,792, Pattegi LGA 112,317, Edu LGA 201,469. Kwara South Senatorial District: Offa LGA 89,674, Oyun LGA 94,253, Irepodun LGA 148,610.While in Osun West Senatorial District: Ede North LGA 83, 831, Ede South LGA 76,035, Ejigbo LGA 132,641. Osun Central Senatorial District: Osogbo LGA 156,694, Ifelodun LGA 96,748, Ila LGA 62,049. Osun East Senatorial district: Ife North LGA 153, 694, Ife East LGA 188, 087 and Ife central LGA 167, 254 (National Population Commission, 2006). This reveals that the population was more in Kwara than Osun state. This is as a result of some factors based on land mass, population and number of 149 political units of each of the states. Kwara state has more community development units than Osun state in areas sampled for investigation. (National Population Commission, 2006; Uju, 2000). The FGD and KII conducted across Osun and Kwara states also buttressed the high level of sustainability of community development programmes in Kwara state than in Osun state. During the FGD and KII, the number of sustained community development programmes reported in Kwara state was greater than that of Osun state in the area investigated. These sustained community development programmes were electrification projects, health centres, school building, infrastructures and furniture, sinking of boreholes and well, security programmes, market centres, community cow markets and abattoirs, community banks, co- operative societies, construction of palaces, rehabilitation of roads and construction of culvert.(see plates 1-54 appendix iv). 150 Factors Impeding Sustainability of Community Development Programmes through Decentralisation in Osun and Kwara States Table 4.4 below as well as the discussion that follow provide explanation for the understanding of the data collected on objective 4 and research question 2 Table 4.4: Relationship between Sustainability of Community Development and Communal clashes, Poor Accountability, Leadership Problems, Political instability and inadequate funding through decentralisation in Osun and Kwara States. Sustainability Communal Poor Leadership Political Inadequate of community. Clashes Accountability Problems Instability funding Development. Sustainability 1 of community Development Communal -136** 1 Clashes Poor -121** .303** 1 Accountability Leadership -230** .282** .550** 1 Problems Political -453** .199** .194** .063** 1 Instability Inadequate -129** .945** .280** .257** .187** 1 Funding Mean 57.0832 22.8115 22.9758 21.8579 28.2203 28.2203 S.D 4.6865 2.5851 4.6456 4.1548 2.6147 25.9556 Source: computed from field data @2011 INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS It is shown in Table 4.4 that there is negative significant relationship between sustainability of community development programmes and communal clashes, poor accountability, leadership problems, political instability and inadequate funding which impede sustainability of community development programmes through decentralisation in Osun and Kwara States. 151 From Table 4.4, shows that communal clashes had negative significant relationship with sustainability of community development programmes (r = -136, P < 0.05). The findings revealed that communal clashes have impeded the level of sustainability in community development programmes through decentralisation in Osun and Kwara States. In most cases communal clashes resulting from land disputes has been the major problems that impeded sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. These findings corroborate Otite, (2003) who observes lack of harmony and collaboration in Ekakpamire community of Delta State and this affected the rate of development. These findings are in line with FGD and KII responses in Osun and Kwara States. A Male FGD summarised his opinion on the subject matter; The problem of sustaining community development projects in my community is due to land dispute. We cannot sustain the only bore-hole we have due to communal crisis. The only existing bore-hole is on this disputed land so my people drinks from brooks, stream and trenches.(community leader). Male FGD participant in Kwara State/Jooro/50years /January13,2011/Time3.30pm 3:50pm (see plate 11 appendix iii). The opinion of the Male FGD participant in Shonga community correlates with the opinion expressed by large number of participants in the KII held in Tsaragi community, Kwara State. 152 A KII member made his own contribution thus; One of the problems we encounter in my community is on communal classes especially in my community Tsaragi and Shaare. We are not living happily as neighbours. We have involved in many land disputes which impeded sustenance of existing community projects. (Community leader) Male KII participant in Kwara State/Tsaragi/52years /January11,2011/Time1.30pm (see plate 3 and 4 appendix iii). Table 4.4 shows that poor accountability had negative significant correlation with sustainability of community development programmes (r = -121, P < 0.05). This study revealed that poor accountability impeded decentralisation in the sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara States. The findings revealed that many community leaders are not loyal, accountable and transparent. Money contributed for development projects are diverted to personal accounts such that implementation, monitoring and sustainability of community development programmes were hindered. This finding is in line with the FGD carried out by Abisoye, (2008) that poor accountability was reported among the leaders at the local level. Also, this study is in agreement with the view expressed by Birllanties, (2001) that decentralisation simply decentralises corruption as alleged in the case of Nepal and Indonesia as manifested in the perceived corruption and nepotism at the local level. One of the FGD participants made his comment that: Most of our people do not want to participate in community development association as a result of corrupt practices of our community leaders. Most of them are not accountable to us. (Member of Community based organisation). Male FGD participant in Osun State/ Ejemu/ January 20, 2011 / Time 3:30pm (see plate 17 appendix iii) 153 On leadership problem, the result from Table 4.4 shows a significant negative correlation in leadership problems and sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara States(r = -230, P < 0.05). The findings revealed that leadership problems is one of the factors that impeded sustainability of community development programmes between Osun and Kwara States .This finding is in line with Are, (1972) cited in Akinyemi, (1990) who notes lack of effective leadership as one of the three major factors affecting development at the grassroots in Kwara State and further stresses that it became difficult to find leaders who can assist the community in recognising its development needs and potentials and help the community identify and remove factors that might impede the course of development schemes. Responding to this issue of leadership problems in communities during the FGD sessions. Another KII participant corroborated the finding thus: In my community, there is a case of embezzlement of community money. Money contributed was diverted to some of the leaders’ account. Those trusted with the fund are not reliable; this has made many community projects to suffer sustenance (community leader) Male KII participant in Kwara/ AjaseIpo Ward/ 45years/ January 20, 2011 / Time 4:30pm (see plate 12 and 13 appendix iii). In Table 4.4 the result shows there was a significant negative relationship between sustainability of community development programmes and problem of inadequate funding (r= -129; P < 0.05). This implies that inadequate funding impeded sustainability of community development programmes in the process of decentralisation in Osun and Kwara States. The findings of this study revealed there was inadequate funding on the part of the community members to contribute towards projects implementation. It was revealed that there was inadequate funding on the part of the government to complement community self- 154 help projects. However, lack of mutual trust discourages community people from contributing fund which has impeded sustainability of community development progammes in Osun and Kwara States. This study is consistent with that of Akinyemi, (1990) which reveales that lack of finance constituted the major obstacles affecting community development activities investigated in Ondo State. Corroborating the findings of this study (Are, 1972) cited in Akinyemi, (1990) identifies lack of finance among three major factors facing development activities in Kwara State. The finding of this study is also in line with the submission of Otitte, (2002) on the issue of finance, that the respondents indicated relative financial incapacity of some elders of the community towards community development programmes. The study further stresses that few members of the communities have adequate financial resources to cope with feeding, education, clothe to say the least. Hence, the limited capacity of rural communities in this respect hindered the acceleration of Community Development Programmes. The submission of Adedokun, (1998) confirms financial incapacity among problems of programmes sustainability in community development. This finding is in agreement with that of Mbathi, (1974) cited in Akinyemi, (1990) which identifies low level of income as the major factor facing Independent Kenyan Government in community development among rural dwellers. On government inability to complement community development programmes. Abisoye, (2008) buttresses the findings that governments had not touched on the communities‟ most pressing needs, let alone solve their problems it was therefore stressed that many of the development projects being executed by the government are being merely foisted on the people. This may therefore, explain why there are many abandoned projects all around because the zeal to supplement government efforts would naturally be 155 lacking in the people who do not count a project to be of relevance to their social life. The research experience in Pakistan shows that to some extent implementation of decentralisation is facing the same kind of natural teething problems that any new reform programme faces. The three problems that emerged are lack of operational funds, lack of system and lack of capacity‟ http//www.decentralisation.org. The experience in Pakistan is in conformity with the result of this finding on inability of the government and individual to complement community development projects through technical, financial and material resources. The FGD conducted in different locations is in line with the results of finding in Table 4.4. Responding to this issue during the FGD sessions: One of the FGD participants responded thus: At times community members are not cooperative; we found it difficult to mobilise them especially when it comes to matter of financial contribution.(Member of Community based organisation). Male FGD participant /Kwara State/ Pepele Marafa Oja ward/56years / January 6th, 2011 / Time 10.00am. (see plate 7 and 8 appendix iii) One of the FGD participantsasserted thus; I have to say that, I always notice financial incapacity on the part of the communities to gather enough money for project sustenance. (Government Functionary). th Male FGD participant /Osun/ Ipetumodu/ 42years/Feb, 8 2011/Time 3:10pm. years/Feb182011/Time2.35pm/(see plate 21 appendix iii) On the issue of political instability, the results in Table 4.4 shows there is a significant negative relationship between political instability an+d sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara States (r = -453; P > 0.05). This implies political instability impeded the process of sustainability of community development programmes. The findings revealed that political instability affects government assistance to 156 the community, due to decentralisation most programmes‟ planning, implementation and maintenance were affected. Also, most communities were marginalised. Corroborating this finding, the submissions of some FGD participants were as follows; A member of the FGD participants stated thus: Some of our community leaders take part in politics and also engage in so me other activities and at the same time fail to delegate the authority to others, these community leaders also cause problem for the sustenance of our projects because many of them are not committed and dedicated(member of Community based organisation) Male FGD participant in Kwara State/ Lande ward 2/ Pategi Local Government/ 47 years / January 18, 2011 / Time 11:30 a.m. (see plate 42 and 15 appendix iii) KII were conducted to further ascertain problems affecting sustainability of community development programmes in areas of investigation. The researcher conducted KIIs with the top community stakeholders who had at one time or the other participated in community development programmes. The outcome of the FGD sessions and KII conducted was in conformity with the responses in Table 4.4. The FGD sessions and KII conducted in different communities in Kwara and Osun States revealed some problems affecting sustainability of community development projects which included poor maintenance culture in many communities, community leaders lack financial management, community members were not co-operative and it was also shown that most communities relied much on government to provide amenities. However, the FGD conducted further buttresses the findings of the KII. Another problem discovered by majority of the KII participants was that of poor mobilisation of people, materials and finance towards projects sustainability. Some of the FGD and KII participants from Kwara and Osun States emphasised that many change agents have failed to mobilise people to sustain projects. One 157 of the KII participants from Kwara state expressed that most projects are capital intensive; this has affected sustainability of most community‟s projects. A KII participant in Kwara State said; There is an adage which says what belongs to everybody belongs to nobody because everybody will feel that this thing belongs to everybody. Individual will not take care of it and at the end of the day it will get spoilt. So, we need government to complement community self- help projects because the major problem we usually encounter is inadequate funds in sustaining most of our programmes, (Member of community based organisation) Male KII participant in Kwara State/ Pattegi/ 47 years / Feburary 7 2011 / Time 11:30am. Some problems were acknowledged which were not raised in the research questions. Most of the respondents attested to some factors affecting sustainability of community development programmes in their various communities which included lack of inclusion of professionals in community projects for quality work done, , problem of illiteracy and issue of poverty. The FGD and KII respondents also reported other factors that hindered sustainability of community development programmes. In Ifedapo community of Osun State, the case of thieves who always vandalise most development projects was mentioned and cases of communal clashes was reported in Ife zone, Osun State. Factors which involved land dispute in Shaare and presence of incessant erosion which damaged most developments projects in Songa, Kwara State were also reported. Also, in Lande community, Patteggi, Kwara State one of the challenges reported was the case of the community people and the community elected representatives (politicians) that after being elected into offices, they build mansions in the cities and later neglect the village. In Lafiagi, Kwara State, it was also revealed that indiscriminate bush burning during the dry sessions by local animal hunters destroyed electrical poles and some community projects which also affected sustainability. It 158 was also reported in Lanwa ward in Mooro local government that due to communal classes which resulted from land dispute, people drank from brooks, trenches, streams because the existing bole-hole is on the disputed land. However, in Lanwa ward in Mooro local government, majority of the respondents stressed that they have embarked on gigantic community projects like schools, health centres and road rehabilitation but most of the schools could not be sustained due to lack of qualified teachers on the part of government to make adequate provision. Lack of experts and equipment in community based projects such as schools and health centres is another problem noted in Erin- Ile South, Kwara State. It was reported that the existing health centres lack qualified nurses, doctors, mortuary, medicine, scanning machine and even bed-sheets which were expected to be provided by government, so, this affected sustainability of community based projects. One of the FGD participants has this to say: In our community, there is a problem of natural disaster due to flooding around July, August and September and this impede movement from one village to another and always damage most community projects. All the roads will be water- logged and this affects community development projects. (Community leader) Male KII participant in Kwara State/ Oloje 47years /January22,2011/Time2.30pm. (see plate 9 and 10 appendix iii) One FGD participant remarked thus; I noticed problem of communication gap among the community members which hindered sustainability of community development programmes. (Government functionary) Male FGD participant in Kwara State Essa wardB/49years/Feb10, 2011/Time (see plate 16 appendix iii) 159 Another participant of KII forum said thus; The indiscriminate bush burning during the dry season which at times destroy some electrical poles and community projects by local animal hunters who are mostly illiterate this attitude affects sustainability of most community projects (Community leader) Female KII participant in Kwara State/Lafiagi ward 1 /42years/January16,2011/Time3.50pm (see plate 1 and 2 appendix iii). The findings of the FGD responses corroborate Abisoye, (2008) on communication gap that existed between the elected representatives and the communities that there was a defective communication link between the people and the elected representatives. Also, lack of adequate understanding of the basic principle of decentralisation was reported among the inhabitants in Osun and Kwara States as a factor which has impeded the process of sustainability of community development programmes. This corroborates the responses of the FGD and KII conducted in Osun and Kwara States sustainability. One of the KII participants noted thus: Most of our people are ignorant of the basic principles and concepts of community development and this has affected level of sustainability of community development programmes in the decentralisation process.(Government representative). th Male FGD participant /Osun/ Sekona,Ede/ 42years/Feb, 8 2011/ Time 3:10pm. years/Feb182011/Time2.35pm/ (see plate 19 and 20 appendix iii) 160 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents the summary of the findings, conclusions and recommendations as well as limitations of the study and suggestions for further research. 5.1 Summary This study focused on influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara States, Nigeria. This was aimed at examining the extent of grassroots participation in development programmes, ascertaining the influence of development equity, community integration, devolution of power, delegation of authority and easiness of decision-making process on sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara states. Also, the study investigated the differences in the level of sustainability of community development programmes through decentralisation process between Osun and Kwara States and finally determined the extent to which such factors as communal clashes, leadership problems, poor accountability and transparency, inadequate funding and political instability impeded the process of decentralisation in Osun and Kwara states, Nigeria. The study was divided into five chapters. The first chapter dealt with general introduction to the study which focused on decentralisation attributes and it relationship with the elements of sustainability of community development programmes. The statement of the problem, objectives of the study, significance, scope of the study and the operational definition of terms were discussed. The second chapter comprised the review of relevant literature related to the study. The theoretical framework examined the system theory and modernization theory. The 161 chapter also discussed the related past studies, appraisal of literature and the model adopted for the study. Chapter three highlighted the methodology for the study. The survey research design of the ex-post facto type was adopted. A stratified random sampling technique was adopted. Two instruments: Decentralisation Factors‟ Scale (DFS) with reliability coefficient of r=0.87 and Community Development Sustainability Questionnaires (CDSQ) with reliability coefficient of r = 0.76 were used for data collection. These were complemented with FGD and KII. Two research questions were raised and two hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance. Data were analysed using simple percentages, frequency counts, bar and pie charts, Pearson‟s Product Moment Correlation, t-test, multiple regression and content analysis. Chapter four focused on results and discussion of the findings. Demographic variables of the respondents were presented on accounts of sex, age educational qualifications, occupation and marital status .Most of the respondents were 20 years and above and comprised of males and females. Majority of the respondents were higher certificates holders, Ordinary and Higher National Diploma and university degrees in various fields. Most of the respondents were civil servants, self-employed. Majority of the respondents comprised of government functionaries, political leaders, community development agents and members of community based organisations. The major highlights of the findings of the study include; Decentralisation factors significantly correlated (R = .554) with sustainability of community development programmes (F (7, 1975) =125.152; P < 0.05) and accounted for 31% variance in the dependent measure. 162 Decentralisation variables made significant relative contributions to sustainability of community development programmes as follows: need for peace and unity (β = .710), grassroot participation in development programmes (β = .453), delegation of authority (β =.304), devolution of power (β = .103), community Integration (β = .-065), easiness of decision-making (β = .-265) and development equity (β = .-661). No significant difference was found in sustainability of community development programmes through decentralisation between Osun and Kwara States. However, comparing the two factors, Kwara State ( x = 20.37) performed better than Osun State ( x = 20.33). Further, political instability (r = 453; P < 0.05), leadership problems (r = -230; P< 0.05), communal clashes (r =.136, P < 0.05), inadequate funding (r = 129; P < 0.05) and poor accountability (r =.121; P < 0.05), all impeded the influence of decentralisation factors on the sustainability of community development programmes in the two states. FGD and KII results revealed there are problems of communication gap and lack of adequate understanding of the basic principles of the decentralisation process among the inhabitants. This has hindered the expected level of citizen participation in developmental projects arising from decentralisation process. Chapter five dealt with summary, conclusion, policy implications of the study, recommendations and suggested areas for further studies. The result of the study revealed that decentralisation factors enhanced the sustainability of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara States. Decentralisation factors were established as potent instruments in the sustainability of community development programmes. However, the problems of political instability, leadership, inadequate funding, communal clashes, accountability, and communication gap 163 should be considered when planning for community development programmes. Besides, there is the need for the provision of community education. It was recommended that decentralisation should be a recurrent exercise which should be tailored towards effective grassroots participation and development. Community development projects should be modernised to see the light of the day through involvement of professionals and locally trained personnel especially in physical projects for more sustained community development programmes. 5.2 Policy Implications Community Development Agency, (2007) has highlighted the role of the three tiers of government in community development as contained in this study. The study has great implication for the various tiers of government especially the local government which is closer to the grassroots. The local government should it as matter of policy, assist community development programmes through planning, monitoring, evaluation and maintenance of the community projects for sustainability of community development programmes. Since the study revealed that youths were not properly involved in most community development projects especially in Kwara State, the implication is that they are gradually been phased out of the community development process. The roles of the youths are crucial especially when it comes to communal self-help projects, the youths should not be brushed aside and they should be incorporated into the system by Community Development Associations. 164 It has been inferred from the quantitative findings that insecurity of lives and properties was a factor affecting sustainability of community development programmes, therefore, this has an implication that the three tiers of government should re-order their community security programmes towards ensuring maximum security to prevent vandalisation of property and to ensure effective sustainability of community development programmes. The findings of this study has a major implication for the community stakeholders such as community leaders, political leaders and government representatives on the issue of financial incapacities which posed major challenges to sustainability of community development programmes. There is need for community stakeholders to come up with strategies of mobilising local resources to engender sustainability of community development programmes. 5.3 Conclusions Decentralisation factors have been premised on the presumed capacity to enhance sustainability of community development programmes. The results of the study showed that decentralisation factors (grassroots participation in development programmes, development equity, community integration and unity, devolution of power, delegation of authority and easiness of decision-making process) are vital instruments which facilitated sustainability of community development programmes. The study showed that the three tiers of government within the decentralization process have vital roles to perform towards ensuring sustainability of community development programmes. These components of government were saddled with certain roles in community development as designed by Community Development Agency (2007). 165 Among the roles are; to coordinate and monitor community development activities, government is to make provision for grants and other forms of support for self-help projects in the states, establishment of CDC and CDA and RWS units. Since one of the aims of the study is to examine the above mentioned roles of the component units of government within the decentralisation process, the study revealed significant improvement in the decentralisation process. The study revealed myriads of challenges facing sustainability of community development programmes which included communal clashes, political instability, inadequate funding, leadership problems, poor accountability and transparency and communication gap. These factors have been identified to have impeded sustainability of community development programmes. It is hoped that government and the communities will provide solutions to problems bedeviling sustainability of community development programmes. This study has provided the need for community stakeholders to understand and appreciate the value of decentralisation as an instrument to promote sustainability of community development programmes. It is hoped that this study will provide an insight in to the impact of decentralisation factors as veritable tools for sustainability of community development programmes. 166 5.4 Recommendations Based on the findings of this research study, the following recommendations are offered:  Government should identify and encourage community stakeholders to serve as model of leadership for effective and positive participation in planning, monitoring and evaluation of community development programmes.  Lack of adequate funding should be addressed, government needs to come up with a policy measure that will enhance the financial problems of communities with a view to budgeting substantial funds and to mobilise local resources from individuals for effective sustainability of community development programmmes.  There is need for government to organise intensive training and re-training programmes regularly to educate the communities to promote accountability at the community level in order to address all pervasive problems of graft and corruption that is present in all the communities studied.  The promotion of community education should be packaged in a continuing form. The educational needs of the community should incorporate formal, non-formal and informal mode which must operate within cultural context of the habitants which will allow citizens re-shape their physical, socio-economic conditions through identification of their felt needs participation in the planning, implementation, monitoring of projects participation in self-help projects.  For a more sustained community development programmes, government should properly address the problems of communities through participation and involvement of the three tiers of government, federal, state and local political units with the 167 beneficiary communities, this will entail comprehensive and coordinated mobilisation of resources through partnering with international development agencies.  There is the need to modernize community development projects through direct involvement of professionals in all spheres of all rural transformation agenda to ensure quality work is done.  Community development is a people oriented programme, therefore, it is important decentralisation of decision-making apparatus concerning community development programmes at the states and local level to ensure community participation is put in place.  Indigenous mechanisms for conflict resolutions should be put in place to take care of communal clashes. By using such indigenous methods to strengthen modern techniques of conflict resolution, the communities will contribute meaningfully to restoration of permanent peace, harmony and tranquility for sustainability of community development programmes.  Decentralisation through creation of states and local units should be a recurrent exercise which should be tailored towards effective grassroots development and popular participation in governance.  As a way of forestalling the defective communication gap. Government should publicise basic information on community development activities through regular meetings, market place, radio programmes, religious institutions, telephone calls, personal contact and document delivery to mobilise the community to gain access to information 168 5.5 Contributions to Knowledge Several studies have been conducted on impact of decentralisation on ethnic conflict and secessionism. Studies also exist on administrative problems of decentralisation. However to the best of the researcher‟s , studies on influence of decentralisation factors on sustainability of community development programmes have not been given in- depth research. This study therefore, submitted that decentralisation factors contributed to sustainability knowledge, of community development programmes in Osun and Kwara States, Nigeria. 5.6 Limitations of the Study Mobilising people and harnessing resources (financial, human and materials) to organise FGD and KII are part of the major constraints noticeable in the process of carrying out this research. Most communities were not easy to mobilise. They hesitated participating unless they are adequately motivated which added to the cost of organising the FGD across 18 local communities as scheduled in the sample of the study. Also, many local government officials vacated their offices in Kwara State as it was the period when the EFCC officials visited their offices; this has made them declining information as at the point of visit. Besides, the researchers made several visits before FGD was carried out in most communities. 169 5.7 Suggestions for Further Studies Decentralisation factors are multivariate; therefore, since it is practically impossible to investigate all variables of decentralisation and community development, the following suggestions are made for further studies. - Influence of decentralisation factors on community capacity building. - Influence of decentralisation factors on development of local leadership. - The challenges of decentralisation and sustainable development. - Also, a comparative study on decentralisation factors and sustainable community development can be carried out in other geo-political zones that have experienced political decentralisation. - Further study should also be carried out on assessment of decentralisation factors and resource mobilisation for effective grassroots development. 170 REFERENCES Abiona,I A. 2003. Training needs of community leaders in community development process in Nigeria. Ibadan Journals of Educational Studies. 3, 1 : 2 June-Dec 2003 Abiona, I .A .2009. Principles and Practice of Community Development, Ibadan University Press Pp 17-81. Abiona, I.A and Oluleye M.A. 2009 Influence of the farmers‟ development union microfinance scheme on women empowerment in selected local government areas of Oyo State, Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Social Work Education. Department of Social Work, University of Ibadan. 8. Abisoye, A.O. 2008. Participation and Democracy: Implication for Community Development in Oyo State, Nigeria Ph.D Thesis Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Abu, P.B and Oghenekohwo, J.E .2003. Citizens‟ participation in community development in developing countries International Journal of Continue and Non- Formal Education.2, 1:63. Adamolekun, L. 2002. Public Administration in Africa: Main Issues and Selected Country Studies Ibadan Spectrum Books Limited. Pp 48:50, 266:.292. Adedipe, B.O. 2002. First Foundation of Regional Planning Ilaro IBDL, Educational Publishers Pp. 38. Adedokun, O.M, 1998. The Contributions of Community Education to Sustainable Community Development Project in Oyo state, (1987-1996).Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan., Ibadan. Adedokun, O.M, 2009. The Effects and implications of urban agriculture practice on community development in Ibadan metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Social Work Education, Department of Social Work , University of Ibadan., Ibadan. 8. Adegboye, M.A 2005. Sources of Motivation to Rural Dwellers Participation in Self-help Projects in Plateau States, Nigeria. M.Phil. desertation Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan., Ibadan. Ademola, A and Stephen, .K. 2003. Theories of federalism Ad-Hoc Expert group meeting (UNCC), Addis Ababa. 171 Adejuyigbe, O.1979. Rationale and Effects of State Creation in Nigeria with Reference to the 19 States In Akinyemi, Cole P.D, & Ofonagoro W. Readings on Federalism University Press Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Pp 190-212. Adeyeye, M .2000. Local Government as Agent of Socio-economic Development in Nigeria in Mukoro. An Institutional Administration: A contemporary Local Government Perspective From Nigeria LagosMathHouse Press Limited Lagos Pp161. Agbaje, A.A.B .1999. Electoral Administration in Nigeria in J.A.A Ayoade [ed] Handbook of election monitoring in Nigeria Ibadan Vantage Publishers, Ibadan. Pp 91. Agbodike, C.C.2004. Federal Character Priniciple and National Integration in Kunle Amuwo; Agbaje, A; Suberu R.T; Herault.G l (eds) Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan, Spectrum Books Ltd, and IFRA, Pp.177. Aina, A. D. 2006. From Native Administration to Local Government: The Travails of Grassroots Administration in Hassan .A, Jacob F, Usman L, & Samuel Democracy and Development in Nigeria Conceptual Issues and Democracy practice, Lagos Concepts Publishers Limited.1...319. Akai, N and Masayo, S. 2002. Fiscal decentralisation contributes to economic growth: evidence from state-level cross-section data for the United State Journal of Urban Economics,. . 1, 93-108. Akinbade, J.A 2008. Government Explained (Plus Questions and Answers Lagos Macak Books Ventures Pp 449. Akinpelu, J.A 2002. Philosophy and Education, Ibadan Sterling Horden Publishers Nig Ltd Pp 67:70. Akinboade, C Y.1994. The Effects of Women Empowerment on Participation In Community- based Development Projects in Ondo and Kogi States Nigeria 1986- 1994 Ph.D Thesis, Department of Adult education, University of Ibadan. Ibadan. Akinpelu, J.A 1988. Mass Mobilisation to Community Development Uniben press, Benin City. Akintayo, M O and Oghenekohwo J.E .2004. Developing Adult Education and Community Development: New Paradigms Educational Research and Study Group. Akinyemi, V.I, 1990. Determinants of Citizen Participation in Community Development Activities in Ondo state. Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan 172 Akpunne, B.C, 2011. Socio-cultural Factors as Predictors of People‟s Participation in Community Development Programmes in Urban Communities of Lagos State Nigeria Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult education, University of Ibadan. Ibadan. Ahmed, A.O, 1988. The Influence of Adult Education on Altitude towards Community Development in Niger State of Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult Education University of Ibadan. Alabi, D.O. 2006. Federalism and the Quest for National Development in Hassan.A, Jacob F, Usman L, & Samuel Issues and Democratic Practice. Lagos, Concepts Publications Limited. 1.46.52. Amuwo, H. 1998. On the Notion of political Restructuring in a Federal System in Kunle Amuwo; Agbaje, A; Suberu R.T; Herault.G l (eds) Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan, Spectrum Books Ltd, and IFRA, Pp.101. Anyanwu, C.N 1981. Principles and Practice of Adult Education andCommunity Development Ibadan Abiprint Publishing CompanyLimited Pp 189-194. Anyanwu, C.N 1982. Developing Adult Education in Nigeria. Ibadan University Press Ltd. Anyanwu, C.N 1992. Community Development: The Nigerian Perspective. Ibadan, Gebesther Educational Publishers. 9th December, 1993 University of Ibadan, Ibadan Pp2:6. Anyanwu, C.N 1999. Introduction to Community Development. Ibadan, Gabesther Educational Publishers.Pp.5. Anyamwu, C.N .1999. Elements of Comparative Studies in Adult Education. Ibadan, Gabesther Educational Publisher. Anyanwu, C.N 2002. Community Education: The African dimension. Ibadan, Alafas Nigeria Company. Are, K. 1972. State/local government relations in Nigeria: the case of Kwara State in local government reforms, Institute of administration Journals ABU p. 8. Aromolaran, F.O, 2010. Influence of Indigenous Vocational Educational Programmes and Socio-economic Empowerment of Women in South Western Nigeria Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Atata, A.U. 1995. Leadership Style as a Factor in Successful Community Development Programmes in Imo State Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 173 Atimo, M. Dahwa, E.M.K and Jimba, S.W. 1996. Characteristics analysis of the information needs of rural dwellers in Southern Nigeria. Nigerian Library and Information Science 14.1 & 2; 65-70. Attahiru, M.J, 2007. Democracy, Good Governance and Development in Nigeria Critical Essays. Spectrum Books Limited, Ibadan p 66. Awotokun, K. 2000. An Appraisal of Local Government in Nigeria in Mukoro .A Institutional Administration: A contemporary Local Government Perspective from Nigeria Malt house Press. p 19. Ayoade, J.A.A. 1998. The Federal Character Principle and Search forNational Integration in Kunle Amuwo; Agbaje, A; Suberu R.T; Herault.G l (eds) Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan, Spectrum Books Ltd, and IFRA, p.101 Babajide, O .O. 2006. Rural Change and the Impact of Development Intervention on Ilaje People in Ondo State,Nigeria.Unpublised Ph.D Thesis ,Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Babashola, 1998. Nigerian Human Development Report. UNDP Reports, Lagos, in Nigeria Babawale. T. 2007.Good Governance, Democracy and Democratic “Best Practices”: Prescriptions for Nigeria. CBAAC Occasional Monograph, No.3 Concept Publications Limited, Lagos. Bello-Imam, I.B.1996. Local Government in Nigeria: Evolving a Third Tier of Government. Heinemann Educational books (Nigeria) Plc in Association with French Institute for Research in Africa pp 6-7. Bird, P. 1997. Funder or Founder: the role of development agencies in shared forest management. Common Wealth Forestry Review 76 (3) ,1997 Pp 40-49 Brancati, D. 2005. Fueling the Fire or Damping the Flames: The Impact of Political Decentralisation on Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism. International Organisation nd, vol. Summer http//www.dbrancati@hmdc.harvard.edu Accessed March 2 2010 at 9:25pm. Brillanties, A.2001. Decentralisation Imperatives: Lessons from Some Asian Countries Foundation of International Cooperative Studies Vol 12 www.abrilantes@yahoo.com Accessed July17th, 2010. Bulamin, A. O. 1995. Theory and Practice of Local Government. Distance Leaving Centre University of Ibadan Pp 12-13. Bertalanffy, L.V. 1950. An outline of general systems theory. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, .1, .2. 174 Chinkendu, P.N. 2003. Nigerian Politics and Government. Enugu, Academics Publishing Company Pp 78-79. Community Development Agency, 2007 The National Objectives of Community Development Policy, Agency, Abuja. Dare, L.O, 1979. Perspective on Federalism In Akinyemi A.B, Cole P.D, Ofonagoro W. Readings on Federalism. Ibadan University press, Nigeria Pp27:23. Dasuki Reform, 1984. Report on Local Government System and Administration. Dusautoy, P. 1962. The Organisation of a Community Development Programmes London Oxford University Press. Eboh, E.C, Okoye, C and Ayichi, D.1995. Rural Development in Nigeria: concepts process and prospects. Enugu Auto-century publishing company. Egenti, M. N 2001. The influence of citizen participation in self – help projects on the welfare of people in Imo state, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.d Thesis university of Ibadan. Elazar, D.J. 1965. The shaping of inter-governmental relations in the twentieth century Annals of the American Academic of Social and Political Science, 359, 11. Fayenuwo, G. A. 2008. Determinants of Mass Participation in Community Forestry in Southwestern Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis Department of Forest Resources, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Federal Republic of Nigeria 1970. The second National Development plan1970-1974” Lagos Federal Ministry of Information printing Division. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1975. Third National Development Plan, 1975 – 80 Federal Government Press, Lagos. Federal Government of Nigeria: “Development plan 1940-1990 Lagos”. th Federal Republic of Nigeria 1995. 35 Independence Anniversary Address by General San Abacha, Head of State and command in Chief of Armed Forces of Nigeria .National Orientation Agency (NOA) Garki Abuja. p8. Federal Republic of Nigeria 1989. The Review of 1979 Constitution Pp16 The Federal Republic of Nigeria Supplement to Official Gazette Extra Ordinary 29 .96 16.A. Federal Republic of Nigeria 1995. World Press Conference by Ofonagoro as Honourable Minister of Information and Culture p8 175 Filani, M.O.1995.The Geography of Nigeria. External Study Programme Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.Pp 2-5 Fredrich, Carl 1965. Federalism and Opposition” Government and Opposition. Pp 1-3 Furmiss, .N. 2009. The practical significance of decentralisation The Journal of politics 36 th encyclopedia wikipedia.org. Wiki / Decentralization. Accessed on July 12 , 2011 at 9.59 Gboyega, A. 2003. Democracy and Development: The Imperative of Local Governance. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered at the University of Ibadan on Thursday, October, 2. p.62. Gboyega, A. 1987. Political Values and Local Government in Nigeria Lagos, Malthouse Press Lagos. Government Report, 1987 Government View and Comments on the Finding and Recommendation of the Political Bureau. MAMSER, Abuja Hassan, M. A. 2009. Adult Education and Development in Hassan, M.A and Oyebamiji, M.A Introduction to Adult Education Gabesther Educational Publishers, Ibadan. p 159. Henry,O .M. 2008. Influence of Conflict Transformation Strategies on Peace Building in Selected Multi-ethnic Communities In Nigeria .Unpublished Ph.D Thesis , Department of Adult education, University of Ibadan. Ibadan. Heylighen. F and Joslyn C. 2007: What is system Theory? th http//www.pespmel.Vub.ac.be/Accessed on Monday,5 ,2011 at 8.30pm Hughues,O. E, 1998 Public Management and Administration. New York St. Martins Press, Inc 175 Fifth Avenue, U.S.A. Pp 21-27 Immegart, G. I. and Francis, J.P, 1973. An Introduction to Systems for the Educational Administrator, Reading, Massachusetts: Addisson Wesley Publishing Company Inc., pp 1-49. Ingemar, F. and Lawrence, J. 1983, Education & National Development: A Comparative Perspective Great Britain Bulterworth Heinemann Pp.15-16. Jeong, H. 2000. Peace and Conflict Studies USA, Bulington; Ashgate Publishing Company. 176 Jimba, S.W. 2002. Accessibility to Information Technologies, her value-in-use and user attitudes among scientists using Agricultural libraries in Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis Department of Library, Archival and Information Studies. University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Jinadu, L.A 1979. A Note on the Theory of Federalism in Akinyemi A.B, Col P.D, Ofonagoro W. Readings on Federalism. Ibadan University Press p13. Joshua, Lincoln .2000. The Effects of Federalism on Inter-Group Relations in Multi-Ethnic States: Evidence from Nigeria and Ethiopia Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis Submitted to the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Tufts University p. 12. Litosseliti, L. 2003. Using Focus Groups in Research. London. Continuum 1-24 Livingstone, W.S. 1952. A Note on the Nature of Federalism, p 22 Political Studies Quarterly. I .II.22 Leach, A. 2001. Information provision in a rural context: the perspectives of rural adults. South African Journal of Library and Information Science. 67.2;51-63. Maureen, N.E 2005. Appraisal of the Due Process in the Principles, Methods and Techniques of Managing Community Development Projects for Development in Adult and Non-Formal Education in Nigeria: Ibadan Emerging Issues. Papers from the NNCAE Annual Conference. p16. Mbacham, P.T 2010. Influnce of Rural Community Radio Programmes on Community Development Activities in Cameroun Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult Education University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Mukoro, A. 2000. Institutional Administration: Contemporary Local Government Perspective for Nigeria .Lagos, Malthouse Press Limited p. 5 Murray, R. Spiegel. Larry, J.& Stephens, 2008. Schaum’s Outline of Theory and Problems of Statistics. The McGraw Hill companies Pp 345-352 Myers, R.B 1954. The Development and Implication of a Conception of Leadership for Leadership Education Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida. National Population Commission,2006. National Strategies for Sustainable Development, 1998. Nepal Sustainable Community Development Programmes. www.nnssd.net th Obianigwe, 1999. Talking Rural Development. Vanguard Monday, March 18 , 1999 177 Ofo, J.E. 1994. Research Methods and Statistics in Education and Social Sciences Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited. Pp 8-13. Ojo, E.O. 2000. Nigeria‟s New Modes of Power Sharing: a prognosis in African notes Journal of the Institute of African Studies. University of Ibadan, Ibadan p 75. Ojo, E.O. 2000 .Explaining Nigerian Politics, Geo-Studies Forum .5, 1.2 Ojo, E.O. 2005. Politics of States‟ Local Government‟ Creation Exercises and Search for Geo-political Balancing. A Monograph p 70. Ojo,O . 2003. Fundamentals of Research Methods. Standard Publications. Lagos Okello, D. 2007.Empowering Women through ICT: Enhancing Access to Information by th Rural Women,http//www.govmonitor.com/node/1454. Accessed December 15 , 2010 Okiy, R.B. 2003. Information for Rural Development: challenge for Nigerian rural dwellers. public libraries. Library Review.52.3;126-131 Okojie, .C..2009. Decentralization and Public Service Delivery in Nigeria. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) series number 4 E-mail ifpri@cgigar.org/skypeifprihomeoffice Accessed May23rd , 2010.8.30pm Okoli, E.F 2003 Foundations of Government and Politics Onitsha Africana FEP Publishers Limited p.74 Okunoye, J.O. 2007. Nigeria from Colonialism to Post Independence: Geo-Political Perspective p: 8 Oladipo, S.O. 2001. The Way Osun State Should Go, An analysis of Military and Civilian Leadership in Osun State (1991-2001) Simlad Publisher. Olaitan , W.A.1998. Rotational Presidency and State Building in Nigeria, In Kunle Amuwo , A; Agbaje, R; Suberu; G. Herault Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan Spectum Books Limited. P 138-140. st Olaniyi, W.O. 2000.School Community Relations in the 21 Century in J.O Fadipe and st Oluchukwu (Eds) Educational Planning and Administration in Nigeria in the 21 Century,Ibadan ,National Institute For Educational Planning and Administration . Olasupo, F. A. 2000. Community Participation in Governance and Development in Nigeria In Akpomuvire Mukoro Institutional Administration: A Contemporary Local Government Perspective From Nigeria .Lagos, Malthouse Press Limited Pp 169. 178 Olatumile, A. 2010.Environmental Education, Social Services and Infrastructural Needs as Predictors of Sustainable Development of Bitumen Communities in Ondo State, Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis Faculty of Education, Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Olayinka, A.I and Taiwo V.O and Raji-Oyedele and Farai, I.P. 2006: Methodology of Basic and Applied Research. The Post Graduate School, University of Ibadan, Ibadan Pp 6-10. Omolewa, M.A .2001. The Challenge of Education in Nigeria. Ibadan: Ibadan University press. Omotola, S.J .2006. No democracy, No Development or Vice-Versa? In Hassan, Jacob F, Usman L; Samuel (Eds) Democracy and Development in Nigeria: Conceptual Issues and Democratic Practice. Vol.1. Lagos, Concepts Publishing Limited p 29. Omotoso, O.F. 2003. Administrative Problems of State Creation in Nigeria: The Case of Ekiti and Osun States. Unpublished Thesis, Faculty of Social Science, Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Onabanjo, F.A. 2004. Community Development: Rural Development and Planned Social Change .Lagos, Felix Enterprises Pp 1-44. Orewa, G.O and Adewumi, J.B. 1992. Local Government in Nigeria. The Changing Scene. II Ethiopia Publishing Corporation Banishing.11.22. Osaghae, E, E. 1999. Ethnicity and its management in Africa, Lagos Malthouse Press Limited. Osarhieme, B.O. 1998. The Development of the Federal Idea and the Federal Framework, 1914-1960 in Kunle Amuwo; Agbaje A; Suberu R.T ; Herault.G Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria, Ibadan,. Spectrum Books Limited, p 34. Osuji, E.E. 1991. Enhancing the Quality of Community Development Projects. In Gbolagade, A; Theodocia, F (eds) Improving the Quality of Community Development Projects in Nigeria. Osuji, E.E. 1992. Community Participant: Proceeding of Unicef Sponsored Workshop, University of Ibadan, Consultancy Services Unit. Osuji, E.E. 1995. Issues in Community Participation in Literacy Development Programmes in Nigeria in Omolewa M., Osuji E. E; Oduaran .A Retrospect and Renewal: The State of Adult Education Research in Africa. Senegal, UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Africa (BREDA) p 243. 179 Osuntokun, J 1979. The Historical Background of Nigeria Federalism in Akinyemi A.B; Cole P.D;Ofonagoro W. Readings on Federalism.Lagos, Nigeria Institute of International Affairs, Nigeria. P 91. Otite, R.E. 2002. Partnering in Community Development: A Study of Three Rural Communities in Delta State Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis Faculty of Education, Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan p 114. Otite, O. 2000. Ethnic Pluralism Ethnicity and Ethnic in Nigeria. Ibadan Shanesco C.I Limited. Pp 175-183 Otive ,I. 2006. Review of Nigeria Millennium Development Goals-2005 Report Otive.Igbuzor@actionaid.org&otiveigbuzor@yahoo.co.uk Accessed August 14th, 2011 Owen, 1981. Organisation Behaviour in Education. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc; Pp 41-86. Oyebamiji,M.A. 2009. Community Development in Hassan, M.A and Oyebamiji, M.A Introduction to Adult Education Gabesther Educational Publishers, Ibadan. p 59 Oyelami, R.O. 2007 . Community Participation and Performance in Secondary Schools in Oyo and Osun States,Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Oyovbaire, S.E. 1985. Federalism in Nigeria: A Study on the Development of the Nigeria State. Macmillian Publisher pp 1:15:17. Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System .New York Free Press. Political Bureau, 1987 Report of Directorate for Social Mobilization Production p 120. Paul, I.G.2005. Evaluation of Participation in Community-Based Health Projects Implemented by Non-Governmental Organisation. Ph.D Thesis. Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Paul, S 1999. Community Participation in Development Projects. The World Bank Experience In Researching Community Development Institute Workshop. Community participation September, 1997 Washington D. C. Ramphar, S. 1979. Key Note Address In Akinyemi A B; Ofonagoro W and Cole PD Readings on Federalism. Nigeria Institute of International Affairs Lagos, Nigeria p 14. Report of the Constitutional Conference, 1995. Abuja. Government Press.1.1 180 Report of the Isa Onabaro Committee on State Creation. Sunday sketch,Ibadan, 12 June, 1993. Richard, S. 2004. Foundations of Federal Government in Nigeria In A.B Adigun and Agbaje Nigerian’s Struggle for Democracy and Good Governance. Ibadan Pp 1-8. Riker, W.H 1965. Federalism. Origin, Operation, Significance, Passim, Particularly, Pp 12- 13 &.136. Rondinelli, D.A and Nellis, .J.R.1986. Accessing Decentralisation Policies in Developing Countries. The Case for Continuous Optimism, Development Policy. 54 .323.www.decentraliation.org Or www.abrilantes@yahoo.comAccessedJuly 17th, 2010. Sarumi, A. 2003. Community Development: Historical Perspective In the Nigeria Journal and Labour Relations. University of Ibadan..5.(1),16 Segun, A. 1992. Osun State in Historical Perspective. Ibadan, Sector Publicity Limited. P. 8 Sharma, C.K 2005. The Federal Approach to Fiscal Decentralisation. conceptual contours for policy maker, Loyola Journal of Social Sciences 67(1),169http// en-wikipedia.org /wiki /decentralization. Sharma, C.K 2006. Decentralisation Dilemma. measuring the degree and evaluating the outcomes, The Indian Journal of Political Science, 67(1), 49-64. Http// en- wikipedia.org /wiki /decentralization. Sharma, C.K .2008.Emerging Dimensions of Decentralisation Debate in the Age of Globalization, mpra paper 6734,Germany University Library of Munich. Http// en- wikipedia.org /wiki /decentralization. Suberu, R.T. 1990 Federalism and Political Institution in Nigeria plural societies 19. 23. Suberu, R. T.1991. The Struggle for New State in Nigeria, 1976-1990 African Affairs. 90,504. Suberu, R.T. 1994 Recent Demands for New States in Nigeria. The Nigeria Journal of Federalism 1, 2: pp 67-82. Suberu, R.T. 1998. States‟ Creation and Political Economic of Nigeria Federalism In Kunle Amuwo; Agbaje, A; Suberu, ; G. Herault Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan Spectrum BooksLimited. Pp 276-280 Suberu, R T, 1996 . Ethnic Minority Conflicts and Governance in Nigeria, Ibadan. Spectrum Books Limited pp 68-69 181 Tamono, T. N, 1998. Nigeria Federalism in Historical Perspective in Kunle Amowo, Suberu R. T And Herault G.I (eds) Federalism and Political Restructuring In Nigeria Ibadan Spectrum Book Limited and R F R A . Pp 13 th,, Tandson, J. 2002. Information Access for Rural Women. Retrieved December 20 2010. www.wouglet.com Ugwu, S.C. 1998. Federal system: The Nigerian experience. Enugu, Mary Publishers 3, Neni Street. Pp 10-15 Ugwu, S.C 2000. Issues in Local Government and Urban Administration in Nigeria. Enugu Academic Printing press. 1, 5:123. Ugwu, S.C 2004. Attractions and Limitations of Multi-ethnic Federalism.. The Nigerian nd Experience. Faculty Lecture Series No 12 2 December Faculty of the Social Sciences, Department of Political Science University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Pp2- 3.Theory and Practice of Development Administration. Abuja; Adema Publishers. Nigeria. p. 40 Ujo, A.A 2008. Theory and Practice of Development Administration. Adema Publishers, Abuja. p 6 th Uju, U.O. 2000. “Nigeria’s 4 republic. A compendium of the Executives, legislators, and the judiciary Abuja Gong Publishing Company Ltd, Pp 882..886..908..914. Ukeje, B.O, Okorje, N.C and Nwagbara, U. A, 1992. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice. Owerri Totan Publishers Limited. pp 102-105 . United Nations Development Programme.1996. Human Development Report .New York. Oxford United Nations Development Programme (U N D P), 1996.Participatory Evaluation In Programmes Involving Governance and Decentralisation: a Methodological Note June UNDP, 1999. Indicators of Sustainable Development, Interim Analysis UNO, 1963. Community Development and National Development Wheare, K.C .1968. Federal Government (4th Edition) London Oxford University Press London. 182 United Nations Commission on Human Rights. 2004 . Promotion and Protection of Human Right , Science and Environment . Gottisession .Retrieved 4 July, 2010 from W.W.W. Human Rights – Usa .net World Bank, 2007. World Development Indicators. http//www.worldbank.org. Accessed January12th, 2011 World Bank, 2008. Community and Social Development Project in Nigeria http//www.worldbank.org. Accessed August 27th, 2011 World Bank Institute, 2001. www.decentralization.org. World Bank, Group, 2011. Social Aspect of Sustainable Development in Nigeria http//www.worldbank.org. Accessed August 27th, 2011 World Bank Report, 2001. Concept of decentralization www.decentralization.org. Accessed th July 20 , 2011 183 APPENDIX I UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, IBADAN, NIGERIA DEPARTMENT OF ADULT EDUCATION. RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE ON DECENTRALISATION FACTORS’ SCALE (DFS) INSTRUCTION: This questionnaire is strictly for research purpose. Any response got from this scale will be treated with confidentiality. Please indicate your response by ticking () the relevant options, and in some cases, state your response in words. SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( ) 2. Highest Educational Qualification: Ph.D ( ) M.A/M.Ed ( ) B.A/B.Sc/B.Ed ( ) HND ( ) OND ( ) NCE ( ) WASSC ( ) Primary six ( ) others specify….…… 3. Age group; 20-29 ( ) 30-39 ( ) 40-49 ( ) 50-59 ( ) 60years and above ( ) 4. Marital Status: Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorce/Separated ( ) Widow ( ) Widower ( ) 5. Occupation: Civil Servant ( ) Public Servant ( ) Private sector employed ( ) self- employed ( ) farmer ( ) trader ( ) 6. State of origin: Osun ( ) Kwara ( ) 7. Town/Village: …………………………………… 8. Local Government Area: ……………………………… 9. Political Ward: …………………………………………. 10. Community Stakeholders: Community Leader ( ) Member of Community Based Organisation ( ) Community Development Agent ( ) Political Functionaries ( ) 184 SECTION B GRASSROOT PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the scale below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEM SA A D SD 4 3 2 1 1. Community leaders are always involved in policy formulation at the grassroots for development through decentralisation. 2. Communities participate in decision-making in political decentralisation for development purposes 3. Community people are allowed to join any group organisation. 4. Decentralisation promotes effective communication among members of the community. 5. Community leaders are accountable to the citizenry in all development projects. 6. Communities are involved in projects implementation. 7. Communities are involved in projects monitoring and evaluation. 8. Community leaders liaise with government functionaries to facilitate development programmes 9. Community development agents are always involved in organizing community development activities. 10. Communities are given the right to nominate their political representatives. 185 SECTION C DEVELOPMENT EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES. Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the key format below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEM SA A D SD 4 3 2 1 1. Community people are involved in construction of well and sinking of boreholes to satisfy their domestic needs. 2. Through decentralisation, community people are involved in rehabilitation of rural roads for easy transportation. 3. Community people enjoy regular supply of electricity provided by the government. 4. Many youths are gainfully employed through self –help projects. 5. Construction of culvert and drainage are carried out through people‟s initiatives for easy movement. 6. Community people are involved in building of palaces for cultural and aesthetic values. 7. Health centers are built by government through community initiatives to make health care services accessible to the community. 8. Cottage Industries are provided through community self-help and initiatives. 9. Community security programmes are provided through community development efforts such as vigilance groups to secure lives and properties. 10. Schools are built through community initiatives to provide the educational needs of communities. 186 SECTION D PEACE/UNITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the key format below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEM SA A D SD 4 3 2 1 1. I consider unity among community members as a factor that can bring sustainable development . 2. If there is unity within the community it attracts government attention to the needs of the people. 3. Many people involve in programmes when there is harmony in community. 4. Community where there is war sustainability of community development programmes becomes difficult. 5. We gain a lot of experiences from unity this has ensured sustainability of community development programmes. 6. Most people do not consider unity as factor of sustainability of community programmes . 7. Most communities were discouraged where there is no unity. 8. Unity is not a barrier to sustainability of community development programmes . 9. Unity serves as springboard for human development. 10. Unity in community influences capacity to interact. 11. Misunderstanding among community members impedes most community development programmes sustainability. . 12. In most Communities where there is crime and social disorder it is difficult to sustain community development programmes. 187 SECTION E COMMUNITY INTEGRATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the key format below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEMS SA A D SD 1 2 3 4 1. Lack of community integration can damage the capacity of the societies to sustain most development programmes 2. Communities where people are working together foster sustainability of community development programmes. 3. Capacity to form partnership, cooperation easy integration among the people in the community facilitate sustainability of community programmes. 4. Peoples‟ ability to take responsibilities among community members promotes sustainability of community programmes. 5. Community people develop confidence to interact to enhance the quality of life. 6. Community integration create conducive environment to facilitate individual well being. 7. Community with religion tolerance facilitates sustainability of community development programmes 8. Individual altitudes that are capable of promoting segregation should be discouraged to ensure sustainability of community development progarmmes. 9. Effective communication among community members enhance sustainability of community development programmes 10. Group organizations are capable of promoting interrelationship among community members. 188 SECTION F DEVOLUTION OF POWER AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the key format below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEM SA A D SD 4 3 2 1 1. Community development units are established at the local government level for programmes sustainability. 2. Community development units are established at the state level for development purpose. 3. Community Development Committee (CDC) is established at the local government level for programmes sustainability. 4. Community Development Committee (CDC) is established at the grass root for development. 5. Grants are provided through local government to support community development programmes. 6. Rural development services are provided by local government in most communities. 7. Government involves in training of community leaders through community education programmes. 8. Vocational training programmes are provided to develop skills among local artisans. 9. Community development agents help to mobilize people to participate in the development of their areas. 10. Communities are mobilized to partner with development agencies in the provision of infrastructural facilities. 11. Local political units monitor community development activities. 12. Government promotes functional literacy course. 189 SECTION G DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the key format below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEM SA A D SD 4 3 2 1 1. When authority is delegated from the higher administration to the lower administration for development programmes this influences sustainability of community development programmes. 2. Delegation of authority has nothing to do with sustainability of community development programmes. 3. The more power are delegated to the lower units the more people feel belonged. 4. It is difficult to sustain community development programmes where power is not delegated. 5. Community people are in harmony where power is delegated for development purposes. 6. More people are participated in the sustenance of community development programmes through delegation of authority. 7. Delegation of authority ensures easiness of decision –making. 8. Where there is proper planning through delegated legislation this ensures sustainability of community development programmes. 9. Delegation of authority facilitates organization of the community. 10. Delegation of authority ensures proper coordination of community development programmes. 190 SECTION H EASINESS OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the key format below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEM SA A D SD 4 3 2 1 1. Capacity to make high quality of decision influences sustainability of community development programmes 2. I consider decision-making as a factor that influences sustainability of community development programmes. 3. Decision-making process needs to have objectives. 4. Community people needs to come together to make decision. 5. Bad decision affects sustainability of community development programmes. 6. Decision-making by community leaders has influence on sustainability of community development programmes. 7. Collective decision-making process can impede sustainability of community development programmes. 8. Decision-making in projects planning and implementation enhance sustainability of community development programmes. 9. Failure to make decision in projects planning and implementation make it difficult to sustain community development programmes. 10. It is often difficult for community to make positive decision. 11. Community leaders always carry out critical analysis of collected information for development purposes. 191 12. Community people are not bothered by the outcome of their decision. 13. In my community we are always consistent about decision- making. 14. Encouraging dialogue in decision-making process ensure sustainability of community development programmes.. 192 SECTION I FACTORS IMPEDING THE PROCESS OF SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN THE DECENTRALISATION PROCESS Please, read and rate the following sentences carefully Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree (SD) S/N ITEM SA A D SD COMMUNAL CLASHES 1. Conflict is an obstacle to sustainability of community development programmes. 2. My community has involved in communal clashes that have impeded sustainability. 3. Conflict among the community leaders has impeded sustainability of community development programmes. 4. Land dispute has been the major problems that impeded sustainability of community development programmes 5. The use of coercion among community leaders impede sustainability of community development programmes POOR ACCOUNTABILITY/TRANSPARENCY 6. Many community leaders are not loyal. 7. In my community, many community leaders are not accountable. 8. Money contributed for development projects were directed to personal account. 9. Implementation of many projects failed due to poor accountability. 10. Most projects were not sustained due to poor accountability. LEADERSHIP PROBLEMS 11. Many local leaders are not committed. 12. Ineffective monitoring and evaluation of projects by community leaders 13. Poor leadership style has impeded sustainability of community development programmes. 193 14. The use of coercion has impeded the sustainability of community development programmes. 15. There is lack of mutual trust among community leaders. POLITICAL INSTABILITY 16. Political instability affects government assistance when it is necessary 17. In most communities many projects were abandoned due to political instability. 18. Political rivalry affects sustainability of community development programmes. 19. Most communities were marginalized. 20. Most programmes planning, implementation and maintenance were affected. INADEQUATE FUNDING 21. Inadequate funding on the part of the community people to contribute towards project funding. 22. Inadequate funding on the part of the government to complement community self-help projects. 23. Inadequate funding constitutes serious obstacles to sustainability of community development programmes. 24. Lack of mutual trust discourages community people to contribute funds. 25. Lukewarm attitude towards contribution of funds for maintenance of projects. 194 APPENDIX II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (CDSQ) Please, read and rate the following statements carefully by ticking the alternative that best describes your response on the items using the key format below: SA=Strongly Agree (4 points), A=Agree (3 points), D=Disagree (2 points), SD-Strongly Disagree ( 1 point). S/N ITEM SA A D SD 4 3 2 1 SOCIAL INDICATORS 1 In the community where I reside I have access to education 2 My community people now generate new ideas at the grassrootss. 3 Vocational education is provided to the members of our community 4 Some of our leaders often involve in the community education programmes. 5 My community involve in community security programmes such as (vigilante group) 6 Our communities have access to water supply through sinking of borehole. 7 Most people have access to supply of land. 8 Our community people have joy in the construction of palaces through their own initiative. 9 Many women are encouraged to set up income generating projects. 10 Most youth involve in self-help projects. 11 In my community employment generating schemes are set up. 195 12 ECONOMIC INDICATORS In my community, people now have access to good road networks. 13 There is regular supply of electricity 14 Through cooperative societies many people have access to credit facilities. 15 In my community, many people benefits from community banking system to sustain their businesses. 16 Most communities involve in self- reliance programmes such as soap-making, dying, sewing e t c. 17 `In my community most people have opportunity to group associations such as farmers, tailor association e t c. INSTITUTIONAL INDICATORS 18 Government policies are in favour of people to sustain most programmmes 19 In my community where I reside many people are encouraged to form partnership 20 Many people live in harmony. 21 In my community where I reside I gain a lot of experiences through interaction. 22 Many people now have access to information through meeting at market places. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS 23 People have access to abundant food supply 24 Most community people are involved in environmental sanitation 25 There is access to supply of land 26 People utilize environment for economic reasons 196 197 198 //**/// 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207