HOUSEHOLDS’ PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATIONS’ POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMMES IN OYO STATE NIGERIA (1999 – 2012) By OLAITAN OLUTAYO ODUNOLA Matric No 80514 B.Sc (Hons) Geography; M.U.R.P. (Ibadan) A Thesis in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning Submitted to the Faculty of the Social Sciences, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY of the UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, NIGERIA December, 2014 1 FOOD FOR THOUGHT There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open handed towards your brothers and towards the poor and the needy in your land. Deuteronomy 15:11. 2 ABSTRACT Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) are known to contribute to development especially at the grassroot level. However, the contribution of households in CBOs‟ poverty alleviation has not been given adequate attention in the literature. This study, therefore, examined households‟ level of participation in CBOs‟ poverty reduction programmes in Oyo State, which has the highest number of CBOs‟ in Southwestern Nigeria. Arnstein‟s Ladder of Citizen Participation provided the analytical framework within a cross- sectional survey research design. A multi-stage sampling procedure was used to select 10 (29.0%) local government areas from the three Senatorial districts: four in Oyo North (ON), three in Oyo Central (OC) and three in Oyo South (OS). A structured questionnaire focusing on level of household participation in community development (citizen power, tokenism, and non-participation), factors responsible for poverty reduction and challenges to participation was administered to 1,104 randomly selected household heads (399 in ON, 308 in OC and 397 in OS). In-depth interviews were conducted with members of randomly selected CBOs in each of the senatorial districts to obtain information on the projects executed and level of households‟ involvement. Qualitative data were content analysed, while quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance. Citizen power (54.8% in ON, 37.2% in OC and 50.5% in OS), tokenism (21.2% in ON, 27.8% in OC and 21.9% in OS) and non-participation (23.9% in ON, 35.0 % in OC and 27.6% in OS) were observed levels of participation. Mean incidence of poverty reduced from 5.3 to 1.4 in ON, 6.8 to 2.3 in OC and 3.9 to 1.1 in OS over time. This reduction was attributed to salary increase (9.0% in ON, 6.9% in OC and 8.9% in OS), birth control (13.8% in ON, 10.6% in OC and 13.7% in OS) and multiple jobs by the heads of household (15.1% in ON, 4.7% in OC and 12.8% in OS). The mean values of challenges to participation in development were financial problems (4.8±0.1 in ON, 3.6±0.4 in OC and 3.7±0.2 in OS), disparity in wealth (4.4±0.6 in ON, 3.6±0.2 in OC and 3.8±0.2 in OS) and power relations among community members (4.3±0.2 in ON, 3.5±0.5 in OC and 3.3±0.1 in OS). Development projects implemented by the CBOs were 38.8% in ON, 35.0% in OC and 26.2% in OS. Provision of infrastructural facilities by CBOs were 55.3% in ON, 72.1% in OC and 65.1% in OS; while economic and empowerment projects were 20.3% in ON, 8.1% in OC and 9.6% in OS. Security projects were 24.4% in ON, 19.8% in OC and 25.3% in OS. There was no significant difference in households‟ levels of involvement in CBOs‟ poverty alleviation programmes among the senatorial districts (F=0.13). Males were two times involved in CBOs‟ poverty alleviation programmes than females in all the Senatorial districts. In spite of several benefits derived from Community-Based Organisations‟ poverty alleviation programmes, households‟ involvement in Oyo State was low. Households‟ involvement should be strengthened by the government at different levels. Keywords: Households participation, Community-Based Organisations, Poverty reduction programmes. Word count: 492 3 CERTIFICATION I certify that Odunola, Olaitan Olutayo in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of the Social Science; University of Ibadan, Nigeria, carried out this thesis. ……………………………… ……………………………… DATE SUPERVISOR PROF. C.O OLATUBARA Ph. D (Ife) MNITP, RTP Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 4 DEDICATION To God be the glory, I dedicate this thesis to late Mrs Serifat Jelili. Your memory is evergreen in my heart. Thanks for what you were. Till we meet to part no more, adieu. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am most grateful to almighty God whose grace has been sufficient to see me through this programme in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Ibadan. My profound gratitude goes to my supervisor and Head of Department, Prof. Charles Olufisayo Olatubara, whose professional experience and constructive criticism guided me throughout my programme in the Department. I thank Professor S.B Agbola for his unrelenting advice and support. I commend the assistance of Professor Layi Egunjobi, Dr Wahab, Dr and Dr (Mrs) D. D Ajayi, Dr. and Dr (Mrs) Lekan Sanni, Dr. Ipingbemi, Dr Moruf Alabi, Dr Omirin, Dr A, Jimoh, Dr F Kasim, Dr Bashiru, Tpl. D.O Adejumobi, Dr M O Jelili and Prof. Thompson Adeboyejo LAUTECH. My appreciation and acknowledgment goes to the non- academic staff of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Mr. Ojolowo, Mr. Segun Morolari and Others. I am most grateful to my parents Venerable and Mrs. S.O. Odunola for their encouragement, unrelenting and unquantifiable effort for making me what I am today. My sincere appreciation goes to my elder brother and sisters and their families Professor and Professor (Mrs.) O.A. Odunola, Engr.and Mrs.B.A. Akinsola, Mr. and Mrs. Dayo Odunola, Late Mr. Seye Odunola, Engr.and Dr (Mrs) Ibukun Odunola. Finally, but not the least, is my wife Mrs Adetayo Oluwabumi Odunola and my children Oluwaseun Ebunoluwa-Kayode and Ayobami Oluwatobiloba Odunola. 6 Abbreviations and Acronyms 1. HDI - Human Development Index 2. UNDP – United Nations Development Programme 3. UNICEF – United Nations Children Education Fund 4. UNIDO – United Nations Industrial Development Organisation 5. NDE – National Directorate of Employment 6. DFRRI – Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure 7. OFN – Operation Feed the Nation 8. MDGs – Millennium Development Goals 9. NGOs – Non-Governmental Organisations 10. CBOs – Community Based Organisation 11. NDE – National Directorate of Employment 12. BLP – Better Life Programme 13. FSP – Family Support Programme 14. FEAP – Family Economic Advancement Programme 15. PAP – Poverty Alleviation Programme 16. NAPEP – National Poverty Eradication Programme 17. UBE – Universal Basic Education 18. NEEDS – National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies 19. SEEDS – State Economic Empowerment and Developnment Strategies 20. LEEDS – Local Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies 21. CDA – Community Development Associations 22. YA – Youth Associations 23. RBA – Religion Based Associations 24. TU – Town Union 25. NPC – National Population Commission 26. INEC – Independent National Electoral Commission 27. ONSD – Oyo North Senatorial District 28. OCSD – Oyo Central Senatorial District 29. OSSD – Oyo South Senatorial District 30. LGAs – Local Government Areas 31. NBS – National Bureau of Statistics 32. NCDP – Numbers of Completed Development Project 33. TCCD – Total Costs of Completed Development 34. NODP – Numbers of On-going Development Project 35. TCOP – Total Cost of On-going Development 36. TCAD – Total Amount spent on Charity and Donations 37. NMPS – Number of Memoranda/proposals Submitted 38. TNM – Total Number of Meeting 39. TCDJ – Total Cost of Contribution to Development 40. IPL – Index of Poverty Level 41. PCHI – Per Capital Household Income 42. OR – Occupancy Ratio 43. AR – Annual Rent/Rental 7 44. ICPPR - Impact of Community Based Organisation Project on Poverty Reduction 45. CPRA – Community Based Organisations Poverty Reduction Activities 46. SSA – South Asia and Sub-Sahara Africa 47. SEF – Social Exclusion Framework 48. LDC – Less Development Countries 49. SAP – Structure Adjustment Programme 50. WDI – World Development Indicator 51. CDD – Community Driven Development 52. HII – Household Involvement Index 53. DCP – Degree of Citizen Power 54. PDHWIFDP – Percentage Degree of Households Willingness of Involvement in Future Development Processes 55. PBIFS – Priorities with Respect to Basic Infrastructure Facilities and Services 56. HSCDP – Household Satisfaction with Community Development 57. ODP – Obstacle to Development Participation 58. SWV – Summation of the Weighted Value 59. ODP – Obstacle to Development Participation 60. FCRP – Factor Capable of Reducing Poverty 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title page i Food for thought ii Abstract iii Certification iv Dedication v Acknowledgement vi Abbreviations and acronyms vii-viii Table of contents ix-xiv List of tables xv-xviii List of figures xix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Study 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem 2 1.3 Aim and Objectives 4 1.4 Research Hypotheses. 5 1.5 Significance of the Study 5 1.6 Contribution to Planning Knowledge 6 1.7 Study Area 8 1.7.1 Physical Features 10 1.7.2 Climate 10 1.7.3 Vegetation 10 1.7.4 Occupation 10 1.7.5 Other Socio-economic Activities 11 1.8 The Plan of the Thesis 11 1.9 Conclusion. 12 CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Introduction. 13 2.2 Conceptual Framework 14 2.2.1 Concept of Community 14 2.2.2 Social Exclusion. 15 9 2.2.3 Citizen Participation 17 2.2.4 Benefit Capture Model 20 2.3 Literature Review 24 2.3.1 Definition and Measurement of Poverty 24 2.3.2 Types, Causes and Characteristics of Poverty 25 2.3.3 Poverty Alleviation Strategies. 26 2.3.4 Roles of Non-governmental Organization (NGOs) and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) in Poverty Reduction 28 2.3.5 Development Strategy and Poverty Status in Nigeria 28 2.3.6 Importance of Citizen Engagement in Community Development Planning 32 2.3.7 Corruption and Poverty 33 2.3.8 Community Driven Development: An Approach to Project Sustainability 34 2.3.9 Characteristics of Functioning Community 35 2.4: Conclusion 36 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction 37 3.2 Types and Sources of Data 37 3.2.1 Primary Data 37 3.2.2 Secondary Data 38 3.3 Sampling Design and Sample Size 38 3.4 Definition and Treatment of Variables 45 3.4.1 Index of Involvement of each CBO in Poverty Reduction Processes (IICP) 45 3.4.2 Index of Poverty Level (IPL) 46 3.4.3 Index measuring Households Willingness of Involvement in Future Development Processes (HWIFDP) 47 3.4.4 An Index Measuring Impact of Community Based Organisation Projects on Poverty Reduction (ICPPR) 47 3.4.5 Index of Households Satisfaction with Community Based Organizations Development Processes (HSCDP) 48 3.4.6 Index of Perceived Commitment of Community Based Organizations Poverty Alleviation Activities (CPRA) 49 3.4.7 Index of Obstacle to Development Participation (ODP) 49 3.4.8 Index of Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty (FCRP) 49 10 3.4.9 Data Analysis 50 3.4.10 Hypothesis 1 50 3.4.11 Hypothesis 2 51 3.4.12 Hypothesis 3 51 3.4.13 Hypothesis 4 52 3.5. Conclusion 52 CHAPTER FOUR HOUSEHOLD’S INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATIONS ACTIVITIES 4.1 Introduction 53 4.2 Identification of Community Based Organisation 53 4.3 Community Based Organisations and Year of Establishment 57 4.4 Membership Strength of Community Based Organizations 59 4.5 Development Projects Undertaken by Community Based Organisations 61 4.6 Roles of Households‟ in Community Development 66 4.7 Socio economic Characteristics and Households Contribution to Community Development. 71 4.7.1 Religion and Households‟ Involvement in Community Development 71 4.7.2 Gender and Households‟ Contribution to Community Development. 76 4.7.3 Ages and Households‟ Involvement in Community Development. 81 4.7.4 Educational Attainment and Households‟ Involvement in Community 86 4.7.5 Respondents Marital Status and their Level of Involvement in Community Development 91 4.7.6 Occupation and Households‟ Involvement in Community Development 96 4.7.7 Respondents Income and their Level of Involvement in Community Development 101 4.8 Hypothesis 1 107 4.9 Hypothesis 2 110 4.10 Households‟ Willingness to Participate in Future Development Processes 112 4.11 Households‟ Development Priorities 120 4.12 Households‟ Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation 130 4.13 Hypothesis 3 142 11 4.14 Perception of Households on Obstacles to Development Participation 148 4.15 Conclusion 161 CHAPTER FIVE STAKEHOLDERS‟ PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATIONS‟ POVERTY ALLEVIATION ACTIVITIES 5.1 Introduction 163 5.2 Households‟ Assessment of CBOs Poverty Reduction Activities 163 5.3 Hypothesis 4 173 5.4: Respondents Perception of the Impacts of Community Based Organizations Projects on Poverty Reduction 179 5.5: Households‟ Perception of Community Based Organisations‟ Development Capability 197 5.6: Stakeholders‟ Perception of Factors that Enhance Sustainable Poverty alleviation. 201 5.7: Differences between Households‟ and Community Based Organisations Perception on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty 208 5.8: Conclusion 210 CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY OF FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 6.1 Introduction 228 6.2 Summary of Major Findings 228 6.3 Theoretical Implications of the Research 230 6.4 Planning and Practical Implication 232 6.5 Recommendations 234 6.6 Conclusion 234 REFERENCES 236 APPENDIX 1. 245 APPENDIX 2 261 APPENDIX 3 269 APPENDIX 4 275 APPENDIX 5 293 12 13 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Senatorial Districts in Oyo State 39 Table 3.2 Selected Senatorial Districts, Local Government Areas, Population Size, and Sample Size. 42 Table3.3 Registered CBOs in the Sampled Local Government Areas of the three Senatorial Districts in Oyo State. 44 Table 4.1 Typologies and Names of Selected Community Based Organisations among Senatorial Districts in Oyo State 55 Table 4.2 Community Based Organisation Years of Establishment 58 Table 4.3 Community Based Organisations and their Membership Strength 60 Table 4.4 Community Based Organization Development Projects in the Senatorial Districts 62 Table 4.5 Summary of Community Based Organization Development Projects in the Senatorial Districts 65 Table 4.6 Households‟ Participation in Community Development among the Senatorial Districts in Oyo State 67 Table 4.7 Mean Score on Religion and Households‟ Contribution to Community Development 73 Table 4.8 Religion and Respondents Involvement in Community Development 76 Table 4.9 Mean Score on Gender and Households‟ Participations in Community Development 78 Table 4.10 Gender and Respondents‟ Contribution to Community Development 80 Table 4.11 Mean Scores on Age and Households‟ Involvement in Community Development. 82 Table 4.12 Ages and Respondents‟ Involvement in Community Development. 85 Table 4.13 Mean Scores on Educational Attainment and Households‟ Involvement in Community Development Table 4.14 Educational Attainment and Respondents‟ Involvement in Community Development 90 Table 4.15 Mean Scores on Marital Status and Households‟ Involvement in Community Development 92 Table 4.16 Marital Status and Respondents‟ Involvement in Community Development 95 14 Table 4.17 Mean Scores on Occupation and Households‟ Participation in Community Development Projects 97 Table 4.18 Occupation and Respondents‟ Participation in Community Development Projects 99 Table 4.19 Mean Scores on Income and Households‟ Involvement in Community Development 102 Table 4.20 Income and Respondents Participation in Community Development Projects 106 Table 4.21 Multiple Regression: Characteristics of CBOs and Level of Involvement in Poverty Alleviation Processes (IICP) 108 Table 4.22 Multiple Regression: Characteristics of Community Based Organisations 109 Table 4.23 ANOVA: Level of CBOs Involvement in Community Development. 110 Table 4.24 Households‟ Level of Participation in Future Development Processes among Senatorial Districts 113 Table 4.25 Households‟ Level of Participation in Future Development Processes in Oyo State 119 Table 4.26 Households‟ Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo South 121 Table 4.27 Households Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo Central 123 Table 4.28 Households Priorities on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo North 125 Table 4.29 Households Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo State 128 Table 4.30 Households‟ Satisfaction with the Operations of Community Based Organisation in Oyo South 138 Table 4.31 Households‟ Satisfaction with the Operations of Community Based Organisation in Oyo Central 134 Table 4.32 Households‟ Satisfaction with the Operation of Community Based Organisation in Oyo North 136 Table 4.33 Households‟ Satisfaction with the Operations of Community Based Organisations in Oyo State 138 Table 4.34 Analysis of Variance on Households Level of Satisfaction with CBOs Development Project 143 15 Table 4.35 Descriptive Analysis on Households‟ Level of Satisfaction with CBOs Development Project. 144 Table 4.36 Scheffe Multiple Comparisons on Households Level of Satisfaction with CBOs Development Projects. 146 Table 4.37 Households‟ Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo South 148 Table 4.38 Households' Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo Central. 151 Table 4.39 Households Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo North 154 Table 4.40 Households Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo State. 158 Table 5.1 Households‟ Responses on Community Based Organisation‟s Poverty Reduction Activities in Oyo South Senatorial District 164 Table 5.2 Households‟ Responses on Community Based Organisation‟s Poverty Reduction Activities in Oyo Central Senatorial District 166 Table 5.3 Households‟ Responses on Community Based Organisation‟s Poverty Reduction Activities in Oyo North Senatorial District 168 Table 5.4 Households‟ Responses on Community Based Organisation‟s Poverty Reduction Activities in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State 170 Table 5.5 Paired Mean Samples: Incidence of Poverty Years before 1999 and Year 2000 and after 174 Table 5.6 Paired Samples t-Test: Incidence of Poverty Years before 1999 and Year 2000 and after 176 Table 5.7 Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Oyo South Senatorial Districts 178 Table 5.8 Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Oyo Central Senatorial Districts 180 Table 5.9 Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Oyo North Senatorial Districts 185 Table 5.10 Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Senatorial Districts in Oyo State 190 Table 5.11 Households Perception on Community Based Organisation Development Capability in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State. 195 16 Table 5.12 Responses of Community Based Organisations to Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State. 199 Table 5.13 Households‟ Responses to Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State 202 Table 5.14: Households‟ Responses to Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State. 206 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Oyo State in its national context 9 Figure 2.1 Eight Rungs of Citizen Participation 18 Figure 2.2 Benefit Capture Model. 21 Figure 2.3 Nigeria's HDI and Poverty Level 31 Figure 3.1 Selected Local Government Areas in the three Senatorial Districts 40 Figure 4.1 Spatial Distribution of Registered CBOs in Oyo State 56 18 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND STUDY BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction Poverty is a world-wide phenomenon, but it is a prominent feature in developing countries where more than one person in five subsists on less than one dollar per day (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria has been adjudged to be one of the poorest countries as she was st ranked151 among 174 countries rated on Human Development Index (HDI) scale in 2005 (UNDP, 2005). The poverty assessment survey in Nigeria shows that over seventy percent of the population was living on less than one dollar per day and over fifty percent are living below the national poverty line (Food and Agriculture Organisation, (FAO) 2006). It has been observed that when poverty is pervasive and persistent and when this is coupled with the need for survival, the stage is set for criminal activities, and other social vices such as robbery, political gangsterism and prostitution among others (Odunola, 2004). Poverty also breeds despair and deviant sub-culture that enables politicians to manipulate people for their own selfish end. In view of the extent of the incidence of poverty, successive governments in Nigeria, in collaboration with various international organisations such as the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children Education Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) have initiated specific, multi-dimensional and multi-faceted programmes such as the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Peoples Bank, Community Bank, Better Life Programme, Poverty Alleviation Programme and Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP) (Okunmadewa, 2001). All these programmes focused on the creation of employment, improvement of welfare, development and increase in productivity. Despite all these efforts, the poverty level has remained high in most parts of the country. The impact of the programmes is hardly felt. In addition, various studies (Obadan 2002, Ajakaye 2003) indicate that all the past poverty reduction programmes were unable to achieve the set target for reasons which include: policy inconsistency, poor governance, lack of transparency and accountability, inadequate data base, non-involvement of all the stakeholders, overlap of functions, confusion of development programmes with poverty alleviation strategies and improper targeting of the poor. There is thus a prevalent of what can be referred to as the proliferation of “Property Acquisition Programmes” among the decision makers, implementers, government officials, and the fortunate community group leaders in 19 Nigeria instead of Poverty Alleviation Programmes (Odunola, 2004). Perhaps this explains why Agbola (2005) emphasized that “the rich cannot sleep because the poor were awake and the poor were awake because they were hungry and possibly angry”. Considering the high rate of plan attrition and failure to achieve the enunciated poverty alleviation objectives with many of the political actors working at cross purposes, there is a necessity for a paradigm shift, a shift towards community engagement or community-driven development. The approach promises to address the inherent flaws of inconsistency, improper targeting, lack of transparency and accountability, non-involvement of stakeholders, overlap of functions and benefit-capture syndrome among others. It is expected to be one in which the profit motive only will not be the overarching criterion. The need for development planning was induced by spatial inequalities in the distribution of resources and fruits of economic development, inadequate and breakdown of urban infrastructure, unemployment rate and over-urbanization, as well as poverty, among others (Okafor, 2005). Development planning was a proposed or action undertaken by the concerned on how development processes can contribute to the objective of poverty allevation. Thus, to achieve the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of reducing extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, something tangible and realizable must be undertaken by the planning agencies, planners, research institutions, government and the Civil society. Households‟ participation in Community Based Organisations (CBOs) which in particular is the focus of this research has significant roles to play in poverty alleviation processes. Community-Based Organisations are grassroots organisations which promote the people‟s ability to control their well-being (Onibokun and Faniran, 1995). The organisation is built on the principle of co-operation and organized group work. This attribute is important in the identification and prioritization of community problems and seeking solutions to the problems (Wahab, 1996). It is against this background that this study evaluates households‟ participation in CBOs poverty reduction programmes in Oyo State, Nigeria. 1.2 Statement of Problem Nigeria has been described as a paradox (World Bank, 1996), obviously as a result of persistent increase in poverty incidence. The paradox is that the poverty level contradicts the country‟s immense wealth. Among other things, the country is enormously endowed with both human and natural resources. Rather than recording remarkable progress in national socio-economic development indices, Nigeria retrogresses to become one of the 25 poorest 20 countries at the threshold of the twenty-first century. Interestingly, Nigeria was among the richest 50 countries in the early 1970s (Obadan, 2002). The resultant effect was that many households live in poor unsatisfactory and overcrowded conditions without adequate access to potable water, sanitation facilities and other basic services (UNDP 1996; World Bank1996, Federal Office of Statistics, F.O.S 1999). The Nigeria poverty situation exhibits geographical (locational) and occupational differentials in its incidence, depth, and severity (Aigbokhan, 2000). Also, there is more concern that the level of poverty (based on the yardstick of those living on a dollar ($1) a day or less) has been getting worse from decade to decade since 1970 despite government efforts to arrest it (Okunmadewa, 2001; Obadan, 2002). However, the Nigerian situation has been made worse by the rapid population growth rate of about 2.83 per cent since the 1990s, giving rise to a high dependency ratio and pressure on resources in several areas (Okunmadewa, 2001). In view of the persistent poverty incidence in Nigeria, the government at all levels have claimed to be pursuing some national economic, social policies and programmes aimed at alleviating poverty at the urban and rural levels. Okunmadewa (2001) categorizes such people-oriented programmes into nine, viz: agricultural sector, health sector, nutrition- related, education sector, transport sector, housing sector, financial sector, manufacturing sector and cross-cutting programmes. These cross-cutting programmes include the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), the Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI), the Better Life Programme (BLP), which metamorphosed into the Family Support Programme (FSP) and Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP). Futhermore, other programmes have evolved over time and these include Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP), National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), Universal Basic Education (UBE), FADAMA and National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies (NEEDS). NEEDS operates both at the state and local government levels - State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies (SEEDS) and Local Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies (LEEDS). In spite of the foregoing plans, the problem of poverty persists in both the urban and rural areas in Nigeria. One reason for this is that all these programmes were initiated and implemented without any departure from previous programmes, which suggest that the reasons for the failure of the former programmes still persist. The increasing rate of poverty necessarily calls for the involvement of the organized Civil Society (including NGOs, CBOs, 21 etc) because of the persistent failure of previous programmes and the exclusion of the group from poverty alleviation processes. Osborne and Gaebler (1992) stated that: “If you do not measure results, you cannot tell success from failure; if you cannot see success, you cannot reward it; if you cannot reward success you were probably rewarding failure.If you cannot see success you cannot learn from it; if you cannot recognize failure you cannot correct it; and if you cannot demonstrate results you cannot win public support.” NGOs and CBOs have been involved in diverse development and poverty reduction programmes in Oyo State, for more than five decades, a long-enough time for their impacts to be ripe for empirical evaluation.This study therefore evaluates households‟ involvement in CBOs activities as an institution of Civil society in poverty reduction in Oyo State, Nigeria. The questions raised for this research are: - What are the characteristics of these CBOs? - Are the CBOs true institutions of civil society in poverty reduction processes? - What are the roles of CBOs in poverty reduction in Oyo State? - To what extent are the people involved in CBOs activities? - Are there any spatial variations in the nature, capacity, actual contribution and potential of CBOs to poverty reduction? - What is the relationship between the contributions of the CBOs to poverty reduction and development processes in their communities? - How do we enhance the capacities of the CBOs and institutional processes of getting them involved in poverty reduction processes? These are the questions to which answers were sought and obtained in this thesis. 1.3 Aim and Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate households‟ participation in Community Based Organisations (CBOs) poverty reduction activities in Oyo State. The specific objectives were to: 1. Identify, characterize and spatially profile registered CBOs in Oyo State 2. Assess the roles of the CBOs as agents of poverty reduction. 3. Examine the socio-economic characteristics of households and their levels of involvement in CBOs activities. 22 4. Investigate and compare households‟development priorities and obstacles to participation processes in CBOS development (plan) activities 5. Assess households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development programmes. 6. Explore possible actions and strategies that can be recommended for poverty reduction. 1.4 Research Hypotheses The following hypotheses are tested in order to achieve the objective of the study (i) There is no relationship between the characteristics of CBOs and their level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes; (ii) There are no spatial differences in households‟ level of involvement in CBOs poverty alleviation programmes among the Senatorial Districts. (iii) Households‟ levels of satisfaction with CBOs development projects do not vary over space (among the three Senatorial Districts); and (iv) The CBO‟s development activities do not have effect on incidence of poverty in Oyo State. 1.5 Significance of the Study The clamour for government effectiveness was higher in many developing countries where the State has failed to deliver fundamental public goods such as roads, basic health facilities and education (World Bank, 1997). Kusek and Rist (2004) observed that most programmes and strategies are implemented based on external untested assumptions and prior understanding of individual, group and community perceptions underlying causes and or influencing factors about development. Thus, stakeholders are no longer interested in output but outcome; an outcome that measures the extent by which policies, programmes and projects have ensured desired results or off the right tracks and distinguished success from failure. In addition, the recent shift towards decentralization, deregulation and privatization in many countries has increased the need for proper monitoring and evaluation at national, regional, state and local government levels. Evaluation was not an end in itself but a tool that promotes good governance, modern management practices, better accountability, innovation and reforms. It produces trustworthy, transparent and relevant information that can assist a government or Organisations to make informed decisions and policies (Stiglitz and Islam, 2003). The method addresses the priorities and distinguishes itself from blueprint since 23 decisions are jointly made with communities and problem-solving was based on partnership. Onibokun and Faniran (1995) acknowledge that “nations cannot be built without the popular support and full participation of the people, nor can the economic condition of a society be improved without the full and effective contribution, creativity and popular enthusiasm of the vast majority of people”. Therefore, collective action through poor people‟s membership based organisation can improve access to business development and financial services. However, ability to organize and mobilize towards solving problems has become a critical collective capability which the poor can depend on to overcome the problems of limited resources and marginalization pervading the society and it is one of the most important and overlooked development assets (Narayan and Petesch, 2002). Thus, the study on households‟ involvement in Community Based Organisations poverty reduction is part of paradigm shift in the field of regional development planning. 1.6 Contribution to Knowledge in Planning The persistence and pervasiveness of poverty coupled withgrowing crime and violence rates especially in urban wereas where there is concentration of the poor, is a concern as it affects economic growth (Olokesusi et al., 2003). Having realized the consequences associated with persistent poverty, different development programmes have been initiated by successive governments in Nigeria to reduce the impact of poverty on the populace. In spite of these efforts, poverty level generally has remained high and the result of the efforts imperceptible. Attempt is made to probe into previous studies in ascertaining the contribution of this study to the body of knowledge. The early 60s and 70s policies, research and studies on poverty alleviation were based on economic development with the premise that they will have trickle down effects of improving living standard of the poor. However, failure of this approach and the realization that for economic development to have such effects it must be labour intensive to generate income opportunity for the poor (Obadan, 2002) led to further research.When visible result could not be ascertained, focus later shifted to “basic need” approach suggested by the World Bank (1990). Thus, health services, education, housing, sanitation, water supply and adequate nutrition were in vogue, This basic needs approach led to further questions of “who gets what, when, where and how as raised by Smith (1979). Odejide (1997) study identified lack of baseline data and improper targeting of the poor as the bane of sustainable poverty reduction. Ekong‟s (1997) study pointed out the benefit capturing syndrome and an ad- hoc “instant solution” to all stages of poverty reduction interventions in Nigeria. By the end of 24 90s attentions were shifted to participatory approach with the premise that this new research paradigm will bring together development planners and the poor at the planning and implementation stages, instead of the mere recipients of government largesse that poor were known with over the years (Salmen 1995, Afonja 1996). Despite this laudable approach, by the year 2000 Universal Basic Education Programme, Poverty Alleviation Programme, National Poverty Alleviation Programme were introduced in deviance to the principle of participatory approach emphasized earlier. Various studies on these programmes show that greater benefits accrued to unintended beneficiaries than the targeted group (Okunmadewa 2001, Obadan 2002, and Odunola 2004). Okunmadewa (2001), Oyesiku (2002) and Obadan (2002) affirmed that any developmental project that does not involve the users in its initiation, design, goal setting, decision making and management would fail in ensuring human empowerment, poverty alleviation and development sustainability. .Adeboyejo (2006) identified inadequacies and weakness‟ in the implementation of urban assisted development project interventions by the three tiers of government and concluded that implementation of development programmes would be more efficient and successful through the involvement of local institutions. All these aforementioned give credence to the study of local institution poverty alleviation programmes. Despite the attributed lack of citizen participation to development failure, the extent to which the users of the facilities or the households were willing to participate in community development projects initiation, design, goal setting, decision making and management was yet to be measured in academic research. In addition, series of studies by individual researchers and international organisation on poverty point to problems of identifying the poor andreached consensus that local institutions attend to the needs of the poor and they were the most preferred institutions, yet households‟ level of satisfaction with these local institution‟s development processes in reduction of poverty has not been measured. Also the realization that effective and sustained development must be people-centered has made Community Based Organisations to be reckoned with in development processes, not only because people were the beneficiaries of development, but because development was undertaken by the people for the people (Onibokun and Faniran, 1995). This means that the study conducted on households‟ level of participation in Community Based Organisations po verty reduction activities would substantially contribute to planning knowledge. 25 1.7 Study Area Oyo State is located on Latitude 8.12 and Longitude 3.42 and covers approximately 28,454 square kilometres and ranked 14th by size among the states in Nigeria. The landscape consists of old hard rocks and dome shape hills, which rise gently from about 500 meters in the southern part and reaching a height of about 1,219m above sea level in the northern part. Major rivers such as Ogun, Oba, Oyan, Otin, Ofiki, Sasa, Oni, Erinle and Osun rivers take their sources from the highlands. The capital of the State is Ibadan and it is one of the major cities in Nigeria and in Africa as a whole. The state comprises of three Senatorial Districts (as in other states of the federation) and thirty three Local Government Areas. It is bounded by Ogun state in the west, Kwara State in the north and Osun state in the Eaest etc (Figure 1.1). 26 Figure 1.1: Oyo State in its National Context SOURCE: Ministry of Land, Housing and Physical Planning Ibadan, Oyo State, 2010 27 The relief of the state was dominated mainly by the plateau of Yoruba land rising between 180-450m. It is however dotted with higher lands of inselberg landscape. Among these higher lands are: Igbeti Hill (610 metres) Igbadi hill (Agunrege) Iyanla in Tede, Asabari in Saki. There are rivers with sub-tributaries such as Oyan and Ofiki which were major tributaries of Ogun River (Oyediran and Brieger, 1987). The tributaries of the rivers flow rapidly during the rainy season through course which is characterized by rocky outcrops. The basins of the rivers provide pasture and water throughout the year for the Fulani cattle herdsmen. The Climate is equatorial, notably with dry and wet seasons with relatively high humidity. The dry season lasts from November to March while the wet season starts from April and ends in October. Generally, rainfall decreases from the south to the North. For instance, Ibadan has over 1,200mm of rainfall, while Ogbomoso has 1,175mm. Average daily temperature ranges between 25 °C (77.0 °F) and 35 °C (95.0 °F) almost throughout the year. The southern parts of the state particularly the lbadan-lbarapa region are covered by the rain forest and derived savannah. Much of Lanlate, Eruwa, lgboora, Akinyele, Oluyole and Lagelu local government areas are covered by the rain forest. The composition is basically the large tall crowned trees, mixed with thick undergrowth. The high annual rainfall and high humidity encourage the growth and sustenance of the tall rich vegetation in this zone. These also encourage perennial tree cultivation including cocoa, kolanut and rubber. The tree species include the Mahogany, Obeche, Sapele and tropical Cedar. The vegetation thins out into the derived semi deciduous forest as one move towards southern Oyo and Afijio local government areas. Here, there is a mixture of tall trees, palm trees and tall grasses in the patchy lands utilized for cultivation. Ogbomoso North, Ogbomoso South, lseyin and Iwajowa local government areas are covered by the Guinea Savannah while the extreme northern parts of the State Saki, Kishi and Irepo local government areas are covered by the Sudan Savannah. Agriculture was the mainstay of the economy, the climate in the state favours the cultivation of crops like maize, yam, cassava, millet, rice, plantains, cocoa, palm produce, cashew etc. And over 60 percent of the indigenes are farmers others are civil servants and artisans accounting for 40 percent of the total population (Oyo State Government Homepage, 2012).There are a number of government farm settlements in Ipapo, Ilora, Eruwa, Ogbomoso, Iresaadu, Ijaiye, Akufo and Lalupon. There are also vast cattle ranches at Saki, Fasola and the 28 state-wide Oyo State Agricultural Development Programme with headquarters at Saki. Also, quite numbers of international and federal agricultural establishment are located in the state. The state is grouped into 7 Geo-political zones for political expediency and distribution of political offices. These zones are: LGAS Wards i. Ibadan Urban 5 59 ii. Ibadan Rural 6 65 iii. Ibarapa Zone 3 30 iv. Oyo zone 4 40 v. Iseyin/Kajola zone 4 40 vi. Ogbomoso zone 5 50 vii. Shaki zone 6 62 Senatorial districts in Oyo State are: i. Oyo North - Oke Ogun/Ogbomosho (13LGAS) ii. Oyo Central – Oyo/Ibadan Rural (11 LGAS) iii. Oyo South – Ibadan Urban and Ibarapa (9LGAS) 1.8 The Plan of the Thesis This thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter one outlines the background to the study, the statement of problem, the aim and objectives of the study,the significance of the study, contribution to planning knowledge and the study area. Chapter two focuses on conceptual clarification and review of literature. Chapter three presents research methodology, definition, treatment of variables and data analysis. Chapter four examines characteristics and spatial distribution of Community Based Organisations, CBOs membership strength, development projects undertaken by CBOs, households‟ involvement in community development and relationship of socio-economic variables on households‟ contributions towards community development. Households‟ development priorities, households‟ satisfaction with Community Based Organisations development programmes and households‟ perceived obstacles to development participation in Oyo State. Households‟ perception of CBOs as agents of poverty reduction, evaluation of CBOs development capability, households and CBOs perceived actions for poverty reduction, respondents‟ perception of the impacts of CBOs projects on poverty alleviation were 29 examined in chapter five. Chapter six presents the summary of findings, theoretical and practical implications and recommendations. 1.9 Conclusion The chapter presents the introduction to the study, statement of problem, aim and objectives, research hypotheses, significance of the study, contribution of the study to planning knowledge, the study werea and plan of the thesis. The next chapter considers the conceptual framework and review of literature. 30 CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Conceptual Framework This chapter undertakes a review of literature and provides the conceptual framework for this study. The concepts of community, social exclusion, citizen participation and benefit capture model were the relevant concepts adopted. Through grassroot development approach, every citizen within the community is believed to have a voice, unrestricted freedom of expression on any issue at stake. Considering various authors‟ viewpoints on the advantages and the characteristics of community (Glen, (1993); Onibokun and Faniran (1995); Adeyemo (2002); Ogundipe (2003); and Abegunde (2004); it is realized that the relevance of concept of the community to the study on households‟ involvement in Community Based Organisation poverty reduction activities cannot be underestimated. 2.21 Concept of Community Three terms are often used interchangeably with regards to grassroots participation concept: community participation, public participation and citizen participation. Public, community or citizen participation is “the act of allowing individual citizens and group of citizens within a community to take part in the formulation of policies and proposals on issues that affect the whole community” (Oladoja, 1988; Onibokun and Faniran, 1995; Agbola and Oladoja, 2001). The concept of community is a complex, unanalyzed abstraction. It stands for many things but frequently refered to as physical concentration of individuals in one place. It exists in different forms or types depending on the context or criteria being used to define it. Generally, common definitions are based on geographical location, demographic characteristics, profession or occupation, and culture. It could also be defined administratively, geographically, or using socio-cultural criteria (Minar and Greer, 1969). Tropman et al. (2006) categorize community to include: geographic communities, communities of culture and community organization.  Geographic communities: range from the local neighbourhood, suburb, village, town or city, region, nation or even the planet as a whole. These refer to communities of location. 31  Communities of culture: range from the local clique, sub-culture, ethnic group, religious, multicultural or pluralistic Civilization or the global community cultures of today. They may be included as communities of need or identity, such as disabled persons or frail aged people. Onibokun and Faniran (1995) identified the following as the basis for the renewed interest in CBOs:  The economic and the fiscal crises which most nations in the 1970s and 1980s were confronted with and which pose a serious questioning on the role of the state in economic and social management;  Disappointment that followed the failure of the public sectors to satisfy the aspirations of the people, which are being better met by the private sectors and self effort;  Failure of centralized form of government to spread development evenly among the population;  Increasing political demand of people on matters affecting them such as economic and political empowerment. Through grassroot development approach every citizen within the community is believed to have a voice, unrestricted freedom of expression on any issue at stake. Considering various authors‟ viewpoints on the advantages and the characteristics of community (Glen, (1993); Onibokun and Faniran, (1995); Adeyemo, (2002); Ogundipe, (2003); and Abegunde, (2004); it is realised that the relevance of concept of the community to the study of Community Based Organization roles in poverty alleviation can not be underestimated. 2.22 Social Exclusion The Concept of Social Exclusion has its roots in Europe and has been on policy agendas since 1993 when the European Commission reverted to the adoption of a regulatory approach in various policy forums (Benn, 2000). The conceptual development of social exclusion was drawn from two leading social policy traditions. The first is the social democracy that addresses inequality and emphasizes equal opportunities because of the feelings that high levels of inequality will affect social cohesion and lead to problems of increasing crime and violence. The second is the social catholic that showed concern for 32 social ties in the community and within the family (Gacitua et al, 2001). Social exclusion is a process through which social groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in which they live due to the cumulative effect of risk factors. However, the irregularity and complexity of the present era demand that citizens and institutions in all societal spheres, state, and private sector-combine their knowledge and action to solve evolving problems rapidly and efficiently (Jackson, 2000). The author observed two parallel trends in corporate and programming strategies of development agencies, governments and NGOs. The first trend distinguishes broad stakeholders‟ participation in poverty reduction intervention as of paramount importance to increasing their commitments, ownership, and reduction of strategies failure. The second trend was a shift from activity-based to result based management. The Social Exclusion Framework (SEF) is a device for understanding association and interaction between different risks factors (economic, social, cultural, political and institutional) which generate poverty and inequality. The economic, political and cultural assets indicate who a person is and this gives individuals social prestige or social stigma, discrimination and segregation. The political dimension of exclusion is lack of individuals‟ ability which would have enabled them to exercise their legal freedom and participate in decision- making. Meanwhile, exclusion from cultural process occurs when some individuals cannot participate in particular social networks obviously through wealth or both. The economic dimension of exclusion hinders individuals from gaining financial resources in labour markets, credit and insurance markets, basic services, and land, thus causing them to be poor (Gacitua-Mario et al., 2000). Exclusion from economic process means exclusion from conventional market exchange where economic theory assumes all markets to be Walrasian- that is, individuals‟ ability to exchange goods and services continuously in a desired quantity at the prevailing market prices and changes in price until his or her desired is realized. Meanwhile, in social exclusion, some markets assumed dimension of non-Walrasian, which means that some people may be excluded from realizing their exchange despite their sufficient income or productive capacity (Figueroa, 2000). The concept posits that risk does not occur spatially in a linear causality but rather in a complex process of reciprocal causation and interaction that goes beyond “goods-centered” (traditional poverty that lays emphasizes on goods and services of the poor) but “people-centered” (approaches of freedom and capabilities to be functional) and “institution-centered” (analysis of the institutions role as process rather than a 33 condition that permits or creates exclusion). It was not a substitute for traditional poverty or vulnerability analysis but contains both objective and subjective condition of people‟s lives and their perception of being connected or disconnected from wider sphere of social, political and cultural life. The distinction between social exclusion as a process and poverty as a social condition can be of help to the policy makers in solving the associated risk with social exclusion that result to extreme poverty (Gacitua-Mario et al., 2000). The significance of Social Exclusion Concept to the study of poverty cannot be overemphasized because of its wider application to qualitative and quantitative analysis in relation to various dimensions identified by the poor as the causes of poverty. Such dimensions include: lack of income and assets to attain basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing, acceptable levels of health and education; vulnerability to adverse shocks, linked to inability to cope with them; and sense of voicelessness and powerlessness in the institution of state and society. All of which were embedded in political, economic socio-cultural perspective of poverty. 2.2.3 Citizen Participation The word participation means open, popular and broad involvement of people in decisions that affect their lives (Cary, 1970). The aim of participation was to ensure sustainability; it enhances community‟s ability to work together on important goals to improve their living condition through sharing and then transfer of power as social groups (Bhatnagar et al., 1992). Participation of the governed is regarded as the cornerstone of democracy. In pre-colonial days in Africa, the principle and practice of participatory planning were instrumental in providing community facilities and services (Ogbasi, 2002). Citizen participation was first advocated for by the have-not blacks, Mexican- American and later exploded into many shades of outright racial, ethnic, and political opposition (Arnstein, 1969). The author equates citizen participation to citizen power which was borne out of political contention buried in innocuous euphemisms like “self-help” or “citizen involvement”. The eight rungs of participatory ladder show the strident demand for participation; it juxtaposes the relationship between the powerless citizens and the powerful in order to highlight the fundamental division between them. It enables the excluded citizens from the political, economic, and socio-cultural development to be included. 34 Figure: 2.1 Eight Rungs of Citizen Participation Source: Arnstein (1969: 360) 35 Figure 2.1 shows that the rungs are grouped into three classes‟ namely non- participation, degree of tokenism and degree of citizen power. The first class comprises: manipulation and therapy rungs which is otherwise referred to as “non participation” level. Under this class, the objective of decision makers is to “educate” or “cure” the participant through a top down approach in planning process. The second class comprises; informing, consultation and placation rungs. Here, the degree of citizen‟s involvement in development project is relatively enhanced and it is referred to as „tokenism‟. Placation is a higher level of tokenism through which „have-nots‟ can advice the authority but decision to act rests on the power holders. The third class comprises: partnership, delegated power and citizen control rungs. It is regarded as degree of citizen power. Partnership enables power distribution between citizens and power holders; while delegated power highlights likely power decentralization that can take place between the authority and the citizen. Citizen control expresses the extent of institutional control on plan initiation, decision and implementation. In non participatory class, manipulation is the process whereby people are placed on rubber stamp advisory committee or advisory board so as to hasten the purpose of “educating” them or engineering their support instead of genuine citizen participation. Here, the officials educate, persuade and advise the citizens and not the reverse. Therapy is referred to as masquerade of involving citizens in planning. This method cures the symptoms and not the cause. Through this process, the experts subject the citizen to clinical group therapy for the purpose of curing them of their “pathology” instead of changing the causes that created the “pathologies”. The approach is likened to curing the symptoms rather than the causes of the problem. Informing is the first step of getting citizens educated about their right, responsibilities and options. It is one-way of information flow from the officials to citizens – with no channel provided for the feedback and negotiation. The channel of information is through news, media, pamphlets, posters etc. Consultation is the fourth rung on the ladder of citizen participation. Inviting citizens is regarded as a legitimate step towards their full involvement where endless time is spent fashioning complicated boards, committees and structured task force without defined rights and responsibilities. The most frequently used methods are attitude surveys, neigbourhood meetings, and public hearings. When consultation is not combined with other modes of participation, the process is regarded as a window-dressing approach and people involved are perceived as statistical abstraction. By and large, people are planned for and the citizen‟s again play the role of watchdog and rubber stamping of the plan generated. 36 Under degrees of citizen participation, partnership is characterized by “power” negotiation between citizens and power-holders. The planning and decision-making responsibilities are mutually agreed and shared through the following structures: joint policy boards, planning committee and mechanism for resolving stalemate. It performs effectively in an organized financial resources base to hire or fire their technicians, lawyers and community leaders. The approach changes paternalistic descriptive approaches to problems to a realistic analysis of the strength, weaknesses and potentials in such community. Delegated power is the second to the last rung; this stage cannot be attained without an effective partnership among the concerned group. It is characterized with dialogue, negotiations between citizens and public officials; this ensures proper accountability and dominant decision-making authority over a plan or programme. Citizen control was where citizens were allowed to initiate and control decision or institution in charge of policy making and implementation. The application of citizen participation concept will assist this research work to measure the extent and the level by which the CBOs and the communities are willing to be engaged in processes of poverty reduction processes. 2.2.4 Benefit Capture Model Benefit capture means the illegal diversion or legal mis-appropriation of benefits (financial and otherwise) meant for a certain people or group, such that the people or group for which such benefits were meant get little or nothing of such benefits. The model in figure 2.2 gives a clear picture of how “benefit capture” leads to the frustration and discouragement of the target groups and the subsequent feelings of discontentment and resentment that the “would have been” beneficiary groups usually have towards the bodies from which they were expecting such benefits. 37 Federal Government Good Intentions of implementing Poverty Alleviation Strategies such as PAP, UBE ETC. B enefit Capture Federal Organizing Ministry State Government B enefit State Executive Capture Organizing Ministry Organising Parastatal Programme Management Local government B enefit Capture Execution council Organizing department Community Benefit Chiefs C. apture Elite Community Members Discontent and Resentment Figure 2.2: Benefit Capture Model. Source: Ekong, (1997: 561) 38 Advanced fee Fraudsters /Contractor. BOX 1 BOX 2 BOX 3 BOX 4 BOX 5 BOX 6 The Federal Government‟s aim at putting in place poverty alleviation measures for rural people was represented in Figure 2.2. The intention was transferred in form of benefits to the federal organizing ministry responsible for implementing such activities (box 2). Before the benefits are sent from the federal ministry to the state, some parts of the benefits are captured, either by way of servicing transactions, or are used to lobby ministry officials responsible for immediate transfer of such benefits to the states. When the benefits reach the states in box 3, the states executive councils will deliberate on the benefits, appoint executing ministry/parastatal and programme management. At this level, the greater part of the benefits will be captured to service transactions and to the quick the release of such benefits by the states. The benefits, which are now reduced, are transferred to the programme managers and executors. In order to successfully execute the programme for which the benefits are meant in the rural communities, the local government must be contacted. At the local government stage (box 4) the executing council will want to be lobbied. Also, the organizing department will demand certain benefits to introduce the programme implementers to the rural communities. The programme implementers and the organizing department of the local government may likely encounter difficulty in penetrating the rural communities unless the chiefs permit them. Obviously, the chiefs, the chiefs‟ council and elite in the communities will be lobbied with part of the benefits, which are meant for the rural community members. At each hierarchy stage of benefit movement, there will also be advanced fee fraudsters and contractors tapping these benefits through fraudulent ways. At the end in (box 6) the benefit left for the community members will be meager, meaningless and too small for any investment. The poor rural community members see this as government‟s reward for their cooperation and will thereby be discontented and resentful of government. These feelings will discourage them from participating in these government projects and they are likely to resist any further attempt to mobilize them to participate. With the benefit capture model, any benefit earmarked by government for the rural people which has to travel through this route, may eventually not get to the people. The model highlights that at each hierarchy of the implementation of poverty reduction strategies, there were „vampires‟ (fraudsters/contractors, government agency, etc) in the implementing parastatals that suck the benefits that are meant for the poor. Until the long chain the programme takes to trickle down was curtailed, no poverty programme or any development programme will have impact on the target groups. Following cycles of enthusiasm and disillusionment in government programme, people should realize that programmes do not 39 create community strength but people do (Odunola, 2004). All these show the advantages that CBOs can play in reducing the long chain processes in programme implementation as well as benefit capturing. 2.3 Literature Review 2.3.1 Definition and Measurement of Poverty Poverty is an intricate phenomenon susceptible to diverse conceptualization and virtually all areas of academics have their perception about it. One of the controversies in the study of poverty is whether it is a social, economic or political problem or a composite of all the three. Poverty is easily recognized and defies objective definition because of its multi- dimensional nature. Therefore, a universally acceptable definition of the term has remained elusive (Aboyade 1975, Akeredolu – Ale 1975, Onimode, 1975, Okunmadewa 2001 and Obadan 2002). Among economists, poverty is often perceived as a situation of low income or low consumption; the political scientists view it as the lack of empowerment and capabilities which will influence the availability of other needs. At the same time, urban geographers and sociologists tend to equate poverty with lack of social infrastructure and opportunities in the society (Oni et al., 2003). Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one‟s life (World Bank, 2010). Measuring poverty has helped in determining who is poor, the number of poor people and where the poor are located. In measuring poverty, two tasks have to be taken into consideration: a poverty line set at $275 and $370 individual per year for the extreme poor and moderately poor respectively, and the poverty aggregated level of individuals using the nutritional intake set at 2500 calories per individual daily and list of certain commodities considered essential for survival such as, food, housing, water, health care, education vis-à- vis income are employed to determine poverty line (Levy, 1991). Traditional definition of poverty focuses on per capita income measurement. However, most authors now agree that poverty has multiple dimensions which go beyond simple income consideration to encompass other qualitative aspects of life such as ill-health, illiteracy, lack of access to basic services and assets, insecurity, powerlessness, social exclusion, physical isolation and vulnerability (Odejide 1997, Ravallion 1990; Glewwe and Van Der Gaag 1990). On this basis, the Human Development Report (1997) sees poverty as:  Deprivation in a long and healthy life as measured by the percentage of people not expected to survive to age 40. 40  deprivation in knowledge as measured by adult literacy and  deprivation in economic provision from private and public income as measured by the percentage of people without access to health services, the percentage of people who lack access to safe water and the percentage of children under five who are moderately or severely underweight. Due to complex nature of poverty, composite treatment complemented with sectoral programmes has been designed to meet the needs of the poor. Among the basic needs are food, clothing, shelter, water and sanitation, health care, basic education, working skills and tools, employment, security, Civil and political rights to participate in decision making (Obadan, 1997 2; Ajakaye and Adeyeye, 2001). In the absence of these basic facilities, the poor are bound to see themselves as highly deprived, marginalized, powerless, voiceless, socially inferior and isolated, physically weak, vulnerable, humiliated and unable to participate in decision making affecting their own economic and social well-being. 2.3.2 Types, Causes and Characteristics of Poverty Information about types of the poor, causes of poverty, characteristics and social economic condition of the poor was imperative to any study of poverty alleviation. Poverty can be chronic (structural) or transitory, depending on how long poverty was experienced by an individual or a community. Chronic poverty was a long-term, persistent poverty, the cause of which was largely structural and endemic, while transitory poverty was temporary, transient and short term in nature. Poverty can also be absolute or relative. Absolute poverty was a situational lack of access to resources required to obtain the minimum necessities needed to maintain physical efficiency. Relative poverty on the other hand was the inability to attain a given minimum contemporary standard of living (Sanyal 1991; Schubert 1994 and Okunmadewa 2001). Various manifestations embedded in poverty have made the World Bank (2000) to stress the need to examine the dimensions highlighted by the poor as the cause of poverty. Such dimensions include: lack of income and assets to attain basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing and acceptable levels of health and education; vulnerability to adverse shocks linked to inability to cope with them and sense of voicelessness and powerlessness in the institution of state and society. The Bank also examines people‟s assets in order to understand the determinant of poverty in all its dimensions. These assets include: human assets such as capacity for basic labour, skills and good health; natural assets such as land; 41 physical assets such as access to infrastructure and others. Thus, there was no doubt that poverty manifests itself widely in various forms and contexts in Nigeria and are caused by variety of factors. Okunmadewa (2001) links persistent incidence of poverty to underserved access to socio-economic infrastructure and services; that is, physical and social infrastructure such as: transportation, electricity, health facilities, schools etc. Persistent and pervasive poverty is attributed to lack of participation in governance and decision-making. Roberts et al. (2003) observes that poor governance is the most lethal disease to the poor, as political and economic dictatorships frequently lead to poverty more than any other thing. In most poor countries, government is the cause of poverty rather than the agency that solves it. Political instability and war are the greatest obstacles to economic development in Less Developed Countries (LDCs). Kabakchieva et al. (2002) documents how Bulgaria leadership changed six times within eight years (1989-1997) with several months of street demonstration sparked by public dissatisfaction with poor governance and 200 per cent inflation. Meanwhile corruption, nepotism, crimes and other social vices are, to some extent, the by-product of poverty. And as long as making ends meet remains difficult, the propensity to explore other avenues such as stealing would be high, while desired to amass wealth by those with the responsibility of leadership can only be satisfied through mis- appropriation of what is meant for the majority (Aku, 1997). In so doing, the majority is compelled to fend for itself by any means available since the poor are voiceless. For instance, an older resident of Ampenan Utara in Indonesia explains how people are often afraid to speak up against the community leaders because by doing so, the limited resources entitled to could be lost if they are considered disruptive by the village administrators (Mukherjee et a.l, 2002). In La Matanza district of Argentina, poverty has led to gender role over-turned. A woman expresses how unemployed men used to drop their kids at day care; a duty considered as women‟s task (Cichero et al, 2002). The groups most affected by extreme poverty throughout the world are the most vulnerable and those that lack resources. Children are more vulnerable under poverty; a poor child‟s lack of education and weaker health status increases the probability that he or she will become a poor adult (Obadan, 2002). Despite their crucial role in determining the quality and character of subsequent generations, in many areas, poor women suffer from low status, less access to education, and greater demand on their labour, including household responsibilities, than their male counterparts (Odumosu et al, 2003). 42 2.3.3 Poverty Alleviation Strategies Reduction of poverty is a major policy concern for many governments all over the World and such countless programmes and campaigns have been waged against it across the regions. A scrutiny of anti-poverty programmes in developing countries brings about four distinctive phases of strategic evolution. These are: relief and rehabilitation focus approach; community-based approach, integrated area development approach and target group-oriented approach. Various institutions involved in poverty alleviation activities today have also sequentially, traversed these four historical phases of evolution; although many of these are based strictly on their own perception of strategy. Yet poverty continues to be a major impediment to human development and economic progress. Nowhere is this more evident than in the developing world despite considerable advances over the past five decades in social and economic well-being – disease eradication, massive immunization programmes, high-yielding crop, increased adult literacy, improved sanitation and water systems, technological advances for production and communications, quite a large number of people remain desperately poor (Deng, 1995). Since independence, Nigerian policy makers have always conceived poverty as by- product of economic stagnation and have therefore continued to emphasize on growth as a mechanism through which the problem of poverty can be alleviated (Aku, 1997). Ekong (1997) divides the causes of policy failure in poverty alleviation into two broad categories: the cause associated with policy design and implementation and the cause associated with policy acceptability. The author identified factors that accentuate policy failure to include: misunderstanding of policies between the people and the policy makers; misplaced priorities and favouritism. For instance, research studies on the impact of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in Nigeria prove that the poor did not benefit from it but the programme has succeeded in widening socio-economic problem of income inequality, unequal access to food, shelter, education, health and other necessities of life (World Bank, 1996 and Aku, 1997). Okunmadewa (2001) and Ajakaye (2003) observed that most of the poverty alleviation strategies implemented by the various past military governments failed to achieve their envisaged goals, largely due to lack of policy framework and undue political consideration. These weaknesses gave rise to:  Overlapping functions, which ultimately led to institutional rivalry and conflicts;  Absence of sustainability mechanism in programme project; 43  Lack of complimentary from the beneficiaries; and  Ineffective targeting of the poor, leading to high leakage level of the programmes benefits to unintended beneficiaries. 2.3.4 Roles of Non-governmental Organisation (NGOs) and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) in Poverty alleviation Government and international organisations now appreciate the role of NGOs as genuine and effective channels to ensure poverty programme implementation because of their presence, knowledge of the needs and interest of the poor. Chilowa and Gaynor (1992) argued that some NGOs have been increasingly moving away from a project focus development to a problem solving approach. They engage local communities in long-lasting rural development, poverty alleviation and slow rural to urban migration, through income and employment-generating activities, social services, marketing and rural savings system. For instance, consultative survey conducted by Okunmadewa (2001) on poverty alleviation in Nigeria revealed that some NGOs‟ and CBOs‟ programmes reach the poor better than public sector managed programmes, especially, those in remote geographic regions and the less privileged or disadvantaged group. Despite NGOs limitations, they are proving to be the source of best-practice for target projects. For illustration, an Indian NGO Myrada, acted as an intermediary between the poor people and commercial banks to create financial capital for poverty alleviation. Also, Mopawi NGO in Honduras, in conjunction with indigenous communities of La Mosquila, relentlessly lobbied an international NGO research bodies and indigenous organisations to raise awareness on the need to improve the lives of the poor by involving government and local communities in decision-making and management (Soyibo et al., 2001). The NGOs and parental involvement in schools establishment and subsidization of teachers recruitment in Pakistan has led to increase in girls‟ enrolment by 33percent in Quetta and 22percent in rural communities. 2.3.5 Development Strategy and Poverty Status in Nigeria The word „development‟ means different things to different people, but it is generally composed of four elements.These are: (i) Political (ii) Economic; (iii) Social and (iv) Cultural (Ariyo, 2006). Political development is measured by the degree of openness of the political 44 system that ensures equal opportunity for every eligible citizen to aspire and be elected into any pubic office of his/her choice. Social development is characterized by harmonious relations among the populace. It is facilitated through the provision of the right type, quantity and quality of basic needs and social services, such as education and health, and equity in the allocation of services, benefits and obligations. Cultural development is a process whereby a society gradually graduates from the primitive society to a modern society, without loss of its distinct cultural identity. While economic development is measured by the extent to which the nation can satisfy the basic needs of the citizenry. This means that every policy, programme or project is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself (Abumere, 1998; Ariyo, 2006). An effort to ensure that these policies, programmes and projects bring about desirable outcome has led to various professional interventions. However, the recognition of inadequacy of total dependence on professional dominant style of intervention has increased the search for alternative approach. Thus an emergence of new perspectives such as: bottom- up development, putting people first and putting the last first (Oni, 2004). Whatever the merits of these new perspectives, they all pronounced a shift in the style of development intervention. Meanwhile, Kusek and Rist (2004) observe that “any development strategies that do not involve the people, the stakeholders can hardly succeed”. Wahab (2000) also argued that no meaningful and sustainable urban development can take place or guaranteed without the full and active participation of the people at the grassroots (the civil society or popular sector). On this basis, Ariyo (2006) estimated allocation made to three tiers of government in Nigeria from (1970-2004) to ascertain the effectiveness or otherwise of fund utilization on citizenry. The estimation shows that Nigeria has spent about N19 trillion from its national revenue earnings and about US$460 billion from domestic debt and capital flows for the years under consideration. By considering the magnitude of resource inflow, the author is of the opinion that such fund is sufficient to turn Nigeria into a buoyant and strong economy, in which every citizen should be boasting of appreciable high and sustainable standard of living. In order not to base his assertion on descriptive analysis, the author employed the following indicators: gross domestic product, employment rate, disposable income and consumer‟s price index. The indicators are also evaluated with two universally accepted measures to determine what the nation and her citizenry had benefited from huge resource inflow into provision of facilities aimed at fostering the economic growth such as, agricultural programmes, health sector, nutrition-related, education, transportation, housing, financial 45 sector, etc. First is the World Development Indicator (WDI) that shows relative development performance indicator of nations of interest to other member countries of United Nations. This trend series suggest that Nigeria‟s development performance had been zigzag between 1960 and 1985, and had been on a steady and sharp decline since. Thus, Nigeria‟s performance is likened to war-turn economies having been left far behind by its peers, such as Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. The second indicator is poverty level which is of interest to the international community. It shows that the proportion of Nigerians living below the poverty line has been increasing consistently from about 43 percent in 1985 to 70.8 percent in 2003 whereas federal government official data claimed poverty level not to be more than 54 percent of the population as at 2005. In view of the enormous resource inflows, the author concluded that a typical Nigerian has no business with poverty. Thus the overall picture of the magnitude, utilization and outcome of development financing in Nigeria brought about the paradox of development financing of under-development in Nigeria. 46 Figure 2.3 Nigeria's HDI and Poverty Level Source: Ariyo (2006) p9 47 Meanwhile, adoption of GDP has been criticized because they show aggregate growth, while ignoring the spatial distribution of benefits or opportunities. The lapses were attributed to the domination of the country‟s planning machinery by the economists and this has hindered the objectives of the balanced developments among the various communities in the different geographical areas (Jelili et al, 2008). On development issue, Mabogunje (2007) reflects on three major themes which he termed “Finding Our Way Our Own Way”, “Rescuing the Farmer” and “Rehabilitating the Blacksmith” and concluded as follows. First that “our present strategies of development, while bringing about some growth to the economy would do so by tightening further the bonds that make us dependent on the industrialized West and keep our country a field of profitable exploitation by their large, multi-national corporations. Second, that true development is a matter of internal re- adjustment, involving deliberate transformation of traditional structure to serve the new goals that society set for itself. Having observed that most of our traditional structures are still preserved in the rural areas and centered on land as a factor of production, the socio-spatial re-organisation of our rural area is considered as the first and major step in any effort towards developing our society. Third, to ensure that new societal goals are effectively incorporated for continuous, self-sustained development and growth, deliberate effort should be made to launch out a programme for the acquisition, utilization and adaptation of modern technology toward improving the quality of life in our major towns and cities. Therefore, as rightly observed by Mabogunje, (2007) “if development is a process of moving the whole social system upward so as to enhance the capacity of each member of society to realize his inherent potential and to effectively cope with the changing circumstances of his life”, Nigeria could not be said to have seriously embarked on its development process. 2.3.6 Importance of Citizen Engagement in Community Development Planning. Community driven development cannot be attained without community mobilization Howard-Grabman (2000) defined community mobilization as a capacity building process through which communities, individuals, groups, or organisations plan, carry out, and evaluate activities on a participatory and sustained basis to improve their needs, either on their own initiative or stimulated by others. Community mobilization is a development strategy that strengthens and enhances the ability of the community to work together for any goal that is important to its members. This approach has proven to be a powerful tool for unleashing the potentials of individuals and communities worldwide (Rifkin, 1996). 48 Howard-Grabman (2000) observed that for community mobilization to achieve the goal of development, the following must be taken into cognizance: A. Development of dialogue among community members. B. Creation of or strengthening community organizations. C. Creation of environment in which individuals can empower themselves to address their own and community‟s needs. D. Promotion of community members‟ participation in ways that recognize diversity and equity. E. Fostering of partnership with community members in all phases of project to create locally appropriate responses to needs. F. Support the creative potential of communities in developing strategies and approaches that may not have been recommended by funding agent and other external actors. G. Linking communities with external resources (organization, funding and technical assistance). There is wide recognition that citizen engagement in development is critical for achieving sustained benefits sense of “ownership” accountability, and willingness of users to manage and invest in services. Narayan (1993) opined that involving stakeholders intimately in all aspects of project implies less risk of inappropriate design, under-use and long periods of disrepair since sustaining new facilities goes beyond physical construction that will later become dysfunctional with use. 2.3.7 Corruption and Poverty Corruption is pervasive in many developing countries. With reference to the World Bank survey of African government, Kaufmann (2000) attributes increased poverty and reduced access of the poor to public services to corruption. Corruption is no longer seen in moral or ethical terms but in terms of its impact on poverty. According to the author, the fight against corruption includes: institutional reforms; collective action and leadership of governments, civil society, and private sector institutions; and most importantly, data, information and knowledge. He acknowledged the impossibilities of alleviating poverty in a sustainable way without combating corruption and considered ravage impressions that corruption never changes or changes extremely slowly as a myth, with reference to Poland and El Salvador that have exhibited improvement in governance. Transparency in government has formed the cornerstone of the anticorruption strategies advocated by the IMF, the World Bank, the UNDP, and Transparency International. Although, the usefulness 49 of such strategies is beyond question, its effectiveness in curtailing corruption is unclear (Shah, 2000). Anti-corruption programmes in vogue appear to be frivolous because the more corrupt a country appears; the more institutional arrangements put in place to track down corruption has no visible result on its reduction. Pakistan, for example has the office of the Auditor General, the Anticorruption Agency, the Ethics Office, the Ehtisab (Accountability) Bureau, the Criminal Investigations Agency, and special court dealing with corruption. However, corruption remains pervasive because the punishment for wrongdoer could be severe; the probability of being caught is slight. Thus, to curtail corruption, it is important to first deal with the disease, which includes the bureaucratic command-and-control culture and the lack of concern and responsiveness to citizens and service delivery issues (Huther and Shah 1998).The struggle against corruption requires at least a minimum level of organisation in Civil society and an environment in which Civil liberties are safeguarded. To get the strategy right and to encourage sustainable ownership of efforts aimed at corruption reduction, the causes and consequence of corruption, evaluation need to be done in a more participatory way taking into cognizance all the stakeholders‟ viewpoints (Shah, 2000). 2.3.8 Community Driven Development: An Approach to Project Sustainability. Community-Driven Development (CDD) is defined as the process of giving control of development decisions and resources to community group. Community group can be geographical entities, such as urban or rural neigbourhoods, or group with common interests, such as water user associations, parent-teachers associations, herders, members of a micro credit society, or women‟s group. These groups can work in partnership with organisations and service providers- local governments, the private sectors, or NGOs- to develop and implement projects that reflect their needs and the priorities of the organisation (Narayan, 2002). CDD has made poverty alleviation efforts demand-responsive, increased efficiency, effectiveness and enhanced sustainability (World Bank, 2000). As good as community driven development is, the approach cannot prosper in the absence of appropriate institutional basis, attitudinal change, and the capabilities to plan and manage the shift from conventional top-down management, to a more encompassing decentralization and citizen participation. Thus, for CDD to flourish three conditions must be satisfied: 50 a. Institutional/ policy frameworks that encourage/support CDD: this has to do with legal regulatory frameworks that support transfer of authority and responsibility from central to sub-national government. It encourages community groups to drive its own development. b. Access to information: access to information technology that promotes participation, mobilization of marginalized group is important to successful community driven development. c. Capacity-building of CBOs: building capacity of CBOs was a form of assistance, activities, resources and support that strengthen the skills and capabilities of people and community groups to effect action in community development (Wikipedia Encyclopedia, 2007). Bamberger et al. (1990) identified two important factors of ensuring project sustainability to include: institutional and financial (cost recovery). Bamberger and Cheema (1990) observe that most programmes and projects designed in Africa for the poor are characterized with speed to deliver services instead of focusing on creating institutional structure that will sustain the project benefits over the long run. Therefore, O‟Sullivan (1993) stresses the need for project design to plan for gradual reduction of beneficiaries‟ dependence on external assistance in order to ensure sustainability of project, while Yahie (1996) emphasizes the need to introduce cost recovery for some projects that require rehabilitation at regular intervals for sustainable development planning. 2.3.9 Characteristics of Functioning Community Glen (1993) identified ten characteristics of a good and functioning community to include: (I). A learning community where people and groups gain knowledge, skills and confidence through community. (II). A fair and just community which upholds civic rights and equality of opportunity and celebrates the distinctive features of its cultures. (III). An active and empoared community where people are fully involved and have a clear identity, self-confidence and power over varied local organisations . (IV). An influential community which was consulted and has a strong voice in decisions which affects its interest. (V). An economically strong community which creates opportunities for work and which retains a high proportion of its wealth. (VI). A caring community that was aware of needs of its members and quality services which will meet these needs. 51 (VII) A healthy community with pleasant environment, conserving resources and encouraging awareness of environmental responsibility. (VIII) A safe community where people do not fear crime, violence or other hazards. (IX) A welcoming community which people like, feel happy about and do not wish to leave. (X) A lasting community which was wellestablished and likely to survive. The first four characteristics emphasize community empowerment while the other six signify a desired environment through community participation and development processes. All these signify what planners and planning address in all their daily activities. 2.4 Conclusion The chapter considered relevant concepts and literature to the study. Among the concept considered are: concept of community, social exclusion, citizen participation and benefit capture model. The review of literature include: definition and measurement of poverty, types, causes and characteristics of poverty, poverty alleviation strategies, roles of non-governmental organisations and community based organisations in poverty alleviation, development strategies and poverty status in Nigeria, importance of citizen engagement in community development planning, corruption and poverty, community driven development an approach to project sustainability and characteristics of functioning community among others. 52 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction While the previous chapter examines the various conceptual issues and relevant literature, this chapter deals with methodology applied for the study. Research method was a process of collecting, organizing, and analyzing data. Salmen (1995) suggested the need to employ methods that encourage the poor to express their perceptions in an open manner. Thus, participatory research tools become authentic tools in which local people act as partners in problem identification, data collection, analysis and follow-up action (World Development Report, 2000). Based on a reconnaissance survey of the study area, the study separated pre-project (1999 and before) and post project (2000 and beyond) to ascertain the level of poverty at two different historical epochs for the following reasons: i. 1999 is a stabilize year for democracy in Nigeria without military interruption in the corridor of power and, ii. International significancies of year 2000 as the target for Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in which eradication of extreme poverty and hunger tops the objectives. 3.2 Types and Sources of Data The study utilized both primary and secondary data. 3.2.1 Primary Data The primary data was obtained through questionnaire administration and Focus Group Discussions (FGD). Two (2) types of questionnaires were administered. The first type was administered to the sampled households. The questionnaire elicit information on the socio- economic characteristics of the households‟ and their level of involvement in CBOs‟ development activities, households‟ development priorities, households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development processes, households‟ perceived hindrances to participation in developmental activities, factors capable of reducing poverty , as well as characteristics of CBOs and their level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes. The second questionnaire was administered to registered CBOs such as: Community Development Associations (CDA), Youth Associations (YA), Religion Based Associations (RBA) and Town Unions (TU). FGD was conducted in each of the sampled local government areas. This was to obtain necessary information to supplement and corroborate (or otherwise) the primary data 53 obtained through questionnaire administration. For each of the FGD session, between 5-8 members of registered CBOs whose membership was not less than five years and who are not part of the elected executives of the CBOs are involved in the discussion for between 2-3 hours. The interview took place at community halls and the participants are allowed to pass comments freely on issues pertaining to the roles of CBOs in poverty alleviation activities in their respective areas. 3.2.2 Secondary Data The secondary data included in the research are relevant documents on development planning and poverty alleviation. For instance, World Bank publication such as: Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? Voices of the Poor Crying Out for Change and National Bureau of Statistics were consulted for data on methodological basis for the study. While the population figures for the sampled areas were collected from the National Population Commission (NPC). The list of political wards for conducting election was obtained from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), while list of registered CBOs were obtained at selected local government areas and was complemented with documents from State Ministry of Youths and Social Development, Secretariat Ibadan. 3.3 Sampling Design and Sample Size The sampling frame and method employed in data collection was presented in this section. The State has three (3) Senatorial Districts: Oyo North with (thirteen 13 local government areas), Oyo Central with (eleven 11 local government areas), and Oyo South with (nine 9 local government areas) see Table 3.1 for details. Out of the thirty-three local government areas, twenty-nine per cent (29 per cent) was considered adequate to represent the state. This decision was based on the survey methodology applied by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) for the conduct of National Living Standard Survey 2004, where twenty-nine per cent of the 36 states of the federation were selected as the study areas (NBS, 2004). Ten LGAs were sampled (29 per cent of 33 LGAs). To select these local government areas, numbers were assigned on Senatorial Districts. Then, using balloting system four local governments were sampled from ON; three local governments were sampled from OC and three from OS. Thus, ten out of the 33 local governments were randomly sampled (see Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1). 54 Table 3.1: Senatorial Districts in Oyo State S/No Oyo North Oyo Central Oyo South 1 Atisbo Afijio Ibadan North 2 Irepo * Akinyele Ibadan North East* 3 Iseyin Atiba Ibadan North West 4 Itesiwaju Egbeda Ibadan South East* 5 Iwajowa * Lagelu Ibadan South West 6 Kajola Ogo Oluwa Ibarapa Central * 7 Ogbomoso North * Oluyole Ibarapa East 8 Ogbomoso South Ona-Ara * Ibarapa West 9 Olorunsogo Oyo East Iddo 10 Orire Oyo West * 11 Orelope Surulere * 12 Saki East 13 Saki West * Total 13 11 9 * Selected local government in each senatorial district. 55 Figure 3.1: SELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN THE THREE SENETORIAL DISTRICTS Source: Ministry of Land, Housing and Physical Planning Ibadan, Oyo State, 2010 56 A multi- stage sampling technique was employed for the household survey. At the first stage, Senatorial Districts with their local government areas were identified. Thereafter, the list of political wards used by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in conducting election was compiled. At the second stage, the 2006 population census figure of the sampled local governments was projected to 2010 based on the national growth rate of 2.83. To arrive at the sample size, sampling ratio of 0.05 percent of the total population was adopted. This decision was based on Neuman‟s (1991) assertion that larger population permit smaller sampling ratio for equally good samples. Thus 0.05 percent of 2,206,146 which equals to 1,104 were sampled (Table 3.2). 57 Table 3.2: Sampling Frame and Sample Size Senatorial Selected Local Population Projected Sample size Districts Governments (0.05 per cent) Size (2006) Population (2010) Oyo North Iwajowa 102980 116807 59 Ogbomoso North 198720 225403 113 Saki-West 278002 315331 157 Irepo 122553 139008 70 Sub-total 579702 657541 399 Ona-Ara 265059 300650 150 Oyo Central Oyo West 136236 154529 77 Surulere 142070 161147 81 Sub-total 543365 616326 308 Ibadan North-East 330399 374764 187 Ibadan South-East 266046 301700 151 Oyo South Ibarapa-Central 102979 116807 59 Sub-total 699424 793271 397 GRAND TOTAL 1822491 2067138 1104 Sources: 1 National Population Commission 2006, Census. 2 Author’s Compilation At the third stage, the list of communities, as well as houses in identified political wards with or without CBOs development projects like (road construction, bridges, classrooms, water projects, health centres, storage facilities, vocational training centres, agro- processing factory, community banks, communication and viewing centres), were compiled (Appendix 5). To obtain the sampling interval („K‟), the number of house with their households‟ head were divided by the expected sample size. The researcher randomly selected a number between 1 and „K‟. The household corresponding to this number in the compiled list of households‟ constitute the first household that was included in the sample. Thereafter, the researcher simply adds „L‟ to the subsequent households‟ interviewed. At the end of the household survey, one thousand and seventy-three (1073) copies of questionnaire out of one 58 thousand one hundred and four (1104) were recovered from the three Senatorial Districts in Oyo State. For the CBOs questionnaire administration, the list and typology of registered CBOs obtained from Ministry of Community and Social Development Secretariat Ibadan and Local Government Headquarters in Oyo State were compiled. Although previous study of CBOs in selected cities in Nigeria by Onibokun and Faniran (1995) used 12.3 percent as sampling size, if this method was used, the possibility of sampling different typologies would be jeopardized. To arrive at adequate sample size for the study, sampling ratio of 40 percent was considered and this decision was based on Neuman‟s (1991) assertion cited above, which gives 87 CBOs. Then, using random sampling, 87 copies of the questionnaire are administered to registered CBOs across the Senatorial Districts in Oyo State. Details are shown in Table (3.3) 59 Table 3.3: Registered CBOs in the Sampled Local Government Areas in Oyo State S/No Senatorial Local Governments Typology N o o f C B O s Sample Size Districts A B C (40 percent) Iwajowa 13 5 8 26 10 Ogbomoso North 9 8 3 20 8 1 Oyo North Saki- West 18 7 5 30 12 Irepo 5 5 4 14 6 Sub-total 45 25 20 90 36 Ona-Ara 15 10 9 34 14 Oyo-West 8 4 4 16 6 2 Oyo Central Surulere 5 4 5 14 6 Sub-total 28 18 16 64 26 Ibadan North-East 8 5 3 16 6 Ibadan South –East 17 9 7 33 13 3 Oyo South Ibarapa-Central 5 5 4 14 6 Sub-total 30 19 13 63 25 GRAND TOTAL 103 62 49 217 87 Sources: 1: Ministry of Community and Social Development, Secretariat; Ibadan. 2: Local Government Headquarters A: CBOs that focus mainly on physical development projects alone B: CBOs that focus mainly on economic development projects alone C: CBOs that focus mainly on security development projects alone 60 3.4 Definition and Treatment of Variables 3.4.1. Index of involvement of each CBO in poverty alleviation processes (IICP) is defined as the complex whole of all contributions (measured in cash and kind) of each CBO in poverty alleviation processes. It is a composite of such variables as: (i) Number of Completed Development Projects executed by the CBOs in the last ten years (NCDP) (ii) Total Costs of Completed Development projects executed within the time frame above (TCCD) (iii) Number of On-going Development Projects of the CBOs (NODP) (iv) Total Cost of On-going Development projects of the CBOs (TCOD) (v) Total Amount spent on Charity and Donations apart from those aforementioned in the last ten years (TACD) (vi) Number of Memoranda / Proposals Submitted by the CBOs to any government or government agency for consideration for development of their community in the last ten years (NMPS). (vii) Total Number of Meetings held with community leaders, government agencies, other CBOs and related organisations on issues affecting development of the community in the last ten years.(TNM) (viii) Total Cost of contribution to Development project(s) Jointly executed with any other development agencies (government, other CBOs, NGOs etc) in the last ten years (TCDJ) Therefore, IICP is a function of NCDP, TCCD, NODP, TCOD, TACD, NMPS, TNM and TCDJ. However, it should be noted that the NCDP and NODP are contained or implied in TCCD and TCOD respectively. Therefore, the NCDP and NODP are left out in the mathematical relationship between the index (IICP) and other variables illustrated here IICP = (TCCD+TCOD+TACD+TCDJ) (NMPS) (TNM)…………………eq 1 The equation was author‟s adaptation after Onibokun and Faniran (1995) Arising from the equation above was the fact that IICP was a function of: (i) Total costs expended on all development projects (completed and on-going) and all charity services and donations, (ii) Number of memoranda and proposals submitted to any government agency for consideration for developmentof the community and; (iii) Number of meetings held with relevant development agencies and community members. 61 Meanwhile, households‟ level of involvement in CBOs poverty alleviation programmes was measured through their contribution in cash or participation in all stages identified above with CBOs development programmes. 3.4.2 Index of Poverty Level (IPL) Index of Poverty Level (IPL) is defined as relative poverty as exprienced by the households and this was measured through a composite or aggregate of selected poverty indicators in this research as: (i) Per Capital Household Income, specifically adopted here to mean the addition of the annual income of all working class members of the households divided by the household size (PCHI). (ii) Occupancy Ratio (OR) which was the household size divided by the number of habitable rooms occupied by the household; and (iii) The Annual Rent/Rental value of apartment was the quality of the house measured by its value in which each household lives either rented or owned. (AR) It should be noted that per capital household income (PCHI) and annual rental (AR) are inversely related to incidence of poverty (IPL), while occupancy ratio (OR) was directly related to IPL Therefore, IPL was computed as: IPL = OR PCHI + AR ……………………………eq 2 The equation was author‟s adaptation after Gaucitua-Mario and Wodon (2001) on combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in the analysis of poverty and social exclusion in Latin America 3.4.3 Index measuring Households Willingness of Involvement in Future Development Processes (HWIFDP) is defined as the extent to which the residents are keen (without compulsion) to participate in the processes of community development. This was measured as a sum of the weights resulting from the Likert scale with „very high‟ ≥70 percent, „high‟ 60-69 percent, „moderate‟ 50-59percent „low„ 40-49 percent, and „very low‟ 0-39 percent with a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively on participatory indicators such as: creating awareness to ablivious community members; orientation of community members on project benefits; mobilization of people for land acquisition and other resources for project development; the involvement of people in project choice and initiation; identification of project location; involvement in project technology choice; mobilization of support for 62 project time frame; participation as representative of community in development processes; involvement in all stages of project design and execution processes; endurance of project challenges during execution; security support for the project and the project executors; financial support towards project development; financial support for project maintenance after the execution and; project monitoring and evaluation. To arrive at the (HWIFDP) on each of the variables, the Summation of all Weighted Values (SWV) was computed. This was the addition of the product of the number of responses to each of the variables and the weighted value attached to each rating divided by the number of respondents. In addition, the degree to which the households are willing to get involved in future development processes was equated with the Arstein ladder of citizen participation (DHWIFDP) presented below with very low-1, low-2, moderate-3, high-4 and very high-5: Responses Weight Manipulation VL =1 Therapy Non-Participation L L ==2 2 Informing Degree M = 3 Consultation of Placation Tokenism Partnership H = 4 Delegated power Degree of VH = 5 Citizen control Citizen Participation Sources: Author’s Adaptation, 2011. 3.4.4 An index measuring Impact of Community Based Organisation Projects on Poverty Reduction (ICPPR) is defined as the ultimate changes in the conditions of the residents resulting from project intervention by the CBOs. In this study the following indicators are adopted socialassistance to the needy (philanthropic), rape assaults, burglary/ho usebreaking, breach of public peace, kidnapping and physical insecurity (security), inclusion of people in development processes, accountability and transparency, social solidarity, influence and control on the choice of developments, community dignity and prestige (socio- cultural heritages), access to transformational information, access to all seasons road, access to water, access to school, access to electricity, access to health-care, access to market place, quality and hygienic environment, nutrition adequacy (infrastructure), employment 63 opportunity, income, and productivity (economy and empowerment), were various classes of projects undertaken by the CBOs in computing the rating index. The index was computed as a sum of the weights resulting from the Likert scale with „very significant‟ ≥70 percent, „significant‟60-69 percent, „less-significant‟ 50-59 percent „not significant‟ 40-49 percent, and „not significant at all‟ 0-39 percent with a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Thereafter, the mean of sub-classes and the mean of the aggregated ICPPR were computed for the period before and after project execution for ranking the projects in order of their constraints to poverty reduction before CBOs intervention and impacts on poverty reduction after CBOs interventions. 3.4.5 Index of Households Satisfaction with Community Based Organisations Development Processes (HSCDP) it measures households‟ contentment derived from the output of CBOs development activities. This was an aggregate of such satisfaction indicators as:households involvement in project initiation, articulation of individual needs, articulation of community needs, consultation with households before project implementation, training the members on project management, planning for future and seasonal needs, transparency on fund mobilization, transparency on other mobilized resources, information dissemination before project implementation, information dissemination during project implementation, equal access to project benefits and transparency in project execution processes. In computing the index, Likert‟s scale was employed to rate the level of satisfaction of the households with such variables above. The rating was done such that 0-39 percent „very dissatisfied‟, 40-49 percent „dissatisfied‟, 50-59 percent „indifferent‟, 60-69 percent„satisfied‟,and ≥70 „very satisfied‟ was assigned a weight value of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. To arrive at the HSCDP on each of the variables, the Summation of all Weighted Values (SWV) was calculated. And this was the addition of the product of the numbers of responses to each of the variables and the weighted value attached to each rating divided by the number of respondent. 3.4.6 Index of perceived commitment of Community Based Organisations Poverty Reduction Activities (CPRA) is defined as the households‟/ CBOs assessment of Community Based Organisations development processes on aspect of poverty reduction. These are computed as a sum of the weights resulting from the Likert scale with „very high‟ ≥70 percent, „high‟60-69 percent, „fair‟ 50-59 percent „low„ 40-49 percent, and „very low‟ 0- 39 percent with a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively on the variables such as: infrastructural development, partnership with other development organisation on community 64 development, charity services and financial support to project development, consultation with other development stakeholders, maintenance of community projects, establishment of vocational training centres, provision of security, supply of labour and technical advice. These are subjected to descriptive statistics such as mean and deviation above the mean to explain and compare performances for different Senatorial Districts. The result will corroborate or detect areas of exaggeration or otherwise as claimed by the CBOs or households. 3.4.7 Index of Obstacle to Development Participation (ODP) is defined as the hindrances affecting development processes among the communities. This was computed as a sum of the weights resulting from the Likert scale with „very high‟ ≥70 per cent, „high‟69-60 percent, „fair‟ 59-50 percent „low„ 49-40 percent, and „very low‟ 39-0 percent with a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The variables considered to be obstacle to development participation include: financial problem, wealth disparity, power disparity, gender discrimination, unequal accessibility to project benefits, unequal accessibility to transformational information among community members, exclusion of households from development processes, religion contradiction on development choice, ineffective institutional leadership structure, hostility to community participation by other groups outside and within the community among others. These are subjected to descriptive statistics such as mean and deviation above the mean to explain and compare hindrances to development participation on two historical epochs for different Senatorial Districts. 3.4.8 Index of Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty (FCRP) is defined as the features important to development processes in reducing poverty. This was computed as a sum of the weights resulting from the Likert scale with „strongly agreed‟ ≥70 percent, „agreed‟60-69 percent, „undecided‟ 50-59 percent „disagreed 40-49 percent, and „strongly disagreed‟ 0-39 percent with a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The factors on which the rating was computed are: involvement of private sectors in project finance, promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services, transparency with regards to public spending, promoting rule of law and justice, monitoring government development and financial expenditure, promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance, and evaluation, financial involvement of religious organisation in project development, financial involvement of prospective users on development choice, ensuring development project to reflect community priorities, encouraging poor people organisation 65 for adequate representation and accountability and investments in physical infrastructure among others. 66 Table 3.1 Summary of the Index and Treatment of Variables SNo Index Definition and Treatment of Variable 1 IICP Number of Completed Development Projects executed by the CBOs in the last ten years (NCDP). Total Costs of Completed Development projects executed within the time frame above (TCCD) Number of On-going Development Projects of the CBOs (NODP) Total Cost of On-going Development projects of the CBOs (TCOD) Total Amount spent on Charity and Donations in the last ten years (TACD) Number of Memoranda / Proposals Submitted by the CBOs to any government or government agency for development of their community in the last ten years (NMPS). Total Number of Meetings held with community leaders, government agencies, other CBOs and related organisations on issues affecting development of their community in the last ten years.(TNM) Total Cost of contribution to Development project(s) Jointly executed with any other development agencies (government, other CBOs, NGOs etc) in the last ten years (TCDJ). 2 IPL Per Capital Household Income, specifically adopted here to mean the addition of the annual income of all working class members of the households divided by the household size (PCHI). Occupancy Ratio (OR) which is the household size divided by the number of habitable rooms occupied by the household. The Annual Rent/Rental value of apartment s the quality of the house measured by its value in which each household lives either rented or owned. (AR) 67 3 HWIF Creating awareness to ignorant community members DP Orientation of community members on project benefits Mobilization of people for land acquisition and other resources for project development Involvement in project choice and initiation Identification of project location Involvement in project technology choice. Mobilization of support for project time frame Participation as community representatives on development processes Involvements in all stages of project design and execution processes Endurance of project challenges during execution Security supports for the project and project executors Financial support towards project development Financial support for arising needs after project execution. Financial support for project maintenance after execution Project monitoring and evaluation 4 ICPPR 1 philanthropic Social-assitance to the needy Rape/indecent assaults Burglary/house-breaking 2 Security Breach of public peace Kidnapping and physical insecurity Inclusion of people in development processes Accountability and transparency 3 Social solidarity Socio-cultural Influence and control on developments Heritage Community dignity and prestige 68 Access to transformational Information 4 Access to all seasons road Infrastructural Access to water Provision Access to electricity Access to health care Access to market places Quality and hygienic environment Nutrition adequacy Access to school Economy and Income 5 Empowerment Employment opportunity Productivity 5 HSCDP Household‟s involvement in project initiation Articulation of Individual needs Articulation of community needs Consultation of households before project implementation Training of community members on project management Planning for future and seasonal needs Transparency of funds mobilization Transparency on other mobilized resources Information dissemination before project implementation Information dissemination during project implementation Equal access to project benefits Transparency on project execution Self reliance leadership structure Project design to community level Incorporation of local creativity to development Household involvement in project monitoring and evaluation Distance of project to respondents building Implementation of household advice towards project choice and execution. 69 6 CPRA Infrastructural Development Partnership with other development organization on community development Charity services and financial support to project development Consultation with other development stakeholders Maintenance of community projects. Establishment of vocational training centres provision of security supply of labour and technical advice 7 ODP Financial problem among community members Wealth disparity among community members Power disparity among community members Exclusion of households from development process Lack of trust on project finance among community members Disagreement between the technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation Gender discrimination among community members Unequal accessbility to project benefit among community members Unequal accessbility to transformational information among community members Un-cooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance Hostility to community participation by other groups within the community Hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community Religion contradiction on development choice Ineffective institutional leadership structure 8 FCRP Involvement of private sectors‟ in project finance Promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services Transparency with regards to public spending Promoting rule of law and justice 70 Monitoring government development and financial expenditure Promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance and evaluation Financial involvement of religion based organization on project development Financial involvement of prospective users on development choice Ensuring development project to reflect community priorities Encouraging poor people‟s organizations for adequate representation and accountability Promoting conditions for jobs creation and wealth acquisition. Self support to grassroots development Promoting export led growth Promoting labour intensive growth Investment in physical infrastructure 3.4.9. Data Analysis Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used in analyzing the data collected. Descriptive statistics such as: measures of central tendency and variability, frequency counts, and cross tabulation were used to: summarize the characteristics of the CBOs among the Senatorial Districts; summarize the socio-economic characteristics of the households among Senatorial Districts and; relate the characteristics of the CBOs with their level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes. Inferential statistics such as: multiple linear regression, One-way Analysis of Variance, and student‟s t-test is used to test the stated hypotheses. 3.4.10. Hypothesis 1 To test the relationship between the characteristics of CBOs and their level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes, multiple linear regression was used. 71 The regression was represented as: y =a+b1x1+b2 x2+b3x3+b4x4+e y = dependent variable, x = independent variable, a = was the intercept, b1-b4= regression coefficients representing the amount of change in y that corresponds to a change in x, the coefficient reveals the importance of independent variables in determining the IICP‟ e = random error term. IICP with other variables of characteristics of CBOs were first standardized before it was subjected to multiple regression analysis to analyse the relationship between characteristics of CBOs with their level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes. For example, to analyse the relationship between violent crime and temperature in a large sample of cities Anderson and Anderson (1996) created a violent crime index by adding the z-score on several measures of violent crime for each city and a temperature index by summing z- scores on several measures of temperature for each city to create a new measure that gives equal weight to each variable. This addresses the problem in equation (i) IICP represents dependent variable (y), while characteristics of the CBOs are independent variables X1 – Xn. The characteristics of the CBOs included as independent variables are: (i) Age of the CBOs (year of establishment), (ii) Number of members (female and male) and (iii) Financial capacity which was the aggregate of: A. Annual financial contribution of members, B. Contribution of individual philanthropists, C. Contribution of government or government agencies; and D. Contribution of cooperate bodies. 3.4.11. Hypothesis 2 In testing the hypothesis which states that there is no differences in households‟ level of involvement in CBOs poverty alleviation programmes (among the three Senatorial Districts), ANOVA was used. The Analysis of Variance is used to draw inferences about differences in the mean of two or more groups. However, one-way ANOVA is used when there is only one independent variable and the purpose of the analysis is to compare the 72 means for two or more levels of independent variables, or to compare the means of several groups differing with respect to some independent variables (Harris, 1998). Thus, IICP which was independent variable was subjected to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether it varies or not spatially among the Senatorial Districts. 3.4.12. Hypothesis 3 The hypothesis which states that households‟ levels of satisfaction with CBOs development projects do not vary over space (among the three Senatorial Districts) was subjected independently to one-way analysis of variance for years before 1999 and years 2000 and after respectively. The Scheffe variant of post hoc test which has no limit with regards to the number and complexity of variables comparisons (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001, Jelili, 2009) was used to determine variation among the Senatorial Districts. 3.4.13 Hypothesis 4 The hypothesis which states that CBOs‟ development activities do not have impact on poverty level in Oyo State was tested with Student‟s t-test. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that the IPLb years before1999 and IPLa year 2000 and after are obtained. With this dichotomy, the IPL was subjected to Student‟s t-test. The students‟ t-test was a statistical significance test for testing hypothesis about one or two means if the population standard deviation was unknown (Harris 1998, Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). 3.5. Conclusion The chapter addresses methodological approach adopted for the study, it identified types and sources of data, sampling design and sample size, definition and treatment of variables, and the statistical tools employed for testing the stated hypotheses. The next chapter examines spatial distribution of CBOs, households‟ involvement in community development among others. Generally, it was concerned with the objectives and the hypotheses of the study. 73 CHAPTER FOUR HOUSEHOLD’S INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATIONS ACTIVITIES 4.1: Introduction The most important institutions in poor peoples‟ daily lives are their own community- based groups and their colleagues in the local environs. Community-Based Organisation refers broadly to both formal and informal membership-based organization. This organisation was the most frequently mentioned as both important and effective institution in the rural areas while in the urban areas; it was the most frequently mentioned important institution after health related institution (Narayan et. al, 2000).It was a known fact that government alone cannot provide the economic development and human welfare packages to alleviate poverty. This may be as a result of limited resources, nonchalant attitude or the greediness of the leadership involved in running the government at the local, state and federal levels. The involvement of people directly or indirectly will hasten the rate of development. Mabogunje (2007), observed how involvement of community chairmen in the running of community banks‟ affairs has led to economic liberation and poverty alleviation among community members. While preceding chapter analysed the methodology applied for the study. This chapter focuses on characteristics, spatial distribution, classification of CBOs according to membership strength, impacts of socio-economic characteristics of respondents on community development and households‟ level of willingness to participate in future development processes. It also examines households‟ development priorities, the extent to which households‟ are satisfied with Community Based Organisations‟ development programmes and households‟ perceived obstacles to participation in the development processes. 4.2: Identification of Community Based Organisation A search through the literature by Adeboyejo (2006) presents local institutions from two broad perspectives. Firstly, it serves as a typology of civil society that idealizes their potential in advancing democratic governance and secondlyas an agent of development and service delivery in urban and regional landscape. These local institutions which serve as the intermediary between local people and the government facilitate transmission from traditional set-up to modernity and also promote economic interest among members of the association. The CBOs/local institutions in this study are grouped into: youth association and age grade, 74 town union, landlord and development association, occupation/technical group, religious organisation, socio-cultural group, elders‟ forum and political development groups. On the aggregate, Table 4.1 shows that Landlord Associations and Town Unions account for 60 per cent of CBOs in the study area while the other CBOs shared the remaining 40 per cent. However, Youth Associations and Age Grades account for 2.8 per cent in Oyo South (OS), 19.2 per cent in Oyo Central (OC) and13.9 per cent in Oyo North (ON), while Town Union constitutes 20 per cent, 11.5 per cent and 27.8 per cent in OS, OC and ON respectively. Landlord Associations had the largest number of CBOs with 60 per cent in OS, 46.2 per cent in OC and 33.3 per cent in ON. Occupation/Technical Groups, Religion Organisation and Socio-Cultural Group account for 0.0 per cent in OS and OC; however, the three CBOs in that sequence account for 5.6 per cent, 2.75 per cent and 13.9 per cent in ON. The Elders‟ Forum and Political Development Groups constitute 12 per cent in OS, 23.1 per cent in OC and 2.75 per cent in ON (Details Figure 4.1). The result shows that any attempt towards sustainable development should take into cognizance the impact that the Town Unions and the Landlord Associations; which are the most prevalent CBOs are capable of exerting in Oyo State. 75 Table4.1: Typologies and Distribution of Sampled Community Based Organisations in Oyo State Types of CBOs Oyo South (OS) No (%) Oyo Central (OC) No (%) Oyo North (ON) No (%) Total (%) Youth Ilupeju-Idiobi CDA, Ire 2 8.0 Arolu Youth Devt; 4 15.3 Ayami, Good friend, Igbo- 5 13.9 11 12.6 Association & Age akari CDA Iware CDA, Mami Ologun, Oredegbe Taraa CDA grades CDC, Ogele CDA. Town Unions Agooro, Isale Oba I & II, 5 20.0 Akanra CDA, Onipasan 3 11.5 Ajangba, Alasa CDA, Ehinke 9 25.0 17 19.5 Oke Iserin, Yejide CDA, Oke Afa CDC, Alapata CDA, Isale-Abudu, Surulere CDA Jagun (3, 11.5%) Iya/Mokola, Kinnikinni CDA, koso CDC, Laha CDC Kisi Town Union. Landlord Adekile CDA, Akere, 13 52.0 Abonde, Ajia Comm, 38.6 Abogunde, Asunnara CDA, 12 33.3 35 40.2 Associations Arowosanye II, Devt Ass, Alabidun 10 Igbobale, Isale Ora Parapo Binukonu, Borokini, CDA, Ifelodun- landlord, Obanla, Oke Owode, Ifelodun, Ifesowapo, Adeleke, Okelerin Opomaalu, Osupa Itesiwaju, Koloko Idiobi Ifesiwaju, Ijado CDA Saga/Isale-Ora, Oke- Oke Irorun, Olorunsogo, CDA,Iresapa, Iwajowa, eletun, Oke-oro Oluokun, Oyapidan, Iware CDA, Mami Pako I & II CDC Occupation/Techni Aworawo CDA 1 4.0 Lademon, 1 3.8 Cattle dealer, Idiko Ago Elite 2 5.6 4 4.6 cal groups club Religious Nil Itesiwaju Oke, 1 3.8 Isale Alufa 1 2.7 2 2.3 Organisations Socio-cultural Nil Nil Agede CDC, Dynamic Sisters, 5 13.9 5 5.7 Groups Igbobale, Iju patriots, Isale Abudu. Elders Forum and Balaro, Ilupeju CDA, 3 12.0 Akeetan CDA, Idode 6 23.2 Katangua CDA 1 2.7 10 11.5 Political Surulere CDA. CDA, Igbowa CDA, Development Iyaji CDA, Pakoyi (6, Groups 23.1%) Others Ajao/Rounder. 1 4.0 Fasola CDA, 1 3.8 1 2.8 3 3.5 Total 25 100 26 100 36 100 87 100 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 76 Fig. 4.1 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF REGISTERED CBOs IN OYO STATE 2° 30'E 2°45' 3° 3°15' 3°30' 3°45' 4° 4°15' 4°30' 4° 45'E 9° 15'N 9° 15'N IREPO 9° 9° KWARA STATE ORELOPE 8°45' OLORUNSOGO 8°45' KWARA STATE SAKI EAST SAKI WEST 8°30' 8°30' ORIIRE ATISBO ATIBA 8°15' ON 8°15' ITESIWAJU OS SURULERE 8° 8° KAJOLA OGO-OLUWA OYO OYO EAST ISEYIN WEST IWAJOWA AFIJIO 7°45' 7°45' OSUN STATE IBARAPA IBARAPA NORTH EAST IDO AKINYELE 7°30' LAGELU 7°30' IBARAPA 1 CENTRAL 2 EGBEDA5 4 3 7°15' 7°15' ONA-ARA OGUN STATE OLUYOLE 7°N 7°N 2° 30'E 2°45' 3° 3°15' 3°30' 3°45' 4° 4°15' 4°30' 4° 45'E SCALE 70 35 0 70 140 210 Kilometers N LEGEND 1 IBADAN NORTH ON OGBOMOSO NORTH CBOs that focuses mainly or physical W E Development. 2 IBADAN NORTH EAST OS OGBOMOSO SOUTH CBOs that focuses mainly or economic 3 IBADAN SOUTH EAST International Boundary Development. S 4 IBADAN SOUTH WEST CBOs that focuses mainly or Socio-State Boundary Community Development. 5 IBADAN NORTH WEST Local Government Boundary SOURCE: Ministry of Land, Housing and Physical Planning. Ibadan, Oyo State. 2010 Figure 4.1: SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF REGISTERED CBOS IN OYO STATE SOURCE: Ministry of Land, Housing and Physical Planning Ibadan, Oyo State,2010 77 BENIN REPUBLIC 4.3: Community Based Organizations and Year of Establishment The age of the CBOs may likely influence their performance positively or negatively. The CBOs in the study area are classified by years of existence and the details are presented in Table 4.2.On the aggregate, only a few CBOs were founded before 1970 while majority were established between 1971 and 2000. For instance not more than 13.8 per cent of the CBOs came into existence before 1970. 78 Table 4.2: Year of Establishment of CBO OS OC ON TOTAL S/N Year of CBOs % Cobs % CBOs % CBOs % Establishment 1 Before 1970 0 0.0 1 3.8 11 30.5 12 13.8 2 1971-1980 10 40.0 1 3.8 10 27.8 21 24.1 3 1981-1990 6 24.0 9 34.6 4 11.1 19 21.8 4 1991-2000 6 24.0 10 38.5 6 16.7 22 25.3 5 2001 & Above 3 12.0 5 19.3 5 13.9 13 14.9 TOTAL 25 100 26 100 36 100 87 100 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 79 Analyzed on Senatorial Districts basis, before 1970, no registered CBO was found in OS while there are 3.8 per cent in OC and 30.6 per cent in ON. Between 1971 and 1980, there are 40 per cent registered CBOs in OS, 3.8 per cent in OC and 27.8 per cent in ON. Registered CBOs for years between 1981 and 1990 in OS were 24 per cent while there are 34.6 per cent in OC and 11.1 per cent in ON. However, for years between 1991 and 2000, 24 per cent of registered CBOs were found in OS, 38.5 per cent in OC and 16.7 per cent in ON. For the year 2001 and above in OS, 12 per cent CBOs were found, while 19.3 per cent and 13.9 per cent existed in OC and ON respectively. The study shows that registered CBOs reduced from years before 1970 to years 2001 and above in OS and ON while increase was noticed in OC between years 1981-2000 alone. The implied that most projects implemented by the state or federal governments during this period might be contrary to community needs and the sustainability of such project cannot be ascertained. The FGD group reveals that the recently established CBOs focus more on development projects aimed at poverty reduction, thus there is need to support the new CBOs in order to encourage the upcoming ones. 4.4: Membership Strength of Community Based Organizations Membership strength is one of the factors likely to determining both the financial capability and popularity of the CBOs within and outside the community. Details of membership strength are summarised in Table 4.3. 80 Table 4.3: Membership Strength of Community Based Organisations OS OC ON TOTAL S/N Membership Strength CBOs % CBOs % Cobs % CBOs % 1 Less than 20 1 4 3 11.5 3 8.3 7 8.1 2 21-40 5 20 5 19.2 12 33.4 22 25.3 3 41-60 8 32 6 23.1 8 22.2 22 25.3 4 61-80 2 8 2 7.7 2 5.6 6 6.8 5 81-100 4 16 2 7.7 3 8.3 9 10.4 6 101 &above 5 20 8 30.8 8 22.2 21 24.1 TOTAL 25 100 26 100 36 100 87 100 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 81 On the aggregate, majority (50.6 per cent) of the CBOs have between 21 and 60 members. However, a substantial proportion 41.3 per cent has above 60 members. It was also observed that less than one-tenth of the CBOs have members of less than 20. On senatorial basis, CBOs with less than 20 members account for 4 per cent in OS, 11.5 per cent in OC and 8.3 per cent in ON. The CBOs with 21-40 members account for 20 per cent in OS, 19.2 per cent in OC and 33.4 per cent in ON. While CBOs with 41-60 members account for 32 per cent in OS, 23.1 per cent in OC and 22.2 per cent in ON. CBOs with membership of 61-80 are few and they account for 8 per cent in OS, 7.67 per cent in OC and 5.6 per cent in ON. However, CBOs in membership range of 81-100 account for 16 per cent in OS, 8.3 in per cent in ON and 7.7 per cent in OC. The study further shows that CBOs with membership of 101 and above constitutes 20 per cent in OS, 30.8 per cent in OC and 22.2 per cent in ON. 4.5Development Projects Undertaken by Community Based Organisations Community Based Organisations are grassroots organisations managed by members on behalf of members (Edwards and Hulme, 1992; Ohakweh and Ezirim, 2006; UN HABITAT, 2011). CBOs perform vital and diverse functions which include mobilization of labour, infrastructural development, cultural activities, conflict resolution, and provision of emergency relief (Narayan et.al, 2000). Over the years, the importance and potential of Community Based Organisation are recognized by the government, non- governmental and development agencies as the only organisations the poor own, trust and can rely on. This section classifies and discusses various development projects undertaken by the CBOs in the Senatorial Districts in Oyo State. However in Table 4.4 are three categories of projects (economy and empowerment, security facilities and services and infrastructural provision) implemented by various CBOs across theSenatorial Districts in Oyo State. These CBOs are Youth Association /Age Groups, Town Unions, Landlord Associations and Elders‟ Forum, Occupation/ Technical Groups, Religious Organisations and Socio-cultural Groups. 82 Table 4.4: Community Based Organisation Development Projects According to Senatorial Districts SENATORIAL DISRTICTS OYO SOUTH OYO CENTRAL OYO NORTH TOTAL CBOs Organisation Activities of CBOs Construction of halls _ 3 - - - - - 3 - - 2 - - - 1 3 - 4 - - _ _ _ 4 10 Construction of palace _ 1 - - - 1 2 - - - - - - - 0 - 4 - - _ _ _ 4 6 Rural electrification 1 3 - - - - 4 - - 3 2 - - - 5 - 2 2 - _ 1 _ 5 14 Sinking of boreholes and deep wells 1 1 4 - - - - 6 2 6 4 - 2 - 2 16 - 8 3 - 2 1 _ 14 36 Construction and repair of schools 1 1 - - - - - 2 - - 2 - - - - 2 - 3 2 1 _ 1 _ 7 11 Construction of pedestrian bridges _ - 1 - - - 2 3 3 3 3 - - - - 9 - - - - 2 _ _ 2 14 Construction of post office _ - - - - - - 0 - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - _ _ _ 0 1 Construction of maternity centre 1 2 2 - - - - 5 1 - 1 1 1 - - 4 - - 1 1 1 _ _ 3 12 Construction of public toilets 1 1 - 2 - - - 4 2 2 2 - - - 2 8 2 - 2 - 3 _ _ 7 19 Road grading and maintenances. _ 2 3 - - - 1 6 3 3 6 2 3 - 17 - 3 3 - _ 1 _ 7 30 Monitoring of layout and development _ - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - 0 - 3 - - _ _ _ 3 3 Erosion control 1 - - - 1 - - 2 1 - - - - - 1 2 - 2 - - _ 2 _ 4 8 Dredging of river channel _ - 2 - - - - 2 - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - _ _ _ 0 3 83 Infrastructural CLASSIFICATION OF CBOs Provision PROJECTS Youth Association / Age Group Town Union Landlord Association and Elders Forum Occupation/Tech nical Group Religious Organization Socio cultural Group Others group Total Youth Association /Age Group Town Union Landlord Association and Elders Forum Occupation/Technical Group Religious Organization Socio Cultural Group Others group Total Youth Association / Age Group Town Union Landlord Association and Elders Forum Occupation/Technical Group Religious Organization Socio Cultural Group Others group Total No of development projects Percentage Construction of culverts and drainage 1 2 11 - - - - 14 - 1 7 - - - 1 9 - 1 2 - 1 1 _ 5 28 channel Road furniture‟s and its maintenance _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 _ 1 1 _ _ _ 1 3 2 _ _ _ _ _1 3 7 Sub-total 54 80 68 202 63.7 Establishment of palm oil mill _ - - 3 - - - 3 - - - - - - - 0 - 1 - 2 _ 1 _ 4 7 Establishment of fish pond _ - - - - - - 0 - - - 2 - - - 2 - 3 - - _ _ _ 3 5 Establishment of training centers _ - - - - - - 0 - - 2 - - - - 2 - 2 - - _ 3 _ 5 7 Construction of market stands _ - - 2 - - - 2 - - - 1 - - 1 2 - - 2 _ _ 3 5 9 Financial assistance to less priviledges - - 1 - 2 - - 3 - 1 1 1 - - - 3 2 2 1 - 3 - - 8 14 Sub-total 8 9 25 42 13.3 Construction of police post _ - 2 - - - - 2 - - - - 0 - 2 - - _ _ _ 2 4 Monetary donation to security patrol 1 2 2 - - - - 5 2 - 2 - 2 2 8 2 6 2 2 2 _ _ 14 27 Construction of security gates 3 - - - 2 2 - 7 - 2 2 - - - - 4 - 4 2 - 2 _ _ 8 19 Fencing of transformer units 3 _ 2 _ 2 _ _ 7 2 4 2 2 - - 10 3 1 2 - _ _ _ 6 23 Sub-total 21 22 30 73 23.0 Total 83 - 111 123 317 100 Source: Author’s Field Work, 2011. 84 Security Economy and Empowerment Table 4.4 shows that a total of three-hundred and seventeen (317) projects were implemented across the three Senatorial Districtsof the sampled registered CBOs, with eighty-three projects implemented in OS, one-hundred and eleven (111) projects in OC and one-hundred and twenty three (123) projects in ON. Infrastructural development activities account for 63.7 per cent of the development; this is followed by security with 23.0 and the remaining 13.3 per cent account for economy and empowerment projects. Out of the eighty-three projects executed in OS, infrastructural facilities constitute 65.1 per cent, security projects account for 25.3 per cent while 9.6 per cent represent economic and empowerment projects. In OC where one-hundred and eleven projects were executed, 72.1 per cent were infrastructure projects, 19.8 per cent security projects, 8.1 per cent economic and empowerment projects. Also, out of the one-hundred and twenty three projects executed in ON, 55.3 per cent constitutes infrastructural projects, 24.4 per cent are security projects while economy and empowerment projects account for 6.50 per cent. The study informed that more infrastructural projects were undertaken by the CBOs with highest infrastructural development from OC 39.6 per cent followed by ON 33.7 per cent and OS 26.7 per cent respectively. The security projects came second with the highest value of 46.1 per cent from ON, followed by 30.1 per cent in OC and the least with value of 28.8 per cent in OS in that order.Surprisingly, the least category of great development concern to CBOs is economy and empowerment programmes which one would have thought to come first because it was ranked highest by the FGD group as means of lifting the poor above poverty level was 59.5 per cent in ON, followed by 21.4 per cent in OC and 19.0 per cent in OS respectively. The concentration of CBOs towards infrastructural development programmes in their various communities was a pointer to government inefficiency in the provision of basic infrastructural facilities and services that would have abated poverty and this confirmed the reason why households‟ priorities were educational, health-care facilities, electricity and motorable road networks. This emphasized the need to include Community Based Organisations and their networks in development and implementation of policies and programmes that will enable governments to better understand and serve the needs of the poor. 85 Table 4.5: Summary of Community Based Organisation Development Projects in the Senatorial Districts S/N Senatorial Districts OS (%) OC (%) ON (%) Total (%) Project Description 1 Infrastructural Development 54 65.1 (26.7) 80 72.1 (39.6) 68 55.3 (33.7) 202 (100) 2 Economic and Empowerment 8 9.6 (19.0) 9 8.1 (21.4) 25 20.3 (59.6) 42 (100) 3 Security 21 25.3 (28.8) 22 19.8 (30.1) 30 24.4 (41.1) 73 (100) 4 Total 83 (100) 111 (100) 123 (100) 317 Source: Author’s Field Work, 2011. 86 4.6: Roles of Households’ in Community Development The complementary efforts of the government after the community members have initiated the projects in solving problems associated with poverty and development in Nigeria cannot be overemphasized. In this section, households‟involvement was analyzed using Households‟ Involvement Index (HII). This is used to compare households‟ involvement in community development across the three Senatorial Districts. Households‟ Involvement Index is the total contribution of each household‟s, either by cash or in kind towards CBOs development projects. This is computed as the sum of weights resulting from the Likert scale with a range of „very high‟ (≥70 percent), „high‟ (69-60 percent), „fair‟ (59-50 percent) „low„(49-40 percent), and „very low‟ (39-0 percent). Weight values of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 are correspondingly allocated. The variables considered were: “donation of needed materials”, “payment of financial levy within community”, “monetary donation towards project execution”, “supervision of project work”, “voluntary labour supply” and “contribution towards project maintenance” (Details Appendix 4, Part A). The analysis reveals great variations in the variables with the highest and lowest HII among the Senatorial Districts, both before 1999 and year 2000 and beyond. For instance, before 1999, the variables with the highest HII in Oyo South (OS) are “donation of needed materials” 3.78, Oyo Central (OC) is “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.48, while the most prominent variable in Oyo North (ON) is “payment of financial levy within community” 3.10. The reasons were different among the Senatorial Districts; in OS respondents opined that when materials needed were donated, labour cost to execute the projects can be source for by the community representative. This is likely to reduce mis management and also ensured that the quality materials were used for the community project development. In OC money donation for projects was prefered because most of respondents are artisans, farmers and traders hence they have less time left for community development projects and with donated money both materials and labour required can be bought. Meanwhile, in ON payment of financial levy within the community was obtained because the region has a long history of self development. Thus, respondents were sure that contributed money will be used satisfactorily for the purpose it was meant. Under same period variables with lowest HII among the Senatorial Districts is “voluntary labour supply” 3.14 and 2.40 respectivelyin OS and ON, the variables with least HII in OC is “payment towards project maintenance” 3.02. This implies that most households‟ in OS and ON engaged in activities giving little time left for community 87 development, while the respondents in OC requires awareness on the needs for maintenance after projects development. The overall averages HII for the senatorial district before 1999 are OS 3.48; OC 3.16; and ON 2.70. 88 Table 4.6: Households’ Participation in Community Development among the Senatorial DistrictsinOyo State Households OYO SOUTH OYO CENTRAL OYO NORTH TOTAL Involvement Year Before 1999 Year 2000 and Year Before 1999 Year 2000 and Year Before 1999 Year 2000 and Year Before 1999 Year 2000 and Variables Beyond Beyond Beyond Beyond SW HII (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) SWV HII (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) SWV HII (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) SWV HII (𝑿 SWV HII (𝑿 SWV HII (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) SWV HII (𝑿 SWV HII (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) − 𝑿 ) − 𝑿 ) − 𝑿 ) V Donation of needed 893 3.78 0.30 1442 3.73 0.21 758 3.08 -0.08 983 3.28 0.07 1041 2.70 0.00 1216 3.16 0.04 2692 3.11 0.02 3641 3.42 0.11 material Payment of finaicial 782 3.31 -0.17 1378 3.56 0.05 728 3.11 -0.05 962 3.22 0.01 1194 3.10 0.40 1370 3.57 0.44 2706 3.17 0.08 3710 3.49 0.18 levy within community Monetary donation 1414 3.66 0.18 1297 3.35 -0.16 1028 3.48 0.32 980 3.32 0.11 1062 2.76 0.06 1256 3.26 0.15 3504 3.29 0.20 3533 3.34 0.03 towards project execution Supervision of project 1175 3.56 0.08 1257 3.25 -0.26 894 3.11 -0.05 917 3.08 - 954 2.50 - 1107 2.88 -0.24 3023 3.03 - 3281 3.12 -0.19 work 0.13 0.22 0.06 Voluntary labour supply 1026 3.14 -0.34 1350 3.49 -0.02 771 3.18 0.02 941 3.17 - 925 2.40 - 1058 2.75 -0.37 2722 2.87 - 3349 3.15 -0.16 0.04 0.30 0.22 Payment towards 1349 3.49 -0.08 1432 3.70 0.19 905 3.02 0.09 966 3.22 0.01 1056 2.74 0.05 1187 3.08 -0.03 3310 3.10 0.01 3585 3.37 0.06 project maintenance TOTAL 20.85 21.08 18.98 19.29 16.22 18.72 18.57 19.89 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total Before 1999 Before 1999 Before 1999 Before 1999 HII = (X) HII = (X) HII = (X) HII = (X) Mean = 3.47 Mean = 3.16 Mean = 2.70 Mean = 3.09 2000 and beyond 2000 and beyond 2000 and beyond 2000 and beyond HII = (X) HII = (X) HII = (X) HII = (X) Mean = 3.51 Mean = 3.21 Mean = 3.12 Mean = 3.31 89 The study also revealed that in the year 2000 and after, the variable with the highest HII in OS is “donation of needed materials” 3.73, while that of OC is “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.32 and the most prominent variable in ON is “payment of financial levy‟ 3.57. Variables with lowest HII in the Senatorial Districts in the same period are “supervision of project work” 3.25 in OS and 3.08 in OC, and “voluntary labour supply” 2.75 in ON. The overall average HII were 3.51 in OS, 3.21OC and 3.12 in ON. For years before 1999 the variables above the mean of HII in OS were “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.66, “supervision of project work” 3.56, the remaning variables are below the mean of HII. While in year 2000 and after variables above the mean of HII increases from the previous epoch to include “donation of needed materials” 3.73, “payment towards project maintenance” 3.70, and “payment of financial levy within community” 3.56. For years under consideration the variables below the mean value are “voluntary labour supply” 3.49, “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.35 and “supervision of project work” 3.25. The result shows a little improvement compared to previous epoch where two of the indicators were above the mean value of HII in the same Senatorial District. For years before 1999, variables above the mean of HII in OC are: “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.48 and “voluntary labour supply” 3.18; other variables were below the mean of HII. Meanwhile, for year 2000 and after variables above the mean of HII are: “payment of financial levy within community” 3.22, “donation of needed materials” 3.28, “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.32 and “payment towards project maintenance” 3.22. Other variables were below the mean of HII details Table 4.5, this shows a better improvement compared to OS because four of the indicators are above the average in the latter epoch. The study shows that for years before 1999, variables above the mean of HII in ON are: “payment of financial levy within community” 3.10, “monetary donation towards project execution” 2.76, “payment towards project maintenance” 2.74 and “donation of needed materials” 2.70. Those below the mean value are: “voluntary labour supply” 2.40 and “supervision of project work” 2.50. Meanwhile, for year 2000 and after the involvement variables that are above the mean of HII are “payment of financial levy within community” 3.57, “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.26 and “donation of needed materials” 3.16, while the remaining participatory indicators are below the mean of HII. The result showed that households‟ are more involved in community development in years before 1999 than years 2000 and beyond in ON. 90 On the aggregate, for years before 1999 “monetary donation towards project execution” 3.29 have the highest HII, while the least is “voluntary labour supply” 2.87. Donation of needed materials, “payment of financial levy within community”, “monetary donation towards project execution” and “payment towards project maintenance” are variables above the mean, while “supervision of project work” and “voluntary labour supply” fall below the mean. Surprisingly, the same variables that fall above the mean as well as, those that fall below the mean for the years before 1999 repeated itself for year 2000 and beyond details Table 4.6. However, by contrast; four groups are identified. The first group has negative deviation below the mean for the years before 1999 and still maintains their negative deviation below the mean in year 2000 and after. Variable under this group in OS and ON is “voluntary labour supply”, while in OC is “supervision of project work”. The second group is the one with positive deviation above the mean for years before 1999 and later has negative deviation below the mean by the year 2000 and after. In OS, there is “monetary donation towards project execution”, and “supervision of project work” while OC is “voluntary labour supply”. In ON “payment towards project maintenance” was identified with the group under consideration. The third group has negative deviation below the mean for the years before 1999 and later positive deviation above the mean by the year 2000 and after. The variables under this group are very important because they are improvement group. “Payment towards project maintenance” and “payment of financial levy within community”, are identified in OS. In OC “donation of needed materials” and payment of financial levy within community” are observed. The fourth group has positive deviation above the mean for years before 1999 and year 2000 and after. In OS is “donation of needed materials”, while in OC is “monetary donation towards project execution” and “payment towards project maintenance”. In ON are “donation of needed materials”, “payment of financial levy within community and “monetary donation towards project execution” are the variables that maintained their positive position throughout the period under consideration. Table 4.6 shows that household involvement in community development in years before 1999 was higher in OS followed by OC and ON. However, there was remarkable improvement in the households‟ involvement in community development in year 2000 and after mostly in OS followed by OC and the least is ON, based on average Household Involvement Index (HII) computed. 91 The variations in households‟ involvement in community development projects among the Senatorial Districts years before 1999 and year 2000 and after suggest that each community within Senatorial Districts has its own problems and approaches of solving their challenges. This implied that their is need to scale-up the activities of the CBOs from the community level to local, state, regional and the national level. Through this, the lagging communities and the CBOs will learn from others‟ success and or otherwise. 4.7: Socio economic Characteristics and Households Contribution to Community Development Under this section, households‟ contribution to community development is the summation of total contribution of respondents measured through a Likert scale with a range of „very high‟ (≥70 per cent), „high‟ (69-60 per cent), „fair‟ (59-50 per cent) „low„(49-40 per cent), and „very low‟ (39-0 per cent) on variables such as “donation of needed materials”, “payment of financial levy within community”, “monetary donation towards project execution”, “supervision of project work”, “voluntary labour supply” and “payment towards project maintenance” was cross-tabulated against socio-economic variables like religion, gender, income, age, education, marital status, occupation and income. 4.7.1: Religion and Households’ Involvement in Community Development In the presence of dysfunctional state institution, poor people depend primarily on their kinsmen, religious organisations and community-based organisations for socio- economic support. Although most of these institutions are disconnected from state or private resources, their roles in terms of meeting the needs of the poor was very significant. Table 4.6 shows respondents‟ religion and their involvements in community development. The informa tion provided is used to situate the relationship between religious affiliation and participation in the community development. On the aggregate, most of the respondents were Christian and Moslem with over 90 per cent participants. However, respondents level of involvement towards community development activities indicates that Other religious doctrine have mean value of 4.02, followed by Moslem with mean value of 3.36, Traditional religion with mean values of 3.33, and Christianity with mean values of 3.26 respectively. On senatorial basis Others‟religious faith level of involvements in community development activities account for mean values of 4.10 in OS, 3.67 in OC and 3.83 in ON. By considering the population of respondents with the mean value of their performances, the contributors from ON is better than the two Senatorial Districts. Islam religiou commitments towards community development activities records mean values of 3.66 in OS, 3.22 in OC 92 and 3.19 in ON. Christianity with more than half number of respondents across the Senatorial Districts, contributions towards community development activities showed mean values of 3.49 in OS, 3.15 in OCand 3.12 in ON. Traditional worshipper‟swith respondents less than 5 per cent commitment towards community development activities account for mean values of 3.44 in OS, 3.30 in OC and 2.92 in ON. Households‟ with Others‟religious doctrine shows remarkable level of involvement towards community development activities, followed by Islam, Traditional and Christianity. 93 Table 4.7: Relationship between Religion and Households’ Involvement in Community Development OSSD OCSD ONSD Total S/N Religion Participatory Indicator SWV Respondents HII SWV Respondents HII SWV Respondents HII SWV Respondents HII Donation of needed material 763 207 3.68 531 166 3.20 653 205 3.18 1947 578 3.37 Payment of financial levy within community 739 207 3.57 531 166 3.20 722 205 3.52 1992 578 3.45 Monetary donation towards project execution 691 207 3.34 508 164 3.10 675 205 3.29 1874 576 3.25 Supervision of project work 664 207 3.21 501 166 3.02 578 205 2.89 1743 573 3.04 Voluntary labour supply 723 208 3.48 517 164 3.15 559 205 2.73 1795 577 3.11 1 Christianity Payment towards project maintenance 757 207 3.66 538 167 3.22 634 205 3.09 1929 579 3.33 20.94 18.89 18.70 19.55 Donation of needed material 568 146 3.89 365 109 3.35 549 173 3.17 1482 428 3.46 Payment of financial levy within community 541 146 3.70 356 109 3.27 630 172 3.66 1527 427 3.58 Monetary donation towards project execution 496 145 3.42 345 108 3.19 565 172 3.28 1406 425 3.31 Supervision of project work 501 146 3.43 337 107 3.15 515 168 3.06 1353 421 3.21 Voluntary labour supply 535 146 3.66 343 109 3.15 489 171 2.86 1367 426 3.20 2 Islam Payment towards project maintenance 560 145 3.86 348 109 3.19 538 172 3.13 1446 426 3.39 874 21.96 19.30 19.16 20.15 Donation of needed material 90 24 3.75 83 23 3.61 11 4 2.75 184 51 3.60 Payment of financial levy within community 78 24 3.25 72 23 3.13 14 4 3.50 164 51 3.22 Monetary donation towards project execution 90 24 3.75 67 22 3.05 14 4 3.50 170 50 3.40 Supervision of project work 72 24 3.00 77 23 3.35 11 4 2.75 160 51 3.14 3 Traditional Voluntary labour supply 70 24 2.92 77 23 3.35 9 4 2.25 156 51 3.06 Payment towards project maintenance 95 24 3.96 76 23 3.30 11 4 2.75 182 51 3.56 20.63 19.79 17.50 19.98 Donation of needed material 21 5 4.20 4 1 4.00 4 1 4.00 29 7 4.14 Payment of financial levy within community 20 5 4.00 3 1 3.00 4 1 4.00 277 7 3.86 94 Monetary donation towards project execution 20 5 4.00 5 1 5.00 3 1 3.00 28 7 4.00 Supervision of project work 20 5 4.00 2 1 2.00 3 1 3.00 25 7 3.57 4 Others Voluntary labour supply 20 5 4.40 4 1 4.00 5 1 5.00 31 7 4.43 Payment towards project maintenance 20 5 4.00 4 1 4.00 4 1 4.00 29 7 4.14 24.60 22.00 23.00 24.14 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total 1.Mean = 3.49 Mean = 3.15 Mean = 3.12 Mean = 3.26 2.Mean = 3.66 Mean = 3.22 Mean = 3.19 Mean = 3.36 3.Mean = 3.44 Mean = 3.30 Mean = 2.92 Mean = 3.33 4.Mean = 4.10 Mean = 3.67 Mean = 3.83 Mean = 4.02 95 Table 4.8: Relationship of Religion and Involvement of Respondent in Community Development OS OC ON Total S/No Religion Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage 1 Christianity 207 54.2 166 55.7 204 53.7 577 54.4 2 Islam 146 38.2 108 36.2 171 45.0 425 40.1 3 Traditional 24 6.3 23 7.7 4 1.0 51 4.8 4 Other 5 1.3 1 0.4 1 0.3 7 0.7 5 Total 382 100.00 298 100.00 380 100.00 1060 100.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 96 It can be deduced from the above analysis that any contentious efforts towards ensuring sustainable rural or urban landscape development both religious organisations (Islam and Christian) must be actively involved because of their larger populations. 4.7.2: Gender and Households’ Contribution to Community Development Unequal gender role was a common problem in the communities where local customs and tradition continue to dictate the role men and women play within a household and community. In ensuring success at grassroots development, the active cooperation of both genders must be sought (Onibokun and Faniran, 1995). 97 Table 4.9: Gender and Households’ Participations in CommunityDevelopment OSSD OCSD ONSD TOTAL S/N GENDER Participatory Indicator SWV Respondents HII SWV Respondents HII SWV Respondents HII SWV Respondents HII Donation of needed material 944 242 3.90 680 203 3.35 842 258 3.26 2466 703 3.51 Payment of financial levy within community 904 242 3.73 672 203 3.31 948 257 3.69 2524 702 3.59 Monetary donation towards project execution 829 240 3.45 636 199 3.19 868 257 3.38 2333 696 3.35 Supervision of project work 810 242 3.35 633 201 3.15 767 249 3.08 2210 692 3.19 Voluntary labour supply 863 242 3.59 657 201 3.27 742 257 2.89 2262 700 3.23 1 MALE Payment towards project maintenance 919 241 3.81 650 203 3.20 819 257 3.18 2388 701 3.41 21.83 19.48 20.28 Donation of needed material 488 138 3.54 303 96 3.16 375 125 3.00 1166 359 3.24 Payment of financial levy within community 465 138 3.37 290 96 3.02 422 125 3.37 1177 359 3.28 Monetary donation towards project execution 460 139 3.31 289 96 3.01 388 125 3.10 1137 360 3.16 Supervision of project work 439 138 3.18 284 96 2.96 340 124 2.74 1063 358 2.97 2 FEMALE Voluntary labour supply 478 139 3.44 284 96 2.96 316 124 2.55 1078 359 3.00 Payment towards project maintenance 505 138 3.65 276 97 2.84 368 125 2.94 1149 360 3.19 20.49 17.95 17.70 17.70 18.84 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 MALE Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total 1. Mean = 3.64 Mean = 3.25 Mean = 3.25 Mean = 3.38 FEMALE 2. Mean = 3.41 Mean = 2.99 Mean = 2.95 Mean = 3.14 98 Table 4.10: Gender and Respondents’ Contribution to Community Development Gender OS OC ON Total S/No No of Percentage No of Percentage No of Percentage No of Percentage Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents 1 Male 242 63.7 202 67.8 256 67.2 700 66.1 2 Female 138 36.3 96 32.2 125 32.8 359 33.9 3 Total 380 100.00 298 100.00 381 100.00 1059 100.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 99 Table 4.9 and Table 4.10 show households‟ involvement in community development according to gender. On the aggregate, 66.10 per cent male respondents‟ level of involvement in community development is 3.38 while 33.90 per cent female respondents contributions in community development is 3.14. The male have both higher numbers of participant and comi tment towards community development activities than their female counterparts. On Senatorial Districts the situation are not different, male respondents level of involvement in community development account for 3.64 in OS, 3.25 in OC and ON respectively. Contributions of the female in community development account for 3.41 in OS, 2.99 in OC and 2.95 in ON. By comparing the number of respondents with the mean values of their involvement; it was clear that female respondents in OC were more active than their counterpart in ON. Though differences between male and female contributions in community development was little, male were more dominant in community development process. Therefore, female should be enlightened, empowered and encouraged to improve their participation. This can be done by giving equal opportunity to both gender in elected-posts and running of the community activities. 4.7.3: Age and Households’ Involvement in Community Development The respondents‟ age and their involvement in community development are presented in Table 4.11 and 4.12. 100 Table4.11: Age and Households’ Involvement in Community Development OS OC ON TOTAL Participatory No of No of No of SWV No of AGES Indicator SWV respondents HII SWV respondents HII SWV respondents HII respondents HII Donation of needed material 92 24 3.83 58 18 3.22 40 11 3.63 190 53 3.58 Payment of financial levy within 91 24 3.79 63 18 3.50 42 11 3.81 196 53 3.69 community Monetary donation towards 80 24 3.33 65 18 3.61 34 11 3.09 179 53 3.37 1 18-30 project execution Supervision of project work 74 24 3.08 55 17 3.23 29 11 2.63 158 52 3.03 Voluntary labour supply 88 24 3.66 55 18 3.05 31 11 2.81 174 53 3.28 Payment towards project 91 24 3.79 64 18 3.55 36 11 3.27 191 53 3.60 maintenance 144 21.48 107 20.16 66 19.24 317 20.55 Donation of needed material 541 139 3.89 331 101 3.27 360 121 2.97 1232 361 3.41 Payment of financial levy within 516 140 3.68 330 101 3.26 413 121 3.41 1259 362 3.47 community Monetary donation towards 478 139 3.44 335 101 3.31 362 121 2.99 1175 361 3.25 2 31-40 project execution Supervision of project work 463 140 3,30 319 101 3.15 350 117 2.99 1132 358 3.16 Voluntary labour supply 500 140 3.57 321 101 3.17 330 119 2.77 1151 360 3.19 Payment towards project 513 139 3.69 0.10 6 101 0.02 1120 -0.08 1196 361 3.31 maintenance 837 21.57 719 Donation of needed material 482 131 3.68 0.35 5 104 0.19 142 -0.02 1299 377 3.44 101 Payment of financial levy within 454 130 3.49 0.16 6 104 0.07 141 0.41 1317 375 3.51 community Monetary donation towards 439 130 3.37 0.04 8 102 -0.10 141 0.15 1242 373 3.32 41-50 project execution 3 Supervision of project work 326 130 2.43 -0.90 14 104 -0.14 137 -0.19 1061 371 2.85 Voluntary labour supply 440 131 3.35 0.02 8 104 -0.10 142 -0.32 1186 377 3.14 Payment towards project 484 131 3.69 0.36 8 104 0.08 142 -0.02 1291 377 3.42 maintenance 20.01 2250 19.68 Donation of needed material 207 54 3.83 0.13 4 55 0.15 78 0.08 633 187 3.38 Payment of financial levy within 199 54 3.68 -0.02 1 55 0.02 78 0.62 660 187 3.52 community Monetary donation towards 189 54 3.50 -0.20 7 53 -0.26 78 0.25 600 185 3.24 51-60 project execution 4 Supervision of project work 187 54 3.46 -0.24 6 55 -0.22 77 -0.29 561 186 3.01 Voluntary labour supply 200 54 3.70 0 5 54 0.22 78 -0.57 576 186 3.04 Payment towards project 215 53 4.05 0.35 5 55 0.09 78 -0.05 628 186 3.37 maintenance 22.22 1117 19.56 Donation of needed material 120 34 3.52 0.06 0 21 0.14 31 0.33 288 86 3.24 Payment of financial levy within 118 34 3.47 0.01 2 21 -0.15 31 0.27 278 86 3.23 community Monetary donation towards 111 34 3.26 -0.20 1 21 -0.15 31 0.14 267 86 3.10 61 and project execution 5 above Supervision of project work 107 34 3.15 -0.31 1 20 0.41 31 -0.25 258 86 3.00 102 Voluntary labour supply 122 34 3.58 0.12 0 21 0.09 31 -0.54 262 86 3.04 Payment towards project 129 34 3.79 0.33 2 21 -0.34 6 31 0.08 86 3.24 maintenance 20.77 516 18.95 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total 1. Mean = 3.58 Mean = 3.36 Mean = 3.20 Mean = 3.42 2.Mean = 3.59 Mean = 3.23 Mean = 3.00 Mean = 3.29 3.Mean = 3.33 Mean = 3.16 Mean = 3.32 Mean = 3.28 4.Mean = 3.70 Mean = 3.03 Mean = 3.13 Mean = 3.26 5.Mean = 3.46 Mean = 3.24 Mean = 3.79 Mean = 3.15 103 Table 4.12: Ages andRespondents’ Involvement in Community Development Age OS OC ON Total S/No Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage 1 18-30 24 6.3 18 6.0 11 2.9 53 5.00 2 31-40 140 36.6 101 33.8 120 31.5 361 33.99 3 41-50 131 34.2 104 34.8 141 37.0 375 35.31 4 51-60 54 14.1 55 18.4 78 20.5 187 17.61 5 61 and above 34 8.8 21 7.0 31 8.1 86 8.08 6 Total 383 100.00 299 100.00 381 100.00 1062 100.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 104 Contribution in community development by respondents in age 18-30 years accounts for 3.58 in OS, 3.36 in OC and 3.20 in ON. In all the three Senatorial Districts, respondents within age 31-40 years contributors in community development indicates 3.59 in OS, 3.23 in OC and 3.00 in ON. Respondents in ages 41-50 years also shows a significant contribution towards community development with mean values of 3.33 in OS, 3.16 in OC and 3.32 in ON. However, decline in number of respondents are noticed for ages 51-60 but their contribution to community development account for mean value of 3.70 in OS, 3.03 in OC and 3.13 in ON. Further decline in respondents are recorded for ages 61 and above but their contribution to community development account for mean values of 3.46 in OS, 3.24 in OC and 2.79 in ON. On the aggregate, respondents within age 18-30 recoded the highest contributions in community development with an average value of 3.42, although number of respondents in the age group was 5 per cent. This was followed by age group 31-40 years with mean value of 3.29 and the second largest group with 34.0 per cent respondents. The most prominent group with largest participants comes from ages 41-50 with 35.34 per cent respondents and an average value of 3.28 which make it to ranks third in terms of contribution towards community development. The study showed that ages 31-50 have about 70 per cent participants in community development projects, thus any development drive channeled through the age range will thrive in Oyo State. 4.7.4: Educational Attainment and Households’ Involvement in Community Development The contribution of elite in terms of finance, advice, suggestion and following due process in community development processes cannot be underestimated. Table 4.13 and 4.14 shows respondents education and their roles in community development. 105 Table 4.13: Mean Scores on Educational Attainment and Households’ Involvement in Community Development OSSD OCSD ONSD TOTAL Educational SWV No of S/N Study Participatory SWV No of HII SWV No of HII SWV No of HII respondents HII Indicator respondents respondents respondents Donation of needed material 124 33 3.75 82 21 3.90 138 48 2.87 0.13 344 102 3.37 0.21 Payment of financial levy within community 124 33 3.75 67 21 3.19 154 48 3.21 0.47 345 102 3.38 0.22 Monetary donation towards project execution 123 33 3.72 71 21 3.30 131 48 2.72 -0.02 325 102 3.18 0.02 1 No Formal Supervision of project work 115 33 3.48 72 21 3.42 125 48 2.60 -0.14 312 102 3.06 -0.10 Education Voluntary labour supply 116 33 3.51 70 21 3.33 115 48 2.40 -0.34 301 102 2.95 -0.21 Payment towards project maintenance 116 33 3.51 70 21 3.33 127 48 2.64 -0.10 313 102 3.06 -0.10 198 21.72 16.44 19.00 Donation of needed material 117 32 3.65 118 35 3.37 126 40 3.15 0.02 361 107 3.37 0.04 Payment of financial levy within community 110 32 3.43 1.17 35 3.34 136 39 3.49 0.36 363 106 3.42 0.09 Monetary donation towards project execution 108 32 3.37 100 31 3.22 127 39 3.26 0.13 335 102 3.28 -0.05 Supervision of project work 106 32 3.31 131 35 3.74 124 39 3.17 -0.04 361 106 3.41 0.08 Voluntary labour supply 102 32 3.18 1.34 35 3.82 106 40 2.65 -0.48 342 107 3.19 -0.14 2 Primary Payment towards project maintenance 120 32 3.75 111 35 3.17 123 40 3.07 -0.06 354 107 3.31 -0.02 20.69 20.66 18.79 19.98 Donation of needed material 430 110 3.90 269 78 3.44 300 97 3.09 -0.07 999 285 3.50 0.10 Payment of financial levy within community 413 110 3.75 252 78 3.23 322 97 3.31 0.15 987 285 3,46 0.06 Monetary donation towards project execution 389 110 3.53 257 78 3.29 321 97 3.30 0.14 967 285 3.39 -0.01 3 Secondary S u p e r v ision of project work 376 110 3.41 239 78 3.14 293 93 3.15 -0.01 908 279 3.25 -0.15 Voluntary labour supply 418 111 3.76 253 78 3.24 278 96 2.89 -0.27 949 285 3.32 -0.08 Payment towards project maintenance 446 111 4.01 251 79 3.17 315 97 3.25 0.09 1012 287 3.52 0.12 22.36 19.51 18.99 20.44 Donation of needed material 664 176 3.77 313 102 3.06 527 157 3.36 0.04 1504 435 3.45 0.13 Payment of financial levy within community 632 176 3.59 329 102 3.22 615 157 3.91 0.59 1576 435 3.62 0.30 4 Post Monetary donation towards project execution 581 175 3.32 298 102 2.92 552 157 3.51 0.19 1431 434 3.29 -0.03 106 Secondary S u pervision of project work 556 176 3.16 287 102 2.81 465 152 3.05 -0.27 1308 430 3.04 -0.28 Voluntary labour supply 611 176 3.47 299 102 2.93 450 156 2.88 -0.44 1360 434 3.13 -0.19 Payment towards gproject maintenance 633 174 3.64 330 102 3.23 505 156 3.24 -0.08 1468 432 3.39 0.07 20.95 62=102 18.17 19.95 19.92 Donation of needed material 107 31 3.45 190 60 3.16 126 41 3.07 0.14 423 132 3.20 0.10 Payment of financial levy within community 99 31 3.19 187 60 3.11 143 41 3.48 0.56 429 132 3.25 0.15 5 Post Graduate Monetary donation towards project execution 101 31 3.25 189 60 3.15 125 41 3.05 0.13 415 132 3.14 0.04 Supervision of project work 104 31 3.35 178 60 2.96 100 41 2.43 -0.49 382 132 2.89 -0.21 Voluntary labour supply 103 31 3.32 175 60 2.92 109 41 2.65 -0.27 387 132 2.93 -0.17 Payment towards project maintenance 114 31 3.67 196 60 3.26 117 41 2.85 -0.07 427 132 3.23 0.133 X = 3.37 628 20.23 18.56 17.53 8.64 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total 1. Mean = 3.62 Mean = 3.41 Mean = 2.74 Mean = 3.16 2.Mean = 3.44 Mean = 3.44 Mean = 3.13 Mean = 3.33 3.Mean = 3.72 Mean = 3.25 Mean = 3.16 Mean = 3.40 4.Mean = 3.49 Mean = 3.02 Mean = 3.32 Mean = 3.32 5.Mean = 3.37 Mean = 3.09 Mean = 3.92 Mean = 3.10 107 Table 4.14: Respondents’ Education and their Level of Involvement in Community Development Level of OS OC ON Total S/No Education Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage 1 No Formal 33 8.6 21 7.1 48 12.6 102 10.6 Education 2 Primary 32 8.4 34 11.5 40 10.5 106 10.0 3 Secondary 110 28.8 78 26.5 96 25.2 284 26.9 4 Post 176 46.1 102 34.6 156 40.8 433 40.0. Secondary 5 Post 31 8.1 60 20.3 41 10.8 132 12.5 Graduate 6 Total 382 100.00 295 100.00 381 100.00 1057 100.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 108 On senatorial basis respondents with no formal education participation in community development account for mean value of 3.62 in OS, 3.41 in OC and 2.74 in ON. Primary school leavers that contributed to community development account for mean values of 3.44 in both OS and OC and 3.13 in ON. Table 4.13 further shows that households‟ with secondary and post-secondary educations constitutes about 70 per cent of respondents compared with others educational attainment. For instance, respondents with secondary education account for mean value of 3.72 in OS, 3.25 in OC and 3.13 in ON. Similarly, respondents with post secondary education constitutes mean value of 3.49 in OS, 3.02 in OC and 3.32 in ON. However, few of respondents with post graduate education contributes to the development project with mean value of 3.37 in OS, 3.09 in OC and 2.92 in ON. On the aggregate, respondents with secondary education were highly involved in community development activities with mean value of 3.41 this was followed by respondents with primary education and mean value of 3.33. This shows that level of education do not totally determined those who participates in community development as one should have expected post graduate and graduate respondents to have participated more better than others. The level of respondents‟ involvement in community development among education stratum was higher in OS followed by OC and ON. 4.7.5 Respondents Marital Status and their Level of Involvement in Community Development Responsibilities allocations within communities in most cases are determined by the marital status. This is because it is believed that a responsible households‟ head may also in return be responsible in the community. Thus, marital status is an important socio-economic variable used to measure households‟ level of involvement in community development activities. 109 Table 4.15: Respondents Marital Status and their level of Involvement in Community Development OSSD OCSD ONSD TOTAL SWV No of S/N Marital Participatory SWV No of HII SWV No of HII SWV No of HII respondents HII Status Indicator respondents respondents respondents Donation of needed material 189 54 3.50 133 38 3.50 88 27 3.26 410 119 3.44 Payment of financial levy within 186 54 3.40 123 38 3.24 87 27 3.22 396 119 3.32 community Monetary donation towards project 182 54 3.37 129 38 3.39 85 27 3.14 396 119 3.32 execution Supervision of project work 172 54 3.18 123 38 2.24 76 27 2.81 371 119 3.12 Voluntary labour supply 180 54 3.33 129 38 3.39 83 27 3.07 392 119 3.29 Payment towards project 199 54 3.68 126 38 3.31 105 27 3.88 430 119 3.61 maintenance 1 Single 1108 324 20.46 763 19.07 524 162 19.38 20.10 Donation of needed material 1167 306 3.81 729 234 3.12 1031 313 3.29 2927 853 3.43 Payment of financial levy within 1110 306 3.63 720 236 3.05 916 304 3.01 2746 846 3.24 community Monetary donation towards project 1037 305 3.40 736 237 3.10 872 313 2.79 2645 855 3.09 execution Supervision of project work 1004 306 3.28 756 239 3.16 974 313 3.11 2734 858 3.18 Voluntary labour supply 1093 307 3.56 779 238 3.27 1000 314 3.18 2872 859 3.34 Payment towards project 1143 305 3.75 771 238 3.23 1129 313 3.60 3043 856 3.55 maintenance 2 Married 6554 1835 21.43 4991 18.93 5922 1870 18.98 19.83 110 Donation of needed material 15 4 3.75 23 7 3.28 40 13 3.07 78 24 3.25 Payment of financial levy within 16 4 4.00 22 7 3.14 51 13 3.92 89 24 3.70 community Monetary donation towards project 15 4 3.75 22 7 3.14 48 13 3.69 73 24 3.04 execution Supervision of project work 13 4 3.25 21 7 3.00 35 13 3.69 69 24 2.87 Voluntary labour supply 12 4 3.00 20 6 3.33 30 13 2.31 62 23 3.00 Payment towards project 15 4 3.75 23 7 3.29 39 13 3.00 77 24 3.20 3 Divorced maintenance 86 24 21.50 131 19.18 243 78 18.68 19.06 Donation of needed material 31 8 3.87 22 9 2.44 62 21 2.95 115 38 3.02 Payment of financial levy within 30 8 3.75 20 9 2.22 71 21 3.38 121 38 3.18 community Monetary donation towards project 29 8 3.62 20 9 2.22 64 21 3.04 113 38 2.97 execution Supervision of project work 31 8 3.87 24 9 2.67 57 21 2.71 112 38 2.95 Voluntary labour supply 33 8 4.12 27 9 3.00 53 21 2.52 113 38 2.97 Payment towards project 32 8 4.00 28 9 3.11 69 231 3.28 129 38 3.39 4 Widowed maintenance 186 48 23.23 141 15.66 376 126 17.88 18.48 Donation of needed material 40 10 4.00 24 7 3.42 27 8 3.37 91 25 3.64 Payment of financial levy within 36 10 3.60 26 7 3.71 32 8 4.00 94 25 3.76 community Monetary donation towards project 34 10 3.40 25 7 3.57 21 8 2.62 80 25 3.20 execution 5 Separated Supervision of project work 37 10 3.70 29 7 4.14 23 8 2.87 89 25 3.56 Voluntary labour supply 32 10 3.20 29 7 4.14 20 7 2.85 81 25 3.24 Payment towards project 43 10 4.30 28 7 4.00 25 8 3.12 96 25 3.84 111 maintenance 222 60 22.2 161 22.98 148 47 18.83 21.24 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total 1. Mean = 3.41 Mean = 3.17 Mean = 3.23 Mean = 3.35 2.Mean = 3.57 Mean = 3.15 Mean = 3.16 Mean = 3.30 3.Mean = 3.58 Mean = 3.25 Mean = 3.11 Mean = 3.18 4.Mean = 3.87 Mean = 2.61 Mean = 2.98 Mean = 3.08 5.Mean = 3.70 Mean = 3.83 Mean = 3.13 Mean = 3.54 112 Table 4.16: Marital Status of Respondents and their level of Involvementi n Community Development Marital OS OC ON Total S/No Status Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage 1 Single 54 14.1 38 12.8 27 7.1 119 11.2 2 Married 306 80.1 237 79.5 312 81.9 855 80.5 3 Divorced 4 1.1 7 2.3 13 3.4 24 2.3 4 Widowed 8 2.1 9 3.0 21 5.5 38 3.6 5 Separated 10 2.6 7 2.4 8 2.1 25 2.4 6 Total 382 100.00 298 100.00 381 100.00 1061 100.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 113 On the aggregate, Tables 4.15 and Table 4.16 show that 80.58 per cent married respondents claims higher participation in community development project with mean value of 3.30, the remaining 19.42 per cent respondents were shared among other marital status. Separated respondents‟ contribution in community development claims mean value of 3.54 followed by the single respondents with mean value of 3.35. The least commitments towards community development comes from the widowed with mean value of 3.18. On senatorial basis, single respondents‟ involvement in community development account for mean value of 3.41 in OS, 3.17 in OC and 3.23 in ON. Married respondent involvement in community development indicates mean value of 3.57 in OS, 3.15 in OC and 3.16 in ON. Participation of divorced respondent in community development account for mean value of 3.58 in OS, 3.19 in OC and 3.11 in ON. The widows ccntribution in community development account for mean value of 3.87 in OS, 2.61 in OC, and 2.98 in ON The separated respondents that participated in community development was not substantials mean values of their involvement in community development across the Senatorial Districts were: 3.70 in OS, 3.83 in OC and 3.13 in ON. Generally, married respondents were highly involved in community development but their contribution was pronounced in OS, followed by OC and ON. 4.7.6: Occupation and Households’ Involvement in CommunityDevelopment The type of occupation determines to some extent the level of involvement of individuals in community development activities. The general belief is that some occupation are time consuming and do not leave much time for other activities. Thus, occupation is another socio-economic variable that was taken into cognizance as a determinant of respondents‟ participation in community development activities. 114 Table 4.17: Respondents Occupation and Level of Participation in Community Development Project OSSD OCSD ONSD TOTAL SW No of Occupation Participatory SWV No of HII SWV No of HII SWV No of HII V respondents HII S/N Indicator respondents respondents respondents Donation of needed material 13 3 4.33 8 2 4.00 7 2 3.50 28 7 4.00 Payment of financial levy within community 13 3 4.33 8 2 4.00 8 2 4.00 29 7 4.14 Monetary donation towards project execution 14 3 4.66 8 2 4.00 6 2 3.00 28 7 4.00 Supervision of project work 12 3 4.00 8 2 4.00 4 2 2.00 24 7 3.42 1 Unemployment Voluntary labour supply 12 3 4.00 8 2 4.00 4 2 2.00 24 7 3.43 Payment towards project maintenance 10 3 3.33 8 2 4.00 5 2 2.50 23 7 3.28 24.65 12 24.00 17.00 22..27 Donation of needed material 284 79 3.59 79 25 3.16 289 86 3.36 652 190 3.43 Payment of financial levy within community 269 77 3.49 86 25 3.44 310 86 3.65 665 187 3.56 2 Artisian & Monetary donation towards project execution 261 78 3.35 74 25 2.96 300 86 3.53 635 188 3.38 professional Supervision of project work 249 79 3.15 67 25 2.68 262 86 3.16 578 187 3.09 Voluntary labour supply 266 79 3.36 78 23 3.39 263 86 3.06 607 188 3.23 Payment towards project maintenance 311 79 3.94 83 23 3.32 282 86 3.28 676 190 3.56 471 20.88 18.95 20.04 1130 20.25 Donation of needed material 674 172 3.92 437 140 3.12 483 150 3.22 1594 462 3.45 Payment of financial levy within community 646 173 3.73 434 140 3.10 556 147 3.78 1636 460 3.56 Monetary donation towards project execution 591 172 3.43 417 140 2.98 500 150 3.33 1508 462 3.26 3 Civil Sevant Supervision of project work 579 173 3.35 395 140 2.82 415 147 2.82 1389 460 3.02 Voluntary labour supply 609 173 3.52 414 140 2.95 418 150 2.78 1441 463 3.11 Payment towards project maintenance 638 171 3.73 463 141 3.28 471 150 3.14 1572 462 3.40 1034 21.68 841 18.25 19.07 9140 2769 19.80 115 Donation of needed material 268 70 3.83 221 64 3.45 272 92 2.96 761 226 3.36 Payment of financial levy within community 250 69 3.62 207 64 3.23 304 92 3.30 761 225 3.38 Monetary donation towards project execution 236 70 3.37 209 64 3.27 288 92 3.13 749 226 3.31 4 Trading Supervision of project work 234 69 3.39 201 62 3.24 279 90 3.08 714 221 3.23 Voluntary labour supply 266 70 3.80 205 63 3.25 237 90 2.63 708 223 3.17 Payment towards project maintenance 258 70 3.68 204 64 3.188 273 91 3.00 735 225 3.27 21.69 19.62 18.10 4428 1346 19.72 Donation of needed material 86 26 3.30 33 8 4.12 55 15 3.66 174 49 3.55 Payment of financial levy within community 83 26 3.19 26 8 3.25 60 15 4.00 169 49 3.45 Monetary donation towards project execution 85 26 3.27 25 8 3.12 52 15 3.46 162 49 3.31 5 Retire Supervision of project work 73 26 2.80 19 8 2.37 43 14 3.07 135 48 2.81 Voluntary labour supply 89 26 3.42 23 8 2.87 37 15 2.47 149 49 3.04 Payment towards project maintenance 104 26 4.00 21 8 2.63 51 15 3.40 176 49 3.59 19.98 18.36 20.06 19.75 Donation of needed ;material 52 14 3.71 28 9 3.11 24 7 3.42 104 7 4.00 Payment of financial levy within community 46 14 3.28 30 9 3.33 21 7 3.00 97 7 4.14 6 Student & Monetary donation towards project execution 42 14 3.00 26 9 2.89 27 7 3.86 95 7 4.00 Apprentice Supervision of project work 49 14 3.50 23 9 2.55 20 7 2.86 92 7 3.42 Voluntary labour supply 47 14 3.36 30 9 3.33 21 7 3.00 98 7 3.43 Payment towards project maintenance 49 14 3.50 21 9 2.33 20 7 2.86 90 7 3.28 20.35 17.54 19.00 22.27 Donation of needed material 65 18 3.61 181 51 3.55 87 31 2.81 99 Payment of financial levy within community 63 18 3.50 171 51 3.35 105 31 3.39 100 Monetary donation towards project execution 68 18 3.78 166 47 3.53 83 32 2.59 97 7 Farming Supervision of project work 61 18 3.39 194 51 3.80 85 30 2.83 99 Voluntary labour supply 61 18 3.39 183 51 3,59 78 31 2.52 100 Payment towards project maintenance 62 18 3.44 166 51 3.25 85 31 2.74 100 21.11 21.07 16.88 116 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total 1. Mean = 4.11 Mean = 4.00 Mean = 2.83 Mean = 3.71 2 .Mean = 3.41 Mean = 3.16 Mean = 3.34 Mean = 3.37 3Mean = 3.61 Mean = 3.04 Mean = 3.18 Mean = 3.30 4 Mean = 3.61 Mean = 3.27 Mean = 3.02 Mean = 3.29 5 Mean = 3.33 Mean = 306 Mean = 3.54 Mean = 3.37 6 Mean = 3.39 Mean = 2.92 Mean = 3.17 Mean = 3.20 7 Mean = 3.52 Mean = 3.51 Mean = 2.81 Mean = 3.30 117 Table 4.18: Occupation of Respondents’ Participation in Community Development Project OS OC ON Total S/No Occupation Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage 1 Unemployment 18 4.7 50 16.8 31 8.1 99 9.4 2 Artisian & 70 18.3 63 21.2 91 24.0 224 21.2 professional 3 Civil Servant 172 45.0 140 47.1 149 39.2 461 43.5 4 Trading 79 20.7 25 8.5 85 22.4 189 17.9 5 Retire 26 6.8 8 2.7 15 3.9 49 4.6 6 Students & 14 3.7 9 3.0 7 1.8 30 2.8 Apprentice 7 Farming 3 0.8 2 0.7 2 0.5 7 0.6 Total 382 100.00 297 100.00 380 100.00 1059 100.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 118 On the aggregate Table 4.17 and Table 4.18 show that less than 10 per cent unemployed respondents account for mean value of 3.71 involvement in community development activities, this is followed by 21.2 per cent artisian and professionals with mean value of 3.37 commitments in community development. Over 60.0 per cent civil servants and traders have mean values of 3.30 and 3.29 respectively as their contribution to community developments; while retires with less than 5 per cent respondents account for mean value of 3.29 commitments towards community development. The remaining 12.18 per cent respondents belong to farmers and students/apprentices and the rates of their contribution in community development activities have mean values of 3.30 and 3.20 respectively. Low number of respondents with regards to both professions has to do with the nature of their work which takes them away early in the morning till late in the night and this is likely to affects their participation towards community development. On Senatorial Districts basis, civil servant participation in community development activities account for mean value of 3.61 in OS, 3.04 in OC and 3.18 in ON. Unemployed respondents had highest involvement in community development activities in two out of the three Senatorial Districts with mean value of 4.11 in OS, 4.00 in OC and 2.83 in ON. Other occupations with element of reasonable contribution in community development includes: trading and artisan/professionals with mean values of 3.61 and 3.48 in OS 3.27 and 3.16 in OC, 3.02 and 3.34 in ON. Meanwhile, retires, students/apprentices and farmers respondents contributions in community development have mean values of 3.33, 3.39 and 3.52 in OS, 3.06, 2.92, and 3.51 in OC and 3.34, 3.17 and 2.81 in ON. By considering the number of respondents in relation to their level of involvement, the study shows that civil servants gained prominence participation in community development activities; their commitment was highest in OS followed by ON and OC. Also, trading and artisan respondents are slightly involved in community development activities in the study area. 4.7.7 Respondents Income and their Level of Involvement in Community Development Income to a large extent determines the level to which an individual get involved in community development project especially when it involves making financial contribution. 119 Table 4.19: Respondents Income and theit Level of Involvement in Community Development OSSD OCSD ONSD TOTAL S/N SWV No Income Participatory SW No HII SWV No HII SWV No HII HII Indicator V Donation of needed material 33 9 3.67 31 10 3.10 24 10 2.40 88 29 3.00 Payment of financial levy within community 32 9 3.55 33 10 3.30 29 10 2.90 94 29 3.24 Monetary donation towards project execution 32 9 3.55 29 10 2.90 24 10 2.40 85 29 2.93 1 Below 5,000 Supervision of project work 28 9 3.11 28 10 2.80 22 10 2.20 80 29 2.75 Voluntary labour supply 36 9 4.00 29 10 2.90 19 10 1.90 84 29 2.89 Payment towards project maintenance 33 9 3.67 29 10 2.90 25 10 2.50 87 29 3.00 194 21.55 17.90 14.30 518 17.85 Donation of needed material 87 2 3.78 135 39 3.46 158 54 2.92 380 116 3.27 Payment of financial levy within community 77 22 3.50 125 39 3.20 182 54 3.37 384 116 3.31 Monetary donation towards project execution 77 23 3.35 127 38 3.34 172 54 3.18 376 115 3.26 2 5,001 - Supervision of project work 74 22 3.36 129 39 3.30 162 53 3.05 365 114 3.20 15,000 Voluntary labour supply 86 23 3.73 139 39 3.56 158 54 2.92 383 116 3.30 Payment towards project maintenance 86 23 3.73 129 39 3.30 171 54 3.16 386 116 3.32 21.45 21.16 18.60 2274 19.66 Donation of needed material 185 52 3.55 271 87 3.11 300 92 3.26 756 231 3.27 Payment of financial levy within community 177 52 3.40 287 87 3.30 332 91 3.64 796 230 3.46 Monetary donation towards project execution 169 52 3.25 278 86 3.23 300 91 3.29 747 229 3.26 3 15,001 – Supervision of project work 169 52 3.25 270 85 3.17 274 91 3.01 713 228 3.13 25,000 Voluntary labour supply 187 52 3.59 267 87 3.07 247 92 2.68 701 231 3.03 Payment towards project maintenance 182 52 3.59 287 87 3.30 273 92 2.96 742 231 3.21 20.63 19.18 18.84 19.36 Donation of needed material 337 82 4.10 187 58 3.22 243 76 3.19 767 216 3.55 Payment of financial levy within community 323 82 3.93 179 58 3.08 272 76 3.57 774 216 3.58 Monetary donation towards project execution 300 82 3.65 163 56 2.91 247 76 3.25 710 214 3.31 120 Supervision of project work 314 82 3.82 162 58 2.79 231 72 3.20 707 212 3.34 4 25,001 – Voluntary labour supply 330 82 4.02 180 56 3.21 237 76 3.11 747 214 3.49 35,000 Payment towards project maintenance 314 82 3.82 182 58 3.13 251 76 3.30 747 216 3.45 23.34 18.34 19.62 20.72 Donation of needed material 335 89 3.76 161 49 3.28 186 60 3.10 682 198 3.44 Payment of financial levy within community 328 89 3.68 137 49 2.80 220 60 3.66 685 198 3.46 5 35,001 – Monetary donation towards project execution 300 87 3.45 154 49 3.14 197 60 3.28 651 198 3.29 45,000 Supervision of project work 284 89 3.19 142 49 2.89 168 60 2.80 594 197 3.00 Voluntary labour supply 292 89 3.28 145 49 2.95 164 60 2.73 601 198 3.03 Payment towards project maintenance 330 88 3.75 172 50 2.44 179 60 2.98 681 198 3.44 21.11 18.55 19.66 Donation of needed material 228 61 3.73 45 14 3.21 136 41 3.31 409 116 3.52 Payment of financial levy within community 216 61 3.54 44 14 3.14 156 41 3.80 416 116 3.58 6 45,001 – Monetary donation towards project execution 209 61 3.42 41 14 2.92 147 41 3.58 397 116 3.42 55,000 Supervision of project work 191 61 3.13 43 14 3.07 118 38 3.10 352 113 3.11 Voluntary labour supply 211 61 3.45 46 14 3.28 107 40 2.67 364 115 3.16 Payment towards project maintenance 241 61 3.95 42 14 3.00 139 40 3.47 422 115 3.66 21.22 18.62 19.93 20.45 Donation of needed material 122 34 3.58 89 25 3.56 64 17 3.76 275 75 3.66 Payment of financial levy within community 115 35 3.28 82 25 3.28 64 17 3.76 268 76 3.52 Monetary donation towards project execution 112 35 3.20 83 25 3.32 60 17 3.52 255 77 3.31 Supervision of project work 108 35 3.08 87 25 3.48 48 16 3.00 243333 76 3.19 7 55,001 – Voluntary labour supply 106 35 3.02 78 25 3.12 50 17 2.94 2334 77 3.03 65,000 Payment towards project maintenance 127 35 3.63 75 25 3.00 61 17 3.58 263 77 3.41 19.79 19.76 20.56 20.12 Donation of needed material 49 14 3.50 40 11 3.63 62 18 3.44 151 43 3.51 Payment of financial levy within community 52 14 3.71 39 11 3.54 60 18 3.33 151 43 3.51 8 65,001 - Monetary donation towards project execution 39 14 2.78 35 11 3.18 63 18 3.50 137 43 3.18 75,000 Supervision of project work 34 14 2.43 44 11 4.00 44 18 2.44 122 43 2.83 Voluntary labour supply 46 14 3.28 42 11 3.81 38 17 2.23 126 42 3.00 Payment towards project maintenance 49 13 3.77 34 11 3.09 46 18 2.55 129 42 3.07 121 19.47 21.35 17.49 19.10 Donation of needed material 51 14 3.64 0 0 0 9 3 3.00 66 17 3.88 Payment of financial levy within community 59 14 4.21 0 0 0 11 3 3.66 70 17 4.,11 9 75,001 – Monetary donation towards project execution 44 14 3.14 0 0 0 11 3 3.66 55 17 3.23 85,000 Supervision of project work 39 14 2.78 0 0 0 7 3 2.33 46 17 2.70 Voluntary labour supply 41 14 2.93 0 0 0 8 3 2.66 49 17 2.88 Payment towards project maintenance 54 14 3.85 0 0 0 8 3 2.66 62 17 3.64 20.55 17.97 20.44 Donation of needed material 15 4 3.75 24 6 4.00 32 12 2.66 71 16 4.43 Payment of financial levy within community 14 4 3.50 21 6 3.50 44 12 3.66 79 16 4.93 Monetary donation towards project execution 15 4 3.75 15 6 2.50 35 122 2.91 65 16 4.06 10 85,000 and Supervision of project work 16 4 -4.00 12 6 2.00 33 12 2.75 61 16 3.81 above Voluntary labour supply 15 4 -3.75 15 6 2.50 30 12 2.50 60 16 3.75 Payment towards project maintenance 16 4 -4.00 16 6 2.66 34 12 2.83 66 16 4.12 22.75 17.16 17.31 25.1 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Oyo South Oyo Central Oyo North Total 1. Mean = 3.59 Mean = 2.98 Mean = 2.38 Mean = 2.97 2Mean = 3.57 Mean = 3.36 Mean = 3.10 Mean = 3.28 3Mean = 3.43 Mean = 3.19 Mean = 3.14 Mean = 3.22 4 Mean = 3.89 Mean = 3.05 Mean = 3.27 Mean = 3.45 5 Mean = 3.51 Mean = 3.08 Mean = 3.09 Mean = 3.27 6Mean = 3.54 Mean = 3.10 Mean = 3.32 Mean = 3.40 7 Mean = 3.29 Mean = 3.29 Mean = 3.42 Mean = 3.35 8 Mean = 3.24 Mean = 3.54 Mean = 2.90 Mean = 3.18 122 9Mean = 3.42 Mean = 0.00 Mean = 2.99 Mean = 3.40 10Mean = 3.79 Mean = 2.86 Mean = 2.88 Mean = 3.04 Table 4.20: Respondents’ Income and their Level of Participation in Community Development Project OS OC ON Total S/No Income Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage 1 Below 5000 9 2.4 10 3.4 10 2.6 29 2.7 2 5001-15000 22 5.7 39 13.1 54 14.2 116 10.9 3 1501-25000 52 13.6 87 29.2 92 24.2 230 21.7 4 25001-35000 82 21.5 57 19.1 75 19.7 215 20.3 5 35001-45000 89 23.2 49 16.4 60 15.7 198 18.6 6 45001-55000 61 15.9 14 4.7 40 10.5 115 10.8 7 55001-65000 35 9.2 25 8.4 17 4.5 76 7.2 8 65001-75000 14 3.7 11 3.7 18 4.7 43 4.1 9 75001-85000 14 3.7 0 0.0 3 0.8 17 1.6 10 85001 and 4 1.1 6 2.0 12 3.1 22 2.1 above Total 382 100.00 298 100.00 381 100.00 1061 100.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 123 Respondents‟income as it affects or influences households‟ involvement in community development activities as presented in Table 4.19 shows that on the aggregate, over 60 per cent respondents were within income range of 15001-45000. This is followed by 21.7 per cent respondents from income range of 5001-15000 and 45001-55000; the remaining 17.6 per cent belong to other income group. The highest and the least households‟ participations in community development comes from income group of 25001-35000 with mean values of 3.45 and income group below 5000 with mean value of 2.79. However, on senatorial basis households‟ with income below 5000 their contributions in community development activities account for mean values of 3.59 in OS, 2.98 in OC and 2.38 in ON and most unemployed and students belong to the group. Income range of 5001- 15000 and 15001-25000 level of participation in community development constitutes mean value of 3.57 and 3.43 in OS, 3.19 and 3.05 in OC and 3.10 and 3.14 in ON respectively. Although, income groups of 25,001-35,000, 35,001-45,000 and 45,001-55,000, have larger number of respondents, their respective commitments in community development have mean values of 3.84, 3.51 and 3.54 in OS; 3.05, 3.08, and 3.10 in OC and 3.27, 3.09 and 3.32 in ON. The respondents under these income groups are mostly civil servants with secondary and post secondary educational attainment. A decline in number of respondents persists among income range of 55,001-65,000, 65,001-75,000, 75,001-85,000 and 85,000 and above, but the mean values of their respective commitments in community development are 3.29, 3.24, 3.42 and 3.79 in OS, 3.29, 3.54, 0.00 and 2.86 in OC and 3.42, 2.90, 2.99 and 2.88 in ON. The respondents income and level of their involvement in community development activities as presented on Table 4.12 shows that respondents with income of 25,001-35000 participated well in community development with mean value of 3.45, but the contributory population towards community development constitutes 20.26 per cent. This is followed by the income group of 45,001-55,000 with mean value of 3.40 and contributory population of 10.8 per cent. Respondents with income of 75,001-85,000 also perform significantly towards community development with mean value of 3.40 and contributory population of less than 2 per cent. 124 4.8: Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis considers the relationship between characteristics of Community Based Organisation and their level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes. The result of regression analysis with F-value of 0.55 and significant level of 0.700 showed that there was no relationship between characteristics of Community Based Organisations and their level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes (Table 4.21). Table 4.21: Multiple Regression: Characteristics of CBOs and Level of Involvement in Poverty Alleviation Processes (IICP) Model Sum of Do Mean of square F Sig. squares a 1. Regression 2.056 4 0.514 0.550 0.700 Residual 67.274 72 0.934 Total 69.330 76 Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 a. Predictors: (Constant), Z score: Financial Capacity of CBO, Z score: Number of male members, Z score: Year of Establishment, Z score: Number of female members b. Dependent Variable: Z score of IICP y=-0.164-0.135+0.158 that is, y= 0.158 - 0.135 - 0.164 +0.010. When disaggregated into various independent variables of the model as illustrated mathematically, the regression coefficients b1, b2, b3, and b4 are -0.164, -0.135, 0.158 and 0.010 respectively Table 4.22 125 Table4.22: Multiple Regression: Characteristics of Community Based Organisations Un-standardized Standardized Sig. Coefficient coefficients level Model B Std. Error Beta t. 1. (Constant) 1.420 0.111 0.128 0.898 Z score: Year of Establishment -0.165 0.121 -0.164 -1.369 0.175 Z score: Number of male -0.123 0.320 -0.135 -0.385 0.701 Members Z score: Number of female 0.150 0.329 0.158 0.454 0.651 members Z score: Financial Capacity of 9.179 0.110 0.010 0.083 0.934 CBO Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 126 Even though the result of the aggregate model was statistically insignificant, regressioncoefficient of CBOs year of establishment was important in determining CBOs level of involvement. The negative sign implies that the higher the age of CBOs, the less their propensity to get involved in poverty alleviation processes. This was because most of the aged CBOs exist in mere names and arenot doing much, while some of the newly established CBOs may be established purposely to aid development and poverty alleviation processes. Examples of these are the establishment of fish pond at Kate Ona-Ara local government in Oyo Central Senatorial Districts and rural electrification of Katangua in Ogbomoso North local government of Oyo North Senatorial District. 4.9: Hypothesis 2 One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the second hypothesis, which state that: there are no spatial differences in households‟ level of involvement in CBOs poverty alleviation programmes (among Senatorial Districts). The analytical technique explain variations within and between groups of data by comparing their means. 127 Table 4.23: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of differences in Household’s level of involvement in CBOs Poverty Alleviation Programmes among Senatorial Districts Sum of squares Do Mean Square F Sig level Between Group 1.368 2 0.684 0.133 0.876 Within Group 5352.858 1071 4.998 Total 5354.226 1071 Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 128 The result of ANOVA with F-value of 0.133 and P= 0.876 shows that there is no significant difference in households‟ level of involvement in CBOs poverty alleviation programmes (Table 4.23). This implies that the households‟ in the state have the same approach or attitude towards getting involved in CBOs poverty alleviation programmes.The policy implications is that when efforts are to be put in place towards sensitizing and empowering the households, such efforts or programmes should be a state-wide affairs. 4.10:Households’Willingness to Participate in Future Development Processes Participation implies that people have a greater voice and an expanded role in decision-making processes in the local affairs. In community development projects, community participation is essential to realizing demand-oriented service delivery (Ohakweh and Ezirim, 2006). As justified in the literature by scholars that several projects implemented by governmental bodies and NGOs among other stakeholders are with little or no citizen participation (Narayan et al 2000). This section therefore, examines if the stakeholders were the ones unwilling to get involved in community development processes. Findings with respect to respondents‟ willingness to participate in future development processes are presented for the three Senatorial Districts (Table 4.24 with details in appedix 4 part B). Respondents willingness to participate in future development processes was measured on Likert scale with choice of agreement and weighted values for each indicator with very high (≥70 per cent 5) and high (69-60 per cent 4) equated with Degree of Citizen Power (DCP), respondents with moderate level of agreement (50-59 per cent 3) was equated with Degree of Tokenism and respondents with level of agreements on low (40-49 per cent 2) and very low (39-0 per cent1) are related to the Degree of Non-Participation; on the Arnstein‟s rung of citizen participation to derive the Percentage Degree of Households Willingness of Involvement in Future Development Processes (PDHWIFDP). 129 Table 4.24: Households’ Readiness to Participation in Future Development Processes No Participatory Indicators ONSD OCSD OSSD DCP % DT % NP % DCP % DT % NP % DCP % DT % NP % 1 Creating awareness to ignorant 749` 61.49 336 27.59 133 10.92 302 41.54 111 15.27 314 43.19 453 44.72 246 24.28 314 30.99 community members 2 Orientation of community 525 50.97 18.94 310 30.09 198 32.30 192 31.32 223 36.37 572 49.70 309 26.85 270 23.45 members on project benefits 195 3 Mobilization of people for land 622 56.19 240 21.68 245 22.13 267 39.73 132 19.64 273 40.63 558 50.41 336 30.35 213 19.24 acquisition and other resources for project development 4 Involvement in project choice 419 44.52 189 20.08 333 35.40 329 42.02 246 31.42 208 26.56 467 48.95 108 11.32 379 39.72 and initiation 5 Identification of project location 510 52.63 168 17.34 291 30.03 263 36.18 222 30.54 242 33.28 469 45.91 222 21.83 326 32.05 6 Involvement in project 529 51.11 246 23.77 260 25.12 164 25.44 192 29.76 289 44.80 424 47.48 204 22.84 265 29.67 technology choice. 7 Mobilization of support for 617 62.70 99 10.06 268 27.33 102 18.41 96 17.32 356 64.25 514 53.54 84 8.75 362 37.71 project time frame 8 Participation as community 719 65.30 210 19.08 172 15.62 437 53.16 237 28.84 148 18.00 269 7.68 204 21.66 469 49.78 representatives on development processes 9 Involvements in all stages of 554 54.36 249 24.45 216 21.19 232 36.42 123 19.31 282 44.27 458 48.67 204 21.68 279 29.65 project design and execution processes 10 Endurance of project challenges 661 56.44 249 21.27 261 22.29 264 36.16 255 34.93 211 28.90 688 60.19 216 18.90 239 20.91 during execution 11 Security supports for the project 742 59.55 312 25.04 192 15.41 372 45.59 297 36.40 147 18.01 807 67.08 189 15.71 207 17.21 and project executors 130 12 Financial support towards 421 42.92 267 27.22 293 29.86 243 34.08 267 37.45 203 28.47 525 49.06 297 27.76 248 23.18 project development 13 Financial support for arising 438 44.20 153 15.44 400 40.36 233 38.13 93 15.22 285 46.65 447 43.65 294 28.74 283 27.64 needs after project execution. 14 Financial support for project 645 57.90 249 22.35 220 19.75 336 43.02 246 31.50 199 25.48 666 59.57 243 21.73 209 18.69 maintenance after execution 15 Project monitoring and 606 56.58 231 21.57 234 21.84 148 23.68 201 32.16 276 44.16 588 52.59 279 24.96 251 22.45 evaluation Total 8757 54.81 3393 21.24 3828 23.95 3890 37.20 2910 27.83 3656 34.97 7905 50.50 3435 21.94 4314 27.56 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 131 Regarding respondents‟ desired in creating awareness to community members on projects developments, 10.9 per cent of households‟ in ON account for the non-participants category, 31.0 per cent of same category are found in OS and 43.2 per cent in OC. The households‟ under passive participant category account for 27.6 per cent in ON, 26.9 per cent in OS and 31.3 per cent in OC. While active participants category was 61.5per cent in ON and the reason for this high value has to do with years of neglect by the governments and which has helped the region in their various self help projects development; whereas there are 44.7 per cent of same type in OS and 41.54 per cent in OC. On the issue of orientating fellow community members on project benefits, 30.1 per cent of respondents in ON belong to the non-participants category, 23.5 per cent in OS and 36.4 per cent in OC. With regards to passive participant class, 18.9 per cent respondents are found in ON, 26.9 per cent in OS and 31.3 per cent in OC. While active participants group account for 50.9 per cent in ON, 49.7 in OS and 32.3 per centof same category are found in OC. With regards to mobilization of people for land acquisition and other resources for project development, the households‟ choice on „non-participants category‟ account for 22.1 per cent in ON, 19.2 per centin OS and 40.6 per cent in OC. In ON, 21.7 per cent of respondents belong to „passive participants‟ category‟; 30.4 per cent in OS and 19.6 per centin OC. However, on active participants group, 56.1 per cent respondents are in ON, and 50.4 per cent and 39.7 per cent households identify with OS and OC respectively. On the issue of preferred involvement in project choice and initiation 35.4 per cent of respondents in ON identified with non-participants category although in OS and OC there are 39.7 per cent and 26.6 per cent respondents respectively. At the same time, 20.1 per cent respondents belong to passive participants in ON and 11.3 per cent and 31.4 per cent respondents in OS and OC in the same „passive participants‟ class. In ON 44.5 per cent of respondents are active participants while there was an improvement of active participants in OS and OC with values of 48.9 per cent and 42.0 per cent respondents respectively. Involvement in the project location identification has 30.0 per cent of respondents in non-participants category in ON, 39.7 per cent in OS and 32.3 per cent in OC. Under same discussion, 17.3 per cent of respondents in ON identify with passive participants category 21.8 per cent are in OS and 30.5 per cent in OC. The 52.6 per cent respondents prefer to be identifying with active participants in ON, while 45.9 per cent and 36.2 per cent come from OS and OC respectively. 132 Households‟ involvement in project technology choice has 25.1 per cent respondents in non-participants group in ON, 29.7 per cent in OS and 44.8 per cent in OC. Households‟ passive participants with respect to project technology choice are 23.8 per cent in ON, 47.5 per cent in OS and 29.8 per cent in OC respectively. Respondents on active participant‟s class are 51.1 per cent in ON, 47.5 per cent in OS and 25.4 per cent in OC. On the issue of mobilizing support for project time frame, non-participants class in ON account for 27.3 per cent, while 37.7 per cent of same category belong to OS and 64.3 per cent in OC. Households‟ on passive participants‟ category account for 10.1 per cent in ON, 8.7 per cent in OS and 17.3 per cent in OC. The active participants‟respondents account for 62.7 per cent in ON, 53.5 per cent in OS and 18.4 per cent in OC respectively. The result shows that more attentions will be paid to problems that are likely to arise from project implementations in ON followed by OS and OC. Participation as community representative on development processes, respondents for non-participants category are 15.6 per cent in ON, 49.7 per cent in OS and 18.0 per cent in OC. The passive participants‟ category account for 19.1 per cent in ON, 21.7 per cent in OS and 28.8 per cent in OC. The active participants group was 65.3 per cent in ON, 7.7 per cent in OS and 53.2 per cent in OC. While involving the households in all stages of project design and execution processes have 21.2 per cent of respondents in a non-participants category in ON, 29.7 per cent in OS and 42.3 in OC respectively. The passive participants are 24.5 per cent, 21.7 per cent and 19.3 per cent in ON, OS and OC respectively. The active participants in all stage of execution processes in three Senatorial Districts are 65.3 per cent 48.7 per cent and 36.4 per cent in ON, OS and OC accordingly. On citizens‟ endurance of project challenges during execution stages, the non- participants group account for 22.3 per cent in ON, 20.9 per cent in OS and 28.9 per cent in OC. The passive respondents across the Senatorial Districts are 21.3 per cent, 18.9 per cent and 34.9 per cent in ON, OS and OC respectively. The active participants groups are 56.4 per cent in ON, 60.2 per cent in OS and 36.2 per cent OC. With regards tosecurity support for project and the project executors, the non-participants group across the Senatorial Districts account for 15.4 per cent in ON, 17.2 per cent in OS and 18.01per cent in OC. Rate of security provision with regards to passive respondents later reduceto one among the Senatorial Districts with 25.0 per cent in ON, 15.7 per cent in OS and 36.4 per cent in OS. The active participants on security issues are 59.6 per cent in ON, 67.1 per cent in OS and 45.6 per cent in OC. 133 As regard financial support towards project development, the non-participants group account for 29.9 per cent in ON, 23.2 per cent in OS and 28.5 per cent in OC. The passive participants among the Senatorial Districts are 27.2 per cent in ON, 27.8 per cent in OS and 37.5 per cent in OC. The active participants‟ under same variable account for 42.9 per cent in ON, 49.1 per cent in OS and 41.11 per cent in OC. To ensure project sustainability the need for financial support for arising needs after project execution cannot be under-estimated; the non participants groups among the Senatorial Districts are 40.4 per cent in ON, 27.6 per cent in OS and 46.7 per cent in OC. The passive respondents are 15.4 per cent in ON, 28.7 per cent in OS and 15.2 per cent in OC. The active participant towards financial assistance when needs arises are 44.2 per cent in ON, 43.7 per cent in OS and 38.1 per cent in OC. On issue of financial support on project maintenance after the project execution, the non- participants in this category are 19.8 per cent in ON, 18.7 per cent in OS and 25.5 per cent in OC. The passive participants under same criterion are 22.4 per cent in ON, 21.7 per cent in OS and 31.5 per cent in OC. The active participants‟ class with respects to project finance after projects execution are 57.9 per cent in ON, 59.6 per cent in OS and 43.0 per cent in OC. To ensure project reliability there was need for project monitoring and evaluation households with non-participants category account for 21.8 per cent in ON, 22.5 per cent in OS and 44.2 per cent in OC. The passive participants‟ are 21.6 per cent in ON, 24.9 per cent in OS and 32.2 per cent in OC. The active participants‟respondents‟ in project monitoring and evaluation account for 56.6 per cent in ON, 52.6 per cent in OS and 23.7 per cent in OC respectively. By considering all the participatory indicators as a surrogate for households‟ degree of willingness to be involved in future development in their communities, 50.5 per cent of respondents in OS account for degree of citizens power (active participation), 37.2 per cent of respondents in OC attained citizen power, while degree of citizen power in ON was 54.8 per cent and the value was higher in ON compared to other Senatorial Districts. Degrees of tokenism (passive participation) among Senatorial Districts are 21.9 per cent in OS, 27.8 per cent in OC and 21.2 per cent in ON respectively. The result shows that degree of passive participation was higher in OS. With regards to non participatory class, 27.6 per cent of respondents belong to this group in OS, 34.9 per cent in OC, and 23.9 per cent in ON. This outcome and numerous development projects undertaken by the CBOs in ON shows both commitments of the CBOs and the households‟ in self-development processes which was higher compared to OS and OC. This could be attributed to initial neglects the region (ON) faced from various governments development largesse in Oyo State. 134 Households‟ Willingness to be involved in future development processes was measured by aggregating 15 participatory indicators Table 4.25 135 Table 4.25: Willingness of Household to Participate in Future Development Projects No Participatory Indicators Willingness Level of Involvement in Community development TOTAL No DCP % DT % NP % No % 1 Creating awareness to ignorant 1062 1504 50.84 693 23.43 761 25.73 2958 100 community members 2 Orientation of community members on 1061 1295 46.34 696 24.91 803 28.74 2794 100 project benefits 3 Mobilization of people for land 1031 1447 50.13 708 24.53 731 25.32 2886 100 acquisition and other resources for project development 4 Involvement in project choice and 963 1215 45.36 543 20.27 920 34.35 2678 100 initiation 5 Identification of project location 1055 1242 45.77 612 22.55 859 31.66 2713 100 6 Involvement in project technology 1026 1117 43.41 642 24.95 814 31.63 2573 100 choice. 7 Mobilization of support for project time 1060 1233 49.35 279 11.16 986 39.47 2498 100 frame 8 Participation as community 1034 1425 49.73 651 22.72 789 27.53 2865 100 representatives on development processes 9 Involvements in all stages of project 1010 1244 47.90 576 22.17 777 29.91 2597 100 design and execution processes 10 Endurance of project challenges during 1020 1613 52.98 720 23.65 711 23.35 3044 100 execution 11 Security supports for the project and 1024 1921 58.83 798 24.44 546 16.72 3265 100 project executors 12 Financial support towards project 1054 1189 43.01 831 30.06 744 26.91 2764 100 development 13 Financial support for arising needs after 1060 1118 42.57 540 20.56 968 36.86 2626 100 project execution. 14 Financial support for project 1036 1647 54.66 738 24.49 628 20.84 3013 100 maintenance after execution 15 Project monitoring and evaluation 1001 1342 47.69 711 25.26 761 27.04 2814 100 Total 20552 48.83 9738 23.14 11798 28.03 42088 100 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 136 Table 4.25 shows that 48.8 per cent of respondents‟ attained degree of citizen power, with about 5 variables scoring above the average. In addition, 23.1 per cent of respondents belong to degree of tokenism while 28.0 per cent of respondents belong to non participatory group. The implication is that majority of development activities in the state might not attained sustainability, reliability and replicability; unless conscientious efforts were made to correct the people‟s orientation on the need to be involved in development activities. This outcome negates the general saying that failure of the governments to involve people has hindered the projects sustainability, reliability and replicability. 4.11: Households’ Development Priorities Priority means the most pressing problems and concerns in both rural and urban landscape (Adeboyejo, 2006). Many of the poor communities are isolated by distance, bad road, lack of or broken bridges, inadequate transport and other means of communication. These conditions make it difficult for people to transport their goods and themselves to places of work, negotiate better price for their produce, send children to school, handle health- related emergencies, and keep in touch with events and influence decisions. This section evaluates Household Development Priorities with respect to Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services (PBIFS). This is done by calculating the Summation of the Weighted Value (SWV) of respondents through a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 attached to17 indicators measured through Likert scale with VH (Very High ≥70 percent), H (High 69-60 percent), M (Moderate 59-50 percent), L (Low 49-40 percent), and VL (Very Low 39-0 percent). (Details of responses on the SWV are in Appendix 4 Part C) 137 Table 4.26: Households’ Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo South S/N Basic Infrastructural Before 1999 2000 &Beyond facilities and services SWV PBIFS (x) (x-x) SWV PBIFS (x) (x-x) 1 Education/ Schools 1678 4.34(1) 0.93 1704 4.40(1) 0.69 2 Health Care Facilities 1522 3.93(2) 0.52 1647 4.26(2) 0.55 3 Motorable Road Network 1424 3.68(4) 0.27 1572 4.06(3) 0.35 4 Road Rehabilitation 1399 3.61(6) 0.21 1544 3.99(4) 0.28 5 Drainage Facilities 1300 3.36(11) -0.05 1461 3.78(9) 0.06 6 Water / Borehole 1343 3.47(10) 0.06 1515 3.91(5) 0.02 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 1208 3.12(15) -0.29 1371 3.54(14) -0.17 8 Irrigation 1037 2.68(4) -0.73 1255 3.24(17) -0.47 9 Organized Market 1339 3.46(9) 0.05 1413 3.65(11) -0.06 10 Security &Services 1360 3.5(8) 0.10 1492 3.86(6) 0.14 11 Electricity 1452 3.75(3) 0.34 1470 3.80(7) 0.09 12 Town Hall 1216 3.14(14) -0.27 1373 3.55(13) -0.16 13 Storage Facilities 1227 3.17(14) -0.24 1402 3.62(12) -0.08 14 Convenience 1337 3.55(7) 0.14 1367 3.53(15) -0.18 15 Telecommunication 1160 3.00(17) -0.41 1465 3.79(8) 0.08 16 Banks 1222 3.16(13) -0.25 1444 3.73(10) 0.02 17 Recreation Facilities and Services 1171 3.02(16) -0.38 916 2.37(16) -1.34 Total 57.96 63.07 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X=PBIFS X=PBIFS Mean = 3.41 Mean =3.71 138 From Table 4.26, the average PBIFS computed in OS for years before 1999 is 3.4, the highest PBIFS is 4.34 “education/schools” while the least is 2.68 “irrigation”. Other basic needs in top priority with positive deviation above the mean in their descending order include: “health care facilities” 3.93, “electricity” 3.75, “motorable road networks” 3.68 and “conveniences” 3.55 among others. The variables with low level of priority and negative deviation below the mean include: “banks” 3.16, “town hall” 3.14, “loan and credit facilities” 3.12, while others include: “recreation facilities and services” 3.02 and “telecommunication” 3.00 among others. 139 Table 4.27: Households Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo Central S/N Basic Infrastructural Before 1999 2000 & BEYOND 2 facilities and services SWV PBIFS(x) (x-x) (x-x) SWV PBIFS(x) (x-x) 1 Education/ Schools 1147 3.81(1) 0.76 0.58 1208 4.01(1) 0.62 2 Health Care Facilities 1023 3.40(2) 0.35 0.12 1120 3.72(3) 0.33 3 Motorable Road Network 976 3.12(9) 0.19 0.04 1125 3.74(2) 0.35 4 Road Rehabilitation 938 3.15(8) 0.07 0.00 1088 3.61(5) 0.23 5 Drainage Facilities 947 3.29(4) 0.10 0.01 1053 3.50(9) 0.11 6 Water / Borehole 991 2.71(15) 0.24 0.06 1074 3.57(7) 0.18 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 817 2.49(16) -0.33 0.11 987 3.28(13) -0.11 8 Irrigation 750 3.22(6) -0.56 0.31 800 2.66(16) -0.73 9 Organized Market 970 3.26(5) 0.17 0.03 1005 3.34(12) -0.05 10 Security &Services 982 3.19(7) 0.21 0.05 1084 3.60(6) 0.21 11 Electricity 959 2.75(14) 0.14 0.02 1066 3.54(8) 0.15 12 Town Hall 828 2.92(10) -0.30 0.09 961 3.19(14) -0.20 13 Storage Facilities 878 2.92(10) -0.13 0.02 929 3.09(15) -0.30 14 Convenience 1007 3.34(3) 0.30 0.09 1021 3.39(11) 0.00 15 Telecommunication 867 2.88(12) -0.17 0.03 1096 3.64(4) 0.25 16 Banks 860 2.86(13) -0.19 0.04 1031 3.42(10) 0.04 17 Recreation Facilities and Services 659 2.19(17) -0.86 0.74 696 2.31(17) -1.08 Total 51.82 2.33 57.62 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X=PBIFS X=PBIFS Mean = 2.33 Mean =3.39 140 In OC, the mean is 2.33 and the highest PBIFS years before 1999 as reveals in Table 4.27 is 3.81 “education/schools” while the least is 2.19 “recreation facilities and services” with deviation of -0.86 below the means. Other variables with positive deviation above the means in descending order are: “health care facilities” 3.40, “conveniences”3.34, “water and borehole” 3.29, and “security and services” 3.26 among others. While variables with negative deviation below their respective means include: “irrigation” 2.49, “town hall” 2.75, “banks” 2.86, “telecommunication” 2.88 and “storage facilities” 2.92. These variables are considered of less importance in Oyo Central Senatorial District before 1999. 141 Table 4.28: Households Priorities on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo North S/N Basic Infrastructural Before 1999 2000 & Beyond facilities and services SWV PBIFS (x) (x-x) SWV PBIFS (x) (x-x) 1 Education/ Schools 1504 3.91(1) 0.81 1583 4.11(1) 0.66 2 Health Care Facilities 1428 3.71(2) 0,61 148 3.86(2) 0.41 3 Motorable Road Network 1305 3.39(6) 0.25 1478 3.84(4) 0.38 4 Road Rehabilitation 1281 3.33(7) 0.23 1430 3.71(7) 0.26 5 Drainage Facilities 1202 3.12(10) 0.02 1424 3.70(8) 0.24 6 Water / Borehole 1333 3.46(4) 0.36 1446 3.76(6) 0.30 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 1095 2.84(15) -0.26 1259 3.27(14) -0.19 8 Irrigation 957 2.49(16) -0.16 1019 2.65(16) -081 9 Organized Market 1269 3.30(9) 0.20 1363 3.54(12) 0.08 10 Security &Services 1311 3.41(5) 0.31 1458 3.79(5) 033 11 Electricity 1381 3.59(3) 0.49 1480 3.84(3) 0.39 12 Town Hall 1116 2.90(12) -0.20 1265 3.29(13) -0.17 13 Storage Facilities 1117 2.90(12) -0.20 1382 3.17(15) -0.28 14 Convenience 1271 3.30(8) 0.20 1404 3.59(11) 0.13 15 Telecommunication 1110 2.88(14) -0.22 1400 3.64(9) 0.20 16 Banks 1135 2.94(11) -0.15 1404 3.64(9) 0.18 17 Recreation Facilities and Services 472 1.23(17) -1.87 517 1.34(17) -2.11 Total 52.70 58.75 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X=PBIFS X=PBIFS Mean = 3.10 Mean =3.46 142 From Table 4.28, “education/schools”, “health care facilities”, “motorable road networks”, “road rehabilitation”, “drainage facilities” and “water/ borehole” as well as “organized markets”, “security and services”, “electricity”, and “conveniences” have positive deviations about their respective years before 1999 in ON. The facility of topmost priority is “education/schools” with PBIFS index of 3.91 while others of higher priority to household include: “health care facilities”, “electricity”, “water/borehole”, “motorable road networks”, “security and services”, “road rehabilitation”, “conveniences” and “drainage facilities”. Also, facilities and services such as: “irrigation”, “loan and credit facilities”, “telecommunication”, “storage facilities”, “town hall” and “banks” have negative deviation below the mean and the least was “recreation facilities and services” with a value of 1.23. Table 4.26 shows that the average PBIFS computed for year 2000 and after in OS is 3.71. It is observed that household PBIFS on “education/school” further increased from 4.34 for years before 1999 to 4.40 for year 2000 and after with positive deviation above the mean of 0.69, while the least prioritized were observable to be “recreation facilities and service” 2.37 with a negative deviation below the mean value of -1.34. Some of the variables with high PBIFS include: “health care facilities”, “motorable road networks”, “road rehabilitation”, “water/ borehole”, “security and services”, “electricity”, “telecommunication” among others. The household PBIFS on each of the variables above was higher than the mean value. For the period 2000 and after, “education/schools” is considered to be of highest priority with a PBIFS value of 4.01 in OC. Other facilities and services with their PBIFS index value and positive deviation above the mean in descending order are “motorable road networks” 3.74, and “health care facilities” 3.72 among others. It was however, deduced from the table that facilities such: as “telecommunication” and “banks” which have less priority before 1999 were considered to be of high priority in year 2000 and after with positive deviation above the mean with the values of 0.25 respectively. While recreation “facilities and services” 2.13, “irrigation”2.66, “storage facilities” 3.09, “town hall” 3.19 among others have the negative deviation below the means. These variables represent basic infrastructure facilities and services regarded to be of lower priorities in OC. The study further shows that priority given to “education/schools” in ON increases by year 2000 and after with positive deviation of 0.66. Level of priority for “recreation facilities and services” reduced from what it was before 1999 with negative deviation below the mean -2.11. Other indicators with low priority value and negative deviation below their respective 143 means are “irrigation” 2.65 “town hall” 3.29; “loan and credit facilities” 3.27 and “storage facilities” 3.17. 144 Table 4.29: Households Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo State S/N Basic Infrastructural Before 1999 2000 and Beyond facilities and services NO SWV PBIFS (x) (x-x) NO SWV PBIFS (x-x) 1 Education/ Schools 1064 4329 4.061(1) 0.76 1064 4495 4.22(1) 0.54 2 Health Care Facilities 1069 3973 3.71(2) 0.41 1064 4255 4.00(2) 0.32 3 Motorable Road Network 1065 3705 3.47(5) 0.17 1067 4175 3.91(3) 0.23 4 Road Rehabilitation 1064 3618 3.40(9) 0.10 1067 4062 3.80(4) 0.12 5 Drainage Facilities 1044 3449 3.30(11) 0.00 1067 3938 3.69(10) 0.01 6 Water / Borehole 1064 3667 3.44(6) 0.14 1060 4035 3.80(4) 0.12 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 1069 3120 2.91(16) -0.39 1065 3617 3.39(15) -0.29 8 Irrigation 1040 2744 2.63(17) -0.67 967 3074 3.17(17) -0.51 9 Organized Market 1069 3578 3.34(10) 0.04 1056 3781 3.58(11) -0.10 10 Security &Services 1060 3653 3.44(6) 0.14 1064 4034 3.79(6) 0.11 11 Electricity 1070 3792 3.54(3) 0.24 1060 4016 3.78(7) 0.10 12 Town Hall 1066 3160 2.96(14) -0.34 1061 3599 3.39(15) -0.29 13 Storage Facilities 1054 3222 3.05(12) -0.25 1062 3713 3.49(14) -0.19 14 Convenience 1060 3615 3.41(8) 0.11 1060 3792 3.57(13) -0.11 15 Telecommunication 1067 3137 2.94(15) -0.36 1057 3961 3.74(8) 0.06 16 Banks 1055 3217 3.04(13) -0.26 1048 3879 3.70(9) 0.02 17 Recreation Facilities and 659 2302 3.49(4) 0.19 594 2129 3.58(11) -0.10 Services Total 56.13 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X=PBIFS X=PBIFS Mean = 3.30 Mean =3.68 145 On the aggregate, Table 4.29 shows that for years before 1999 and years 2000 and beyond “education/schools”, “healthcare facilities” “motorable road networks” and “electricity” are the three top priorities of the households‟. While “recreation facilities and services”, “organized markets”, and “conveniences” that was initially above the mean for years before 1999 later fall below the mean for years 2000 and beyond. This means that these facilities and services are highly demanded by the households‟ before year 1999 and later on had lower priority to the respondents by the year 2000 and beyond. “Road rehabilitation”, “drainage facilities”, “water/ borehole”, “security and services”, have positive deviation above their mean for years before 1999 and years 2000 and beyond. “Telecommunication” and “banks” initially had negative priority to respondents for years before 1999 and later have positive deviation above the mean for year 2000 and beyond, Also, facilities and services such as “loan and credit facilities”, “storage facilities” irrigation and “town hall” had negative deviation below their respective mean and the least was “irrigation” with a value of 2.63 for years before 1999 and 3.17 for years 2000 and beyond. The implication is that these facilities and services were of low priority to respondents and surprisingly it had been the projects financed and undertaken by different governments at all level. This is because the ruling politician neglects both masses and their needs as they are sure of winning the subsequent election through rigging. And in areas where some projects were executed, it is awarded to the compaies of the ruling party since they owns the man power and the equipment. By contrast; four groups are identified. The first group has negative deviation below the mean years before 1999 and still maintains the negative deviation below the mean foryear 2000 and after. This could be attributed to the fact that the conditions for the beneficiaries cannot be met, and this rendered the facilities or services of no benefits to the respondents. Facilities and services in this group in OS are “loan and credit facilities”, “irrigation”, “recreation facilities and services”. While “loan and credit facilities”, “irrigation”, “recreation facilities and services”, “town hall and storage facilities” are in this group in OC and ON.Demand for these facilities was below the mean and the households‟ priorities for them are negative. The second group is the one with positive deviation above the mean for years before 1999 and thereafter has negative deviation below the mean for the year 2000 and after. These facilities and services were highly demanded initially but over the years households demand became low. In OS is “organized market”, and “conveniences”. In OC is “organized market” and non in ON. This implied that these facilities and services were highly demanded by the 146 households in OS before the year 1999 but by the year 2000 and beyond their demand for the facilities falls while demand for “organized market” in OC was noted and none in ON. The third group has negative deviation for years before 1999 and later positive deviation above the mean by the year 2000 and after. Initially, these facilities and services might be of no importance to the economy and wellbeing of the community members; however over the years their usefulness with respect to social, economy and wellbeing became obvious to the communities. The variables under this group are “telecommunication and banks” which appears in all the three Senatorial Districts; in addition to that, there was “drainage facilities” in OS and “organized market” in OC. Households‟ priorities on these facilities were below the mean values for years before 1999 and increase in year 2000 and after. The fourth group has positive deviation above the means for years before 1999 and year 2000 and after. The needs for these facilities and services cannot be compromised. In OS, OC and ON are the following facilities and services that were highly demanded for in the two historical epoch “education/schools”,“motorable network”, “road rehabilitation”, “water provision”, “security and services”, “electricity” and“health care facilities”. In addition,“drainage facilities” and “conveniences” are highly demanded by the households in OC and ON. The mean values of households‟ priorities on infrastructure facilities and services for years before 1999 among the Senatorial Districts are 3.41 in OS, 2.33 in OC and 3.10 in ON. While, households‟ priorities on infrastructure facilities and services for year 2000 and beyond increases in all the three Senatorial Districts with mean values of 3.71 in OS, 2.39 in OC and 3.46 in ON. The result shows that household‟s priorities on infrastructure facilities and services increases in all the Senatorial Districts for the two epoch, however the highest comes from OS followed by ON and the least was from OC. 4.12: Households’ Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation Satisfaction in this context is refered the extent to which community members perceived the activities of the CBOs to be of positive impact to the community. This will not only reduce corruption but enhance demand responsiveness, increase efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability. This section evaluates households‟ satisfaction with CBOs activities and mode of operation within the communities, by calculating the Summation of the Weighted Value (SWV) of respondents through a weight value of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 attached to (18) indicators measured through Likert scale with VD -Very dissatisfied (0-39 percent), D – 147 Dissatisfied (40-49 percent), I –Indifferent (50-59percent), S –Satisfied (60-69 percent), and VS-Very Satisfied (≥70percent). Details of responses on the SWV are in Appendix 4 Part C. 148 Table4.30: Households’ Satisfaction with the Operations of Community Based Organisation in Oyo South S/N Satisfactory Before 1999 2000 & Beyond Indicators SWV HSCDP(x) (x-x) SWV HSCDP (x) (x-x) 1 Households‟ involvement in project initiation 592 1.53 -0.74 863 2.23 -0.18 2 Articulation of Individual needs 815 2.11 -0.16 939 2.43 0.02 3 Articulation of community needs 857 2.21 -0.06 1035 2.67 0.27 4 Consultation of households before project 670 1.73 -0.54 927 2.40 -0.01 implementation 5 Training of community members on project 767 1.98 -0.29 928 2.40 -0.01 management 6 Planning for future and seasonal needs 815 2.11 -0.61 886 2.29 -0.12 7 Transparency on funds mobilization 885 2.29 0.02 941 2.43 0.02 8 Transparency on other mobilized resources 938 2.42 0.15 863 2.23 -0.18 9 Information dissemination before project 922 2.38 0.11 980 2.53 0.12 implementation 10 Information dissemination during project 1021 2.64 0.37 899 2.32 -0.18 implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 850 2.20 -0.07 960 2.48 0.07 12 Transparency on project execution 929 2.40 0.13 923 2.39 -0.02 13 Self reliance leadership structure 968 2.50 0.23 921 2.38 -0.03 14 Project design to community level 997 2.58 0.31 936 2.42 -0.01 15 Incorporation of local creativity to 1003 2.59 0.32 977 2.52 0.12 development 16 Household involvement in 945 2.44 0.17 967 2.50 0.09 project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your building 943 .2.44 0.17 974 2.52 0.11 18 Implementation of household advice towards 900 2.33 0.05 863 2.23 -018 project choice and execution Total 40.87 - 43.36 - Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X-HSCDP X- HSCDP X Mean =2.27 X Mean =2.41 149 Years before 1999 in OS, “information dissemination during project implementation” has the highest value in Households Satisfaction with Community Development Projects (HSCDP) index at 2.64, while the least was “household involvement in project initiation” at 1.53; the average is 2.27. The table reveals that “household involvement in project initiation”, “articulation of individuals needs”, “articulation of community needs”, “consultation of household before project implementation”, and “training of community members on project management” has negative deviation below the mean in this order -0.74, -0.16, -0.06, -0.54, -0.29, -0.16. Other indicators in Table 4.30above have positive deviation above the mean. 150 Table 4.31: Households’ Satisfaction with the Operations of Community Based Organisation in Oyo Central S/N Satisfactory Before 1999 2000 &Beyond Indicators SWV HSCDP (x) (x-x) SWV HSCDP(x) (x-x) 1 Households‟ involvement in project 622 2.06 -0.33 770 2.96 -007 initiation 2 Articulation of Individual needs 632 2.10 -0.30 782 2.56 -0.07 3 Articulation of community needs 657 2.18 -0.21 743 2.47 -0.16 4 Consultation of households before 687 2.28 -0.11 785 2.61 -0.02 project implementation 5 Training of community members on 648 2.15 -0.24 732 2.43 -0.19 project management 6 Planning for future and seasonal needs 636 2.11 -0.28 774 2.57 -0.05 7 Transparency of funds mobilization 736 2.44 0.05 748 2.49 -0.14 8 Transparency on other mobilized 738 2.45 0.06 785 2.61 -0.02 resources 9 Information dissemination before 777 2.58 0.18 805 2.67 0.05 project implementation 10 Information dissemination during 803 2.67 0.27 856 2.84 0.22 project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 791 2.63 0.23 781 2.59 -0.03 12 Transparency on project execution 729 2.42 0.03 769 2.55 -0.07 13 Self reliance leadership structure 773 2.57 0.17 832 2.76 0.14 14 Project design to community level 738 2.45 0.06 804 2.67 0.05 15 Incorporation of local creativity to 758 2.50 0.11 801 2.66 0.04 development 16 Household involvement in project 771 2.56 0.16 889 2.95 0.33 monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your building 761 2.53 0.13 769 2.55 -0.07 18 Implementation of household advice 733 2,44 0.04 801 2.66 0.04 towards project choice and execution Total 43.14 ---- 47.26 ----- Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X- HSCDP X-HSCDP X Mean =2.40 X Mean =2.63 151 In OC, people express highest level of satisfaction with “information dissemination during project implementation”. This has HSCDP value of 2.67 while the least was on “household involvement in project initiation” at 2.06 for the years before 1999. Measure of deviation above the mean on variables such as: “household involvement in project initiation”, “articulation of individuals needs, “articulation of community needs”, “consultation of households before project implementation” and “training of community members on project management” has negative deviation below the mean with the following values respectively -0.33, -0.30, -0.21, -0.11, -0.24, -0.28. Other indicators apart from the earlier mentioned have positive deviation above the mean Table 4.31. 152 Table 4.32: Households’ Satisfaction with the Operations of Community Based Organisation in Oyo North S/N Satisfactory Before 1999 2000 &Beyond Indicators SWV HSCDP (x) (x-x) SWV HSCDP(x) (x-x) 1 Households involvement in project 908 2.36 0.18 1014 2.63 0.22 initiation 2 Articulation of Individual needs 924 2.40 0.22 1050 2.72 0.31 3 Articulation of community needs 928 2.41 0.23 994 2.58 0.16 4 Consultation of households before 879 2.28 0.11 887 2.30 -0.11 project implementation 5 Training of community 841 2.81 0.00 929 2.41 0.00 members on project management 6 Planning for future and seasonal 847 2.20 0.02 925 2.40 -0.01 needs 7 Transparency of funds mobilization 854 2.22 0.04 930 2.42 0.00 8 Transparency on other mobilized 845 2.19 0.02 994 2.58 0.16 resources 9 Information dissemination before 936 2.43 0.25 976 2.54 0.12 project implementation 10 Information dissemination during 904 2.35 0.17 1036 2.69 0.27 project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 914 2.37 0.20 971 2.52 0.10 12 Transparency on project execution 868 2.25 0.08 1003 2.61 0.19 13 Self reliance leadership structure 913 2.37 0.20 1005 2.61 0.19 14 Project design to community level 881 2.29 0.11 974 2.53 0.11 15 Incorporation of local creativity to 867 2.25 0.08 1021 2.65 0.23 development 16 Householdinvolvement in project 864 2.24 0.07 1054 2.74 0.32 monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your building 955 2.48 0.30 965 2.51 0.09 18 Implementation of household advice 862 2.24 0.06 1039 2.70 0.28 towards project choice and execution Total 39.17 43.51 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X- HSCDP X- HSCDP X Mean =2.18 X Mean =2.42 153 In the years before 1999, ON witnessed the highest HSCDP index on “distance of project from households building” while the least satisfaction is witnessed on “training of community members on project management” 2.18. Further investigation gathered over the years before 1999 shows that there is no negative deviation below the mean of the indicators used in measuring households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development approaches. Positive deviation above the mean was witnessed across the 18 indicators. For the year 2000 and after in OS, information on Table 4.30 reveals that “households‟ involvement in project initiation”, “consultation of households before project implementation”, “training of community members on project management”, “planning for future and seasonal needs”, “transparency on other mobilized resources”, “information dissemination during project implementation”, “implementation of households advice towards project choice and execution”, has negative deviation below the mean respectively. Others such as: “articulation of individuals needs”, “articulation of community needs”, “information dissemination before project implementation”, “equal access to projects benefits”, “transparency on project execution”, “self reliance leadership structure”, “project design to community level”, “incorporation of local creativity to development”, “households involvement in project monitoring and evaluation” and “distance of project to your building” has positive deviation above the mean. Year 2000 and after in OC reveals that highest HSCDP index was witnessed on household involvement in project monitoring and evaluation at 2.95, while the least was on training of community members on project management with the mean of 2.43. Meanwhile, negative deviation below the mean is recorded for year 2000 and after on the following indicators: “households involvement in project initiation” -0.07, “articulation of individuals need” -0.03, “articulation of communities need” 0.16, “consultation of households before project implementation” 0.02, “training of community members on project management” - 0.19, “planning for future and seasonal needs” -0.05, “transparency on fund mobilization” - 0.14 and “transparency on other mobilized resources” -0.02. In year 2000 and after, the highest HSCDP index in ON is “household involvement in project monitoring and evaluation” with a value of 2.74 while the least is “consultation of households before project implementation” at 2.30. Deviation above the mean is different from what was witnessed in previous historical epoch, negative deviation below the mean are observed on “consultation of households before project implementation” at -0.11 and “planning for future and seasonal needs” at -0.01 154 Table 4.33: Households’ Satisfaction with the Operations of Community Based Organisations in Oyo State Satisfactory Before 1999 2000 and Beyond S/N Indicators NO SWV HSCDP 𝑥 − 𝑥 NO SWV HSCDP 𝑥 − 𝑥 (x) 1 Households‟ 964 2122 2.20(17) -0.18 1067 2647 2.48(13) -0.05 involvement in project initiation 2 Articulation of 954 2371 2.48(2) 0.10 1070 2771 2.58(5) 0.05 Individual needs 3 Articulation of 1065 2442 2.29(16) -0.09 1083 2772 2.55(8) 0.02 community needs 4 Consultation of 963 2236 2.32(14) -0.06 1072 2599 2.42(16) -0.11 households before project implementation 5 Training of community 956 2256 2.35(12) -0.03 1069 2589 2.42(16) -0.11 members on project management 6 Planning for future and 1069 2298 2.14(18) -0.24 1067 2585 2.42(16) -0.11 seasonal needs 7 Transparency of funds 1065 2475 2.32(14) -0.06 1065 2619 2.45(15) -0.08 mobilization 8 Transparency on other 1058 2521 2.38(9) 0.00 1069 2642 2.46(14) -0.06 mobilized resources 9 Information 1070 2635 2.46(5) 0.08 1066 2761 2.59(4) 0.06 dissemination before project implementation 10 Information 1068 2728 2.55(1) 0.17 1068 2791 2.61(3) 0.08 dissemination during project implementation 11 Equal access to project 1070 2555 2.38(9) 0.00 1068 2712 2.53(10) 0.00 benefits 12 Transparency on project 1059 2526 2.38(9) 0.00 1067 2695 2.52(12) -0.01 execution 13 Self reliance leadership 1069 2654 2.48(2) 0.10 1065 2758 2.58(5) 0.05 structure 155 14 Project design to 1070 2616 2.44(7) 0.06 1068 2714 2,54(9) 0.01 community level 15 Incorporation of local 1068 2628 2.46(5) 0.08 1068 2799 2.62(2) 0.09 creativity to development 16 Household 1072 2580 2.40(8) 0.02 1070 2910 2.71(1) 0.18 involvement in project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to 1068 2659 2.48(2) 0.10 1069 2708 2.53(10) 0.00 your building 18 Implementation of 1066 2495 2.34(13) -0.04 1052 2703 2.56(7) 0.03 household advice towards project choice and execution Total 42.85 45.58 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X=HSCDP X=HSCDP X Mean = 2.38 Mean =2.53 156 On the aggregate Table 4.33, shows that for years before 1999 and years 2000 and beyond “information dissemination during project implementation”,“self reliance leadership structure” “distance of project to respondents buildings”, “incorporation of local creativity to development”, “household involvement in project monitoring and evaluation” are the three most satisfactory variables to the households‟. While the three least satisfactory indicators to respondents are “households involvement in project initiation”, “articulation of community needs”, “planning for future and seasonal needs”, “consultation of households before project implementation” and “training of community members on project management”. Satisfactory indicators initially above the mean for years before 1999 but later fall below the mean for years 2000 and beyond are: “transparency on other mobilized resources” and “transparency on project execution”. This implied that households‟ satisfactory trust with the operation of CBOs development activities for years before 1999 diminished by the year 2000 and beyond. However, by contrast; four groups are identified. The first group has negative deviation below the mean years before 1999 and still maintains their negative deviation below the mean year 2000 and after; in this group households‟ has never been satisfied with the operations of the CBOs throughout the epoch. Variables that common to OS and OC in this group are “households‟ involvement in project initiation”, “consultation of households before project implementation”, “training of community members on project management”, “planning for future and seasonal needs. In addition, there was “self reliance leadership structure” in OS and “articulation of individual needs” in OC and none in ON. The second group is the one with positive deviation above the mean for years before 1999 and thereafter has negative deviation below the mean by the year 2000 and beyond. In this group, the initial trust that households‟ have in the operation of CBOs reduced over the years. In OS, there was “transparency on other mobilized resources”, “information dissemination during project implementation”, “transparency on project execution”, “project design to community level”, and implementation of household advice towards project implementation”. While in OC the underlisted variables are identified with this group: “transparency onfund mobilization”, “transparency on other mobilized resources”, equal access to project benefits”, “transparency on project execution”, and “distance of projects to your building”. In ON there was “consultation of households before project implementation”, and “planning for future and seasonal needs”. The third group has negative deviation years before 1999 and later positive deviation above the mean by the year 2000 and after, which means households‟ discontent reduced to the extents of increasing their trust in the operation of CBOs. The variables under this group 157 are very important because they signified an improved situation, the variables under this category were; “articulation of individual needs”, “articulation of community needs” and “equal access to project benefits” in OS and none in OC and ON respectively. The fourth group has positive deviation above the means for years before 1999 and year 2000 and after which means respondents are pleased with the operation of CBOs throughout the epoch considered. Under this group “information dissemination before project implementation”, “incorporation of local creativity to project development” and “households‟ involvement in project monitoring and evaluation” are common to all the three Senatorial Districts. While in OS there was “transparency on fund mobilization” and “distance of project to your building”. While in OC “infrastructural development” and “partnership with other development organisation on community development” are two variables identified with the group. In OC “information dissemination during project implementation”, “self-reliance leadership structure”, “project design to community level”, and “implementation of households‟ advice towards project choice and execution”. In ON “households‟ involvement in project initiation”, “articulation of Individual needs”, “articulation of community needs”, “transparency of funds mobilization”, “transparency on other mobilized resources” , “information dissemination during project implementation”, “equal access to project benefits”, “transparency on project execution”, “self reliance leadership structure”, “project design to community level”, “distance of project to your building”, and “implementation of households‟ advice towards project choice and execution” are variables that maintain their positive position throughout the historical epoch under consideration. It is observed that households‟ satisfaction with the operation of CBOs in years before 1999 was higher in OC with mean value of 2.40; this was followed by OS with value of 2.27 and ON with least value of 2.18. While in year 2000 and beyond households‟ satisfaction with operation of CBOs was also pronounced in OC with mean value of 2.63, the situation in ON and ON are at its lower ebb with mean values of 2.42 and 2.41 respectively. On the aggregate, households‟ satisfaction with operation of CBOs was higher in year 2000 and beyond with mean value of 2.53 than years before 1999 with mean value of 2.38. The highest satisfaction was noticed in OC and the success was attributed to the recognition of the CBOs as agents of grassroots developments by the political office holders from OC; as well as participatory approach associated with civilian regime as against military regime. 158 4.13: Hypothesis 3 The third hypothesis states that household‟s levels of satisfaction with CBOs development projects do not vary over space (among the three Senatorial Districts) was subjected, independently to a One-way Analysis of Variance for years before 1999 and years 2000 and after respectively, Table 4.34. 159 Table: 4. 34: Analysis of Variance on Households Level of Satisfaction with CBOs Development Projects Sum of Do Mean F Sig. squares square Household Between Groups level of 0.934 2 0.467 0.790 0.454 satisfaction Within Groups 477.407 808 0.591 years before 1999 Total 478.340 810 Household Between Groups 10.258 2 5.129 7.316 0.001 level of satisfaction year Within Groups 719.302 1026 701 2000 and after Total 729.560 1028 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 160 Result of the ANOVA with F-value of 0.79 and P value of 0.45 shows that households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development projects for years before 1999 do not vary with Senatorial Districts. However, with F-value of 7.32 and P value of 0.001 (i.e. less than ∞ level of 0.05), households satisfaction with CBOs development projects for year 2000 and after vary among the three Senatorial DistrictsTable 4.34. 161 Table 4.35: Descriptive Analysis on Households’ Level of Satisfaction with CBOs Development Project 95per cent Confidence interval for Mean Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound Minimum Maximum Households‟ level Oyo South 2.4182 of satisfaction year Senatorial District 2.3278 2.4958 1.24 4.06 before Oyo Central 1999 Senatorial District 2.3674 2.2678 2.4671 1.00 4.29 Oyo North 2.3314 2.2443 2.4185 1.00 4.35 Senatorial District Total 2.3636 2.3106 2.4166 1.00 4.35 Households‟ level Oyo South 2.4208 of satisfaction Senatorial District 2.3449 2.4967 1.24 4.41 years 2000 Oyo Central 2.6699 and beyond Senatorial District 2.5601 2.7798 1.00 5.00 Oyo North 2.5694 Senatorial District 2.4828 2.6560 1.00 4.71 Total 2.5412 2.4897 2.5927 1.00 5.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 162 Descriptive analysis on households level of satisfaction with CBOs development project for year 2000 and beyond was highest in OC with mean value of 2.67 and lowest in OS with mean value of 2.42 (Table 4.36). Also, households level of satisfaction with CBOs development projects increases for these Senatorial Districts from years before 1999 to year 2000 and after. This confirms the earlier results that year 2000 and after has witnessed a tremendous contribution of CBOs towards the development of their areas. This may be attributed to inclusion of community members during civilian regime, as well as, objectives of CBOs that promotes democratic participation and opportunity for grassroots involvement in decision making and policy formulation that thrives in year 2000 and beyond as opposed military regime (years before 1999). In addition multiple comparisons test computed (Scheffe variant) shows that the significant difference in households‟ level of satisfaction in CBOs‟ development projects actually lies between OS and OC; while the households‟ level of satisfaction with CBOs development projects between ON and any others two Senatorial Districts are not statistically significant (Table 4.28). 163 Table 4.36: Scheffe Multiple Comparisons on Households Level of Satisfaction with CBOs Development Projects. Dependent Variable Senatorial Senatorial Mean Std. Sig. District (I) District (J) difference Error (I – J) Household level of Oyo Central satisfaction for years Oyo South Senatorial District 4.433 7.373 .835 before 1999 Senatorial District Oyo North Senatorial District 8.037 6.407 .456 Oyo South Oyo central Senatorial District -4.433 7.373 .835 Senatorial District Oyo North Senatorial District 3.604 6.701 .865 Oyo South Senatorial District -8.037 6.407 .456 Oyo North Senatorial District Oyo Central Senatorial District -3.603 6.701 .865 Household level of Oyo Central satisfaction year 2000 Oyo South Senatorial District -.2491 ⃰ 6.672 .001 and beyond Senatorial District Oyo North Senatorial District -.1486 6.078 .051 Oyo South Oyo Central Senatorial District -.2491 ⃰ 6.672 .001 Senatorial District Oyo North Senatorial District .1005 6.661 .321 Oyo South Oyo North Senatorial District .1486 6.078 0.51 Senatorial District Oyo Central Senatorial District -.1005 6.661 .321 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 164 4.14: Perception of Households on Obstacles to Development Participation Barriers and challenges can affect both development processes and participation in development activities. Thus, understanding and anticipating these barriers and challenges ahead is imperative for effective policy-making process. It is also important for communities to understand that government also faces barriers and challenges in responding to and recognizing their priorities. The most common barriers and challenges include: lack of understanding of the policy process, lack of community resources, reliance on volunteers, lack of access to information, absence of rural representation and certain community groups in the decision-making process, relationship between government and rural communities, and time and policy timeline restrictions. This section evaluates Households‟ Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation (ODP), by calculating the Summation of the Weighted Value (SWV) of respondents through a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 attached to (14) indicators measured through Likert scale with VH (Very High ≥70 percent), H (High 69- 60 percent), M (Moderate 59-50 percent), L (Low 49-40 percent), and VL (Very Low 39-0 percent). Details Appendix 4 Part C To identify the magnitude of Obstacles to Development Participation (ODP), computation is made for two different historical epochs for the Senatorial Districts. 165 Table 4.37: Households’ Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo South Before 1999 2000 &Beyond S/N OBSTACLE SWV ODP (x) (x-x) SEM SWV ODP(x) (x-x) SEM 1 Financial problem among 1558 4.03(1) 0.63 ± 1462 3.78(2) 0.47 ± community members 0.14 0.22 2 Wealth disparity among 1342 3.47(7) 0.07 ± 1468 3.80(1) 0.48 ± community members 0.12 0.23 3 Power disparity among 1323 3.42(8) 0.02 ± 1294 3.34(7) -0.03 ± community members 0.11 0.13 4 Exclusion of households from 1314 3.40(9) 0.00 ± 1270 3.28(9) -0.03 ± development process 0.12 0.51 5 Lack of trust on project finance 1345 3.48(6) 0.08 ± 1304 3.37(6) 0.06 ± among community members 0.13 0.24 6 Disagreement between the 1494 3.86(2) 0.46 ± 1417 3.66(3) 0.35 ± technical and non-technical 0.17 0.33 aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 1129 2.92(12) -0.48 ± 1064 2.75(13 -0.56 ± community members 0.15 0.21 8 Unequal accessbility to project 1298 3.35(10) -0.04 ± 1345 3.48(4) 0.16 ± benefit among community 0.19 0.11 members 9 Unequal accessibility to 1409 3.64(3) 0.24 ± 1269 3.28(9) -0.03 ± transformational information 0.18 0.13 among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 1361 3.52(4) 0.12 ± 1309 3.38(5) 0.07 ± community members on the 0.16 0.14 source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 1253 3.24(11) -0.16 ± 1236 3.19(11) -0.12 ± participation by other groups 0.22 0.14 within the community 12 Hostility to community 1114 2.88(13) -0.52 ± 1188 3.07(12) -0.24 ± participation by other groups 0.23 0.15 outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 1112 2.87(14) -0.53 ± 1047 2.70(14) -0.60 ± development choice 0.22 0.13 14 Ineffective institutional leadership 1364 3.52(4) 0.13 ± 1274 3.30(8) -0.02 ± structure 0.21 0.22 Total 47.59 ----- 46.37 ----- Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X- ODP X- ODP Mean =3.40 Mean =3.31 STANDARD ERROR OF THE MEAN = SEM 166 As shown in Table 4.37, years before 1999 in OS the most severe problem is “financial problem among community members” 4.03 while the least severe is “religion contradiction on development choice” 2.87. Other obstacles rated high in descending order are “disagreement between the technical and non technical aspect in project implementation” 3.86, “unequal access to project benefit among community members” 3.35, “uncooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance” 3.52, “ineffective institutional leadership structure” 3.52, lack of trust on project finance among community members” 3.48, “wealth disparity among community members” 3.47, “power disparity among community members” 3.42 and “exclusion of households from development processes 3.40. The mean value is 3.40 and variables with negative deviation below the mean include: “unequal access to project benefits among community members” 3.35 “gender discrimination among community members” 2.92 and “hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community” 2.88. 167 Table 4.38: Households Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo Central. Before 1999 2000 &Beyond S/N OBSTACLE SWV ODP (x-x) SEM SWV ODP (x-x) SEM (x) (x) 1 Financial problem among 1181 3.92(1) 0.62 ± 1075 3.57(2) 025 ± community members 0.13 0.44 2 Wealth disparity among 1064 3.53(2) 0.20 ± 1080 3.58(1) 0.27 ± community members 0.11 0.52 3 Power disparity among 964 3.20(11) -0.12 ± 1048 3.48(4) 0.16 ± community members 0.12 0.54 4 Exclusion of households from 987 3.28(8) -0.05 ± 1016 3.38(7) 0.16 ± development process 0.13 0.50 5 Lack of trust on project finance 991 3.29(7) -0.03 ± 1063 3.53(3) 0.21 ± among community members 0.16 0.43 6 Disagreement between the 1039 3.45(3) 0.12 ± 1043 3.47(5) 0.14 ± technical and non-technical 0.13 0.16 groupin aspect of project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 966 3.21(10) -0.12 ± 913 3.03(13) -0.29 ± community members 0.11 0.18 8 Unequal accessibility to project 980 3.26(9) -0.07 ± 961 3.19(10) -0.13 ± benefit among community 0.15 0.13 members 9 Unequal accessibility to 992 3.30(6) -0.03 ± 1004 3.34(8) 0.01 ± transformational information 0.14 0.11 among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 1026 3.41(4) 0.08 ± 1019 3.39(6) 0.06 ± community members on the 0.13 0.13 source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 962 3.20(11) -0.13 ± 959 3.19(10) -0.14 ± participation by other groups 0.11 0.14 within the community 168 12 Hostility to community 919 3.05(14) -0.27 ± 907 3.01(14) -0.31 ± participation by other groups 0.14 0.15 outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 929 3.09(13) -0.24 ± 934 3.10(12) -0.22 ± development choice 0.12 0.16 14 Ineffective institutional leadership 1014 3.37(5) 0.04 ± 973 3.23(9) -0.08 ± structure 0.11 0.17 Total 46.56 46.50 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X- ODP X- ODP Mean =3.325 Mean =3.321 169 In OC the problem that constitutes the most ODP during years before 1999 is “financial problem among community members” 3.92, while the problem regarded as the least ODP during the period is “hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community” 3.05. Other problem that constitutes ODP in order of severity are “wealth disparity among community members” 3.53, “disagreement between the technical and non- technical group with respect to project implementation” 3.45 and “uncooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance” 3.41 and infective institutional leadership structure 3.37. All these variables have positive deviations about their respective means. The mean ODP is 3.32 while indicators with negative deviation below the mean are considered low. Some of the variables with negative deviation below the mean in descending order are “unequal access to transformational information among community members” 3.30, “lack of trust on project finance among community members” 3.29, “exclusion of households from development process” 3.28 among others. 170 Table 4.39: Households Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo North Before 1999 2000 &Beyond S/N OBSTACLE SWV ODP (x-x) SEM SWV ODP (x-x) SEM (x) (x) 1 Financial problem among 1484 3.85(1) 0.54 ± 1429 4.75(1) 0.71 ± community members 0.21 0.10 2 Wealth disparity among 1290 3.35(6) 0.03 ± 1313 4.36(2) 0.32 ± community members 0.34 0.61 3 Power disparity among 1299 3.37(4) 0.06 ± 1295 4.30(4) 0.27 ± community members 0.31 0.23 4 Exclusion of households from 1273 3.30(9) -0.01 ± 1290 4.29(5) 0.25 ± development process 0.36 0.14 5 Lack of trust on project 1318 3.42(2) 0.11 ± 1302 4.33(3) 0.29 ± finance among community 0.21 0.52 members 6 Disagreement between the 1277 3.31(7) 0.00 ± 1167 3.88(10) -0.16 ± technical and non-technical 0.12 0.33 groups in aspect of project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 1243 3.22(10) -0.09 ± 1064 3.53(14) -0.50 ± community members 0.18 0.21 8 Unequal accessibility to 1236 3.21(11) -0.11 ± 1111 3.70(11) -0.35 ± project benefit among 0.51 0.30 community members 9 Unequal accessibility to 1276 3.31(7) 0.00 ±0.3 1203 4.00(8) -0.04 ±0.1 171 transformational information 3 4 among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude 1295 3.36(5) -0.05 ± 1211 4.02(7) -0.01 ± among community members 0.10 0.11 on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 1233 3.20(12) -0.11 ± 1229 4.08(6) 0.05 ± participation by other groups 0.32 0.21 within the community 12 Hostility to community 1195 3.10(13) -0.24 ± 1113 3.70(11) -0.34 ± participation by other groups 0.29 0.41 outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 1158 3.00(14) -0.30 ± 1106 3.67(13) -0.36 ± development choice 0.38 0.55 14 Ineffective institutional 1303 3.38(3) 0.06 ± 1180 3.92(9) -0.12 ± leadership structure 0.27 0.63 Total 46.44 ---- 56.12 ---- - Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X- ODP X- ODP Mean =3.32 Mean =4.02 172 In ON, the problem that constitutes the most ODP during years before 1999 is “financial problem among community members” 3.85. While the problem regarded as the least ODP during the period is “religion contradiction on development choice” 3.00. The mean is 3.32 and other problems that constitutes ODP in their order of severity are “lack of trust on project finance among community members” 3.42, “ineffective institutional leadership structure” 3.38, “power disparity among community members” 3.37 and “uncooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance” 3.36. These variables have positive deviation above the mean. The problems in lesser severity of ODP in decreasing manner from the mean among others are “disagreement between the technical and non-technical group with respect to project implementation” 3.31, “unequal access to transformational information among community members” 3.31 and “exclusion of households from development process” 3.30. In the year 2000 and after, the problems that have been the most ODP in OS is “wealth disparity among community members” 3.80 while the problems with least severity of ODP is “religion contradiction on development choice” 2.70. The average is 3.31, some highly rated problems in order of severity in decreasing manner to the mean are: “financial problem among community members” 3.78, “disagreement between the technical and non- technical group with respect to project implementation” 3.66 and “unequal access to project benefit among community members” 3.48. However, ODP with lower than the mean in decreasing order are: “ineffective institutional leadership” 3.30,“exclusion of households‟ from development processes” 3.28, “unequal access to transformational information among community members” 3.28 and “hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community” 3.07. For the year 2000 and after, “wealth disparity among community members” constitutes the highest ODP in OC with a value of 3.58. Hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community with value of ODP 3.01 is the least problems. The mean ODP is 3.32. While in decreasing manner to the mean are the following high rated problems that obstruct development participation “financial problem among community members” 3.57, “lack of trust on project finance among community members” 3.53, “power disparity among community members” 3.48 and “disagreement between the technical and non-technical group with respect to project implementation” 3.47. Variable with low ODP below the mean are the following among others “ineffective institutional leadership structure” 3.23, “unequal access to project benefit among community members” 3.19, 173 “hostility to community participation by other groups within the community” 3.19 and “religion contradiction on development choice” 3.10. Table 4.39 on the other hand, identified the variables constituting obstacles to development participation for year 2000 and after in ON as: “financial problem among community members” with highest value of 4.75. The variable with lowest ODP is “gender discrimination among community members” 3.53, while the mean is 4.04. Some other high rated variables above the mean in decreasing manner are “wealth disparity among community members” 4.36, “lack of trust on project finance among community members” 4.33 and “power disparity among community members” 4.30. Variables with low deviation below the mean in decreasing manner are “uncooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance” 4.02, “unequal access to transformational information among community members” 4.00 and “disagreement between technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation” 3.88. The most three prominent obstacles to development activities among the households‟ for years under consideration by the respondents were “financial problem among community members” 4.75, “wealth disparity among community members” 4.36, “power disparity among community members” 4.30, and “disagreement between the technical and non- technical group with respect to project implementation” 3.88. The least three obstacles are: “gender discrimination among community members” 3.53, “hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community” 3.70, and “religion contradiction on development choice” 3.67. 174 Table 4.40: Households Perception of Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo State. Before 1999 2000 and Beyond OBSTACLE NO SWV ODP 𝑥 − 𝑥 SEM NO SWV ODP 𝑥 − 𝑥 SEM S/N 1 Financial problem among 1068 4223 3.95(1) 0.58 ± 0.16 1039 3966 3.81(1) 0.5 ± 0.18 community members 2 Wealth disparity among 1067 3696 3.46(3) 0.09 ± 0.13 1058 3861 3.64(2) 0.33 ± 0.17 community members 3 Power disparity among 1062 3586 3.37(8) 0.00 ± 0.11 1050 3637 3.46(3) 0.15 ± 0.16 community members 4 Exclusion of households 1058 3574 3.37(8) 0.00 ± 0.15 1046 3576 3.41(6) 0.10 ± 0.15 from development process 5 Lack of trust on project 1060 3654 3.44(5) 0.01 ± 0.31 1062 3669 3.45(4) 0.14 ± 0.14 finance among community members 6 Disagreement between the 1065 3810 3.57(2) 0.20 ± 0.24 1055 3627 3.43(5) 0.12 ± 0.13 technical and non- technical groups in aspect of project implementation 7 Gender discrimination 1064 3338 3.13(12) -0.24 ± 0.15 1059 3041 2.87(14) -0.44 ± 0.11 among community members 8 Unequal accessbility to 1063 3514 3.30(10) -0.07 ±0. 17 1058 3417 3.22(11) -0.09 ± 0.13 project benefit among community members 9 Unequal accessbility to 1067 3679 3.44(5) 0.07 ± 0.18 1057 3476 3.28(8) -0.03 ± 0.15 transformational information among community members 175 10 Un-cooperative attitude 1067 3682 3.45(4) 0.08 ± 0.18 1058 3539 3.34(3) 0.03 ± 0.13 among community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 1065 3448 3.23(11) -0.14 ± 0.16 1054 3424 3.24(10) -0.07 ± 0.12 participation by other groups within the community 12 Hostility to community 1064 3228 3.03(13) -0.34 ± 0.15 1053 3208 3.04(12) -0.27 ± 0.11 participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 1058 3199 3.02(14) -0.35 ± 0.14 1057 3087 2.92(13) -0.39 ± 0.81 development choice 14 Ineffective institutional 1068 3881 3.44(5) -0.07 ± 0.13 1050 3427 3.26(9) -0.05 ± 0.16 leadership structure Total 47.20 46.37 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X- ODP X- ODP Mean =3.37 Mean =3.31 176 However, by contrast; four groups are identified. The first group has negative deviation below the meanfor years before 1999 and still maintains their negative deviation below the mean foryear 2000 and after. It comprises variables that do not pose threats to development participation in both epochs. On the aggregate, the variables under this group are: “gender discrimination among community members”, “hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community”, and “religion contradiction on development choice”; while in OS is “hostility to community participation by other groups within the community”. In OC “unequal access to project benefit among community members” and “hostility to community participation by other groups within the community” are found. In ON, “unequal access to project benefit among community members”, and “un- cooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance” are identified. The second group was the one with positive deviation above the meanfor years before 1999 and thereafter has negative deviation below the meanfor the years 2000 and after. This implies that the group overcomes the initial threats to development participation prominent in years before 1999 in the year 2000 and beyond. In OS there was “power disparity among community members”, “exclusion of households from development process”, “unequal access to transformational information among community members”, “ineffective institutional leadership structure”. While in OC “ineffective institutional leadership structure was identified”. In ON “disagreement between the technical and non-technical aspect on project implementation”, “unequal access to transformational information among community members” and “ineffective institutional leadership structure” are identified. The success can be attributed to genuine participation toward project development. The third group has negative deviation for years before 1999 and later on has positive deviation above the mean by the year 2000 and after. The group needs proper attention because they are not experiencing such obstacle before entrenchment of democracy but thereafter. Thus, attention of the scholars and the policy makers should be sought in addressing the problems. In OS, there was “unequal access to project benefit among community members”, while in OC there are “power disparity among community members”, “exclusion of households from development process”, “lack of trust on project finance among community members”, “unequal access to transformational information among community members”. “Exclusion of households‟ from development process and “hostility to community participation by other groups within the community” are observed in ON. Considering these 177 barriers to development participation, it was crystal clear that what the respondents wanted was genuine participation in projects development that devoid social status. The fourth group has positive deviation above the means for years before 1999 and years 2000 and after. In OS and OC is “financial problems among community members”,”wealth disparity among community members”,“disagreement between the technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation”, “un-cooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance”. In OS and ON is “lack of trust on project finance among community members”. Also there are “financial problem among community members”, “wealth disparity among community members” and “power disparity among community members” in ON. The major barriers to development participation central on finance, thus to resolve this; there was need for empowerment programme rooted in genuine involvement of the concerned. Such empowerment programmes should not be based on the knowledge of the donors only but also of the beneficiaries. The mean values of households‟ perception of obstacles to development participation for years before 1999 among the Senatorial Districts are 3.40 in OS, 3.32 in OC and 3.32 in ON. While, households‟ perception of obstacles to development participation for years 2000 and beyond differs in all the three Senatorial Districts with mean values of 3.31 in OS, 3.23 in OC and 4.02 in ON. The result shows that households‟ perception of obstacles to development participation for the two epochs reduces only in OS and remains constant in OC, and increases in ON. This shows that obstacles to development participation reduces in OS, and implies that conscious efforts is needed to create awareness on the needs to reduce obstacles to development participation caused by financial problems, wealth and power disparities among community members. 4.15 Conclusion This chapter analyses the characteristics and spatial distribution of CBOs. It classifies CBOs according to their membership-strength and various projects undertaken by the CBOs among the Senatorial Districts. The study reveals that a total of three-hundred and seventeen projects are implemented with eighty-three projects in OS, one-hundred and eleven projects in OC and one-hundred and twenty three projects in ON. The impact of socio-economic characteristics on households‟ contributions in community development examined shows that male respondents participated significantly than their female counterparts and this could be attributed to busy schedule of the women in their homes. Meanwhile, respondents within the age groups 31-40 and 41-50 years 178 participated in community development activities more than others; while respondents with post secondary education are in this category. Also, respondents with income intervals of 15,001-25,000 and 25,001-35,000 participated more in community development activities. On the aggregate, households‟ willingness to participation in future development processes shows that the percentage of citizens unwilling to participate and degree of tokenism are higher compared to degree of citizens‟ power. The implied that, majority of development activities in the state might not be able to attained sustainability, reliability and replicability; unless conscientious efforts are made to correct the anomaly. However, households‟ willingness to participate in future development shows that ON has the highest proportion of people followed by OS and OC respectively. Also considered are households‟ development priorities and the result shows that most government projects do not reflect communities‟ yearnings. Examples of these include solar street light, solar power borehole, viewing centres/recreation facilities, and irrigation facilities among others. The result of ANOVA with F-value of 0.79 and significance level of 0.45 shows that households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development projects for years before 1999 do not vary significantly among Senatorial Districts. However, with F-value of 7.32 and significance level of 0.01, households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development projects for year 2000 and after varies among the three Senatorial Districts. The notable obstacles to development participation among the respondents are: “financial problem among community members”, “wealth disparity among community members”, “disagreement between the technical and non technical group with respect to project implementation” and “power disparity among community members”. The next chapter examines households‟ perception of CBOs as agents of poverty alleviation, CBOs development capability, and the impact of CBOs projects on poverty alleviation among others. 179 CHAPTER FIVE STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATIONS’ POVERTY ALLEVIATION ACTIVITIES 5.1 Introduction Narayan et al (2000) observed that despite 2.8 billion poverty experts and the poor themselves, development discourse about poverty has been dominated by the perspective and expertise of those who are not poor but professionals, politicians and agency officials. Many scholars have identified causes of poverty in Nigeria to include: underserved access to socio- economic infrastructure and services (Okumadewa 2001); lack of participation in governance and decision making (Robert et al, 2003); political instability among others. Among these problems, none is as rampant as corruption and violation of basic human rights. Poor people living in urban and rural communities are rich in social networks and local institutions. There are innumerable examples of poor people helping one another to overcome survival, safety, and social problems. Despite these advantages, Narayan et al, (2000) observed an intrinsic weakness in the bargaining power of poor people‟s informal network with states, private enterprises, traders, or NGOs. While the previous chapter deals extensively with CBOs‟ development activities, households‟ development priorities, households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development approaches and perceived obstacle to development participation, this chapter examines the importance that households place on CBOs as agents of development and poverty reduction, impacts of community based organisations projects on poverty alleviation and households‟ perceived actions for poverty reduction. 5.2 Households’ Assessment of CBOs Poverty alleviation Activities The ability of an institution to offer people what they desired and act as expected is important in the development and poverty alleviation processes. Success in development planning can be achieved when what has been planned for over the years are realized. This section evaluates Households‟ perception of CBOs Poverty alleviation Activities (CPRA) by calculating the Summation of the Weighted Value (SWV) of respondents through a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and1 attached to (8) indicators measured through Likert scale with VH (Very High ≥70 percent), H (High 69-60 percent), M (Moderate 59-50 percent), L (Low 49- 40 percent), and VL (Very Low 39-0 percent). (Details Appendix 4 Part D). 180 Table 5.1: Households’ Perception of Community Based Organisation’s Poverty Reduction Activities in Oyo South Senatorial District S/N Poverty Reduction Before 1999 2000 &Beyond Activities SWV CPRA (x-x) SWV CPRA (x-x) (x) (x) 1 Infrastructural development 1570 4.06 0.38 1484 3.83 0.09 2 Partnership with other 1389 3.59 -0.09 1493 3.86 0.11 development organisations on community development 3 Charity services and financial 1410 3.64 -0.04 1326 3.43 -0.31 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 1441 3.72 0.04 1402 3.62 -0.12 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 1455 3.76 0.08 1427 3.69 -0.05 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 1399 3.61 -0.07 1519 3.92 0.18 training centres 7 Provision of security 1431 3.70 0.02 1444 3.73 -0.01 8 Supply of labour and 1303 3.37 -0.31 1489 3.85 0.11 technical advice Total 29.45 - 29.93 - Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 CDPR= x CDPR = x Mean = 3.68 Mean = 3.74 181 From Table 5.1, the activities of the CBOs which households‟ perceived as the most important in OS for years before 1999 is “infrastructural development” 4.06. This may be attributed to the fact that community members desired most benefits from such project, while the least is “supply of labour and technical advice” 3.37. The average CPRA is 3.68. Other activities in order of their perceived importance are: “maintenance of community projects” 3.76, “consultation with other development stakeholders” 3.72, and “provision of security” 3.70. Meanwhile, other activities of CBOsperceived to be of lessimportance are “charity service and financial support to project development” 3.64, “establishment of vocational training centres” 3.61, “partnership with other development organisation on community development” 3.59. 182 Table 5.2: Households’ Perception of Community Based Organisation’s Poverty Reduction Activities in Oyo Central Senatorial District S/N Poverty alleviation Activities Before 1999 2000 &Beyond SWV CPRA(x) (x-x) SWV CPRA (x) (x-x) 1 Infrastructural Development 998 3.32 0.16 992 3.30 0.19 2 Partnership with other 959 3.19 0.03 953 3.16 0.05 development organisation on community development 3 Charity services and financial 966 3.21 0.06 907 3.01 -0.09 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 964 3.20 0.05 924 3.07 -0.03 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 953 3.17 0.01 912 3.03 -0.07 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 903 3.00 -0.15 932 3.10 -0.01 training centres 7 Provision of security 930 3.09 -0.06 924 3.07 -0.04 8 Supply of labour and technical 920 3.06 -0.10 942 3.13 0.02 advice Total 25.24 ___ 24.87 ___ Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 CPRA = x CPRA = x Mean = 3.15 Mean = 3.11 183 In OC, the activities of the CBOs that household‟ perceived as most important for years before 1999 is “infrastructural development” 3.32 and the least is “establishment of vocational training centres 3.00. Other activities in order of their perceived importance above the mean are: “charity services and financial support to project development” 3.21, “consultation with other development stakeholders” 3.20, “partnership with other development organisation on community development” 3.19 and “maintenance of community project” 3.17. Other activities of CBOs perceived to be of less importance to the households and which fall below the mean are “supply of labour and technical advice” 3.06 and “provision of security” 3.09. 184 Table 5.3: Households’ Perception of Community Based Organisation’s Poverty Reduction Activities in Oyo North Senatorial District S/N Poverty Reduction Activities Before 1999 2000 &Beyond SWV CPRA (x-x) SWV CPRA (x-x) (x) (x) 1 Infrastructural Development 1221 3.17 0.13 1280 3.32 0.23 2 Partnership with other 1167 3.03 -0.01 1198 3.11 0.02 development organisation on community development 3 Charity services and financial 1170 3.04 -0.01 1212 3.15 0.06 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 1137 2.95 -0.09 1150 2.99 -0.10 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 1211 3.15 0.10 1177 3.06 -0.01 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 1074 2.79 -0.25 1081 2.81 -0.28 training centres 7 provision of security 1205 3.13 0.09 1229 3.19 0.10 8 supply of labour and technical 1185 3.08 0.04 1193 3.10 0.01 advice Total 24.34 24.73 ___ Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 CPRA = x CPRA = x Mean = 3.04 Mean = 3.09 185 From Table 5.3 the activity of CBOs that households perceived as most important in ON for years before 1999 is “infrastructural development” 3.17 and the least is “establishment of vocational training centres” 2.79 while the mean is 3.04. The activities of CBOs perceived above the mean are “maintenance of community projects” 3.15, “provision of security” 3.13 and “supply of labour and technical advice” 3.08. Meanwhile, “consultation with other development stakeholders” 2.95, “partnership with other development organisation on community development” 3.03, “charity services and financial support to project development” 3.04 and “establishment of vocational training centres” 2.79, are the activities of CBOs that households‟ perceived to fall below the mean of CPRA. On the other hand, the activities of the CBOs that households perceived as most important in OS for year 2000 and after is “establishment of vocational training centres” 3.92 and the least is “charity services and financial support to project development” with CPRA value of 3.43 Table 5.1. The average is 3.74 while the activities of CBOs perceived by the households to be of positive deviation above the mean values are: “partnership with other development organisation on community development” 3.86, “supply of labour and technical advice” 3.85, and “charity service and financial support to project development” 3.43. In addition the activities of CBOS perceived by the households below the meanvalue in descending order are: “provision of security” 3.73, “maintenance of community project” 3.69 and “supply of labour and technical advice” 3.13. For the year 2000 and after “infrastructural development” remained the activity of CBOs that households perceived most important in OC with value of 3.30 while the least preferred by the households is “charity service and financial support to project development” 3.01 Table 5.2. The average is 3.11 while, the activities with positive deviation above the mean are: “financial partnership with other development organisation on community development” 3.16 and “supply of labour and technical advice” 3.13. From Table 5.3, the activities of CBOs that households perceived as the most and least important for the year 2000 and after in ON are “infrastructural development” 3.32 and “establishment of vocational training centres” 2.81. The mean is 3.09 while the following development activities have higher values above the mean; “provision of security” 3.19, “charity services and financial support to project development” 3.15, “partnership with other development organisation on community development” 3.11 and “supply of labour and technical advice” 3.10. On the other side, the activities of CBOs with value below the mean are perceived to be of less importance. These are: “maintenance of community project” 3.06, 186 “consultation with other development stakeholders” 2.99 and “establishment of vocational training centers” 2.81. Overall pattern shows that CBOs development activities for both epochs focused on „infrastructural development”, “maintenance of community projects”, “provision of security” and “supply of labour and technical advice”. While the least of the CBOs project are “charity services and financial support to project development”, “consultation with other development stakeholders”, “supply of labour and technical advice”, and “establishment of vocational training centres” details (Table 5.4). 187 Table 5.4: Community Based Organisation’s Poverty Reduction Activities in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State S/N Poverty Reduction Activities Before 1999 2000 &Beyond No SWV CPRA (x-x) No SWV CPRA (x-x) (x) (x) 1 Infrastructural Development 1052 3789 3.60(1) 0.24 1046 3756 3.59(1) 0.17 2 Partnership with other 1057 3515 3.32(6) -0.04 1054 3644 3.45(4) 0.03 development organisation on community development 3 Charity services and financial 1053 3546 3.36(4) 0.00 1052 3445 3.27(8) -0.15 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 1056 3542 3.35(5) -0.01 1042 3476 3.33(7) -0.09 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 1044 3619 3.46(2) 0.10 1032 3516 3.40(5) -0.02 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 1043 3376 3.23(8) 0.13 1042 3532 3.38(6) -0.04 training centres 7 provision of security 1052 3566 3.38(3) 0.02 1039 3597 3.46(3) 0.04 8 Supply of labour and technical 1049 3408 3.24(7) -0.12 1037 3624 3.49(2) 0.07 advice Total 26.94 27.37 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X=CPRA X=CPRA Mean = 3.37 Mean =3.42 188 However, by contrast; four groups are identified. The first group has negative deviation below the mean for years before 1999 and still maintains their negative deviation below the mean inyear 2000 and after. Respondents in this category doubt CBOs ability in reduction of poverty, in OS is “charity services and financial support to project development”. The “establishment of vocational training centers” and “provision of security” are variables in OC. In ON is “consultation with other development stakeholders” and “establishment of vocational training centres” was identified with this group. The second group is the one with positive deviation above the mean for years before 1999 and negative deviation by the year 2000 and beyond. Respondents‟ in this category opined that CBOs activities that led to poverty reduction for years before 1999 later doubt the possibility of using same approach for poverty reduction for years 2000 and beyond. These are: “consultation with other development stakeholders”, “maintenance of community projects” and “establishment of vocational training centres” in OS. While in OC are: “charity services and financial support to project development”, “consultation with other development stakeholders”, and “maintenance of community projects” in ON. The third group has negative deviation years before 1999 and later positive deviation above the mean by the year 2000 and beyond. The respondents in this category initially doubt CBOs activities in poverty reduction for years before 1999; but thereafter optimistic of success if such strategies were adopted for years 2000 and beyond. “Partnership with other development organisation on community development”, “establishment of vocational training centres” and “supply of labour and technical advice” was found in OS. While in OC there are “charity service and financial supports to project development”, “consultation with other development stakeholders” and “maintenance of community projects”. In ON, variables identified are: “partnership with other development organisation on community development”, and “charity service and financial support to project development”. The fourth group has positive deviation above the means for years before 1999 and year 2000 and after. Respondents in this category trusted the abilities of CBOs in poverty reduction for the two historical epochs. In OS was “infrastructural development”, while in OC “infrastructural development” and “partnership with other development organisation on community development” are two variables identified with the group. In ON “infrastructural development”, “provision of security”, and “supply of labour and technical advice” are variables that maintained their positive position throughout the period under consideration. Critical assessment of these responses in all the three Senatorial Districts acknowledged the importance of infrastructural development through CBOs as parts of 189 efforts towards poverty alleviation. However variation between and within group was a pointer to the fact that blue print approach towards poverty reduction in one community may not likely work for the other communities because of the variations in both challenges and opportunities facing such community. Households‟ perceived effort of CBOs in poverty reduction processes for years before 1999 is higher in OS 3.68 followed by OC 3.15 and ON 3.04. While in year 2000 and beyond households‟ perceived effort of CBOs in poverty alleviation is higher in OS 3.74, the situation in OC and ON is at its lower ebb 3.11 and 3.09 respectively. On the aggregate, households‟ perceived effort of CBOs on poverty reduction process is higher in year 2000 and beyond 3.42 than years before 1999-3.37. The success is attributed to the monitoring of the CBOs activities by the Ministry of Social Development that were more inclusive in year 2000 and beyond especially in most urban areas. In addition to that is the acknowledgement of CBOs as agent of grassroots development by the politician as well as community members. 5.3 Hypothesis 4 The fourth hypothesis which states that CBOs development activities do not have effect on incidence of poverty in Oyo State is tested with Student‟s t-test. The hypothesis measures the impact of CBOs development activities on poverty level in the state. The mean incidence of poverty for years before 1999 IPLB is 4.83, while IPLA is 1.56 for year 2000 and after (Table 5.5). 190 Table 5.5: Paired Mean Samples: Incidence of Poverty Years before 1999 and Year 2000 and after Mean N Std. Std. Error Mean Deviation Pair 1 5.3 386 3.211 6.221 SMEAN Oyo North 1.4 386 1.071 4.701 SMEAN Pair 1 6.8 297 4.151 3.612 SMEAN Oyo Central SMEAN 2.3 297 2.10 1.421 Pair 1 3.90 390 1.321 2.301 SMEAN Oyo South 1.12 390 0.623 0.313 SMEAN Pair 1 4.83 1073 0.2511 7.666 SMEAN Total 1.56 1073 0.170 3.265 SMEAN Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 191 The IPLB and IPLA are subjected to paired sample t-test, the result shows that the t- value is 5.11 and was significant at 0.00 i.e. far less than the alpha level of 0.05 (Table 5.6). 192 Table5.6: Paired Samples t-test: Incidence of Poverty Years before 1999 and year 2000 and after Mean Std. Std. Error Lower Upper t do sig Deviation of Mean Oyo North Pair 1 SMEAN 5.625 2.403 7.332 2.231 4.892 8.512 385 0.004 Oyo Central Pair 1 SMEAN 4.531 0.354 5.201 2.103 4.614 7.305 296 0.002 Oyo South Pair 1 SMEAN 5.012 1.110 8.251 3.143 5.621 9.312 389 0.011 Total Pair SMEAN 3.270 0.2094 6.394 2.015 4.525 5.114 1072 0.000 Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 193 This implied that the poverty level is perceived to have drastically reduced for year 2000 and after (Ceteris paribus). Meanwhile, with previous results on hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 it is surprising how CBOs development intervention alone could have brought about significant poverty reduction. Households in Oyo state attributed the reduction in poverty to other exogenous factors such as four times increase in salary between year 2000 to date with value of 9.0 per cent in ON, 6.9 per cent in OC and 8.9 per cent in OS. Birth control 13.8 per cent in ON, 10.6 per cent in OC and13.7 per cent in OS; multiple jobs by the head of households are 15.1 per cent in ON, 4.7 per cent in OC and 12.8 per cent in OS, among others as the coping strategies that led to poverty reduction. 194 Table 5.7: Factors Responsible for Poverty Reduction among Senatorial Districts in Oyo State S/No Factor for SENATORIAL DISTRICTS Poverty OYO SOUTH OYO CENTRAL OYO NORTH TOTAL Reduction Respondents % Respondents % Respondents % Respondents % 1 Salary 93 8.9 72 6.9 94 9.0 259 24.8 Increase 2 Birth 143 13.7 111 10.6 144 13.8 398 38.1 Control 3 Multiple 133 12.8 49 4.7 158 15.1 340 32.6 Jobs 4 Others 17 1.6 13 1.2 18 1.7 47 4.5 Total 386 32.3 245 25.0 413 32.7 1044 100 195 This implied that community development priorities should be encouraged; through this households‟ coping strategies will be enhanced. 5.4: Respondents Percieved Impacts of Community Based Organizations Projects on Poverty Reduction The impact is the expected effects of a project on a targeted population. It measures the ultimate change in the conditions of beneficiaries resulting from a project. Due to multi dimensional perspective of poverty certain indicators from the initial categories of projects undertaken by the CBOs are used to compute the Impact of CBOs Projects on Poverty Reduction Index (ICPPR). This index measured both the constraints to poverty reduction before CBOs projects implementation and the extent of changes that occurred after CBOs projects implementation in Oyo State. The index is computed as a sum of the weights resulting from the Likert scale with „very significant‟ ≥70 percent, „significant‟69-60 percent, „less-significant‟ 59-50 percent „not significant‟ 49-40 percent, and „not significant at all‟ 39- 0 percent with a weighted values of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. However outcomes of responses greater than or equal to 4 represent a significant impact level, any responses greater than or equal to 3 represent little improvement, while responses equal to or less than 2 represent no impact at all. Details Appendix 4 Part E. In computing (ICPPR) the average of the responses measured on Likert scale was first determined and this is represented by Y, the mean of sub-classes of CBOs project represented by X and the mean of the aggregate ICPPR computed with the deviations of the ICPPR from it for ranking the projects in order of their constraints perpetuating poverty before CBOs intervention and the impacts after CBOs interventions represented by x-x (Table: 5.7-5.10). 196 Table5.8: Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Oyo South Senatorial Districts CBOs Impact Rating Index in O S Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty S/No Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation Impact Indicators (𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 𝑿 − 𝑿 ) 𝑿 − 𝑿 (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) 𝟐 SWV Y X SWV Y X 1 Social - assistance to the needy 816 2.12 1006 2.71 2.71 2.12 -0.38 0.14 -0.10 0.01 2 Rape/indecent assaults 1410 3.64 1131 3.33 Burglary/house braking 1541 4.01 1136 3.06 Breach of public peace 543 3.01 3.66 419 2.19 Kidnapping and physical 1438 3.96 1.16 1.35 1646 4.47 3.26 0.45 0.20 insecurity Inclusion of people in 644 1.82 1050 2.76 development processes accountability and transparency 687 1.77 1107 2.89 Social solidarity 746 2.05 1145 3.04 197 Socio-cultural Security Philanthropic Heritages influence and control on 715 1.87 1094 2.83 3 developments Community dignity and prestige 867 2.29 1.96 -0.54 0.29 1106 3.02 2.91 0.10 0.01 Access to transformational 782 2.12 952 2.72 4 Information Access to all seasons road 783 2.09 832 2.26 Access to water 1024 2.69 833 2.18 Access to electricity 932 2.40 1084 2.80 Access to health care 960 2.48 1101 2.70 Access to market places 569 2.92 718 3.57 Quality and hygienic 677 1.93 1055 2.76 environment Nutrition adequacy 988 2.64 864 2.27 Access to school 1114 3.01 1135 3.05 2.48 -0.02 0.00 2.70 0.11 0.01 Income 907 2.36 987 2.59 198 E Infrastructural Provision c o n o m y a n d E m p o w e r m e n t Employment opportunity 831 2.15 993 2.60 5 2.28 -0.22 0.05 2.51 -0.30 0.09 Productivity 863 2.33 843 2.33 Total - 55.64 12.5 - 1.83 - 62.33 14.09 - 0.32 Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 Before CBOs projects intervention After CBOs projects interventions Mean x = 2.50 Mean x = 2.81 199 Table 5.8 shows philanthropic category with a single indicator of „assistance to the needy‟, it has ICPPR of 2.12 and 2.71 respectively before and after the project execution. And when approximated it becomes 2 and 3 and this means-little improvement since the ICPPR is less than 4 which is the critical value for the impact. The security category with a multiple indicators of „rape/indecent assaults‟, „burglary/house-breaking‟, „breach of public peace‟, „kidnapping and physical insecurity‟ has aggregate ICPPR of 3.66 and 3.26 before and after the execution of the projects correspondingly. When ICPPR before and after the execution of the projects is approximated they become 4.00 and 3.30 respectively, since 4 is a critical value of impact. This implies that crime rate was higher before project intervention in OS and little improvement made after project execution. Therefore, crimes such as rape/ indecent assaults‟, „burglary/house-braking‟, „breach of public peace‟, „kidnapping and physical insecurity‟ among others induced by poverty are reduced to some extent though of little significance. Multiple indicators such as „inclusion of people in development processes‟, „accountability and transparency, „social solidarity‟, „influence and control on developments‟ and community dignity and prestige are under the socio-cultural heritage category with the aggregate ICPPRs of 1.96 and 2.91 respectively before and after project execution by the CBOs. This also implies an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 which is the critical value for an impact; although noticeable improvement is observed. Access to infrastructure such as water, electricity, health, markets, and schools, quality and hygienic environment and nutritional adequacy are the indicators for infrastructural provision category. The aggregate ICPPR before and after projects execution for this category are 2.48 and 2.70 respectively. This shows an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is also less than 4 which is the critical value for impact, though little improvement is noticed. The economic and empowerment category measured on indicators of income, employment opportunity, and productivity has ICPPR of 2.28 and 2.51 before and after project execution. Which is also an indication of insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 but there is an improvement. The major constraints perpetuating poverty before CBOs interventions in ranking orders in OS are: security with deviation of 1.16 ranks first, infrastructural provision with deviation of -0.02 ranks second, economy and empowerment with the deviation -0.22 ranks third, philanthropic with deviation of -0.38 ranks fourth and socio-cultural heritages with deviation value of -0.54 ranks fifth. While the security project category with the deviation of 0.45 make the highest impact in reducing poverty in the senatorial district. Second on the rank is socio-cultural heritage with the deviation 0.10 followed by philanthropic with the 200 deviation -0.10 ranks third, infrastructural provision category with the deviation -0.11 ranks fourth. The economic and empowerment projects with deviation -0.30 ranks fifth which is the lowest rank. 201 Table5.9: Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Oyo Central Senatorial Districts CBOs Impact Rating Index in OC Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation S/No Impact Indicators (𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 (𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 SWV Y X 𝑿 − 𝑿 SWV Y X 𝑿 − 𝑿 1 Social - assistance to the needy 773 2.58 2.58 -0.09 0.00 1024 3.46 3.46 0.48 0.23 2 Rape/indecent assaults 1014 3.78 728 2.64 Burglary/house braking 1011 3.46 3.45 753 2.58 Breach of public peace 518 3.24 0.78 0.61 577 3.21 2.79 -0.19 0.04 Kidnapping and physical insecurity 988 3.30 768 2.71 Inclusion of people in development 669 2.34 1063 3.67 processes accountability and transparency 713 2.56 710 2.68 Social solidarity 661 2.28 678 2.33 influence and control on 668 2.31 890 3.12 3 developments 202 Socio-cultural Security Philanthropic Heritages Community dignity and prestige 692 2.38 2.37 -0.30 0.09 817 2.82 2.92 -0.06 0.00 Access to transformational 646 2.31 853 2.99 Information Access to all seasons road 674 2.32 802 2.75 4 Access to water 690 2.35 816 2.79 Access to electricity 719 2.45 851 2.93 Access to health care 782 2.67 859 2.90 Access to market places 707 3.24 434 3.08 Quality and hygienic environment 582 1.99 2.41 -0.26 0.07 996 3.35 Nutrition adequacy 587 2.01 908 3.06 Access to school 701 2.40 910 3.06 2.99 0.00 0.01 Income 801 2.76 876 2.97 Employment opportunity 654 2.26 734 2.51 5 2.73 -0.25 0.06 Productivity 765 2.63 789 2.71 203 Economy and Infrastructural Provision Empowerment 2.55 -0.12 0.01 Total - 57.29 13.39 - 0.78 - 64.32 14.89 - 0.33 Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 Before CBOs projects intervention After CBOs projects interventions Mean x = 2.68 Mean x = 2.98 204 Table 5.9 indicates the attributes of poverty in Oyo Central Senatorial District before and after CBOs‟ project execution. The philanthropic category has ICPPR of 2.58 and 3.46 respectively before and after projects executions. This implies an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 which is the critical value for the impact. The security category has aggregate ICPPR of 3.45 and 2.79 before and after the project execution with the ICPPR after projects execution of less than 4 which is also lower than the ICPPR before the execution of the projects. Hence, a noticeable improvement is observed in comparison to Oyo South Senatorial District. Under the socio-cultural heritage category the ICPPR of 2.37 and 2.92 before and after project execution by the CBOs indicates an insignificant impact since the ICPPR after project execution is less than 4 which is the critical value for impact. Access to infrastructures before and after projects execution aggregate 2.41 and 2.99 respectively and this implies an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4, however noticeable improvement is observed. The economic and empowerment category also have ICPPR of 2.55 and 2.73 before and after project execution which is an indication of insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 which is the critical value for impact, though an improvement was observed. Similarly, the major constraints perpetuating poverty before CBOs interventions in descending orders are: security 0.78, socio-cultural heritages -0.30, infrastructural problems - 0.26, economy and empowerment -0.12 and philanthropic -0.09. The security project category although with the deviation of -0.19 makes the highest impact in reducing poverty in the senatorial district. Second on the rank was infrastructural provision category with the deviation 0.01. Ranked next is socio-cultural heritage with the deviation -0.06, followed by economic and empowerment project category with the deviation -0.25 and the lowest in the rank is philanthropic project category with the deviation -0.48. 205 Table 5.10: Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Oyo North Senatorial Districts CBOs Impact Rating Index in ON Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation S/No Indicators of Measurement (𝑿− 𝑿 )𝟐 (𝑿− 𝑿 )𝟐 SWV Y X 𝑿 − 𝑿 SWV Y X 𝑿 − 𝑿 1 Social - assistance to the needy 382 1003 2.63 0.04 0.00 1284 3.36 3.36 0.23 0.05 2 Rape/indecent assaults 371 1307 853 2.36 Burglary/house braking 380 1205 3.35 898 2.34 Breach of public peace 200 587 424 1.10 2.23 -0.90 0.81 Kidnapping and physical insecurity 384 1254 0.76 0.58 1198 3.11 Inclusion of people in development 381 720 1391 3.76 processes accountability and transparency 370 816 1095 2.87 0.10 Social solidarity 382 970 1295 3.56 influence and control on 365 915 1251 3.33 206 Socio-cultural Security Philanthropic Heritages 3 developments Community dignity and prestige 377 695 2.18 -0.41 0.17 1337 3.68 3.44 0.31 Access to transformational 380 778 1227 3.22 Information Access to all seasons road 383 823 1156 3.10 4 Access to water 385 836 1373 3.62 Access to electricity 365 774 1215 3.18 Access to health care 374 606 1280 3.32 Access to market places 241 732 786 3.02 Quality and hygienic environment 382 891 1325 3.53 Nutrition adequacy 365 822 1231 3.34 Access to school 381 853 1200 3.13 2.43 -0.16 0.03 3.27 0.14 0.02 Income 384 794 1463 3.80 207 E nfrastructural Provision c o n o m y a n d E m p o w e r m e n t Employment opportunity 373 1008 1173 3.05 5 3.37 0.24 0.06 Productivity 318 726 1216 3.27 2.35 -0.24 0.06 Total - 54.04 12.94 - 0.84 - 69.05 15.67 - 1.04 Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 Before CBOs projects intervention After CBOs projects interventions Mean x = 2.59 Mean x = 3.13 208 The categories of philanthropic, security, socio-cultural heritage, infrastructural provision, and economic and empowerment also applies to Oyo North Senatorial District (Table 5.10). The same impact measurement was employed as in the previous discussions. The philanthropic category has ICPPR of 2.63 and 3.36 before and after projects executions. This implies an insignificant impact since it is less than 4, although an improvement was noticed. The security category has aggregate ICPPR of 3.35 and 2.23 before and after the project execution. An indication that crime induced by poverty is insignificantly reduced however, due to the value of the ICPPR, the impact is much felt in ON compared with OS and OC. The socio-cultural heritage with ICPPR of 2.18 and 3.44 before and after project execution by the CBOs also implied an insignificant impact since value of ICPPR is less than 4 though noticeable improvement was observed. Access to infrastructural provision with ICPPR value of 2.44 and 3.27 also implies an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4, though noticeable improvement was observed. The economic and empowerment has ICPPR of 2.35 and 3.37 before and after project execution also indicates an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 but noticeable success was observed. The security project category although with the deviation of -0.90 also ranks highest impact-full project category in reducing poverty in ON. Second on the rank is infrastructural provision with the deviation of 0.14 followed by philanthropic project category this ranked third with the deviation of 0.23. The fourth is economic and empowerment project with the deviation of 0.24 while the socio-cultural heritage with the deviation of 0.31 ranks fifth. The major constraints perpetuating poverty before CBOs interventions in descending orders are: security with the deviation value of 0.76, philanthropic project category with the deviation value of 0.04, socio-cultural heritage with the deviation of -0.41, followed by economic and empowerment project category with the deviation of -0.24 and finally infrastructural provision with deviation of -0.16 value. In order to ascertain the extents to which CBOs projects addresses threats perpetuating poverty before CBOs interventions lead to ranking of both threats to poverty alleviation before CBOs intervention processes and impact of CBOs projects on poverty alleviation among the Senatorial Districts respectively. The result showed that CBOs attention towards addressing the treats to poverty alleviationwith respects to projects implemented are better in ON, followed by OC and OS. 209 Table5.11: Levels of Poverty before CBOs Projects Intervention and after CBOs Projects Intervention in Oyo State. CBOs Impact Rating Index inOyo State Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation S/N Impact Indicators (𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 (𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 No SWV Y X 𝑿 − 𝑿 No SWV Y X 𝑿 − 𝑿 1 1067 2592 2.42 2.42 -0.14 0.02 1049 3314 3.15 3.15 0.08 0.01 Social - assistance to the needy 2 Rape/indecent assaults 1026 3731 3.63 977 2717 2.77 Burglary/house braking 1056 3757 3.55 1047 2787 2.66 Breach of public peace 540 1648 3.05 3.44 0.88 0.77 536 1420 2.64 2.89 -0.18 0.03 Kidnapping and physical insecurity 1046 3680 3.51 1036 3612 3.48 Inclusion of people in development 1021 2033 1.99 1040 3504 3.36 processes accountability and transparency 1035 2216 2.14 1029 2912 2.82 Social solidarity 1036 2377 2.29 2.18 -0.38 0.14 1030 3118 3.02 3.099 0.02 0.00 influence and control on 1036 2443 2.35 1054 3235 3.06 3 developments Community dignity and prestige 1047 2254 2.15 1019 3260 3.19 210 Socio-cultural Heritages Security Philanthropic Access to transformational 1029 2206 2.14 1016 3032 2.98 Information Access to all seasons road 1048 2280 2.17 1032 2790 2.70 4 Access to water 1061 2550 2.40 1052 3022 2.87 Access to electricity 1045 2425 2.32 2.37 -0.19 0.04 1059 3150 2.97 3.35 0.28 0.08 Access to health care 1054 2348 2.22 1061 3240 3.05 Access to market places 654 2008 3.07 602 1938 3.21 Quality and hygienic environment 1026 2150 2.09 1054 3376 3.20 Nutrition adequacy 1031 2397 2.32 1046 3003 2.87 Access to school 1042 2668 2.56 1053 3245 3.08 Income 1059 2502 2.36 1061 3326 3.13 Employment opportunity 1049 2493 2.37 2.38 -0.18 0.01 1059 2900 2.73 2.88 -0.19 0.04 5 Productivity 979 2354 2.40 1024 2848 2.78 Total Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 Before CBOs projects intervention After CBOs projects interventions Mean x = 2.56 Mean x = 3.07 211 Economy and Infrastructural Provision Empowermnte nt Overall pattern shows that assistance to the needy‟, has ICPPR of 2.42 and 3.15 before and after the execution of the projects respectively. This implies an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 which is the critical value for impact. The security category has aggregate ICPPR of 3.34 and 2.89 before and after the execution of the projects correspondingly. This implies that crime rate is higher before project intervention in Oyo State and little impact is made after project execution. Therefore, crimes such as rape/ indecent assaults‟, „burglary/house-breaking‟, „breach of public peace‟, „kidnapping and physical insecurity‟ among others induced by poverty has reduced to some extent though of little significance. On socio-cultural heritage category with the aggregate ICPPR value of 2.18 and 3.10 before and after project execution by the CBOs implies an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 which is the critical value for impact; although noticeable improvement was observed. Access to infrastructure has aggregate ICPPR before and after projects execution with value of 2.37 and 3.35 respectively. This shows an insignificant impact since the ICPPR is also less than 4 which is the critical value for impact, though little improvement was noticed. The economic and empowerment category has ICPPR of 2.38 and 2.88 before and after project execution. Which is also an indication of insignificant impact since the ICPPR is less than 4 which is the critical value for impact, but there is an improvement. The major constraints perpetuating poverty before CBOs interventions in descending orders are: security 0.88, socio-cultural heritages -0.38, infrastructural problems -0.19, economy and empowerment -0.18 and philantropic -0.14. The security project category although with the deviation of -0.18 makes the highest impact in reducing poverty. Second on the rank is infrastructural provision category with the deviation 0.28. Rank next is socio- assistance to the needy 0.08, followed by socio-cultural heritage with value of 0.02. 212 5.5: Households’ Perception of Community Based Organisations’ Development Capability To examine the level of importance that households‟ placed on CBOS development capability, an index of CBOs Development capability (CDC) is computed. This sub-section evaluates households perception of CBOs Development Capability (CDC), by calculating the Summation of the Weighted Value (SWV) of respondents through a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 attached to (7) indicators measured through Likert scale with SA (Strongly Agreed ≥70 percent), A (Agreed 69-60 percent), U (undecided 59-50 percent), D (Disagreed 49-40 per cent), SD (Strongly Disagreed 39-0 percent). Details Appendix 4 Part E. In Table 5.12, the highest CDC index in ON is 4.39 while the least is 4.09, the average CDC was 4.23. In OC the highest CDC was 4.30 while the least was 3.91, the average was 4.08. Meanwhile in OS the highest CDC is 4.35 and the least is 3.79, the average is 4.03. On the aggregate, the highest CDC is 4.29; the least is 3.93 while the average is 3.93 213 Table5.12: Households’Perception of Community Based Organisation Development Capability in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State S/N Development Attributes OYO NORTH OYO CENTRAL OYO SOUTH TOTAL SWV CDC (x-x) SWV CDC (x-x) SWV CDC (x-x) SWV CDC (x-x) (x) (x) (x) (x) 1 Involvement of individual in project development 1662 4.32 0.09 1295 4.30 0.22 1638 4.23 0.21 4595 4.29(1) 0.17 2 Involvement of Community in project 1680 4.36 0.13 1213 4.03 -0.05 1509 3.89 -0.13 4402 4.16(4) 0.04 development 3 Promotion of community welfare 1689 4.39 -0.16 1235 4.10 0.02 1466 3.79 -0.24 4370 4.08(5) -0.04 4 Competence in fund and revenue management 1563 4.06 -0.17 1177 3.91 -0.17 1467 3.80 -0.23 4207 3.93(7) -0.19 5 Capability of solving problems 1573 4.09 -0.14 1196 3.97 -0.01 1495 3.86 -0.23 4264 3.98(6) -0.14 before and after project implementation 6 Adequacy of vision minded 1618 4.20 -0.03 1262 4.19 0.11 1682 4.35 0.32 4562 4.26(2) 0.14 leader and supportive member 7 Empowering community within the development 1610 4.18 -0.05 1227 4.08 0.00 1647 4.26 0.24 4484 4.18(3) 0.06 priority and local resources Total 29.6 28.58 28.18 28.88 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 CDC = x CDC = x CDC = x CDC = x Mean = 4.23 Mean = 4.08 Mean =4.03 Mean =4.12 214 Households‟ perception of CBOs development capability, variable with high CDC index in their descending order in ON are: “involvement of community in project development” 4.36, and “involvement of individual in project development” 4.32. The variables with high CDC in their descending order in OC are: “adequate vision minded leader and supportive member” 4.19, “promotion of community welfare” 4.10 and “empowerment of community within development priority and local resources” 4.08. While in OS “empowerment of community within development priority and local resources” 4.26 and “involvement of individual in project development” 4.23 has high CDC in their descending order. The overall pattern of CDC in descending order are: “involvement of individual in project development”4.29, “adequate vision minded leader and supportive member” 4.26, “empowerment of community within development priority and local resources” 4.18 and “involvement of community in project development” 4.16. All these variables listed in three Senatorial Districts have positive deviation above the mean of the CDC index. The variable with low CDC in ON in their descending order includes: “adequate vision minded leader and supportive members” 4.20, “empowerment of community within development priority and local resources” 4.18, and “capability of solving problem before and after project implementation” 4.09. While in OC, there are variables with low deviation below the mean in descending order are: “involvement of community on project development” 4.03 and “capability of solving problem before and after project implementation” 3.97. In OS, the following variable has low deviation below the mean in descending order: “involvement of community on project development” 3.89, “capability of solving problem before and after project implementation” 3.86, and “competence in fund and revenue management” 3.80. The overall variables with negative value are: “promotion of community welfare” 4.08, “capability of solving problems before and after project implementation” 3.98 and “competence in fund and revenue management” 3.97. These variables need immediate attention of policy makers in order to induce effective CBOs intervention in all the three Senatorial Districts. The mean values of households‟ perception of CBOs development capabilities among the Senatorial Districts are 4.03 in OS, 4.08 in OC and 4.32 in ON. This shows that households‟ perception of CBOs development capabilities is higher in ON followed by OC and least in OS. This outcomes tally with reconnaissance survey conducted which indicates commitments of CBOs towards community development to be more in ON followed by OC and OS respectively. However, discrepancies occur when households‟ satisfaction withCBOs development activities reveals households‟ satisfaction to be higher in OC followed by OS 215 and ON. This necessitates the need to fathom where inconsistent of outcomes lays. However, thiscould be attributed to the facts that most community development projects especially in ON are self financed through community efforts, while both OS and OC enjoyed both political and financial supports because of their location advantage to the state capital which forced corrupt politician to show case their stewardship to the community they represented and this bewildered respondents from OS and OC also associate such government sponsored projects to that of CBOs. In addition, the activities of the ministry in charge of community development in Oyo State are more comprehensive in the areas closer to state capital than others. 5.6: Stakeholders’ Perception of Factors that Enhance Sustainable Poverty alleviation. To ensure sustainability in reduction of poverty the view of the poor in the society should be respected. Poor people know their needs, problems and priorities. Despite disillusionment about government sincerity, interest, skills, behavior and commitment, the poor still want partnership with their government (Narayan, 2002). That is, a partnership with recipient for mutual respect, with each partner contributing resources appropriately to a particular problem. This section evaluates the perception of CBOs and households on factors of poverty alleviation by calculating the Summation of the Weighted Value (SWV) of respondents through a weight value of 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 attached to (15) indicators measured through Likert scale with SA (Strongly Agreed ≥70 percent), A (Agreed 69-60 percent), U (undecided 59-50 percent), D (Disagreed 49-40 percent), SD (Strongly Disagreed 39-0 per cent). Details of responses on the SWV are in Appendix 4 Part F The perception of Community Based Organisation on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty and enhancing socio-economic development (CFCRP), the highest CFCRP for OS is 4.28 while the least is 2.32, and the mean is 3.79. In OC, the highest CFCRP is 4.42 while the least is 2.96. The mean is 4.01. The highest CFCRP in ON is 4.56 the least is 2.17 while the mean is 3.98. 216 Table5.13: Responses of Community Based Organisations to Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State. S/ Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty. OYO SOUTH OYO CENTRAL OYO NORTH TOTAL N SWV FCRP (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) SWV FCRP (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) SW FCRP (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) SWV FCRP (𝑿 − 𝑿 ) (X) (x) (x) V (X) 1 involvement of private sectors‟ in project finance 106 4.24 0.45 112 4.31 0.30 156 4.33 0.35 374 4.29(3) 0.2 2 promoting Freedom of information on government 107 4.28 0.49 103 3.96 -0.05 163 4.52 0.54 373 4.28(6) 0.19 opportunities and services 3 transparency with regards to public spending 102 4.08 0.29 114 4.38 0.37 158 4.39 0.41 374 4.29(3) 0.2 4 promoting rule of law and justice 106 4.24 0.45 115 4.42 0.41 164 4.56 0.58 385 4.42(1) 0.33 5 monitoring government development and financial 101 4.04 0.25 110 4.23 0.22 158 4.39 0.41 369 4.24(9) 0.15 expenditure 6 Promoting community involvement in project 105 4.20 0.41 107 4.12 0.11 162 4.50 0.52 374 4.29(3) 0.2 implementation, maintenance and services 7 Financial involvement of religion based 86 3.44 -0.35 93 3.58 -0.43 137 3.81 -0.17 316 3.63(12) -0.46 organisation on project development 8 Financial involvement of perspective users on 93 3.72 -0.07 97 3.73 -0.28 139 3.86 -0.12 329 3.78(11) -0.31 217 development choice 9 ensuring development project to reflect community 101 4.04 0.25 114 4.38 0.37 163 4.53 0.55 378 4.34(2) 0.25 priorities 10 encouraging poor people‟s organisation for 85 3.40 -0.39 102 3.92 -0.09 157 4.36 0.38 344 3.95 -0.14 adequate representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job creation and wealth 104 4.16 0.37 112 4.31 0.30 151 4.19 0.21 367 4.26(8) 0.17 acquisition 12 Self support to grassroots development 99 3.96 0.17 113 4.35 0.34 157 4.36 0.38 358 4.16(10) 0.07 13 Promoting export led product 85 3.40 -0.39 102 4.12 0.11 128 3.56 -0.42 315 3.62(13) -0.47 14 Promoting labour intensive growth 58 2.32 -1.49 77 2.96 -1.05 78 2.17 -1.81 213 3.61(14) -0.48 15 Investment in physical infrastructure 82 3.28 -0.51 91 3.50 -0.51 79 2.19 -1.79 252 4.27(7) 0.18 Total 56.80 60.27 59.72 61.43 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 FCRP = x FCRP= x FCRP = x FCRP = x Mean = 3.79 Mean = 4.01 Mean = 3.98 Mean=4.09 218 Indicators with positive deviation above the mean in OS include: “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services” 4.28, “involvement of private sectors in project finance” 4.24, “promoting rule of law and justice” 4.24, “promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance, and evaluation” 4.20, “promoting conditions for job creation and wealth acquisition” 4.16, “transparency with regards to public spending” 4.08, “monitoring government development and financial expenditure” 4.04, “ensuring development project to reflect community priorities” 4.04 and “self support to grassroots development” 3.96. Indicators with positive deviation above the mean in OC include “promoting rule of law and justice” 4.42, “transparency with regards to public spending” 4.38, “ensuring development project to reflect community priorities” 4.38, “self support to grassroots development” 4.35, “promoting conditions for jobs creation and wealth acquisition” 4.31, “involvement of private sectors in project finance” 4.31, “monitoring government development and financial expenditure” 4.23, “promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance, and evaluation”4.12 and “promoting export led growth” 4.12. However, variables with positives deviation above the mean in ON include “promoting rule of law and justice” 4.56, “ensuring development project to reflect community priorities” 4.35, “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services” 4.52, “promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance, and evaluation” 4.50, “transparency with regards to public spending” 4.39, “monitoring government development and financial expenditure” 4.39, “encouraging poor people‟s organisation for adequate representation and accountability” 4.36, “self support to grassroots development” 4.36, “involvement of private sector in project finance” 4.33, and “promoting conditions for jobs creation and wealth acquisition” 4.19. It would be observed that CBOs perceptions for these variables are greater than the average; therefore community based organisations perceived these factors as being capable of reducing poverty. Meanwhile, some factors with low deviation below the mean in OC include: “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice” 3.72, “financial involvement of religion based organisation on project development” 3.44, “encouraging poor people‟s organisations for adequate representation and accountability” 3.40, “promoting export led growth” 3.40, “investment in physical infrastructure” 3.28 and “promoting labour intensive growth” 2.32. While variables with low deviation below the mean in OC include: “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services” 3.96, “encouraging poor people‟s organisations for adequate representation and accountability” 219 3.92, “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice” 3.73, “financial involvement of religion based organisation on project development” 3.58, “investment in physical infrastructure” 3.50 and “promoting labour intensive growth” 2.96. In ON, variables with low deviation below the mean include: “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice” 3.86, “financial involvement of religion based organisation on project development” 3.81, “promotion export led growth” 3.56, “investment in physical infrastructure” 2.19 and “promotion labour intensive growth” 2.17. On the aggregate variables that fall below the mean in all the three Senatorial Districts are: “encouraging poor people organisation for adequate representation and accountability” 3.95 and “promoting export led products” 3.61. 220 Table5.14:Households’Responses to Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty in Senatorial Districts of Oyo State S/N Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty OYO NORTH OYO CENTRAL OYO SOUTH TOTAL SWV FCRP (x-x) SWV FCRP (x-x) SWV FCRP (x-x) SWV FCRP (X) (x-x) (x) (x) (X) 1 involvement of private sectors‟ in project finance 1671 4.34 0.59 1224 4.07 0.19 1501 3.88 0.05 4396 4.13(2) 0.27 2 promoting freedom of information on government 1049 2.72 -1.02 1155 3.83 -0.05 1473 3.81 -0.02 3677 3.45(14) -0.41 opportunities and services 3 transparency with regards to public spending 1610 4.18 0.44 1164 3.86 -0.02 1323 3.42 -0.41 4097 3.85(12) -0.01 4 promoting rule of law and justice 1675 4.35 0.16 1162 3.86 -0.02 1253 3.24 -0.59 4090 3.84(13) -0.02 5 monitoring government development and financial 1616 4.31 0.57 1148 3.81 -0.07 1474 3.81 -0.02 4238 3.99(5) 0.13 expenditure 6 promoting community involvement in project 1637 4.25 0.50 1232 4.09 0.21 1607 4.15 0.32 4476 4.19(1) 0.33 implementation, maintenance and services 7 financial involvement of religion based organisation on 1507 3.91 0.17 1164 3.86 -0.02 1541 3.99 0.16 4212 3.93(8) 0.07 project development 8 financial involvement of prospective users on 1493 3.88 0.13 1114 3.70 -0.18 1583 4.09 0.26 4190 3.94(7) 0.08 development choice 9 ensuring development project to reflect community 1630 4.23 0.49 1225 4.06 0.18 1471 3.80 -0.03 3002 2.85(15) -1.01 priorities 10 encouraging poor people‟s organisation for adequate 1546 4.01 0.27 1132 3.76 -0.12 1464 3.78 -0.05 4142 3.90(10) 0.04 representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job creation and wealth 1666 4.33 0.58 1228 4.08 0.20 1448 3.74 -0.09 4342 4.06(3) 0.2 acquisition 12 self support to grassroots development 1575 4.09 0.35 1163 3.86 0.02 1435 3.71 -0.13 4173 3.92(9) 0.06 13 promoting export led product 1483 3.86 0.11 1107 3.68 -0.20 1525 3.94 0.11 4115 3.88(11) 0.02 14 promoting labour intensive growth 1524 3.96 0.21 1126 3.74 -0.14 1588 4.10 0.27 4238 3.99(5) 0.13 15 investment in physical infrastructure 1573 4.08 0.34 1196 3.97 0.09 1533 3.96 0.13 4302 4.05(4) 0.19 Total 56.25 58.23 57.42 51.97 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 X=FCRP X= F C R P X= F C R P X= F C R P Mean = 3.75 Mean= 3.88 Mean = 3.83 Mean = 3.46 221 Considering households‟ perception on factor capable of reducing poverty and enhancing socio-economic development, the highest HFCRP for OS is 4.15 while the least is 3.24; the average is 3.83. The highest HFCRP in OC is 4.09 while the least is 3.68, the average is 3.88. The highest HFCRP in ON is 4.35 while the least is 2.72, the average is 3.75. Indicators with positive deviation above the mean in OS include: “promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance, and evaluation” 4.15, “promoting labour intensive growth” 4.10 “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice” 4.09 “financial involvement of religion based organisation on project development” 3.99, “investment in physical infrastructure” 3.96, “promoting export led growth” 3.99 and “involvement of private sectors in project finance" 3.88. Some indicators with positive deviation above the mean in OC include “promoting community involvement in project implementations, maintenance, and evaluation” 4.09, “ promoting conditions for job creation and wealth acquisition” 4.08, “involvement of private sectors in project finance” 4.07, “ensuring development project to reflect community priorities” 4.06, and “investment in physical infrastructure” 3.97. While indicators with positive deviation above the mean in ON include: “promoting rule of law and justice” 4.35, “involvement of private sector in project finance” 4.34, “promoting conditions for job creation and wealth acquisition” 4.33, and “monitoring government development and financial expenditure” 4.31, “promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance, and evaluation” 4.25, “ensuring development project to reflect community priorities” 4.23, “transparency with regard to public spending” 4.18, “self support to grassroots development” 4.09, “investment in physical infrastructure” 4.08, “encouraging poor people‟s organisations for adequate representation and accountability” 4.01, “promoting labour intensive growth” 3.96, “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice” 3.88 and “ promoting export led growth” 3.86. The perceptions for these variables are greater than the average; therefore individual households‟ perceived these factors as being capable of reducing poverty. Variables with low deviation below the mean, in OS include: “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services” 3.81, “monitoring government development and financial expenditure” 3.81, “ensuring development project to reflect community priorities” 3.80, “encouraging poor people‟s organisations for adequate representation and accountability” 3.74, “self support to grassroots development” 3.24. In OC variables with low deviation below the mean include: “self support to grassroots development” 3.86, “transparency with regard to public spending” 3.86, “promoting rule of law and justice” 3.86, “financial involvement of religion based organisation on project 224 development” 3.86, “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services” 3.83, “monitoring government development and financial expenditure” 3.81, “encouraging poor people‟s organisations for adequate representation and accountability” 3.76, “promoting labour intensive growth” 3.74, “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice” 3.70 and “promoting export led growth” 3.86. Meanwhile, in ON “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services” 2.72 has low deviation below the mean. In order to avert repetition, all the variables in ON are perceived by the households in Oyo State as incapable of reducing poverty. 5.7: Differences between Households’ and Community Based Organisations Perception on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty By contrast; four groups are identified starting first with households‟ perception and thereafter with CBOs‟ perception of factors capable of sustaining poverty alleviation. The first group has negative deviation below the mean from households‟ perspective and still maintained their negative deviation below the mean from CBOs perspective. Both CBOs and households‟ are pessimistic on possibilities of reducing poverty through the underlisted factors. Variable under this group in OS is “financial involvement of prospective users of development choice”, “ promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services”, “financial involvement of religious based organisation on project development”, “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice”, “encouraging poor people‟s organisation for adequate representation and accountability”, and“promoting labour intensive growth” .While in OC there is “encouraging poor people‟s organisation for adequate representation and accountability” and no response was found from both households and CBOs perspective in ON. The second group is the one with positive deviation above the mean from households‟ perception and thereafter has negative deviation below the mean from CBOs perceptions. In OS, the factors identified are “financial involvement of religion based organisation on project development”, “promoting export led product”, “promoting labour intensive growth”, and “investment in physical infrastructure”.While in OC was “investment in physical infrastructure”. In ON, there are“financial involvement of religious based organisation on project development”, “financial involvement of prospective users on development choice”, “encouraging poor people‟s organisation for adequate representation and accountability”, ”promoting labour intensive growth” and“investment in physical 225 infrastructure. The group presents optimistic and pessimistic views on the possibilities of reducing poverty through the aforementioned factors. The third group has negative deviation below the mean of households‟ perception and also has positive deviation above the mean of CBOs perception. The group is the opposite of the second group, the factors capable of reducing poverty in OS are: “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services”, “transparency with regards to public spending, promoting rule of law and justice”, “monitoring government development and financial expenditure”, “ensuring development project to reflect community‟s priorities”, “encouraging poor people‟s organisation for adequate representation and accountability”, “promoting conditions for job creation and wealth acquisition”. While in OC and ON, the following variables are identified “transparency with regards to public spending” and “promoting rule of law and justice”. And also in OC there was “monitoring government development and financial expenditure”, and“promoting export- led product”. The fourth group has positive deviation above the means from households‟perception and CBOs perception on factors capable of reducing poverty. In OS, OC and ON are the following factors: “involvement of private sectors‟ in project finance”, “promoting community involvement in project implementationmaintenance and services” and “self support to grassroots development”. In addition, “ensuring development project to reflect community priorities” and“promoting conditions for job creation and wealth acquisition arein OC and ON. While “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services”, “monitoring government development and financial expenditure”, and “promoting export-led products are identified by households and CBOs in ON. The consensus for and against on the factors capable of reducing poverty from both households‟ and CBOs perspectives are of paramount importance to the recommendations of this study. Meanwhile CBOs‟ perception on factors capable of reducing poverty has mean value of 3.79 in OS, 4.01 in OC and 3.98 in ON. While, households‟ perceptions on factors capable of reducing poverty also differs in all the three Senatorial Districts with mean values of 3.83 in OS, 3.88 in OC and 3.75 in ON. The result shows that CBOs‟ perception on factors capable of reducing poverty is higher in OC followed by ON and OS respectively. However, households‟ perception on factors capable of reducing poverty has greatest mean value in OC, OS and ON. A cursory look at mean values with regards to factors capable of reducing poverty reveals higher differences in ON with value of 0.23 followed by OC with value of 0.13 and OS with value of -0.04. This implied that there is need for collaborative relationship 226 between the CBOs and households‟ in order to reduce major differences related to poverty alleviation especially in ON and OC. 5.8: Conclusion Respondents acknowledged CBOs as agents of “infrastructural development”, “supply of labour and technical advice”, and “partnership with other development organisations on community development” further confirmed the roles of CBOs in sustainable development planning. Despite these advantages, respondents still doubt the capability of CBOs in solving problems before and after project implementation, involvement of community in project development and competence in fund management. This could be attributed to past experiences of corruption and benefit capture syndrome that enclosed poverty reduction explained in chapter two. Although, the result of hypothesis which states that CBOs development activities do not have impact on poverty level in Oyo State and which proves otherwise was a pointer to the fact that CBOs are development agents to be reckoned with in development activities. The next chapter gives the summary of major findings, theoretical implication, planning and practical implication and recommendations for the study. 227 CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 6.1: Introduction In Nigeria, the failure of the government to deliver fundamental economic goods, infrastructural facilities and services and the realization of effective development that are people-centered have made Community Based Organizations a force to be reckoned with in the development processes. This study examines the roles of CBOs as agents of or in poverty reduction. Other issues assessed are the relationship between the characteristics of CBOs and their levels of involvement in poverty alleviation processes, the differences in the level of CBOs involvement in poverty reduction processes among the three Senatorial Districts, the impact of CBOs development activities on poverty level in Oyo State, as well as, households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development projects among the Senatorial Districts. This chapter presents the summary of major findings while theoretical, planning and practical implications are considered and discussed. 6.2: Summary of Major Findings Households‟ Involvement Index (HII) computed reveals that most households in Oyo State participated in community development mostly through“financial contributions towards project maintenance”, “monetary donation towards project execution”, “payment of financial levy within community” and “donation of needed materials”. The contributions of Christian and Muslim in Community developments are insignificant compared with Traditional and Others religious. Also, male respondents are more involved in community development more than the female in all the three Senatorial Districts. Respondents in ages 31-40 and 41-50 years participated significantly in community development, while respondents with secondary education and post secondary educational status contributions are most significant in the study area. Civil servant and their households‟ contributed highly in community development. Element of reasonable contribution was noticed in households comprising traders, artisan/professional respondents across the three Senatorial Districts. On issues of involvement in development processes, the result of regression analysis with F-value of 0.55 and significant level of 0.700 confirmed the hypothesis that there is no relationship between the characteristics of CBOs and their level of involvement. This reveals that most of the aged CBOs exist in mere names while the new ones may be established purposely to aid development and poverty alleviation. Also, the result of the one-way analysis of variance with F-value of 0.13 and P= 0.87 shows that, there 228 is no significant differences in households‟ level of involvement in CBOs poverty alleviation programmes among the three Senatorial Districts. Households Priority on Basic Infrastructure Facilities and Services (PBIFS) across the study area are:“education/schools”, “ health care facilities”, “electricity” and “motorable road networks”, while the last three variables with low priority by residents are: “irrigation”, “loan and credit facilities”, and “telecommunication”. These facilities and services are not in the priority of the households but they are the ones that are mostly facilitated by the politicians. While, Households Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation Developme nt Project (HSCDP) are “information dissemination during project implementation” “self- reliance leadership structure”, “articulation of individual needs”, “households‟ involvement in project monitoring and evaluation”, and “incorporation of local creativity to development”. The households‟ are not satisfied with the CBOs with respect to“planning for future and seasonal needs”, “households‟ involvement in project initiation” and “articulation of community needs”, “consultation of households before project implementation” and “training of community members on project management”. The result of the one-way ANOVA with F- value of 0.79 and P= 0.45 shows that households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development projects for years before 1999 do not vary significantly with the Senatorial Districts. However, with F-value of 7.32 and significance level of 0.00 households satisfaction with CBOs development projects varies among the Senatorial Districts. Obstacles to Development Participation (ODP) analysis reveals that respondents considered the following as hindrances to developments “financial problem among community members”, “disagreement between the technical and non-technical aspects in project implementation”, “wealth disparity among community members,”, and “power disparity among community members” while the least threats to development participation are “religion contradiction on development choice”, “hostility to community participation by other group outside the community”, and “gender discrimination among community members”. Respondents also identify “infrastructural development”, “partnership with other development organisation on community development” and “charity services and financial support to project development” as the contributions of CBOs to poverty alleviation. However, percieved efforts of CPRA are: “establishment of vocational training centres” “supply of labour and technical advice” and “provision of security”. The hypothesis that states that CBOs development activities do not have impact on poverty level in Oyo State was tested with Student‟s t-test. The mean incidence of poverty for years before 1999 IPLB is 4.83, while it is 1.56 for year 2000 and after IPLA, when subjected 229 to students‟-t test the-value is 5.11 and P= 0.00 i.e. far less than the alpha level of 0.05. This implied that poverty level has drastically reduced for year 2000 and after (Ceteris paribus) however, with previous results on hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 one will be surprised how CBOs development interventions alone could have brought significant poverty reduction. However, respondents attributed reduction in poverty to other exogenous factors such as four times increase in salary from year 2000 to date, reduction in number of children per family, multiple job by households head, among others as the coping strategies that led to poverty reduction. While households‟ assessment of Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty (FCRP) recognizes “promoting rule of law and justice”, “involvement of private sectors in project finance”, and “promoting condition for job creation and wealth acquisition”. Community Based Organisation Perception on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty (FCRP) also identified “promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services” “involvement of private sectors‟ in project finance” , and “promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance and services” , while the lesser FCRP are “promoting labour intensive growth” “investment in physical infrastructures” “promoting export led product” and “encouraging poor people organisation for adequate representation and accountability”. 6.3 Theoretical Implications of the Research Alokan (2004), Okafor (2005) and Ariyo (2006) in their respective works considered development planning as a process which alters the development of another process in order to achieve the goals of the planners or those who planners represented. The emphasis is that sustainable poverty reduction must address issue of economy, politics and socio-culture rooted in both development and poverty. This has made the study on households‟ participation in community based organisations‟poverty reduction processes not to have a unique framework because of its relativity, multidisciplinary and multi-dimensional nature. All these necessitated the adoption of community concept; social exclusion concept, participatory concept, and benefit capture models. The result of the findings on households‟perceptions on the following: development priorities, satisfaction with CBOs development approach, obstacles to development participation and factors capable of reducing poverty have added credibility to the study. The study shows differences and variation in values assigned to same priorities, satisfaction, obstacles to development participation, and factors capable of reducing poverty for years 230 before 1999 and year 2000 and after. These outcomes are in agreement with the concept of community in which every citizen is believed to have a voice, unrestricted freedom of expression on issues that affect the whole community (Onibokun and Faniran 1995, Glen 1993, Oladoja 1988, Agbola and Oladoja 2004, Adeyemo 2002, Ogundipe 2003, and Abegunde 2004). Concept of social exclusion expresses how social groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in which they live due to the cumulative effect of risk factors such as (economic, social, cultural, political and institutional) which generate poverty and inequality (Gacitua-Mario et al.,2001). According to Gacitua-Mario et al., (2000), the risk does not occur spatially in a linear causality but rather in a complex process of reciprocal causation and interaction that goes beyond “goods-centered” (traditional poverty that emphasizes on goods and services of the poor) but “people-centered” (approaches of freedom and capabilities to be functional) and “institution-centered” (analysis of the institutions role as process rather than a condition that permits or creates exclusion). Cary (1970) and Bhatnagar et al (1992) described concept of participation as open, popular and broad involvement of people in decisions that affect their lives. The principle and practice has been instrumental in providing community facilities and services in pre-colonial days in Africa (Ogbasi, 2002). Arnstein (1969) identified eight rungs of participatory ladder and grouped them into three classes: non-participatory, degree of tokenism and degree of citizen power. While, Ekong (1997) described benefit capture as illegal diversion or legal misappropriation of benefits (financial and otherwise) meant for a certain people or group. The model, demonstrates how„vampires‟ in form of (fraudsters /contractors, government agency, etc) at federal, state, local and community levels suck the benefits meant for the poor at each hierarchy of implementation of poverty reduction strategies. The author emphasizes that not until the long chain the programme takes to trickle down is curtailed, no poverty programme or any development programme will have impact on the targeted groups. Critical assessment of participatory concept, social exclusion concept and benefit capture model from various authors‟ perspectives points at avoidance of blue print and or top down approach towards development but by embracing participatory approach in development planning. This inclusive approach will not only curb mis-placed development priorities, under-performed government and their political praise singers, thuggery, crime, 231 corruption, and poverty among others but place people at the centre of concern for sustainable development in our society. The results of households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development projects and CBOs level of involvement in poverty alleviation processes among the three Senatorial Districts for years before 1999 and year 2000 and after also confirmed Arnstein (1969), Cary (1970), Bhatnagar et al (1992) and Ekong (1997) propositions on inclusion of the citizens on development processes, as households‟ satisfaction do not vary with Senatorial Districts for years before 1999 during military governance. However, during the civilian regime and stable political dispensation, households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development projects for year 2000 and after varies with senatorial district. In the same way, poverty that was higher years before 1999, reduced drastically in year 2000 and after. 6.4 Planning and Practical Implication The planning and practical implications are ascertained by taking into cognizance the first three important variables identified by the CBOs and or households‟ with regard to development priorities, dissatisfaction with development project, obstacles to development participation, factors capable of enhancing sustainable poverty reduction, households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development processes, level of poverty in the state and reconnaissance survey experiences. A critical evaluation of these responses reveals that achieving a sustainable poverty reduction needs an institutional reform that is corruption free, participatory empowerment programmes and inclusion of people in development processes, community development based on households‟ priority, and promoting democratic governance. The findings show that most respondents emphasized the need for “promotion of rule of law and justice”, “promotion of freedom of information on government opportunities and services” “addressing lack of trust on project finance among community members” and “addressing lack of transparency on other mobilized resources”. These responses depict the extent to which corruption has been an obstacle to sustainable poverty reduction in our society and Nigeria as a whole. This is the reason why Ekong (1997) emphasize the need to cutail the long process the federal government programme takes to trickle down in order to ensure meaningful development of the target groups. This buttresses the need for organized institutional reforms that are corruption free in Nigeria. The study also emphasized the need for participatory empowerment programme which is borne out of the response to questions on obstacles to participation in CBOs‟ 232 activities such as: “financial problem among community members”, “wealth disparity among community members”. And response to questions on factors that can enhance participation such as “establishment of vocational training centres”, “charity services and financial support to project development”, “promoting export led product” and “promoting labour intensive growth”. Empowerment that reflects community potentials and priority will go a long way to ensure individual dependence and sustainable poverty reduction. There is also need for inclusion of people and experts in development processes and poverty reduction as revealed by response to questions on the roles of CBOs‟ on factors capable of reducing poverty and enhancing socio-economic development such as: “partnership with other development organisation on community development”, “involvement of private sectors in project finance”, “ promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance and services”, “self support to grassroots development” and “encouraging poor people organisation for adequate representation and accountability”. These responses showed that most Nigerians are not interestedin “top down or and blue print development approach” that has brought no meaningful development to the grassroots. The research findings also reveal disparity in households‟ development priority and preferences compared with government development choice and projects. For instance, households priority ranges from schools/education, health care facilities, electricity and motorable roads while most government support projects ranging from community hall, viewing centres, construction of palace, sinking of boreholes in most urban areas to cover the government negligence in the provision of social amenities and services. This is one of the reasons most projects became abandoned after the exit of such governments from power. Finally, the role of democratic governance in development processes cannot be underestimated. This is because year 2000 and after mark noticeable improvements in both poverty reduction and households‟ satisfaction with CBOs development processes. Despite these advantages, the same period is typified with corruption and dissatisfaction with regard to polices and development approaches adopted. Therefore, to ensure sustainable poverty reduction the issue of corruption and dissatisfaction with regard to polices and development approaches must be addressed 6.5 Recommendations In order to ensure sustainable poverty alleviation through community based organisations, the following became necessary: (i) The recently established CBOs are to be encouraged to sponsor and aid poverty alleviation projects in both urban and rural areas. Agbola (2004) observed that if a 233 developed country like Germany can re-discover and use the refined civil society organisation in solving local and national problems, then Nigeria with heritage of such tradition should not find it difficult. This will also reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and benefit capturing syndromes that acts asimpediments to successful community projects implementation as pointed out by Ekong (1997) (ii) Implementation of community development prioritiesas a way of encouraging citizens to be more active and proactive towards community development is inevitable in poverty reduction approaches through this; households‟ coping strategies in poverty reduction will be enhanced. (iii) Households‟ involvement in community based organisations poverty alleviation activities needs to be strengthened (iv) Some of the established CBOs have political under-tone thus; reformation of electoral processes that will end perpetual rigging becames inevitable. Through this, credible leader who will stamp out corruption, pervasive insecurity and lift our teeming masses out of poverty will be restored. (v) Finally, the ministry in charge of community and social development should be encouraged and empoared to monitor the activities of the CBOs. With this, CBOs will learn from one another on how to improve their activities, addressed their challenges, order households‟ priorities according to their needs. 234 6.6 Conclusion This study examined the impacts of socio-economic characteristics of households‟ on community development, households‟ development priorities, extent to which the respondents are satisfied with CBOs development programmes, the characteristics of CBOs and households‟ level of involvement in poverty alleviation activities. It also identified households‟ perceived obstacles to development participation, the spatial differences in households‟ level of involvement in CBOs poverty alleviation activities, the level of poverty before and after CBOs project interventions, as well as, respondents willingness of participation in future development processes. Of interest to the research is the extent to which constraints accentuating poverty has been addressed with respect to projects implemented. Recommendations are based on the outcome of the study and the governments at all levels are charged to encourage the ministry of community development to effectively discharge their duties without hindrances. Finally, the study suggested the need to strengthening households‟ involvement in community based organisations poverty reduction programmes. 235 REFERENCES Abegunde, A. A 2004, Community Based Organization in the Sustainable Development of the Rural areas of Atiba L.G.A, Oyo State. Journal of the Institute of Town Planners Vol. xvii p.1-9 Aboyade, O. 1975, On the need for an Operational Specification of Poverty. Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria,Obaseki, P. J (Ed) Nigeria Economic Society Pat Mag Press Ltd Ibadan. 85-94 Abumere, S. 1998.Distributional Inequity and the problem of National Integration: An Inaugural Lecture, University of Ibadan. Adeboyejo, A.T 2006, Local Institutions and Infrastructure Development in Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Conference Programme and the Journal of Abstracts of Presentations 10-15 September 2006 Inyang, H., Menezes, G.B. Braden, C. L and Fodeke, B. Eds. ICIDEN Abuja Nigeria. 185-217 Adeyemo, R. 2002, Self-Help Promotion for Sustainable Small Holder Agriculture: Blueprint Versus Greenhouse. Inagural Lecture Series 157. Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-ife, Nigeria. Afon, A.O. 2004, Residents‟ Satisfaction Index in Selected Rehabilitation of an Urban Core Residential area in Ogbomoso, Oyo State. Journal of the Institute of Town Planners17:45-58 Agbola, S.B. 2005, The Housing Debacle: An Inaugural lecture, University of Ibadan Press, Ibadan. Agbola, T. and Oladoja, A. 2004,Philosophy and Theory of Urban and Regional Planning. Readings in Urban and Regional Planning. T Agbola (Ed). Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Limited Ibadan. 1-30. Ajakaye, D. O and Adeyeye, V. A. 2001, “The Nature of Poverty in Nigeria” Institute of Socialand Economic Research (NISER) Monograph Series No. 13. Ajakaye, D. O. Olomola, A. S. 2003, Overview of Poverty and Poverty alleviation in Nigeria. A multi-Dimensional Perspective. D. O Ajakaye and A.S Olomola EdsNISER New World Press Ibadan. 1-31 Akeredolu-Ale, E. O. 1975, Poverty as a Social Issue: A Theoretical Note. PovertyAlleviation in Nigeria. P. J Obaseki, Ed. Nigeria Economic Society Pat Mag Press Ltd Ibadan.1-30 236 Aku, M. 1997, Perspectives of Poverty and Poverty Alleviation Strategies in Nigeria. Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria. P..J Obaseki, Ed. Nigeria Economic Society Pat Mag Press Ltd, Ibadan. Alokan, O. O. 2004, Industrial Development Planning in Nigeria. Reading in Urban and Regional Planning.T. Agbola, Ed. Macmillan Nigeria Publishers Ltd, Ibadan.321-344 Anderson, C. A. and Anderson, K. B. 1996, Violent Crime Rate Studies in Philosophical Context: A Destructive Testing Approach to Heat and Southern Culture of Violence Effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70: 740-756 Ariyo, A. 2006, Development Financing of Underdevelopment: An Inaugural Lecture University of Ibadan Press Ibadan. Arnstein, S.R. 1969, A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Classic Readings in Urban Planning: An Introduction.J. M Stein.Ed, McGraw-Hill, Inc United State. Bamberger, M. and Shams, K 1990, Community Participation, Project Management and Sustainability, Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Centre. Benn, M. 2000, New Labour and Social Exclusion. Political Quarterly Journal 71: 309- 318. Bhatnagar, B. and Williams, A. C. 1992, Participatory Development and the World Bank Potential Directions for Change. The World Bank Discussion Papers. 183 Chilowa, W. and Gaynor, K. 1992, Poverty and Poverty Alleviation in Malaw: Design and Management of Targeted Poverty Alleviation Projects in Anglophone Africa Paper Presented 22-25 May 1992EDI Seminar, Kampala. Deng, L. A. 1995, Poverty alleviation: Lessons and Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa Environmental and Social Policy. African Development Bank. 06 Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. 1992, Making a Difference: NGOS and Development in a Changing World. London Earth Scans Publications Ekong, C.N. 1997, Framework for Building Sustainable PovertyAlleviation Strategies in Nigeria. Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria. P. J. Obaseki Ed. Nigeria Economic Society Pat Mag Press Ltd, Ibadan. Federal Office of Statistics, 1999, Poverty Profile for Nigeria (1980-1996) F.O.S, Abuja. Figueroa, A. 2000, Social Exclusion and Rural Underdevelopment: Evaluation and Poverty alleviation. Proceedings from World Bank Conference,Feinstein, O. and Picciotto, R. Eds. USA. 328-345 237 Food and Agriculture Organisation,2006, FAOSTAT, Food Security Statistics in Nigeria Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http/ Nigeria http//www.fao.org.faostat/food security\ countries Nigeria.epdf. Gacitua-Mario, E. and Wodon, Q 2001, Measurement and Meaning: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Method for the Analysis of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Latin American. W.D. C. 518 Gacitua-Mario, E. and Sogo, C. 2000, Exclusion Social Reduccion de la Pobre za en America Latina y el Camber San Jose, Gosta Rica: Banco Mudial / FLACSO. Glen, A. 1993,Methods and Themes in Community Practic: Community and Public Policy. H. Butcher, A. Glen, P.Henderson, and J. Smith. Eds. London, Pluto Press. Glewwe and Van Der Gaag, 1990,Identifying the Poor in Developing Countries: Do Different Definitions Matter? 18.6: 803-814. Harris,B.M 1998,Basic Statistics for Behavioral Science Research. Ed. Allyn & Bacon Viacom Company United State of American Howard-Grabman, L. 2000, Bridging the Gap between Communities and Service Providers: Developing Accountability through Community Mobilization Approaches Institute of Development Studies Bulletin. 31.1: 88-96 Hurther, J. and Shah, A. 1998, Applying a Simple Measure of Good Governance to the Debate on Fiscal Decentralization. Policy Research Working Paper 1894 Jackson, E.T. 2000, The Front-End Cost and Downstream Benefits of Participatory Evaluation: Evaluation and Poverty alleviation. Proceedings from the World Bank Conferences.115-126 Jelili, M.O. Adedibu, A. A and Egunjobi, „Layi 2008, Regional Development Planning in Nigeria: the General and Particular Journal of Social sciences Kamla-Raj Enterprises Delhi, India. 16.2:135-140 Jelili, M.O. 2009, Spatial and Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Begging in Nigerian Cities. Ph.D Thesis, Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology Ogbomoso.xii+204pp. Kabakchieva, P. Illiev, I. andKonstantinov, Y.2002, Reeling from Change. Voices of the Poor from Many Lands.D. Narayan and P. Petesch Eds. Oxford University Press, New York 239-269. Kaufmann, D. 2000, Governance and Anticorruption- New Insights and challenges. Evaluation and Poverty alleviation: Proceedings from a World Bank Conference. Feinstein, O. andPicciotto, R. Eds. Washington D.C 289-300 238 Kusek, J.Z. and Rist, R.C. 2004, A Handbook for Development Practitioners: Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. World Bank Washington D.C. Levy‟s, M. 1991, Poverty Alleviation in Mexico. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.679. Mabogunje, A. L. 2007,Thirty Years After: Reflections On the Development Processing Nigeria. The Faculty of the Social Science Distinguished Lecture University of Ibadan Press. Minar, D. and Greer, S. 1969, The Concept of Community. Chicago Aldine Press. Mukherjee, Nilanjana 2002, Coping with vulnerability and Crisis: Voices of the Poor from Many Lands. D. Narayan and P. Petersch Eds. Oxford University Press. 181- 212 Narayan, D. 2002, Empowerment and Poverty alleviation: A Source Book: World Bank, Washington, D.C. Narayan, D. and Petesch, P. 2002, An Empowering Approach to Poverty alleviation. Voices of the Poor from Many Lands. D. Narayan and P. Petersch Eds. Oxford University Press.461-492 Narayan, D. 1993 Participatory Evaluation Tools for Managing Change in Water andSanitation, World Bank Technical Paper. 207 Narayan, D. and Shah, T.2000, Connecting the Local to the Global: Voices of the PoorFramework Paper Prepared for Workshop on Local to Global Community for Voice of the Poor 11-13 December. World Bank, Poverty alleviation and Economic Management Network, Washington, D.C. National Bureau of Statistics, (NBS). 2004, National Living Standard Survey. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2008, from www.proshareng.com/news/download.ph National Planning Commission Nigeria, (NPC). 2004, National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy”(NEEDS), B3 Communication Limited, Lagos. National Population Commission, (NPC). (2006), Census 2006 Data Analysis Report. Retrieved March, 18, 2008, from www.budgetofficegov.ng/2012 . Neuman, W.L. 1991,Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Second Edition Boston, London. Allyn and Bacon 239 Obadan, M.I 1997, Analytical Frame-Work for Poverty alleviation: Issues of Economic Growth Versus Other Strategies. Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria. P. J Obaseki, Ed. Nigeria Economic Society. Pat Mag Press Ltd. 450-485 Obadan, M. I. 2002, Integrated Approach to Rural Poverty alleviation in Nigeria. Annual Lecture Series Delivered at Samuel Adegbite Foundation on February, 22nd 2002.University of Ibadan Odejide, A. F 1997, Breaking the Vicious Circle of Poverty among Women in Developing Countries: The Case for Micro Credit. Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria,P. J. Obaseki, Ed.Nigeria Economic Society Pat Mag Press Ltd Ibadan, 367 – 382. Odumosu, O. Ajala, A. Twakor, N. Obioha E, Alonge, S. and Babatimehin, O. 2003,Social Perspective of Poverty in Nigeria. Poverty in Nigeria: A multi-Dimensional Perspective. D. O Ajakaye and A. S Olomola Eds. Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) 245 – 414 Odunola, O. O. 2004, An Appraisal of Poverty Alleviation Strategies in Nigeria (1975-2002) M.Sc Project. Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning. University of Ibadan, xii-205pp Ogbazi, J. U. 2002,Planning Theory: A synthesis Approach. Bee Graphics, Enugu. Ogundipe, A. O. 2003, The Challenges of Community Development in Ijebu, Ogun State, Nigeria. Ogun Journal.16:.5-8 Ohakweh, A.O and Ezirim, O. N. 2006,Project Planning and Evaluation: Planner’s Perspective.Alpha Armour Investment Ltd Port-Harcourt, River State. Okafor, S. I. 2005, Regional Development Planning. Reading in Urban and Regional Planning.T. Agbola Ed. Macmillan Nigeria Publisher Limited.305-320 Okunmedewa, F. 2001, Poverty alleviation in Nigeria: A four-point Demand An Annual Guest Lecture Delivered on March 15, 2001 at University of Ibadan. Oladoja, A. 1988, A Review of Community Participation in Urban Renewal. Paper Presented at World Bank Assisted Urban RenewalProject. Centre for Urban and Regional Planning, University of Ibadan. Olokesusi, F. Agunbiade, K. Ogbuzobe, J.E. and Adeagbo, D. 2003, Housing Perspective of Poverty in Nigeria. Poverty in Nigeria: A multi-Dimensional Perspective. D. O. Ajakaye and A.S Olomola. Eds Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) New World Press Ibadan. 287-343 Oni, B. 2004, Citizen Participation in Sustainable Rural Development and Poverty alleviationSecond Annual Lecture Series Delivered at Samuel Adegbite 240 Foundation, February 19, 2005 Chapel of Resurrection Hall, University of Ibadan. Oni, B.W.O. Akerele, O.A. Abimbola, S.Odekunle, O. and Opatola, A. O. 2003, Human Resources Development Perspective of Poverty. Poverty in Nigeria: A multi- Dimensional Perspective. D. O. Ajakaye and A.S Olomola Eds. Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) New World Press Ibadan 96-137 Onibokun, A.G. and Faniran, A. 1995, Community Based Organisations in Nigerian Urban Centers: A Critical Evaluation of their Achievements and Potentials as Agents of Development, (CASSAD) Monograph Series 7. Odua Printing Company Limited. Onimode, B. 1975, The Dialectics of Exploitation, Poverty and Power in Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Economic and Social Studies.50-65 Osborne, D.and Gaebler, T. 1992, Reinventing Government. Boston Mass Addison-Wesley Publishing. O‟ Sullivan, Neill. 1993, Identification and Design of Poverty alleviation Projects. The Design and Management of Sustainable Project to Alleviate Poverty in South Asia.Michael Bamberger and Abdul Aziz Eds. World Bank Oyediran, A.B. and Brieger, W. R 1987, Twenty-five Years of the Ibarapa Community Health Programme. Oyesiku, O.K. 2002, The City Constitution Process Paradigm and Urban Poverty Alleviation Journal of the Nigeria Institute of Town Planners Oyo State Government Homepage. 2012, Retrieved Dec. 16, 2012 from http:/ / www. oyostate. gov. ng/ Ravallion, M. 1990, Reaching the Poor through Rural Public Employment: A Survey of Theory and Evidence World Bank Discussion Paper Washington, D.C. Rifkin, S.B. 1996,Paradigms Lost: Towards a New Understanding of Community Participation in Health Programmes” Acta Tropica. 61: 79-92. Roberts, F. O. N. Benjamin, S. A. Simbine, A. T. Oladeji, A. andNathaniel, D. 2003, Political Perspective of Poverty. Poverty in Nigeria: A multi-Dimensional Perspective.D. O Ajakaye and A.S Olomola Eds Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) New World Press Ibadan. 415 – 467 241 Salmen, L.F. 1995, Participatory Poverty Assessment: Incorporating Poor People‟s Perspectives into Poverty Assessment Work, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, Environment Department Papers 024. Sanyal, B. 1991, Organizing the self Employed: The Poverty of the Urban Informal Sector. International Geographical Perspective in Inequality Labour Review.30 1: 39- 56. Schubert, R. 1994, Poverty in Developing Countries its Definition, Extent and Economic Implication. 49/50:17-40 Shah, A. 2000, Comments on Governance and Anticorruption: New Insights and Challenges. Evaluation and Poverty alleviation. O. Feinstein and R. Picciotto. Eds. Proceedings from World Bank Conferences. 295-298 Smith, D. M. 1979, Where the Grass was Greener Geographical Perspective in Inequality Hard Moinsworth, Pengium. Soyibo,A. Alayande, B. andOlayiwola, K. 2001, Poverty Alleviation Strategies in Nigeria. Development Policy and Analyses,S. I.Abumereand Soyibo, A. Eds. Development Policy Centre. 173 – 213. Stiglitz, J. and Islam, R. 2003, Information was Capital. Le Monde. January 3, 2003 Tabachnick, B. G. and Fideil, L. S 2001, Using Multivariate Statistics. Fourth Edition. A Pearson Education Company USA. Tropman, J. E. Erlich, John L. and Jack, R. 2006, Tactics and Techniques of Community Intervention. Wadsworth Publishing. UNDP 1996, Nigerian Human Development Report. United Nations, Development Programme, Acdees Publisher Lagos. UNDP 2005, Mozambique National Human Development Report Published for the United Nations Development Programme, UN Plaza. UNDP 2008, Nigerian Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme, Acdees Publisher Lagos. UN-Habitat 2011, Global Report on human settlements United Nations Human Settlements Programme Waterston, A. 1965Development Planning Lessons of Experience Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore Maryland, USA. Wahab, B. 1996, Community Development Association and Self-Reliance. The case of Isalu Community Development Union Iseyin Nigeria. Indigenous 242 Organisations and Development. P. Blunt and D. M. Warren Eds. United Kingdom. 56-66 Wahab, B. 2000, Sustainable Community Development Project Approach in Osun State Nigeria, in the New Millenium: The Need for Project Planners at the Local Government Level. Paper Presented at Workshop on Urban Planning and th th Sustainable Development. 4 -6 October, 2000Osogbo, Osun State, World Bank, 1990,World Development Report 1990. Oxford University Press, New York. World Bank, 1991, Poverty alleviation Handbook. World Bank Washington, DC. World Bank, 1996, Nigeria: Poverty in the Midst of Plenty. The Challenge of Growth with Inclusion. World Bank Poverty Assessment Report. 14733 World Bank 2000, The Community Driven Development Approach in the Africa Region: A Vision of Poverty alleviation through Empowerment. Retrieved October 18th 2004 from http//essd.Worldbank.org/cddwk 2000. nsf/aweb/Afr-Vision-en. World Bank 2001,Attacking Poverty in Partnership for Development. Washington DC. World Bank, 2005, Good practice in Lending: Multi-Sectoral Projects Incorporating Gender (Malawi Social Action Fund Project). World Bank Technical Paper. 518 WorldBank, 2010, Nigeria-Poverty in the Midst of Plenty: The Challenge of Growth with Inclusion. Population and Human Researches Division, Washington, DC.World Development Report, 2010, Attacking Poverty. Oxford University Press. Yahie, A. M. 1996,Poverty and Approaches to Poverty Alleviation in Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and Malawi: The Design and Management of Poverty alleviation Programmes and Projects in Anglophone AfricaProceedings of a Seminar on Economic Development.M. Bamberger, M. Abdullahi and G. Matorn Eds. World Bank. 15-25 243 APPENDIX 1 PART A SECTION A HOUSEHOLDS QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Sir/Madam; This questionnaire is designed to obtain information from households on the role of Community Based Organizations in development planning and poverty alleviation in your area. All information supplied will be used for research purposes only. Thank you SECTION A 1. Senatorial District ………………….. 2. Town……………………… 3. Local Government area…………… 4. Gender: (i) Male (2) Female 5. Age of Respondent: …………….…. 6. Marital Status (1) Single (2) Married (3) Divorced (4) Widowed (5) Separated 7. Religion (1) Christianity (2) Islam (3) Traditional (4) others 8. Educational Status (1) No formal Education (2) Primary (3) Secondary (4) Post-Secondary (6) Post Graduate 9. Nationality (1) Nigeria (2) Non- Nigeria 10. Occupation (1) Farming (2) Trading (3) Civil service (4) Artisan/ Professional (5) Retiree (6) Student /Apprentice (7) Unemployed 11 Monthly income…………. 12 Please indicate the number of other working-class members of your households and their monthly income by completing the table below. Number of Working Class Household Estimated Monthly Income S/No Before 1999 2000 and Beyond Before 1999 2000 and Beyond 1 2 3 4 5 13 Kindly respond to the following socio-economic indicators as it applies to you at two different historical epochs in your area. Responses of Respondent S/No Socio-Economics Variables Before 1999 2000 & Beyond 1 Monthly income 2 Household size 3 No of Habitable room(s) occupied by the household 4 Tenure of occupancy (landlord, tenant, family house, squatter) 5 If rented what was your annual rent (tenant Only) 6 If it are to be rented what was your annual rent (landlord only) 244 14. Housing type (1) Brazilian type (face-me-face-you) (2) Duplex (3) Flat (4) Traditional compound (5) Others. 15. Which year did you start staying here? ……………….. 16. Kindly estimate amount your household spent monthly on the following basic needs at two historical epochs Estimated Amount Spent on Basic Needs S/No Basic Needs Before 1999 2000 and Beyond 1 Food items 2 Clothing 3 Shelter 4 Education 5 Electronics 6 Communication 7 Health 8 Transportation 9 Household Maintenance 10 Utilities Bills 11 Security 12 Gifts and Charity 13 Fuel 14 Miscellaneous 17. Is there any community Based Organization in your area? (1) Yes (2) No 18. Indicate if you belong to any of the following associations and the year you joined any S/No Community Based Organizations Yes No Year 1 Community Development Association 2 Youth Association 3 Town Union 4 Landlord Association 5 Occupation/ Technical Association 6 Social/ Welfare Club 7 Religious Organization 8 Others 245 SECTION B 19. The following are the needed facilities and services in any community. Kindly respond to the table below by rating the following needs according to level of priorities to your household at two different historical epochs in your area. VH (Very High ≥70per cent), H (High69-60per cent), M (Moderate 59-50 per cent) L (Low 49-40per cent) VL (Very Low 39-0 per cent) LEVEL OF PRIORITY Before 1999 2000 and Beyond S/No BASIC NEEDS VH H M L VL VH H M L VL 1 Education/Schools 2 Health Care Facilities 3 Motorable Road Networks 4 Road Rehabilitation 5 Drainage Facilities 6 Water /Borehole 7 Loan & credit facilities 8 Irrigation 9 Organized Market 10 Security & Services 11 Electricity 12 Town Hall 13 Storage Facilities 14 Conveniences 15 Telecommunication 16 Banks 17 Recreation facilities and services 20. What are the major development priorities according to level of importance to your household? 1………………………… 2…………………………… 3…………………………… 4…………………………. 5……….………………….. 6…………………………… 21. Is your development priority being met by the CBOs? (1) Yes (2) No 22. Give reasons for your answers in question 21…………………………………… SECTION C 23Is your household satisfied with the project implemented by the Community Based Organization in your area? (i) Yes (2) No 24. Give reasons for your answers in question 23………………………………... 246 25. Kindly rate the effects of the following attributes of poverty before and after CBOS project intervention. Very Significant (≥70percent), Significant (50-69 percent), Less Significant (40-49 percent), Not Significant (30-39 percent), and Not Significant at all (0-29). S/No CBOs Impact Rating Index in O. S. S. D Before Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty Indicators of Measurement Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation No of Vs S LS NS NSA No of Vs S LS NS NSA Respondents Respondent 1 Social - assistance to the needy 2 Rape/indecent assaults Burglary/house braking Breach of public peace Kidnapping and physical insecurity Inclusion of people in development processes accountability and transparency Social solidarity influence and control on developments Community dignity and prestige 3 Access to transformational Information Access to all seasons road Access to water 4 Access to electricity Access to health care Access to market places Quality and hygienic environment Nutrition adequacy Access to school Income 5 Employment opportunity Productivity Total 247 Economy and Infrastructural Socio- Security Philanthropic Empowermen Provision cultural t Heritages 26. Indicate your level of satisfaction with CBOs development approach at two different historical epochs in your area. VD -Very dissatisfied (0-39per cent), D –Dissatisfied (40-49per cent) I –Indifferent (50-59per cent), S –Satisfied (60-69per cent) VS-Very Satisfied (≥70per cent) Before 1999 2000 and Beyond S/No Satisfactory Indicators VD D I S VS VD D I S VS 1 Households involvement in project initiation 2 Articulation of individuals needs 3 Articulation of community needs 4 Consultation of households before project implementation 5 Training of community members on project management 6 Planning for future and seasonal needs 7 Transparency on funds mobilization 8 Transparency on other mobilized resources 9 Information dissemination before project implementation 10 Information dissemination during project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 12 Transparency on project execution 13 Self reliance leadership structure 14 Project design to community level 15 Incorporation of local creativity to development 16 Household involvement in project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of the project to your building 18 Implementation of households advice towards project choice and execution 248 27. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the facilities provided (Project) by the Community Based Organization? (Tick as many as possible) (i) CBO (2) Government (3) Community Members (4) Private Organization (5) NGO‟S (6) others (specify)……………………………………………………… 28. Are you willing to be involved in the management of facilities provided by CBOs in your community? (1) Yes (2) No 29. Give reasons for your answers in question 28……………………….……………………………. 30. Indicate your level of involvement towards community development at two different historical epoch in your area. VH (Very High ≥70per cent), H (High 69-60 per cent), M (Moderate 59-50 per cent) L (Low 49-40 per cent) VL (Very Low 39-0 per cent) S/No Indicators of Involvement in CBOs Development Before 1999 2000 and Beyond Projects VH H M L VL VH H M L VL 1 Donation of needed materials. 2 Payment of financial levy within community 3 Monetary donation towards project execution 4 Supervision of project work 5 Voluntary labour supply 6 Payment towards project maintenance 249 31. Please rate the following obstacles to development participation at two different historical epochs in your area. VH (Very High ≥70per cent), H (High69-60per cent), M (Moderate 59-50 per cent) L (Low 49-40 per cent) VL (Very Low 39-0 per cent) Before 1999 2000 and Beyond S/No Obstacle VH H F L VL VH H F L VL 1 Financial problem among community members 2 Wealth disparity among community members 3 Power disparity among community members 4 Exclusion of households from development process 5 Lack of trust on project finance among community members 6 Disagreement between the technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among community members 8 Unequal access to project benefit among community members 9 Unequal access to transformational information among community members 10 Un cooperative attitude among community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community participation by other groups within the community 12 Hostility to community participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on development choice 14 Ineffective institutional leadership structure 250 32. Kindly rate the level to which your households are willing to be involved in future development planning processes VH (Very high ≥70percent) 5, H (High 50-69 percent) 4, M (Moderate 40-49 percent) 3, L (low 30-39 percent) 2, VL (Very low 0-29 percent)1. S/No CBOs Impact Rating Index in O. S. S. D Before Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty Indicators of Measurement Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation No of Vs S LS NS NSA No of Vs S LS NS NSA Responden Respondent ts 1 Social - assistance to the needy 2 Rape/indecent assaults Burglary/house braking Breach of public peace Kidnapping and physical insecurity Inclusion of people in development processes accountability and transparency Social solidarity influence and control on developments Community dignity and prestige 3 Access to transformational Information Access to all seasons road Access to water 4 Access to electricity Access to health care Access to market places Quality and hygienic environment Nutrition adequacy Access to school Income Employment opportunity 5 Productivity Total 251 Economy and Infrastructural Socio- Security Philanthropic Empowerment Provision cultural Heritages SECTION D 33. Rate the following factors as you think they are capable of reducing poverty and enhancing socio-economic development in your community. SA (Strongly Agreed ≥70per cent), A (Agreed69-60 per cent), U (undecided 59-50per cent), D (Disagreed 49-40 per cent), SD (Strongly Disagreed 39-0 per cent). S/No Factors SA A U D SD 1 Involvement of private sectors‟ in project finance 2 Promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services 3 Transparency with regards to public spending 4 Promoting rule of law and justice 5 Monitoring government development and financial expenditure 6 Promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance and evaluation 7 Financial involvement of religion based organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of prospective users on development choice 9 Ensuring development project to reflect community priorities 10 Encouraging poor people‟s organizations for adequate representation and accountability 11 Promoting conditions for jobs creation and wealth acquisition. 12 Self support to grassroots development 13 Promoting export led growth 14 Promoting labour intensive growth 15 Investment in physical infrastructure 252 SECTION E 34. Assess the role of CBOs in your community on different aspects of development process and poverty alleviation at two different historical epochs.VH (Very High ≥70per cent), H (High 69-60per cent), M (Moderate 59-50per cent) L (Low 49-40per cent) VL (Very Low 39-0 per cent) Aspect of Poverty alleviation Before 1999 2000 and Beyond S/No VH H F L VL VH H F L VL 1 Infrastructural Development 2 Partnership with other development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial support to project development 4 Meeting with other development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community projects 6 Establishment of vocational training centres 7 Provision of security 8 Supply of labour and technical advice 35. Indicate the availability and quantity of the following household equipments communication and transportation facilities at two different historical epochs. S/No Household Equipment, Before 1999 2000 and Beyond Transportation and Available Not Quantity Available Not Quantity communication available Available Facilities 1 Television 2 Fridge/Freezer 3 Video and DSTV 4 Generating Set 5 Fan 6 Cooker 7 Stove / Coal 8 Microwaves 7 Blender 8 Toaster 9 Air-conditioner 10 Dinning Set 11 Sitting Set 12 Radio 13 Electric Iron 14 Wall clock 15 Flush toilets 16 First aid box 17 Pit latrine 18 Computers/Laptop 19 Library 20 Motorcycle 21 Bicycle 22 Mobile phone 23 Landline phone 24 Car(s) 253 34. Please indicate your perception on the possibilities of using CBOs as agent of development in your area.SA (Strongly Agreed ≥70per cent), A (Agreed 69-60 per cent), U (undecided 59-50 per cent), D (Disagreed 49-40 per cent), SD (Strongly Disagreed 39-0 per cent). S/No Development attributes SA A U D SD 1 Involvement of individual in project development 2 Involvement of community in project development 3 Promotion of community welfare 4 Competence in fund and revenue management. 5 Capability of solving problems before and after project implementation. 6 Adequacy of vision minded leader and supportive members 7 Empowering community within development priority and local resources. 254 PART B COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Sir/Madam; This questionnaire is designed to obtain information on the role of Community Based Organization in development planning and poverty alleviation. All information supplied will be used for research purposes only. Thank you SECTION A 1. Name of association……………… 2. Local Government which it was based ………… 3. Year of establishment…………….. 4. Number of male members………………….. 5. Number of female members……….. 6. Total number of members………………….. 7. Indicate if your organization was registered with any of the following (a) federal government (b) state government (c) local government (Choice of multiple options was possible) 8. Indicate the category your association belongs to in the list below (Choice of multiple Options was possible) i. Youth Association /Age grade ii. Town Union iii. Landlord Association / Elders forum iv. Occupation /Technical group v. Religious organisation vi. Socio-cultural group vii. Others 9. Do members of the association have any regular financial contribution to the association? (1) Yes (2) No 10. If yes, how much does each members contribute annually…………………. 11. Does the association receive any other revenue/grants etc from other sources?(1) Yes (2) No. 12. If yes indicate the amount generated from outside source(s) in the last one year by completing the table below S/No Sources of Income Amount Contributed/ Monetary Value of Contribution 1 Individual Donor/Philanthropist 2 Govt./govt, agency‟s assistance 3 Assistance from any cooperate Bodies 4 Individual members of the association as philanthropist 255 SECTION B 13. Kindly assess the role of your organization (CBOs) on aspect of development process and poverty alleviation.VH (Very High ≥70per cent), H (High 69-60 per cent), M (Moderate 59-50per cent) L (Low 49-40 per cent) VL (Very Low 39-0 per cent) Aspect of Poverty alleviation S/No VH H M L VL 1 Infrastructural Development 2 Partnership with other development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial support to project development 4 Meeting with other development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community projects 6 Establishment of vocational training centres 7 Provision of security 8 Supply of labour and technical advice 14. Has your organization single handedly embarked upon any project towards community development and poverty alleviation? (i) Yes (ii) No 15. Complete the table below in respect of development project(s) your association has single handedly executed in the last ten (10) years (if any). Amount Time Time Location of S/No Project description expended commenced completed project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Attach more sheets if necessary 256 16. Complete the table below in respect of development project(s) (if any), your association was single handedly executing but has not been completed in the last ten (10) years. Amount Amount to Time Location of S/No Project description already complete the commenced project expended project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17. Has your association been involved in any joint development project(s) with any other development agency (state government, local government, other NGOs or CBOs in the last ten (10) years? (a) Yes (b) No 18. If yes to question 17 above, complete the table below in respect of such project(s) Estimated total Amount contributed by Time Is the project S/No Project Description cost of the project the association so far commenced completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Attach more sheets if necessary 257 19. Has your association contributed to any charity cause or make any charity donation(s), (apart from the items already mentioned above) in the last ten (10) years? (a) Yes (b) No 20. If yes to question 19 above, complete the table below in respect of such contribution(s) or donation(s) in the last ten (10) years. S/No Charity donation description Years it Amount Remark was done contributed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. Has your association submitted any memoranda to any government or government agency for consideration for community development in the last 10 years? (a) Yes (b) No 22. If yes to question 21 above complete the following tables in respect of memos or Proposals in the last ten years. S/No Title of memo/ proposal Government or its agent’s Govt. or its agent action Remark response (AC, NA) (IP, NI) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 AC-Accepted, NA-Not Accepted, IP-Implemented, NI- Not Implemented 258 23. How often do you meet to discuss community‟s problems? (i) Daily (ii) Weekly (iii) Monthly (iv) Quarterly (v) Seldomly (vi) Other (specify) ……. 24. Has your association (or its representatives) held any meeting(s) with community leaders, government agencies, other NGOs or CBOs and other development agencies on issues affecting development of their local government in the last ten (10) years?(a)Yes (b) No 25. If yes to question 24 above, complete the table below in respect of such meetings in the last 10 years. S/No Purpose of the meeting Organizer of the meetings Year Meeting ended (LG, SG, NGOs, CBOs, in harmony (1) others) deadlock (2). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Attach more sheets if necessary SECTION C 26. Please rate the people‟s level of cooperation with your activities in this LGA (a) very low (b) low (c) fair (d) high (e) very high 27. Do you usually encounter conflicts among the members of the association in the process of project initiation? (1) Yes (2) No 28. If yes how effective was the resolution of conflict among members of the association and community? (1) Very ineffective (2) ineffective (3) Fairly effective (4) Effective (5) Very Effective 29. Can you rate the following problems as affecting the programme of your association tick accordingly? Very Significant (VS) Significant (S) Fair (F) Not Significant (NS) Not Significant At all (NSA). S/No Likely problems affecting the Association VS S F NS NSA 1 Financial problem 2 Low number of membership 3 Lack of cooperation of members of the association 4 Lack of cooperation of the community members 5 Lack of cooperation from government side 6 Lack of cooperation of other development Agencies 7 Religious differences 8 Lack of access to transformational information VS-Very Serious, S-Serious, F-Fair, NS-Not Serious, NSA-Not Serious at all 259 30. Which of the following committee do you have in your organization? (i) Project committee (ii) Execution committee (Choice of multiple options was possible) (iii) Fund raising committee (iv) Disciplinary committee (v) None of the above (vi) Other specify 31. Rate the following factors as you think they are capable of reducing poverty and enhancing socio-economic development in your community. SA (Strongly Agreed ≥70per cent), A (Agreed 69-60 percent), U (undecided 59- 50per cent), D (Disagreed 49-40 per cent), SD (Strongly Disagreed 39-0per cent). S/No Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty SA A U D SD 1 Involvement of private sectors‟ in project finance 2 Promoting freedom of information on government opportunities and services 3 Transparency with regards to public spending 4 Promoting rule of law and justice 5 Monitoring government development and financial expenditure 6 Promoting community involvement in project implementation, maintenance and evaluation 7 Financial involvement of religion based organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of prospective users on development choice 9 Ensuring development project to reflect community priorities 10 Encouraging poor people‟s organizations for adequate representation and accountability 11 Promoting conditions for jobs creation and wealth acquisition. 12 Self support to grassroots development 13 Promoting export led growth 14 Promoting labour intensive growth 15 Investment in physical infrastructure 260 APPENDIX 2 PART A List of Registered CBOs in Oyo State S/No Senatorial Local Names of Registered Cobs Total Districts Governments Irepo Agede, Ajangba, OkeAtipa, Oke-Eyinke, Oke-laha, Oke-Koso, Oke-mapo, 14 Owode CDA, Ajegunle, Dariagbo, Isale-Odo, Oke-tege, Oju-popo, Ajana. Oke-Ola Oke-Aafin Iganna, Balogun CDA, Temidire CDA, Olowo-Oke 1 Oyo North Eso, Ayetoro-Ile Comm. Ass., Makola Anunoluwapo, Ikia CDA, Ayede 26 CDA, Oke Balogun CDA, Iwajowa CDA, Elekookan CDA, Iganna CDA, Iwajowa Ofeegun CDA, Okeola CDA, Iloo CBO Iarele, Ilem CBO Iarele, Asunara CBO Iarele, Aba-Karim CDA Iganna, Oke-Aduaa CDA Iarele, Ayegun CDA Iarele, Ayegun/Wasimin CDA, Jegede CDA, Irepodun/Gerejee CDA, Ifesowapo CDA, Itasa CDA. 20 Ogunbado, Akata, Oke Ora, Baaki Abogunde, Masifa CDA, Oke Owode Ilewe, Isale Ora Parapo, Ifelodun Ilewe L A Oke-Owode, Agbonyin C D Ogbomoso A , Community Development Council, Aguodo Com.Dev. Ass., Papa North Alakasu CDA, Bolanta Com.Dev. Masifa, Laka Jagun CDA, Surulere/Adiatu, Okelerin, Oke Owode Alase, Isale Afon, Taraa Community CDA, Osupa CDA, Odoomosin Comm. Dev. Ass 30 Misrah Avenue Community, Jangbandi Community, Ayekale Community, Otun Community, Kooko Surulere/Koomi, Araromi Community, Isale Saki-West Abudu Community, Isokan Community, Oke Odo Community, Isale Bakoja Community, Iya Community, Isale Ola Comm, Oke Elefun comm, Oke lmale Comm, Medina area Comm, Kube Community, Isale Alufa Community, Ago Luabi Community, Baabo Comm. Dev. Ass, Ilua Community, Oge Community, Oke Suna Community, Mokola Isale Alufa Com, Arafat Community, Sanngote Community, Ajegunle Isia, Itabeesin community, Kinikinni community, Aagbele commuity, Bodaa 90 Community, Isale Bakoja, Oke-Elefun. Ibadan North- Ayekale CDA, Ifedapo Adekile, Adeyemo Okedadan CDA, Abayomi / East Express CDA, Koloko Shop Merin, Okebadan CDA, Kosegbe CDA, Lagelu/ Ilupeju Com. Landlord ass , Baba Egbe Adekile, Omowumi/ 16 Labosinde CDA, Aworawo CDA, Arounde CDA Oja Igbo, Ilupeju Idiobi CDA, Odo- Osun Baba Isale CDA, Idiosan Agbaakin Iresideto and Environs, Idera-Oluwa Yidi Agugu CDA 2 Oyo South Yejide-kudeti, Ire-Akari Owode Academy, Irepodun Balaro CDA, 261 Okesuna Alalubarika, Owode Academy Zone 2, Kajola Irede, Arowosaiye 2 Oketoki Streets Odo-oba, Balogun Com.Dev. Ass, Datana Zone Odinjo, Papa Ayetoro zone 2, Alubarika lay-out, Awoseeyin CDA, Yejide Molete, 33 Oke Oluokun zone 5., Ifelodun Landlord Ass Elere Odo-Oba, Borokini Odo-oba Elere, Ile-tuntun CDA, Irepodun Oluokun Odo-oba, Idi-arere/ Kudeti 2, Bere Mapo, Ilupeju/ Oriaje/ idiope, Ire Akari CDA Boluwaji, Ibadan-South Alona Aribiyan (W8), Papa Aiyetoro zone 1, Oyapidan CDA, Ope-Oluwa East Quarters Ehin Grammar Sch, Owode Adebimpe Zone1, Ifelodun Akatapa, Ifelodun Odiolowo, Oluokun Iyalomo Zone3, Community Devpt. Ass. Itesiwaju, Ifedapo Odinjo Ibadan, Oke-Irorun Ojuodo Landlord/Ladies Olorunsogo Comm. Youth Dev Ass., Iberekodo (Agooko), Igbole/ 13 Pataogu, Pako 1 and 2, Oke Iserin 1 and 2, Isale- Oba 1and 2, Apa & Ibarapa- Central Molete CDA, Olorunsogo/ Iberepodo CDA, Idere CDA, Isale Ayo CDA, Agooro CDA, Idofin Sagan-un CDA, Oke-Odo CDA. 62 Akomeji CDA, Ola-Oluwa, Ede CDA, Irewole Ogidi, Akinkemi CDA, Ifedapo Comm. Devpt, Orisuumbare 1 Olopometa, Orisunmbare CDA, Isokan Lato Village, Idi-Oro Oremeji Agugu, Alabidun CDA, Iwajowa 34 Jegede, Ekun Village, Itesiwaju Oke-erindu, Gbede-Ogun Community, 3 Ona-Ara Ifelodun CDA Butubutu, Oniyefun CDA, Irewole Comm. Devpt. Association Oremeji Dalemo, Lademo CDA, Iwajowa Olorire Paata, Oyo Central Apesinmoje, Akanran CDA, Ifelodun Durowoju CDA, Araromi Apenu, Oluloyo CDA, Ifelodun Adeleke, Ifedapo Behind Nepa, Bioku/Ojoku CDA, Abayomi Fakayode, Orisunbare 1, Ajia Comm.Dev. Ass., Ifelodun Lapiti Gbenle Mogba community, Ogun Alaafin CDA/Oke Isokun, Ogun Alaafin CDA/Oke Isokun A, Otunsona CDA, Onikooko CDA, Otito Inu CDA Oyo-West Iyaji, Aba-Ilorin, Fasola CDA, Onisa Idode CDA, Igboowa Ojongbodu 16 CDA, Iya Ibeji Comm Devpt Ass, Edun Opapa, Kajola Comm. Haruna CDA, Ekeje Comm.Devept Ass, Soku CDA, Iyaji CDA. 12 Iresaapa CDA, Iware, Kulodi CDA, Moomi CDA, Sekengbede CDA, Iresadu Comm.Devpt, Oko Development Union Council, Olese Iresadu, Surulere 62 Ayigiri CDA, Ofasekete CDA, Irain CDA Arolu Oluwa loni dede CDA. 262 PART B List comprises Communities, Wards, Local Governments and Senatorial Districts in Oyo State. S/No Senatoria Local Wards Community Total l Districts Governments 1 OYO IWAJOWA 1 Igana, Agbaakin, Idiose 3 NORTH 2 Ofeegun, Tudi, Tade Village, Olomopupo Village, Obua 10 Village, Ohon Village, Agbowoyagba Village, Temidire, Aba Iseyin, Alajuba Village. 3 Iare – Ile, Agbaaruru, Apata Village, Apakoto Vilage, Kokumo Village, Kokumo & Epo Villages. 6 Ayetoro –Ile, Idiko – Ago, Itasa, Gbedu Village 4 4 Ilaji –Ile, Idiko – Ile 2 5 Ijio, Wasinmi, Temidire Village 3 6 Sabi Igana, Onikokoro Village 2 7 Joloko Village, Imode VIllage 2 8 Ikia, Okuta aka, Awerijaye, Ayede, Bada area 5 9 Elekokan, Inamere, Adeogba, Karimu Village, Olokumole 7 10 Village, Abule Tapa, Balogun Village Agoro, Ajagbanran, Oguntoki 3 1 IREPO Molete area, Ajagunna, Gaa tunkun 3 2 Atipa, Igbo Elemi, Gudu Village 3 3 Agede, Sagba, Adagbangba, Budo (Nla, Abu, Awe) 4 4 Ita dariagbon, Olorunsogo, Idigba 3 5 Welewele, Gaa Asaju, Atipa, Oko Oba, Aligongo Village 5 6 Oke Mapo, Ode- are, Oniyeye, Budo Igboho 4 7 Tege, Budo Ibariba, Budo Ojetete, Odepupa 4 8 9 Ikolaba, Budo (Sabi, Megemu) 2 10 Laha/Ajani, Odekoto, Kisi, Sando, Sooro 5 263 1 Abogunde, Baaki 2 2 Aaje, Ode Olonde, Ogunbado, Agbede, Ikolaba 5 3 Aguodo, Masifa, Bara, Gaa Ajoro, Oke- Ado Ologidi, 6 Stadium Road OGBOMOSO NORTH 4 Isale – Afon, Abogunde, Ojudeloba, Elenji, Fedegbo 5 5 Isale Alase, Akogun Olugbirin, Elebu, Oke Owode 4 6 Isale – Ora, Saja, Idi Ose 3 7 Jagun, Oja Jagun, Oke Elerin 3 8 Ipako, Ebenezer area 2 9 Osupa, Takie, Idiabebe, Blind Centre, Papa Alajiki, Aaje 6 Ikose, Ikose 10 7 Sabo, Tara, Pakiotan, Oke aanu, Town Planning, Apake, Alaka 1 Aganmu, Kooko, Ayekale, Igbo Ologun, Isale Ola, Kodoroko 6 Ajegunle, Abata – Ogun, Ore – Ofe area, Palapala Market 2 6 area, Are area, Apinnite 4 Isia, Ayeto, Oke Odo, Bagii 3 8 Sannisala, Okenite, Ataye, Imua, Onigbongbo, Ekokan 4 SAKI WEST Wasangare Alabafe, Gbepakan Iya, Babasale, Alaraje, Otepale, Elebenla, Onigba Ojule 5 6 Ogidigbo Market area, Onikeke, Odo – Osun area, 6 7 Kinnikinni, Idera, Agoluabi, Igbo – Elewuro 4 Okeoro Market area, Ajegunle, Idi – Igba, Idi – Ogun 7 Town Hall area, Oke Daodu, Idi Agbon, Adabo Market area, 8 Jangbadi 5 Idi – Eko, Owode Market area, Old Veterinary area, Opo – 6 9 Malu, Bagbansoro, Oke Suna Aparo, Aleego area, Oge, Ajelanwa Market area, Egbeda, 10 7 Sango area, Yemere, 6 Taba, Agbongbo Market area, Aduronibiode area, 11 Ajeunsinudeku, Elewuodo area, Ogbalanja 264 1 Isale – Osun, Itabale Olugbode, Labiran, Beyerunka 4 2 Ogboriefon, Jenniyin, Adepo, Osa Oko 4 3 Idiose, Ojagbo, Kosodo 3 4 Aladorin, Ajegunle, Boripe Gbelekale, Adekile, aremo, 8 Ojagbo, Ladunni Oritaperin, Koloko IBADAN NORTH- 5 Labiran, Oje 2 2 OYO EAST SOUTH 6 Alafara – Oje, Oje 2 7 Alafara, Gbenla, Ajegede, Atipe 4 8 Adepele, Alalubosa, Babasale, Ode – Aje, Oje Olokun, Atipe, 8 Okeseinde, Oluyoro 7 9 Agugu, Ayekale, Idi – Obi, Ire Akari Agugu, Iyana – Atipako, Koloko – Idi Araba, Ologbojo 10 Irefin, Onikokoro, Abayomi, Agbaakin, 4 11 Abayomi, Agbaakin, Yanbule, Oloronbo, Kumapayi, Iwo – 8 Road, Idi – Ape, Bodewasinmi 12 Yidi gate, Onirefuye, Onipasan, Oke – Adu, Isale – Agbede, 8 Green Spring area, Old – Ife Road, Aliwo 1 Oranyan, Oleyo, Agbongbon 3 2 Esu – Awele, Ojaba, Isale Ijebu, Idi arere 4 3 Kobomoje 1 4 Agbongbon, Itaese, Ariori, Itaolukoyi IBADAN- 4 SOUTH 5 Olubi, Asanke Idi – Aro, Eleta, Modina, Elekuro, Ayedade EAST 6 6 Oniyere, Adesola, Olubadan 3 7 Oyapidan, Owode, Academy, Ile tuntun, Odinjo, Sodun, 9 Alake, Kajola Irede, Idiita 2 8 Kudeti, Oluloyo Road 3 9 Ilupeju, Odo Oba, Eleru 5 10 Molete, Adeyemo, Yejide, Sango, Eyin Grammar 11 Ibuko, Felele, FeleleRab, Onibonje, Scout Camp Road 5 265 1 Tobalogbo, Osumare, Alapinnin, Tuture, Jagun, Gbongbon, 7 Dagbere (villages) 2 Kajola, Oba Market area 2 3 Koso IBARAPA- 1 CENTRAL 4 Ita- Oluwo, Towobowo Alamele, Geke Village, Imekele, Serere/ Gere 5 5 Ayannagi, Aborikura, Ayelabowo, Panpala, Akeroro 5 6 Ibona Elewuro, Saganun, Oke Agogo, Idofin 4 7 Ita Otoope, Pako Araromin, Odofin, Elere – Kanju, Asejanna 5 8 Banse, Araromi, Ajegunle, Tebelu, Atokora, Ita Elegun, 11 Baaro, Elewi Odo, Amugangan, Fedegbo, Onile 9 Obatade, Olupira, Lasele, Ayankoso, Ojanba, Onikeke, 10 Arigbayo, Onilado, Ajibesin, Ajane- Orita 10 5 Akagange, Ita Idowo, Agbede Ita, Oluokun, Ita Elesin ONA-ARA 1 Akanran, Olorunda, Ojeleye, Gbeleyi 4 2 Araromi, Aperin, Fajoye, Kajola 4 3 OYO 3 Badeku Jago, Oke – Ole, Butubutu 3 CENTRAL 4 Gbada Efon, Ogidi, Laminu 3 5 Odeyale, Amuloko, Idi – Ose, Aba Emu 4 6 Ogbere, Idi – Osan, Idi – Obi, Ggbaremu 4 7 Ogbere-tioya, Babanla, Elebolo, Olunloyo, Orita merin, 7 Jegede, Odeyale 8 Ajia, Ojoku, Bioku 3 9 Olorunsogo, Ifelejulo Ara, Dalemo Idi Ose, Obalende, 5 Ayekale 10 3 Olode, Gbedun, Jegede Oremeji, Agugu, Idi – Oro, Oremeji, Oniyangi, Okikiade, 11 Omowumi, Agbolu Aje 8 266 Akeetan, Odofin Aran, Idi Ope 1 Obalolu, Onatetu, Ajokidero, Onalemide 3 OYO-WEST 2 Fasole, Soku, Igbokere Village, Iya Ibeji Village, Aladie 4 Village 3 5 Iseke, Eleye, Olukosi, Apogidan Isokun, Ojongbodu, Ologuro/Alalubosa, Ojutaye Village, Aba 4 4 Ilorin 5 5 Awumoro Celestial area, Iyaji Tuntun layout, Gudugbu, National Park Road, Oluwatedo Village 5 6 Iyaji, Mongba, Sanga, Abogunde, Akinnnu 5 Opapa, Alagbede Osidase, Edun, Ogbeyo, Papa Aseke 7 Agondongbo Sawmill area, Ladigbolu, Odo – Erin, Owode area, Amumiwaye, Iseke Tipun, Akeetan Atingisi, Alaka 5 Estate 8 8 Pakoyi, Kolobo, Idede 9 Ayetoro – Kale, Baya – Oje, Biiro, Jabata, Ajase 3 Abogunde Village, Aba, Aroje, Gambari, Gbede Village, 5 10 Igbon [[ 6 1 Igboole, Iresaapa, Baba Egbe, Onipaanu Village, Asangbomole Lekewogbe, Maya, Ogala, Pooro 9 Arolu, Elebekebe, Idiopele, Ikunsin, Iranyin, Sapati 2 6 SURULERE Oganyan, Olose, Elesin Meta, Iresaadu, Olokiti Tegbe 3 5 Idi – Ori, Iregba, Olowosoke, Omonijuku 4 4 Iwofin, Onise, Begbaaji, Oke Aasa 5 4 Aagba, Ijado, Oko, Olosa, Onikeke, Origi 6 6 Aserawo, Ayigbiri, Ikolo, Ilajue, Ipasa ,Laege 7 6 Odo Oya, Irare, Maami, Mayin, Okin, Panda, Tafon, 8 Temidire, Ilogbo 267 APPENDIX 3 PART A Households Responses on Participation in Community Development in Oyo South Senatorial District S/NO Households Involvement Variables No Respondents Level of Agreement Year Before 1999 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV HII 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 1. Donation of Needed Material 236 96 34 67 37 2 893 3.78 0.30 0.09 2 Payment of Financial Levy within community 236 14 87 99 31 5 782 3.31 -0.17 0.03 3 Monetary Donation towards project execution 386 106 109 119 39 13 1414 3.66 0.18 0.03 4 Supervision of project work 330 96 86 80 43 25 1175 3.56 0.08 0.00 5 Voluntary labour supply 326 92 60 68 49 24 1026 3.14 -0.34 0.12 6 Payment towards project maintenance 386 109 75 117 68 17 1349 3.49 -0.08 0.00 Total 20.85 0.27 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Households Responses on Participation in Community Development in Oyo South Senatorial District S/NO Households Involvement Variables No Respondents Level of Agreement Year 2000 and after VH H M L VL SWV HII 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 1. Donation of Needed Material 382 145 77 94 61 5 1442 3.73 0.21 0.05 2 Payment of Finaicial Levy within community 382 116 79 119 57 11 1378 3.56 0.05 0.00 3 Monetary Donation towards project execution 381 68 120 111 62 20 1297 3.35 -0.16 0.03 4 Supervision of project work 382 76 111 83 72 40 1257 3.25 -0.26 0.07 5 Voluntary labour supply 383 101 110 88 57 27 1350 3.49 -0.02 0.00 6 Payment towards project maintenance 381 115 135 66 54 11 1432 3.70 0.19 0.03 Total 21.08 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 268 Households Responses on Participation in Community Development in Oyo Central Senatorial District S/NO Households Involvement Variables N Respondents Level of Agreement Year Before 1999 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV HII 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 1. Donation of Needed Material 246 53 38 69 48 38 758 3.08 0.08 0.00 2 Payment of Finaicial Levy within 234 24 53 93 53 11 728 3.11 -0.05 0.00 community 3 Monetary Donation towards project 295 93 56 72 49 25 1028 3.48 0.32 0.10 execution 4 Supervision of project work 287 42 60 105 49 31 894 3.11 0.05 0.00 5 Voluntary labour supply 242 49 51 68 44 30 771 3.18 0.02 0.00 6 Payment towards project maintenance 300 34 71 92 72 31 905 3.07 0.09 0.00 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Households Responses on Participation in Community Development in Oyo Central Senatorial District S/NO Households Involvement Variables No Level of Agreement Year 2000 and after 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV HII 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 1. Donation of Needed Material 299 51 73 104 53 18 983 3.28 0.03 0.00 2 Payment of Finaicial Levy within community 299 30 96 97 61 15 962 3.22 0.11 0.01 3 Monetary Donation towards project execution 295 32 89 90 55 29 980 3.32 0.07 0.00 4 Supervision of project work 297 43 74 81 64 35 917 3.08 -0.18 0.03 5 Voluntary labour supply 296 51 68 89 59 29 941 3.17 -0.11 0.01 6 Payment towards project maintenance 300 48 72 102 54 24 966 3.22 0.03 0.00 19.29 0.06 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 269 Households Responses on Participation in Community Development in Oyo North Senatorial District S/NO Households Involvement Variables No Respondents Level of Agreement Year Before 1999 VH H M L VL SWV HII 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 1. Donation of Needed Material 384 35 54 118 119 58 1041 2.70 0.00 0.000 2 Payment of Finaicial Levy within community 384 68 74 116 84 42 1194 3.10 0.40 0.163 3 Monetary Donation towards project execution 383 29 68 137 85 64 1062 2.76 0.06 0.003 4 Supervision of project work 382 31 50 92 114 95 954 2.50 -0.22 0.048 5 Voluntary labour supply 379 27 57 69 129 97 925 2.40 -0.30 0.087 6 Payment towards project maintenance 382 39 76 97 96 74 1056 2.74 0.05 0.002 16.20 0.30 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Households Responses on Participation in Community Development in Oyo North Senatorial District S/NO Households Involvement Variables No RespondentsLevel of Agreement Year 2000 and after 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV HII 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 1. Donation of Needed Material 383 60 84 136 70 33 1216 3.16 0.04 0.001 2 Payment of Finaicial Levy within community 382 91 127 99 45 20 1370 3.57 0.44 0.197 3 Monetary Donation towards project execution 382 73 82 139 58 30 1256 3.26 0.15 0.022 4 Supervision of project work 373 52 67 123 79 52 1107 2.88 -0.24 0.057 5 Voluntary labour supply 381 43 75 88 104 71 1058 2.75 -0.37 0.134 6 Payment towards project maintenance 382 54 96 120 61 51 1187 3.10 -0.03 0.001 18.70 0.413 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 270 PART B Households Responses on Participation in Future Development in Oyo North Senatorial Districts No Participatory Indicators Respondents Level of Agreement Frequency and Percentage Level of Participation VH H M L VL DCP % DT % NP % % 1 Creating awareness to ignorant community members 73 96 112 30 73 749` 61.49 336 27.59 133 10.92 100 2 Orientation of community members on project benefits 37 85 65 115 80 525 50.97 195 18.94 310 30.09 100 3 Mobilization of people for land acquisition and other 62 78 80 109 27 622 56.19 240 21.68 245 22.13 100 resources for project development 4 Involvement in project choice and initiation 39 56 63 131 71 419 44.52 189 20.08 333 35.40 100 5 Identification of project location 66 45 56 74 143 510 52.63 168 17.34 291 30.03 100 6 Involvement in project technology choice. 53 66 82 77 106 529 51.11 246 23.77 260 25.12 100 7 Mobilization of support for project time frame 89 43 33 53 162 617 62.70 99 10.06 268 27.33 100 8 Participation as community representatives on 75 86 70 24 124 719 65.30 210 19.08 172 15.62 100 development processes 9 Involvements in all stages of project design and 98 16 83 62 92 554 54.36 249 24.45 216 21.19 100 execution processes 10 Endurance of project challenges during execution 69 79 83 120 21 661 56.44 249 21.27 261 22.29 100 11 Security supports for the project and project executors 78 88 104 78 36 742 59.55 312 25.04 192 15.41 100 12 Financial support towards project development 33 64 89 97 99 421 42.92 267 27.22 293 29.86 100 13 Financial support for arising needs after project 54 42 51 166 68 438 44.20 153 15.44 400 40.36 100 execution. 14 Financial support for project maintenance after 77 65 83 67 86 645 57.90 249 22.35 220 19.75 100 execution 15 Project monitoring and evaluation 70 64 77 65 104 606 56.58 231 21.57 234 21.84 100 Total 973 973 1131 1268 1292 8757 54.81 3393 21.24 3828 23.95 100 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 271 Households Responses on Participation in Future Development in Oyo Central Senatorial Districts S/N Participatory Indicators Respondents Level of Agreement Frequency and Percentage Level of o Participation VH H M L VL DC % DT % NP % Total P 1 Creating awareness to ignorant community 46 18 37 123 68 302 41.54 111 15.27 314 43.19 100 members 2 Orientation of community members on project 18 27 64 36 151 198 32.30 192 31.32 223 36.37 100 benefits 3 Mobilization of people for land acquisition 31 28 44 82 109 267 39.73 132 19.64 273 40.63 100 and other resources for project development 4 Involvement in project choice and initiation 29 46 82 72 64 329 42.02 246 31.42 208 26.56 100 5 Identification of project location 23 37 74 92 58 263 36.18 222 30.54 242 33.28 100 6 Involvement in project technology choice. 20 16 64 100 89 164 25.44 192 29.76 289 44.80 100 7 Mobilization of support for project time frame 6 18 32 118 120 102 18.41 96 17.32 356 64.25 100 8 Participation as community representatives on 33 68 79 60 28 437 53.16 237 28.84 148 18.00 100 development processes 9 Involvements in all stages of project design 16 38 41 83 116 232 36.42 123 19.31 282 44.27 100 and execution processes 10 Endurance of project challenges during 28 31 85 89 33 264 36.16 255 34.93 211 28.90 100 execution 11 Security supports for the project and project 44 38 99 68 11 372 45.59 297 36.40 147 18.01 100 executors 12 Financial support towards project 15 42 89 63 77 243 34.08 267 37.45 203 28.47 100 development 13 Financial support for arising needs after 21 32 31 74 137 233 38.13 93 15.22 285 46.65 100 project execution. 14 Financial support for project maintenance 16 64 82 83 33 336 43.02 246 31.50 199 25.48 100 after execution 15 Project monitoring and evaluation 12 22 67 88 100 148 23.68 201 32.16 276 44.16 100 Total 358 525 970 1231 1194 389 37.20 291 27.83 3656 34.97 100 0 0 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 272 Households Responses on Participation in Future Development in Oyo South Senatorial Districts. S/No Participatory Indicators Respondents Level of Agreement Frequency and Percentage Level of Participation VH H M L VL DCP % DT % NP % Total 1 Creating awareness to ignorant community 61 37 82 108 98 453 44.72 246 24.28 314 30.99 100 members 2 Orientation of community members on 44 88 103 122 26 572 49.70 309 26.85 270 23.45 100 project benefits 3 Mobilization of people for land acquisition 38 92 112 74 65 558 50.41 336 30.35 213 19.24 100 and other resources for project development 4 Involvement in project choice and initiation 31 78 36 150 79 467 48.95 108 11.32 379 39.72 100 5 Identification of project location 81 16 74 110 106 469 45.91 222 21.83 326 32.05 100 6 Involvement in project technology choice. 56 36 68 72 121 424 47.48 204 22.84 265 29.67 100 7 Mobilization of support for project time 66 46 28 116 130 514 53.54 84 8.75 362 37.71 100 frame 8 Participation as community representatives 29 31 68 210 49 269 7.68 204 21.66 469 49.78 100 on development processes 9 Involvements in all stages of project design 62 37 68 81 117 458 48.67 204 21.68 279 29.65 100 and execution processes 10 Endurance of project challenges during 64 92 72 85 69 688 60.19 216 18.90 239 20.91 100 execution 11 Security supports for the project and project 83 98 63 71 65 807 67.08 189 15.71 207 17.21 100 executors 12 Financial support towards project 29 95 99 85 78 525 49.06 297 27.76 248 23.18 100 development 13 Financial support for arising needs after 39 63 98 99 85 447 43.65 294 28.74 283 27.64 100 project execution. 14 Financial support for project maintenance 46 109 81 65 79 666 59.57 243 21.73 209 18.69 100 after execution 15 Project monitoring and evaluation 60 72 93 90 71 588 52.59 279 24.96 251 22.45 100 Total 789 990 1145 1538 1238 7905 50.50 3435 21.94 4314 27.56 100 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 273 APPENDIX 4 PART A Households Responses to Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo South S/N Number of Respondents Level of Agreement before 1999 Basic Infrastructural respondents 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Facilities and Services VH H M L VL SWV PBIFS 1 Education/ Schools 382 242 72 47 18 3 1678 4.34 0.93 0.86 2 Health Care Facilities 386 134 129 93 27 3 1522 3.93 0.52 0.27 3 Motorable Road 382 113 109 108 47 5 1424 3.68 0.27 0.07 Network 4 Road Rehabilitation 386 118 104 84 61 19 1399 3.61 0.21 0.04 5 Drainage Facilities 367 117 64 119 35 32 1300 3.36 -0.05 0.00 6 Water / Borehole 383 109 89 96 65 24 1343 3.47 0.06 0.00 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 387 100 41 105 88 55 1208 3.12 -0.29 0.08 8 Irrigation 365 48 48 107 122 40 1037 2.68 -0.73 0.03 9 Organized Market 387 86 95 135 53 18 1339 3.46 0.05 0.00 10 Security &Services 380 122 73 101 7 13 1360 3.5 0.10 0.01 11 Electricity 387 185 43 75 46 38 1452 3.75 0.34 0.12 12 Town Hall 385 40 83 180 62 20 1216 3.14 -0.27 0.07 13 Storage Facilities 383 52 81 166 61 23 1227 3.17 -0.24 0.06 14 Convenience 385 114 70 133 56 12 1337 3.55 0.14 0.02 15 Telecommunication 385 68 45 73 122 77 1160 3.00 -0.41 0.17 16 Banks 386 53 115 108 63 47 1222 3.16 -0.25 0.06 17 Recreation Facilities and 323 109 54 119 12 29 1171 3.02 -0.38 0.15 Services 57.96 2.53 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Households Responses to Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo South 274 S/N Number of Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond Basic Infrastructural respondents 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Facilities and Services VH H M L VL SWV PBIFS 1 Education/ Schools 387 244 88 29 19 4 1704 4.40 0.69 0.48 2 Health Care Facilities 387 199 126 50 18 2 1647 4.26 0.55 0.30 3 Motorable Road 387 155 137 66 22 7 1572 4.06 0.35 0.12 Network 4 Road Rehabilitation 387 167 116 48 45 11 1544 3.99 0.28 0.08 5 Drainage Facilities 387 121 132 86 22 26 1461 3.78 0.06 0.00 6 Water / Borehole 387 170 87 77 33 20 1515 3.91 0.02 0.04 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 386 107 91 123 38 27 1371 3.54 -0.17 0.02 8 Irrigation 292 70 104 109 63 36 1255 3.24 -0.47 0.22 9 Organized Market 385 86 142 115 28 14 1413 3.65 -0.06 0.00 10 Security &Services 386 133 122 84 40 7 1492 3.86 0.14 0.02 11 Electricity 383 161 105 41 46 30 1470 3.80 0.09 0.00 12 Town Hall 386 80 128 114 55 9 1373 3.55 -0.16 0.03 13 Storage Facilities 385 84 130 127 33 11 1402 3.62 -0.08 0.00 14 Convenience 386 77 137 102 58 12 1367 3.53 -0.18 0.00 15 Telecommunication 385 138 113 82 25 27 1465 3.79 0.08 0.00 16 Banks 386 89 174 68 44 11 1444 3.73 0.02 0.00 17 Recreation Facilities and 252 55 90 83 8 16 916 2.37 -1.34 1.81 Services 63.07 3.18 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 275 Households Responses to Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo Central Number of Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N Basic Infrastructural respondents 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Facilities and Services VH H M L VL SWV PBIFS 1 Education/ Schools 298 117 66 81 21 13 1147 3.81 0.76 0.58 2 Health Care Facilities 300 58 92 76 56 18 1023 3.40 0.35 0.12 3 Motorable Road Network 298 70 79 61 68 20 976 3.12 0.19 0.04 4 Road Rehabilitation 295 51 71 97 59 17 938 3.15 0.07 0.00 5 Drainage Facilities 292 52 58 81 77 24 947 3.29 0.10 0.01 6 Water / Borehole 297 67 68 80 63 19 991 2.71 0.24 0.06 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 297 49 44 55 88 61 817 2.49 -0.33 0.11 8 Irrigation 297 32 38 73 77 77 750 3.22 -0.56 0.31 9 Organized Market 297 49 66 110 47 25 970 3.26 0.17 0.03 10 Security &Services 298 68 70 89 54 17 982 3.19 0.21 0.05 11 Electricity 298 87 47 63 45 56 959 2.75 0.14 0.02 12 Town Hall 298 30 53 95 75 45 828 2.92 -0.30 0.09 13 Storage Facilities 292 28 58 96 66 44 878 2.92 -0.13 0.02 14 Convenience 294 62 60 103 46 23 1007 3.34 0.30 0.09 15 Telecommunication 301 49 45 83 76 48 867 2.88 -0.17 0.03 16 Banks 292 46 52 87 50 57 860 2.86 -0.19 0.04 17 Recreation Facilities and 193 52 50 60 18 13 659 2.19 -0.86 0.74 Services 51.82 2.33 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 276 Households Responses to Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo Central S/N Number of Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond Basic Infrastructural respondents 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 Facilities and Services VH H M L VL SWV PBIFS − 𝑿 𝟐 1 Education/ Schools 295 130 80 65 13 7 1208 4.01 0.62 0.39 2 Health Care Facilities 296 86 107 77 17 9 1120 3.72 0.33 0.11 3 Motorable Road 297 111 76 70 24 16 1125 3.74 0.35 0.12 Network 4 Road Rehabilitation 298 83 90 79 33 13 1088 3.61 0.23 0.05 5 Drainage Facilities 298 67 78 85 51 17 1053 3.50 0.11 0.01 6 Water / Borehole 289 75 86 82 33 13 1074 3.57 0.18 0.03 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 295 58 80 77 35 45 987 3.28 -0.11 0.01 8 Irrigation 294 26 63 86 42 77 800 2.66 -0.73 0.54 9 Organized Market 292 48 86 104 35 19 1005 3.34 -0.05 0.00 10 Security &Services 296 86 80 80 35 15 1084 3.60 0.21 0.04 11 Electricity 294 87 69 66 29 43 1066 3.54 0.15 0.02 12 Town Hall 292 39 77 89 60 27 961 3.19 -0.20 0.04 13 Storage Facilities 294 35 72 88 55 44 929 3.09 -0.30 0.09 14 Convenience 292 48 87 92 38 27 1021 3.39 0.00 0.00 15 Telecommunication 293 69 99 75 31 19 1096 3.64 0.25 0.06 16 Banks 284 54 103 75 29 23 1031 3.42 0.04 0.00 17 Recreation Facilities and 194 47 72 43 14 18 696 2.31 -1.08 1.16 Services 57.62 2.69 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 277 Households Responses to Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo North Number of Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N Basic Infrastructural respondents 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 Facilities and Services VH H M L VL SWV PBIFS − 𝑿 𝟐 1 Education/ Schools 384 173 91 54 47 19 1504 3.91 0.81 0.65 2 Health Care Facilities 383 105 132 87 45 14 1428 3.71 0,61 0.37 3 Motorable Road 385 84 101 109 63 28 1305 3.39 0.25 0.08 Network 4 Road Rehabilitation 383 93 75 113 75 27 1281 3.33 0.23 0.05 5 Drainage Facilities 385 93 78 121 69 24 1202 3.12 0.02 0.00 6 Water / Borehole 384 114 81 94 62 33 1333 3.46 0.36 0.13 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 385 60 56 90 122 57 1095 2.84 -0.26 0.07 8 Irrigation 378 60 37 59 113 110 957 2.49 -0.16 0.38 9 Organized Market 385 78 68 155 58 26 1269 3.30 0.20 0.04 10 Security &Services 382 100 88 100 65 29 1311 3.41 0.31 0.09 11 Electricity 385 133 79 85 57 31 1381 3.59 0.49 0.24 12 Town Hall 383 58 44 122 125 34 1116 2.90 -0.20 0.04 13 Storage Facilities 379 79 47 86 109 58 1117 2.90 -O.20 0.04 14 Convenience 381 104 58 115 70 34 1271 3.30 0.20 0.04 15 Telecommunication 381 94 30 67 129 61 1110 2.88 -0.22 0.05 16 Banks 377 69 71 90 89 58 1135 2.94 -0.15 0.02 17 Recreation Facilities 143 33 21 55 24 10 472 1.23 -1.87 3.51 and Services 52.70 5.80 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 278 Households Responses to Priority on Basic Infrastructural Facilities and Services in Oyo North S/N Number of Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond Basic Infrastructural respondents 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 Facilities and Services VH H M L VL SWV PBIFS − 𝑿 𝟐 1 Education/ Schools 382 205 74 61 37 5 1583 4.11 0.66 0.43 2 Health Care Facilities 381 158 93 76 44 10 148 3.86 0.41 0.17 3 Motorable Road 383 134 125 78 28 18 1478 3.84 0.38 0.15 Network 4 Road Rehabilitation 382 129 108 81 46 18 1430 3.71 0.26 0.07 5 Drainage Facilities 382 139 91 91 31 30 1424 3.70 0.24 0.06 6 Water / Borehole 384 137 91 100 41 15 1446 3.76 0.30 0.09 7 Loan &Credit Facilities 384 90 102 78 63 51 1259 3.27 -0.19 0.03 8 Irrigation 381 68 44 75 84 110 1019 2.65 -081 0.65 9 Organized Market 379 106 107 100 39 27 1363 3.54 0.08 0.00 10 Security &Services 382 149 91 80 47 15 1458 3.79 033 0.11 11 Electricity 383 172 77 73 32 29 1480 3.84 0.39 0.15 12 Town Hall 383 79 83 130 57 34 1265 3.29 -0.17 0.03 13 Storage Facilities 383 87 80 85 81 50 1382 3.17 -0.28 0.08 14 Convenience 382 129 78 100 50 25 1404 3.59 0.13 0.02 15 Telecommunication 379 139 86 83 45 26 1400 3.64 0.20 0.04 16 Banks 378 118 114 87 34 25 1404 3.64 0.18 0.03 17 Recreation Facilities and 148 38 39 49 2 20 517 1.34 -2.11 4.46 Services 58.75 6.58 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 279 PART B Household’s Responses on Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation in Oyo South NO Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N HSCDP 𝟐 Satisfactory Indicators VD D I S VS SWV (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 1 Household‟s involvement in 309 150 59 76 24 0 592 1.53 -0.74 0.55 project initiation 2 Articulation of Individual 312 51 93 111 40 17 815 2.11 -0.16 0.03 needs 3 Articulation of community 386 97 152 98 33 6 857 2.21 -0.06 0.00 needs 4 Consultation of households 305 90 117 62 20 16 670 1.73 -0.54 0.29 before project implementation 5 Training of community 315 104 56 96 32 27 767 1.98 -0.29 0.08 members on project management 6 Planning for future and 387 165 90 70 50 12 815 2.11 -0.61 0.03 seasonal needs 7 Transparency of funds 387 91 165 72 47 12 885 2.29 0.02 0.00 mobilization 8 Transparency on other 387 87 101 150 46 3 938 2.42 0.15 0.02 mobilized resources 9 Information dissemination 387 82 135 117 46 7 922 2.38 0.11 0.01 before project implementation 10 Information dissemination 387 63 108 135 68 13 1021 2.64 0.37 0.14 during project implementation 11 Equal access to project 387 142 109 61 68 7 850 2.20 -0.07 0.01 benefits 12 Transparency on project 387 125 107 65 55 35 929 2.40 0.13 0.02 execution 13 Self reliance leadership 387 110 104 76 63 34 968 2.50 0.23 -0.05 structure 14 Project design to community 387 92 83 123 75 14 997 2.58 0.31 0.09 level 15 Incorporation of local 387 65 133 101 71 17 1003 2.59 0.32 0.10 creativity to development 16 Household involvement in 387 88 122 100 62 13 945 2.44 0.17 0.03 project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your 386 118 52 162 35 19 943 .2.44 0.17 0.03 building 18 Implementation of household 387 136 71 112 54 14 900 2.33 0.05 0.00 advice towards project choice and execution 40.87 - 1.48 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 280 Household’s Responses on Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation in Oyo South No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N HSCDP 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Satisfactory Indicators VD D I S VS SWV (x) 1 Household‟s involvement in 386 162 72 72 59 21 863 2.23 -0.18 0.03 project initiation 2 Articulation of Individual needs 386 85 112 135 45 9 939 2.43 0.02 0.00 3 Articulation of community 387 63 122 100 82 20 1035 2.67 0.27 0.07 needs 4 Consultation of households 387 113 103 92 63 16 927 2.40 -0.01 0.00 before project implementation 5 Training of community 386 124 87 88 69 18 928 2.40 -0.01 0.00 members on project management 6 Planning for future and 386 156 46 111 60 13 886 2.29 -0.12 0.02 seasonal needs 7 Transparency of funds 387 84 117 130 46 10 941 2.43 0.02 0.00 mobilization 8 Transparency on other 387 76 137 124 38 12 863 2.23 -0.18 0.03 mobilized resources 9 Information dissemination 386 117 135 68 50 16 980 2.53 0.12 0.02 before project implementation 10 Information dissemination 387 74 132 102 59 20 899 2.32 -0.18 0.03 during project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 386 113 120 81 57 15 960 2.48 0.07 0.01 12 Transparency on project 385 111 69 132 50 23 923 2.39 -0.02 0.00 execution 13 Self reliance leadership 386 107 117 85 58 19 921 2.38 -0.03 0.00 structure 14 Project design to community 386 118 95 98 56 19 936 2.42 -0.01 0.00 level 15 Incorporation of local creativity 386 86 144 80 58 18 977 2.52 0.12 0.01 to development 16 Household involvement in 387 60 157 95 57 18 967 2.50 0.09 0.01 project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your 386 74 125 119 54 14 974 2.52 0.11 0.01 building 18 Implementation of household 385 115 67 105 80 18 863 2.23 -018 0.03 advice towards project choice and execution - 43.36 - 0.24 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 281 Household’s Responses on Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation in Oyo Central No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N HSCDP 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Satisfactory Indicators VD D I S VS SWV (x) 1 Household‟s involvement in 271 116 65 47 33 10 622 2.06 -0.33 0.11 project initiation 2 Articulation of Individual needs 258 62 97 56 37 6 632 2.10 -0.30 0.09 3 Articulation of community 296 109 102 49 32 4 657 2.18 -0.21 0.05 needs 4 Consultation of households 274 83 82 55 37 17 687 2.28 -0.11 001 before project implementation 5 Training of community 257 68 71 64 41 13 648 2.15 -0.24 0.06 members on project management 6 Planning for future and 299 92 93 45 57 12 636 2.11 -0.28 0.08 seasonal needs 7 Transparency of funds 294 61 116 56 52 9 736 2.44 0.05 0.00 mobilization 8 Transparency on other 289 67 101 62 45 14 738 2.45 0.06 0.00 mobilized resources 9 Information dissemination 300 70 96 57 64 13 777 2.58 0.18 0.03 before project implementation 10 Information dissemination 297 77 83 69 51 17 803 2.67 0.27 0.07 during project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 299 73 89 59 62 16 791 2.63 0.23 0.05 12 Transparency on project 293 84 93 62 43 11 729 2.42 0.03 0.00 execution 13 Self reliance leadership 297 60 101 57 59 20 773 2.57 0.17 0.03 structure 14 Project design to community 298 64 111 61 51 11 738 2.45 0.06 0.00 level 15 Incorporation of local creativity 296 58 105 66 61 6 758 2.50 0.11 0.01 to development 16 Household involvement in 300 72 82 77 56 13 771 2.56 0.16 0.03 project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your 298 63 94 89 43 9 761 2.53 0.13 0.02 building 18 Implementation of household 295 79 103 45 52 10 733 2,44 0.04 0.00 advice towards project choice and execution 43.14 ---- 0.65 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 282 Household’s Responses on Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation in Oyo Central No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N HSCDP 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Satisfactory Indicators VD D I S VS SWV (x) 1 Household‟s involvement in 296 82 71 43 84 16 770 2.96 -007 0.00 project initiation 2 Articulation of Individual needs 300 67 84 63 60 26 782 2.56 -0.07 0.00 3 Articulation of community 313 86 78 63 55 17 743 2.47 -0.16 0.02 needs 4 Consultation of households 300 65 86 62 69 18 785 2.61 -0.02 0.00 before project implementation 5 Training of community 298 76 82 56 62 22 732 2.43 -0.19 0.04 members on project management 6 Planning for future and 296 63 80 56 76 21 774 2.57 -0.05 0.00 seasonal needs 7 Transparency of funds 293 70 68 62 75 18 748 2.49 -0.14 0.02 mobilization 8 Transparency on other 297 66 72 54 71 34 785 2.61 -0.02 0.00 mobilized resources 9 Information dissemination 295 70 56 64 82 23 805 2.67 0.05 0.00 before project implementation 10 Information dissemination 296 55 78 50 76 37 856 2.84 0.22 0.04 during project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 297 85 66 54 73 19 781 2.59 -0.03 0.00 12 Transparency on project 297 67 64 66 76 24 769 2.55 -0.07 0.00 execution 13 Self reliance leadership 294 75 71 64 66 18 832 2.76 0.14 0.02 structure 14 Project design to community 297 58 80 47 86 26 804 2.67 0.05 0.00 level 15 Incorporation of local creativity 298 64 73 62 81 18 801 2.66 0.04 0.00 to development 16 Household involvement in 298 71 74 45 75 33 889 2.95 0.33 0.11 project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your 298 72 69 63 73 21 769 2.55 -0.07 0.00 building 18 Implementation of household 288 74 79 42 71 22 801 2.66 0.04 0.00 advice towards project choice and execution 47.26 ----- 0.28 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 283 Household’s Responses on Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation in Oyo North No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N HSCDP 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Satisfactory Indicators VD D I S VS SWV (x) 1 Household‟s involvement in 384 123 110 48 94 9 908 2.36 0.18 0.03 project initiation 2 Articulation of Individual needs 384 68 175 66 67 8 924 2.40 0.22 0.05 3 Articulation of community 383 89 146 63 62 18 928 2.41 0.23 0.05 needs 4 Consultation of households 384 120 126 56 71 11 879 2.28 0.11 0.01 before project implementation 5 Training of community 384 132 129 51 62 10 841 2.81 0.00 0.00 members on project management 6 Planning for future and 383 128 138 45 52 20 847 2.20 0.02 0.00 seasonal needs 7 Transparency of funds 384 132 127 56 45 24 854 2.22 0.04 0.00 mobilization 8 Transparency on other 382 127 121 69 56 9 845 2.19 0.02 0.00 mobilized resources 9 Information dissemination 383 88 144 52 91 8 936 2.43 0.25 0.06 before project implementation 10 Information dissemination 384 101 148 54 60 21 904 2.35 0.17 0.03 during project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 384 109 127 68 53 27 914 2.37 0.20 0.04 12 Transparency on project 379 131 101 64 72 11 868 2.25 0.08 0.01 execution 13 Self reliance leadership 385 99 135 77 57 17 913 2.37 0.20 0.03 structure 14 Project design to community 385 110 134 66 70 5 881 2.29 0.11 0.01 level 15 Incorporation of local creativity 385 106 153 55 65 6 867 2.25 0.08 0.00 to development 16 Household involvement in 385 115 133 70 62 5 864 2.24 0.07 0.00 project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your 384 80 153 46 94 11 955 2.48 0.30 0.09 building 18 Implementation of household 384 119 131 63 63 8 862 2.24 0.06 0.00 advice towards project choice and execution 39.17 0.45 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 284 Household’s Responses on Satisfaction with Community Based Organisation in OyoNorth No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N HSCDP 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 Satisfactory Indicators VD D I S VS SWV (x) 1 Household‟s involvement in 385 84 113 58 98 32 1014 2.63 0.22 0.05 project initiation 2 Articulation of Individual needs 384 58 142 81 86 17 1050 2.72 0.31 0.10 3 Articulation of community 383 66 125 61 104 27 994 2.58 0.16 003 needs 4 Consultation of households 385 100 94 74 101 16 887 2.30 -0.11 0.01 before project implementation 5 Training of community 385 98 154 66 52 15 929 2.41 0.00 0.00 members on project management 6 Planning for future and 385 103 139 44 79 20 925 2.40 -0.01 0.00 seasonal needs 7 Transparency of funds 385 105 130 58 74 18 930 2.42 0.00 0.00 mobilization 8 Transparency on other 385 100 138 49 83 15 994 2.58 0.16 0.03 mobilized resources 9 Information dissemination 385 97 110 59 95 24 976 2.54 0.12 0.01 before project implementation 10 Information dissemination 385 84 134 67 77 23 1036 2.69 0.27 0.07 during project implementation 11 Equal access to project benefits 385 63 135 59 114 14 971 2.52 0.10 0.01 12 Transparency on project 385 88 127 72 77 21 1003 2.61 0.19 0.04 execution 13 Self reliance leadership 385 75 125 77 93 15 1005 2.61 0.19 0.04 structure 14 Project design to community 385 72 133 66 101 13 974 2.53 0.11 0.01 level 15 Incorporation of local creativity 384 77 128 93 73 18 1021 2.65 0.23 0.05 to development 16 Household involvement in 385 76 138 67 89 15 1054 2.74 0.32 0.10 project monitoring and evaluation 17 Distance of project to your 385 69 115 77 96 28 965 2.51 0.09 0.01 building 18 Implementation of household 379 78 121 95 65 20 1039 2.70 0.28 0.08 advice towards project choice and execution 43.51 0.64 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 285 PART C Households Responses on Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo South No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N OBSTACLE 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV ODP (x) 1 Financial problem among 386 171 107 65 37 6 1558 4.03 0.63 0.39 community members 2 Wealth disparity among 386 68 104 165 42 7 1342 3.47 0.07 0.00 community members 3 Power disparity among 385 49 144 133 44 15 1323 3.42 0.02 0.00 community members 4 Exclusion of households from 384 91 117 57 101 18 1314 3.40 0.00 0.00 development process 5 Lack of trust on project finance 382 114 105 50 92 21 1345 3.48 0.08 0.00 among community members 6 Disagreement between the 387 169 86 47 79 6 1494 3.86 0.46 0.21 technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 386 52 110 55 95 74 1129 2.92 -0.48 0.23 community members 8 Unequal accessbility to project 385 66 120 101 87 11 1298 3.35 -0.04 0.00` benefit among community members 9 Unequal accessbility to 386 106 116 97 57 10 1409 3.64 0.24 0.05 transformational information among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 387 112 103 62 93 17 1361 3.52 0.12 0.01 community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 387 82 77 111 85 32 1253 3.24 -0.16 0.02 participation by other groups within the community 12 Hostility to community 386 35 73 125 119 34 1114 2.88 -0.52 0.27 participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 379 63 73 75 112 56 1112 2.87 -0.53 0.28 development choice 14 Ineffective institutional 389 121 76 100 69 17 1364 3.52 0.13 0.02 leadership structure 47.59 ----- 1.51 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 286 Households Responses on Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo South No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N OBSTACLE 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV ODP (x) 1 Financial problem among 379 150 103 59 56 11 1462 3.78 0.47 0.23 community members 2 Wealth disparity among 380 75 156 79 62 8 1468 3.80 0.48 0.23 community members 3 Power disparity among 380 66 131 92 73 18 1294 3.34 -0.03 0.00 community members 4 Exclusion of households from 381 87 114 54 91 35 1270 3.28 -0.03 0.00 development process 5 Lack of trust on project finance 383 93 93 94 82 21 1304 3.37 0.06 0.00 among community members 6 Disagreement between the 382 156 72 61 73 20 1417 3.66 0.35 0.12 technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 379 35 113 66 74 91 1064 2.75 -0.56 0.32 community members 8 Unequal accessbility to project 380 113 110 43 97 17 1345 3.48 0.16 0.03 benefit among community members 9 Unequal accessbility to 381 87 104 67 94 29 1269 3.28 -0.03 0.00 transformational information among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 383 84 119 69 95 16 1309 3.38 0.07 0.01 community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 378 74 86 10 102 15 1236 3.19 -0.12 0.01 participation by other groups 1 within the community 12 Hostility to community 383 66 93 81 100 43 1188 3.07 -0.24 0.06 participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 382 55 82 50 99 96 1047 2.70 -0.60 0.36 development choice 14 Ineffective institutional 380 99 97 57 93 34 1274 3.30 -0.02 0.00 leadership structure 46.37 ----- 1.37 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 287 Households Responses on Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo Central No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N OBSTACLE 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV ODP (x) 1 Financial problem among 300 137 87 33 32 11 1181 3.92 0.62 0.36 community members 2 Wealth disparity among 300 66 141 43 42 8 1064 3.53 0.20 0.04 community members 3 Power disparity among 295 45 94 90 53 13 964 3.20 -0.12 0.02 community members 4 Exclusion of households from 296 65 97 71 41 22 987 3.28 -0.05 0.00 development process 5 Lack of trust on project finance 298 65 87 85 44 17 991 3.29 -0.03 0.00 among community members 6 Disagreement between the 295 88 83 47 52 25 1039 3.45 0.12 0.02 technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 295 59 102 50 47 37 966 3.21 -0.12 0.01 community members 8 Unequal accessbility to project 295 52 98 73 52 20 980 3.26 -0.07 0.00 benefit among community members 9 Unequal accessbility to 298 68 81 71 46 32 992 3.30 -0.03 0.00 transformational information among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 298 71 91 64 48 24 1026 3.41 0.08 0.00 community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 298 61 88 80 53 16 962 3.20 -0.13 0.02 participation by other groups within the community 12 Hostility to community 298 57 94 70 57 20 919 3.05 -0.27 0.07 participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 297 52 83 65 47 50 929 3.09 -0.24 0.06 development choice 14 Ineffective institutional 298 65 99 60 51 23 1014 3.37 0.04 0.00 leadership structure 46.56 0.61 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 288 Households Responses on Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo Central. No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N OBSTACLE 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV ODP (x) 1 Financial problem among 297 86 90 58 42 21 1075 3.57 025 0.06 community members 2 Wealth disparity among 297 59 120 62 37 19 1080 3.58 0.27 0.07 community members 3 Power disparity among 292 72 90 64 47 19 1048 3.48 0.16 0.03 community members 4 Exclusion of households from 293 53 89 79 54 18 1016 3.38 0.16 0.03 development process 5 Lack of trust on project finance 297 84 76 61 59 17 1063 3.53 0.21 0.04 among community members 6 Disagreement between the 297 83 86 66 46 16 1043 3.47 0.14 0.02 technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 299 56 81 57 41 64 913 3.03 -0.29 0.08 community members 8 Unequal accessbility to project 297 70 69 73 53 32 961 3.19 -0.13 002 benefit among community members 9 Unequal accessbility to 297 67 82 56 67 25 1004 3.34 0.01 0.00 transformational information among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 296 71 79 62 60 24 1019 3.39 0.06 0.00 community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 294 51 85 70 50 38 959 3.19 -0.14 0.02 participation by other groups within the community 12 Hostility to community 294 60 77 64 53 40 907 3.01 -0.31 0.09 participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 296 57 74 45 55 65 934 3.10 -0.22 0.05 development choice 14 Ineffective institutional 289 65 64 62 55 43 973 3.23 -0.08 0.00 leadership structure 46.50 0.50 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 289 Households Responses on Obstacles to Development Participation in Oyo North No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N OBSTACLE 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV ODP (x) 1 Financial problem among 382 174 90 36 64 18 1484 3.85 0.54 0.30 community members 2 Wealth disparity among 381 92 113 56 90 30 1290 3.35 0.03 0.00 community members 3 Power disparity among 382 94 114 50 99 25 1299 3.37 0.06 0.00 community members 4 Exclusion of households from 378 86 116 48 107 21 1273 3.30 -0.01 0.00 development process 5 Lack of trust on project finance 380 121 76 59 108 16 1318 3.42 0.11 0.01 among community members 6 Disagreement between the 383 65 140 61 92 25 1277 3.31 0.00 0.00 technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 383 85 111 52 83 52 1243 3.22 -0.09 0.01 community members 8 Unequal accessbility to project 383 83 97 69 92 42 1236 3.21 -0.11 0.01 benefit among community members 9 Unequal accessbility to 383 83 116 62 89 33 1276 3.31 0.00 0.00 transformational information among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 382 97 97 74 86 28 1295 3.36 -0.05 0.00 community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 380 65 123 66 92 34 1233 3.20 -0.11 0.01 participation by other groups within the community 12 Hostility to community 380 62 103 85 88 42 1195 3.10 -0.24 0.05 participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 382 53 98 95 80 56 1158 3.00 -0.30 0.10 development choice 14 Ineffective institutional 381 101 100 63 92 25 1303 3.38 0.06 0.00 leadership structure 46.44 ---- 0.48 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 290 Households Responses on Obstacles to Development Participation in OyoNorth. No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N OBSTACLE 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV ODP (x) 1 Financial problem among 381 130 103 82 55 11 1429 4.75 0.71 0.50 community members 2 Wealth disparity among 381 93 112 68 85 23 1313 4.36 0.32 0.11 community members 3 Power disparity among 378 92 112 72 69 33 1295 4.30 0.27 0.07 community members 4 Exclusion of households from 372 87 120 62 86 17 1290 4.29 0.25 0.06 development process 5 Lack of trust on project finance 382 94 104 78 71 35 1302 4.33 0.29 0.08 among community members 6 Disagreement between the 376 46 105 91 110 24 1167 3.88 -0.16 0.03 technical and non-technical aspect in project implementation 7 Gender discrimination among 381 43 87 71 108 72 1064 3.53 -0.50 0.25 community members 8 Unequal accessbility to project 381 41 102 73 114 51 1111 3.70 -0.35 0.12 benefit among community members 9 Unequal accessbility to 379 45 130 79 96 29 1203 4.00 -0.04 0.00 transformational information among community members 10 Un-cooperative attitude among 379 60 98 108 82 31 1211 4.02 -0.01 0.00 community members on the source of project finance 11 Hostility to community 382 63 110 98 109 22 1229 4.08 0.05 0.00 participation by other groups within the community 12 Hostility to community 376 54 79 87 110 46 1113 3.70 -0.34 0.12 participation by other groups outside the community 13 Religion contradiction on 379 50 89 92 76 72 1106 3.67 -0.36 0.13 development choice 14 Ineffective institutional 381 62 118 60 77 64 1180 3.92 -0.12 0.01 leadership structure 56.12 ----- 1.48 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 291 APPENDIX 5 PART A Household Responses on Community Based Organisation Development Processes and Poverty alleviation in Oyo South Senatorial District. Aspect of Development No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N Processes and Poverty CDPPR alleviation 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV (x) 1 Infrastructural Development 380 177 108 68 22 5 1570 4.06 0.38 0.14 2 Partnership with other 379 100 101 149 9 20 1389 3.59 -0.09 0.00 development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial 380 78 158 108 28 8 1410 3.64 -0.04 0.00 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 380 133 96 97 47 7 1441 3.72 0.04 0.00 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 379 104 144 107 14 10 1455 3.76 0.08 0.01 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 380 94 119 134 18 15 1399 3.61 -0.07 0.01 training centres 7 provision of security 380 80 177 87 26 10 1431 3.70 0.02 0.00 8 supply of labour and technical 380 67 121 110 72 10 1303 3.37 -0.31 0.10 advice 29.45 - 0.26 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Household Responses on Community Based Organisation Development Processes and Poverty alleviation in Oyo South Senatorial District. Aspect of Development No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N Processes and Poverty CDPPR alleviation (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV 1 Infrastructural Development 370 148 121 67 25 9 1484 3.83 0.09 0.01 2 Partnership with other 378 146 131 56 26 19 1493 3.86 0.11 0.01 development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial 377 41 179 107 34 16 1326 3.43 -0.31 0.10 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 378 82 185 55 29 27 1402 3.62 -0.12 0.01 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 377 113 138 78 28 20 1427 3.69 -0.05 0.00 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 375 166 115 58 19 17 1519 3.92 0.18 0.03 training centres 7 provision of security 379 99 163 78 24 15 1444 3.73 -0.01 0.01 8 supply of labour and technical 376 123 158 66 15 14 1489 3.85 0.11 0.01 advice 29.93 - 0.18 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 292 Household’sResponses on Community Based Organisation Development Processes and Poverty alleviation in Oyo Central Senatorial Districts. Aspect of Development No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N Processes and Poverty CDPPR alleviation (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV 1 Infrastructural Development 295 98 60 54 52 31 998 3.32 0.16 0.03 2 Partnership with other 297 47 106 69 54 21 959 3.19 0.03 0.00 development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial 294 43 114 72 42 23 966 3.21 0.06 0.00 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 296 47 101 76 47 25 964 3.20 0.05 0.00 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 289 66 77 69 46 31 953 3.17 0.01 0.00 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 289 41 104 56 57 34 903 3.00 -0.15 0.02 training centres 7 provision of security 296 59 60 79 60 38 930 3.09 -0.06 0.01 8 supply of labour and technical 296 32 96 79 56 33 920 3.06 -0.10 0.01 advice 25.24 ___ 0.07 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Household’sResponses on Community Based Organisation Development Processes and Poverty alleviation in Oyo Central Senatorial Districts. Aspect of Development No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N Processes and Poverty CDPPR alleviation (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV 1 Infrastructural Development 299 63 98 63 55 20 992 3.30 0.19 0.04 2 Partnership with other 297 59 92 79 49 18 953 3.16 0.05 0.00 development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial 295 58 99 52 60 26 907 3.01 -0.09 0.01 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 289 55 84 64 58 28 924 3.07 -0.03 0.01 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 287 51 93 59 50 34 912 3.03 -0.07 0.00 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 294 45 105 67 56 21 932 3.10 -0.01 0.00 training centres 7 provision of security 287 50 90 64 54 29 924 3.07 -0.04 0.00 8 supply of labour and technical 291 52 91 67 58 23 942 3.13 0.02 0.00 advice 24.87 ___ 0.06 Source: Author‟s Field Survey, 2011 293 Household’s Responses on Community Based Organisation Development Processes and Poverty alleviation in Oyo North Senatorial Districts. Aspect of Development No Respondents Level of Agreement Before 1999 S/N Processes and Poverty CDPPR alleviation VH H M L VL SWV (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 1 Infrastructural Development 377 66 123 62 87 39 1221 3.17 0.13 0.02 2 Partnership with other 381 58 113 69 77 64 1167 3.03 -0.01 0.00 development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial 379 55 96 93 97 38 1170 3.04 -0.01 0.00 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 380 51 95 83 102 49 1137 2.95 -0.09 0.01 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 376 62 112 82 87 33 1211 3.15 0.10 0.01 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 374 56 77 72 101 68 1074 2.79 -0.25 0.06 training centres 7 provision of security 376 51 120 90 83 34 1205 3.13 0.09 0.01 8 supply of labour and technical 373 54 117 75 95 32 1185 3.08 0.04 0.00 advice 24.34 0.10 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Household’s Responses on Community Based Organisation Development Processes and Poverty alleviation in Oyo North Senatorial Districts. Aspect of Development No Respondents Level of Agreement 2000 and Beyond S/N Processes and Poverty CDPPR alleviation (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 VH H M L VL SWV 1 Infrastructural Development 377 88 114 71 67 37 1280 3.32 0.23 0.05 2 Partnership with other 379 79 94 69 83 54 1198 3.11 0.02 0.00 development organization on community development 3 Charity services and financial 380 73 91 88 91 37 1212 3.15 0.06 0.00 support to project development 4 Consultation with other 375 61 90 86 89 49 1150 2.99 -0.10 0.01 development stakeholders 5 Maintenance of community 368 80 86 76 79 47 1177 3.06 -0.01 0.00 projects. 6 Establishment of vocational 373 53 78 82 98 62 1081 2.81 -0.28 0.08 training centres 7 provision of security 373 82 98 76 82 35 1229 3.19 0.10 0.01 8 supply of labour and technical 370 72 97 83 78 40 1193 3.10 0.01 0.00 advice 24.73 ___ 0.16 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 294 Households Responses on Levels of Poverty before and after Community Based Organisations Projects Interventions in Oyo South Senatorial District S/No CBOs Impact Rating Index in O. S. S. D Before Indicators of Measurement Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation No of Vs S LS NS NS SWV Y X No of Vs S LS NS NS SWV Y X Respond A 𝑿 − 𝑿 (𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 Respondent A 𝑿 (𝑿 ents − 𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 1 385 12 33 81 12 137 371 57 64 50 115 85 2 816 2.12 1006 2.71 Social - assistance to 2.71 the needy 2.12 -0.38 0.14 -0.10 0 . 0 1 2 Rape/indecent assaults 387 128 98 75 67 19 1410 3.64 340 91 74 72 61 42 1131 3.33 Burglary/house braking 384 135 17 25 33 13 1541 4.01 3.66 371 68 89 63 99 53 1136 3.06 8 1.16 1.35 3.26 0.45 0.20 Breach of public peace 180 56 25 19 26 54 543 3.01 191 21 18 32 26 94 419 2.19 Kidnapping and 363 161 93 55 42 12 1438 3.96 368 175 11 71 30 26 1646 4.47 physical insecurity 8 Inclusion of people in 354 10 12 43 12 161 644 1.82 380 61 73 44 119 83 1050 2.76 development processes 8 accountability and 387 7 28 33 12 197 687 1.77 383 70 68 85 70 90 1107 2.89 transparency 2 3 Social solidarity 364 29 18 24 16 129 746 2.05 376 85 71 62 92 66 1145 3.04 4 influence and control on 382 27 31 15 10 207 715 1.87 1.96 -0.54 0.29 387 65 92 36 99 95 1094 2.83 2.91 0.10 0.01 developments 2 Community dignity and 379 12 28 44 16 227 867 2.29 366 70 68 91 74 63 1106 3.02 prestige 8 Access to 369 31 24 18 18 115 782 2.12 350 40 68 73 92 77 952 2.72 transformational 1 Information 4 Access to all seasons 374 23 27 37 16 125 783 2.09 368 31 43 68 75 151 832 2.26 road 2 Access to water 383 63 52 79 75 114 1024 2.69 381 16 72 36 100 157 833 2.18 Access to electricity 387 28 64 71 99 125 932 2.40 387 30 79 115 110 53 1084 2.80 295 Infrastructural Socio-cultural Heritages Security Philanthropic Provision Access to health care 387 21 39 150 72 105 960 2.48 380 69 74 99 25 113 1101 2.70 Access to market places 195 34 41 23 69 28 569 2.92 201 62 55 44 16 24 718 3.57 Quality and hygienic 351 15 26 29 13 151 677 1.93 382 60 48 89 111 74 1055 2.76 environment 0 Nutrition adequacy 374 26 39 96 16 92 988 2.64 2.48 -0.02 0.00 381 30 61 40 100 150 864 2.27 2.70 0.01 1 Access to school 369 66 74 90 79 60 1114 3.01 372 78 83 64 74 73 1135 3.05 -0.11 Income 385 33 42 67 13 113 907 2.36 381 65 71 83 41 121 987 2.59 0 5 Employment 386 41 12 72 10 160 831 2.15 382 61 43 69 100 109 993 2.60 2.51 -0.30 0.09 opportunity 1 2.28 -0.22 0.05 Productivity 370 7 53 83 14 87 863 2.33 361 44 41 64 55 157 843 2.33 0 Total 55.6 1.83 62.3 62.3 4 3 3 𝑿 = 2.50 𝑿 = 2.81 296 Economy and Empowerment Households Responses on Levels of Poverty before and after Community Based Organisations Projects Interventions in Oyo Central Senatorial District CBOs Impact Rating Index in O. C. S. D Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty S/No Indicators of Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation Measurement No of VS S LS NS NSA SW Y X No of VS S LS NS NSA SW Y X 𝟐 Respo V 𝑿 − 𝑿 (𝑿 −𝑿) Resp V 𝑿 (𝑿 ndent onde − 𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 nt 1 Social - assistance 300 36 41 28 150 45 773 2.58 296 68 83 71 65 09 1.02 3.4 to the needy 4 6 -0.09 0.00 3.46 - 0.23 2.58 0.48 2 Rape/indecent 268 98 60 71 32 7 1014 3.78 276 64 36 29 30 117 728 2.6 assaults 3.45 4 Burglary/house 292 72 91 65 28 36 1011 3.46 0.78 0.61 292 24 31 82 108 47 753 2.5 2.79 - 0.04 braking 8 0.19 Breach of public 160 15 61 52 11 21 518 3.24 180 36 07 25 82 130 577 3.2 peace 1 Kidnapping and 299 79 73 61 32 54 988 3.30 283 23 107 19 34 100 768 2.7 physical insecurity 1 Inclusion of people 286 19 32 51 109 75 669 2.34 290 83 89 71 32 15 1063 3.6 in development 7 processes accountability and 278 43 22 64 69 80 713 2.56 265 61 25 49 28 102 710 2.6 transparency 8 3 Social solidarity 290 27 18 63 83 99 661 2.28 2.37 -0.30 0.09 291 35 39 24 82 111 678 2.3 2.92 - 0.00 3 0.06 influence and 289 32 10 66 89 92 668 2.31 285 61 48 62 93 21 890 3.1 control on 2 developments Community 291 16 32 71 99 73 692 2.38 290 49 61 38 72 70 817 2.8 dignity and 2 prestige Access to 280 36 16 29 116 83 646 2.31 285 48 69 44 81 43 853 2.9 transformational 9 Information 4 Access to all 291 13 43 61 80 94 674 2.32 292 65 37 49 41 100 802 2.7 seasons road 5 297 Socio-cultural Heritages Security Philanthropic Infrastruc tural Provision Access to water 293 18 49 29 120 77 690 2.35 292 81 26 31 60 94 816 2.7 9 Access to 293 29 38 48 100 78 719 2.45 2.41 -0.26 0.072 290 48 53 65 80 44 851 2.9 electricity 3 Access to health 293 27 41 65 128 32 782 2.67 296 71 23 66 78 58 859 2.9 care 0 2.99 0.00 Access to market 218 60 16 32 83 81 707 3.24 141 37 39 5 18 42 434 3.0 places 8 0.01 Quality and 293 29 12 38 61 153 582 1.99 297 87 59 63 48 40 996 3.3 hygienic 5 environment Nutrition adequacy 292 25 21 32 68 146 587 2.01 296 65 71 50 39 71 908 3.0 6 Access to school 292 28 34 61 73 96 701 2.40 297 49 65 71 80 32 910 3.0 6 Income 290 30 61 62 84 53 801 2.76 295 68 42 82 13 96 876 2.9 7 5 Employment 290 14 32 78 56 110 654 2.26 293 36 29 68 74 86 734 2.5 2.73 - 0.06 opportunity 1 0.25 2.55 -0.12 0.01 Productivity 291 33 61 29 101 67 765 2.63 291 48 36 82 34 91 789 2.7 1 Total 57.29 0.78 64. 0.33 32 𝑿 = 2.67 𝑿 = 2.98 298 Economy and Empowerment Households Responses on Levels of Poverty before and after Community Based Organisations Projects Interventions in Oyo North Senatorial Districts CBOs Impact Rating Index in O. N. S. D Respondents Level of Poverty Respondents Level of Poverty S/No Indicators of Before CBOs Project Implementation After CBOs Project Implementation Measurement No of VS S L NS NSA SW Y X No of VS S LS NS NSA SW Y X Respo S V 𝑿 (𝑿 Respo V 𝑿 (𝑿 ndent − 𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 ndent − 𝑿 − 𝑿 )𝟐 1 Social - assistance 382 91 26 38 103 124 1003 382 101 115 70 13 83 1284 3.36 to the needy 3. 2.63 0.04 0.00 36 0.23 0.0 5 2 Rape/indecent 371 98 101 90 61 21 1307 361 28 33 65 151 84 853 2.36 assaults 3.35 Burglary/house 380 62 89 10 64 52 1205 384 11 38 118 120 97 898 2.34 2. -0.90 0.8 braking 3 0.76 0.58 23 1 Breach of public 200 69 43 24 34 30 587 165 19 28 36 27 55 424 1.10 peace Kidnapping and 384 78 109 10 31 66 1254 385 69 101 81 72 62 1198 3.11 physical insecurity 0 Inclusion of people 381 30 26 18 105 202 720 370 75 109 115 64 107 1391 3.76 in development processes accountability and 370 31 36 68 78 157 816 381 90 52 81 36 122 1095 2.87 transparency 3 Social solidarity 382 66 39 72 63 142 970 364 118 100 64 31 51 1295 3.56 influence and 365 39 44 49 164 69 915 2.18 -0.41 0.17 376 112 64 83 69 48 1251 3.33 3. 0.31 0.1 control on 44 0 developments Community 377 31 20 18 103 200 695 363 99 109 115 21 19 1337 3.68 dignity and prestige Access to 380 36 24 16 150 154 778 381 98 71 85 71 56 1227 3.22 transformational Information 4 Access to all 383 61 36 18 52 216 823 372 81 91 43 101 56 1156 3.10 seasons road Access to water 385 33 28 63 109 152 836 379 70 152 113 32 12 1373 3.62 Access to 365 36 38 26 99 166 774 382 69 108 92 49 64 1215 3.18 electricity Access to health 374 24 18 26 30 276 606 385 79 103 115 40 48 1280 3.32 299 Infrastructural Socio-cultural Heritages Security Philanthro Provision pic care Access to market 241 42 36 62 91 10 732 260 91 26 30 24 89 786 3.02 places 2.43 -0.16 0.03 3. 0.0 Quality and 382 22 31 63 154 160 891 375 118 100 74 30 53 1325 3.53 27 2 hygienic 0.14 environment Nutrition adequacy 365 21 63 74 36 171 822 369 104 100 39 68 58 1231 3.34 Access to school 381 60 24 33 94 170 853 384 74 68 109 36 159 1200 3.13 Income 384 42 31 25 99 187 794 385 164 93 57 39 40 1463 3.80 E ployment 373 63 45 94 60 111 1008 384 71 84 90 73 66 1173 3.05 5 opportunity 3. 0.24 0.0 Productivity 318 18 32 71 98 99 726 372 64 106 84 102 16 1216 3.27 37 6 2.35 -0.24 0.06 Total 54.0 0.84 69.0 1.0 4 5 4 𝑿 = 2.59 𝑿 = 3.13 300 Economy and Empowerme nt PART B Households Responses on Community Based Organisation Development Capability in Oyo North Senatorial Districts No Respondents Level of Agreement S/N Development Attributes CDC (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 Involvement of individual in 384 181 175 10 9 9 1662 4.32 0.09 0.01 project development 2 Involvement of Community in 384 176 182 22 2 2 1680 4.36 0.13 0.02 project development 3 Promotion of community 385 168 183 21 11 2 1689 4.39 -0.16 0.03 welfare 4 Competence in fund and 385 121 192 49 20 3 1563 4.06 -0.17 0.03 revenue development 5 Capability of solving problems 384 127 193 45 14 5 1573 4.09 -0.14 0.02 before and after project implementation 6 Adequacy of vision minded 385 155 178 31 17 4 1618 4.20 -0.03 0.00 leader and supportive members 7 Empowering community within 385 157 174 25 25 4 1610 4.18 -0.05 0.00 the development priority and local resources 29.6 0.11 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 Households Responses on Community Based Organisation Development Capability in Oyo Central Senatorial Districts No Respondents Level of Agreement S/N Development Attributes CDC (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD 1 Involvement of individual in 300 168 108 15 2 7 1295 4.30 0.22 0.05 project development 2 Involvement of Community in 296 109 130 31 11 15 1213 4.03 -0.05 0.00 project development 3 Promotion of community 298 123 118 30 11 16 1235 4.10 0.02 0.00 welfare 4 Competence in fund and 297 111 97 49 22 18 1177 3.91 -0.17 0.03 revenue development 5 Capability of solving problems 300 128 106 31 20 15 1196 3.97 -0.01 0.01 before and after project implementation 6 Adequacy of vision minded 298 125 132 24 14 3 1262 4.19 0.11 0.01 leader and supportive members 7 Empowering community within 300 120 122 44 9 5 1227 4.08 0.00 0.00 the development priority and local resources 28.58 0.10 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 301 Households Responses on Community Based Organisation Development Capability in Oyo South Senatorial District No Respondents level of Agreement S/N Development Attributes CDC (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 Involvement of individual in 387 211 107 32 20 17 1638 4.23 0.21 0.04 project development 2 Involvement of Community in 377 101 188 69 16 13 1509 3.89 -0.13 0.02 project development 3 Promotion of community 387 75 210 61 27 14 1466 3.79 -0.24 0.06 welfare 4 Competence in fund and 387 105 147 97 25 13 1467 3.80 -0.23 0.05 revenue development 5 Capability of solving problems 387 118 127 122 11 9 1495 3.86 -0.23 0.03 before and after project implementation 6 Adequacy of vision minded 387 178 177 21 10 1 1682 4.35 0.32 0.01 leader and supportive members 7 Empowering community within 387 152 198 26 6 5 1647 4.26 0.24 0.06 the development priority and local resources 28.18 0.27 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 302 PART C Responses of Community Based Organisations on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty and Enhancing Socio-economic Development in Oyo South Senatorial District. Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty No Respondents level of Agreement and Enhancing Socio-economic S/N Development FCRP (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 involvement of private sectors‟ in 25 12 9 3 0 1 106 4.24 0.45 0.20 project finance 2 promoting Freedom of information on 25 11 12 1 0 1 107 4.28 0.49 0.24 government opportunities and services 3 transparency with regards to public 25 9 11 3 2 0 102 4.08 0.29 0.08 spending 4 promoting rule of law and justice 25 10 11 4 0 0 106 4.24 0.45 0.02 5 monitoring government development 25 9 10 5 0 1 101 4.04 0.25 0.06 and financial expenditure 6 promoting community involvement in 25 11 8 6 0 0 105 4.20 0.41 0.17 project implementation, maintenance and services 7 financial involvement of religion based 25 5 8 8 1 3 86 3.44 -0.35 0.12 organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of perspective 25 6 11 4 3 1 93 3.72 -0.07 0.00 users on development choice 9 ensuring development project to reflect 25 9 12 2 0 2 101 4.04 0.25 0.06 community priorities 10 encouraging poor people‟s organization 25 5 10 5 0 5 85 3.40 -0.39 0.15 for adequate representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job creation 25 10 9 6 0 0 104 4.16 0.37 0.14 and wealth acquisition 12 Self support to grassroots development 24 11 5 7 1 0 99 3.96 0.17 0.03 13 Promoting export led product 25 6 4 11 2 2 85 3.40 -0.39 0.15 14 Promoting labour intensive growth 19 2 7 4 2 4 58 2.32 -1.49 2.22 15 Investment in physical infrastructure 19 10 5 4 0 0 82 3.28 -0.51 0.26 Total 56.80 4.08 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 303 Responses of Community Based Organisations on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty and Enhancing Socio-economic Development in Oyo Central Senatorial District. Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty No Respondents level of Agreement and Enhancing Socio-economic S/N Development FCRP (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 involvement of private sectors‟ in 26 15 5 5 1 0 112 4.31 0.30 0.09 project finance 2 promoting Freedom of information on 26 9 10 4 3 0 103 3.96 -0.05 0.00 government opportunities and services 3 transparency with regards to public 26 16 6 2 2 0 114 4.38 0.37 0.14 spending 4 promoting rule of law and justice 26 17 4 4 1 0 115 4.42 0.41 0.17 5 monitoring government development 26 12 9 4 1 0 110 4.23 0.22 0.05 and financial expenditure 6 promoting community involvement in 26 13 4 8 1 0 107 4.12 0.11 0.01 project implementation, maintenance and services 7 financial involvement of religion based 26 5 10 7 3 1 93 3.58 -0.43 0.18 organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of perspective 26 6 12 4 3 1 97 3.73 -o.28 0.08 users on development choice 9 ensuring development project to reflect 26 12 13 0 1 0 114 4.38 0.37 0.14 community priorities 10 encouraging poor people‟s organization 26 8 14 1 0 3 102 3.92 -0.09 0.00 for adequate representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job creation 26 12 10 4 0 0 112 4.31 0.30 0.09 and wealth acquisition 12 Self support to grassroots development 26 13 9 4 0 0 113 4.35 0.34 0.12 13 Promoting export led product 26 7 10 6 3 0 102 4.12 0.11 0.01 14 Promoting labour intensive growth 21 7 5 5 3 1 77 2.96 -1.05 1.10 15 Investment in physical infrastructure 21 11 6 4 0 0 91 3.50 -0.51 0.26 Total 60.27 2.44 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 304 Community Based OrganisationsResponses on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty and Enhancing Socio-economic Development in Oyo North Senatorial District. Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty No Respondents level of Agreement and Enhancing Socio-economic S/N Development FCRP (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 involvement of private sectors‟ in 36 22 8 2 4 0 156 4.33 0.35 0.12 project finance 2 promoting Freedom of information on 36 22 11 3 0 0 163 4.52 0.54 0.29 government opportunities and services 3 transparency with regards to public 36 21 9 5 1 0 158 4.39 0.41 0.17 spending 4 promoting rule of law and justice 36 21 14 1 0 0 164 4.56 0.58 0.34 5 monitoring government development 36 20 10 6 0 0 158 4.39 0.41 0.17 and financial expenditure 6 promoting community involvement in 36 23 10 2 0 1 162 4.50 0.52 0.27 project implementation, maintenance and services 7 financial involvement of religion based 36 16 7 5 6 2 137 3.81 -0.17 0.02 organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of perspective 36 10 13 11 2 0 139 3.86 -0.12 0.01 users on development choice 9 ensuring development project to reflect 36 21 13 2 0 0 163 4.53 0.55 0.30 community priorities 10 encouraging poor people‟s organization 36 18 15 1 2 0 157 4.36 0.38 0.14 for adequate representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job creation 35 15 16 4 0 0 151 4.19 0.21 0.04 and wealth acquisition 12 Self support to grassroots development 36 19 13 3 0 1 157 4.36 0.38 0.14 13 Promoting export led product 36 13 7 8 3 5 128 3.56 -0.42 0.18 14 Promoting labour intensive growth 19 8 6 4 1 0 78 2.17 -1.81 3.28 15 Investment in physical infrastructure 19 10 4 3 2 0 79 2.19 -1.79 3.20 Total 59.72 8.67 Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 305 Households Responses to Factors Capable on Reducing Poverty and Enhancing Socio- economic Development in Oyo North Senatorial District. Factors Capable of Reducing No Respondents level of Agreement S/N Poverty and Enhancing Socio FCRP --economic Development (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 Involvement of private 382 204 138 25 9 6 1671 4.34 0.59 0.35 sectors‟ in project finance 2 promoting freedom of 382 141 199 15 25 2 1049 2.72 -1.02 1.04 information on government opp ortunities and services 3 transparency with regards to 383 183 143 31 13 8 1610 4.18 0.44 0.19 public spending 4 promoting rule of law and 383 196 150 24 10 3 1675 4.35 0.16 0.37 justice 5 Monitoring government develo 381 194 145 30 9 3 1616 4.31 0.57 0.32 pment and financial expenditure 6 Promoting community involve 384 170 170 23 18 3 1637 4.25 0.50 0.26 ment in project implementation, maintenance and services 7 Financial involvement of 384 123 180 21 49 11 1507 3.91 0.17 0.03 religion based organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of 381 118 175 32 51 5 1493 3.88 0.13 0.02 prospective users on development choice 9 ensuring development project 382 176 161 24 13 8 1630 4.23 0.49 0.24 to reflect community priorities 10 Encouraging poor people‟s 382 134 180 28 32 8 1546 4.01 0.27 0.07 organization for adequate representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job 383 210 121 34 12 6 1666 4.33 0.58 0.34 creation and wealth acquisition 12 Self support to grassroots 381 143 179 33 19 7 1575 4.09 0.35 0.12 development 13 promoting export led product 377 127 152 48 46 4 1483 3.86 0.11 0.01 14 Promoting labour intensive 381 128 169 46 32 6 1524 3.96 0.21 0.05 growth 15 Investment in physical 383 147 171 33 23 9 1573 4.08 0.34 0.02 infrastructure Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 306 Households Responses on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty and Enhancing Socio- economic Development in Oyo Central Senatorial District. Factors Capable of Reducing No Respondents level of Agreement S/N Poverty and Enhancing Socio FCRP --economic Development (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 Involvement of private 298 129 115 32 13 9 1224 4.07 0.19 0.04 sectors‟ in project finance 2 Promoting freedom of 300 111 114 37 28 10 1155 3.83 -0.05 0.00 information on government opp ortunities and services 3 transparency with regards to 298 91 142 39 16 10 1164 3.86 -0.02 0.00 public spending 4 promoting rule of law and 298 102 111 49 17 19 1162 3.86 -0.02 0.00 justice 5 Monitoring government 294 96 119 37 31 11 1148 3.81 -0.07 001 development and financial expenditure 6 Promoting community 295 118 131 28 12 6 1232 4.09 0.21 0.40 involvement in project implementation, maintenance and services 7 Financial involvement of 300 91 143 38 20 3 1164 3.86 -0.02 0.00 religion based organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of 294 88 135 56 7 8 1114 3.70 -0.18 0.03 prospective users on development choice 9 ensuring development project 297 109 125 49 10 4 1225 4.06 0.18 0.03 to reflect community priorities 10 Encouraging poor people‟s 293 101 114 38 19 21 1132 3.76 -0.12 0.01 organization for adequate representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job 297 114 132 29 14 8 1228 4.08 0.20 0.04 creation and wealth acquisition 12 Self support to grassroots 296 96 128 48 17 7 1163 3.86 0.02 0.00 development 13 promoting export led product 296 93 123 41 31 8 1107 3.68 -0.20 0.04 14 Promoting labour intensive 294 89 136 49 10 10 1126 3.74 -0.14 0.02 growth 15 Investment in physical 296 127 114 31 13 11 1196 3.97 0.09 0.01 infrastructure Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 307 Households Responses on Factors Capable of Reducing Poverty and Enhancing Socio- economic Development in Oyo South Senatorial District. Factors Capable of Reducing No Respondents level of Agreement S/N Poverty and Enhancing Socio FCRP --economic Development (x) 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝑿 − 𝑿 𝟐 SA A U D SD SWV 1 Involvement of private 382 166 70 108 29 9 1501 3.88 0.05 0.00 sectors‟ in project finance 2 Promoting freedom of 381 161 79 89 33 19 1473 3.81 -0.02 0.00 information on government opp ortunities and services 3 Transparency with regards to 382 62 119 146 44 11 1323 3.42 -0.41 0.17 public spending 4 Promoting rule of law and 382 57 130 95 62 38 1253 3.24 -0.59 0.35 justice 5 Monitoring government 386 103 181 45 43 14 1474 3.81 -0.02 0.00 development and financial expenditure 6 Promoting community 387 158 148 60 18 3 1607 4.15 0.32 0.10 involvement in project implementation, maintenance and services 7 Financial involvement of 386 98 241 36 8 3 1541 3.99 0.16 0.03 religion based organization on project development 8 Financial involvement of 387 133 181 43 29 1 1583 4.09 0.26 0.00 prospective users on development choice 9 ensuring development project 373 99 187 63 15 9 147 3.80 -0.03 0.01 to reflect community priorities 10 Encouraging poor people‟s 386 78 205 66 19 18 1464 3.78 -0.05 0.01 organization for adequate representation and accountability 11 promoting conditions for job 387 124 110 104 27 22 1448 3.74 -0.09 0.02 creation and wealth acquisition 12 Self support to grassroots 387 95 131 124 27 10 1435 3.71 -0.13 0.01 development 13 promoting export led product 387 120 167 65 27 8 1525 3.94 0.11 0.07 14 Promoting labour intensive 387 167 138 44 31 7 1588 4.10 0.27 0.07 growth 15 Investment in physical 383 154 116 78 28 7 1533 3.96 0.13 0.02 infrastructure Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2011 308