Influence of Community Driven Development Approach on Poverty Reduction in Kenya: a Case of Teso North Subcounty

Abstract

In Kenya, previously, top down approach to community development was being implemented by government agencies and other donors/stakeholders that were common before the 1980s especially in rural development projects, in which projects were pre-determined mainly by the funding agencies. However, the projects did not adequately address the poverty issues because most of the projects were misplaced and did not reflect community aspirations. The purpose of the study was to determine the influence of Community Driven Development approach on Poverty reduction in Teso North Sub-County. The study was guided by the following objectives: To establish the extent to which interventions and priorities of projects influence poverty reduction in Teso North Sub-County, to determine how financial support of community driven projects influence poverty reduction, to establish the extent to which capacity building of the community and project managers influence poverty reduction and to establish how ownership of projects influence poverty reduction. This study was guided by system and innovation diffusion theory developed by E.M. Rogers in 1962. The research adopted descriptive research design and purposive simple random sampling techniques being employed and Sample size of 227 respondents. A survey method using a structured questionnaire, and guided interview were used to collect data. Data analysis involved preparation of the collected data - coding, editing and cleaning of data in readiness for processing using Statistical Package for Social Sciences and data were analyzed descriptively in form of percentages, frequencies and tables. Findings revealed that CDD Projects inadequately used Policy instruments to identify the poor as targeting efficiency for Poverty reduction and therefore the CDD approach did not effectively cover all target population in identifying and transferring benefits to the poor which inevitably resulted in type I and type II errors associated with targeting. Moreover, unfavorable enabling environment on CDD Projects in Teso North Sub-County and the scenario is worrying since the policies are too often biased against rural areas in developing countries, and the institutions responsible for delivering important rural services such as the ministries of agriculture, municipal governments, universities, banks, and court systems are either deficient or missing. The level of recurring operation and maintenance costs would be low hence failure of most CDD Projects in future due to un-sustainability of the projects in Teso North Sub-County. Inadequate Community Mobilization in Project identification of CDD projects in various locations and also CDD Officers did not hold enough project analysis in group discussions. 53.5 percent of the respondents stated that to some extent the Community was involved in managements‘ decision-making in Community Driven Development Projects. Insensitivity of gender equity rule of 30 percent gender representation in leadership positions where there was poor women representation in management committees for managements‘ decision-making in Community Driven Development Projects and improve CDD Procurement Process of Project resources i.e. Materials and equipment and skills were first outsourced from the Community members.Half (50.5 percent) of the respondents strongly agreed that Community Project identification played a great role in CDD Project ownership and same proportion were satisfied by CDD Procurement Process of Project resources which was inclined towards Poverty reduction. These findings may assist policy makers, donors/stakeholders and government agencies make informed decisions on poverty reduction strategies. The research recommends other similar studies to be carried out in other Sub-Counties to compare and generalize the study findings and an influence on Targeting efficiency of Community Driven Development Projects on Poverty reduction