Community Feedback Methods and Practices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK METHODS AND PRACTICES Community Score Report AUGUST, 2013 DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH AND TRAINING (DRT)-UGANDA www.drt-ug.org Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1. Gulu District/ Paicho Sub-County/ Lakwela village .................................................................... 5 3.2. Kitgum District/ Mucwini Sub-County/ Yepa Village ................................................................ 7 3.3. Pader district / Acholibur Sub-county, Lageng village ................................................................ 8 3.4. Kotido District/Panyangara Sub-County/Nampupum parish ....................................................... 8 3.5. Katakwi district /Toroma Sub-County/ Morunyang Parish ......................................................... 9 3.6. Other Feedback Methods ........................................................................................................... 10 3.7 Challenges of accessing information by the communities .......................................................... 10 Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 11 Annex 1: Community scores disaggregated into male and female ......................................................... 0 Annex 2: List of participants ................................................................................................................... 0 Annex 3: DRT team to the field ............................................................................................................ 15 1 Introduction Since 2011, Development Research and Training (DRT) Uganda in partnership with Development Initiatives (DI) UK have been implementing a DFID funded Project under the Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA). The project covers five districts of Kitgum, Gulu, Pader in Northern Uganda and, Kotido and Katakwi in the North Eastern. The main objective of the project is to increase access and use of information for effective resource allocation among government and donors. This is being done through building the capacity of the communities, local leaders, government and NGOs to influence financial resource allocation through improved information access and use. Information sharing also involves communities giving feedback on issues affecting them. The project assumes that if feedback is channelled to the relevant authority, it will facilitate decision-making and result into improved service delivery for poverty reduction and humanitarian response. This report therefore aims at documenting and sharing findings on the feedback methods and practices used by communities, government and development partners to access information and provide feedback. It also aims at informing government and other humanitarian agencies on which methods and practices work for communities. In March, 2012, DRT carried out a survey to identify feedback methods and practices used among communities, government and development actors. Ten feedback methods and practices were identified. The community together with DRT later identified and trained 5 community members in each district to act as community resource trackers. These were later given simple resource tracking tools to facilitate data and feedback gathering in their communities. The process involved following up with relevant local leaders and also providing feedback to relevant structures. During this period, subsequent follow up have been made to support the trackers in their work. This report is based on the scoring activities of the communities carried out from the 12th-16th August, 2013. Through further dissemination and discussions with development stakeholders and government, the report will attempt to identify and provide partners with ‘best practice’ feedback methods. Methodology Data were collected through a participatory process. The communities were presented with the identified feedback methods and practices translated in the local language for better understanding. Basing on their experience of what method or practice has worked for them as 2 individuals and community, they assessed the importance of each method. Paper cards were used as counters and each community member in attendance was given 10 cards to distribute among the ten methods based on the value they individually attach to each. The feedback methods that were rated included; 1. Consultation with local leaders including the LC, Sub County and district leaders 2. The Baraza1 3. Telephone including SMS and hotlines 4. Referral pathways2 5. Socio-economic gathering3 6. Planning and budgeting activities including community meetings, workshops 7. Monitoring and review activities including monthly, quarterly, daily briefs, 8. Complaint policy including suggestion box and helpdesks 9. Radio and other media including sign posts, noticeboards, T-shirts and caps 10. Community based assessment like needs assessments The method that received the largest number of cards automatically was rated the best among a particular community. The process also involved sharing opinions and perceptions of why certain methods were ranked better than others and vice versa. Experience sharing of how selected methods had worked for them in the past and how to improve those that didn’t meet the expectations of the community. 1 A platform introduced by the office of the prime ministerwith the Resident District Commissioner mandated to organize with their individual communities/districts. 2 These includes police, health centres, courts, community volunteers and other service providers 3 Includes bars, churches, mosques, burial and wedding places 3 Figure1. Voting exercise 4 Findings 3.1. Gulu District/ Paicho Sub-County/ Lakwela village Consultation with local leaders especially the LC I was rated as the most accessible means of sharing information and giving feedback. The community of Lakwela pointed out that most of the information on either government or NGO programmes is usually got from the village local council. It is also easier for the LC I to mobilize the people for programmes because the local leaders live within the communities and are easily accessible. Also development partners prefer working with the grass root leaders because they want to avoid bureaucracy and long processes associated with government offices which sometimes suffocate work. A case in point is where the community together with their local leaders held a meeting with the LC I committee to discuss on the breakdown of the bridge caused by floods. A resolution was made together with the Sub-county to forward their complaint to the respective officials at the district, which later sent the district engineer to survey the bridge and made recommendation. Few consultations were made between the residents, the local council and district. Work began immeditately but to date, the bridge is incomplete and the engineer has never surfaced the community to give them feedback on the progress. The breakdown bridge has affected schools attendance and other socio-economic activities in the area as many relied heavily on it to access school, health facilities, markets and other communities. The figure 2 below highlights the rankings of all methods used among the communities of Lakwela. 5 Figure2. Feedback scores in Gulu 2% Telephones 3% 1% 9% 3% 9% Consulation with local leaders 8% Radio and other media 17% Referal pathways Complaint policy 23% Community Assessments 25% Baraza Monitoring and review meetins Socio-economic gatherings Planning and budgeting activities Similarly when the community had problems of shortage of class rooms, they worked with their local leaders to address the issue. According to Mr Akena Gaudension “we sat down as a community and discussed about the shortage of class rooms in Kalamaji primary school. After documenting the issue, we forwarded this complaint to the parish chief who later followed it up with the sub county leaders. Later the parish chief brought to us the feedback that the issue was integrated into the work plan of the sub county and finally with persistent follow up with the Sub-County, a class room block was constructed under the PRDP/NUSAF project.” This same information was re-echoed by Okwera peter who stated that he got information on NUSAF2 which was organized by the LC1 and held in Kalamaji primary school to discuss on the shortage of class rooms and they were asked to fill in the NUSAF forms stating their problem and later fill in the attendance list as evidence that they had held a meeting to discuss on the class room issues. However as noted by the residents, the LC1 does not have an office. The chairperson operates at his home and it is located a distance from the majority of the population. On the other hand, Government and NGOs also used media especially the radio to share information and this explains why it was ranked second among most used method. Majority of the community members claimed to own small radio in their homes which costs between 6 25,000 - 30,000 Uganda Shillings (equivalent 9.6 - 11.6 US $)4. There are over five