The University of Dodoma University of Dodoma Institutional Repository http://repository.udom.ac.tz
Social Sciences Master Dissertations
2014 Contribution of LGCDG in improving local community livelihoods in Meru district Arusha, Tanzania
Ngowi, Straton Alexander
Straton, A. N. (2014). Contribution of LGCDG in improving local community livelihoods in Meru district Arusha, Tanzania, Dodoma: The University of Dodoma. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12661/1513 Downloaded from UDOM Institutional Repository at The University of Dodoma, an open access institutional repository. CONTRIBUTION OF LGCDG IN IMPROVING LOCAL
COMMUNITY LIVELIHOODS IN MERU DISTRICT ARUSHA,
TANZANIA
By
Straton Alexander Ngowi
Dissertation Submitted in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Masters of Arts in Development Studies of the University of Dodoma
University of Dodoma
October, 2014 CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that he has read and hereby recommend for acceptance by the University of Dodoma a dissertation entitled: “The Contribution of LGCDG on
Improving Local Community Livelihoods in Meru District, Arusha, Tanzania” in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Masters of Arts (Development
Studies) of the University of Dodoma.
…………………………………………….
Prof. D. Mwamfupe
(SUPERVISOR)
Date: …………………………………….
i DECLARATION
AND
COPYRIGHT
I, Ngowi Straton Alexander, declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that it has not been presented and will not be presented to any other University in a similar or any other degree award.
Signature: ……………………………………
No part of this dissertation may be produced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the author or the University of Dodoma.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
For any wise person, it has traditionally been imperative to appreciate the role played by others in one’s attainments. In a similar move, I am obliged to acknowledge the quantifiable and unquantifiable inputs from different personalities whose role is irrefutable.
Foremost, I wish to express my gratitude, thanks to Yvette Y. Temba for her sponsorship to Postgraduate studies. This could not be done without the University of Dodoma and Department of Development Studies for giving me a chance in M.A programs. Again, my deep-hearted thanks go to the Meru District council’ Director and other workers for allowing data collection at their departments, wards, villages and hamlets for this research.
Uniquely and in a more distinguished manner, I must express my thanks to my supervisor Prof. Davis Mwamfupe for his constructive advice and critics which occupied an interesting position in the production of this document.
Lastly, but not least, I must be grateful to my mother Sofia A. Ngowi and uncle
Martin M. Temba who sacrificed a lot of their scarce resources to take care of me and their prayers which strongly shaped my academic struggle.
iii DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother Sofia Alexander Ngowi, uncle Martin M.
Temba and aunt Vyette Y. Temba, who prays for my success and then to all friends of mine who assisted me through advice in accomplishing my work; and in memory of my father, the late Alexander Gasper Ngowi.
iv ABSTRACT
This study entitled “The Contribution of Local Government Capital Development
Grants in Improving Community Livelihoods” was conducted in Meru District,
Arusha, Tanzania in four selected villages namely King’ori, Kikatiti, Maji ya Chai and Patandi. Data were collected using questionnaire survey and interviews. The total number of 89 respondents was from these villages, King’ori (22) respondents,
Kikatiti (24) respondents, Maji ya chai (24) respondents and Patandi (25) respondents. The study involved 7 key informants. Qualitative data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 20.
Finding from the study revealed that about 80.7 % of respondents are aware of the contribution of LGCDG for improving local community’s livelihoods.
It was further found that LGCDG have contributed to the improvements of local communities, livelihoods, these services are education, health, water supply, agriculture, roads maintenance, administration and environmental management. The study also found that there were priorities in delivery of these services to the local communities these are; education, health and water supply while other services such as agriculture, rural roads maintenance, administration and environmental conservation was minimal. Also, respondents’ views on funds allocations for social service delivery on time posits that the local government has failed to provide services effectively because of delaying of funds from donors and central governments to the districts, insufficient cooperation with local people in service provision, few capital allocations in social service provision. Therefore, to make local government effective through service provision, donors and central government should disburse funds on time, increase portion of these grants.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION ...... i DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iii DEDICATION ...... iv ABSTRACT ...... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi LIST OF TABLES ...... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...... x LIST OF PLATES ...... xi LIST OF APPENDICES ...... xii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... xiii
CHAPTER ONE ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ...... 4 1.3 Research Objectives ...... 5 1.3.1 General Objective ...... 5 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ...... 5 1.3.3 Research Questions ...... 5 1.4 Significance of the Study ...... 6
CHAPTER TWO ...... 7 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 2.1 Introduction ...... 7 2.2 Definitions of Key Concepts and Terms ...... 7 2.3 Theoretical Review of the Literature ...... 8 2.3.1 The Livelihood Theory ...... 8 2.3.2 Social Capital Theory ...... 8 2.4 Reviews of Empirical Literature ...... 9 2.4.1 LGCDG in Improving Community’s Livelihoods ...... 10
vi 2.4.2 Factors Affecting Performance of LGCDG on Social Services Delivery to the Local Community’s Livelihoods ...... 11 2.5 The Conceptual Framework ...... 12
CHAPTER THREE ...... 15 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...... 15 3.1 Study Area Selection Criteria ...... 15 3.2 Research Design...... 15 3.3 Description of Study Area ...... 15 3.4 Targeted Population ...... 16 3.5 Sampling and Sample Size...... 16 3.5.1 Sampling Procedure ...... 16 3.5.2 Sample Size ...... 16 3.6 Methods of Data Collection ...... 17 3.6.1 Household Questionnaire Survey ...... 17 3.6.1.1 Training of Enumerators ...... 18 3.6.1.2 Questionnaire Pre Testing ...... 18 3.6.1.3 Administration of Household Questionnaires ...... 18 3.6.2 Interviews ...... 19 3.6.3 Documentary Reviews ...... 19 3.7 Reliability and Validity ...... 19 3.7.1 Reliability ...... 20 3.7.2 Validity ...... 20 3.8 Data Analysis ...... 20
CHAPTER FOUR ...... 22 DATA PRESENTATION AND DISSCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ...... 22 4.1 Introduction ...... 22 4.2 Profile of Respondents ...... 22 4.2.1 Sex of Respondents ...... 22 4.2.2 Age of Respondents ...... 23 4.2.3 Designation of Respondents ...... 24 4.2.4 Respondents’ Education Levels ...... 25
vii 4.3 LGCDG Allocations on Different Sectors for Provision of Social Services ...... 25 4.3.1 LGCDG Allocations Implemented in Last Five Years for the Provision of Social Service to the Meru District Community...... 27 4.4 Contribution of LGCDG on Improving Social Services to the Communities’ Livelihoods ...... 30 4.5 Challenges Facing LGCDG for Improving Local Community Livelihoods ...... 35 4.5.1 Satisfaction Level of LGCDG on Social Services Delivery to the Community ...... 37 4.5.2 Suggested Measures to Improve Community Livelihoods through Social Services Delivery ...... 38
CHAPTER FIVE ...... 41 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 41 5.1 Introduction ...... 41 5.2 Summary ...... 41 5.3 Conclusion ...... 42 5.4 Recommendations ...... 43 5.5 Limitations of the Study...... 44 REFFERENCES ...... 46 APPENDICES ...... 49
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Sex Distribution of the Respondents ...... 23 Table 4.2: Age of Respondents ...... 24 Table 4.3: Respondents’ Designation ...... 24 Table 4.4: Respondents’ Education Level ...... 25 Table 4.5: Allocations on Different Sectors for Provision of Social Services...... 26 Table 4.6: LGCDG Financed Service Projects since 2009/10 to 2013/2014 ...... 29 Table 4.7: Improvements of Social Services to the Communities by LGCDG ...... 30 Source: Field Data Survey, 2014 N= Sample Size ...... 30 Table 4.8: Number of Schools and Enrolment from 2010 to 2014 ...... 31 Table 4.9: Number of Dispensaries and Health Centers in Meru District ...... 31 Source: Meru District Health Report (2010-2014)...... 31 Table 4.10: Rating on Health Service Delivery (n=89) ...... 33 Source: Field Survey Data, 2014 ...... 33 Source: Field Data, 2014...... 34 Table 4.11: Rating of Decentralized Agriculture Service Delivery (n=89) ...... 35 Table 4.12: Challenges Facing LGCDG in Delivering Social Services ...... 37 Table 4.13: Level of Satisfaction with Livelihoods on Services Financed Through LGCDG ...... 38 Table 4.14: Suggested Changes to Improve Livelihoods through Services Delivery 40
ix LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework for the Contribution of LGCDG in Improving Local Communities’ Livelihoods in Meru District Arusha, Tanzania. .. 13
x LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: Kikatiti Residents Waiting in Line to Fetch Water...... 34
xi LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Structured Questionnaire for Households ...... 49 Appendix II: Interview Guide Questions for Sector Department ...... 57
xii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme DED District Executive Director
HSR’s Health Sector Reforms
JICA Japanese International Cooperation
LDC’s Least Developed Countries
LGA’S Local Government Authorities
LGCDG Local Government Capital Development Grants
NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty
O&OD Opportunities and Obstacles for Development
PCCB Prevention for Corruption Bureau
PEDP Primary Education Development Plan
SEDP Secondary Education Development Plan
URT United Republic of Tanzania
VEO Village Executive Director
WEO Ward Executive Director
xiii CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the study on the roles of Local Government Capital
Development Grants services, financing on improvement of livelihoods for social economic development. The chapter comprised of the background of the study, a statement of the problem, the main objective, the objectives of the study, research questions and significance of the study.
1.1 Background of the Study
In developing world, empowering of local communities’ livelihoods and marginalized communities is undertaken through improving local governance by providing adequate public social services infrastructures to meet the Millennium
Development Goals. These results are achieved through participation from the local government and local communities (Louis et al 2005). One of the local community livelihood improvements is the provision of social services such as such, as health, education, agriculture, roads, water supply, administration environmental management and markets for buying and selling goods and services.
In recent decades, national governments in the developing world have increasingly shared the responsibility for service provision by the local governments through intergovernmental public arrangements that aim to increase the accountability and responsiveness of service delivery. In a developing country context, governments have experimented with different forms of decentralization to bring service delivery closer to people (UNDP 2000). In Tanzania from 1960’s to mid-1990s, there was a reform known as “deconcentrating and delegating responsibilities to regional and local governments” (Kessy and McCourt, 2010). Recent reforms which started in 1 1998 have been described as holistic and far reaching than any other type of reform that have undergone in the country (URT, 2008).
The outcome of this reform is introduction of Local Government Capital
Development Grant as a national wide system designed in 2003 and implemented in financial year 2004/2005 by the donors and the Tanzania government for the purpose of transforming local communities from poverty to middle level income. Also IMF
(2006) posits that LGCDG is the outcome of (2004-2008) local government reform introduced to provide a single national process which aimed to bring equity, transparency and accountability on social service provision for local community and improvements.
Local Government Capital Development Grants is a driver for allocating development grants to local government authorities in Tanzania. The grant is administered in line with the Tanzania Development Goals of 2025 launched in
1999, with the objectives of transforming the country’s economy from least developed to middle-income one through promoting broad based grassroots, participation and mobilization of resources. It also reflects the 2000 adopted
National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) focusing on growth and improved quality of life, social well being, income poverty and good governance (JICA, 2008).
The LGCDG according to URT (2010) the funders are the World Bank, which contribute 75%, central government 19% and district’s collection of tax, levy, custom duties and road blocks contribute 6%. The main intention of introducing is to expand local service infrastructure development in Tanzania. The mid Term review of the LGCDG as reported by the Overseas Development Institute indicated that one 2 of the reasons for formation in 2004 was to transfer 50% of Local government funds directly to develop a local community's needs and the remaining 50% in district other areas of development such as salaries for workers (URT, 2008).
Apart from LGCDG Tanzanian government have projects and programmes which provide social services infrastructure to improve local community’s livelihoods
(URT, 2013). These includes; Primary Education Sector (PES) for buying text books, other teaching materials, repair materials and examination, Health Sector
Development Grant (HSDG) for rehabilitate existing primary health facilities and seeking to doubling number of health facilities, Agricultural Sector Development
Programme (ASDP) aim to modernize the agricultural sector through seeking roles of public and private sectors in improving agricultural support services in agricultural research, extension, training, regulation, technical services and finance.
Another is Water Sector Development Grants (WSDG) for formulation, distribution and supporting hygiene (URT, 2013’ Masanyiwa, 2013 and URT 2014).
Therefore Local Government Capital Development Grants in Tanzania soon after second local government reform of 1998 had been a hard concept to comprehend.
This is because Local governments are getting allocations from the Central government, World Bank and District collections from their own sources for improvements of their communities’ livelihoods in social services delivery (URT,
2008). Many local community livelihoods in Tanzania are suffering insufficient social services, although the government and development partners are providing funds for developments example, health sector does not meet the needs that’s why this study want to know the roles of LGCDG on improving local community livelihoods in Meru District.
3 1.2 Statement of the Problem
The government of Tanzania has gone through several local government reforms since 1998 to improve local social services infrastructures for community livelihood empowerment (URT, 2007). This reform is the outcome of Local Government
Capital Development Grants designed in 2003 and implemented in financial year
2004/2005 by the donors and the Tanzania for the purpose of transforming local communities from poverty to middle level income (URT, 2006 and Fjeldstard,
2009).
However, despite these grants being introduced as the major determinant for social service infrastructure allocations for community improvements, the local community livelihoods in Tanzania have not yet realized the contribution of these grants as supported through development programmes which run from Central government to
Ministry level and lastly to the Local community level through the Prime Ministers’
Office – Regional Administration and Local Government (Foguet, 2011 and URT,
2013).
These projects and programmes which operate out of LGCDG include; Primary
Education Sector (PES) formally known as (PADEP) for buying text books, other teaching materials, repair materials and examination, Health Sector Development
Grant (HSDG) for rehabilitate existing primary health facilities and seeking to doubling number of health facilities, Agricultural Sector Development Programme
(ASDP) aim to modernize the agricultural sector through seeking roles of public and private sectors in improving agricultural support services in agricultural research, extension, training, regulation, technical services and finance. Another is Water
Sector Development Grants (WSDG) for formulation, distribution and supporting
4 hygiene (URT, 2013; Masanyiwa, 2013 and URT, 2014). The contribution of
LGCDG to improve local communities’ livelihoods has not been yet realized that’s why this study wants to examine at Meru District.
1.3 Research Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
The overall objective of the study was to examine the contribution of LGCDG on improving Local communities’ livelihoods in Meru District.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
To explore the Local Government Capital Development Grants allocation processes to the local communities.
To examine the contribution of Local Government Capital Development Grants on improving social services to the communities livelihoods.
To investigate the challenges facing Local Government Capital Development Grants for improving social services to the local community livelihoods and suggest measures for improvement.
1.3.3 Research Questions
i. What are the Local Government Capital Development Grants allocation
processes to the local community level?
ii. What is the contribution of Local Government Capital Development Grants
on improving social services to the communities’ livelihoods? iii. What are the challenges facing Local Government Capital Development
Grants on improving local community livelihoods and what measures should
be taken for improvement?
5 1.4 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study will assist better improvement of services infrastructure to the local communities around the Meru district and other districts in the country who receive Local Government Capital Development Grants. Furthermore the study would help local communities raise their needs for improvement to their leaders during the selection of areas of priority financed by LGCDG. In addition, the study also paves the way to suggest appropriate measures to be taken in order to improve social services infrastructures such as education, health, water supply, agriculture, roads contraction, administration and environmental management for community’s developments. Also information gathered is also useful in assisting development managers, policy makers and interested parties to make an informed decision about the proper allocation of LGCDG to the areas needed.
6 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter gives a review of related literatures, aiming at identifying the knowledge gap that this research sought to bridge. Various sections to be covered include definitions of terms, theory, decentralization and contribution of LGCDG towards improving local communities’ livelihoods in Tanzania.
2.2 Definitions of Key Concepts and Terms
Local community: is a group of interacting people sharing an environment. In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness (Putnam, 2013). Community is a collection of people who have become aware of some problems or some broad goal and learn about themselves with their environment (Gordon, 1981). A community comprised geographical community, community of identity, community of interest or solidarity and intentional community (Roberts, 1979).
Livelihoods: Is the set of capabilities, assets, resources access and all activities which support the means of living for human beings (Conway, 1992). These assets and capabilities supports means of living consists of natural, biological, social, political, human and economic (Krantz, 2001). Sustainable livelihoods can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities, assets and provide sustainable opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local national and global levels for a short or long period of time (Chambers, Conway, 1992).
7 2.3 Theoretical Review of the Literature
2.3.1 The Livelihood Theory
Livelihood framework has been adapted as an analytical device in development studies in order to study livelihoods in developing countries (Ellis, 2000). The livelihood approach dates back to the work of Chambers in the mid 1980s and the concept was later developed to sustainable livelihood approach by the British
Department for International Development (Collminar and Gamper, 2002).
In 1992 Robert Chamber and Gordon Conway proposed a definition of livelihood as capabilities, assets and activities that required as a means of earning a living. a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets and provide sustainable opportunities for the next generation and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term (Krantz, 2001).According to
Ellis (2000) the concept of livelihoods is widely used in relation to poverty and rural development. In establishing livelihoods strategies consideration of resources is vital in decision making to bring developments to the communities (Vatn, 2005).
2.3.2 Social Capital Theory
Social capital refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, which can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating and coordinated actions (Putnam, 1993). According to Putnam (2000) social capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrues to an individual or a group by possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Social capital outlining two broad intellectual streams in the description and explanation these are sociological approaches, which
8 sees the individual in a social and cultural environment that include subject to norms, rules, and obligations. The second is the economic approach, which is all about self- interested, independent and individuals seeking to fulfill their goals (Coleman,
1988).
Better social capital is likely to enhance the flow of information and allow social sanctions to the corrupt and irresponsible management team that provide services to their communities. Marayan and Pritchett (1999) found that social capital improves livelihoods through horizontal relationship between government officials and communities in social services provision. In Italy during the 1970’s, Robert Putnam
(1993), demonstrates that, the effectiveness of social service delivery, such as water, health, education, and infrastructures were demonstrating hand to hand with stronger presence of highest level of social capital in surrounding community (Coleman,
1990).
2.4 Reviews of Empirical Literature
Tanzania for the last ten years embarked on a range of reforms and development initiatives, which brought substantial changes in local development practices. This reform in government systems has been occurring as part of wider policy reforms towards economic and political liberalization (URT, 2009). The Government of
Tanzania, through the Prime Minister’s Office, Regional Administration and Local
Government has implemented the Local Government Capital Development Grants
System, which provides discretionary development funds to local authorities through which all development funds will be transferred to Local Government Authorities
(URT, 2006).
9 2.4.1 LGCDG in Improving Community’s Livelihoods
Local Government Capital Development Grants provide measures that enhance accountability to ensure proper service delivery. These measures are; posting of approved projects of districts for the current financial year, communication to sub- district level of information on projects to be implemented in the current financial year and demonstrating gender and environmental issues integrated into planning
(REPOA, 2009). Also Fjelstad (2009) shows that accountability of leaders and people’s participation, improve performance of allocation of development grants to the provision of key social services infrastructures such as water supply, education, health, administrative, agricultural, road maintenance and environmental conservation.
According to JICA (2008) the government and development partners have rapidly responded to the policy ambition of developing through the LGCDG by providing future development funding in the agriculture sector as the backbone of the
Tanzanian economy. From the financial year 2007 additional funding for urban environment and management was included in the budget.
Local Government Capital Development Grants provide discretionary development funds for rehabilitation and expansion of infrastructure to local authorities. One of these infrastructures was established on windows for rehabilitation of health facilities which established in 2008. The windows for rehabilitation have the role of enhancing user-charges in government hospitals, introduction of health insurance and community health funds as well as public/private partnership (URT, 2008).
Local Government Capital Development Grant system in August 2006 provided
10 funding as prioritized by the district ward and village level (with an allocation of
50% district and 50% village councils).
In the financial year 2005/2006, Makete District was allocated Tshs 207,750,000/=
(US$ 160,000) but all money was spent only for education and water sectors while other services such as health, agriculture roads maintenance administration and environmental management remained with very little budget. In other cases Hoffman
(2013) found that although water supply service earned 124 billion Tsh from
LGCDG in the year 2009/2010 financial year, only 65 billion Tanzanian shillings allocated to the local government authorities while the remaining 59 billion
Tanzanian shillings brought in rural water supply investment funds and the remaining included in the projects funded centrally thus brought development backward.
2.4.2 Factors Affecting Performance of LGCDG on Social Services Delivery to
the Local Community’s Livelihoods
Boex and Muga (2009) for the case of Tanzania and developing countries found
LGCDG deliver insufficient social services infrastructures because of the improper accountability of leaders. In Nigeria, for example, lack of financial autonomy, corruption and grading of public funds reduce local community’s improvements
(Ayodele et al, 2012). Von Braun and Grote (2000) found that fiscal decentralization to the local communities’ livelihoods needs proper allocation to serve the poor communities, although the impact depends on the interaction of political, administrative and fiscal decentralization. Khaleghian (2003) concludes that decentralization appears to improve the coverage of childhood immunization in low-
11 income countries provided there are proper allocation according to the local community’s needs and wishes.
2.5 The Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework is the structure that shows the interrelationship between the variables in a systematic way (Krishnaswami, 2006). Also Smyth (2004) defines a conceptual framework as the link which explains the interrelationship between among interlinked concepts. The study was guided by the interrelationship between independent, intermediate and dependent variables where by implementation of
LGCDG in the Meru district as an independent variable bring improvements of social services infrastructures such as education, water supply, health, road maintenance agriculture and environmental management to the local communities’ livelihoods. Implementation of LGCDG which is independent variable depends much on intermediate variable which is proper financial allocation and management at the district level, political decentralization whereby the political leaders are accountable to their roles of proposing the priorities according to their needs and participation of the local people for their own developments since the formulation of projects up to implementation level. Therefore, this interdependence of variables provided effective social service delivery to the local communities’ livelihoods as explained in the following conceptual framework mode in Figure 2.1.
12
Independent Intermediate Dependent Variable Variables Variable
Financial
decentralization Local
Government Political Improved local Capital Decentralization of power Development Community Grants Administration livelihood Decentralization
Participation of Local People
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework for the Contribution of LGCDG in Improving Local Communities’ Livelihoods in Meru District Arusha, Tanzania.
2.6 Knowledge Gap
In spite of local government reforms of 1998 which was the backbone of Local
Government Capital Development Grants to deliver social services infrastructures among the local communities and transform their lives, its impact to the communities, livelihood is unclear on how the design of LGCDG will affect the livelihoods of people through service provision is challenging due to empirical evidence in developing countries. The question is how LGCDG will affect the lives of local communities through social service provision and encourage people’s participation to make those projects and services sustainable.
Most of literature in Tanzania shows misuse and provision of services trough other development funds instead of LGCDG in service provision, Hoffman (2013) found that although water supply service earned 124 billion Tsh from LGCDG in the year
13 2009/2010 financial year, only 65 billion Tanzanian shillings allocated to the local government authorities while the remaining 59 billion Tanzanian shillings brought in rural water supply investment funds and the remaining included in the projects funded centrally. Also, many development funds allocated in local communities a part of LGCDG, include Primary Education Sector (PES), Health Sector
Development Grant (HSDG), Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) and Water Sector Development Grants (WSDG), (URT 2013, Masanyiwa, 2013 and
URT 2014). Therefore, in understanding the contribution of LGCDG in Meru district local community’s livelihoods will help to fill the gap of aim of local government reform of 1998 which objected to empower local communities through social services provision.
14 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area Selection Criteria
This study was conducted in Meru District, Arusha Region. Meru District was selected because of the following reasons; although the district is getting a large amount of LGCDG the social service allocations such as water supply, roads, education and agriculture projects are not yet realized either little contribution among Meru District communities or district has failed to manage those development grants for the needs of its people and little allocations of these grants among this district.
3.2 Research Design
The research design represents a structure that guides the execution of a research method and the analysis of the subsequent data (Bryman, 2007). In other words, it is a framework for the collection and analysis of data in any investigation adopted by the researcher. Designing a study involves specifying exactly what is to be studied and when, how and what is the purpose of the study (Creswell, 2003). Descriptive approach was employed in this study. The reasons for opting this design is because it gives a rich description of the case in point in order to have a broad understanding of the issues involved. Furthermore, the design is fairly exhaustible which enables the researcher to study thoroughly different aspects of the phenomenon, it is flexible in data collection and it saves both time and costs.
3.3 Description of Study Area
The study was carried out the study in Meru District. The District is divided into three (3) divisions, sixteen (16) wards, sixty eight (68) registered villages and 272 15 Sub–Villages (hamlets). Within the District there is one town authority, Usa River, with nine streets established in January 2009 from formerly Usa River Ward.
According to National Population Census conducted in 2012, Meru District had a total population of 355,892. The four villages of Kikatiti, Maji ya Chai, King’ori and
Patandi in Meru district were involved from which respondents selected.
3.4 Targeted Population
According to Frey et al, (1991), study population constitutes all elements, individuals, objects, and events that meet the sample criteria for inclusion in a study.
It also refers to all people who possess the characteristics of interest known as parameters. The parameters are relevant characteristics of a population acting as a boundary around the population that defines who is in and who is out. This study targeted respondents who included the head of households, District Executive,
District Planning Officer, District Treasurer, Ward Councilors, Ward Executive
Officers, Village Executive Officers and Hamlet or “Vitongoji” Head.
3.5 Sampling and Sample Size
3.5.1 Sampling Procedure
Purposive sampling is a deliberate selection of particular units of the universe to constitute the sample that represents selection that represents the universe (Kothari
2004). This study collected purposively data from District Executive, District
Planning Officer, and District treasurer, Ward Councilors, Ward Executive Officers,
Village Executive Officers, Hamlet or “Vitongoji” Head.
3.5.2 Sample Size
A sample can be defined as a subset of a population that is obtained through some process, possibly random selection or selection based on a certain set of criteria, for 16 the purposes of investigating the properties of the underlying population (Evans et al, 2000). Determination of the sample should neither be expressively large nor too small (Kothari, 2004). More important the sample should be optimum. In this study a sample of seven key informants who are District official’s Kikatiti (22 respondents),
Maji ya chai (24), King’ori (18) and Patandi (25) were drawn from the households in the four villages. This number was thought by the researcher to be appropriate, given the nature of the study in that could provide relevant information regarding the Local
Government Capital Development Grants (LGCDG). With an inclusion of 7 key informants, the total sample was 96 people. This sample was considered adequate and manageable for the study was mainly qualitative in nature.
3.6 Methods of Data Collection
Both primary and secondary data were collected. First, there was an extensive review of the earlier work on LGCDG funds plans and concepts. This helped to familiarize the researcher with the concept and to establish the gap needing to be filled by the collection of data from the field. The data collection tools were prepared concurrently with the literature review. The tools developed comprised of a household structured questionnaire, semi structured questionnaire for the key informants. The data collected included a social profile of the respondents, economic activities of the respondents, awareness on Local Government Capital Development, the use of Local Government Capital Grant, impact of LGCD in terms of livelihoods, challenges and the suggested mechanisms in improving livelihoods.
3.6.1 Household Questionnaire Survey
Pre designed questionnaire was used to obtain information concerning the contribution of LGCDG Funds. This questionnaire comprised of open and closed –
17 ended questions. Open-ended questions allowed free responses and closed-ended questions had restricted responses but allowed on the part of the research easy coding. The questionnaire covered two aspects, which were socio-economic aspects, as well as issues related to LGCDG funds such as its impact to livelihoods, project challenges and mechanisms which could be used in improving livelihoods.
3.6.1.1 Training of Enumerators
Three days training was conducted to four enumerators one from each village.
Selection of these enumerators was based on the nativity of the area and secondary school graduate so as to bring more accurate data. Also the enumerators were identified in collaboration with the village government officials. The training included how to interview respondents, how to probe and how to fill questionnaires accurately.
3.6.1.2 Questionnaire Pre Testing
Ten respondents were used to pre-test the questionnaires because the researcher thought it was important to pretest the instruments to eliminate ambiguities, as well as insuring that they produce the desired data; this number of respondents in the pilot test was thought to be appropriate. The ten respondents were provided with the questionnaires and were asked to fill them in. Questions which were not understood were reformulated and others were removed. The pre-testing also enabled the researcher to estimate of the time for administering each questionnaire.
3.6.1.3 Administration of Household Questionnaires
Household self- administered questionnaires were administered by the researcher and four enumerators to a sample of households in each village. Two teams visited the selected household sample of their residential areas. The reason for this was most 18 of the houses are scattered within a given area. For this reason the author had to plan well ahead to be able to reach them and collect data.
3.6.2 Interviews
The interview is a method of data collection that involves the presentation of oral and verbal responses (Kothari, 2004). In this study, Semi-structured interview was used in gathering relevant information. The semi –structured interviews were preferred over the unstructured because they involve the use of a set of predetermined questions and highly standardized techniques of recording (Kothari,
2004). Where needed interviews were flexible in order to allow easy expression from some of the respondents. Semi-structured interview had themes that included the LGCDG funds impact on community livelihoods, project challenges and suggested mechanisms in improving community livelihoods. The semi –structured interview was administered to District Executive, District Planning Officer, District treasurer, Ward Councilor’s Ward, Executive Officers, Village Executive Officers and Hamlet or “Vitongoji” Head. The total numbers of interviewees were seven.
3.6.3 Documentary Reviews
Some of the information such as the LGCDG funds use was obtained from recorded documents in the District. These included reports, articles, books, journals, internet and newspapers. The District Planning Office and ward records on local community population, livelihoods and LGCDG funds related information were considered.
3.7 Reliability and Validity
The aspects of validity and reliability were also considered in this study. Yin (2003) suggests that reliability and validity are the two important quality control objects in research design. Hence, the crucial need for the researcher’s findings to be valid and 19 reliable. That is validity and reliability are two factors, which any quality researcher should consider while designing a study, analyzing and presenting the results. The illustration of the two is as follows;
3.7.1 Reliability
Reliability concerns the issues of consistency of measurement over time; if the same results can be reproduced under a similar methodology, the research instruments are considered to be reliable (Bryman, 2001). In this research, the issue of reliability was censured by the use of different methods and tools during data collection, including interviews, questionnaires, interview guides and review of secondary data.
3.7.2 Validity
Validity refers to issues, whether a set of indicators devised to measure a concept really measures what is supposed to measure (Kothari, 2004). In this study, validity was achieved in various ways. First by careful formulation of questions and pre- testing questionnaires made the questions clear and by ensuring that the research assistants are aware of the research requirements, possible problems and how to easily overcome them. Second, the selection of the research assistants and training of the research assistants helped to match interviewer characteristics with those of the sample being interviewed which helped to minimize biases; hence fostered validity.
Furthermore edited study data helped in identifying and eliminating errors and omission done by either interviewer or respondents hence helped to attain completeness, accuracy and uniformity.
3.8 Data Analysis
Kothari (2004) considers data analysis as a process of checking, cleaning, examining, transforming and modeling data with the aim of highlighting useful 20 information, suggesting conclusion and supporting the decision making. In addition, data analysis is the process where raw data is ordered and organized so that useful information can be extracted. Thus, data falling in quantitative categories were coded and analyzed to yield percentages, frequencies, tables and figures for systematic interpretations, organization and presentation. This was applied in order to make linkages between various parts to lead to a comprehensive report.
The data collected through questionnaires were thoroughly examined; variable coded, and then imported to SPSS version 20.0, and Microsoft Excel. This efficiently and accurately helped in the process and enabled further analysis of data collected through questionnaires preceded by data editing and coding. On the other hand, the collected data from interview were mainly qualitative in nature. As pointed out by social science researchers, qualitative data analysis has no one right to proceed with analysis (Kombo, 2006). So the key issues were recorded by the researcher of the interviews such as contribution of LGCDG funds on livelihoods,
LCDG funds challenges and the mechanisms which could be used in improving livelihoods; and summarized those key findings and provided an explanation of the findings.
21 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISSCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the major findings of the study. Data obtained from the study are presented and discussed with regard to the contribution of Local Government
Capital Development in improving local communities’ livelihoods in which Meru
District was taken as the case study. The chapter is divided into six sections, which are profile of respondents, LGCDG allocations on different sectors for social services provision, contribution of LGCDG on improving social services to the communities’ livelihoods, challenges facing LGCDG for improving local communities’ livelihoods, conclusion and recommendations.
4.2 Profile of Respondents
The study involved 89 households and 7 district employees; Information from these respondents (89 out of 96) was collected using questionnaires. The other participants
(7 out of 89) of this study were District Executive Director, District Planning
Officer, District Treasurer, Ward Councilors, Ward Executive Officers, Village
Executive Officers and Hamlet or “Vitongoji” Head. These were key informants whose information was collected using interview guides.
4.2.1 Sex of Respondents
The total number of respondents was 89, of whom 62% were males and 38% were female (Table 4.1). The larger number of males is higher than females as could be attributed by the culture of Africans and study area in general that males are normally heads of household because males are the head of households. Also, males have involved much in lower level development decision making from the village 22 and ward level compared to females. Also, males participate in development activities such as road maintenance, schools, construction, water pipes maintains and official building maintenance. The female population is lower than male because in the household, female in pastoral and semi pastoral communities culturally not allowed to give information whenever her husband is present and participation of females in social economic and political activities is lower than males.
Table 4.1: Sex Distribution of the Respondents Gender Respondents Percentage Male 55 62 Female 34 38 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data 2014
4.2.2 Age of Respondents
Individual’s age influences social and economic activities within this community.
The respondents in the study were ranged into age groups between 18 and 65 years and above. The findings revealed that, the majority of respondents (69%) were aged between 18 and 59 years. This indicates that most of the people are economically active population and individuals were in the chance of participating in social and economic development activities as 60 years is the retirement time.
23 Table 4.2: Age of Respondents
Age of Respondents Frequency Percentage 18-23 2.7 3 24-29 5.3 6 30-35 8 9 36-41 7.1 8 42-47 10.7 12 48-53 13.4 15 54-59 14.2 16 60-5 18.7 21 66 and above 8.9 10 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2014
4.2.3 Designation of Respondents
Information obtained from the field indicates that farmers, employee’s from private and government, livestock keepers and small business have idea and good information about the contribution of LGCDG at their area. Majority of selected participants are farmers who constitute about 52%, which indicates that the areas/ is dominated farmers who live in rural areas and their economic activities depends only in farming. Livestock keepers are 24%, public and private workers are 15% and small business owners represent 9%.
Table 4.3: Respondents’ Designation
Occupation of respondents Frequency Percentage (%) Farmers 46 52 Livestock 22 24 Small business 8 9 Employees 13 15 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data 2014
24 4.2.4 Respondents’ Education Levels
Level of education of respondents ranged from primary education to degree and above, whereby 51% of respondents in this study attained primary school education level, 26% secondary schools, 13% tertiary level and 10% Degree level and above.
This implies that majority of villagers are farmers and their education level is primary school education. Though the number of respondents with primary school education is higher than secondary, tertiary and bachelor degree these people have higher knowledge on contribution of LGCDG in improving local community‟s livelihood in Meru District.
Table 4.4: Respondents’ Education Level
Respondents Education Level Frequency Percentage Primary School 45 51 Secondary School 23 26 Tertiary Level 12 13 Degree and Above 9 10 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2014
4.3 LGCDG Allocations on Different Sectors for Provision of Social Services
The information obtained from 89 respondents in households through a questionnaire, showed that the provision of social services such as health, education, agriculture; roads construction and maintenance, clean water, administration and environmental conservation are major service provided by LGCDG. It was further noted that, Meru District prioritized services such as education and health is higher compared to other because of donor’s needs and actual importance in poverty reduction. Findings obtained from the respondents, presented in Table 4.4, revealed that, Meru District main concern was provision of education service was 36% 25 because education sector is vital for economic development and poverty reduction.
Also educations sector much allocation because every member in the community depends on it. Therefore, allocation of education services was for construction of classrooms, desks, buying books and chemicals for laboratories.
Table 4.5: Allocations on Different Sectors for Provision of Social Services Age of Respondents Frequency Percentage Education 32 36 Health 21.4 24 Water supply 14.2 18 Agriculture 9.8 12 Administration 5.3 2 Roads Maintenance 4.5 5 Environmental conservation 1.8 2 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2014
Education has been favored mostly by 36% because it covers all other sectors of health, water supply, agriculture, road maintenance and environmental management those who got education will facilitate social economic development and reduce poverty. Fjeldstard (2003) found that education service covers 70% of all LGCDG of
Government’s key focus area on specific poverty alleviation and rural development.
Another service followed was health which covers 24% of respondents who are 21 out of 89. Health was also important because for every country to develop it needs proper health infrastructures and facilities. Local government allocations in health services used for constructing, maintenance and rehabilitation of hospitals, buying medicines and machines used for treatment. Water supply goes hand to hand with health because when the community, having clean water supply, eruption of waterborne diseases such as diarrhea. Therefore, local government allocations in 26 water supply enable local communities to form new water sources, rehabilitation and maintenance of the past ones. Therefore the findings in this study of water service allocation were 18%.
Agricultural sector allocation was 12% and this implies that the needs of the agricultural sector are not higher compared to the key three sectors which are education health and water supply. Roads construction and maintenance allocation was 6% administration 2% and environmental conservation was 2%.
The detailed interview with the District Executive Director and District Planning
Officer revealed that central government financial transfers being cause for having low priorities for a few services at the local government.
“The services we provide are education, health, clean water, sewage, local roads construction and maintenance, environmental conservation, construction of administrative offices and agricultural services. The quality and quantity of services we deliver to our people depend on the amount of fund the central government has allocated to the district. Because many of the services we deliver are funded by the central government sometimes-using donor‟s basket funds, the district cannot therefore use of funds allocated in provision of educational services for example, to agriculture,” (detailed interview with the District Council Director, 2014).
4.3.1 LGCDG Allocations Implemented in Last Five Years for the
Provision of Social Service to the Meru District Community.
Secondary data obtained from the District Planning Officer confirm allocation of
Local Government Capital Development Grants provision of social services infrastructure such as health, education, water supply, agriculture, and administration shows improved service delivery from year 2009/2010 to 2013/2014.
In the health renovation of theatre at the Mhuguu Health Centre from in 2009/2010 allocated Tsh 53,000,000, construction of Malula dispensary costs Tsh 45,000,000 in
27 the budget in 2010/2011, renovation of Usa river health centre’s staff houses spent
Tsh 30,000,000. Also the construction of the operating theatre at the Meru District hospital spent Tsh 107,000,000 in 2012/2013.
In education services in renovation of six teachers’ houses, twelve classrooms and twenty four pit latrines in 2009/2010and 2010/2011 spent Tsh 93,498,113. Also in
2012/2013 renovation of four teachers houses four classrooms and sixteen pit latrines. Also in 2013/2014 there were renovation of eight teacher’s houses, eight classrooms and eighteen pit latrines.
Other services allocations were little compared to education and health, road infrastructures renovation in 2009/2010 the District received Tsh 170,000,000, land management projects received Tsh 40,000,000 in 2010/2011, agriculture and livestock in 2011/2012 received 142,000.000, construction of six wards offices in
2012/2013 received Tsh 222,000,000, construction of markets infrastructures in
2012/2013 received 70,000,000 and Kikatiti water supply project of 2013/2014 received Tsh 253,000,000.
Therefore, the above secondary findings regard to the services allocated to the local communities for social service provision, education and health services are two key services financed by LGCDG compared to road, agriculture, administration and water supply. Therefore, improvement in this sector is higher than other areas, although their needs are higher and donor’s funders planed for the purpose of poverty alleviation by reducing mortality rates and illiteracy among communities of developing countries.
28 Table 4.6: LGCDG Financed Service Projects since 2009/10 to 2013/2014
Year LGCDG financed service projects Expenditure in TSHs 2009- Renovation of theatre at Mhuguu Health 53,000,000 10 Centre Renovation of five teachers houses, 12 84,500,000 classrooms and 16 pit latrines Rehabilitation of road infrastructures 170,000,000 2010- Construction of dispensaries at Malula and 45,000,000 11 Mkuusambu Wards Renovation of one teachers’ houses, and 8 pit 8,998,113 latrines Land management (survey and demarcation) 40,000,000 projects 2011- Renovation of staff houses at Usa Health 30,000,000 12 Center Renovation of two teachers houses 14,000,000 Agriculture and livestock sector projects 142,000,000 2012- Construction of operation theatre at Meru 322,000,000 13 District hospital Renovation of four teachers houses, four 107,000,000 classrooms and 16 pit latrines Construction of six wards and Village offices 222,000,000 2013- Renovation of eight teachers houses, eight 188,000,000 14 classrooms and 18 pit latrines Construction of market infrastructure 70,000,000 Kikatiti water supply infrastructure project 253,000,000 Source: Meru District Annual Service Provision Budget from (2009-2014).
29 4.4 Contribution of LGCDG on Improving Social Services to the
Communities’ Livelihoods
The study further inquired on the contribution of LGCDG in improving community livelihoods. In this study, the information obtained from 89 respondents from households through a questionnaire, showed that 80.7% of them agree that, funds helped to improve delivery of public services to their community. The indicator for social services improvement among these community livelihoods is availability of education infrastructures such as schools both primary and secondary schools. Also other improvements are the accessibility of health service at the ward and district level with proper medicines and expertise. Water services on other hand Local
Government Capital Development provides in this area, although it is not flowing all the time. Agricultural services and agricultural expertise at the village and ward level are available to provide technical support for improving crop and animal production.
Table 4.7: Improvements of Social Services to the Communities by LGCDG
Responses Villages in % Average
Kikatiti Maji ya Chai King’ori Patandi (N=22) (N=24) (N=18) (N=25) Yes 80.5 81.25 77.3 83.9 80.7 No 19.5 18.75 22.7 16.2 19.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Field Data Survey, 2014 N= Sample Size
Education service allocations have improved through the enrolment of children, construction of classrooms, teacher’s houses latrines, libraries and science laboratories. Review of the secondary data revealed primary school gross enrollment to have doubled in five years from 10,783 in 2009 to 22,036 in 2014. However, enrolment data for secondary education were not obtainable. Additionally, it was
30 discovered from the secondary data that the number of primary and secondary schools to have increased as indicated in the Table 4.6
Table 4.8: Number of Schools and Enrolment from 2010 to 2014
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of primary 109 109 109 111 111 schools Gross enrolment 10,783 14,272 16,844 19,662 22,036 Number of secondary 28 28 28 29 29 schools Source: Meru District Education Reports (2010-2014).
The health sector is the second leading sector in allocation of LGCDG which covers
24% of Local Government Capital Development Grants in Meru district as this study revealed. Health service is an important sector at local areas because if people having a good health can participate in other economic activities. Masanyiwa (2013) argued that significant progress in decentralizing planning, budgeting and management of health services to local government allocations as it has autonomy over a wide range of health related matters and institutional bodies are placed almost in districts. Secondary data showed an increased trend of dispensaries and health centers in Meru District as presented in the table below. The respondents of this study through questionnaire identified services provided in these health facilities to include maternity, child immunization, out pertinent services and maternity care.
Table 4.9: Number of Dispensaries and Health Centers in Meru District
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Dispensaries 23 25 26 26 26 Health Centers 3 3 6 6 6 Source: Meru District Health Report (2010-2014).
31 Also, there were other service facilities improvements in Meru District. The level of satisfaction among respondents in public maternity service delivery was 83.6%, which implies that mothers have access to services from maternity in the village health centre, dispensaries and district hospital. Also child immunization services for children below 5 years are provided at Meru district these includes eradication and elimination of maternal, neonatal tetanus, diphtheria, measles and polio which constituted about 87.3%. Health staff was fully responsible for 89.1%, to provide health related services to the communities. Moreover, health services are not satisfied in the areas of drug availability as health centers, dispensaries got very few medicines.
In addition local communities’ livelihoods suffer a scarcity of medicines because of little funds for provision of this service relating to the actual needs. Health staff accountability is 76.4%, which indicated that the language used in the provision of medical services is harsh, health officers misuse their offices for private benefits and truant of medical officers in their work. Because of poor organization skills within health centers, little number of medical officials to provide services to patients and accountability of workers resulted in patients wasting most of their time in hospitals, dispensaries and health centers, therefore the findings show 89.1% according to the respondents' views as presented in the Table 4.10.
32 Table 4.10: Rating on Health Service Delivery (n=89)
Satisfied Neutral Not satisfied Health Services Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Maternity 74.4 83.6 3.2 3.6 11.3 12.7 Child Immunization 77.7 87.3 0 0 11.3 12.7 Distance to Health Facilities 68 76.4 6.5 7.3 14.6 16.4 Politeness of Health Staff 79.3 89.1 3.2 3.6 6.5 7.3 Drugs Availability 3.2 3.6 4.9 5.5 80.9 90.9 Costs of Services 0 0 6.5 7.3 81.9 92 Queering Time 0 0 9.4 10.6 79.3 89.1 Source: Field Survey Data, 2014
LGCDG allocations on local water supply are only 13%. This implies that construction of wells and water pipes was poor because of fewer resources which results poor water supply infrastructures, a little water in the circle therefore the area faced water shortage. Although there are plenty of rivers and natural springs at Meru
District, the community queues for a long time in a day fetching water, instead of using their time for other economic activities. The researcher observes in Kikatiti village residents fetching water in a long line.
33
Plate 1: Kikatiti Residents Waiting in Line to Fetch Water. Source: Field Data, 2014.
Regarding availability of agricultural inputs it was found that only 94.5% out of 89 respondents rated service as improving because of availability agricultural inputs and subsidies that support farmers. Another, 80% of respondents out of 89 respondents’ revealed that allocation of agricultural related services has improved in the sector of technical support because up to the ward and village level there are agricultural specialists both dealing with crop cultivation and animal keeping. Moreover, availability of livestock dips has been rated improved as LGCDG had constructed and renovate it up to sub village level. Agricultural marketing services have been improved and reduce the tendency of people to move from one region to another to sell for their produce to about 78.2%. In Meru District, the study findings reveled markets have been constructed and renovate to enable local communities to access goods and services.
34 Table 4.11: Rating of Decentralized Agriculture Service Delivery (n=89)
Service aspect Improved Stagnant Deteriorating Availability of agricultural inputs (fertilizers, insecticides) 94.5% 5.5% 0.0% Accessibility to agricultural expertise and technical officers 80% 16.4% 3.6% Availability of livestock dips 78.2% 18.2% 3.6% Availability of agriculture marketing services 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% Source: Field Survey Data, 2014: Multiple responses
4.5 Challenges Facing LGCDG for Improving Local Community Livelihoods The findings from this study further revealed that social service delivery encounter the problem of funds delay from the central government to local communities for development. Therefore, many social services such as water supply, education, agriculture, road maintenance and health failed to run day to day service provision, although the funds have been proposed and but delaying for a long time. The outcome of funds delay which is 45% resulted in several problems in education, such as absence of classrooms, latrines, desks and teaching materials on time. In health the acute shortage of medicines as well as construction and maintenance of health centers infrastructures on time. Another shortcoming includes inadequate transport facilities for the village and ward agriculture extension officers to providing field extension services to farmers residing in remote villages. Little water supply and few water related infrastructures such as pipelines and water tapes obstructed district’s service projects planning and implementation.
Moreover the findings from this study confirm that 29% of respondents said that
LGCDG does not suffice the needs according to the areas allocated. According to
URT (2014) local government budget of 2012/2013 was only 204.7 billion Tsh, this 35 amount of money is not enough to provide social services and meet millennium development goals of 2025 Fjeldstard (2009). Therefore, insufficient funds at Meru
District lead to poor performance on improvements to local communities such as education, health, agriculture, water supply and administration.
Also the findings from 14% of respondents showed that, inadequate participation of local communities in such development activities as preparation of areas for building schools or health centre is one of the leading challenges facing local communities in
Tanzania through the delivering of social services infrastructures. Regarding agricultural sector service community participation was the most noticeable shortcoming of the local government in agriculture services delivery as local people failed to dig canals for paddy irrigation. In water supply as well the community has failed to contribute their labour power to provision of water supply.
Inadequate technical personnel are another challenge exposed by respondents in
12%. Meru district has insufficient technical personnel such as engineers for water construction services and roads and local government offices such as village and ward offices. On other hand, hospitals, dispensaries and health centers lack professional inters of the number and quality of provision of proper health services to the communities. Education sector was also suffering with a shortcoming of teachers, especially science teachers in secondary schools. The interview with the
District Executive Director and District Planning Officer on challenges facing Local
Government Capital Development Grants on social service delivery was insufficiency of funds to finance social service delivery, low community participation for implementation of service projects such as classrooms construction, health centers and agricultural infrastructures. Another shortcoming is the delaying
36 of funds from the treasurer to the local government for distribution in the areas planned for construction or improvements.
Table 4.12: Challenges Facing LGCDG in Delivering Social Services
Variables Frequency Percentage Delay of funds from treasure 40.1 45 Inadequate technical personnel 10.6 12 Inadequate participation of local communities 12.5 14 Insufficient funds for service provision 25.8 29 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2014
4.5.1 Satisfaction Level of LGCDG on Social Services Delivery to the Community The information obtained from the 89 households revealed that 70% of respondents have been satisfied with allocation of social services infrastructure to the improvement of communities’ livelihoods. Respondents’ satisfaction implies that although LGCDG did not work in one hundred percent the level of development brought through it has been empowering local communities’ livelihoods. Also satisfaction level attributed to factors declared by key informants in a detailed interview. They mentioned among others that, it has increased local community’s participation in service, prioritizing and accountability of the district officials. The council chairperson who is also a Councilor and District Executive Director during personal interviews confirm that the level of local community livelihoods is higher because there are availability of social services such as water supply, education
(primary schools and secondary schools), health care agricultural services to farmers,
SACCOS, environmental managements, dips, local markets for selling and buying goods and services.
37 However, 10% of the respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the level of livelihood improvement because of few development indicators and 20% of the respondents felt that community livelihoods under LGCDG has not reached a satisfactory level because the level of development is still lower in the areas of social services infrastructure provision. This result also proves that the level of education system provided under local government is still low compared to central supported ones a good example is the availability of laboratories for science subjects and libraries. In health as well the construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of health centers, dispensaries and district hospital is still low compared to the actual needs.
Moreover, provision of agricultural services sector for development is still lower, although the major economic sector for economic development. Other services such as water supply, roads, administration and environmental management are also improving slowly because a small portion of LGCDG.
Table 4.13: Level of Satisfaction with Livelihoods on Services Financed Through LGCDG Level of satisfaction with service provision Frequency Percentage Satisfied 62.3 70 Neutral 8.9 10 Dissatisfied 17.8 20 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data 2014
4.5.2 Suggested Measures to Improve Community Livelihoods through Social Services Delivery The suggestions from farmers, livestock keepers, employees, politician, improvement of local communities, livelihoods through social service delivery financed with LGCDG will succeed if the following measures will be taken.
38 Meru District should raise their own funds from different sources such as taxes, levy road blocks, and custom duties and allocate directly for their own development.
Also nine percent of respondents said that allocation of development grants from central government to local government’s delay, which lead to late planning for development in local communities. Also the central government should release and deliver these development grants on time as 25% or respondents suggested to facilitate the improvements of social services infrastructures. Many districts in
Tanzania suffer delay of LGCDG till the third quarter of the budget year. Therefore, many proposed and planned social economic activities failed to operate on time.
Moreover, 20% of respondents suggested that if the district could cooperate with private sectors the level of social services could be improved than the recent one. For example, in education, health and water supply, private public partnerships can help to improve service delivery as individuals or organizations can build and then run by the government. Also, 16% of the respondents exposed that participation from and within services delivery is vital for the district to deliver social services infrastructures for the needs of their communities. Participation could be through the manpower provision or contribution in terms of money or material for example stones for building classrooms, hospitals or in roads and water supply. This will make projects sustainable.
Portion of LGCDG should be increased to improve service delivery to the local communities livelihoods. The 23% of respondents confirm that if the ratio of
LGCDG would be higher the level of development as well would increase.
According to URT (2014) the government allocations into local government for their own developments is Tsh 205.7 billion for 122 district in Tanzania mainland.
39 Therefore, these few grants cannot be able to improve community’s livelihoods if their portions will remain as it is. PCCB on the other hand should be involved from the prior planning up to the implementation. Another seven percent of respondents revealed that at the district level the head of departments, community leaders and district workers are responsible for the misuse of these funds.
In addition, the detailed interview by District Planning Officer and District
Executive Director suggested that, the central government has to increase funds allocation and transfers on time with amount proposed to the district to ensure local government’s effective service delivery.
Table 4.14: Suggested Changes to Improve Livelihoods through Services
Delivery
Variables Frequency Percentage Grants should be delivered on Time 22.3 25 District to raise their own funds 8 9 District should cooperate with private sectors 17.8 20 Increasing community Participation 14.2 16 Increasing portion of LGCDG 20.5 23 Involvement of PCCB for assessment 6.2 7 Total 89 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2014
40 CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter of the study presents the synthesized summary and concluding remarks for discussing findings on the contribution of LGCDG on service delivery for livelihood improvement. The recommendations directed at different stakeholders concerned contribution of LGCDG to improve service delivery. Also the limitations were highlighted. Finally, the future research projects that will add knowledge to the contribution of LGCDG on service delivery for livelihoods improvement have been suggested.
5.2 Summary
This study was undertaken to examine the contribution of LGCDG on improving local community livelihoods improvement on Meru district. A cross sectional designed descriptive survey research approach was used for the study employing self-completing questionnaires and interview guides to generate primary data. The study covered 89 households and 7 respondents purposely selected from district officials (District Executive Director, District Planning Officer, District Treasurer one village executive officer councilor and hamlet leader. The data were gathered in
July 2014 after securing permission from the district administration. Questionnaires were coded and analyzed using a Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20
(SPSS). The analyzed information matching with research objectives was presented in Chapter Four.
41 5.3 Conclusion
The study comes out with the conviction that, decentralized governance through
LGCDG has a great potential role in improving service delivery to local communities and realizes a balanced economic growth for improvement of community livelihoods. Based on presenting findings, it is therefore, observed that, decentralization has been implemented in the study area Meru District being focal geographical units of implementation. The councils performed service functions in education, health, clean water, roads construction and maintenance, administration, agriculture and environmental conservation. Although some services sector, received marginal priority, the local governments are better placed to deliver these services for improving livelihoods.
However, evidences from the findings proved that existing LGCDG registered limited improvements in delivery of social services for improvement of livelihoods.
It has enabled local community participation in service, prioritizing, coordination, and making officials accountable through the participatory planning approach. It has improved the availability of subsidized agricultural inputs like fertilizers and seeds, human vaccination and treatment services, as well as leaders’ accountability on community service matters. Irrespective of the respondents’ satisfaction on these aspects it is appropriate to conclude that, LGCDG service delivery financing has only marginally improved community livelihoods in the area.
Several challenges identified in this study were, insufficiency of money to finance services delivery, insufficiency LGA's sector staff to facilitate service delivery, too many service obligations to the district, unequal allocation of funds for the sector's
42 service provision and lack of autonomy for the district to carry out service initiatives needed by the local people among others.
The study suggested the adoption of the following changes to improve performance of the local government in the agricultural service delivery. The amount of finances allocated for financing provision of services at the local government should be increased to match devolved service obligations, grants should be released on time.
There is a need to extend financial services to enable establishment of small scale agro-processing industries in the rural areas, in order to enhance a balanced rural economic growth for livelihood improvement. The central government should initiate staff retention schemes in remote and unattractive areas.
5.4 Recommendations
Based on the research findings on contribution of LGCDG service financing for the improvement of livelihoods in Meru district, the presentation of recommendations is made on this sub-section.
The study recommends that, the government pays attention to improvement of service delivery to local communities through decentralized governance practices. In order to make efficiency of LGCDG and releasing on time allocated to the local government authorities that need financial support to carry out the needed service delivery improvement. The transfers should be made on time to meet sector requirements like agriculture whose activities are time specific.
It is further recommended to monitor and evaluate the sector service performance at the local level. A framework should be set up to establish a scheme for the whole process of sector decentralization. A special group comprised of different actors
43 from the national and local government, and private sector should be assigned to monitor and evaluate service delivery processes in decentralized governance.
With a view to address all complaints concerning the insufficiency of sector staff, it is better to have decentralized recruitment procedures with clear guidelines, to be applied by local governments and monitored at the central level. These guidelines should contain the budget responsibilities and accountability methods that need to be followed by the local authorities. This would give local governments’ adequate power to not only hire and fire, but also choose the category and level of the sector staff based on local communities' livelihoods needs.
The study further recommended that the central government to establish staff motivation and retention schemes in order to increase their work efficiency.
Provision of incentives is recommended to motivate staff, especially in remote and unattractive areas. Motivated employees stay longer in an organization, thus reducing staff turnover related costs. Providing good working environment with basic facilities like housing will make public officers motivated and interested to serve local communities.
5.5 Limitations of the Study
Despite precautions the researcher has taken, the study had limitations. It should also be noticed that, the findings of this study were obtained from a micro-survey restricted to Meru district. The major limitation of micro-studies was failure to represent the larger population. In this case, not all the local government authorities were covered and the results therefore cannot be generalized to the whole of
Tanzania. Moreover, due to limited time and financial resources available, as well as
44 limited scale and scope, it was very difficult for the researcher to obtain and represent the views of all the likely respondents in the study area.
As some of the data collection tools example questionnaires were translated into
Swahili language, there was a possibility that the meaning of expressions given by participants whose first language differed from that used in the preparation of this research report. The translations of gathered information and interpretation of data from one language to another might have distorted the meaning or lost degree, especially when oral data were transcribed into written text.
In addition to the failure of meeting district level officials and leaders on time during normal working hours, some records were poorly kept and others were missing. This situation resulted in failure to obtain required information on time and hence delayed completion of this report.
5.6 Suggestion for Further Research
The study has focused in a small part on contribution of LGCDG financed services for the improvement of local communities livelihoods through social services provision in Tanzania. The findings may be generalized to reflect the situation of the local community’s livelihoods in other part of the country where LGCDG are distributed. However similar study could be carried out in other part of the country to provide different picture and magnitude of LGCDG financed services. It is believed that LGCDG services delivery can differ from one community to another.
45 REFFERENCES
Ayodele (2012). Food Poverty and Livelihoods Issues in Rural Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Economics University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Boex and Muga (2009). Fiscal Decentralization and Intergovernmental Finance Reforms as International Development Strategy. Paper No. 2009-06.
Boex and Muga (2009). what determines the quality of the Local Financial Management? The case of Tanzania, Working Paper No 2 Japanese International Cooperation Agency (2008), Decentralized Service Delivery in East Africa, a comparative Study of Uganda Tanzania and Kenya.
Bryman, A. (2007). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bryman, A, (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
C. R. Kothari (2004). Research Methodology, Methods and Technique; new age International.
Coleman, J. C. (1988). „Social capital in the creation of human capital’ American Journal of
Coleman, James. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press comparative study of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania commonwealth journal Councils against Minimum Conditions and Performance Measurement Criteria.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Crook, R. Decentralization and poverty reduction in Africa: the politics of local- central relations. Public Admin Development 2003; 17: 362-77.
Deus Calistus Nyoni (2012). Applicability of Local government capital Development grants System in the Improvement of Secondary Education in Ulanga District: A Case of Nawenge and Minepa Wards.
Donald Kombo and Delno Tromp (2009). Proposal and, Thesis writing, an Introduction; Pauline S DRAFT December, 2007
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford,
Fjeldstad et al (2004). Local Government Finances and Financial Management in Tanzania, Government (PMO-RALG).
Gordon Shenell (1981) Effects of Sewage Pollution on Coral Reef Communities, Tetra Tech Inc.
46 Helge Fjeldstard (2009), Poverty and Human Development Report, Research and Analysis; Working Group MKUKUTA Monitoring System.
Helge Fjeldstad (2004). Local Government Finances and Financial Management in Tanzania Observations from Six Councils, 2000-2003 Special Paper No. 16
Hoffman (2013). The Politics of Water in Rural Tanzania. Centre for Democracy and Civil.
IMF (2006). United Republic of Tanzania; Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper No 06/142. Introduction. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation
JICA (2008). Decentralized Service Delivery in East Africa, a comparative Study of Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya Joint Implementation Review; Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries: Dar es salaam
Kombo, D. and Tromph, D. (2006). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction, Pauline’s
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques. 2nd Ed. New Delhi:Willey Eastern Limited.
Krantz, Lasse. (2001). The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction: A Len Wild (2012). Resilient livelihoods and food security in coastal aquatic agricultural systems:Investing in transformational change, Project Report: AAS-2012-28.
Louis et al (2005) Exploring Partnerships between Communities and Local Governments in Community Driven Development: Report No. 32709-GLB.
M. Kollmair and Gamper (2002) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. The Development Study Group, University of Zurich.
Maluka S. and Fjeldstard H. (2010). Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: Evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework. Social Science and Medicine 71 (4): 751-759.
Michelsen Institute Development Studies and Human Rights, Special Paper No. 16 of local governance; issue 3: 144-150.
Operations Guide. Dodoma: Prime Minister’s Office, Regional Administration Oxford University Press. President’s Office: Dar es Salaam.
Palencia and Perez Foguet (2011) Local Government Planning: From Data to Action, Research Group on Cooperation and Human Development.
Pritha Venkatachalam, (2009). An Overview of Municipal Finance Systems in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania Development Institute, LSE.
47 Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New Quarterly, 28 (4), December (1999), Society Georgetown University. Thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007, United Nations.
Roberts, H. (1979). Community development: Learning and action. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Robert Yin (2003) Case Study Research Design and Methods 3rd edition, Applied Social Research Methods Series volume 5.
Tidermand P, Olsen HB, Sola N (2008). Local Services Delivery, Decentralization and Governance: A comparative Study of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania Education, Health and Agricultural sectors.
United Nations Development Programme (2000) “Democratic Governance for Human Development. New York
United Republic of Tanzania (2008). Health Sector Strategic Plan III, Partnership or delivering the Most Developing Countries (July 2009-June 2015).
United Republic of Tanzania (2004). Local Government Capital Development Grant System: Planning Guidelines for Villages and Mitaa. Dodoma: President's Office Regional Administration and Local Government
United Republic of Tanzania (2008a). The Status of Implementation of Decentralisation by Devolution in Mainland Tanzania and the Way Forward. Paper presented at the National Convention on Public Sector Reforms 17- 18th June 2008, Ubungo Plaza, Dar eS Salaam.
United Republic of Tanzania (2009). Local Government Reform Programme II (Decentralization by Devolution): Vision, Goals and Objectives.
United Republic of Tanzania (2014). The review of the LGDG Operational Guide, LGAs Assessment Manual and Development of M&E Framework for LGDG.
United Republic of Tanzania (2013). Ministry of Finance, Study Mapping of Transfer of Funds to Local Government Authorities
Zacharia S Msanyiwa et al (2013). Institutional Arrangements for Decentralized Water and Health Services Delivery in rural Tanzania. Differences and Constraints
48 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Structured Questionnaire for Households Dear Participants, I am a student of Master of Arts in Development Studies (M.A.DS), at the University of Dodoma. I am undertaking a study on “contribution of LGCDG for local community livelihoods in Meru district council, Arusha, Tanzania” for my dissertation a requirement for completing my study. The purpose of the study is to obtain information on contribution of LGCDG towards service delivery at district level. The study will review the decentralization system applied in Tanzania especially at the district level. It will bring out factors affecting and hence suggest ways to improve LGCDG for effective service delivery. You are kindly requested to participate in this study and provide your valuable information and suggestions. The information you provide will exclusively be used for academic purpose and kept confidential. As a participant, you are kindly requested to answer the questions according to instructions provided. Your response and cooperation is highly appreciated. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Yours sincerely NGOWI, STRATON. Mobile Phone: +255-683-512-202/753891267 Email: [email protected]
Instructions to participants This questionnaire is organized into six sections. For multiple choice questions, kindly put a tick mark to indicate your choice. For other questions, please provide views in your own words in the space provided. SECTION A: RESPONDENT’S PROFILE
1. Age
2. Designation
3 SEX MALE……. FEMALE………
4. . What is your highest education level?
A. PRIMARY
49 B. SECONDARY
C. TERTIARY
D. BACHELOR DEGREE AND ABOVE
SECTION B: LGCDG allocations in different sectors for provision of social services
1. From list bellow tick mark major services financed by LGCDG at your area?
A. HEALTH
B. EDUCATION
C. WATER SUPPLY
D. ROADS
E. AGRICULTURE
F. ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
2. From the above delegated functions, identify the key functions for which your local government has been given higher responsibilities to deliver social the services to the community
A. HEALTH
B. EDUCATION
C. WATER SUPPLY
D. ROADS
E. AGRICULTURE
F. ENVIRONMENT
3. List out the reasons why LGCDG has not improved delivery of social services for the communities livelihoods.
A. LGCDG ARE BENEFITING LARGER AREAS COMPARED TO THE
LOCAL ONE
50 B. LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE QUALIFIED STAFF TO
MANAGE PROVISSION OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
C. INSUFFICIENT FINANCIAL ALLOCATION ON SERVICE ECTORS OF
LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
D. FINANCED SERVICES IS NOT A PRIORITY TO THE COMMUNITY
E. ANY OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
4. What to be done by the local communities to improve social services provision through LGCDG?
A. TO INCREASE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF LGCDG AT
LOCAL LEVEL
B. INCREASE TRAINNED PERSONEL TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TO DEAL WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY LIVELIHOODS
C. PROPER BUDGETING ALLOCATION FROM CETRAL GOVERNMENT
ON BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES TO IMPROVE LOCAL COMMUNITY
LIVELIHOODS
D. FINANCING PROVISSION OF PRIOTIZED SERVICES FOR
LIVELIHOODS
E. ANY OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
SECTION B: CONTRIBUTION OF LGCDG ON IMPROVING SOCIAL
SERVICES DELIVERY.
1. Does LGCDG contributing to development of livelihoods through social service delivery?
A. YES
B. NO
51 2. If your answer is YES, please list down important areas which are benefiting from
LGCDG into this local community livelihood.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………..
3. Has LGCDG helped to improve your community livelihoods? A. YES B. NO C. DON’T KNOW
52 4. Please tick the appropriate answer in the box of your choice, which rate the social service provision by the LGCDG at your communities’ livelihoods.
Description Rating Improved Stagnant Deteriorating Availability of subsidized agricultural inputs( fertilizer/ insecticides) Free/subsidized Human vaccination and treatment services Accountability of leaders on community social service delivery Availability of community secondary/primary schools Availability of agricultural expertise Maintenance of rural roads Availability of health centers with specialists Availability of water public tapes Availability of teaching and learning resources Others (please specify)
53 SECTION D: Challenges facing LGCDG for improving local community livelihoods (Applicable to all respondents). 1. Are there limitations / shortcomings observed in LGCDG for service delivery by the local government? A. YES B. NO C. DON’T KNOW 2. If YES, what are the limitations or shortcomings noticed in the performance of the Local Government Capital Development Grants for local services delivery? A. Agriculture ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………… B. Education ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… C. Health ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… D. Water Supply ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………...... E. Road maintenance ………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………
54 ………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… F. Administration ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… G. Environmental Management ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………
3. The following could probably be the reasons for the district council’s failure to provide basic services through LGCDG. Please use the following ratings from 1 to 5 to indicate your opinion 4. What is your overall level of satisfaction on LGCDG for improved local communities’ livelihoods in Tanzania? A. HIGHLY SATISFIED B. SATISFIED s/n Factors for local government’s failure in service Rating delivery i Insufficiency of money to finances services delivery ii Insufficient local government workers to facilitate service delivery iii Too many service obligation to the council iv Lack of autonomy for the council to carry out service initiatives needed by the local communities livelihoods v Unequal allocation of funds to sectors for service provision vi Failure to enhance public private partnership for services delivery vii Marginalized local communities participation in services prioritizing
vii Others (please specify) C. NEUTRAL D. DISSATISFIED E. HIGHLY DISSATISFIED 55 5. If you are dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied, please elaborate the reasons SECTION E: Suggested measure to improve contribution of
LGCDG on community livelihood. (Applicable to all respondents)
1. What changes you think, if taken would improve the performance of district in service delivery? (You may select more than one option from the list below)
Strongly Disagree =1, Disagree = 2, Not Sure = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 Suggested options to improve service delivery Opinion Allow district council to raise and control own budget for service delivery. Increase public- private partnership for services provision District council should cooperate with private sector for service provision The central government has to increase the proportion of LGCDG to councils Increasing community participation in services prioritization financed by LGCDG Sufficient financing of all local government service responsibilities Establish staff retention schemes to remote and unattractive areas Re-orienting the public sectors responsible for services delivery for livelihoods improvement Improving accountability of service providers to their customers Others (please specify)
2. Do you wish to mention anything else on contribution of LGCDG to the local governments in Tanzania? If YES, please elaborate. Thanks very much for your Cooperation and your time.
56 Appendix II: Interview Guide Questions for Sector Department OFFICIALS, COUNCIL DIRECTORS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LEADERS
1. Date of interview
1. Age
1. Sex
2. Education level
3. Position
4. What major services does the LGCDG finance?
5. Does the amount of Capital allocation to Wards and Villages of Meru District
Council differ? Elaborate
6. What are the procedures followed in funding services delivery through
LGCDG management?
7. Are there alternative sources of funds to LGCDG for financing services
delivery?
8. Does the LGCDG allocations reflect the local community needs? Elaborate.
9. What are the challenges faced by LGCDG in services delivery to the local
communities? What should be done to enhance proper management of
LGCDG for improving livelihoods of the local communities?
11. List out the major services projects included in the plans and implemented in the last five years in your local government though LGCDG.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
12 What general comments do you give regarding LGCDG management?
57 …………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
58