DOWNWARD ACCOUNTABILITY OF WORLD VISION GHANA IN SABOBA DISTRICT BY ZECHARIAH LANGNEL (10281364) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. JULY, 2015 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh i DECLARATION I do hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own research undertaken under supervision and has not been submitted in part or in full to this institution or any other institution for academic award. All citations and quotations have all been identified and acknowledged. I bear sole responsibility for any shortcomings. ………………………. ………..……………. ZECHARIAH LANGNEL DATE University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii CERTIFICATION This is to certify that this thesis was supervised in accordance with the laid down rules and procedures as required by the University of Ghana. ………………………………… …………… JUSTICE NYIGMAH BAWOL (PhD) DATE (SUPERVISOR). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii DEDICATION This phenomenal work is dedicated to the entire Langnel‟s family whose greatest desire is to see me achieved greater academic laurels. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am extremely grateful to God whose grace has sustained me throughout my master‟s programme. I am particularly appreciative to my supervisor, Dr. Justice Nyigmah Bawole (HOD, Public Administration and Health Services Management) whose strict supervision, pieces of advice and financial support has brought me this far. May the good Lord bless you and strengthen you in your quest to nurturing others. I salute you “prof”. My next appreciation goes to all faculty members and administrative staff of the Department of Public Administration and Health Services Management. This work would not have seen the light of the day without the candid opinions of my respondents and all those who assisted me in diverse ways. I would like to express special thanks to World Vision Ghana for allowing me to use their satellite office in Saboba for the investigation. I want to particularly mention Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Cynthia Tonkodor, and Mr. Twum-Barimah Frank (Staffs of World Vision Ghana, Saboba) whose views have enriched my work. Also, thanks to Mr. Samuel Gmalu (Staff of World Vision Ghana, Regional Office), Mr. David Nsila (Teacher at Saboba Technical School), Mr. Gershon Nagbija (Former CHRAJ Director, Saboba District), and Mr. Barnabas Biyam (NCCE Director, Kpandai District) who through their effort I was able to speak to the official respondents. Moreover, my sincere thanks to the respondents in the five beneficiary communities for their cooperation during data collection. I am equally grateful to my course mates for their encouragement and support. I am particularly thankful to Ms Mabel Mensah whose constructive criticisms has brought me this far. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v My final thanks go to my family especially Langnel Ndabiche whose financial commitment made this work to see the light of the day. May God richly bless you bro. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ...................................................................................................................... i CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xii LIST OF BOX ...................................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................... xiv ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ xvii CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background of the study ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Statement of the research problem ................................................................................. 5 1.3 General objective ........................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Specific objectives ......................................................................................................... 7 1.6 Significance of the study ................................................................................................ 8 1.7 Limitation of the study ................................................................................................... 8 1.8 Organization of the study ............................................................................................... 9 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................... 10 LIERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 10 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10 2.1 The concept of accountability ...................................................................................... 10 2.2 Exploring NGO accountability .................................................................................... 11 2.3 The global trend in NGO accountability ...................................................................... 12 2.4 Mechanisms for NGOS‟ accountability ....................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Participation and beneficiary involvement ............................................................ 14 2.4.2 Disclosure statements and reports ......................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Performance assessment and evaluation ............................................................... 14 2.4.4 Social auditing ....................................................................................................... 15 2.4.5 Self-regulation ....................................................................................................... 15 2.5 Beneficiary/ Downward Accountability (DA) of NGOs ............................................. 15 2.6 Downward Accountability and project effectiveness and efficiency........................... 16 2.7 Strategies for NGOS‟ accountability to beneficiaries .................................................. 18 2.7.1 Participatory accountability at project planning or decision making stage ........... 18 2.7.2 Participatory accountability at project implementation stage ............................... 21 2.7.3 Participatory accountability at the project evaluation stage .................................. 22 2.8 Obstacles to NGO accountability to beneficiaries ....................................................... 24 2.9 Theoretical review ........................................................................................................ 25 2.9.1 Arnstein‟s (1969) ladder of citizen‟s participation ................................................ 26 2.9.2 Vernooy (2005) framework of participation ......................................................... 28 2.9.3 White‟s (1996) typology of participation .............................................................. 29 2.10 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................... 30 2.10.1 Operationalization of the framework .................................................................. 31 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 34 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 34 3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 34 3.1 Research Paradigm ....................................................................................................... 34 3.2 Research Approach ...................................................................................................... 35 3.3 Research Design ........................................................................................................... 36 3.4 The study area profile .................................................................................................. 38 Source: Saboba District Assembly ................................................................................. 38 3.5 Overview of operational areas of the NGO in Saboba District .................................... 39 3.6 Target and study population ......................................................................................... 42 3.7 Sampling technique (s) and procedure ......................................................................... 42 3.8 Data gathering instruments .......................................................................................... 43 3.9 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)................................................................................ 44 3.10 Sample size ................................................................................................................ 44 3.11 Data management and analysis .................................................................................. 45 CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................. 46 DATA ANALYSES AND DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS ................................................ 46 4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 46 4.1 Participatory accountability at planning stage ............................................................. 47 4.1.1 Needs analysis or assessment ................................................................................ 47 4.1.2 Preparation of the project‟s action plan ................................................................. 51 4.1.3 Information disclosure ........................................................................................... 52 Financial disclosure ........................................................................................................ 54 4.1.4 Meetings/contributions .......................................................................................... 56 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix 4.1.5 Committees ............................................................................................................ 62 4.2 Participatory accountability at implementation stage .................................................. 66 Source: Author‟s own construction, 2015. ..................................................................... 66 4.2.1 Materials ................................................................................................................ 66 4.2.2 Physical labor ........................................................................................................ 68 4.2.3 Welfare services .................................................................................................... 69 4.2.4 Finance .................................................................................................................. 70 4.3 Participatory accountability at evaluation stage ........................................................... 71 4.3.1 Participatory reviews ............................................................................................. 72 4.3.2 Monitoring and evaluation team ............................................................................ 75 4.3.3 Management activities ........................................................................................... 76 4.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 82 CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................... 85 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 85 5.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 85 5.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 85 5.1.1 Participatory Accountability at planning stage ..................................................... 85 5.1.2 Participatory Accountability at implementation stage .......................................... 88 5.1.3 Participatory Accountability at Evaluation stage .................................................. 89 5.2 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 91 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 92 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh x REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 94 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 104 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 104 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................. 107 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Adopted from Arsntein (1969) ladder of citizen Participation. ............................... 26 Table 2: Adapted from Vernooy (2005) as modified by Boon et al., (2013). ....................... 28 Table 3: Adapted from White (1996) participation interest. ................................................. 29 Table 4: Author‟s own construction (combination of Arnstein, Vernooy, and White framework of participation and their implications for downward accountability of the NGO). ............................................................................................................... 31 Table 5: Summary of respondents ........................................................................................ 45 Table 6: Author‟s modified Framework (combination of Arnstein, Vernooy, and White approaches of participation) ................................................................................... 80 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Saboba District in National Context ...................................................................... 38 Figure 2: Activities participatory accountability at planning stage: ...................................... 47 Figure 3: Activities of participatory accountability at implementation stage: ...................... 66 Figure 4: Activities of participatory accountability at evaluation stage: ............................... 72 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiii LIST OF BOX Box 1. Summarized explanation of Arnstein‟s ( 1969) rungs of participation. ..................... 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ALPS : Accountability Learning and Planning Systems CLTS: Community Led Total Sanitation CVA: Citizen Voice and Action CWSA: Community Water and Sanitation Agency DA: Downward Accountability DA: District Assembly DCE: District Chief Executive DPCO: District Planning and Coordinating Office EU: European Union FGDs: Focus Group Discussions HAP: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership IDC: Integrated Development Centre IGO: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations IMF: International Monetary Fund LEAP: Learning through Accountability and Evaluation Programme LPMET: Local Project Monitoring and Evaluation Team MoU: Memorandum of Understanding University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xv NGOs: Non-Governmental Organizations PA: Participatory Approaches PHC: Population Head Count PRA: Participatory Rural Approach RB: Rights-Based RBA: Rights-Based Approach RWS: Rural Water Supply SAP: Structural Adjustment Programme SD: Saboba District SDA: Saboba District Assembly SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa UN: United Nations UNDP: United Nations Development Programme UNICEF: United Nations International Children‟s Fund UNOHCHR: United Nations Office of the High Commission on Human Rights USAID: United States Agency for International Development WASAN: Water and Sanitation University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xvi WASH: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WB: World Bank WV: World Vision WVG: World Vision Ghana WVI: World Vision International University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xvii ABSTRACT Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have become major players in Community Development Agenda and perform intermediary roles between donors and intended beneficiaries. Unfortunately, highly publicized corruption scandals are discovered in literature often associated with the activities of NGOs especially in developing countries. To sanitize the aid delivery chain, NGOs are required to be accountable to donors (upward accountability) and beneficiaries (downward accountability). However, over dependence on upward accountability have failed to produce the desired results owing to the fact that donors are remotely located amidst weak regulatory frameworks in developing countries, thus, making it extremely difficult to ensure effective accountability of NGOs. It is against this backdrop that this study was qualitatively conducted through the lens of an interpretive research paradigm. Three participatory models (i.e Arnstein‟s ladder of participation, Vernooy‟s framework of participation, and White‟s typology of participation) were adopted to investigate the extent to which NGOs involve beneficiaries across the three stages of a project life cycle – planning/decision, implementation and evaluation stages. Data were collected through in depth interviews and documentary reviews. In all, 21 interviews and 5 FGDs were conducted in five beneficiary communities. The study discovered generally that downward accountability of the studied NGO was rhetorical. The findings suggest that participation at the planning stage was tokenistic as the project‟s goals and objectives were formulated long before the NGO got into the communities. Though the implementation stage recorded the highest involvement of beneficiaries, it was quite exploitative as the NGO might have used beneficiaries‟ free labor to achieve project‟s cost effectiveness. The evaluation stage recorded the lowest involvement of beneficiaries across the three stages. Thus, participatory review meetings were not held to rigorously review the success of the project. As a result, beneficiaries were not empowered to be the main drivers of their own development. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This chapter consists of the background to the study, the research problem, research objectives and questions, significance of the study, research limitation, and the organization of the study. 1.1 Background of the study Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been recognized since 1980s by bilateral and multilateral donors as one of the most credible and effective conduits to alleviating poverty of underdeveloped countries compared to state governments (Makuwira, 2013). This recognition emanated from the new development thinking that NGOs strategically positioned themselves in delivering more cost-effective services to the poor (Baluku, 2010). The basic tenet of new development paradigm argues that development needs to be more sustainable, just, participatory, democratic, and more environmentally friendly (Zaidi, 1999, Martusewicz, Edmundson, and Lupinacci, 2014). This has led to the redefinition of the state with good governance as the formidable tool to addressing development challenges (Zaidi, 1999). Western political theorists sometimes divide society into three basic components: the public sector, private sector, and civil society sector (Atack, 1999). In a utopian world where the state (public) and private sectors are responding effectively and efficiently to the needs of the poor, Non–governmental organizations (NGOs) would not exist. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 The modern state is brought under what I refer to as „new and wide‟ demands from the citizenry, yet the state is constrained in terms of resources. This view is upheld in literature that NGOs have become critical agents in sustainable development in that states are constrained in terms of resources in their bid to meeting the needs of the people (Edwards & Hulme, 1996). This view was re-echoed by Asamoah (2003), when he avers that NGOs are particularly critical in circumstances where state funds are limited, political situations are fluid, natural disasters resulting from both predictable and unpredictable environmental circumstances occur, ethnic strife is rampant, and the level of per capita incomes severely restricts the ability to purchase needed goods and services: social, educational and economic resources. The state is “considered to be corrupt, oppressive and anti-poor” (Ghosh, 2009:234). Empirical analysis of the available literature speaks volume of the fact that NGOs fill development gaps left by the state and are deemed to be more efficient than government agencies (Nair, 2011; Batley & Rose, 2011; Ezeoha, 2006; Zaidi, 1999). The mushrooming of NGOs across the globe from 1980s marked a paradigm shift in international development cooperation. The growth in the number of NGOs was to mitigate the negative impacts of policies pursued by government across the globe (Jalil, 2011; Gina, 2003). In Africa for instance, NGOs mushroomed to mitigate the social impacts of Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) pursued by African governments. It was a widely held view that as advocates for the vulnerable in society, NGOs are better positioned to address the social impact of SAP implemented by African governments (Jalil, 2011). NGOs are also pronounced in African countries as they have found favor with bodies such as United Nations (UN), European Union, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other bilateral and multilateral Organizations who believe that NGOs are formidable force that can University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 put African governments in check on issues of mal-administration, abuse of human rights and genocides as well as bringing development to the poor (Voohies, 1993; Jalil, 2011). Ghana was among the first African countries to have implemented „poverty ridden‟ Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1983 and has since become a „patient‟ of the World Bank (Gina, 2003). There are myriad of NGOs‟ activities in Ghana more especially in the northern part of the country where they are engaged in variety of interventions to better the lot of beneficiaries who are generally considered as deprived. It was noted in United States Agency for International Development-USAID (2009) annual report that there are 4463 registered NGOs in Ghana and a lot more is being registered every year. Scholars argue that many governments, individuals, bilateral and multilateral agencies of developed nations are committed in spending large and sums of money as development aid to less developed countries with primary aim of lifting many people from extreme poverty and deprivation through NGOs (Edwards & Hulme, 1996; O‟ Dwyer & Unerman, 2010). This may be fueled by the belief among donors that NGOs are more cost effective than governments in providing basic social services, and are better able to reach the poor, and serve as catalyst in democratization process (Ebrahim, 2003). However, Edwards and Hulme (1996) and Mackintosh, (1992) argue in other jurisdiction that there is not enough evidence to support that claim. Literature argues in some cases that NGOs themselves are responsible for exaggerating their claim to legitimacy in order to continue to enjoy support from donors (Riddel, 1999; Ghosh, 2009). This view was well articulated by Zaidi (1999) when he asserts that NGOs and consultants forged data to suit the beneficiaries‟ needs in order to continue to receive funds from donors. Whatever the case may be, I argue here that accountability of NGOs is being brought under scrutiny in recent times. This worrisome University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 situation about NGOs triggered the call for the return of the state (Nega & Schneider, 2014) as the most effective and efficient way to deliver development to the poor. It is as a result of highly publicized scandals that have eroded public confidence in NGOs that practitioners in the field began to call for accountability of NGOs to stakeholders (Young, Bania & Bailey,1996; Ebrahim, 2003;Bano,2008; Gibelman & Gelman, 2001; Rahmani, 2012 ).These views however, are being increasingly supported by other scholars who advocated moving beyond seeing NGOs as magic bullets to thinking more concretely about issues of NGOs accountability (Najam, 1996; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010). According to O‟Dwyer and Unerman (2010), the proportion of multi-billion dollar aid being channel through the medium of NGOs for alleviating poverty in global south countries raises accountability questions in accountability and business research literature. NGOs are accountable to multiple actors (Najam, 1996). They are accountable upwards to patrons, downwards to beneficiaries/clients, and inwards to themselves (Najam, 1996; Fowler, 1996). NGO-patron accountability or upwards accountability (Edwards & Hulme, 1996) refers to accountability to donors, governments, and foundations which often focused on “spending designated moneys for designated purposes” (Fowler, 1996; Najam, 1996, p. 342). They are also downwardly accountable to clients/beneficiaries, thus, the groups to whom NGOs provide services or speak on behalf of in policy fora and symposiums (Najam, 1996; Ebrahim, 2003a; Lioyd, 2005). The third category is to NGOs themselves - their organizational vision, mission, and staffs (Najam, 1996; LIoyd, 2005). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 1.2 Statement of the research problem In spite of the greater call for NGO accountability ( Ebrahim, 2005; Gray, Babbington & Collisson, 2006; Jordan & Van, 2006; Unerman & O‟Dwyer, 2006a; Unerman & O‟Dwyer, 2006b, Crespy & Miller, 2011; Marshall & Suarez, 2013; Ahmed & Hopper, 2014), there are limited scholarly works investigating specific NGO accountability settings (Unerman & O‟Dwyer, 2006b). These scanty works on NGOs accountability focused on upward accountability to patrons instead of downward accountability (Ebrahim, 2005; Kilby, 2006; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; Andrews, 2014; Sawardi & Thomson, 2014; Noor, 2015; Awuah-Werekoh, 2015). The reason is that whilst donors provide funds for the sustainability of NGOs, governments ensure legitimacy by enacting laws to regulate activities of NGOs (LIoyd, 2005). This point was well articulated Andrews (2014) when she reiterated that economic resources provided by the donors and coercive power of the government restructure NGOs away from their beneficiaries in terms of accountability. In the developed countries where political institutions are strong coupled with strong law enforcement agencies, and also the fact that donors are situated in those countries, NGOs are accountable to their beneficiaries (LIoyd, 2005; Andrews, 2014). However, in Ghana as well as other developing countries where institutions are weak, political instability is predominant, and poverty is pervasive (Besley & Persson, 2010), the situation may be different. Not surprisingly, NGO accountability is generating significant research interest in recent times both in theory and in practice because: first, that beneficiaries of NGO interventions are the weakest in NGO power and accountability relationships (Andrews, 2014); second, that donors are remotely located making it extremely difficult to ensure effective University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 accountability (Dupuy, Ron, & Prakash, 2014); third, NGOs hold goal owners to account to their clients and must do same (Slim, 2002); and four, that highly publicized scandals are reported on the activities of NGOs (Trivunovic, Johnson & Mathisen, 2011). NGOs‟ downward accountability to beneficiaries in Sub-Saharan Africa is “shaped by moral and ethical imperatives” instead of being grounded in law (LIoyd, 2005: 4). Taking Ghana for instance, a place where this study was conducted, effort over a decade ago to regulate the operations of NGOs received fierce rebuttal from NGOs with unflinching support from their donors (Trust Bill and NGO policy Guidelines, 2007). The intended legislation was abandoned and the option was given to NGOs to self- regulate, a pledge yet to be realized. Notwithstanding, it is increasingly being recognized by development NGOs that downward accountability to beneficiaries would enhance effectiveness and sustainability of NGO-led development interventions (Ebrahim, 2005; Kilby, 2006; Agyemang, Awumbila, Unerman & O‟Dwyer, 2009; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; Wellens & Jegers, 2014). The limited research works on downward accountability of NGOs looked at „empowerment of beneficiaries‟ (Kilby, 2006), using „Listen first model‟ to manage downward accountability of NGOs (Alex & Wilford, 2010), „explaining NGOs responses to Zapatista Demands‟ (Andrews, 2014), „enhancing the role of accountability in promoting the rights of beneficiaries (O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010), and using „Rights-Based approach to strengthen downward accountability of NGOs‟ (Kim, 2007). Though it is explicit from the demonstration above that little research works have been done on downward accountability of NGOs, the extent to which NGOs are accountable to their beneficiaries throughout entire project life cycle in a specific NGO setting is still underexplored. This is the focus of this research. The researcher seeks to investigate the extent to which World Vision Ghana University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 (WVG) is accountable to her beneficiary communities in Saboba District throughout the entire project life cycle (planning/decision making, implementation, and evaluation). Downward accountability of NGOs in this study emphasizes the use of participatory approaches to assessing NGOs‟ effectiveness that centrally involve beneficiaries and or their representatives in service delivery (O‟Dwyer & Unerman. 2010). Participation in this study is defined as the discharge of power to those lower down the aid chain (beneficiaries).The study assumes that when beneficiaries are actively involved in the programmes that affect them, downward accountability of NGOs would be enhanced. 1.3 General objective The study seeks to investigate the extent to which the NGO involves beneficiaries in the entire project life cycle in Saboba District. 1.4 Specific objectives The study seeks to realize the following specific objectives: 1) To investigate the extent to which the NGO involves beneficiaries in project planning stage. 2) To investigate the extent to which the NGO engages community members in project implementation stage. 3) To investigate how beneficiaries are involved in the evaluation stage of NGO-led development project. 1.5 Research questions 1) To what extent are beneficiaries involved in the planning stage of NGO-led intervention? University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 2) To what extent does the NGO engage community members at project implementation stage? 3 How are beneficiaries involved in the evaluation stage of NGO-led development project? 1.6 Significance of the study This study has successfully filled NGOs‟ downward accountability gap in the literature. The findings of the study are useful to researchers who are interested in beneficiaries‟ involvement in NGOs‟ projects design, implementation, and evaluation. Since it is common to see projects being abandoned by community members, policy makers and other development agencies would realize the need to involve beneficiaries in the delivery of services. 1.7 Limitation of the study There are a number of NGOs operating in Northern Ghana. However, this study was limited to World Vision Ghana and Saboba District. The study was further limited to five beneficiary communities and the limited mechanization water project. Hence, the findings are specific to the studied communities and cannot be generalized to be the case for other NGOs and their beneficiary communities. Again, the face to face interviews were conducted in the local language. As a result, there is a possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of interview questions. This was properly handled because of the fact that I speak the same language with the beneficiaries. The interview questions were translated into the language they (beneficiaries) best understood without employing the services of the outsiders. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 1.8 Organization of the study The entire study consists of five chapters. Chapter one consists of the introduction and the background of the study, the research problem, the research objective(s), research questions, and the significance of the study. The chapter two comprises the empirical literature and theoretical literature reviews. The empirical review consists of the following thematic areas: the concept of accountability, exploring NGOs‟ accountability, the global trend in NGOs accountability, and the mechanisms for NGOs‟ accountability. The others are: beneficiary or downward accountability of NGOs, Strategies for NGOs‟ accountability to beneficiaries, and the obstacles to downward accountability to beneficiaries. The theoretical review also consists of Arstein‟s ladder of participation, Vernooy‟s framework of participation, and Sarah White‟s interest of participation. Chapter three focuses on the methodology. Chapter four is devoted to the data analysis and the discussion of findings. Chapter five comprises the summary, conclusion, and recommendation. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 CHAPTER TWO LIERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction This section comprises the review of literature on downward accountability of NGOs and theories of participation. The literature review on downward accountability of NGOs covers areas such as the definition of accountability, explores NGOs‟ accountability, the global trends in NGOs‟ accountability, and mechanisms of NGOs Accountability. The others are: Downward or Beneficiary Accountability of NGOs and projects efficiency and effectiveness, and strategies of NGOs‟ Accountability (i.e. participatory accountability in project planning, participatory Accountability in project implementation, and participatory accountability in project evaluation). The theoretical literature presents and attempts to explain theories that underpin the study and the subject matter in general. 2.1 The concept of accountability In accounting, auditing, accountability, and Development studies literature, accountability is viewed as an efficient mechanism for the achievement of justice, good governance, ethical governance, cost effectiveness and efficient service delivery in both the public and private organizations (Ebrahim & Weisband, 2007). By definition, accountability may be seen as the “means through which individuals and organizations are held externally responsible for their actions and as the means by which they take internal responsibility for continuously shaping organizational mission, goals and performance” (Ebrahim, 2003a: 194). Accountability “defines a relationship between an organization and a set of stakeholders and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 assumes that being responsive to those stakeholders will be beneficial to the organization and its mandate” (Baur & Schmitz, 2012: 14). The origin of accountability can be traced to both political and financial roots. Politically, accountability can be traced to the Athenian democracy where directly elected leaders were held accountable for their actions and inactions (Day & Klein, 1987: 5). Accountability was also veiled in the responsibilities of the state Auditor in the Greek city states, who was made to discharge financial duties (Behn, 2001; Walker, 2002; Dubnick & Justice, 2004). Though the meaning of accountability is still nebulous (Davis, 2007), there is a general consensus as regards aspects of the definition of the concept. There is general agreement on the notion that accountability places responsibility on individuals or groups to account, answer, and be responsible for their actions (Davis, 2007). 2.2 Exploring NGO accountability The accountability of NGOs is complex as a result of the environment in which NGOs operate (Agyemang, Awumbila, Unerman & O‟Dwyer, 2009; Awio, Northcott, & Lawrence, 2011). NGOs act as intermediary organizations (Agyemang et al., 2009) and are faced with multiple demands from stakeholders (Jordan & van Tuijl 2006; O‟Dwyer, 2007). Funds and other resources are often provided for locally-based-service-delivery NGOs by governments and donor agencies in developed nations. Hence, “Local NGOs and the local operations of INGOs therefore act as an interface between international donors and local beneficiaries” (Agyemang et al., 2009:10). In the context of complex social interventions, NGOs initiate accountability mechanisms through dialogue with diverse stakeholders (Alex & Wilford, 2010). To Alex and Wilford (2010), NGOs are expected to negotiate contracts with donors as well as design potential University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 interventions with local partners. In effect, NGOs are held accountable for these commitments. The biggest question here is how do NGOs manage these complex set of relationships? Well, the challenge for NGOs is how to align these commitments that it makes, and the dialogue it pursues, with multiple stakeholders; who have little power over it, but are immediately affected by its work, and some who have substantial power over it, but are distant from the field of action (Alex & Wilford, 2010). The situation exacerbates when NGOs as intermediary organizations, grow larger and develop their own internal systems, politics and bureaucracy. These complexities in NGOs accountability are given due attention in literature. Literature distinguishes between various types of NGOs accountability (Bendell, 2006; Baur & Schmitz, 2012). Thus, upward accountability defines a bottom-up approach to NGOs accountability where donors, governments, and foundations use accountability mechanisms to influence the implementing NGO (LIoyd, 2005; Andrews, 2014). In practice, NGOs respond to the demands of the most powerful actors in terms of accountability. Again, NGOs are downwardly accountable to their beneficiaries who are less powerful in NGO power and accountability relationships (Baur & Schmitz, 2012), but wield non-economic resource such as „information‟ which is necessary for the effectiveness of NGOs‟ mission and vision (Andrews, 2014). 2.3 The global trend in NGO accountability More and more questions have been raised about NGOs‟ legitimacy and accountability by scholars and policy makers as NGOs have become increasingly prominent players in global affairs (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Chegu, 2013). This point was well articulated by Jamal (2014) when he opined that the growth in the number of NGOs in global south, coupled with University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 constant rise in funding from western world has made NGOs more powerful in global politics and international development. This enviable role of NGOs in international development called for public scrutiny on how they NGOs moblize and spend money (Agyemang, Awumbila, Unerman & O‟Dwyer, 2009; Unerman & O‟Dwyer, 2010). Besides, increased financial rewards to NGO leaders and „well-publicized‟ scandals, has fueled criticisms at the sector (Bano, 2008; Ebrahim, 2003; Gibelman & Gelman, 2001; Rahmani, 2012). To maintain legitimacy with stakeholders, organizations in the third sector have carved for themselves Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP) in 2003 with the revised versions in 2007 and 2010. The HAP Standards compel organizations that assist or act on behalf of people affected by or prone to disasters, conflict, poverty, and other crises to design, implement, assess, improve and recognize accountability programmes that meet international standard. The HAP principles of accountability include “commitment to humanitarian standards and rights, setting standards and building capacity, commitment, communication, participation in programmes, monitoring and reporting on compliance, and addressing complaints” (HAP, 2010: 25). The participation principle highlights the need for humanitarian organizations to involve beneficiaries in the “planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes, and report to them on progress, subject only to serious operational constraints” (HAP, 2010: 25). 2.4 Mechanisms for NGOS’ accountability In practice, literature identifies five broad mechanisms through which NGOs are held accountable: disclosure statement and reports, performance assessment and evaluation, participation, self-regulation, and social auditing (Ebrahim, 2003; Agyemang et al., 2009). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 2.4.1 Participation and beneficiary involvement In the management of NGOs, participatory approach is used as a mechanism to ensure NGOs are accountable to beneficiaries (Ebrahim, 2003; Kilby, 2006; Alex & Wilford, 2010; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2011; Andrews, 2014). To them, downward accountability to beneficiaries is synonymous to the „concept of participation‟. It allows NGOs to engage beneficiaries in decisions making about project delivery. It also involves sharing information with beneficiaries and consulting with them. In some cases, beneficiaries are required to provide labor for service delivery. Participation may take two forms: community consultation and dialogue and participatory reviews. 2.4.2 Disclosure statements and reports NGOs produce summative annual reports and make legal disclosures on all their activities. Legal disclosures according to Ebrahim (2003), are to ensure that activities of NGOs are in accordance with the host country‟s tax exemption law, and particularly prove that its activities are for education, charity, religion, scientific advancement, and other poverty alleviation programmes without any profit motive ( Ebrahim, 2003). NGOs also submit annual reports to donors to meet the requirements for funding. These reports according to Agyemang et al., (2009) could be annual or interim reports (monthly, quarterly or half yearly basis). The annual reports as well as legal disclosures emphasize upward accountability (to donors and government) at the expense of downward accountability (to beneficiaries) and other stakeholders (Ebrahim, 2003; Agyemang et al., 2009). 2.4.3 Performance assessment and evaluation Performance assessment and evaluation is used by NGOs to generate data at various times during the life of the project. Information is provided on the extent to which predetermined University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 project‟s aims and objectives have been achieved (Ebrahim, 2003). While performance evaluation is written at the end of the project or funding stream, performance assessment is conducted on the continuous basis. Performance assessment and evaluation mechanisms are meant to meet donors‟ requirements for NGOs‟ accountability (Agyemang et al., 2009). 2.4.4 Social auditing According to Gonella, Pilling, & Zadek (1998: 21) social auditing is the process whereby NGO assesses and reports on its social performance and ethical behavior”. It combines the features of other accountability mechanisms and allows the views of a wide-range of stakeholders (beneficiaries, donors, and NGO officials) in order to facilitate the achievement of organization‟s goals and objectives. 2.4.5 Self-regulation Here, NGOs strive to develop “standards or codes that guide behaviour and performance” (Ebrahim, 2003: 819). This allows NGOs to exert control on their own internal operations in line with the host country‟s legal framework. 2.5 Beneficiary/ Downward Accountability (DA) of NGOs In this study, downward accountability of NGOs looks at the extent of the engagement of beneficiary communities in NGO-led development projects. Downward accountability is also known as Humanitarian accountability (HAP, 2010). The goal of DA is to release power from the NGOs to their clients by including them in the aid chain (Rahman, 2014). It is evident in literature that downward accountability of NGOs is rooted in the concepts of participation and empowerment (Kilby, 2006; Alex & Wilford, 2010; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2011; Andrews, 2014). Downward accountability stresses on the use of „participatory University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 approach‟ to evaluate NGOs effectiveness and efficiency by involving beneficiaries and or their representatives in project delivery (O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2011). Participatory approach dictates that NGOs engage their beneficiaries in the needs analysis through project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation as well as providing feedbacks. In effect, community-based, community-driven, and participatory approaches remain a priority for many in the field of international development (Andrews, 2014). Community participation theorists argue to the effect that community members develop a strong sense of ownership to development projects when they are made to participate in key decision making process in project planning, implementation and evaluation (Marks & Davis, 2012). While powerful actors ( donors, governments, and foundations) within NGOs accountability relationship can demand accountability from the implementing NGO, those lower the aid chain or less powerful ( beneficiaries) cannot easily demand same from the NGOs ( Alex & Wilford, 2010). Here, NGOs need to commit themselves to the dictates of „downward accountability‟ so as to release some of their powers to the beneficiaries through participatory approach to development. By so doing, their legitimacy would be strengthened in the face of the beneficiaries as well as their donors. 2.6 Downward Accountability and project effectiveness and efficiency NGOs and their funders have realized that in practice as well as in theory, accountability to beneficiaries has the potential to invigorate efficiency and effectiveness in development aid delivery (Ebrahim, 2005; Agyemang et al., 2009; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; Wellens & Jegers, 2014). In support of this view, O‟Dwyer and Unerman ( 2010) opines that Irish Non -governmental Development Organizations ( NGDOs) need to commit themselves to the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 dictates of DA if full utility of Rights–Based approach ( RBA), thus, (where beneficiaries have the rights to demand accountability from service providers) is to be realized as currently being strongly advocated by development NGOs. By so doing, NGOs become learning organizations, interacting and mutually learning with their beneficiaries and thereby developing deeper understandings of the aid delivery solutions that are likely to be most effective in practice in each aid situation (O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010). This point was well articulated by Agyemang et al., (2009) when they asserted that implementation of DA mechanisms will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of aid delivery in individual project by taking into account the views and experiences of those closest to the delivery of the aid. Unfortunately, some aspects of existing upward accountability mechanisms hinder the progress of downward accountability (Agyemang et al., (2009). Thus, in the midst of robotic reporting formats to donors, specific project requirements by donors, and no opportunity for beneficiaries to report directly to donors, NGOs rarely deliver projects to suit local conditions (Tagarirofa & Chazovachii, 2013; Rahman, 2012). Contributing to the debate, Flint and Natrup (2014) intimated that beneficiary involvement in NGO-led development projects from problem identification, planning, implementation to monitoring and evaluation produces greater efficiency, cost effectiveness, and value for money in service delivery. However, Tagarirofa and Chazovachii, (2013) and Rahman (2014) disclosed that non-involvement of the beneficiaries in the entire project cycle reduces NGOs‟ legitimacy, and subsequently threatens projects effectiveness and empowerment of beneficiaries. In another jurisdiction, Trivunovic (2011 p. 11) revealed that effective DA measures of NGOs to their beneficiaries have the “potential to reduce risks of NGOs University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 corruption” as well as optimizing efficiency and effectiveness of development oriented outcomes. However, a study conducted in the Ghanaian setting by Kanlisi and Aasoglenang (2014) to investigate the effectiveness of NGOs in poverty reduction revealed that beneficiaries of NGO-led projects are incapable of holding NGOs accountable in terms of corruption. This revelation was made when they posed a question as to whether or not beneficiaries would react when it was evident that an NGO was corrupt. Per the response, 5% did indicate they have no power to do so, 44% said they will report to the district assembly, 14% intimated that they will insist that the right thing was done, and 36% indicated that they will rather hold their leaders accountable. 2.7 Strategies for NGOS’ accountability to beneficiaries Strategies for NGOs‟ accountability consider the extent to which NGOs engage beneficiary communities in the entire project life cycle. 2.7.1 Participatory accountability at project planning or decision making stage Decision making or planning stage is the foundation of any development project, and proceeded by implementation and evaluation stages. The governing body of any organization including NGOs is the central point for decision making. Rahman (2014) reports that most often, beneficiaries are not represented in the governing body or the Executive Board or committee of NGOs. As a result, beneficiaries‟ participation at the decision making phase is very poor, and that beneficiaries are almost totally excluded from the decision making process (Rahman, 2014). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 According to Boon, Bawole and Ahenkan (2013), development projects are supposed to be designed and implemented by and for the people, however these stakeholders hold varied interests in community projects. As a result, stakeholder participation in community development projects is still a difficult task (Boon, Bawole & Ahenkan, 2013). The story is not different in NGO management. As intermediary organizations, NGOs respond to demands from donors, governments, and beneficiaries (LIoyd, 2005; Andrews, 2014). Though beneficiaries are the weakest in NGO-power relationship and are often neglected in decision making process, beneficiaries of NGO-led interventions wield non-economic resource (information) that may provide leverage for NGOs (Andrews, 2014). Besides, NGOs interventions come with projects that have definite life span, but their impacts are expected to be long lasting (Jalil, 2011). This bring to the fore the need to foster proactive engagement to empower beneficiaries to be able to own and sustain NGO-led interventions. Unfortunately, since beneficiaries depend solely on NGOs for support, they rarely hold NGOs accountable (Andrews, 2014; Agyemang et al., & O‟Dwyer, 2009; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010). Participation is a tool often used to produce accountability within aid projects (Haddad, Lindstrom & Pinto, 2010). Lindstrom and Pinto (2010) aver that beneficiaries need information about development projects as well as other services that are supposed to be rendered to them by service providers, so that they can be in position to hold NGOs accountable. This implies that beneficiaries need to have enough information on the full cost of the projects, the name and where the contractor is coming from, where the contractor stays during the implementation of the project, and other vital issues that could aid the community members to hold NGOs accountable. According to Arnstein (1969), citizen or University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 beneficiary participation in project planning starts with information about planned project being made available to the people through series of meetings or public hearings, surveys, or a formal dialogue on project options. At this level, consultations with community members get strengthened but the decision making power remains with the project planners (Arnstein, 1969). Agyemang et al., (2009) identified community participation and dialogue at the planning stage of a project. This ensures that NGO consults with beneficiaries before the start of the project. The chief traditionally uses drumming to summon all local community members for a meeting, and during which NGO officials attempt to assess the needs of community members (Agyemang et al., 2009). As a mechanism for downward accountability, participatory planning meeting is held separately for men and women to take varied views at the request of donors (Agyemang et al., 2009). Agyemang et al. (2009) revealed that practically, financial issues are not part of the agenda during participatory planning meetings. Beneficiaries are not privy to the cost of projects or the total amount of funds available for a specific project or programs (Agyemang et al., 2009). In an exceptional case however, NGO disclosed its finances to the beneficiaries though they were not being compelled to do so (Agyemang et al., 2009). This view was confirmed in literature when Andrews (2014) and Kilby (2006) reported in Mexico and India respectively that whilst some NGOs deserted their beneficiaries others stayed on and sought flexible funding because the beneficiaries demanded that NGOs‟ financial account be made available to them. Tagarirofa and Chazovachii (2013) revealed that NGOs come to the leaders of the communities, request for them to sign and authenticate documents to claim that community University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 members were duly consulted. NGOs are too powerful in the face of the poor beneficiaries, and are able to subvert and threaten local leadership with „exit‟ if they resist their request (Tagarirofa & Chazovachii, 2013). After problem identification through needs assessment, involvement of beneficiaries in other three stages of the project life cycle becomes a mere tokenism or sham participation or a formality (Tagarirofa & Chazovachii, 2013; Arnstein, 1969). In support of this view Cooke and Kothari (2001) concede that participation has been misconstrued by many with effect of creating false illusions of local community involvement and empowerment while at the same time reinforcing norms and existing power relations between the local people and implementing agents. The caveat here is that, for purpose of ownership, beneficiaries should be allowed to identify their own problem, design their own solutions and monitor and evaluate every activity as the project progresses without any hindrance, else NGOs risk building houses that people would not live in, since NGOs lack understanding on local peoples‟ needs (Congrave, 2006 as cited in Alex and Wilford, 2010: 800; Tagarirofa & Chazovachii, 2013). This view was conceded by Boon et al., (2013) in Ghana that community members abandoned toilet facilities, markets stalls, boreholes, classroom blocks, and other community level projects initiated by both central and local governments due to little or no stakeholder or beneficiary participation. 2.7.2 Participatory accountability at project implementation stage According to Arnstein (1969), project implementation phase sees actual or active involvement of citizens or beneficiaries in project-related activities, and may be in the form of community contributing labor as well as financial resources toward project implementation, and possibly in the maintenance of services or facilities. The rationale is that active involvement of citizens or beneficiaries in the phases of a project empowers them University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 to be able to exert greater control of local resources and development activities (Arnstein, 1969). This point was forcefully brought home by Boon et al., (2013:39) when they intimated that “proactively and systematically working towards improving the levels of participation in the various stages of a project, the outcomes are more likely to suit local circumstances, ensure community ownership, and increase the sustainability of a project, enhance societal harmony, and increase social learning”. In practice, beneficiaries are required to contribute labor during the implementation stage of project delivery (Agyemang et al., 2009). This point was noted by Domfeh & Bawole (2009) when they asserted that beneficiaries of a specific NGO-led project engage actively in projects such as potable water, health facilities and school buildings by providing communal labor towards their successful completion. Whilst some scholars argue that beneficiary participation in projects contribute significantly to speedy and successful implementation and completion of projects (Ofori, 2013; Chegu, 2013), others centrally revealed that beneficiary participation leads to waste of time, resources, and general delay in project delivery (Agyemang et al., 2009). Though several meetings and consultations must be held with beneficiaries which seem to be a waste of time, these consultations and engagements enhance project sustainability and ownership. 2.7.3 Participatory accountability at the project evaluation stage As the end users of NGO-led development projects, participatory accountability with beneficiaries is undertaken through beneficiaries‟ involvement in the monitoring and evaluation of projects (Agyemang et al., 2009). This is done by the facilitation of learning and reflection through participatory reviews. Proactive involvement of the beneficiaries during the planning and implementation stages would aid them to be able to ascertain the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 exact cost of a particular project. Similarly, “participatory accountability enables communities to identify and specify key performance indicators during planning stage of the new project, and to comment on the achievements of these performance indicators during the participatory review process at the evaluation stage” (Agyemang et al., 2009:28). However, the research conducted by Kanlisi and Aasoglenang (2014) revealed that community involvement in monitoring and evaluation of projects turns to be very low. This point was intimated by Tagarirofa and Chazovachii (2013) when they observed from their respondents that after the identification of problem, community participation in the subsequent phases of the project is nothing to write home about. Even where they are involved, they are not able to criticize NGOs during evaluation of projects (Agyemang et al., 2009). This may be fueled by the dominant view among NGOs that accountability to beneficiaries would weaken the ability of NGOs to be able to exert control over projects and programmes, thereby generating tensions, the recipe to deviate from their core mandate (Kilby, 2006). This may also be due to the acute poverty and resultant vulnerability of beneficiaries which create fear and prevent beneficiaries from questioning NGOs (Agyemang et al., 2009). In the midst of all these, interventions of NGOs are seen as a „favor‟ rather than obligation. As noted earlier, beneficiaries generally entertain fears that NGOs may exit from their community if they question or criticize NGOs. To increase the capacity of beneficiaries for effective participatory evaluation, community members must be given more information, duties and decision making powers at different project areas including the implementation and assessment (Burger, Dasgupta & Owens, 2014). Participation in project management shows beneficiary involvement in needs analysis, the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 planning or design and application of solutions, as well as monitoring and assessment of performance. 2.8 Obstacles to NGO accountability to beneficiaries In spite of the aforementioned utilities of DA in the delivery of NGO-led interventions, previous studies in NGO management suggest that DA is rhetorical and not real in practice (O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; Walsh, 2014; Tharapos & Sidaway, 2014; Tagarirofa & Chazovachii, 2013). Examining the effort of ActionAid to improving downward accountability through Accountability Learning and Planning Systems (ALPS) launched in 2000, Walsh (2014) identified the following operational obstacles that militated against ActionAid in her quest to implementing downward accountability: NGOs retention of control, power dynamics at community level, Trend-jumping by NGOs, and staff pressures and interests. O‟Dwyer and Unerman (2010) found that NGOs are not able to implement effective downward accountability as a result of insufficient NGO attention to oversight of downward accountability within locally–based partner NGOs, not allowing community members to take part in NGO governance, focusing on local elites who may or may not be representing the interest of the communities, and the notion that locally based partner NGOs do not need downward accountability. In another jurisdiction, Tagarirofa and Chazovachii, (2013) intimated that there is a strong perception being held by service providers that beneficiaries of NGO-led interventions are passive recipients of externally crafted models of development. Thus, power dynamics within and between the community members as well as preferential treatment of other tribal University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 groups by service providers, and intra group conflicts and bureaucracy are seen as factors hindering effective implementation of downward accountability to beneficiaries. 2.9 Theoretical review Participation is an effective mechanism through which beneficiaries can hold NGOs accountable (Ebrahim, 2003, Agyemang et al., 2009 & Rahman, 2014). Illuminating the importance of participatory approach in development, Boon et al., (2013: 194) intimated that participation “enhances egalitarian redistribution of power, resources and democratization of the political process at both national and local level”. It is for this and other reasons that Ebrahim (2003) asserted that any work on community participation in development projects must examine different levels of participation. It is against this background that this study sought to examine some theories of stakeholder participation which would invariably give the study theoretical foundation. These are: Arstein‟s ladder of citizens‟ participation, Vernooy‟s framework of participation, and Sarah White‟s typology of participatory approach and meanings of participation for stakeholders. Arstein‟s ladder of citizen engagement gives the levels at which community members could be involved in projects and programmes and their power dynamics. Vernooy‟s framework gives a clear understanding of who maintains decision making power at every level of engagement. Whit‟s typology explains the reason behind such engagement processes and what it means to the various stakeholders. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 2.9.1 Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen’s participation Sherry Arstein‟s much touted framework of citizen‟s participation has provided a blue print for community development practitioners and researchers. His ladder of participation is shown below: Table 1: Adopted from Arsntein (1969) ladder of citizen Participation. Degree of citizen control Degree of Tokenism Non participation In her work, Arstein asserted that stakeholder participation in development projects is not a one off events but occurs in a continumm. The therapy and manipulation rungs ( stages of non-participation), placation, consultation, and informing rungs ( show degree of tokenism), and citizen control, delegated power and partnership ( degree of citizen control). Citizen control Delegated power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 Box 1. Summarized explanation of Arnstein’s ( 1969) rungs of participation. Manipulation and Therapy: These rungs represent the levels of non-participation. The rationale is not to engage beneficiaries in planning and conducting programs but to allow power holders to “educate” or “cure” participants. The manipulation stage allows duty bearers to place participants on “rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards where people sign to give power holders pre-determined decisions” ( Rahman, 2014). Rahman expanded that in therapy form, the participants are requested to come with a complain, which is treated as participants weaknesses instead of identifying the root cause of problems and their solutions. Informing and Consultation: Rungs 3 and 4 represents the levels of “tokenism” that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice. Though information is given and opinions of participants are sought, Arstein is of the view that the participants lack the power to ensure that their views are considered. As a result, the status quo is maintained. Placation, the 5th rung is the higher level of tokenism as the set rules allow the participants or have-not to advice but the right to decide is still the preserve of power holders. Partnership: The partnership rung allows decisions to be made through the collaborative effort of both the have-nots and the power holders. Power is redistributed through negotiation and responsibilities are shared between the participants and the power holders. Partnership rung becomes more effective when the beneficiary community has organized power structure in the community as well as financial resources to pay committee members. Delegated power: Delegated power allows the beneficiaries to gain dominance over some decisions. As a result of negotiation, participants now have greater control over decisions regarding projects and programs. Citizenship control: In this rung, citizens lead the entire development agenda. Thus, participants have greater control and demand power over policy and managerial aspect of the organization. Participants demand for control over programs and projects. Though Arnstein‟s theory is criticized for over simplification of the reality, it enlightens us on different levels of participation. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 2.9.2 Vernooy (2005) framework of participation Vernooy‟s phenomenal work on participation details who participates and who decides about what, when and how. The framework is shown below: Table 2: Adapted from Vernooy (2005) as modified by Boon et al., (2013). Types of participation Key features Contractual One stakeholder has sole decision- making power over most decisions. Stakeholder defines role for others. Others formally and informally “contracted” to provide services and support. Consultative Most key decisions made by one stakeholder Stakeholder consults and gathers information from others. Other stakeholders help identify constraints and opportunities, priority setting and / evaluation Collaborative Different stakeholders collaborate Stakeholders deemed equally important Stakeholder linkage through knowledge sharing Sharing of decision-making power during the innovation process. Collegiate Stakeholders work together as colleagues or partners Ownership and responsibility are equally distributed Decisions made by consensus or agreement by all actors. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 2.9.3 White’s (1996) typology of participation Sarah White‟s approach to participation explained the types of participation and the benefits it accrues to the various stakeholders. Table 3: Adapted from White (1996) participation interest. Form Meaning of participation to the NGO Meaning of participation to the beneficiaries Why participation? Nominal Legitimation – to prove that something is being done. Beneficiaries think that they stand to benefit from the programme through their participation A showcase Instrumental Efficiency – to reduce projects‟ cost through beneficiaries‟ provision of physical labor. Community members spend their resources on projects and programmes. A mechanism to attain cost- effectiveness in NGO-led interventions. Representative Sustainability – the rational is to do away with dependency syndrome. Leverage – the beneficiaries would be able to determine how they want the facility to look like. To ensure that development is community led. To also ensure sustainability of NGO-led interventions Transformative Empowerment – the capacities of the community members are built for them to make major decisions Empowerment – Beneficiaries have decisive role in service delivery. A means to ensure effective participation. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 2.10 Conceptual framework The operationalization of the conceptual framework for this study was guided by the concept of participation. Although several frameworks are proposed for analyzing participation, this study adopts a combination of Arnstein (1969), Vernooy (2005), and White (1969) frameworks of participation due to different participatory activities and interests adopted at each stage of the project by the NGO. Arnstein‟s framework was able to explain the extent of beneficiaries‟ involvement at project planning and evaluation stages, but could not explain the engagement of beneficiaries at the implementation stage. The reason being that at implementation stage, NGOs actively engage beneficiaries (exploit beneficiaries‟ free labor) as a strategy to achieve project cost-effectiveness. Hence, White‟s participatory interest framework was found useful for analyzing the extent of beneficiary involvement at project implementation stage. Vernooy‟s framework was used to explain power relationship between the NGO and beneficiaries at the various stages of the project. The detailed description is shown the table 4 below: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 Table 4: Author‟s own construction (combination of Arnstein, Vernooy, and White framework of participation and their implications for downward accountability of the NGO). 2.10.1 Operationalization of the framework In order to ascertain the extent to which beneficiaries were involved in NGO-led interventions, key participatory activities or elements were identified at each stage of the project phase based on the literature review. Literature suggests that NGOs go to beneficiary communities with pre- decided goals and objectives (Rahman, 2014; Tagarirofa & Chazovachii, 2013). Other scholars also disclosed that as a result of poverty, powerlessness, and resultant vulnerability, Project phases Elements of project phases Arnstein (1969) Vernooy (2005) White (1996) Planning Stage Needs analysis Preparation of Action plan Information disclosure Meetings and feedbacks Committees Placation Consultation Informing manipulation Contractual Consultation Legitimation Implementa tion Stage Materials Physical labor Welfare services Finance Contractual Consultative Instrumental Evaluation Stage Participatory reviews Monitoring and evaluation team Management activities Informing Contractual Consultative University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 beneficiaries are not able to demand accountability from NGOs (Agyemang et. al., 2009; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; Tagarirofa & Chazovachii, 2013). For the precise analysis of downward accountability of the NGO, the participatory approaches were applied to the various phases of the project as shown in table 4 above. Consequently, the involvement of beneficiaries in any NGO-led projects would reveal the degree of tokenism (placation, consultation, informing, and manipulation) and non- participation (manipulation) rungs of Arnstein‟s (1969) ladder of participation at the planning stage. The engagement of beneficiaries at the planning stage is expected to further reveal consultative, contractual, and legitimation levels of Vernooy (2005) and White (1996) approaches respectively. Thus, the NGO maintains decision making process, set rules for behaviour, and minimally consult with the beneficiaries to meet donors‟ requirements of beneficiaries‟ involvement. Literature suggests that beneficiaries‟ involvement in NGO-led projects is relatively high at the implementation stage (Rahman, 2014; Agyemang et al., 2009), but quite exploitative as the NGOs usually use community members‟ free labor to achieve project cost-effectiveness. This reveals instrumental level of White‟s (1996) framework of participation interest. However, NGOs maintain decision making powers. The application of participatory approaches at the evaluation stage shows informing, contractual, and consultative stages of Arnsten (1969) and Vernooy (2005) theories respectively. Thus, NGOs usually hold durbars in communities to commission projects (Agyemang et al., 2009). Also, NGOs only inform beneficiaries about the completion of projects. However, participatory meetings, a tool for enhancing downward accountability of NGOs are not held to rigorously review the success of projects. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 As a result of poverty, powerlessness, and resultant vulnerability of beneficiaries of NGO- led projects, NGOs usually deny beneficiaries the opportunity to be actively involved in the determination of services that directly affect them. Consequently, the full realization of downward accountability of NGOs may be derailed, as participation has not reach a point where beneficiaries are able to negotiate with the NGOs for decision making, and take control of their own development. Thus, active involvement of beneficiaries as articulated by Arnstein (1969), Vernooy (2005), and White (1996) where beneficiaries become sole drivers of their own development are not fully realized. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction This section presents the philosophical assumptions that guided the conduct of this study, and the methodology that was used to collect and analyze data on the phenomenon under discussion. The study looked at the extent to which WVG engages beneficiary communities in project planning/ design, implementation, and evaluation in Saboba District. The chapter specifically covers the research method, the study area profile, the sampling techniques, research instruments, the data collection process and the analyses procedure, and ethical consideration. 3.1 Research Paradigm A paradigm is “a set of beliefs, values and techniques which is shared by members of a scientific community, and which acts as a guide or map, dictating the kinds of problems scientists should address and the types of explanations that are acceptable to them” ( Kuhn, 1970: 175). It is a worldview that shapes the practice and conduct of a qualitative research (Creswell, 2003). Hence, it is “a basic set of beliefs that guide action” (Guba, 1990:17). Creswell (2003), identified four worldviews or philosophical assumptions that shape the practice and conduct of a research; positivism, constructivism/interpretive, advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism. The research paradigm that guided the conduct and practice of this study was the constructivism/interpretive research orientation. In this philosophical assumption or worldview, individuals develop „subjective meanings‟ of their experiences and seek University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35 „understanding‟ of the world in which they „live and work‟ (Creswell, 2003). To Creswell, these meanings are “varied and multiple” which challenges the researcher to make decisions on the complexity of views. The aim of constructionism/interpretive assumption is to allow the researcher to make decisions based on the participant‟s views of the phenomena (Creswell, 2003). The focal point of constructionist is the context in which people live and work in order to understand the „„historical and cultural settings‟‟ of the participants, and recognize that their own background shapes their interpretation. Whereas positivism is premised on the assumption that there is an objective truth to be discovered, the proponents of constructionism opposed this and argue that “truth, or meanings comes into existence in our engagement with the realities of the world…Meaning is not discovered, but socially constructed” (Crotty, 1998:9). The constructionism/interpretive assumption fitted into this study to the extent that it enabled the researcher to make meaning out of NGOs downward accountability to beneficiaries based on the beneficiaries‟ cultural setting and the meanings they associate with the phenomenon. 3.2 Research Approach The focus of constructionism/interpretive philosophical assumption on different understandings of individual actions and the significance of culture and context, leads naturally to qualitative research approach. The qualitative research is deemed appropriate to this study in that it does not seek out for a general or universal truth or test a particular hypothesis but sought to construct meaning out of people‟s experiences in their natural and cultural setting. This enabled the researcher to do in-depth analysis on how NGOs involved their beneficiaries in the planning, implementation and evaluation of water project. Denzin and Lincoln (2005: 3) concedes this and summarize that “Qualitative researchers study University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 36 things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them”. NGOs accountability is a complex and intricate phenomenon. Literature seems to conclude that downward accountability to beneficiary is rhetorical rather than real. It is against this background that the researcher interacted with the beneficiaries of NGO-led interventions in their natural settings through face-to-face questions to be able to establish the extent to which NGOs are accountable to them (community members) throughout the entire project life cycle. According to Creswell (2007), qualitative study is employed by researchers for varied reasons. These are: the need to explore complex issues by allowing participants to tell their own stories, the need to identify variables that can be measured through the study of a group or population, and to empower participants to share their views, hear their voices, and reduce the power relations that often exist between the researcher and the participants. The others are the need to understand the context in which participants in the study address a problem, and the intention is not for generalization, but to interpret issues based on their historical and cultural settings. These features of a qualitative research justified why I selected qualitative method as a research regime that guided the conduct of this study. 3.3 Research Design The research design suitable for this study is a case study. A case study allows the researcher to explore a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (observations, interviews, audio-visual materials, documents, and reports), and report a case description and case-based themes (Creswell, 2007). Yin (2009:16) defines a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 37 real life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”. Two key features of Yin‟s definition justify why I selected the case study as appropriate to my research questions. Case study research emphasizes on depth which is important for my study as the researcher sought to find out the extent to which the NGO engages its beneficiaries in service delivery. As illuminated by Casley & Lury (1981: 62), “depth is a key strength of a case study”. Literature has not delved deeply into Downward Accountability of NGOs in a specific NGO setting. Hence, in-depth study is required to make room for the exploration of the complex issues. Again, Yin‟s emphasis on the importance of the context surrounding a case, and its influence on the participants deem appropriate for this study as the settings of the participants was relevant for this study. The main criticism of a case study research is that it is “not generalizable, in that one case is not necessarily representative of a larger set of cases” (Welsh, 2014: 39). According to Creswell (2007), establishing a boundary for a case or cases for study is also a challenge. Being mindful of these challenges, the study investigated mainly NGOs‟ downward accountability to beneficiaries and the results were specific to the cultural and natural settings of the participants under the study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 38 3.4 The study area profile Figure 1: Saboba District in National Context GHANA MAP SABOBA DISTRICT MAP Legend: Research Communities Source: Saboba District Assembly University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 39 Saboba district is located in the north eastern part of the Northern Region of Ghana. The district shares boundaries with Gusheigu district to the west, Yendi Municipality to the south–west, Chereponi district to the north, Zabzugu and Tatale districts to the south and River Oti to the east which serves as the international boundary N an N. The landmass of the district is about 1,100km2 (Saboba District Assembly Composite Budget, 2014). The district has a total population of 65,706 people (Ghana Statistical Service Report, 2014). The female population constituted 50.4% and that of the male population was 49.6% (2010 PHC). The rainfall pattern of the district is generally single maximal with the average annual rainfall between 1,000mm and 1,400mm as the district is located within savannah climatic belt. The district records high rainfall from May to October. However, most parts of the district get flooded during the peak seasons (between July and September) and after which there is a protracted dry season from November to April. At the peak of the rainy season, the district is usually cut off from others as a result of flooding. The network of roads is in a deplorable state throughout the district. 3.5 Overview of operational areas of the NGO in Saboba District There are four NGOs operating in Saboba district namely: the World Vision Ghana (WVG), School for life, Integrated Development Centre (IDC), and IBIS. The WVG has operated in the district for close to twelve (12) years now. The district is divided into four area councils: Saboba area council, Wapuli area council, Kpalba area council, and Demon area council. In other to ensure that the resources of the organization are not spread all over the district, WVG limited its programmes to Kpalba and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 40 Saboba area councils (known as programme impact areas) where the NGO can make impact. Initially, Wapuli area council was covered but was later disengaged and concentrated on Kpalba and Saboba area councils. WVG has been operating in Saboba District since 2003. It has rolled out programmes in the areas of education, livelihood and economic empowerment, integrated Health, sponsorship management, and food security (e.g. bee keeping, livestock rearing or small ruminant, rabbit farming etc.) and resilience (eg. disaster mitigation, irrigation, dry season gardening, tree planting and greening etc.) The organization also engages in WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) programme in the district. The rationale is to focus on access to water in order to improve the sanitation situation in the district. The activities involve drilling to find out point sources, dugout wells, and rain water harvesting. School children are engaged in the school health programmes to be able to properly handle water and hygiene issues in their respective schools. Besides, communities are facilitated through Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) to be able to initiate and implement their own sanitation programmes. The mechanized system in Saboba Township was established way back in 1970s. In 1995, it was expanded and rehabilitated to its current status. Before the rehabilitation, it was under Ghana Water and Sewage Cooperation. However, a law was enacted in 1990 empowering communities to be in charge of Rural Water System (RWS). The system was then handed over as the community water under Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA). The district assembly then constituted a board to manage the system. As a result of an increase in population, extreme pressure is brought on the mechanized system and that explains the perennial water challenges the district is undergoing. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 41 The WVG has implemented limited mechanization water system in five (5) main communities in Saboba district in the past four (4) years. These communities are: Sanguli, Konkonzoli, Kpalba, Kujooni, and Lifuur. These communities as at the time of this study were not connected to the national grid, and hence the decision to power the project with solar energy. NGOs do not engage in any formal registration with Saboba District Assembly (SDA). At best, NGOs sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the district assembly detailing the programmes they would like to carry out in the district. In the MOU, the district only ensures that programmes of the NGOs are designed in line with the district‟s long term development plan. In effect, when an NGO is operating in education sector, their activities are expected to be monitored by the District Education Directorate, if in health sector, their activities are expected to be monitored by the District Health Directorate, and the same applies to other sectors in the district. The District Planning and Coordinating Office (DPCO) are also in charge of monitoring all developmental projects in the district. In the area of water and sanitation, there is a WASH or WASAN committee members in charge of monitoring water and sanitation progrmmes in the various communities. As part of the effort to be accountable to the beneficiaries, World Vision (Ghana and International) is guided by a core value: “Our pledge is to be accountable, effective and efficient for the children and communities we serve…” To achieve this value, the field officers are expected to implement the following participatory approaches: Citizens Voice and Action (CVA) Learning through Accountability and Evaluation Programme (LEAP), the use of participatory Rural Approach tools (PRA), and hotline for the beneficiaries to be able to call and make complaints. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 42 3.6 Target and study population This study sought for reliable information to make conclusion that reflected the reality on the ground. The target population for this study was the staffs of the organization (WVG) and the beneficiary communities in which WVG has rolled out limited mechanized water project in the district. 3.7 Sampling technique (s) and procedure Two sampling techniques were employed in this study. These are: Convenience and Purposive sampling techniques. Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique which entails the selection of subjects due to their accessibility and/or closeness to the researcher (Creswell, 2008). Northern Ghana has since been a hub for both international and local NGOs with the aim of bridging development gap between the north and the south (Andrews, 2014). These NGOs have implemented similar projects across districts, including Saboba district. Hence, Saboba district was conveniently selected for this study. Again, conducting rural research requires that the researcher understands the local language or uses research assistants who understand the local language. Saboba district was selected because language was not a problem. Though there are other NGOs in the district, WVG was conveniently selected because it has rolled out programmes across the district. The organization has implemented water project extensively in most of the communities. Also, WVG has a well-established office with permanent staff that made it easier for data collection. The five beneficiary communities were conveniently selected because they were the only communities in the district, in which WVG implemented limited mechanization water University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 43 project. Hence, the limited mechanization water project in these communities presented a unique feature for the study. Purposive sampling was used to select respondents for this study. The three senior officials (local manager, officer in charge of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, and the finance officer) of the NGO were selected purposively because they are directly involved in the implementation of projects in the district. Hence, they wield vital information as regards the NGO‟s accountability to the beneficiaries. The district respondent was purposively selected because he superintends community development projects in the district, and provided vital information for the study. The assembly members, chiefs or community Heads, youth leaders, and women leaders in each of the five beneficiary communities were also selected purposively because they represent and or speak on behalf of their respective communities on developmental issues. The data reflected only the views of community members who were present during the implementation of the project. 3.8 Data gathering instruments The instruments used for data collection for this research were face-to-face interviews and FGDs. This afforded the respondents the opportunity to express their opinions on the extent to which they (beneficiaries) are involved in the NGO-led project. Interviews are considered appropriate qualitative research data collection instruments (Myers & Newman 2007; Talmy 2010; Mann 2011) and deemed appropriate for this study as it is used to investigate the experiences of people in their natural settings. The interviews were semi-structured and modified to suit the diversity of the respondents. Whilst interviews with staffs of the NGO and the District Assembly officer in charge of Water and Sanitation were conducted in University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 44 English, that of community key respondents were conducted in local language (Konkomba). The interviews were all recorded and the notes were also taken alongside. The face-to-face interviews lasted for 45 minutes each. The local language versions were transcribed personally and used for the analysis. Both primary and secondary data were sourced for this research. The primary source of data was collected through interviews from five beneficiary communities of NGO-led interventions. Primary data was again collected from official (s) of the NGO, and the District Assembly. The secondary sources of data included articles, reports, conferences, seminars, and other documents on downward accountability of NGOs. 3.9 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Five FGDs were organized in the study communities (one in each community). The FGDs were made up of six (6) members (three men and three women). Water and Sanitation (WASAN) Committee members were used for FGDs. Hence, useful information was provided about the extent of engagement of community members by the NGO in project delivery. However, effort to hold separate meetings for men and women could not materialize because of the belief among community members that women are not allowed to talk to strangers in the absence of their husbands. The FGDs were conducted in local language (Konkomba) and lasted for an hour each. The discussions were tape recorded and notes were also taken alongside. The recorded versions were transcribed personally and used for the analysis. 3.10 Sample size A total of 21 informants were interviewed for this study. Initially, nineteen (19) respondents were targeted. However, the number increased to twenty-one (21) during the data collection University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 45 as it became necessary to interview the officer in charge of district water and sanitation. Also, one other assembly member was interviewed because the five communities are spread in two electoral areas. Hence, the total sample size included three institutional respondents, two assembly members, three community leaders (Chiefs or community Heads, youth leaders, and women leaders) from each of the five communities, the district officer in charge of water and sanitation, and five FGDs. The summary of the respondents are shown below: Table 5: Summary of respondents CATEGORY MALE RESPONDENTS FEMALE RESPONDENTS FGDs TOTAL SANGULI 2 1 6 9 KONKONZOLI 3 1 6 10 KPALBA 3 1 6 10 KUJOONI 2 1 6 9 LIFUR 2 1 6 9 STAFFS OF NGO 2 1 - 3 DISTRICT ASS. RESPONDENT 1 - - 1 GRAND TOTAL 15 6 30 51 Source: Author’s own construction 3.11 Data management and analysis The result or data was analysed qualitatively. Recordings from the interview session as well as FGDs were transcribed and analysed. The content analysis and interpretation of data became the analysis regime that guided the researcher. The new themes were carefully analysed and interpreted. The primary data was used to confirm or contradict the literature on the downward accountability of the NGO. The classification of the data collected was in accordance with the themes on the interview guide. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 46 CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSES AND DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS 4.0 Introduction This chapter presents analyses and discusses the findings of the data generated through in- depth interviews and focus group discussions on the beneficiaries‟ involvement in NGO-led project in Saboba District of the Northern Region of Ghana. The data addresses the following research questions: First, to what extent are beneficiaries involved in the planning stage of NGO NGO-led interventions? Second, to what extent does the NGO engage community members at project implementation stage? Third, how are beneficiaries involved in the evaluation stage of NGO-led development project? The data analyses and the discussions of findings were based on the following thematic areas: participatory accountability at planning stage, participatory accountability at implementation stage, and participatory accountability at evaluation stage. The analyses for each of the areas were based on sub-themes as they emerged during data collection. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 47 4.1 Participatory accountability at planning stage The data gathered from the field revealed the following Participatory activities at the planning stage of the water project: Figure 2: Activities participatory accountability at planning stage: Source: Author’s own construction, 2015 4.1.1 Needs analysis or assessment A community project that reflects the traditional aspirations and needs of the beneficiaries would enable them to comment on its success or otherwise. The data gathered from the field revealed that the interventions of the NGO are demand-driven. That is, the organization animated potential beneficiaries to identify their own need and make a demand. In the case of the water project, the NGO encouraged communities to identify water as a need and send an application to the District Assembly (DA). The DA then prioritizes the applications and forwards the list to the NGO. This view was captured in an interview below: Information Needs analysis Meetings Contributions Participatory Accountability at planning stage Committees Action plan University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 48 We make sure that our interventions are demand driven and that is the core principle for sustainability. People do not see intervention as their own; they turn to consider the interventions as yours no matter what you do. A community should meet and say that they need water and since the district Assembly is the goal owner, they write to the district assembly (interview with NGO staff, 2015) What goes into the prioritization of the applications at the District Assembly? The respondent replied: We don’t just go ahead to approve a community upon receipt of the application. The District Assembly prioritizes the applications based on the pressing needs of various communities. When community A brought their application first before community B, we assess the needs of the two, and settle on the one that urgently need the intervention (District Assembly respondent, 2015). However, data gathered from the staffs of the NGO disclosed that for the purpose of ownership and sustainability, a community was considered for an intervention when it shows signs of cooperation, ownership, and willingness to sustain an NGO-led intervention. The respondent intimated: In our animation, we want to be sure that they have really started the process themselves. We want to be sure that there are systems and structures that support the sustainability of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 49 our interventions. We are looking at whether or not the people are cooperative and work together as one people. If those parameters are not there, there is no way that they can support an intervention that is community based. We also look at their willingness to participate and ownership. By ownership, we mean that they should be able to own the process and not somebody somewhere imposing it on them. They should be able to contribute a minimum amount of 500 Ghana cedis in their account which would be used to maintain the facility (an interview with NGO staff, 2015). These assertions were corroborated by responses ascertained from the community leaders and FGDs. The key respondents and FGDs from the various communities reported that they met, constituted a committee, agreed, and contributed a minimum amount of five hundred (500) Ghana cedis together with an application letter to the District Assembly. An account was opened and the money was deposited to prove that the communities were capable of managing the facility. One of the community respondents disclosed: Before the NGO came to our community, we didn’t have good drinking water. Guinea worm and other water related diseases were worrying us. Teachers and nurses came and run away from us because of water. We used to walk a long distance before we could get water. So, we met and contributed some money and sent an application to the DA (interview with women leader, 2015). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 50 The NGO sought to deepen downward accountability to beneficiaries by making its interventions demand-driven. The aim is to ensure that community members are able to own the entire project process by having a say in the interventions that directly affect them. However, the need assessment in the studied communities was done in accordance with the criteria set by the NGO which eventually limited its effectiveness as downward accountability tool. Again, NGOs receive specific funds for specific project with a specific time span; as a result, little room was given to the beneficiaries to decide on different needs rather than the one the NGO was ready to provide. The needs analysis in the studied communities is contrary to the findings of Agyemang et al., (2009) in some parts of northern Ghana. Agyemang et al., (2009) discovered that meetings were summoned in the communities by the chiefs (through drumming) and the two parties (NGOs and beneficiaries) agreed on the needs of the beneficiary communities. However, this study found that the beneficiaries alone met and settled on their needs and wrote application to the District Assembly. Unfortunately, the communities were expected to meet some requirements set by the NGO and this has limited the effectiveness of the needs assessment process. Though the study areas are the same (northern Ghana) the reasons for the variations in findings may be due to the projects in question. There is a legal requirement (Community Water and Sanitation Agency‟s Act 564) in Ghana that the provision of community water must be demand-driven. Again, water project is capital intensive and demands communities‟ commitment and ownership. Hence, the imposition of the facility on the beneficiaries may affect its sustainability. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 51 4.1.2 Preparation of the project’s action plan Interviews with the staffs of the NGO revealed that beneficiaries lacked expertise in the mechanized water system, and could not contribute to the formulation of the action plan. This view was captured below: Beneficiaries were not consulted in the formulation of action plan or objectives because they are not educated and lacked technical expertise in mechanized system; hence, they cannot contribute to the formulation of the action plan for the water project (interview with the NGO staff, 2015). The responses from the community leaders and FGDs confirmed that the views of the beneficiaries were not sought in the preparation of the action plan as well as projects‟ goals and objectives. Community members could not also tell why they were not consulted during the formulation of project‟s goals and objectives. The respondent intimated thus: After we had submitted our application to the district assembly, we were there and they (NGO) sent people to inform us that they were ready to come and start the water project. We didn’t know what went into the planning (interview with a chief, 2015). The exclusion of beneficiaries from the formulation of the action plan (including goals and objectives of the project) has negative implications for the subsequent stages of the project‟s life cycle. The downward accountability of the NGO becomes mere rhetoric and sham ritual rather than purposeful engagement with the communities as the NGO maintained decision making power and set over all agenda. Hence, beneficiaries are not empowered to take major decisions on their own. This may account for one of the reasons why beneficiaries University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 52 continue to make persistent demands on the NGO instead of owning the process themselves. The respondent lamented thus: Everyday community members keep calling us (NGO) with so many complains. Whilst some complain about leaked overhead tanks, others report about spoilt solar panel, burst pipelines and others (interview with the staff of the NGO, 2015). This finding confirms Rahman‟s (2014) study conducted in Bangladesh that the action plan as well as projects‟ goals and objectives were decided long before NGOs got into the communities. To Rahman, beneficiaries were not represented in the governing body or Executive Committee of the studied NGOs which happened to be the focal point of decision making. Interview with the respondents as well as analysis of the governing body/ Executive board/ committee of the case study NGO revealed no beneficiary representation. This point was forcefully brought home by Agyemang et al., (2009: 28) when they reported that the “overall agenda are largely being set by the NGOs”. 4.1.3 Information disclosure Information is a powerful resource. NGOs are supposed to be transparent by disclosing vital and accurate information on programmes and activities to beneficiaries during the design stage for efficient participatory. Though the views of the beneficiaries were not sought in the formulation of the action plan for the project, it was prudent to ascertain from the beneficiaries the extent to which relevant information (regarding the objectives of the project, the cost and sources of funding) were disclosed to them. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 53 Objectives The institutional responses suggest that the objectives of the project were made known to the beneficiaries during the first meeting held in the various communities. The role of the NGO and the beneficiaries were clearly defined. This view was confirmed in an interview with the community leaders as well as FGDs. This was what a community member had to say: In the meetings, we were told that they have responded to our request to give us water. So, we needed to support them by contributing something in the form of labor and others. They added that the water would eliminate a lot of water related diseases that we were suffering from (interview with youth leader). The FGDs corroborate thus: We were told that they (NGO) had also realized that there were a lot of water related diseases such as guinea worm, typhoid, diarrhea and others. But before we are given the facility they wanted to be sure that we would be able to handle it after they have left the district. So, we needed to contribute a minimum amount of 500 cedis and must be able to constitute a WASH committee, the membership of which should be drawn from the various sections of the community, and the community must have a united front (FGDs, 2015). It was however clear from the responses of the beneficiaries that although objectives of the projects were formulated long before the NGO consulted the beneficiaries, these objectives University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 54 were clearly made known to the communities members. But really, there was no disagreement (especially from the beneficiaries‟ point of view) over the pre-decided objectives. The community members seem to be satisfied with the objectives without any question. This may explain the extreme vulnerability and weak negotiating position that beneficiaries often consider themselves in NGO-power relations. This may be fueled by the belief that beneficiaries stand the risk of losing the benefits of NGO-led interventions if they attempt to criticize the NGO. This notion may hinder the full realization of downward accountability benefits. The beneficiary respondent solemnly disclosed: Let me tell you that we don’t have and somebody came to help us. Who are we to challenge him? (Interview with the chief, 2015). Financial disclosure The data discovered that disclosure of financial issues to the beneficiaries has no debilitating effects on the operations of the NGO as a donor funded organization. This is what an interviewee had to say: No, I don’t think that we are secret organization. Let me put on record that discussing financial issues with the communities would not have any debilitating effect on the operations of the NGO. If you know that it costs the organization 80 thousand dollars to put up a project, you would then ask yourself what is my contribution? But if you don’t tell them they think that it is just some 5 cedis University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 55 something after all. We even tell them the pain we go through to secure funding for our interventions (staff of the NGO, 2015). All respondents from the various communities confirmed that the NGO did mention to them the total cost of the projects and where the funds are gotten from. However, they could not mention the exact figure or express it in their local language, but used hand gestures to portray the quantum of money involved. This view was reflected in an interview below: We were told that it costs them (NGO) a lot of money to put up the facility, hence, we should complement their effort by keeping our surroundings clean. (Interview with the chief, 2015). The FGDs corroborated thus: Is about four years now since the project was established. We have forgotten the exact cost that was mentioned, but we were told that a lot of money had been pumped into the mechanized water project, and so the facility should be handled with care and support them when we are called to do something (FGDs, 2015). The disclosure of relevant information as regards the objectives and the cost of the project to the community members is a powerful participatory tool to ensure efficient downward accountability of the NGO. However, the exclusion of beneficiaries from decision making amidst poverty and resultant vulnerability of beneficiaries thwarted the effective engagement of beneficiaries by the NGO. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 56 The disclosure of objectives to the beneficiaries appear to be cosmetic and seem to confirm Arnstein‟s (1969) argument that participation becomes merely tokenistic when beneficiaries are just informed about projects‟ goals and objectives, but are not empowered to demand accountability from the duty bearers. This also confirms Agyemang et al., (2009) finding that most often beneficiaries are not able to negotiate with NGOs for decision making due to powerlessness and acute poverty. The disclosure of financial matters to beneficiaries contradicts the dominant view in literature that financial issues are not discussed in meetings with beneficiaries (Agyemang et al., 2009; Andrews, 2014). However, in an exceptional case, Andrews (2014) disclosed that beneficiaries in Mexico demanded full disclosure of financial accounts from NGOs. As a result, some NGOs deserted their beneficiaries, but others stayed on and sought other sources of funding because donors stopped funding for breach of trust (Andrews, 2014). Although formal financial disclosures (such as monthly or yearly reports) are not made known to the beneficiaries, this study revealed that the NGO disclosed specific projects cost ad funding sources to the community members. 4.1.4 Meetings/contributions The responses from the staffs of the NGO and community members suggest that the NGO held several meetings with beneficiaries in the various communities. Whilst some of the meetings were held with the community leaders, others were held with Water Committee (WASAN) members. It was further discovered that most of the meetings were held with the partner organization (as limited mechanization water project was undertaken through partners). The meetings were held weekly, monthly or yearly. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 57 In the meetings, both men and women were combined. However, there were „intentional meetings‟ to separate men from women such that the views of women could be captured since the water project concerns women most. Unfortunately, women refused to talk in the meetings without the presence of their husbands on the reason that they would be accused by their husbands of divulging information to strangers. This is reflected in an interview below: We held several meetings with community leaders. All meetings were held with the beneficiaries in their various communities. Though both men and women were mixed, there were some intentional meetings where women were separated from men to ensure freer discussions. Unfortunately, women refused to talk until their husbands came because they felt that men knew what was good for them, and would be accused of divulging information to strangers (staff of NGO, 2015). The above assertion was corroborated by responses ascertained from the community leaders and FGDs. This was what an interviewee had to say: As for this mechanized water project, several meetings were held with us as leaders as well as committee members or with the ‘Whiteman’ (the contractor or partner organization). Both men and women were mixed in the meetings, but we the women didn’t like the idea that we should be separated. Our husbands know what is good for us. They (men) would accuse us of disclosing information to strangers (women leader, 2015) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 58 The data further discovered that issues such as project‟s goals and objectives, beneficiaries‟ contributions towards the project, siting of the project, and the likes dominated discussions in community level meetings. The meetings were quite interactive as the beneficiaries were given the opportunity to speak to issues. However, the ground rules governing the discussions in the planning meetings were set and facilitated by the NGO or partner organization. The siting of the project generated a lot of disagreement among community members. The households in the various communities are widely scattered, and so they (households) wanted the project to be sited closer to their homes. This posed a serious issue for the NGO or partner organization to manage during planning meetings. However, the choice of the project and the nature of the technology were used as the basis by the NGO to build consensus among community members. A respondent intimated: They communities showed us the areas that they (community) think we could get water. They told us that there used to be or there is still cemetery here and nobody will drink water from that place. There are our ancestral gods here and others. You know, the communities are widely scattered, and so they all wanted the facility to be sited closer to their homes. We animated them for them to know that the survey would tell where our hydrologists would find water (NGO staff, 2015). Interviews with community leaders as well as FGDs confirmed the above assertion. A community respondent disclosed: The siting of the project was decided by the NGO. Though they consulted us and we showed them where we wanted the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 59 facility to be located, they said they could not guarantee us that the facility would be sited as we demanded. According to them, they would use their machine to locate water. We only showed them our sacred places (shrine, cemetery, gods etc). After their survey, the then came to us and told us that they had found water large enough for mechanization (youth leader, 2015). The beneficiary communities seemed to be satisfied with the siting of the Water project due to the choice of the technology which is beyond human intervention. However, the data discovered that one of the chiefs disagreed with the NGO over the location of an overhead water tank. The NGO therefore avoided discussions with the chief in that community and rather dealt with the WASAN committee members. The chief then liaised with the contractor on the ground, the District Chief Executive (DCE) and the facility was extended closer to his (the chief) house at the blind side of the NGO. The respondent revealed: The entire community met at my house and sent an application to the district assembly. When it was time for them to start the facility, the contractor told us that the chief’s area was not part of the NGO’s demarcation. In one of the meetings, we disagreed with the NGO. As a chief, I discussed with the contractor and the DCE and the project was extended to my house (the chief, 2015). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 60 The beneficiaries were asked to point to an aspect or aspects of the water project that could attest to the fact that their views were considered during the discussions in the meetings. It was surprising that whilst some respondents pointed to the entire mechanized water system, others referred to some extensions or aspects of the project that they thought were borne out of their own contributions. The rationale for this question was to find out whether or not the discussions in the meetings were just to “inform” as asserted by Arnstein‟s (1969: 217). The contrary responses are presented below: We met, agreed, and wrote an application to the District Assembly. So, the entire project was borne out of our own ideas (Community 2 respondent, 2015). They wanted to site the overhead water tank at a place which was too far from the community, so we pleaded with them (NGO) in one of our meetings before it was sited close to us (community 1 FGDs, 2015). The overhead water tank that the NGO wanted to give was too small, and we complained to them (NGO) before this larger one was provided (Community 3 respondent, 2015). Women were also encouraged to express their views in the meetings with the NGO officials. The interviewee intimated: Yes, in one of the meetings I thanked the NGO for accepting our request to provide us water. I told them that we were suffering too much. In the dry season, we University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 61 have to wake up like 2am to search for water and return the next morning. Some of us even had snake bites as a result (Interview with the women leader, 2015). The NGO widely used meetings as a participatory approach to be accountable to beneficiaries. Though the action plan as well as the objectives of the project was formulated long before the NGO visited the communities, efforts were made to ensure that beneficiaries were still the drivers of their own development. The strict adherence to community-led development ethos was paramount to the NGO as provisions were made in the meetings for freer expressions and contributions from community members. However, the downward accountability effort of the NGO was hampered for two main reasons. Firstly, the NGO officials acted as facilitators in the meetings, and largely set the ground rules. Secondly, though efforts were made by the NGO to ensure that siting of the project (overhead tanks, pipes stands, pipelines etc.) was under the dictate of the beneficiaries, the engagement process was hampered by the nature of the project in question and the choice of the technology. Siting of community projects has since become a challenge in Ghana as citizens abandoned toilet facilities, market stalls, boreholes, classroom blocks, and others due to no or little citizens‟ engagement (Bawole et al., 2013). There was no evidence of fierce resistance or threat to abandon the project as in the case of central or local government funded projects. This could be attributed to the effort made by the NGO to engage its beneficiaries at every level of the project and the perception among beneficiaries that NGO-led interventions are a favor. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 62 The findings confirm the reports by Rahman (2014) in Bangladesh and Bawole (2013) in Ghana that meetings are one of the most effective medium to discuss and disclose information to the beneficiaries. Other mediums such as public hearings, sign posts, symposia, public lecture, workshops, and others (Bawole, 2013) could also engender participatory accountability to beneficiaries. 4.1.5 Committees The committee system is an effective way to ensure participatory accountability in NGO-led development interventions (Rahman, 2014). The NGO allowed the beneficiary communities to constitute committees and the membership of which were drawn from all sections of the communities. A committee is made up of ten (10) members with different professional backgrounds (teachers, farmers, traders etc.). Women constituted fifty percent (50) of each committee. Interview with both the NGO staffs and the community members suggested that the mandate of committees was to assist the workers at the site, and acted as a link between the NGO and the other community members. Again, the committees were charged with the responsibility of managing the facility in their respective communities as well as mobilizing other community members for communal work. The committees were also allowed to set up tariffs for the usage of the facility in their respective communities. The respondent remarked thus: As part of our community entry strategy, we animate communities to constitute their own committee University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 63 members. We don’t dictate to them the constituents of the committees. We only informed them (committees) of their responsibilities. However, the committees invite us occasionally to facilitate their meetings with other community members. The formation of a committee gives us the confidence that the beneficiary communities were ready to support our workers at the site and as well manage the facility after we (NGO) have left (NGO staff, 2015). This view was corroborated by the responses ascertained from community leaders and FGDs. The respondent intimated: Yes we constituted our own committee members to assist activities at the site, and to also mobilize other community members for communal work. But let me tell you that the committees are not being paid. I know because I am part of the committee for this community (Assembly member, 2015). Whether or not the committees in various communities had oversight responsibility over the contractor and the workers at the site, the community respondents were unanimous in their responses that the committees had no power to monitor the activities of the project. One of the community respondents remarked: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 64 NO! We were not asked to monitor the entire project activities. We don’t have that power (interview with the chief, 2015). The data further discovered from the beneficiary respondents that they (community members) were not aware that they (community members) had the right to question the inactions of project implementers (the NGO, contractor, and workers). A respondent remarked: We don’t know that we have the right to question the NGO or the contractor. We were not told and we don’t know, but you are now telling us (FGDs, 2015). An analysis of the above interviews is indicative of the fact that committees in the various communities were formed to merely assist the workers at the site and to manage the facility by instituting sustainable management practices. However, the oversight responsibility which was supposed to deepen the accountability process to the communities was not entrusted to the committees. The committee members were not being paid and this may inform apathetic behavior being put up towards activities of the project. Effort to get some of them for FGDs was extremely difficult as one of them lamented: I am fed up with this their water meetings. We always go there to waste our time without even a penny instead of going to weed under our farms. I am even planning to stop (interview with the youth leader, 2015) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 65 The beneficiaries‟ involvement in the planning phase of the water project reveals the non- participation (manipulation and therapy) and degree of tokenism (placation, consultation, and informing) rungs of Arnstein‟s (1969) framework participation. According to Arnstein, the rationale is not to engage the beneficiaries in planning and conducting programs but to “educate” or “cure” participants (Arnstein, 1969: 217). Thus, beneficiaries were excluded from the formulation of objectives for the project and were subsequently put in rubberstamped committees to authenticate the pre-determined decisions of the NGO. Thus, the committees had no oversight responsibility to demand accountability from the NGO. Hence, the participation has not reached a point where the beneficiaries worked as partners, exert control over the entire process and be the main drivers of their own development. The data further confirms the “contractual” and “consultative” stages of Vernooy‟ (2005: 62) framework of participation. Thus, the NGO monopolized key decision making powers in the formulation of the action plan (including project‟s goals and objectives) and only defined the minimal role ( assisting workers at the site, mobilizing other community members for communal work etc.) of the beneficiaries. As a result, beneficiaries could not assume equal position with the NGO in decision making to be able to work together as colleagues or partners. Hence, beneficiaries‟ involvement at project implementation phase is rhetorical, mere tokenism or legitimate garnishing. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 66 4.2 Participatory accountability at implementation stage The data gathered from the field revealed the following themes at the implementation stage: physical labor, welfare, material, and finance. Figure 3: Activities of participatory accountability at implementation stage: Source: Author’s own construction, 2015. 4.2.1 Materials The data suggests that though the beneficiaries were not involved in the procurement of materials meant for the projects, the materials were kept under the watch of the community members. Thus, either the chief or WASAN committee chairperson or an assembly member (depending on the community) had the key to the room in which the materials were kept. Physical labor Welfare Finance Participatory Accountability at the implementation stage Materials University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 67 Hence, both the workers and the WASAN committee members were involved in the movement of the materials. This was what the respondent had to say: For security reasons, materials were kept under the watch of the community leaders. You see, it is their water and so we want them to own it. However, we did not involve the community members in the procurement of the materials (NGO staff, 2015). The above responses were confirmed by interviews with the community leaders as well as the FGDs. One of the community respondents revealed thus: The materials were kept under the watch of the water committee chairman and he had the key to the room…we don’t know where the materials we bought and how much it costs (interview with the youth leader, 2015). However, the staffs of the NGO were of the view that formal introduction of the contractor to the community members was not necessary. One of the respondents intimated: Formal introduction was not done for the community to know the contractor at the site. There is no need. The most important thing is that the project should be completed as scheduled (staff of the NGO, 2015). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 68 Though the materials were kept under the watch of the community members for security reasons, it eventually empowered the beneficiaries to exert some level of control over the materials. This may prevent a situation where materials meant for the project are sold back to the beneficiaries by the workers at the site. However, an interview with one of the respondents in the study communities revealed that bags of cement and other sellable materials meant for the construction of household toilet facilities (not the mechanized water project) was sold back to some community members by the workers at the site. This was reflected in an interview below: Let me tell you the truth, bags of cement and sand that were meant for the construction of household toilet facilities were sold to some of our family members some time ago by the workers at the site (interview with women leader, 2015). Accountability in the procurement of materials is a significant issue for enhancing downward accountability of NGOs. Unfortunately, beneficiaries were not involved in the procurement of materials meant for the mechanized water project. This has the tendency of breeding corrupt activities such as bribery, rent-seeking, contract-client payoffs, kick-backs and the likes which often characterize procurement processes. This usually results in the execution of shoddy contracts which have far-reaching consequences on the beneficiaries. 4.2.2 Physical labor The respondents were unanimous in their responses that community members provided physical labor towards the implementation of the project. The data further revealed that whilst men dug trenches and cleared the site, women fetched water and sand to aid the implementation of the project. The respondent said: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 69 Yes we were called to help. Whilst our husbands dug trenches and cleared the site, we fetched water and sand to support the workers (interview with women leader, 2015). Communal labor involving community members was the efficient means to ensure community participation. Since the communities were far apart and pipes needed to be laid to the various communities, the sections in the communities were made to dig trenches to their respective homes. This phase of the project makes beneficiaries feel good, own and support the project and this translates into the successful completion of the said project (Domfeh & Bawole, 2009). However, White (1996) asserted that community members are often used as instruments to achieve project‟s efficiency through cost reduction. By implication, beneficiaries contributed physical labor free of charge towards the implementation of the project. There was no evidence of beneficiaries‟ demand for compensation, but they (beneficiaries) considered it as their contribution towards the project. This may explain why the involvement of beneficiaries at the implementation stage was high compared to the planning and evaluation stages. Unfortunately, beneficiaries are not empowered to make transformative decisions (White, 1996). 4.2.3 Welfare services All respondents were unanimous in their views that beneficiaries provided „welfare services‟ towards the implementation of the project. The institutional respondents intimated that without any compulsion, the beneficiaries provided accommodation and food for the workers at the site. Additionally, other welfare services such as gifts (in the form of animals) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 70 were given to motivate the staffs of the NGO as well as the contractor at the site. A respondent revealed: Beneficiaries provided accommodation for our workers at the site and also fed them. They also appreciated us (the staffs of the NGO and the contractor) by other donations such as goats, guinea fowls etc. (interview the staff of the NGO, 2015). This gesture from the beneficiaries has a bearing on the downward accountability of the NGO. On one hand, the gesture could be seen as the participation of beneficiaries in the implementation phase through voluntary contributions to the project. On the other hand, the gesture may indicate the extreme vulnerability of beneficiaries in the face of the NGO. The net effect of the latter is that the beneficiary communities are likely to be complacent with the services rendered to them by the NGO and would avoid criticizing the NGO even if standards are compromised. This may inform the reason why the NGO was commended in the studied communities. 4.2.4 Finance The respondents did indicate that community members did contribute money as a requirement to prove that they (beneficiaries) were capable of managing the project after the NGO has closed operations in the district. The money was not given to supplement the cost of the project but accounts were opened in the name of the various communities. The beneficiary communities were made to contribute money to prove that they would be able to manage the facility when it is finally handed over to them (staff of the NGO, 2015). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 71 There are two main reasons why communities contribute money towards community projects: (a) to share in the cost of the project, and (b) to prove that beneficiaries were capable of managing the project. Though the data shows the later, the possibility of demystifying the negative attitudes associated with „free-riding‟ concept in service delivery cannot be overemphasized. Since their financial effort has gone into the project, they (beneficiaries) are likely to exert ownership of the project and hold the NGO accountable. This is contrary with respect to central/local government funded projects where people view those projects as government owned and nobody seems to take responsibility and accountability for them. The application of White‟s (1996) participation interest framework to the findings at the implementation stage reveals „nominal‟ and „instrumental stages‟. At the nominal stage, the NGO consulted the beneficiaries to meet donor requirements of beneficiary involvement. Although the involvement of beneficiaries was found to be high at implementation stage, the NGO used beneficiaries‟ free labor to achieve project cost-effectiveness (White, 1996). It was again found that at implementation phase, the NGO maintained sole decision making process as beneficiaries were not involved in the procurement of materials meant for the project. 4.3 Participatory accountability at evaluation stage Participatory accountability at the evaluation stage allows community members to assess the achievement of projects‟ objectives, performance and to meet the set standards of a project (Rahman, 2014). The data revealed the following participatory approaches at the planning University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 72 stage: participatory reviews, monitoring and evaluation, and institution of management activities. Figure 4: Activities of participatory accountability at evaluation stage: Source: Author’s own construction, 2015. 4.3.1 Participatory reviews Participatory review is an effective means of involving community members in the evaluation of projects (Agyemang et al., 2009). It provides opportunity for the success of the project to be measured against the set standards at the planning stage (Agyemang et al., 2009). The data revealed that there were no participatory reviews of the water project in the beneficiary communities. The staffs of the NGO did indicate that evaluation of the project was done by the external people who have in-depth knowledge in the installation of the water project. Though formal meetings were not held to rigorously review the success of the project, durbars were held in each of the beneficiary communities where feedbacks were Participatory reviews Monitoring and evaluation team Management Participatory accountability at evaluation stage University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 73 given to beneficiaries about the achievement of the set objectives. This view was corroborated by all respondents in the beneficiary communities. This was summarized in the following FGDs: A durbar was held and in which we were told that the project has been completed and that we can start the usage. Since we could see that the project was duly completed, it means that the objectives of the project were achieved (FGDs, 2015). Clearly, there were no formal participatory meetings held in the beneficiary communities where both the NGO and the beneficiaries sat down as colleagues to review the success of the project. In spite of the utilities accruing from the engagement of beneficiaries in accountability mechanisms, it was clear from the respondents that full benefits associated with downward accountability have not been achieved. This was further worsened by the dominant view among beneficiaries that NGOs are „God sent‟ people and NGO-led interventions are a favor, hence, NGOs must not be disturbed with accountability issues. This was what the respondent had to say: The interventions of the NGO are a favor to us. NGOs are ‘God sent’ people to us. They are ‘whites’ from somewhere who came to help us. We cannot go there to help them (interview with a chief, 2015). This perception revealed a sense of powerlessness among beneficiaries of NGO-led interventions who often shun from criticizing NGOs in the delivery of aid projects. As a result, beneficiaries have no bargaining power to negotiate with the NGO. The discussions University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 74 in the focus group meetings across the beneficiary communities also revealed that beneficiaries were careful in post construction meetings not to be seen criticizing the NGO. This seems to confirm assertion in literature that providing opportunity for criticisms of NGO-led projects would weaken and deviate NGOs from their core mandate (Kilby, 2006). This unfortunate situation is a reflection of what happens at the national level where the decision of the government of Ghana to legislate activities of NGOs received fierce rebuttal from the NGOs and their donors (Trust Bill, 2007). In the midst of extreme poverty and deprivation, NGOs seem to be over mighty, over bearing, and over winning. The sense of powerlessness of beneficiaries was further revealed when all community respondents except in one community did indicate that they would report to the district assembly when it was evident that the NGO was corrupt, indulged in non-performance or discrimination. However, a respondent in one of the communities retorted that they (community members) would organize and beat the officials of the NGO if they indulge in corruption, non-performance or discrimination. These contrary views are presented below: From the beginning, we sent application to the District Assembly, so we would report back to them if the NGO is corrupt (interview with the chief, 2015). We would beat them if the NGO indulges in corruption (interview with the youth leader, 2015). But the interview with the officer in charge of the district water and sanitation revealed that activities of NGO would be terminated if NGO misconducted itself and breached the MOU University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 75 signed with the district. As to whether or not the district would be able to sanction NGOs for breach of trust is yet another task. The respondent lamented: It means that particular NGO has not kept their trust to the MOU we signed. In that sense, the Assembly has every right to stop that NGO from operating in the district. (Staff of the district assembly, 2015). However, the data further revealed that no NGO has been sanctioned since the inception of the district for breach of trust, and as to whether the district will do that in future, the respondent replied: No! The Assembly has never sanctioned any NGO and I don’t think the Assembly will ever do that. The reason is that we go to solicit for NGOs and any attempt to sanction an NGO will deter others from coming to assist the district (Staff of the District Assembly, 2015). It can be deduced from the above findings that the beneficiaries could not question the NGO during the post construction meetings because of the fear that any attempt to do so may exit the NGO from the community. The data suggest that the NGO uses threat of exit to win the cooperation of beneficiary communities. Hence, poverty and the resultant vulnerability are likely to render the beneficiaries of NGO-led interventions incapable of holding NGOs accountable. 4.3.2 Monitoring and evaluation team The NGO did not make any provision for project monitoring and evaluation team to be constituted in the beneficiary communities neither were the beneficiaries made part of the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 76 official project monitoring and evaluation team. The NGO contracted external technical team to monitor and evaluate the project, and to them (NGO) any attempt to constitute local monitoring team would lead to duplication. This was what the respondent had to say: We don’t constitute local level project monitoring and evaluation team. External people are usually contracted to evaluate our projects and programmes. So, any attempt to constitute local level monitoring and evaluation team would lead to duplication of functions. Beneficiaries are not educated and have no skills in our projects and programmes (staff of the NGO, 2015). This was collaborated by the responses from the community members. In effect, the NGO did not see the need of constituting local level project monitoring and evaluation team in the beneficiary communities. The absence of community or local level project monitoring and evaluation team (LPMET) might have contributed to the absence of participatory reviews at the evaluation stage. Participatory monitoring and evaluation is expected to empower the communities, engender the negotiation of conflicts between the service providers and the beneficiaries, increase capacity building for clients, ensure partnerships and collaborations in service delivery, and foster effective downward accountability (Estrella, 2000). 4.3.3 Management activities The institution of management activities was to ensure that beneficiaries exerted responsibility and control over the project after it is handed over to them. The data revealed capacity building and user charges (tariffs) as a participatory mechanisms instituted to sustain the mechanized water project. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 77 Capacity building Some of the committee members were trained (as pump maintenance volunteers) to be able to fix the system in case of minor breakdown. More so, the partner organization (thus, organization contracted for the installation of the facility) was invited and introduced to the beneficiaries so that they (beneficiaries) could consult them in case of major system breakdown. Some of the WASAN committee members from various communities did receive skills training in the areas of greasing, tightening of bots and nuts, and minor repairs during breakdown. These measures are to ensure that community members would be able to fix the system or contact the technical team even after the NGO has finally closed operations from the district. User charges Beneficiaries were allowed to institute their own tariffs system if they so desire. The NGO never dictated to them as to how much to charge. However, interviews held with the beneficiary communities revealed that community members fiercely resisted the tariffs system instituted by the committees on the basis that they don‟t have money to pay for the usage of the facility. For the sustainability of the project, one of the communities (Kpalba community) agreed that specific amount be contributed every month per a household. This could not work out and at the time of data collection, the facility had broken down. Other communities have instituted user tariffs, but the money was too small to sustain the facility. This may explain why at the time of data collection, the overhead water tanks in almost all the communities except one (Lifuur community) was leaking and water could no longer be pumped into them. Others have complained about spoilt solar panels. The University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 78 communities have no money to fix the system and relied on the NGO. This was what the respondent had to say: Once the facility has been handed over to them, it is their water. Unfortunately, some of them still come to us to complain that their system has broken down, their overhead tank has spoilt and others (staff of the NGO, 2015). It can be deduced from the above interview that the sustainability of the mechanized water project in the study communities is at stake. This is a confirmation of the study conducted by McCommon, Warner & Yohalem (1990 as cited in Tesfaye, 2012) that the sustainability and ownership of Community-Driven Development projects would be at stake if the facility does not reflect the economic capacity of the beneficiaries. It would even be worse if the communities are not empowered to make decisions that would allow them to own the process (Tesfaye, 2012). The decision to mechanize the water project in the study communities did not receive wider consultation with beneficiaries, and if it did, the NGO would have realized that the facility may not have been within the economic means of the people. Once the plan as well as the objectives of the project was pre-decided and once that was what the NGO could offer, the beneficiaries had no choice than to accept the offer. It may also be the case that beneficiaries have not recognized their ownership role for the sustainability of the project. The data gathered from the communities revealed that beneficiaries of NGO-led interventions are not aware of their right to hold the NGO accountable. The beneficiaries added that even if they were aware of their right, they would have hesitated because of the fears that any attempt to hold the NGO accountable could lead to the exit of the NGO from University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 79 the community. These responses confirm Agyemang et al., (2009) and Tagarirofa & Chazovachii (2013) assertion that in the midst of acute poverty and resultant deprivation and vulnerability, the community members are disempowered, weak, subservient, and would not criticize NGOs. Thus, the NGO used threat of exit to win cooperation from communities that appeared not cooperative. The resultant effect of the hostile posture of NGOs towards community members could be the massive corruption that characterizes the activities of the NGOs (Trivunovic, 2011). However, The rights-based (RB) theorists assert that practitioners in the field should factor into the development process the rights of the beneficiaries in projects delivery, ensure active and proactive participation of community members in planning and implementation, as well as empowering citizens or beneficiaries to be able to hold their agents accountable, protect the disadvantaged groups from discriminations, and generally allow the poor to be the main directors of their development (Nyamu-Musembi & Cornwall, 2004; O‟Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; Kindornay & Capenter, 2012 ). The application of participatory approaches to the findings at the evaluation stage reveals „informing‟ (Arnstein, 1969) and „contractual‟ and „consultative‟ (Vernooy, 2005) levels of participation. After the completion of the project in the various communities, post- construction meetings (in the form of commissioning ceremonies or durbars) were organized and beneficiaries were informed about the achievement of the set objectives. However, the evaluation of the success of the project was exclusively done by the NGO. The table six (6) below shows a modified framework (to include characteristics of project phases) after the presentation, analysis, and the discussion of data gathered from the field. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 80 Table 6: Author‟s modified Framework (combination of Arnstein, Vernooy, and White approaches of participation) Project Phases Elements of Project phases Characteristics of project phases Arnstein (1969) Vernooy ( 2005) White ( 1996) Author’s classification Planning Stage Needs analysis. Preparation of action plan. Disclosure of information Meetings and feedbacks. Committees. Interventions of the NGO are demand-driven. The NGO set rules for needs analysis. Beneficiaries were not part of the formulation of action plan. Goals and objectives were pre-determined. But objectives and cost of the project were disclosed to beneficiaries. Meetings were organized. The NGO used threats of „exit‟ to win cooperation from beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were careful not to criticize the NGO. Rubberstamped committees. Placation Consultation Informing Manipulation Contractual Consultative Legitimation Sham ritual Tokenism Colouring Legitimate Garnishing Rhetorical Impl. Stage Materials. Physical labor. Welfare services. Finance. Beneficiaries were not involved in the procurement of materials. But materials were kept under the watch of community members. Contractual Consultative Instrumental Tokenism, Exploitative participation University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 81 The contractor was not formally introduced to beneficiaries. Beneficiaries contributed physical labor. Beneficiaries provided accommodation and food for workers at the site, and other donations. Beneficiaries contributed money to prove their capacity to be able to manage the project. Evaluation Stage Participatory reviews. Monitoring and evaluation team. Management activities Participatory reviews were not held. Beneficiaries were not part of the official project monitoring and evaluation team. Management activities were instituted. Informing Contractual Consultative Tokenism Rhetorical „Feel good‟ University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 82 4.4 CONCLUSION The foundation of this framework was based on three participatory approaches: Arnstein (1969), Vernooy (2005), and White (1969). In order to ascertain the extent to which beneficiaries were involved in NGO-led interventions, key participatory activities or elements were identified at each stage of the project phase. The analyses of the data revealed significant characteristics of the various stages of the project, and that called for the modification of the initial framework as shown in the table six (6) above. The exclusion of beneficiaries from decision making process at the planning stage has derailed the effective downward accountability of the NGO. As a result, participation at the planning stage became rhetorical and tokenistic as it revealed the manipulation, informing, consultation, and placation rungs of Arnstein‟s (1969) framework of participation. The application of Vernooy‟s (2005) framework revealed contractual and consultative stages as the NGO maintained sole decision making power. This further revealed a „feel good‟ (legitimation) attitude articulated by White (1996) as the NGO was determined to meet donor requirement and not for active beneficiaries‟ involvement. According to Vernooy (2005) participation becomes contractual and consultative when one stakeholder has sole decision making power over others. The contractive and consultative levels were evident across the three phases (planning, implementation, and evaluation) as the NGO maintained sole decision making power and set rules for behaviour. However, the active involvement of beneficiaries in the provision of labor at the implementation stage was found to be „instrumental‟ as articulated by White (1996) as the NGO used beneficiaries‟ labor to achieve project cost-effectiveness. As a result, participation becomes rather „exploitative‟ instead of purposeful engagement of beneficiaries. At the evaluation phase, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 83 participatory review meetings were not held to rigorously assess the success of the project. The participation at this stage was merely „informing‟ as the NGO held „durbars‟ to commission the various projects. Really, the NGO maintained sole decision making power. Consequently, participation becomes merely tokenistic, rhetorical and ritual sham as beneficiaries were not empowered to be the main drivers of their own development as indicated in the author‟s classification column. Thus, the participation has not reach a stage where beneficiaries work as partners to gain control and ownership over the project (Arnstein, 1969), collaborate and collegiate with the NGO in terms of decision making (Vernooy, 2005). In effect, beneficiaries were not empowered through effective capacity building for transformative decision making and that subsequently fostered dependency and jeopardized the sustainability of the project in the various communities (White, 1996). For the precise analysis of downward accountability of the NGO based on the data gathered, the author‟s own description (as reflected in the author‟s categorization column of the table 6 above) of the involvement of beneficiaries across the three stages was necessary. The analysis at the planning stage revealed that the involvement of beneficiaries in the mechanized water project was rather rhetorical, sham ritual, and a mere colouring. Thus, the fact that the NGO got to the communities with pre-decided project‟s goals and objectives, and set general rules for behaviour has frustrated the entire process of downward accountability effort. The beneficiaries were further put in rubberstamped committees to authenticate the pre-decided objectives. As a result, downward accountability of the NGO at the planning stage becomes legitimate garnishing rather than purposeful engagement of beneficiaries as the NGO minimally engaged beneficiaries to legitimize their (NGO) actions and to meet donor requirement of beneficiary involvement. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 84 It was evident at the implementation stage that the NGO used beneficiaries‟ labor to achieve project‟s cost-effectiveness thereby making the participation rather „exploitative‟. Thus, beneficiaries cleared the site, dug trenches, and fetched water (free of charge) to aid in the achievement of pre-decided objectives. At the evaluation stage, durbars were held to officially commission the projects. The beneficiaries were informed about the achievement of the pre-decided objectives in the commissioning ceremonies. The durbars were just to let beneficiaries „feel good‟ about the NGO and their interventions. However, the beneficiaries were not given the opportunity to rigorously evaluate the success of the project. Hence, any study intends to investigate downward accountability of NGOs through participatory approaches should recognize that goals and objectives of projects are determined long before NGOs get to beneficiary communities. As a result, the depth of downward accountability is limited to the above levels of Arnstein, Vernooy, and White frameworks of participation. In this case, beneficiaries are not empowered to have sole determination of the services that affect them. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 85 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 Introduction This chapter covers the summary of the major findings of the thesis, conclusions and recommendations based on the data collected. 5.1 Summary The study examined downward accountability of World Vision Ghana in Saboba District. A point is made that downward accountability of NGOs emphasizes the use of participatory approaches in service delivery. The study specifically looked at the extent to which the NGO involves beneficiaries in the three phases of the project‟s life cycle. 5.1.1 Participatory Accountability at planning stage The rational for Community-Driven Development (CDD) is that engagement of beneficiary communities in decision making towards local level development ensures judicious use of resources and meets the very needs of the people (Wong, 2012). The data gathered through interviews as well as focus group discussions largely agreed that interventions of the NGO are demand-driven. Thus, the beneficiaries identified water as a need and made a demand for consideration after other requirements were met. It is important to note that due to strict project requirements, beneficiaries could not have settled on any other need rather than the one the NGO was ready to provide. This limited the engagement process during the needs analysis. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 86 Decision making in an organization is the mandate of its governing body. Interviews with the respondents and the analysis of the governing body of the NGO in the district revealed no beneficiary representation. The net effect is that the action plan as well as the goals and objectives of the project were determined long before the NGO got into the communities. This was further compounded by the choice of the technology of the water project as the respondents intimated during interview sessions that neither the staffs of the NGO nor the beneficiaries have control over the choice of technology for the project. Hence, the involvement of community members in the formulation of project‟s goals and objectives was nonexistent. Additionally, community participation in the determination of the sites for the project was done on a low profile. Though the NGO made effort to engage the communities as regards the siting of the facility, the wishes of the beneficiaries were thrown into the air as the pre- drilling activities found points of water contrary to their (community members) desire. This notwithstanding, community members were able to point to their sacred places (shrine, ancestral gods, cemetery etc.) where they thought any attempt at those places may receive the anger of the gods. Disclosure of relevant information forms an important ingredient of downward accountability of the NGO. It was discovered that project‟s objectives were made known to the community members. It was further revealed that financial issues (such as the cost of the project and sources of funding) were made known to the beneficiaries. The rationale for the financial disclosure was to let the beneficiaries appreciate the full cost of the project and in turn University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 87 complement the effort of the NGO by keeping a cleaned environment as well as providing communal support whenever they were called to do so. The platforms for the disclosure of relevant information to the beneficiaries were meetings, public hearings, workshops and the likes. The findings suggest that regular planning meetings were held with the community members and during which issues about the implementation of the project were discussed. Opportunity was provided during the meetings to encourage freer discussions and cross fertilization of ideas. However, there was no evidence of beneficiaries‟ disagreement of the NGO‟s pre-determined objectives. As a result of powerlessness, poverty and resultant vulnerability, beneficiaries admitted that their views were factored into the implementation of the project. For instance, whilst some community respondents pointed to the entire project as their own idea (thus, communities demanded for the water project), others referred to aspects of the project which they thought were borne through their contributions at the meetings. Community members were allowed to constitute a ten (10) member committees in their various communities. The women constituted forty (50) percent of all committee members. Interviews with the community members revealed that committees were not entrusted with any supervisory role. It could however be deduced that committees were merely constituted to mobilize members for communal work and to assist the workers at the site. The committees were not entrusted with oversight responsibility. Generally, officials of the NGO recognized that downward accountability was the surest way to ensure sustainability of NGO-led projects. However, strict project requirement from the donors coupled with powerlessness, illiteracy, and poverty on the part of beneficiaries potentially limited the effectiveness of downward accountability at the planning stage. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 88 5.1.2 Participatory Accountability at implementation stage Project implementation phase witnessed the active as well as the highest involvement of beneficiaries in project related activities compared to the other two phases. An analysis of the field data revealed that through communal labor the beneficiaries contributed physical labor towards the implementation of the project. Thus, whilst men dug trenches and cleared the site, women fetched water and sand to aid the implementation of the project. The beneficiaries were made to contribute a minimum amount of money in aid of the project. The rationale for the financial contributions was not to supplement the cost of the project but to prove that community members were capable of managing the facility even if the NGO finally closed operations from the district. In the quest of the NGO to be transparent and accountable to her beneficiaries, the materials meant for the project were kept under the watch of either the chief, assembly member or the chairperson of the water committees (the decision was depended on the community). It was however discovered that beneficiaries were not involved in the procurement of the materials meant for the project. Also, the contractor was not formally introduced to the community members. Voluntarily, the beneficiaries offered accommodation and food for the workers at the site. Community members also presented gifts to the staffs of the NGO. These welfare services have two main implications for the downward accountability of the NGO: (a) it could be seen as beneficiaries‟ contributions in aid of the project, and (b) it shows powerlessness and resultant vulnerability of beneficiaries in the face of the NGO. As a result, beneficiaries shunned from criticizing the NGO because they were grateful for the God sent NGO. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 89 Notwithstanding, the engagement of community members at the implementation stage of the project was found to be generally high compared to the planning and evaluation stages. 5.1.3 Participatory Accountability at Evaluation stage Participatory accountability in Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach enables communities to identify and specify key performance indicators during planning stage of the new development project, and then to comment on the achievements of these performance indicators during the participatory review process at the evaluation stage (Agyemang et al., 2009). The data revealed that participatory monitoring and evaluation of the project was nonexistent. The staffs of the NGO did indicate that evaluation of the project was done by consultants who have in-depth knowledge in the installation of the facility. As a result, no formal participatory review meetings were held to rigorously review the success of the project against the set standards. However, post construction meetings were held and during which management activities were discussed. Official „durbar‟ was held in each of the communities and represented by key stakeholders for the commissioning of the projects. The findings at the evaluation stage revealed no evident of beneficiaries‟ criticisms of the NGO‟s actions at post construction meetings. A further probe revealed that beneficiaries view the NGO as „God sent‟ people and must not be criticized or disturbed in the discharge of their duties. The NGO uses threat as a mechanism to win cooperation of community members. As a result, the communities fear that the NGO may exit if they make any attempt to hold them accountable for breach of trust. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 90 The study found that the beneficiaries were likely to report to the district assembly if it was evident that the NGO indulges in corruption, non-performance, and discrimination in the delivery of interventions. The officer in charge of district water and sanitation disclosed in an interview that the NGO would be barred from operating in the district if it misconducts itself and breach the MOU signed with the district. However, the district officer was skeptical as to whether that drastic measure would be taken against an NGO on the reason that the district goes to solicit for NGOs. The findings further suggested that no NGO was ever sanctioned in the district for breach of trust. The study discovered that as part of the management activities geared towards the sustainability of the project, capacities of some community members were built as to how to fix the system in case of minor breakdown. The beneficiaries received skills training in the areas of greasing, tightening nuts and bolts, minor repairs after breakdown, and required tools and spare parts. Besides, the partner organization (thus, organization contracted for the installation of the facility) was invited and introduced to the beneficiaries so that they (beneficiaries) could consult them in case of major system breakdown. The data revealed that whilst some community members refused entirely to pay for the usage of the facility, others pay very low tariffs. This posture on the part of beneficiaries has adversely affected the sustainability of the project. For instance, at the time of the data collection, the project in two communities (Kpalba and Sanguli) have been closed down with others experiencing varied problems such as overhead tanks leakage, faulty solar system and others. It could be deduced that the project was likely not to be within the economic means of the beneficiaries to manage (McCommon, Warner & Tohalem, 1990 as cited in Tesfaye, 2012:20). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 91 5.2 CONCLUSION The downward accountability of NGOs emphasizes the use of participatory approaches in the service delivery. As a result, the general objective of the study sought to investigate the extent to which NGOs involve their beneficiaries in the entire project life cycle in some selected communities in Saboba District. The study was guided by a conceptual framework that explains the variables necessary for the NGO involvement of her beneficiaries in project planning, implementation, and evaluation. The study revealed that the interventions of the NGO are demand-driven. The beneficiaries identified their own need and made a demand. Subsequently, the involvement of the beneficiaries in the needs analysis and the formulation of the action plan (including goals and objectives) as indicators at the planning stage were found out to be very low as these were decided long before the NGO got into the communities. The NGO disclosed information as regards the objectives and the cost of the project as well as the funding sources to the beneficiaries and feedbacks were provided. Though committees were formed in the various communities, they were not entrusted with the oversight responsibility. Generally, the involvement of beneficiaries at the planning stage was at the low profile. The implementation stage witnessed the most active and highly participated phase in the project‟s life cycle. The community members contributed physical labor, finance, and welfare services to aid the implementation of the project. At the evaluation stage, participatory review meetings that were supposed to review the success of the project against the set standards were nonexistent. At best, post construction meetings were held and during which the project was officially commissioned in the various communities and the management activities were also discussed. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 92 The findings suggest that the NGO has taken steps to achieving greater downward accountability. However, more can be done to engender effective engagements and strengthen accountability mechanisms that would further integrate into the principles and operations of the NGO. 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS To ensure effective downward accountability of the NGO to its beneficiaries, the study recommends the following: Though the NGO uses a community-driven approach as a strategy in the delivery of its interventions, the economic capacity of the beneficiary communities should be properly assessed to ensure that the interventions are within the means of the people to manage. It is recommended that beneficiaries of NGO-led interventions should be represented at the governing body or executive committee of NGOs as it forms the focal point for decision making. By so doing, decisions made are likely to reflect the aspirations of the people, and propel for proper needs assessment. The beneficiary communities must be actively involved in the formulation of the action plan. Thus, a participatory approach in the formulation of the project‟s goals and objections is much recommended as this would engender a sense of ownership and support for NGO- led interventions. Since it is impossible for the NGO to meet the entire community members in a meeting, the use of committee system is highly recommended. However, the committees should be given an oversight responsibility to enable them perform supervisory role over NGO-led projects. The beneficiaries should be part of the project implementation team. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 93 The beneficiaries should be involved in the purchase of materials meant for the project. Additionally, the control measures should be such that the communities should be given a way bill signed by all parties involved as these would curb the sale of materials to some community members by the workers at the site. Effort should be made to win the trust of the people to divulge vital information to the NGO. It is also recommended that participatory review meetings should be held at the evaluation stage. This would enable beneficiaries to measure the success of the project against the key performance indicators set at the planning stage. This could be made effective by making community members part of the project monitoring and evaluation team. The District Assembly should provide support to NGO-led interventions in various communities. This would ensure the sustainability of the interventions in the beneficiary communities. The donors should make NGOs‟ accountability to beneficiaries a requirement in the award of aid. This would inject efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery and ensure that projects and programmes meet the needs of beneficiaries. It would further help check corrupt activities associated with NGOs in aid delivery chain. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 94 REFERENCES Atack, I., (1999). Four criteria of Development NGO Legitimacy, World Development Research, 27(5):855-864. Agyemang, G., Awumbila, M., Unerman, J., & O‟Dwyer, B. (2009). NGO accountability and aid delivery. https://research-repository.st- andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/3795/1/ACCA-2009-NGO-Accountability.pdf (September 15, 2014). Ahmed, Z., & Hopper, T. (2014). Politics, Development and NGO Accountability. Performance Management in Nonprofit Organizations: Global Perspectives (17-20). Alex Jacobs & Roby Wilford (2010). Listen First: a pilot system for managing downward accountability in NGOs, Development in Practice, 20(7):797-811. Andrews, A. (2014). Downward Accountability in Unequal Alliances: Explaining NGO Responses to Zapatista Demands. World Development, 54: 99-113. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4): 216-224. Asamoah, Y. (2003). NGOs, Social Development and Sustainability, Foreign Aid Rating. Atack, I., (1999). Four criteria of Development NGO Legitimacy, World Development Research, 27(5):855-864. Awio, G., Northcott, D., & Lawrence, S. (2011). Social capital and accountability in grass- roots NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initiative. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(1): 63-92. Awio, G., Northcott, D., & Lawrence, S. (2011). Social capital and accountability in grass- roots NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initiative. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(1): 63-92. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 95 Awuah-Werekoh, K. (2015). Accountability systems of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): case study from Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham). Bano, M. (2008). Dangerous Correlations: Aid‟s Impact on NGOs‟ Performance and Ability to Mobilize Members in Pakistan. World Development, 36(11): 2297-2313. Batley, R., & Rose, P. (2011). Analyzing collaboration between non‐governmental service providers and governments. Public Administration and Development, 31(4): 230- 239. Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2010). State capacity, conflict, and development. Econometrica, 78(1): 1-34. Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1): 9-21. Bawole, J. N. (2013). Public hearing or „hearing public‟? An evaluation of the participation of local stakeholders in environmental impact assessment of Ghana‟s Jubilee Oil Fields, Environmental management, 52(2): 385-397. Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington D.C. The Brookings Institution. Bendell, Jem (2006). Debating NGO Accountability, New York and Geneva: UN-NGLS. Boon, E., Bawole, J. N., & Ahenkan, A. (2013). Stakeholder participation in community development projects: an analysis of the quadripartite model of the International Centre for Enterprise and Sustainable Development (ICED) in Ghana. Community Development, 44(1): 38-54. Burger, R., Dasgupta, I., & Owens, T. (2015). Why pay NGOs to involve the community? Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 86(1), 7-31. Casley, D. J. & D. A. Lury. (1981). Data Collection in Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, New York. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 96 Chege, J. K. U. (2013). Factors Influencing Implementation Of Humanitarian Accountability Partnership Standard In Non-Governmental Organizations: A Case of the Norwegian Church Aid Programme in Somalia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). Cornwall, A. & Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004). „Putting the „„rights-based approach‟‟ to development into practice‟, Third World Quarterly, 25(8): 1415–1437. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Enquiry and Research Design: choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE publications. London. Crespy, C. T., & Miller, V. V. (2011). Sustainability reporting: a comparative study of NGOs and MNCs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5): 275-284. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage. Baluku J. (2010). NGO-led Service Delivery to the Poor: The Case of Agricultural Support Programm (SATNET) in Kasese District, Uganda. Day, P., & Klein, R. (1987). Accountabilities: Five public services. London: Tavistock. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Domfeh, K. A., & Bawole, J. N. (2009). Localizing and sustaining poverty reduction: experiences from Ghana. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 20(5): 490-505. Dubnick, M. J., & Justice, J. B. (2004). Accounting for Accountability Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago: September 2nd-5th. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 97 Dupuy, K. E., Ron, J., & Prakash, A. (2014). Who survived? Ethiopia's regulatory crackdown on foreign-funded NGOs. Review of International Political Economy, 1- 38. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1): 56–87. Ebrahim, A. (2003).Accountability In Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development. 31 (5):813-29. Ebrahim, A. (2003a).Making sense of accountability: conceptual perspectives for Northern and Southern nonprofits, Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14 (2):191-212. Ebrahim, A. & Weisband, E. (2007). Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism and Public Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, M., Hulme, D., & Wallace, T. (1999). NGOs in a global future: marrying local delivery to worldwide leverage. Public Administration and Development, 19(2): 117- 136. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on non-governmental organizations. World Development, 24(6): 961–973. Estrella, M. (2000). Learning from Change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation. IDRC. Ezeoha, A. E. (2006). Can NGOs aid good governance and sustainable development in Africa? Some theoretical insights. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 8(3):128-147. Flint, A., & zu Natrup, C. M. (2014). Ownership and Participation toward a Development Paradigm based on Beneficiary-led Aid. Journal of Developing Societies, 30(3): 273- 295. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 98 Fowler, A. (1996). Assessing NGO performance: difficulties, dilemmas, and a way ahead. NGO performance and accountability in the Post-Cold War World (169–186). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian. Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2001). Very public scandals: nongovernmental organizations in trouble. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12(1): 49–66. Gonella, C., Pilling, A., Zadek, S., & Terry, V. (1998). Making values count: Contemporary experience in social and ethical accounting, auditing, and reporting. London: Certified Accountants Educational Trust. Ghosh, B. (2009). NGOs, Civil society and social reconstruction in contemporary India. Journal of Developing Societies, 25(2): 229-252. Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), the paradigm dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gray, R. H., Bebbington, J., & Collison, D. (2006). NGOs, civil society and accountability: Making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(3): 319–348. Haddad, L., Lindstrom, J., & Pinto, Y. (2010). The Sorry State of M&E in Agriculture: Can People‐centred Approaches Help? IDS Bulletin, 41(6): 6-25. Humanitarian Accountability International (2010). Humanitarian Accountability Partnership standard in Accountability and Quality Management. Tagarirofa, J., & Chazovachii, B. (2013). Exploring the politics of local participation in rural development projects: small dams rehabilitation project in Zimbabwe. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 14(2): 321-323. Jalil, Z., (2011). An Evaluation of NGO-Led Development Interventions and their Sustainable Management in the Savelugu-Nantong District (unpublished). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 99 Jamal, A. (2014). NGOs, Participatory Development and Construction of Identities: Involving Men in Gender and Development (GAD) Programs in South Asia. World Journal of Social Science, 1(2):1-6. Jordan, L., & Van Tuijl, P. (2006). NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. London: Earthscan. Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for Empowerment: Dilemmas Facing Non-Governmental Organizations. World Development, 34(6): 951-963. Kim, A. (2007). A rights-based approach to accountability: an exploration of the RBA theory as a mechanism of downward accountability in development and humanitarian NGOs (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Kindornay, S., Ron, J., & Carpenter C. (2012). Rights-based approaches to development: Implications for Human Rights Quarterly NGOs., 34(2):472-506. Kothari, U. & Cooke, B. (2001). Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. Participation: the new tyranny (139-152), London. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lloyd, R. (2005). The role of NGO self-regulation in increasing stakeholder accountability. London: One World Trust. Mackintosh, M. (1992). Questioning the state. Development Policy and Public Action (61– 89). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Makuwira, J. J. (2013). Non-governmental development organizations and the poverty reduction agenda: the moral crusaders. Routledge. Mann S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Appl Linguist 32 (4): 6–24. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 100 Marks, S. J., & Davis, J. (2012). Does user participation lead to sense of ownership for rural water systems? Evidence from Kenya. World Development, 40(8): 1569-1576. Marshall, J. H., & Suárez, D. (2013). The flow of management practices: An analysis of NGO monitoring and evaluation dynamics. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 41(8):258-392. Martusewicz, R. A., Edmundson, J., & Lupinacci, J. (2014). EcoJustice Education: Toward Diverse, Democratic and Sustainable Communities: Toward Diverse, Democratic, and Sustainable Communities. Routledge. Myers MD & Newman M (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Inf Organ 17: 2–26. Nair, P. (2011). Evolution of the relationship between the state and non‐government organisations: a south Asian perspective. Public Administration and Development, 31(4): 252-261. Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14(4):339-354. Nega, B., & Schneider, G. (2014). NGOs, the State, and Development in Africa. Review of Social Economy, 72(4):485-503. Noor, N. H. M. (2015). Enforcing Downward Accountability for Nonprofit Effectiveness: A Case Study of Malaysian NGO. Age, 30(54): 25-8. O‟Dwyer, B. (2007). The Nature of NGO Accountability: Motives, Mechanisms and Practice, in Unerman, J., Babington, J. and O‟Dwyer, B. (eds), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability (Abingdon: Routledge). Ofori, D. F. (2013). Project Management Practices and Critical Success Factors–A Developing Country Perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(21): 14-25. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 101 Porter, G. (2003). NGOs and poverty reduction in a globalizing world: Perspectives from Ghana. Progress in Development Studies, 3(2): 131-145. Rahman, M. (2014). The Accountability of non-governmental organizations: A case of Bangladesh.https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/8298/121810420.pdf?sequenc e=1(November 5, 2014). Rahmani, R. (2012). Donors, beneficiaries, or NGOs: whose needs come first? A dilemma in Afghanistan. Development in Practice, 22(3): 295-304. Riddel, R. C. (1999). Evaluating NGO development interventions. In D. Lewis (Ed.), International per-spectives on voluntary action: reshaping the Third Sector 222– 241. London: Earthscan. Saboba District Assembly (2014). Saboba District Composite Budget for 2014 Sawandi, N., & Thomson, I. (2014). Broadening Corporate Accountability: An „Idealised‟Downward Accountability Model. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 164(2): 429-436. Simon, K. K., & Aasoglenang, A. T. (2014). Effectiveness of Non-Governmental Organisations in Poverty Reduction in Kasena-Nankana and Builsa Districts in North-Eastern Ghana. ARTS, SOCIAL SCIENCES, 18(11):30-38 Slim, H. (2002). By what authority? The legitimacy and accountability of non-governmental organisations. The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 10. Talmy S (2010) Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: from research instrument to social practice. Ann Rev Appl Linguist 30, 128–148. Taylor, D., Tharapos, M., & Sidaway, S. (2014). Downward accountability for a natural disaster recovery effort: Evidence and issues from Australia's Black Saturday. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(7): 633-651. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 102 Tesfaye, Y. (2012). A comparative study on woreda managed and community managed rural water supply projects, with respect to their planning, implementation functionality and utilization (doctoral dissertation, Indira Gandhi national Open University). Trivunovic, M. (2011). Countering NGO corruption: Rethinking the conventional approaches. U4 Publications. Trust Bill (2007). NGO policy guidelines in Ghana. O'Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2010). Enhancing the role of accountability in promoting the rights of beneficiaries of development NGOs. Accounting and Business Research, 40(5): 451-471. Unerman, J., & O‟Dwyer, B. (2006a). On James Bond and the importance of NGO accountability. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(3): 305–318. Unerman, J., & O‟Dwyer, B. (2006b). Theorizing accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(3): 349–376. Vernooy, R. (2005). The quality of participation: Critical reflections on decision making, context and goals. Participatory research and development for sustainable agriculture and natural resource management: A sourcebook, 1, 32-40. Voorhies, S., (1993).Working with government using World Bank funds,” Staff Working Papers, No. 16 (Washington, DC: World Vision International, 1993). Walker. (2002). Understanding Accountability: Theoretical Models and their Implications for Social Service Organizations. Social Policy & Administration, 36(1): 62-75. Walsh, S. B. (2014). The improbability of accountability of nongovernmental organisations to their intended beneficiaries: the case of Action Aid (Doctoral dissertation, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 103 Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2014). Beneficiary participation as an instrument of downward accountability: A multiple case study. European Management Journal, 32(6): 938- 949. White, Sarah C. (1996). Depoliticizing development: the uses and abuses of Participation, Development in Practice, 6 (1): 6–15. Wong, S. (2012). What have been the impacts of World Bank Community-Driven Development Programs? CDD impact evaluation review and operational and research implications. World Bank, Washington, DC. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Young, D. R., Bania, N., & Bailey, D. (1996). Structure and accountability: a study of national nonprofit Associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(4): 347– 365. Zaidi, S. A. (1999). NGO failure and the need to bring back the state. Journal of international development, 11(2): 259. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 104 APPENDICES UNIVERSITY OF GHANA APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY RESPONDENTS RESEARCH OBJECTIVES RESEARCH QUESTIONS INTERVIEW GUIDE 1) To investigate the extent to which NGOs involve beneficiaries in project planning.  To what extent do NGOs involve beneficiaries in project planning? Were you consulted during the planning stage of the project? Were you part of the planning team? How often do NGOs visit your community? How often do they meet chiefs and elders, youth leaders, women leaders, Assembly member (s) etc. How was project objectives explained to community leaders How were your views expressed in the meetings? How do NGOs assess the needs of the community? Which aspect of the project can you say came from the community? 2) To investigate the extent to which NGOs engage community members in project implementation.  How do NGOs engage their beneficiaries in projects implementation? How were you engaged in project implementation by NGOs? Can you tell the cost of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 105 the project? Did you know the contractor? Can you tell where the materials were kept? Can you tell the number of workers at the site? Were you part of the procurement of materials? Was there a local team for implementing the project How often the monitoring team did visit the project site? Have you contributed something in the form of labor, food, finances etc towards the implementation of the project? If your answer to 8 is YES, how was it done? How do you get information about the progress of work? 4) To investigate how beneficiaries are involved in the evaluation of NGO-led development project.  How do NGOs engage their beneficiaries in the evaluation of projects? Were you part of the project monitoring and evaluation team? Can you tell whether or not materials were all used up for the intended project? If NO, what may be the cause Were you provided information about the achievement of objectives of the project? If YES to 3, how did you know that the objectives of the project were achieved? Are you aware of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 106 instances where materials were secretly sold by workers at project site? Are you aware of any incidence of corruption, non-performance or discrimination in the operations of NGOs in your community? Give specific examples. What will you do if it is evident that NGO is corrupt? Do you think community or the district could have executed the project at a lower cost? Would you say that beneficiaries of NGO interventions are poor or helpless and cannot hold NGOs accountable? Do you think you have the right in holding NGOs accountable? Dou you think NGOs are doing beneficiaries a favour and should not be disturbed with accountability issues? University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 107 APPENDIX B INSTITUTIONAL RESPONDENTS ( NGO & DISTRICT ASSEMBLY) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES RESEARCH QUESTIONS INTERVIEW GUIDE 1) To investigate the extent at which NGOs involve beneficiaries in project planning.  To what extent do NGOs involve beneficiaries in project planning? How do you involve communities in the needs analysis? Probe for real involvement such as number of meeting held with communities, their contributions, prioritization of the needs, why and how one is chosen over others. How to you engage beneficiaries in the formulation of action plan? Probe for real engagement in the entire project life cycle such as project planning meetings, whether or not community members are part of project planners, contributions of community members, and whether or not their decisions are considered in the planning process Which information is/are discussed in planning meetings? Probe for quality of information discussed such as the communication of projects‟ objectives, cost of the projects, communities‟ views on the site of the project etc What structural reforms put in place to ensure accountability to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 108 beneficiaries? Example Actionaid launched ALPS programme. 2) To investigate the extent at which NGOs engage community members in project implementation.  How do NGOs engage their beneficiaries in projects implementation? Probe for real involvement during project implementation such as where contractor and workers sleep, where materials are kept and under whose watch, total number of materials, community contributions such as physical labor, food for workers, supply of water, money etc. Did you engage the community members in the monitoring of the project at site during the implementation stage? Why or why not. Were the beneficiaries parts of the implementation team? 3) To investigate how beneficiaries are involved in the evaluation of NGO-led development project.  How do NGOs engage their beneficiaries in the evaluation of projects? What role did beneficiaries played in the monitoring and evaluation of the project? Probe for real engagement such as participatory review meetings, how the meetings made provision for the expression of ideas, how did they manage criticisms from community members if there are any, how often were the review meetings held, how does the contribution of beneficiaries contributed to the improvement of the project ( seek specific examples). Were there any University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 109 maintenance activities discussed with the communities for the sustainability of the projects? Probe for specific examples. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh