Evaluation Of The Implementation Of Community Driven Development Approach In The Development Of Communities In South East Nigeria – complete project material


The main purpose of the study was to evaluate the implementation of the Community and Social Development Programme (CSDP) using the community driven development approach in the development of communities in South Eastern Nigeria. Five research questions and five null hypotheses guided the study. The study adopted an evaluative research design. The population of the study was 7,510 adult participants who are members of the community project management committees of the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP) in Abia, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo States. The sample size of the study was 1,568 respondents obtained using the stratified proportionate random sampling technique. The data collecting instrument was the researcher’s developed questionnaire titled ‘Evaluation of the Implementation of the Community Driven Development Approach in the Development of Communities Questionnaire’. The instrument was face validated by three validates, two from Adult Education and Extra Mural Studies Department, University of Nigeria Nsukka and one from Measurement and Evaluation Department, Enugu State University of Science and Technology. The overall reliability index of 0.77 was obtained using the Cronbach Alpha. Data obtained from the respondents were analysed using the mean and standard deviation for the research questions,  while the null hypotheses were tested using the Analysis of Variance (one way) at 0.05 level of significance. Findings obtained from the study revealed that to a very high extent the implementation of CDD approach on community development projects has reduced poverty. Furthermore, the findings also indicated that to a high extent the implementation of the approach has enhanced community participation, promoted rural empowerment enhanced achievement of social capital and social accountability. The null hypotheses were all accepted. Significant difference was not found in the mean ratings of respondents with regard to the extent the implementation of CDD approach on community development projects has reduced poverty, enhanced community participation, promoted rural empowerment, achieved social capital as well as social accountability. Based on the findings, the study recommended that more community members should be encouraged to participate in planning and execution of community development projects since the CDD approach was identified as an effective strategy for enhanced community participation.





Title Page                                                                                                                                i

Approval Page                                                                                                                                    ii

Certification                                                                                                                            iii

Dedication                                                                                                                              iv

Acknowledgement                                                                                                                  v

Table of Contents                                                                                                                   vi

List of Tables                                                                                                                          ix

List of Figures                                                                                                                          ix

Abstract                                                                                                                                    x



Background to the Study                                                                                                       1

Statement of the Problem                                                                                                       12

Purpose of the Study                                                                                                              13

Significance of the Study                                                                                                       13

Research Questions                                                                                                                 15

Scope of the Study                                                                                                                 15

Hypotheses                                                                                                                             16



Conceptual Framework                                                                                                       18

Community                                                                                                                             18

Community Development                                                                                                       22

Community Driven Development                                                                                           29

Implementation                                                                                                                       51

Evaluation                                                                                                                               54


Theoretical Framework                                                                                                        61

General System’s theory                                                                                                         61

Theory of Participatory development                                                                                     62

Arnstein’s theory of citizen participation (Arnstein’s ladder of participation)                       63

Models of Evaluation                                                                                                            64

Deliberative Democratic Evaluation Model                                                                          65

CIPP Model of Evaluation                                                                                                     66

Context Evaluation                                                                                                                 66

Input Evaluation                                                                                                                     67

Process Evaluation                                                                                                                  67

Product Evaluation                                                                                                                 67

Related Empirical Studies                                                                                                    67

Poverty reduction                                                                                                                  68

Participation                                                                                                                            70

Rural empowerment                                                                                                                72

Social capital                                                                                                                           73

Social accountability                                                                                                               75

Summary of Literature Review                                                                                           77


 Design of the Study                                                                                                               80

Area of the Study                                                                                                                  80

Population for the Study                                                                                                        81

Sample and Sampling Technique                                                                                            81

Instruments for Data Collection                                                                                             82

Validation of the Instrument                                                                                                  82

Reliability of the Instrument                                                                                                   83

Method for Data Collection                                                                                                   83

Method of Data Analysis                                                                                                      83



Results                                                                                                                                                84

Summary of Major Findings                                                                                                   98




Discussion of Findings                                                                                                           100

Conclusion                                                                                                                              105

Implications of the study to Education                                                                                  105

Limitations of the Study                                                                                                         106

Recommendations                                                                                                                  107

Suggestion for Further Studies                                                                                               107

REFERENCES                                                                                                                    108


Appendix 1: Letter of Introduction                                                                                       121

Appendix 2: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Community Driven

Development (CDD) approach in the development of

communities questionnaire (EICDDADCQ)                                                     122


Appendix 3: Reliability Estimate of the Instrument (EICDDADCQ) Using Cronbach

Alpha                                                                                                                 126


Appendix 4: Frequencies of Respondents in Abia State                                                       132


Appendix 5: Hypotheses Testing                                                                                           140





Background of the Study

Over the last few decades there has been an increase in community development activities such as rural electrification projects, construction and rehabilitation of roads, building of skill acquisition centers, pipe borne water projects as well as building of schools, among other projects in South East States of Nigeria. The desire of people to develop their communities has increased in order to meet up with the advancements in technology and to make life more comfortable. Adeyemo & Kayode (2012) report that countries and their development partners have been trying to involve communities in their own development since the end of World War II through their own efforts and contributions.The Community Development Foundation of the United Kingdom (CDF UK) (2013) in like manner views community development as a structured intervention that gives communities greater control over the conditions that affect their lives. Craig (2011) also posits that community development is a way of strengthening civil society by prioritizing the actions of communities and their perspectives in the development of social, economic and environmental policy.


According to Ndukwe (2005), community development is a process of social action by which the people of a community organize themselves for planning an action, define their common and individual needs and problems and execute these plans with a maximum reliance upon community resources and materials from governmental and non-governmental agencies outside the community. This development involves a range of practices dedicated to increasing the strength and effectiveness of community life, improving conditions especially for people in disadvantaged situations and enabling people to participate in public decision making to achieve long term control over their circumstances (Banjoko, 2005). Hence, Udu & Onwe (2015) explain that community development is participation by the people themselves in efforts to improve their level of living and the provision of technical and social services in ways which encourage initiative and self-help. It is a process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems (United Nations (2014)). These definitions lend credence to the fact that community development has evolved from just a local phenomenon to a global concept given the rapid spate of development in the world today. It is therefore conceived as a conscious effort by members of a community to improve their quality of life which is usually motivated by dissatisfaction with their circumstances and an aspiration to advance in economic, social and political segments of their lives.


The emergence of community development stems from the belief that communities cannot be helped unless they themselves agree to this process. Smith (2013)  reports that community development emphasizes self help, mutual support, the building up of neighborhood integration, the development of neighborhood capacities for problem solving, self representation and the promotion of collective action to bring a community’s preference to the attention of political decision makers. This view corroborates with Enuku & Oyitso (2005) who opine that community development contributes to the process of building democracy and human development, promotes the popular sectors in the development and reinforcement of social and political awareness and makes community members become conscious protagonists of their lives. It is thus deducible that community development brings people in direct control of their conditions. It fosters a culture of responsibility towards changing their unpleasant circumstances as well as negotiating and engendering more acceptable conditions of life through collective effort. Hence, Community development involves the identification of needs, planning of community development projects and implementation. These projects could be infrastructural development such as building of schools, markets, vocational centers, road construction and rehabilitation, health centers, initiation of neighborhood watch/ vigilante and water projects, among others, or socio- economic development efforts such as skill acquisition initiatives. These projects are geared towards poverty alleviation, rural empowerment and sustainable development which is achieved using different community development approaches.


These approaches according to Dongier (2002) and Defillippis (2012) include Asset Based Community Development (ABCD), Community Driven Development (CDD), Community Economic Development (CED) and Faith Based Community Development (FBCD). Asset Based community development approach is concerned with community strengths and assets. Kretzman (2010) rightly observes that the approach focuses on community assets and strengths rather than its problems and needs. With an increasing policy interest in identifying community assets through ‘asset mapping’ Frost (2011) observes that its process and the evidence base for Asset Based Community Development is gradually evolving. However, the downside of this approach is that the needs and problems of the community are secondary. With regard to Community Economic Development (CED) approach, emphasis is placed on economic development led by people. This economy is based on local knowledge and local action with the aim of creating economic and better social conditions locally. This approach was further conceived as recognising economic, environmental and social challenges that are interdependent, complex and ever changing (Canadian CED Network 2014). However, the approach does not pay much attention to need identification and community participation as it is essentially top down in nature.


According to Chitty (2013), top-down development is characterized by delegation down a chain of command to manage implementation. Other disadvantages of the top-down approach according to Chitty include disputes about chosen methodologies and the viability of alternatives as everyone tries to get a piece of the planning budget, piloting and subsequent rolling out of schemes and plans-a belief that what worked somewhere else can also be applicable elsewhere. The Faith Based Community Development approach on the other hand is centred on religion. The United States Office of Policy Development and Research (USOPDR)(2014) reports that in recent years, policy makers  depend on churches, synagogues, mosques and other faith based organizations to play a greater role in strengthening communities. The report further reveals that faith based participation in community development is limited for several reasons which include lack of required skills and knowledge on the part of the congregational staff to successfully sponsor community development projects, lack of grants, funds and management capacity as well as challenges in the area of sustained involvement. Consequently, these approaches (Asset Based Community Development, Community Economic Development, and Faith Based Community Development) to community development projects have been adopted in South East States of Nigeria, but however could yield much impact as Paul, Agba, & Chukwurah (2014) observed. They added that none of these approaches has been able to radically change the poor standard of living in rural Nigeria as most of them are deficient in in-depth insight and systematic frameworks for realization, resulting to abandonment of projects and increased levels of poverty. Closely related to the non – realization of the objectives, Oye(2014) reports is attributable to the use of the top-down development approaches in Africa in general and Nigeria in particular.


In the light of these limitations, the Community Driven development (CDD) approach appears to be more appealing and viable for successful community development practice. This approach according to World Bank (2002) is simply the exercise of community control over decisions and resources directed at poverty reduction and development. It is an approach that leaves development decisions and resources in the hands of community members, and thus referred to as people-oriented development. As people- oriented development approach it is premised on the belief that participants have the right and/ or are better placed to drive their own development against the backdrop that direct service delivery creates parallel structures or undermine local capacity which is today considered bad practice. The central objectives of the CDD approach are poverty reduction, promotion of social capital, increased community participation, social accountability and rural empowerment (World Bank 2003). Dongier,Van ,Ostrom, Ryan, Wakeman, Bebbington, Alkire, Esmail, & Polsk, (2002) further identify  two kinds of outputs, namely: to meet the needs of the community, and  to promote social change through the establishment of viable and representative community organizations as associated with the approach. This is not unconnected with the fact that the community discusses its needs, plans to meet these needs, organizes its’ resources for action and continues its’ efforts to meet these needs or solve new problems (Madu, Wakili & Mshiela, 2013).


CDD according to World Bank (2015) report, is based on the principle that community involvement in identifying needs, prioritizing the needs, making decisions about the needs, and managing investment funds produce better development outcomes than more centralized, top-down approaches. This approach was a reaction to the failures of earlier approaches to target poverty reduction, as it gives priority to changing the lives of poor people. Hence, operates on the principles of local empowerment, participatory governance, demand-responsiveness, accountability and enhanced local capacity (World Bank, 2003). The World Bank further stated that in conjunction with the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP), the approach has been employed across a range of countries among which is Nigeria to support several needs which include water supply, schools and health care facilities construction, sewer rehabilitation, building of access roads and support for micro enterprise as well as nutrition programmes for mother and infants (World Bank, 2012). Department for International Development (DFID) (2010) reports  that CDD has been subject to methodologically sound and rigorous impact evaluation in Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Sierra-Leone and Liberia and the outcomes indicated its effectiveness at generating tangible economic outcomes. As an approach for the reduction of poverty, community participation and rural empowerment in many countries, particularly in Africa, Wong (2012) reports that the approach has been successfully employed in the development of communities in Zambia, Bangladesh, Brazil and Benin Republic. Some reviewed CDD projects in Africa include social action project in Angola, social action project in Burundi, community rehabilitation and development project in Rwanda, community rehabilitation project in Burundi and Health Service Recovery Project in Somalia.


Consequently, the CDD has become a key operational strategy for many national governments for the delivery of services because of its approach towards empowering local decision making and putting resources in the direct control of community groups (World Bank, 2013). The Asian Development Bank, (ADB) (2006) affirms that it has become one of the fastest growing mechanisms, for assistance among Multicultural Development Banks (MDBs) and other aid agencies. ADB further reveals that since the mid 1990’s more than 80 countries have now implemented CDD projects. The independent assessment of FADAMA II, one of the Banks CDD projects suggests that it has yielded significant benefits for poor rural communities (International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI 2007).


In Nigeria, under the auspices of the Community and Social Development Project (CSDP), the World Bank (WB) has employed the CDD approach to bring about poverty alleviation and rural empowerment in 25 states of Nigeria (www.csdpnigeria.org). Four out of the five South East States: Abia, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo are beneficiaries of this programme. The Abia State CSDP was declared effective on the first of April 2009 by the World Bank and some of the projects it sets out to implement were feeder roads construction and rehabilitation, boreholes, potable water facilities, rural electrification, civic centers, rural market facilities and vocational training centers among others. Nwachukwu & Ezeh (2007) report that prior to the inception of CDD based projects in Abia State, the effectiveness of almost all the previous poverty reduction programmes of the government became questionable having failed to improve to a considerable extent the quality of life of the targeted beneficiaries. In Ebonyi State, following the passage of the Ebonyi State law, No. 004 of 2009, the (Ebonyi State Community Development Agency EBCSDA) agency was established to oversee the implementation of the Community and Social development Projects in the state. The project was to ensure that resources are effectively and efficiently targeted at reducing poverty. Hence, Nkwede & Samuel (2014) report that Ebonyi State is part of the beneficiaries of the partnership between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the World Bank funded CDD projects in Nigeria.


In 2009, the Enugu State House of Assembly enacted a law to provide for the establishment of State Agency for Community and Social Development. The aims and objectives of the agency include improvement of the socio-economic conditions of the communities by promoting prompt delivery of services geared towards poverty reduction in the state, encourage and enhance the capacity of community development projects and ensure the sustainability of community participation in such projects even after completion. Obetta & Okide (2012) report that the government of Enugu over the years has pursued several community development projects with the aim of poverty reduction, rural transformation and self reliance. In Imo State, the (Imo State Community and Social Development Agency, 1SA-CSDP) agency was established by law No.3 of 2009 of Imo State to implement the CSDP. It is a poverty reduction project that adopted the CDD approach. The agency has approved and funded 81 Community Development Projects (CDP) which were implemented using the CDD approach as at June 30 2013. The projects comprise 243 multi-sectoral micro projects (CSDP 2013 report).


In all the benefiting states prior to the emergence of the CSDP interventions of the World Bank, Ubani, Okorocha & Emeribe (2010) rightly observe that the high level of dilapidation of buildings, deterioration of roads and other construction infrastructure in the South East Zone could be attributed to abysmal performance of construction project management resulting from the use of top down approach of development. Ayodele & Alabi (2011) citing Kotangora (1993) report that there were about 4000 uncompleted or abandoned projects belonging to the Federal Government of Nigeria with an estimated cost of above 300 billion naira which will take 30 years to complete at the present execution capacity of government. Nzekwe, Oladejo, & Emoh (2015) also remark that the inability to complete projects on schedule or to cost projections has sometimes led to total project abandonment. This has been encountered in road construction projects, where initial excavation and grading work can worsen the state of pre-existing roads, only for the project to be abandoned for one reason or other. This has further created untold hardship in many rural communities, because such roads serve entire communities and could affect their economic fortunes. The rate of poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment in the South East was, and is still quite high. The United Nations Multi Dimensional Poverty Index Report (2015) which employed 10 indicators to measure poverty in three dimensions: Education, Health and Living standards indicates that poverty in the South East, particularly in the rural areas is still high at 27.36%. This may have informed Lawal & Oluwatoyin (2011) state that Nigeria is still wallowing in abject poverty, high level of unemployment and starvation in spite of her huge resources endowment. This has further inhibited the quest for improved quality of life of her citizens.  To successfully enhance meaningful development, effective strategies must be evolved with personnel that will religiously and faithfully implement it.

The adoption of CDD approach in community development projects has been identified in several studies   to offer considerable benefits to communities and increase poor people’s access to important infrastructure and services (Army, 2011).However, in spite of these positive reports of success, the use of top down approach of community development projects is eminent in South East States of Nigeria which has led to the alarming rate of poverty among the people. This poor condition of the people could only be understood in an evaluative study of this nature, hence the need to evaluate the implementation of this approach in South East of Nigeria. The evaluation of this approach has also become necessary since the approach has been in use for more than five years with no such studies to ascertain the level it has impacted on the development of communities in South East States of Nigeria.


Accordingly, evaluation is defined as an activity designed to judge the merits of a government policy or programme (Heyes, 2001). The evaluation of any programme is a very vital tool for feedback to ensure that the objectives of the programme were met, while taking cognizance of lapses which will enable policy makers to decide if the programme should be continued, abolished or fine-tuned. Evaluation within the context of this study is a process of investigation to establish whether the objectives of the CSDP in using CDD approach are met in the implementation of community development projects.  Thus, attempt is made to determine the extent to which the implementation of the CDD approach to community development projects has reduced poverty, enhanced community participation, promoted rural empowerment, and achieved social capital and social accountability in South Eastern Nigeria.


Poverty according to the Europian Union Joint commission on Social Inclusion (2004) is a situation where the income and resources of persons are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living considered acceptable in the society in which they live. This situation is evident in their low income, poor housing, unemployment, inaccessibility to good health care and barriers to learning. Gambo & Targema (2015) opine that whether we look at poverty as a scourge or as a cause of other specific socio-economic problems, the menace of poverty is highly endemic and afflicts Nigeria, just like other developing nations of the world. A high incidence of poverty in any society translates to restriction of community participation vis-a-vis high rate of underdevelopment.


Community participation is a vital ingredient for successful community development. World Bank (2015) defines community participation as the process by which individuals, families or communities assume responsibilities for their own welfare and develop a capacity to contribute to their own and the community’s development by being involved in the decision making processes in determining goals and pursuing issues of importance to them. This implies that effective community participation can promote rural empowerment.


Rural Empowerment, on the other hand has been of great concern to many governments, International and Non-governmental Organizations. World Bank (2010) defines empowerment as the expansion of freedom of choice and action. It means increasing ones authority and control over the resources and decisions that affects one’s life.  Thus, rural empowerment is an important tool for achieving national development. This goes to show that when the people are not empowered to voice their opinions they are likely to be embittered, thus leading to violation in social capital as well as other communal clashes in several climes.


The importance of social capital as a benchmark for successful community development is currently being emphasized by many drivers of community development projects such as the World Bank. According to Putnam (2000), social capital refers to the collective value of all social networks and inclinations that arise from these networks to assist one another. Since, it builds on relationships that makes for peaceful coexistence, social capital is essential for sustainable development.  As an ingredient of sustainable development, social accountability is also addressed.


The need for accountability in any human endeavour cannot be overemphasized. Social accountability is of vital importance for sustenance of development efforts particularly as it prevents the elite members of the community from capturing community development projects. World Bank (2004) defines social accountability as an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic engagement, whereby ordinary citizens and/or civil society organizations participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability from their leaders. It builds trust between community development initiators and recipients and has the potential to attract further development interventions. Many community development projects have failed resulting from the neglect of this key component of successful community development. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)(2002) stresses that having access to public information and participation is a fundamental element to participatory governance including transparency and accountability, whereas inadequate information creates and promotes corrupt practices that persistently undermine citizens and their rights. Community driven development policy addresses key issues of local governance within and around the communities with a view to improving the quality of the governance system (transparency, accountability, responsiveness to people’s need) and the objectives of good governance (equity, stability, growth and efficient use of resources) (Kumer 2003).


A lot of community development projects have been embarked upon by CSDP using the CDD approach in the South East States of Nigeria to address the various problems emanating from the use of top down approach, yet there has been  no much impact on the development of communities in these states, hence the need for the study. More so, since the inception of CSDP in Nigeria using the CDD approach in the execution of community development projects for more than five years, there was need for an evaluative study. This is the thrust of this study.


Statement of the Problem

In 2008, the World Bank in collaboration with the Federal Government of Nigeria flagged off the Community and Social Development Programme in 25 states, including 4 states in the South East Geopolitical zone of Nigeria. These programmes were expected to employ the CDD approach to implement Community development projects such as educational projects, safe water initiatives, health care facilities, road construction and rehabilitation, rural electrification aimed at poverty alleviation and rural empowerment. The overall aim of adopting the approach was premised on the fact that leaving decision making and resources in the hands of community members will facilitate sustainable community development and reduce the possibility of elite capture usually observed in top – down approaches to community development. It will also target the poorest and marginalized groups of people as well as promote rural empowerment, community participation, build social capital and enhance social accountability.


In Nigeria however, many of the approaches to community development have been- top down in nature which do not allow room for effective participation of community members in identifying their felt needs and participating in community development projects of which they are direct recipients. This has resulted to a high incidence of poverty and underdevelopment in many South East States. Studies have shown that the CDD approach to community development projects offers a glimpse of hope regarding on the well being of the people.  However, in spite of the laudable benefits of this approach in the development of communities, the abandonment of projects with high rate of poverty has been on the increase, thus suggesting the use of top down approach. The problem of this study therefore is to evaluate the extent of implementation of the CSDP using the CDD approach to community development projects in the development of communities in South East States of Nigeria.


Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the CSDP within the context of the community driven development approach to community development projects in the development of communities in South East Nigeria. The purposes of the study are specifically to:-

  1. determine the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has reduced poverty in South East States of Nigeria.
  2. examine the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has enhanced community participation in South East States of Nigeria.
  3. ascertain the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has promoted empowerment of rural communities in South East states of Nigeria.
  4. determine the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has achieved social capital in South East States of Nigeria.
  5. determine the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has achieved social accountability in South East States of Nigeria.



Significance of the Study

The theoretical significance of the study will be anchored on Sherry Arnstein’s theory of citizen’s participation propounded in 1969.The theory states that citizen participation is citizen power and participation is a function of sharing and re-distributing power. This assertion by Arnstein falls within two critical tenets of CDD approach namely; rural empowerment and community participation. The study will therefore establish this relationship with a view to increasing awareness on the benefit of this theory to community development. The findings of this study will also be beneficial to policy makers, donor agencies, community members, governments, community development stakeholders, and future researchers.


The findings of the study will assist community development policy makers understand the impact of the CDD approach in the development of communities. It will equip them with facts about the approach that will guide future community development decisions .It will provide them with information about the areas where the CDD approach has been implemented and the extent to which it has been effective at promoting sustainable development. It will also enable them modify policies to encourage the use of CDD approach in project implementation.


The findings of the study will also provide a resource base for donor agencies in the planning and implementation of community development projects through the CDD approach. Based on the information they will be better equipped with facts about other community development approaches that will enable them decide on the best approach to employ when embarking on community development projects


The findings of the study will assist community leaders and members understand the meaning of the CDD approach to community development and educate them on the benefits of the CDD approach which will further facilitate their participation and cooperation in community development projects.


The findings from this study will also assist governments of the states used in the study appreciate the extent to  which the implementation of the approach affected poverty reduction, rural empowerment, participation, social capital and social accountability. This will also guide their decisions concerning future community development projects.


The findings of the study will enable stake holders states who are yet to implement the CDD approach have an idea of what the CDD approach is about and the extent to which it will be beneficial to them if the approach becomes operational in their states.


Finally the findings of the study will contribute to literature that will be beneficial to future researchers.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study.

  1. To what extent has the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects reduced poverty in South East States of Nigeria?
  2. To what extent has the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects enhanced community participation in South East States of Nigeria?
  3. To what extent has the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects promoted the empowerment of rural communities in the South East states of Nigeria?
  4. To what extent has the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects enhanced social capital in South East States of Nigeria?
  5. To what extent has the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects achieved social accountability in South East States of Nigeria?


Scope of the Study

This study evaluates the extent of implementation of CSDP approach within the context of the community driven development approach in the development of communities in South East of Nigeria. The content scope of the study were on the extent  the implementation of CDD approach has reduced poverty, enhanced community participation, promoted rural empowerment, achieved social capital as well as social accountability. The respondents for the study are drawn from community project management committees, as well as community members and non community members of the committees in all communities where the CDD approach is implemented through the community and social development Programme (CSDP) in South East States of Nigeria.



The following null hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance;

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents with respect to the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has reduced poverty in the South East States of Nigeria.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents with respect to the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has enhanced community participation in South East States of Nigeria.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents with respect to the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has promoted the empowerment of rural communities in South East States of Nigeria.

Ho4: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents with respect to the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has achieved social capital in South East States of Nigeria.

Ho5: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents with respect to the extent to which the implementation of CDD approach to community development projects has achieved social accountability in South East States of Nigeria.


Do you need help? Talk to us right now: (+234) 8111770269, 08111770269 (Call/WhatsApp). Email: [email protected] Disclaimer: This PDF Material Content is Developed by the copyright owner to Serve as a RESEARCH GUIDE for Students to Conduct Academic Research. You are allowed to use the original PDF Research Material Guide you will receive in the following ways: 1. As a source for additional understanding of the project topic. 2. As a source for ideas for you own academic research work (if properly referenced). 3. For PROPER paraphrasing ( see your school definition of plagiarism and acceptable paraphrase). 4. Direct citing ( if referenced properly). Thank you so much for your respect for the authors copyright.

Purchase Detail

Hello, we’re glad you stopped by, you can download the complete project materials to this project with Abstract, Chapters 1 – 5, References and Appendix (Questionaire, Charts, etc) for N4000 ($15) only, To pay with Paypal, Bitcoin or Ethereum; please click here to chat us up via Whatsapp.
You can also call 08111770269 or +2348059541956 to place an order or use the whatsapp button below to chat us up.
Bank details are stated below.

Bank: UBA
Account No: 1021412898
Account Name: Starnet Innovations Limited

The Blazingprojects Mobile App

Download and install the Blazingprojects Mobile App from Google Play to enjoy over 50,000 project topics and materials from 73 departments, completely offline (no internet needed) with the project topics updated Monthly, click here to install.

0/5 (0 Reviews)


Read Previous

Maternal Health Care Seeking Behaviour Pregnancy Outcome – complete project material

Read Next


Need Help? Chat with us
%d bloggers like this: