This document summarizes the interim findings of a case study conducted in Kenya to discuss accountability and project quality with Christian Aid's partner UCCS. Over the course of a week, the researcher held meetings with community groups and management committees across several locations. Participatory exercises were used to assess accountability mechanisms and their contribution to project quality. Preliminary findings indicated that information sharing and participation were strong, but feedback and complaints saw weaker understanding. Accountability was linked to higher trust, ownership and motivation. Issues identified for the research included adapting the methodology for development projects and ensuring facilitation supported participation.

1. Accountability Research
Kenya case study
Discussion on interim findings with Christian Aid in Kenya
Andy Featherstone, 25 February 2013

2. Itinerary
Day Activity
Sunday  Contextualising methodology
 induction with translator
Monday  Meeting with UCCS
 Trial exercise with community – Kyawango location
Tuesday  Meeting with Prog Mgt. Com. – Itoleka location
 Meeting with mixed group
Wednesday  Meeting with PMC – Mutulu location
 Meeting with mixed group
Thursday  Meeting with PMC – Kalawani location
 Meeting with mixed group
Friday  Meeting with PMC – Kithungu location
 Meeting with mixed group
Saturday  Meeting with 4 groups – Ukanga location
 Return to Nairobi

3. Context and partner profile
• Makueni County in Eastern
Kenya
• Communities practice small
scale rain fed agriculture
• Unreliable and erratic
rainfall associated with
water scarcity has led to
increased frequency of
droughts
• UCCS is CA‟s main partner in
the East and has been
operating in Kitui Machakos
and Garissa since 1987
• Action plans developed out of the PVCA process led to the prioritisaiton of
a project partnering the community to construct sand dams that will not
only serve the livestock and crops but also help in shortening the distance
that people take to access water for domestic use, particularly women.

4. The approach
 A methodology was developed which mixed quantitative
and qualitative approaches and was used fairly
consistently throughout the research
 Scorecards and opinion ranking exercises were used to
describe accountability mechanisms and as entry points
to wider discussions about their contribution to project
quality
 All of the exercises were translated into Kikamba and
the discussions were facilitated by a translator
 Each community meeting lasted between 2.5 – 3.5 hours

5. Participation
Total male
participants = 63
Total female
participants = 87
Discussions were held in mixed groups of 10-
15 people. Typically a meeting was held with
the Management Committee in the morning
and with a selection of youth, female or
mixed groups in the afternoon. Participation
was disaggregated by gender (although the
results of the exercises were not)

6. Lessons about the methodology
 It took time to get the language right and to ensure that
the correct meaning was translated
 Fast-tracking the methodology to allow for shorter
meetings significantly eroded the utility of the results
 Strong facilitation (as opposed to translation alone) was
key to the success of the discussions
 Using the exercises as a foundation for each of the
discussions ensured active engagement and strong
participation from all community members
 The meetings were long but they were also fruitful and
community participation was excellent

7. Initial findings – accountability
 „Information-sharing‟ was scored fairly strongly across the
groups – the control projects tended to know less (although
also over-exaggerated the extent of their knowledge).
 „Participation‟ was routinely strong across all groups, built on
the foundation provided by the PVCA but maintained through
strong community support to implementation and
participation in monitoring
 Knowledge and use of „feedback‟ and „complaints‟ was
weakest in the control where the management committee
tended to have a far better understanding than others. For
non-control groups, there was a good understanding of the
mechanism and confidence in it. Non-members affected by
the projects were not well served

8. Accountability in
action

9. Contribution to project quality
 There was generally a good understanding of the causal link
between accountability mechanisms and project quality
although it was at times difficult to capture this
 „Trust‟, „ownership‟ and „motivation‟ were all considered to
be far greater where there were well-functioning
accountability mechanisms
 Examples were given to show how the perceived clarity about
and utility of UCCS‟ accountability mechanism lay the
foundation for good quality projects
 In the broadest terms, the case study provided evidence for
the hypothesis that functioning accountability mechanisms
tend to produce good quality projects

10. Community voices
 “Because we participated in choosing the project, it is ours
and so we will give more of our time and value the
intervention”
 “Information sharing has helped people come together to
work in the project”
 “[when we selected the project] we prioritised the dry areas
and so we made a choice about who was most in need. In
doing this we influenced a better outcome as we know the
community and the needs”
 “Before UCCS came, other programmes have failed because
they lacked accountability and there was corruption.
Accountability is a key part of the success of the programme”

11. Issues for the research
 The difficulties associated with designing a methodology relevant to
projects along the development continuum – the long-term nature
of UCCS‟ relationship with the community meant that groups tended
to score the partnership as a whole rather than judge it according to
a single „project‟
 The need to focus on the „spirit‟ of HAP rather than the specifics for
development projects - The focus of UCCS on supporting their
groups (rather than those most in need) and directing their
accountability mechanisms accordingly is an example.
 The importance of discussions to temper the results of the exercises
– at times the community was „apologetic‟ that they gave a low
score. At other times follow-up discussions suggested they
exaggerated the scores
 The importance of facilitation in the success of the research – while
the use of the exercises ensured good participation, sound
explanation and facilitation was essential to the exercise.
 The challenge of how to analyse and present the evidence
coherently

12. Questions & discussion