Providers and beneficiaries view of the contributions of state level non-governmental organizations ( NGO ) to rural community development in Anambra State ,

The study was carried out to ascertain contributions of state based-Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to rural community development (RCD) in Anambra State, Nigeria. Multistage random sampling technique was employed to select seventy respondents (35 NGOs members and 35 beneficiaries/rural people) from 4 local government areas, 7 NGOs and 7 villages in the state. Data were collected through the use of questionnaire and interview schedule. Percentage, mean score and t-test were used in analyzing data. Result revealed that about 89% of NGO members indicated that beneficiaries participated in their activities and this was in areas like planning (M = 2.46), organizing (M = 2.57) and implementation (M = 2.26) of programmes while rural people (beneficiaries) (77.1%) indicated that they did not participate in their programmes. Sensitization of masses on HIV/AIDS (M = 2.66), organization of farm workshop/seminar and provision of arms to widows/orphans (M = 2.37 each) were some of the areas NGOs pointed while beneficiaries pointed only ‘sensitization of masses on HIV/AIDS’ (M = 2.20) as areas NGOs have contributed to RCD in the state. NGOs perceived poor infrastructure (M = 2.63) while beneficiaries perceived inadequate fund (M = 2.80) as constraints limiting NGOs from contributing to RCD in the state. Also, there were significant differences (p≤0.05) in all the responses of NGOs and rural people as regards to the contributions of NGOs to RCD and in most of their responses on participation and constraints limiting NGOs from contributing to RCD in the state. The study concluded that NGOs should boost their rural development efforts generally and especially towards agriculture and provision of basic infrastructure so that their impact can be felt in rural areas.


INTRODUCTION
The concept of Non Governmental Organization (NGO) came into use in 1945 following the establishment of the United Nation Organisations which recognized the need to give a consultative role to organisations which were not classified as neither government nor member states (Willets, 2002).In Nigeria, the establishment of NGOs dates back to the pre-independence period (Elumilade et al., 2006).However, the impacts of NGOs became noteworthy in the post-independence era with the inability of the post-colonial state to cope with the huge *Corresponding author.E-mail: julieiwuchukwu@yahoo.com.Tel: 08063276459.development needs of the Nigerian populace.According to Turner and Hulme (1997), NGOs are generally registered organizations, community groups, professional associations, trade unions, cooperate charity organizations whose aim is to improve the well being of their members and of those areas in which they exists.World Bank (2001) sees NGO's as private organisations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, and/or undertake community development.Asamoah (2003) identifies NGOs target populations to include specific categories of the poor and disenfranchised; age and gender groups; selected occupational groups; and persons adversely affected by diseases, natural and man-made disasters, ethnic strife and forced migration.
At present, quite a number of NGOs operate at different levels and maintain different orientations in Nigeria.These are community-based organizations, city-wide organizations, national and international NGOs.Also, they have acquired different orientations focusing on service, charity, participation and empowerment (Igwe, 2006;Pamnet, 2008).They operate independently from any government, although it may and often receive both government and corporate funds.NGOs, like the state seek to serve community needs such as health, education, water and sanitation.They contribute in specific activities such as serving as medium or agent of change most especially in the diffusion of agricultural information, mutual aid, sympathy support, offering technical assistance and training, advocacy for and with the poor and financial assistance to community developments.Ranging from poverty reduction initiative through the establishment of community based enterprises like creation of oil mill centres, provision of pipe borne water, community health centres, schools etc.They also act as human right activist in protecting the interest of the people especially the rural dwellers and enhancing good governance in the state (www.anambrastate.gov.ng).
Optimal development requires the harnessing of a country's assets, its capital, human and natural resources to meet the demand from its population as comprehensibly as possible.Besides, Nigeria's plentiful agricultural resources and oil wealth, poverty is still a challenge in the country especially in the rural communities, where up to 80% of the population lives below the poverty line and social services and infrastructure are limited (United Nation, 2007).
Provision of rural infrastructure in Nigeria and specifically in Anambra State has long been neglected.Investments in health, education, transport and power supply have been focused largely on the cities and this invariably affects the profitability of agricultural production and the entire economy.The apparent difficulties of the government to meet the challenges of creating a more sustainable and equitable pattern of development has led policy makers and social activists to promote new institutional actors and configurations designed to achieve these.One of these actors is non governmental organisations (NGOs) (United Nation, 2007).The major concern of NGOs is focused on rural development.This means how to give to the average community the basic satisfaction necessary for the improvement of socioeconomic and cultural life of people who feel neglected by their government in the field of development programmes.In view of these expected roles of the NGOs, the study was designed to ascertain the contributions of the state base NGO to rural community development in Anambra State.
Specifically, the study assessed participation of rural people in NGO activities, ascertained NGOs contributions to rural community development and constraints limiting their contributions to rural community development in the state.

METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in Anambra state, Nigeria.Members of NGO (providers) and rural people (beneficiaries) in the state constituted the population for the study.Multistage random sampling technique was employed in the selection of the respondents.The first stage involved purposive selection of four (Awka South, Awka North, Onitsha South and Onitsha North) local government areas (LGAs) out of the twenty-one LGAs in the State.This was due to pronounced existence and activities of NGOs in these areas.In the second stage, 15% of NGOs were proportionately selected from each LGA.Thus, three [Center for Gender and Sustainable Development (CGSD), Good Health Education (GHO) and Save our Youth and Environment (SOYE)] and two NGOs [Cry out for Africa foundation (CFAF) and Life Harvesters Mission Centre (LHMF)] were selected from Awka South and Onitsha North, respectively.An NGO each was selected from Awka North [Life Link Foundation (LLF)], and Onitsha South [Africa Health Foundation (AHF)].In the third stage, a town community and subsequently a village where the development activities of the NGOs take place were purposively selected for each of the selected NGO.In the fourth stage, five members of NGOs were purposively selected from each NGO and five rural dwellers who resides in those villages where NGOs activities take place were also purposively selected from each of the villages.This gave a total of seventy respondents [35 NGO members (providers) and 35 rural dwellers (beneficiaries)] for the study.
Data were collected with questionnaire (for NGOs members) and interview schedule (for rural dwellers).Both instrument contains relevant questions based on the specific objectives of the study.Data on level of participation of the rural people in the activities of NGOs and contributions of NGOs to rural community development were collected using 3 point likert type scale with response options as 'to a great extent' = 3, 'to a little extent' = 2 and 'to no extent' = 1 with a mean of 2. Response with a mean score equal or greater than 2 was regarded as either area the rural people participated or contribution of NGOs to rural community development while that less than 2.0 was regarded otherwise.Respondents were also requested to indicate constraints that limit contributions of NGO's to rural community development on a 3-point Likert type scale of 'to a great extent' = 3, 'to a little extent' = 2 and 'to no extent' = 1 with a mean of 2. Mean scores equal or greater than 2 were regarded as major constraints while those less than 2.0 were regarded as minor constraints limiting contribution of NGO's to rural community development.Data collected were analysed with percentage,

Participation of rural people in NGOs activities
Table 1 shows that majority (88.6%) of NGO members attested that rural people or beneficiaries participated in their activities while majority (77.1%) of rural people attested that they did not participate in NGO activities.This implies that there were contradictions in the responses given by both categories of respondents as regards the participation of beneficiaries in NGOs activities.The doubt and problem lie on the fact that despite the increase in the number of NGOs participatory methodologies as they claimed and after many years of poverty alleviation, poverty continues to be rife and communities continue to languish in it (Ngujiri, 1998).

Areas rural people participated in NGOs activities
It is obvious in  (1995) postulated that it is not about increasing participation but about achieving effective participation.Effective participation of rural people in programme can be achieved by tackling on their felt needs as well as giving consideration to their existing basic culture elements (Eze, 2005) which makes the success of the programme a reality.The table also shows that there were significant differences in responses of both categories of respondents on planning of programmes (t = 8.46), organisation of programmes (t = 14.46), controlling of activities (t = 4.87), programme monitoring (t = 1.8), programme evaluation (t = 5.69) and utilisation of fund for project (t = 3.61) as areas of participation of rural people in NGOs activities.Thus, indicating that NGO members pointed them more as areas rural people participated in their activities than the rural people themselves.This can be adduced from the higher mean scores of NGOs members than rural people in these areas in Table 2.These discrepancies in the responses of these categories of respondents poses question on whether these beneficiaries are actually involved in the programme and the possibility of the programme tackling their felt needs.

Education
Table 3 reveals that NGO members pointed out 'organizing literacy programmes' (M = 2.31) and 'provision of computer/internet facilities' (M = 2.11) as their contributions to rural community development in educational sector in the state while the rural people did not indicate any contribution of NGO in development of educational sector in the state.These findings partially did not corroborate with the fact that NGO provide a large part of educational services and help reinforce government efforts in achieving universal primary education (UPE) objectives (Ibembe, 2007).

Health
NGO members indicated that they contributed to development in the health sector through all the factors enumerated under health in Table 3 which are sensitization programmes on HIV/AIDS (M = 2.66), sensitization on general health management (M = 2.51), building of health centres (M = 2.37), provision of drugs (M = 2.14) and provision of free medical care (M = 2.03).However, only sensitization programmes on HIV/AIDS (M = 2.66) was indicated by rural people as contribution of NGO towards development in the health sector (Table 3).
In line with this finding, Omofonmwan (2007) noted that NGO known as Body Enhancement Annual Reconstructive Surgery (BEARS) foundation carried out a plastic surgical operation on 36 patients who were severely burnt free of charge.Of remarkable interest in this effort is the involvement of a good number of internationally recognized trained plastic surgeons as well as the quality drugs and equipments used for the operations.The table also reveals that there were significant differences in all the responses of NGO members and rural people as regards to contributions of NGO in education and health sectors.In educational sector, these discrepancies existed in building of schools (t = 5.10), provision of materials to school teachers (t = 4.88), organizing literacy programmes (t = 2.84 ), provision of skill acquisition centre (t = 5.96), scholarships (t = 6.24), provision of laboratory equipment (t = 4.58), provision of computer/internet facilities (t = 7.07), giving free books and writing materials to schools (t = 5.04) and building of community library (t = 4.35).Building of health centres (t = 9.65), provision of drug (t = 6.5), sensitization programmes on HIV/AID (t = 3.12), sensitization on general health management (t = 5.33) and provision of free medical care (t = 6.08) were areas these differences existed among these categories of respondents in the health sector.
This can be proved by significance level less than 0.05 in all the factors measured (Table 3).The table further shows that NGO members indicated all these factors in the table as their contributions to rural development in education and health sectors more than the rural people.This can be proved by the higher mean scores of NGO members than rural people in all these variables in the table .Being providers, they are likely to be more knowledgeable and involved in their activities than the beneficiaries which invariably culminated to their higher perceptions on these activities.

Agriculture
NGO members indicated that they have contributed to rural development in agricultural sector through provision of farming skills to farmers by organizing seminars and workshops for farmers (M = 2.37), organizing food security programmes (M = 2.17), sensitization of farmers on natural phenomenon like climate change, erosion etc (M = 2.11) and provision of inputs like fertilizers to farmers (M = 2.06) (Table 4).On the other hand, rural people did not indicate any contribution of NGO to rural development in agricultural sector.It is surprising that NGOs had made little or no contribution to agriculture that is described as the lifeblood of Africa [Economic Commission for Africa, (ECA), 2007], employs about 70% of the labour force and contributes about 40% of GDP in Nigeria [Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), 2002].The fact that agriculture has been relegated to the backyard and there have been persisted failures of agricultural programmes in Nigeria (Amalu, 1998) might account for this.

Basic and physical amenities
It can be inferred from Table 4 that NGO members pointed out only' giving arms to widows and the poor '(M = 2.37) while rural people did not point out any of NGO towards provision of physical/basic amenities in rural areas of the state.These findings suggest little or no contribution of NGOs to rural community development in the state.This may have been one of the reasons why most rural areas of the world are characterized by poor infrastructure, low level of urbanization, low population density and a very important agricultural sector (Minot et al., 2006).Provision of basic infrastructure is one of the major areas rural development effort should emphasize.This is because availability of these amenities may reduce contribution rural-urban drift as well as promoting development in other sectors of the economy especially agriculture.It can also be deduced from Table 4 that there were significant differences in the responses of both categories of respondents in all the factors considered under agriculture and basic/physical amenities sectors.Specific factors where these differences existed under agriculture were organising food security programmes for farmers (t = 5.70), granting of loans/credits to farmers (t = 5.82), provision of farming skills to farmers by organising seminars and workshops for farmers (t = 10.59),provision of farm implements (t = 6.34), provision of inputs to farmer like fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, seeds etc. (t = 7.46), provision of subsidies to farmers (t = 4.96), provision of machines to farmers (t = 9.16 ), sensitization of farmers on natural phenomenon like climate change, erosion, drought, global warming etc (t = 6.45) and provision of pipe borne water (t = 4.29).These differences existed under basic and physical amenities in provision of power/electricity (t = 4.19), building of community markets (t = 6.16), road construction/rehabilitation (t = 6.45), building of milling and processing centres (t = 4.85), building of community centres (t = 5.09), provision of security/sponsoring of vigilante group (t = 5.11), giving arms to widows and the poor (t = 9.65) and building of churches (t = 5.01).
The table further indicates higher perceptions of NGO members than rural people on all these factors as contributions of NGOs to rural development in agriculture and basic/physical amenities sectors.This can be proved by their higher mean scores than that of the rural people in all the factors considered (Table 4).

Perceived constraints to contributions of NGOs to rural community development
The respondents perceived major constraints to contributions of NGOs to rural community development were fund embezzlement/misappropriation (NGO members M = 2.57, rural people M = 0.43), cultural belief (NGO members M = 2.46, rural people M = 2.11), nonchalant attitude of members towards accomplishing roles of the NGO (NGO members M = 2.26 , rural people M = 2.4), inadequate fund (NGO members M = 2.23, rural people M = 2.80), lack of material resources like land (NGO members M = 2.23, rural people M = 0.71), leadership interest (NGO members M = 2.20, rural people M = 2.03), diffused roles of NGO (NGO members M = 2.09, rural people M = 2.34) and illiteracy problems of beneficiaries (NGO members M = 2.03, rural people M = 2.37) (Table 5).Political instability (M = 2.31) was perceived by only NGO members as major constraint while poor participation of beneficiaries (M = 2.5), poor infrastructure to reach target audience (M = 2.63) and poor remuneration of staff (M = 2.43) were perceived by only rural people as major factors hindering their contributions to rural development.In line with these findings, limited financial and management expertise and institutional capacity (World Bank,1996), inadequate support system and infrastructure, failure to appreciate the social environment, administrative and policy problems (http://www.stanford.edu/group/FRI/indnesia/documents/gittinger/Output/chapl.html) as well as role conflict, political interference and lack of appropriate technical know how have been identified as limitations to rural community development (Eze, 2005).
The table further shows that there were significant differences in the perceptions of NGO members and rural people on the following constraints: inadequate fund (t = -3.05),lack of material resources like land (t = -2.67),political instability (t = 2.71), poor participation of beneficiaries (t = -6.45), poor infrastructure to reach target audience (t = 10.22),cultural belief (t = 1.97) and poor remuneration of staff (t = -5.30).Thus, indicating that NGO members perceived political instability and cultural belief more than rural people as factors limiting their contributions to rural development.This can be proved by their higher mean scores than rural people in these factors.Rural people perceived inadequate fund, lack of material resources, poor participation of beneficiaries, poor infrastructure to reach target audience and poor remuneration of staff more than NGO members as factors inhibiting NGOs contributions to rural development.This can also be proved by higher mean scores of rural people than NGO members in these variables.The differences in their perceptions may lie on the fact that NGO members are more likely to experience the effects of unstable policies on NGO work while the rural people who are oftentimes ignorant are more likely to assume that NGOs are not performing due to lack of resources.

Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that there were many discrepancies in the responses of NGO (providers) and rural people (beneficiaries) as regards to the participation of beneficiaries in NGO activities, roles NGOs play as well as challenges they face in contributing to rural community development in Anambra State.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Rural people (target beneficiaries) should be involved in initiation and other key and sensitive stages (like planning, implementation, disbursement of fund, monitoring etc) of rural development programme and projects.In this way, they will take the programme as theirs, participate and give their best towards ensuring the success of the programme in order to actualize rural development.
2. NGOs should boost their rural development activities especially in areas of agriculture and provision of basic infrastructure.These are two key areas that development in rural areas should anchor on because the occupation of many rural inhabitants is farming.Developments in these areas will show-case NGOs and their activities thereby making their impact to be felt in rural areas.
3. Government at all levels and other stakeholders should grant financial assistance to all recognized NGOs in the state to promote their activities and also ensure that policies that facilitate their activities are instituted.
Iwuchukwu et al. 27 4. Continuous monitoring and assessment of NGOs performance by government, funding agencies and NGOs themselves from both providers and beneficiaries views should be advocated for.This is to ensure that fund, resources, programmes/activities are geared towards the set mandates so that the goal of rural development are realized at the long last.

Table 1 .
Participation of respondents in NGOs activities.

Table 2 .
Mean scores on level of participation of respondents in NGOs activities.

Table 2
that organization of programmes (M = 2.57), planning of programmes (M = 2.46) and programme implementation (M = 2.26) were areas rural people participated in NGOs activities as indicated by NGO members.In contrast to this, rural people indicated that they did not participate in any specific area of NGO activities as can be proved by their mean scores less than 2 in all the activities in the table.The findings show that rural people did not participate in activities of NGOs especially in important and sensitive issues like fund management, monitoring and mobilisation of resources for programme implementation.Participation of beneficiaries in programmes is important.This Bunch

Table 3 .
Contributions of NGOs to education and health sectors.

Table 4 .
Contributions of NGOs to agriculture and physical/basic amenities sectors.

Table 5 .
Constraints to contributions of NGOs to rural community development.