Shayla Dietrich, The Uganda Village Project

The Uganda Village Project: A Successful Western based NGO in Africa

By Shayla Dietrich

The Uganda Village Project (UVP) is an international nongovernment organization (NGO) founded in 2003 with its main base of operations in the United States. UVP carries out a number of development projects overseas in Uganda, Africa. In the most specific sense UVP is an “organization that works in rural Uganda on public health and development projects” (Annual Report, 2009). The work of UVP can be indicative of international NGO work in Africa on a grander scheme. The organization’s activities can reflect the work done by NGOs that is specifically geared towards facilitating development on the continent. It is also an expression of a participatory, community-based approach to development. With this representation in mind one can use analysis of NGOs’ work on these alternative forms of development as a basis for analysis of UVP’s work. Essentially, analysis of UVP and its activities in Uganda cannot be fully detached from development work of this nature in entirety. UVP’s work can be questioned and criticised just as the entire practice itself is.

This paper will aim to assess the claims made by the Uganda Village Project and examine the work the organization does. First, a short discussion of the particular region that UVP works and clarification on the less mainstream form of development they represent will provide a strong and much needed knowledge base. Understanding these two aspects of the issue will allow for a clearer analysis and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of this organization and this type of international NGO work in general. It will become clear that while UVP does have limitations, the organization is attempting to address the variety of concerns related to this particular form of participatory development work. On the whole, the organization facilitates development in Africa in a rather just and successful manner. While the project is still in its formative years, at this stage it appears UVP does more good in the district than harm. This is quite the accomplishment as such a scenario is not always the case for Western based NGOs working on development in Africa.

Uganda has found itself on the United Nations list of least developed countries since 1971 (UN, 2011). The country faces a number of development problems relating to high poverty rates, civil unrest and hunger challenges that have kept it high on this UN list. The Iganga district of Eastern Uganda has not managed to evade these challenges. With a rural population of approximately 80 percent and 46 percent of the population living below the poverty line the district’s development has been hindered (DevelopNet). The district has been deemed one of the poorest regions of Uganda (Annual Report, 2009). The Uganda Human Development Report of the United Nations (2005) makes clear the dismal situation faced the country. According to the report, Uganda has a Human Poverty Index (HPI) of 36.0 (25). This figure is based on a number of factors linked to multidimensional poverty such as illiteracy rate, access to safe water and child malnutrition.

Iganga district is located in the middle of Uganda’s Basoga region and has only one town; Iganga Town. The settlement has no running water or public sewage (Annual Report, 2009). Most people of the region speak Lusoga which is a regional language closely associated with the country’s national language (Annual Report, 2009) According to the Forum for Iganga District NGOs and CBOs (2007) the entire district has only one hospital. This unique region of Uganda faces its own set of social and economic problems and a great number of organizations have arisen to address these problems. The district has over 250 operating NGOs or CBOs (DevelopNet). Uganda Village Project is one such International NGO operating within the district.

UVP attempts to apply a participatory model of development to all aspects of its programming (Krause, 2009). Development and development work have historically focused a great deal on economics. Figures such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) have been used as measurements for the success of government and NGO development projects. This economic slant on development and the indicators it relies on have more recently been called into question. A more alternative form of development has grown in popularity. UVP’s work and the development they promote is of this variety. That is, UVP is less concerned with economics and GDP. Social factors and well-being take the place of GDP and economic growth in this model. This is made clear by what they refer to as measures of progress or indicators of success. Their mission to address health concerns entirely also represents a focus apart from economics.

The idea that development should be people driven and stakeholders should share control and influence over development originated approximately 40 years ago (Thwala, 2010). The idea has evolved and grown in popularity since that time. W. Thwala (2010) explains that the ideals of empowerment and allowing the poor to participate in the planning and management of the improvement of their own lives are critical to lasting success (174). UVP attempts to allow for this community involvement in their projects and they discuss this aim a great deal in their annual reports and mission statements. In the building of wells for the Safe Water Program community participation is abundant. Safe water was determined important by the local community members and the innovative storage of water in traditional Mod-Pots was also developed by a local individual (Annual Report, 2009:8). Also important is the utilization of local resources. The labour of the community and its members are employed in the construction of the wells and physical material resources of the community are used in the building process.

UVP has created a number of different programs within its organization with this social development focus and participatory approach in mind. These health and development related programs each address a different, often interrelated concern of development for the Iganga district. The Healthy Villages program is an attempt by UVP to increase basic health care in this very rurally populated region. Policy advocacy, attempts to strengthen the abilities of health centres and village outreach programs are all a part of the program that is currently in place in approximately 70 villages (Annual Report, 2009). The Healthy Villages concept is not a new idea. The Healthy Villages initiative was first developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The program was created to promote local action on a number of development issues (Howard et. Al., 2002). The program has been implemented across the globe and in a number of African countries by a number of organizations besides UVP.

A second UVP initiative is their interest and concern with safe water. Access to safe water is of grave concern in Uganda. 22.8% of the country’s population is without access to safe drinking water (UN, 2005: 24). UVP’s Safe Water Program is a specific attempt address health concerns in the Iganga District as related to the incidence of waterborne illnesses. The Safe Water Program is based on the idea of a “safe water chain” (Annual Report, 2009) in which shallow wells, water purification and water storage are all addressed. According to their Annual Report from 2009, UVP assisted with creation of 17 community-deg wells (7). UVP has also worked in a together with the Iganga District Water Office to address the safe water shortage needs of other communities as well (Annual Report, 2009).

The third core UVP program is that of Orphan Support. According to the UN’s Uganda Human Development Report (2005) Uganda has approximately 1.7 million orphans due to the very high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (29). This number places Uganda among the countries with the highest rates of orphans in the world (UN, 2005). This Orphan Support Program of UVP promotes investing in these children of the Iganga District. This investment takes the form of school fee payments and attempts to support the livelihoods of orphans (Annual Report, 2009). For example, UVP promotes hand-made crafts created by a number of orphaned students. UVP sells these items in an effort to create an income for these individuals.

The Goats for Widows Program is another UVP project. In this initiative, goats are given to widows within the District and are meant to act as a source of nutrition and of additional income (Annual Report, 2009). Sustainability of this effort is also considered. The first female goat must be passed on to another widow within the same village. This is UVP’s way of spreading the nutritional and financial wealth these goats create. UVP also considers the long term effects or unintended consequences of a project such as this. In the long-term a goat could potentially add to the burden of rural families or become ill due to improper care. UVP closely monitors the ongoing health of these goats with local veterinarian visits and evaluates the success of the program by collecting data on the nutritional situation of the women’s family and income generation (Annual Report, 2009).

Lastly, the UVP has a programme centered on family planning and obstetric fistula education and repair. The high fertility rates in Uganda make a program on family planning extremely relevant. Similarly, the country’s rank as third highest regarding rate of obstetric fistulas makes the program equally pertinent (Annual Report, 2009). Family planning programs take the form of workshops providing training for safe mothering. These workshops cover prenatal and postnatal care as well as nutrition and immunization information. Cultural appropriateness is also addressed by UVP (Annual Report, 2009). This is done by working with the Ugandan Ministry of Health and using methods such as drama and audience participation in their programming. Free birth control plans are also a part of some programs.

These programs address a number of concerns in the Iganga district. The Goats for Widows Program addresses both economic concerns and food scarcity while a number of the other programs directly address health concerns such as the Healthy Villages Initiative or the concern with obstetric fistula. Despite this variety of programming the UVP mission is quite specific. As stated by UVP, it is their primary mission to address health related concerns of the district. The organizations programming reflects specific mission as each initiative discussed relates back to the issue of health in some way. Case in point, safe water is seen as essential to good health and therefore UVP includes it in their programming. Also, milk provided to families by Goats for Widows addresses food scarcity and nutrient deficiency and the health concerns that accompany those conditions.

This specificity is a strength of UVP. Firstly, the framework of site-specificity that is inherent in all that UVP does enables the organization rather than limits it. While there remain a number of regions on earth that UVP and its members may feel compelled to assist the organization has recognized that there are great benefits to a strategy of regionally specific development. UVP is able to examine the challenges faced in the region and create programs that address a number of interconnected development concerns. This regional focus, as UVP claims, allows for “culturally appropriate design” (2009). Therefore, the programs that UVP puts into place in the District are especially designed for the area with the social context of the district or certain villages in mind. Due to site-specificity, a one-size fits all approach to development used by other international NGOs all over Africa is not employed. Rather, diverse programming for a diverse region is promoted and facilitated.

The specificity of UVP programming also enables effectiveness. The health concerns nucleus of the UVP organization allows for a clear and focused plan. UVP does not attempt to do too much at once or find itself addressing a great number of concerns in a weak and ineffective manner. Rather, UVP has the level-headedness to selectively choose issues that it can create programming around in order to generate real change relating to health. Of course, in the spirit of participatory alternative development this programming involves locals and these selected issues are chosen with the help of the residents the programming aims to assist. For example, a number of local villages demonstrated a concern in regards to access to safe water (Krause, 2009). In light of this concern UVP made safe water one or their organizations key focuses.

The Safe Water Program demonstrates the way in which UVP can take a very specific concern and address it in number of different and necessary ways. The programme addresses access to water, the purification of water and the safe storage of water. All members of the community are involved and community resources are utilized (Annual Report, 2009). The building of wells, the first step in the safe water chain is made possible because community members believe in the need for safe water. This interest in the development project means they are are willing to become involved in a way they would not if concerns were primarily addressed and decided on by Westerners.

Specificity can also be a potential cause for concern in the UVP programme. In choosing to focus on very select issues and concerns a number of important social factors or development concerns may be neglected. UVP is an organization concerned with improving the health of people in the Igangi District but their programs by default address other important development issues. For example, UVP’s Orphan Support program addresses the fallout of HIV and AIDS in the region while also promoting and making possibly the educating of young people. Therefore not only health concerns are being addressed but interrelated education and social concerns as well. However, UVP remains a very specific and focused organization and there is concern that important things are neglected. For example, the Igangi District, as previously mentioned, is largely a rural population. Nowhere in the programming of UVP are the livelihoods of these rural people addressed in a significant way especially in regards to agriculture. Goats for Widows may act as an income for some women in the region but agricultural concerns or the ways in which the population must support themselves are not addressed.

UVP does address this possible neglect of important development issues to some extent. In partnering with a number of local and grass roots organizations working on development, UVP is indirectly assisting and promoting the taking up of these issues. Part of the UVP mission statement involves creating links (Annual Report, 2009). This creation of links and partnerships could to some degree address the concern with the neglect of key development issues. In this way, UVP can maintain focus and address the concerns they have selected as best as they possibly can. Meanwhile, in supporting other local initiatives and NGOs they avoid completely disregarding important social or environmental problems that can hinder the district’s development.

A second strength of UVP that is not the strength of all NGOs carrying out this type of work relates to funding. UVP is not government funded but rather funded primarily by private donors and income generated from volunteer projects (Annual Report, 2009). UVP claims that this lack of dependence on government funding allows for a greater degree of flexibility for its organization (2009). UVP is very clear about where their money comes from. Donations make up a great deal of their funds (Executive Summary, 2009). The majority of funding for UVP programming comes from its summer internship projects and the money it generates through participation fees. Summer internship project money accounts for 26 percent of UVP’s yearly income (Executive Summary, 2009).

UVP is also very clear about where the organization’s money goes. The majority of their finances are spent on the scholarship program under the Orphan Support initiative (Executive Summary, 2009). More interesting is the amount or lack thereof that UVP spends on US administration costs. The figure is reported as 8% of the NGOs budget (Executive Summary, 2009). This is a very small percentage of the organizations money being spent outside of the Global South. In comparison to other International NGOs that work on development in Africa the figure appears even more impressive. For instance, ActionAid works in a number of different African countries on a number of development projects. The organization is dealing with far larger sums of money that UVP but at least 21 percent of its incoming money goes directly back into fundraising efforts in the Global North (ActionAid, 2008). The organization also spends 16 percent of its funds on basic support costs (ActionAid, 2008). These support costs consist of staff and fuel costs. UVP clearly makes an effort to ensure the money coming from its donors is directly funnelled into projects in Uganda.

This internal structure that allows UVP to maintain such low US operating costs is worth considering. The executive board of UVP are all maintaining their positions on a voluntary basis (Executive Summary, 2009). There are strengths and limitations to such an approach. Financially wise it allows UVP to be quite frugal. This thriftiness is reflected in the low administration costs. This means that any money not spent on administration in the Global North and be channelled into the organization’s operations and programs in the Global South. There may be limitations in such a structure in regards to time that these high level members may be able to dedicate to UVP.

The rest of UVP’s internal structure may demonstrate how an unpaid executive is possible. A number of trustees comprised of past program participants and supporters of the UVP vision, work to support the ongoing activities of the NGO (Executive Summary, 2009). UVP utilizes its wide support base in the operation of its activities which in turn makes up for its executive board with busy lives outside of volunteering with UVP. In regards to in-country projects in Uganda, UVP has a number of Ugandan partners that work year round, an in country manager, summer volunteers and in country officers (Executive Summary, 2009). This seasonal work allows for infusion of excitement and ideas into the UVP projects on a regular basis while in country managers and year round partners allow for continuity and an organizational memory.

The UVP summer volunteer or internship program is quite interesting. The program represents one way that students, specifically those interested in development work can involve themselves directly with UVP’s work. UVP’s Executive Summary (2009) outlines how these summer internships work: Students work in small international teams that include at least two Ugandan participants. Each team has one International team leader and one Ugandan team leader. As well, one team is responsible for follow up of the previous year’s team’s activities. One can see UVP’s commitment to community involvement and participation in this set-up. The organization ensures that students from Uganda are working alongside students from the Global North, not below or in subservience to them. This can facilitate a relationship of solidarity which in turn could strengthen community participation for UVP.

Concern with producing long-term, measurable positive outcomes is a potential weakness of this type of development work and therefore of UVP (Cheadle, Senter, Solomon, Beery, & Schwartz, 2005). Attempting to affect real and positive change within villages is very respectable in writing but the final goal should be eventually leaving the community in a better development situation as measured by indicators other than GDP. It is not reasonable for UVP to have the intention of staying in each of its villages inevitably. Success in relation to community participation and development in the past has not always been encouraging. In the Journal of Urban Health A. Cheadle and others argue such; “the experience with community participation initiatives over the last 40 years has generated more frustration than results” (Cheadle et al., 2005). UVP is still quite a young organization and therefore the long term effects of their programming, especially their even newer programmes such as the Healthy Villages initiative are unknown. However, UVP has taken some steps in the right direction in order to determine these outcomes as quickly as possible with constant review of their projects. In particular, after implementation of the Healthy Villages Program in a certain village over the course of a summer, UVP sends a team back to the village yearly to follow-up on the programming and implementation of the healthy villages design.

Assessment of programme success and follow-up ties into concerns relating to accountability and responsibility when carrying out development work such as this. As mentioned, UVP follows up in each of their Healthy Villages on a yearly basis. However, no information regarding how this follow-up assessment is done or what it entails is readily available. The concern is that rather than being held accountable to the communities and the populations they are meant to help, the organization becomes accountable to a set of criteria that determines programmed success but does not reflect success in the eyes of Ugandan people. UVP must provide more information regarding its methods for program review to be clear whether or not they are being held accountable to the villages and people they claim to help. As well, NGOs doing similar work often become more accountable to their western-based donors than to those they aim to assist in Africa.

In regards to responsibility, UVP seems quite aware of the possible unintended implications of their programming. This is not always the case for international NGOs working in the South. UVP attempts to avoid unintended negative consequences as much as possible. For example, the Goats for Widows Program could easily fall through the cracks in regards to follow up but UVP has not allowed that to happen. Rather than providing women with a goat with the best of intentions and then failing to assess the benefits of the program UVP does, or at least claims to carry out, extensive follow-up (Annual Report, 2009). As well, the planning for extended and long-term benefits is included in the form of passing on the first female goat to another widow. This demonstrates long-term planning. Widows for Goats therefore becomes a long-term development program rather than a short-term gain physical donation.

UVP is only one example of the philosophy of alternative, community-based, participatory development in action. Therefore, while a comment on the organization itself may reflect on the community development it embodies it cannot be seen as a comprehensive critique of the form of development itself. The strengths and weaknesses identified in the UVP organization may or may not be the strengths of other NGOs carrying out similar work. The weaknesses of other organizations carrying out these types of development such as reliance on government funding are not the weaknesses of UVP. UVP manages to answer a number of the questions surrounding development work of Western based NGOs facilitating development in Africa. There are concerns regarding funding, accountability, specificity, unintended consequences, etc. In its community driven, participatory development work UVP aims to address a number of these concerns. It does so through its internal structure, use of funds and its well thought out health related project. Other NGOs working in Africa should try to think long-term and inclusively as UVP does in its work on the continent.

REFERENCES:

ActionAid. (2008) Financial Report.

Cheadle, A., Senter, S., Solomon, L., Beery, W.L. COMMA and Schwartz, P.M. (2005). A Qualitative exploration of alternative strategies for building community health partnerships: collaboration versus issue-oriented approaches. Journal of Urban Health 82(4), 638-652.

DevelopNet Iganga. (2007). Iganga
District NGO/CBO Forum

Krause, B. (2009). Photo Essay Digging Deep: Community driven development and the Uganda village project. SAIS Review 29(1), 141-157.

Thwala, W. (2010). Community Participation is a Necessity for Project Success: A case study of rural water supply project in Jeppes Reefs South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5(10), 170-179.

Uganda Village Project. (2009). Annual Report.

Uganda Village Project. (2008). Executive Summary: Finance Report.

United Nations. 2011. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and the Small Island Developing States. Accessed online through www.unohrlls.org.

United Nations. 2005. Uganda Human Development Report.

Howard, G., Bogh, C., Goldstein, G., Morgan, J., Pruss, A., Shaw, R., Teuton, J. (2002). Healthy Villages: A guide for communities and community health. World Health Organization. Accessed online through www.who.org.