EFFECTS OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON WELFARE OF RURAL FARM FAMILIES IN NIGER STATE, NIGERIA

,


INTRODUCTION
The Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach has become a key strategy used by both government and development partners in programme development (Gillespie, 2004). Khwaja (2001) observed that projects managed by communities were more sustainable than those managed by local governments because of its better maintenance. However, Kleimeer (2000) and Mosses (1997) reported that CDD projects that lacked external, institutional, financial and technical support are not sustainable. Ghazala and Vijayendra (2013) reported that, community and social development project is a partnership between communities and State Agencies on poverty reduction. CSDP is a scaled up version of community poverty reduction project (CPRP) and it is a World Bank assisted project that aims at assisting States to fight poverty by empowering the poor through provision of social services.
Many of the target beneficiaries were not involved in the developmental decisions that affect their lives and therefore did not have sense of ownership thereby making such projects faulty (Farrington and Slater, 2006). The CSDP approach is propelled by its potential to develop projects and programmes that are sustainable and responsive to local priorities, empower local communities to manage and govern their own development programmes and more effectively target poor and vulnerable groups. It has been revealed that, in egalitarian communities with open and transparent system of decision making, targeting is better with CSDP than with other development approaches using external project management. The objective of development is not only to increase income and reduce poverty, but also to expand people's real freedom. One of the principle of CSDP is social inclusion, this study therefore seek to determine the effect of CSDP on welfare of rural farm families. The issue of mainstreaming gender and vulnerable groups has also become topical in a bid to providing equal access to services rendered in any given community to ensure equitable distribution. The findings will improve policy design and implementing sustainable environmentally-friendly projects. The specific objectives were to: i.
Describe the socio-economic characteristics of beneficiaries of the CSDP intervention; ii.
Determine the effects of the CSDP intervention on welfare of farm families iii.
Examine the beneficiaries' perception on the effectiveness of the roles performed by the CSDP on various sectors; and iv.
Describe constraints faced by the beneficiaries of CSDP in the study area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The Study Area
The study was conducted in Niger State, Nigeria. The State is located between Latitudes 8 0 22ꞌN and 11 0 30ꞌN and Longitudes 3 0 30ꞌE and 7 0 20ꞌ east of the Greenwich Meridian. Niger State has an estimated projected human population of 5,152,270 in 2017 with an annual growth rate of 2.7% (National Population Commission [NPC], 2017). The State covers a total land area of 74.244sq.km, which is about 8% of Nigeria's total land area. This makes the State the largest in the Country. The rainy season commences in April/May and ends in October/November with annual rainfall amount of between 1,000 mm to 1,600 mm. Major crops grown in the State include yam, cassava, cowpea, sorghum, maize and rice with natural and rich vegetation for grazing and forestry (NAMDA, 2014).

Sampling Technique and Sample Size
A multi-stage sampling technique was used for this study; Niger State has three Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) zones, namely; Zone A, B, and C. First stage involve purposive selection of three local government areas; one from each zones. Second stage involved selection of communities based on completed and functional Micro Projects (MPs).
Third stage involve selection of households which made up of sample size of 300. The CSDP interventions were in five (5) sectors, namely, education, water, health, transport and rural electrification. However, only four sectors have been completed and functional MPs in the State. For this study, only four sectors were considered.

Method of Data Collection and Analysis
Data were obtained from primary source. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents were measured as follows: Age was measured in years. Sex was measured as male =1, female = 0; marital status was measured as married=1 and otherwise =0; education was measured in terms of number of years in schooling; occupation was measured as farming = 1 and otherwise =0; income was measured in Naira as estimated annual income; farm size was measured in hectares; household size was measured in numbers indicating the number of members of a household. Perception of roles of CSDP by beneficiaries was determined using a three point "Likert-scale" of very effective = 3, effective = 2, not effective =1 were used. The mean reference point was obtained by calculating 3+2+1= 6 and dividing by 3 to obtain 2. Any mean score less than 2 was adjudged as not beneficial, mean score of 2 and above was considered beneficial. Areas of CSDP intervention such as education, water, health care and transport in the communities was measured with descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviation and ranking. Constraints faced by CSDP beneficiaries were also measured using descriptive statistics. The data were subjected to a combination of both descriptive and inferential statistics. Objective i and iv were achieved using descriptive statistics. Objective iii was achieved using likert scale rating and objectives ii was achieved using double difference estimator (DDE). This is a standard programme evaluation tools used to measure potential programme impacts (Verner and Vener, 2005). It is given by equation 1: where; P = number of participant C = number of individual in a control group (non-participants), DDE = the estimator, i.e., the difference between the average change in the income for the participant and non-participant groups. But for the purpose of this objectives, it is only information for participant were taken for before and after the program, Y1ia = outcome variables of participant after the programme, Y1ib = outcome variables of participant before the programme, Yoja = outcome variables of non-participant after the programme, Yojb = outcome variables of non-participant before the programme.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents
The socio-economic variables examined were: age, gender, marital status, educational status, and household size, farming experience, farm size, and income, access to credit, extension visits and membership of cooperatives (Table 1). Mean age of the beneficiaries was 42 years. This implies that the beneficiaries were still in their productive stage of life. This finding is in agreement with the work of Okunade et al. (2005), who reported that majority of their respondents were within the active age. Majority (80.0%) of the beneficiaries were males. This implies that males are more involved in agricultural programme than female. This finding is in agreement with Okere and Shitu (2012) who reported that males dominated most agricultural programmes in Nigeria's rural communities which could be due to their roles as head of the family. Majority 74.7% of the beneficiaries were married. This implies that married individuals are more into Community and Social Development Project CSDP than singles which could be due to the benefits derived from participating in CSDP. This finding is in agreement with the report of World Bank (2009), that marital status influences participation in programme activities, thus suggesting that married respondents are likely to be more productive because of their responsibility.
Educational level had mean of 12 years. This implies that each of the beneficiaries acquired at least secondary education which could be the reason for participation in CSDP. This result is in agreement with the findings of Nsonya and Nenna (2011) who reported that education is an advantage for participation in developmental programs.  Source: Field survey data, 2020 From Table 1, the mean farming experience was 12.7 years. This result is in disagreement with Chikezie et al. (2012) who posited that, with many years of farming, farmers will be able to make sound decisions as regards to participating in agricultural programmes. Mean household size was 8 people, this implies that the beneficiaries had relatively large household sizes which could be a good source of family labour. Mean farm size of the beneficiaries was 3.9 hectares. This implies that most of the beneficiaries were medium scale farmers which could be a key factor for participation in CSDP. This is in agreement with the work of Chikezie et al. (2012) who reported that majority of their respondents were medium scale farmers. Majority 70.7% were into farming as an occupation. This means that farming is a means of their livelihood. Mean annual income of beneficiaries was ₦280,000, this implies that the beneficiaries earned more income which could be due to their participation in CSDP in the study which implies that participation in CSDP has positive effect on the income of the beneficiaries. This result is in agreement with Usman (2016) who reported that treated communities in her study were better off in terms of income as a result of CSDP intervention than the control communities.

Institutional Variables Assessed by Respondents
As presented in Table 2, the institutional variables assessed by the beneficiaries includes credit access, number of extension visit and cooperative membership. Majority (64.0%) of the beneficiaries had no access to credit which could be due to the fact that CSDP interventions are mostly in the area of infrastructural development rather than credit provision. Almost half (49.3%) of the beneficiaries had contact with extension agents between 5 -10 times annually. This may probably be because extension services constitute a driving force for success of any agricultural development programs. Majority (84.0%) of the beneficiaries were members of cooperative societies as this could boost their cooperation. Source: Field survey, 2020

Area of Community and Social Development Projects Intervention
The areas of intervention were education, water provision, transport through construction and rehabilitation of rural roads and healthcare facilities. The effect of CSDP intervention in health sector (Table 2) in the study area include; number of children enrolment in schools (z = 8.94), number of students studying science courses (z = 5.93) and utilizing library facilities (z = 4.79), all increased but distance to schools (z = -18.11) and time taken to reach schools (z = -8.49) were reduced. This result is in agreement with Tanko (2013) who reported that intervention of CSDP in the education sector impacted positively on school attendance. The effect of CSDP intervention in water sector in the study area include; time taken to get water (z = -7.34), number of reported water-borne diseases (z= -32.84), cost of buying water (z = -3.83), number of people fetching stream water (z = -4.49), and distance to water source (z = -68.80), all reduced but number of people using borehole water increase (z = 7.63). The effect of CSDP intervention in transport sector includes; number of vehicle plying the road per day (z = 10.40) increased but time taken to travel (z = -15.58) and cost of transportation (z = -12.05) were reduced. This result is in agreement with Muhammad (2012) who reported that CSDP intervention in transport sector had increased the number of vehicles plying roads, reduce average travel time to nearest town and average cost of transportation. The effect of CSDP intervention in health sector includes; number of medical staff deployed (z=2.96), number of people seeking medical counseling (z =2.54), people going for ante-natal (z =2.82) and numbers going for child immunization (z =5.29), were increased. This connotes a positive indicator of CSDP performance while distance to heath center (z = 6.42) and time taken to the healthcare centers (z = 11.70) reduced. This finding is in agreement with the work of Muhammad (2012) who reported that the mean distance to healthcare centers provided by CSDP in the study area was drastically reduced.  Table 3 reveals that provision of educational facilities ( ̅ = 2.17), water supply to the community ( ̅ = 2.20), provision of healthcare facilities ( ̅ = 2.28) and provision of motor able roads ( ̅ = 2.19) were perceived to be effective roles play by CSDP. This implies that emergence of Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) like CSDP is now well recognized as a successful tool for ensuring equitable and sustainable social development through provision of basic amenities particularly in the rural areas. This is in line with the findings of World Bank (2012) on CSDP activity in Enugu State that reported education, water, health, transport and rural electricity were among the services provided in the sampled communities. Meanwhile, intervention such as provision of agricultural inputs ( ̅ = 1.35) and provision of extension services ( ̅ = 1.25) were perceived not to be effective this might probably be because CSDP is basically inclined towards the provision of basic and social amenities.

Constraints of the Respondents in Accessing CSDP
The result in Table 4 shows that, poor mobilization, time consuming and poor funding rank 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively intern of severity of the problems while problem of site location rank lowest 12th this may probably be because of the nature of land tenure system which for them lubricate of developmental issues.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study concluded that the intervention of CSDP was noted through indicators such as education, water sectors, healthcare delivery and transport services. Some of the major constraints faced were poor mobilization. Recommendations were: 1. Extension agents should increase their contacts in order to reach out to large number of farmers for greater mobilization and participation in the project. 2. The program should be scaled up in other Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the State. 3. The project should come up with flexible policy that removes bureaucracy for easy access to micro-projects.