International Journal of Innovative Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, Jan.-Mar.

, 2020

© SEAHI PUBLICATIONS, 2020 [Link] ISSN: 2467-849X

Youth Participation In Community Development

Programmes In Rumu-Woji Communities In Port Harcourt
Metropolis

1
Mba, Renner Alpheaus & 2 Onyesom, Barnabas Chukwunweike

Department of Adult Education and Community Development,

Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
1
renneralpheausmba@[Link] & 2 mrobc4ever@[Link]

ABSTRACT
This study was on youth participation in community development programmes in Rumu-Woji
communities. The objectives were to examine the areas of youth participation in community development
programs, the factors that impede effective youth participation and the strategies to improve effective
youth participation in community development programmes. The study adopted a descriptive survey
research design with a population of 518 youths (290 male and 228 female) drawn from four community-
based youth organizations. A sample size of 207 respondent was selected proportionately, consisting of
123 male and 84 females. The instrument for data collection was a self-designed questionnaire titled
„„Youth Participation in Community Development Questionnaire‟‟ (YPCDQ). The instrument was
validated by two experts in the field of Adult Education and Community Development and one expert in
the field of Measurement and Evaluation using the face and content methods of validity. The reliability of
the instrument was determined using the test, re-test method. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation
statistics was used in correlating the scores of the two test. A reliability index of 0.83 was obtained,
showing the instrument was reliable. Data collected for this study were analyzed using mean and standard
deviation statistics. The hypotheses was tested using the t-test statistics. Based on the test, the three
hypothesis were retained. The findings of the study revealed that youth can participate in community
development programmes such as skills acquisition, education, agriculture, sports, religion, water project
market and town hall, it also revealed the constraining factors of youth participation in community
development as poor programme planning, tradition and culture, inadequate awareness, non-inclusion of
youth in planning stages, and bad government, it however, revealed strategies to improve effective
participation of youth in community development programmes. The strategies are provision of basic
infrastructure, empowering youth through workshop and training, religious intervention, employment,
incentives, building of self-esteem, involving the youth in planning the programs and sponsoring youth
programs. The study recommended, therefore, that traditional rulers and community leaders should
eradicate cultures and traditions that are affecting youth participation in community development,
community leaders and local government should partner to initiate innovative community development
programmes that would in turn encourage the youth to participate in community development
programmes-welding, agriculture, recreation etc. and government should provide basic infrastructure in
the communities to encourage youth participation in community development programmes.
Keywords: Youth, participation, community development, community development programmes.

INTRODUCTION
Youth can be seen as young men and women who are no longer children but young adults. According to
reports from United Nations (2008) and World Bank (2010) about 50 percent of the developing world
19
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

population,are youths estimated at about 1.2 billion of age between 15 and 24 years. Of this number,
about one billion live in developing countries alone. The above statistics indicate that youths constitute a
serious development opportunity as well as a challenge particularly in developing countries. According to
Udensi, Daasi, Emah and Zubkbee (2013) the imperative of youth participation in community
development programmes, considering their numerical strength is an unlimited window in which a larger
and younger workforce who can drive economic development faster and play a significant role in national
security, leadership and social development of their communities can be enhanced. Youth can participate
in community building because community development emphasizes self-help, mutual support, the
building up of neighborhood, integration and the development of political decision-making (Smith, 2006).
The operational definitions of the term youth often vary depending on the specific socio-cultural,
institutional, political and environmental factors. According to Umeh and Odom (2011) youth is the
period in an individual life, which comes between the end of childhood and entry into adulthood. It has
been at the core that youth must be fully engaged and involved in change efforts at the community level if
they are to learn to function as effective members of the society (Nitzberg, 2005).
Participation has become such a powerful idea that is approaching orthodoxy or arguably, tyranny as a
practice (Cook and Kothari, 2002), this is especially true for youth practitioners. Participation features
centrally in much policy formation and is a near hegemonic practice in youth work. Heroic Claims are
often made to justify such participation, ranging from radical capacity to liberate oppressed groups to the
ability to achieve the utmost efficiency in policies and services (Farthing, 2012). According to Oyebaniji
and Adekola (2008) participation is concerned with broad issues of social development and the creation
of opportunities for involvement of people in the political, economic and social life of a nation. Analyzing
justification for participation in development, Cleaver (2002) suggests, there is a means/end binary in
rationales. He suggests that participation is sometimes justified as a means to some other desirable
outcomes, such as increased policy effect or to build skills, or as ends, where the process itself is seen as a
good thing or a right. Giuliamoth (2011) identified four ideal-type justifications for youth participation:
1. A thin rights-based justification: it suggests that young people are full, rights bearing citizens, and
as such have the right to participate in decision-making that affects them.
2. Participations as radical empowerment: this presents a critical call for young people‟s collective
empowerment per se. Proponents of this view suggest that participation as a process that requires
power sharing can shift the balance of power between the generations and redress young people‟s
marginalization (Dryzek, 2002).
3. Participation for efficiency in policy/practice/services: this implies that participation with young
people through some sort of enlightenment effect produces youth more informed policy or
practice. Mannion(2007) in his context, youth participation is seen as desirable as a source of
knowledge for policy makers and practitioners.
4. Developmental justification: This suggests that participation is desirable because it can be used to
encourage positive youth development. It suggests that by engaging in decision-making, young
people can learn the social and emotional skills necessary to thrive as adults. According to Smith
(2008) the development of self-esteem, confidence, and negotiation skills, expected from
participation are integral to a range of developmental theories.
Youth participation refers to the involvement of youth in responsible challenging action that meets
genuine needs, with opportunities for planning and/or decision-making affecting them actively, whose
impact or consequence is extended to others i.e outside or beyond the youth participants themselves
(Cornwall, 2010). Rajani (1999) noted that it is only through participation that youth develop skills, build
competencies, form aspirations, gain confidence and attain valuable resources. This shows that youth
participation therefore is a product and strategy of sustainable human development.
The studies of scholars on the importance of youth participation in community development programmes
are worthy of note. Akinbile, Ashimolowo and Dladoja (2006), clearly observed that participation helps
youth in planning and acting together for satisfaction of their felt needs through organized efforts to
acquire skills and the concepts required for their effective participation in the problem solving process.
20
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

Accordingly, Udensi, et al (2003) stated that young people constitute clear assets to community
developmental programmes when they are positively empowered to be active citizens. Supporting and
including young people in developmental process is critical for several reasons: firstly, youth have
experience, knowledge and ideas that are unique to their situation, enabling them to offer key insights and
perspectives on development that adults cannot; secondly, in many communities youth make up majority
of the population; as a result, youth voices can be crucial expression of overall community needs; and
lastly, regardless of theirs current status, young people are the future custodian of their environments and
leaders of their peers. They further highlighted that a failure to promote youth development, and roles for
youth in community development programmes, will negatively affect countries across the world, whereas
engaging youths in community development programmes, such as taking active participation in the
project planning and implementation encourages them to learn peaceful means of impacting their
communities and the world.
Youths according to Adesope (2007) have been noted for active involvement in community affairs,
greater social propensity, faster reaction, time, innovative and prowess. It becomes necessary to exploit
their active features for progressive change in the community through active and meaningful participation
in programmes directed towards their development. Youths therefore needs proper harnessing so that they
can maintain reliable status quo in their locality.
Statement of the Problem
Youth participation in community development programmes can be beneficial for both the community
and the development of the youth but due to the deficit thinking over the last century, young people are
often perceived as problem or risk and as trouble. This type of thinking curtails young people‟s potential
for positive contribution in society. In Rumu-woji community, young people do not get enough
opportunities to allow them to engage in activities that allow them to be agents of their own and their
communities‟ broader success.
However, the communities in trying to solve this challenge involve most of the youths in the passive
instead of active parts of community development activities. This did not give the youth the needed
opportunities to fully participate and develop potentials needed for the success of community
development programme because the youth are more or less passive.
This study therefore seeks to inquire into the youth participation in community development programmes
in order to ascertain the areas of youth participation, factors that impede effective/active youth
participation in community development programmes and therefore suggest practical steps to encourage
youth participation in community development programmes.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine youth participation in community development programmes in
Rumu-Woji in Port Harcourt metropolis. Specifically, the study sought to:
1. Examine the areas of youth participation in community development programmes in the study
area
2. Find out factors that impede effective youth participation in community development
programmes in the study area.
3. Identify strategies to improve effective youth participation in community development
programmes in the study area.
Research Questions
1. What are the areas of youth participation in community development programmes in the study
area?
2. What are the factors that impede effective youth participation in community development
programmes in the study area?
3. What are the strategies to improve effective youth participation in community development
programmes in the study area?
Hypotheses
The null hypotheses of the study were tested at 0.05 level of significance.
21
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

1. There is no significant difference in the mean rating of male and female youths on the areas of
youth participation in community development programmes.
2. There is no significant difference between the mean rating of male and female respondents on the
factors that impede effective youth participation in community development programmes.
3. There is no significant difference between the mean rating of male and female on the strategies to
improving effective youth participation in community development programmes.

METHODOLOGY
This study adopted a descriptive survey research design. The population of the study was 518 which
comprised of 290 male and 228 females drawn from four community based youth organization in Rumu-
Woji group of communities in Port Harcourt metropolis. A sample size of 207 which comprised 123 male
and 84 female was drawn using a proportionate sampling technique. A -23 self structured questionnaire
items titled “Youth Participation in Community Development Programmes Questionnaire” (YPCDPQ)
was the instrument for data collection. The questionnaire was designed on a modified four points rating
scale of strongly agree (4 points) agree (3 points), disagree (2-points) and strongly disagree (1-points).
The instruments was face and content validated by three experts of which two were in the Department of
Adult Education and Community Development and one in Measurement and Evaluation Department in
Rivers State University. The reliability index of 0.83 was obtained in a test-retest method of statistics
showing that the instrument was reliable. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient method
of statistics was used to correlate the scores of the two tests. The mean and standard deviation were used
to answer the research questions. The criterion mean of 2.50 was as agree, as item below the mean score
of 2.50 was disagree. The T-test statistics was used to analyze the null hypotheses. The hypotheses was
accepted if the calculated probability values was less than the table value but rejected if the calculated
values was greater than the table value at 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research question one: What are the areas of youth participation in community development
programmes in the study area?
Table 4.1: Summary of Mean Responses on the Areas of Youth Participation in Community
Development Programmes in the Study Area
S/N Items Statement Male (n=123) Female (n=84)
Mean Std Mean Std Remark
1. Skill acquisition 3.10 0.90 3.01 0.91 Agreed
2. Education 2.92 0.99 2.57 1.10 Agreed
3. Agriculture 3.20 0.86 3.44 0.68 Agreed
4. Sport 3.34 0.89 3.46 0.67 Agreed
5. Religion 3.13 0.88 3.40 0.75 Agreed
6. Water project 3.33 0.87 3.58 0.64 Agreed
7. Market 2.90 0.96 3.25 0.82 Agreed
8. Town hall project 3.03 0.91 3.25 0.92 Agreed
Grand Mean 3.11 0.91 3.25 0.81 Agreed

Table 4.1 showed that the respondents agreed skill acquisition, education, agriculture, sport, religion,
water project, market and town hall project are the areas the youth participate in community development

22
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

programmes. Also, the mean rating and standard deviation of male are 3.11 and 0.91 while the mean
rating and standard deviation of the female are 3.25 and 0.81.
Research question two: What are the factors that impede effective youth participation in community
development programmes?
Table 4.2: Summary of Mean Responses on Factors that Impede Effective Youth Participation in
Community Development Programme
S/N Items Statement Male (n=123) Female (n=84)
Mean Std Mean Std Remark
9. Poor programme planning 3.07 0.88 3.31 0.85 Agreed
10. Tradition and culture 2.69 0.73 2.82 0.60 Agreed
11. Inadequate awareness 3.39 0.80 3.23 0.78 Agreed
12. Non- inclusion of youths in the 3.23 0.88 3.49 0.51 Agreed
planning stage
13. Lack of fund 2.28 0.80 2.52 0.91 Agreed
14. Corruption 2.11 0.81 2.06 0.74 Disgreed
15. Government 3.15 0.93 3.39 0.81 Agreed
Grand Mean 2.85 0.83 2.98 0.74 Agreed

Table 4.2showed that the respondents agreed poor programme planning, tradition and culture; inadequate
awareness, non-inclusion of youths in the planning stage, lack of funds, corruption and Government are
the factors that impede effective youth participation in community development programmes. Also, the
grand mean rating and standard deviation of male are 2.85 and 0.83 while the grand mean rating and
standard deviation of the female are 2.98 and 0.74.
Research question three: What are the strategies to improving effective youth participation in
community development programmes?

Table 4.3: Summary of Mean Responses on the Strategies to Improving Effective Youth
Participation in Community Development Programmes
S/N Items Statement Male (n=123) Female (n=84) Remark
Mean Std Mean Std
16. Provision of basic infrastructure 3.50 0.93 3.43 0.91 Agreed
17. Empowering youths by organizing 2.55 0.71 2.88 0.72 Agreed
workshop and training programmes
18. Religious intervention 2.88 0.81 2.55 0.82 Agreed
19. Provision of employment for the youth 3.33 0.98 3.11 0.91 Agreed
20. Giving tangible incentive 3.26 0.97 3.05 0.70 Agreed
21. Implanting self- esteem in youth 3.35 0.85 2.90 0.60 Agreed
through training
22. Involving youth in community 3.15 0.88 3.22 0.81 Agreed
development programmes planning
23. Sponsoring Youth programmes 3.17 0.96 3.33 0.93 Agreed
Grand Mean 3.14 0.89 3.06 0.80 Agreed

23
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

Table 4.3 showed that respondents agreed provision of basic infrastructure, youth empowerment via
organizing workshop and training programmes, religious intervention, provision of employment, giving
tangible incentives, implanting self-esteem, through training, involving youth in community development
planning etc are the strategies to improving effective youth participation in community development
programmes. Also, the grand mean rating and standard deviation of male are 3.14 and 0.89 while the
grand mean rating and standard deviation of the female are 3.06 and 0.80.

4.2 Testing of Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference between the mean rating of the male and female on the areas of youth
participation in community development programmes in the study area?

Table 4.4: Summary of T-test on the Mean Rating of the Male and Female on the Areas of Youth
Participation in Community Development Planning in the Study Area
Designation N Mean Std df t-cal t-crit Remark
Male 123 3.11 0.91 205 0.21 1.96 Not Significant

Female 84 3.25 0.81

*=Not Significant
Table 4.4 showed that the mean and standard deviation of the male are 3.11 and 0.91 while the female
respondents have a mean and standard deviation of 3.25 and 0.81. The t-test calculated value is 0.21,
p>0.05, this implies that there is no significant difference between the mean responses of the male and
female on the areas of youth participation in community development planning in the study area. Hence,
the null hypothesis one is retained at 0.05 level of significance at 205 degree of freedom.

2. There is no significant difference between the mean rating of male and female respondents on the
factors that impede effective youth participation in community development programmes.

Table 4.5: Summary of T-test on the Mean Rating of Male and Female Respondents on The Factors
that Impede Effective Youth Participation in Community Development Programmes

Designation N Mean Std df t-cal. t-crit. Remark

Male 123 2.85 0.83 205 1.80 1.96 Not Significant
Female 84 2.98 0.74
*=Not Significant
Table 4.5 showed that the mean and standard deviation of the male respondents are 2.85 and 0.83 while
the female respondents have a mean and standard deviation of 2.98 and 0.74. The t-test calculated value is
1.80, p>0.05, this implies that there is no significant difference between the mean response of male and
female respondents on the factors that impede effective youth participation in community development
programmes. Hence, the null hypothesis two is retained at 0.05 level of significance at 205 degree of
freedom.
3. There is no significant difference between the mean rating of male and female on the strategies to
improving effective youth participation in community development programmes
Table 4.6: Summary of T-Test on the Mean Rating of Male and Female onthe Strategies to
Improving Effective Youth Participation in Community Development Programmes
Designation N Mean Std df t-cal. t-crit. Remark
Male 123 3.14 0.89 205 1.48 1.96 Not Significant
Female 84 3.06 0.80
*=Not Significant
24
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

Table 4.5 showed that the mean and standard deviation of the male respondents are 3.14 and 0.89 while
the female respondents have a mean and standard deviation of 3.06 and 0.80. The t-test calculated value is
1.48, p>0.05, this implies that there is no significant difference between the mean response of male and
female respondents on the strategies to improving effective youth participation in community
development programmes. Hence, the null hypothesis three is retained at 0.05 level of significance at 205
degree of freedom.
Summary of Findings
The following summarizes the findings of the study
1. There is no significant difference between the mean responses ofthe male and female on the areas
of youth participation in community development planning in the study area.
2. There is no significant difference between the mean response between the mean of male and
female respondents on the factors that impede effective youth participation in community
development programmes.
3. There is no significant difference between the mean response between the mean of male and
female respondents on the strategies to improving effective youth participation in community
development programmes.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The analysis of data on research question one revealed that respondent agreed skill acquisition, education,
agriculture, sports, religion, water project, market and town hall project are the areas the youths
participate in community development programmes. This findings is in line with Iwuchukwu, Ogbonna
and Agboti (2015) that the roles if youth in different youth groups in the community include; general
sanitation, town hall building, social events, school development, social control, marketing building,
vigilante, road construction, filling of potholes, palace building and peace talk/parley.
The findings on research questions too with a grand mean of 2.85 and 2.98 for male and female
respondent respectively, revealed that factors impending the effective participation of youth in
community development programmes include; awareness, non-inclusion. This finding is in line with
Okwusil (2008) that youth groups have been viewed as essential contributors to society in terms of
community development due to stereotypical images and misconception of their age and development
capacity. The finding is also in line with Gibbs, (2002) that the period of intense emotional changes
during adolescence helps contribute to lower expectation of youth from and subsequent decreased
opportunities for youth to participate in community activity. Udensi et al. (2013) similarly stated that
improper and inadequate awareness, low level of exposure, non-challant attitude, insufficient funding,
lack of encouragement by chiefs and elders of the community, intermittent change of government and
selfishness on the part of the youth leaders were the factors that affected youth participation in
development programmes.
Finally, the finding of the study in research question three with a grand mean of 3.14 with standard
deviation of 0.89 and for female, grand mean of 3.06 with standard deviation of 0.80 show that the
strategies to improving youth participation in community development programmes include provision of
basic infrastructure, youth empowerment via workshops and training programmes, employment of the
youth giving youth incentives for participation etc. This finding is in line with Udensi et al. (2013) that
other challenges such as parental involvement facilitates influences on youth participation or involvement
in community development programmes. Similarly, Farthing (2012) in his justification for youth
participation in community development activities, suggested that participation is a good thing, as through
engaging in decision making processes, individual young people will develop the soft skills necessary to
thrive as adult.

25
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Base on the finding, it was concluding that the areas of youth participation in community development are
skill acquisition, education, agriculture, sports, religion water project markets and townhall project,
however, there some challenges that affected effective youth participation in community development.
These challenges include poor program me planning, tradition and culture, inadequate awareness, non-
inclusion of youths in the planning stage of government. If these impeding factors must be reduce and or
eliminated for effective youth participation in community development programmes, the study revealed
the following strategies to improved youth participation and they include provision of basic infrastructural
facilities, youth empowerment via workshop and training programmes, religious intervention, provision
of empowerment, incentives implanting self-esteem via training involving youths in planning
development programmes and sponsoring youth programs. The study recommended that:
1. Traditional rulers and Leaders in the community should eradicate cultures and traditions that are
affecting youth participation in community development. Government should also get involved in
community development programmes involving youth in order to provide incentives and sponsor and
partner with the community.
2. Community Leaders and Local Government should initiate innovative community development
programmes that would in turn encourage youth personal development, e.g. welding, agriculture, sports
and recreation e.t.c.
3. Government should make available basic infrastructural facilities in the communities to encourage the
youth to participate in community development programmes needing the aid of these facilities

REFERENCES
Adesope, O.M (2007). Agricultural youth organizations: introductory concepts. Port Harcourt: University
of Port Harcourt Press.
Akinbile, L. A, Ashimolowo, O.R. and Olasoja, M. A (2006). Rural youth participation in infrastructural
development of Ibarapa East Local Government Area of Oyo State Nigeria. Journal of Rural
Sociology 6(1&2),40-48.
Cooke, B and Kothari, U. (2002). Participation: the limitations of participatory approaches to
development in cook, B.& Kothari, U (eds) (2000). Participation: the new tyranny? London: Zed
Books.
Cornwall, G. (2010). Youth participation in local community level development: a development strategy.
Paper presented at the 11th Annual SALISES conference at St. Augustine Trimdad; the Sir Arthor
Lewis institute memorial conference March 24-26
Dryzek, J. (2002). Delibrative democracy and beyond Oxford: Oxford University Press Unlimited
National (2008). Figures of world population prospects: 2008 revision. Geneva: UN population
division.
Farthing, R. (2012). Why youth participation? Some justifications and critiques of youth participation
using new labour‟s youth policies as a case study. Journal of Youth and Policy 109, 71-96
Gibbs R. (2002). Structural and cultural approaches to youth: Structural theory and bridging the gap.
Journal of Pouth and Policy 13(5), 59 – 64.
Giudian Otti, R. (2011). The sport development and peace sector: A model of four social policy domains.
Journal of Social Policy 40 (4), 757-776.
Iwuchukwu J.C Ogbonna O.I &Agboty I.O. (2015): Roles of youths groups in rural community
development in Ebonyi state, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development
7(2), 41-47
Nitzberg, J. (2005). The meshing of youth development and community building, putting youth at the
center of community building, new directions for youth development. Summer 2005 P.106.
Okwusi, M.C (2008) Youths attribute to rural development projects in Ogba communities of River state,
Nigeria. Global Approaches to Extension Practices 4(1),11 -9

26
 Mba & Onyesom…...Int. J. Inno. Human Ecology & Nature Studies 8(1):19-27, 2020

Oyebamiji, M.A. & Adekola, G. (2008). Fundamentals of community development in Nigeria. Port
Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press.
Rajani, R.R. (1999). Promoting strategic adolescent participation: A discussion for UNICEF, 1999.
Smidt, S. (2008). Introducing Vegotsky. London: Routledge
Smith, C. (2006). Youth participation in an age of uncertainty in Carnegie United Kingdom trust: the
Carnegie youth people initiate years of decision. Leicester: youth Work Process.
Udensi, L.O, Daasi, G.l.k, Emah, D.S. and Zukbee, S.A (2013). Youth participation in community
development programmes in cross River State: implications for sustainable youth development in
Nigeria. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 13(5) 61-67
Umeh, G.N and Odom, C.N (2011). Role and constraints of youth association in agricultural and rural
development: evidence from Aguata L.G.A of Anambra State Nigeria. World Journal of
Agriculture Science 7(5) 515-519
World Bank (2010). World population report. Washington: D.C World Bank.

27