Author: Adeline Manikuzwe, MA in social innovation, Saint Paul University
Introduction
The central point of this descriptive mixed methods study is to analyze the role of Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families, a case study of USAID Gimbuka “Be Resilient” program funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by Caritas Rwanda since 2012. USAID Gimbuka program͏ is a United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) initiative to improve the socioeconomic wellbeing of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) and their families, mostly those affected by HIV/AIDS. This study focused on assessing the contribution of the USAID Gimbuka program on the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families supported in Rubavu District. Specifically, this study assessed how the program contributed to health improvement, economic development, and job creation among vulnerable families supported.
Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) are key players and partners of different States in the social innovation domain through various interventions that contribute to the wellbeing of society. According to Salamon (2013), the nonprofit sector is a “collective of organizations that provide voluntary contributions of time and money expected to meet professional standards of performance and efficiency” (p.3). The importance of understanding the level at which NPOs contribute to socioeconomic development is relevant to the social innovation discipline, primarily since most studies focused on how NPOs empower vulnerable populations – leaving a gap in the level to which NPOs contribute their socioeconomic development and wellbeing, which was covered by this study. Therefore, this study contributes to positive social change by providing research that will better inform the government, civil society, and the community of the meaningful role of NPOs in ensuring the socioeconomic development of the vulnerable population.
Countries worldwide, especially developing countries, identify collaborative partners to assist their socioeconomic development initiatives. For example, in Rwanda, NPOs are fundamental key partners for social innovation, mainly in improving the socioeconomic wellbeing of vulnerable families in various sectors, including health, welfare, and economic empowerment. Civil society remains a strategic partner for the Government of Rwanda to achieve its development goals, ensuring good health and wellbeing, quality education, and poverty alleviation among vulnerable populations. A study conducted by transparency international in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Rwanda Governance Board, 2015) revealed that “Rwanda civil society contributed to the empowerment of vulnerable people at 73.8%” (p.65).
Therefore in this study, I aimed to understand the role of NPOs in the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families in Rwanda using the local case study of CARITAS Rwanda as one of the key government partners operating in Rwanda. This paper will discuss the research methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Research objectives and questions
In this study, the role of NPOs in the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families in Rwanda was explored and guided by the following objectives:
- To understand the role of USAID Gimbuka program interventions on the health improvement of vulnerable families.
- To analyze the extent to which microcredit services contribute to the economic development of USAID Gimbuka program beneficiaries.
- To identify the contribution of USAID Gimbuka program to the job creation of vulnerable families supported by the program.
The general question explored was: what role do nonprofit organizations play in the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families in Rwanda?
With the following specific Research Questions (RQs):
RQ 1: What role do USAID GIMBUKA program interventions have on the health improvement of vulnerable families?
RQ2: To what extent do microcredit services contribute to USAID GIMBUKA program beneficiaries’ economic development?
RQ3: What is the contribution of the USAID GIMBUKA program to the job creation of vulnerable families supported by the program?
Methodology
In this study, I assessed the role of NPOs in socioeconomic development of vulnerable families in Rwanda. Case of Caritas Rwanda – USAID Gimbuka Program. This section describes the research methodology applied, which includes the research design, target population, sample size, sampling techniques, data collection methods and data analysis procedures. This study applied a mixed-method approach with a descriptive research design through quantitative and qualitative aspects. According to Creswell (2009), a mixed methods study does not rely on only qualitative or quantitative research; this combination of the two methods provides the best information for the research questions and hypotheses (p. 33)” I selected a mixed methods research design to maximize the information needed to respond to the research questions, where both questionnaire and interview were used for data collection.
The current study, was conducted on 58 participants, including 8 program staff, 8 stakeholders, 16 volunteers, and 26 program beneficiaries who have actively participated in USAID Gimbuka Program. Program staff included Caritas Rwanda employees involved in the implementation and monitoring of the USAID Gimbuka program from all levels (from management staff to field officers). Stakeholders included officials/leaders from the sector, cell, and village decentralized government levels involved in implementing the program. lastly, volunteers are individuals selected in the community who volunteer to collaborate and help staff deliver the services to beneficiaries. The selection of participants was random, where the list of potential participants (58) was given to researcher who randomly selected 30 participants to participate in the study. While sampling beneficiaries, all participants were given code numbers that were used to sample those to proceed according to the targeted sample size. The sample size of this study was 30 (4 program staff, 8 volunteers, 4 stakeholders and 14 beneficiaries involved in Caritas Rwanda – USAID Gimbuka Program chosen from 58 (8 program staff, 16 volunteers, 8 stakeholders and 26 beneficiaries.
Results
This section summarizes participants’ demographics and study results gained from the answers provided by research participants. In this study, I investigated NPOs’ contribution in health improvement, economic development, and job creation among vulnerable families in Rubavu District.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
In many situations, the contextual of the respondent determines the extent to which they are aware to give satisfactory information on study variables. The following tables indicates the information on descriptive characteristics of the respondents to determine their experience, level of understanding, knowledge; it includes their ages, gender and educational level of the respondents. The current study involved a total of 30 participants (n = 30) including program staff (n= 4, 13.3%), 8 program volunteers (n = 4, 26.7%), stakeholders (n = 4, 13.3%) and program beneficiaries (n = 14, 46.7.%). Research Participants are presented in Table 3.
Regarding the gender, 50% (n = 15) identified as Males and 50% (n = 15) as Females. This enabled that both men and women’s views were considered as they are differently exposed at their family level. Regarding age group, 17% (n = 5) were 25-34; 23% (n = 7) were 35-44; 40% (n = 12) were 45-54 and 20% (n = 6) were 55-64. The largest age group represented was participants from 45-54 years of age. Regarding the educational attainment level, 3% have no formal education, 37% completed primary school, 27% secondary school (college), 30% bachelor degree and 3% completed their graduates’ studies (master/PhD).
Research Findings
Quantitative Research findings are presented both statistically and thematically based on research questions.
RQ 1: What role do USAID GIMBUKA program interventions have in the health improvement of vulnerable families?
Role of USAID GIMBUKA program interventions in the health improvement of vulnerable families
| Statement | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
| USAID Gimbuka program provided trainings and awareness that improved beneficiaries’ health habits and decision-making on health services and choices.
|
0% | 0% | 3% | 47% | 50% |
| USAID Gimbuka program beneficiaries are assisted in accessing health care services when needed (e.g., by offering health insurance, referrals, accompaniment, and home visits).
|
0% | 7% | 9% | 37% | 47% |
| USAID Gimbuka project provided health/social services (e.g., child rights protection, Gender-Based Violence (GBV) prevention & response, positive parenting, sexual reproductive health & rights (SRHR), psychosocial. Support, …) that improved the well-being of beneficiaries and their communities.
|
0% | 3% | 10% | 33% | 54% |
| USAID Gimbuka program supported vulnerable children to attend and remain in school by providing school subsidies (school / feeding fees, materials…) which improved their attendance, progression, discipline, and performance.
|
0% | 0% | 0% | 43% | 57% |
Source: Primary Data, 2023.
The above table shows that out of the 30 participants, on average (across four statements above) 92% agreed that USAID Gimbuka program interventions contributed in the health improvement of vulnerable families supported. Specifically, the results showed that 97% of participants agreed that USAID Gimbuka program provided trainings and awareness that improved beneficiaries’ health habits and decision-making on health services and choices. Moreover, 84% agreed that USAID Gimbuka program beneficiaries are assisted in accessing health care services when needed (e.g., by offering health insurance, referrals, accompaniment, and home visits). Also, 87% agreed that USAID Gimbuka project provided health/social services (e.g., child rights protection, Gender-Based Violence [GBV] prevention & response, positive parenting, sexual reproductive health & rights [SRHR], psychosocial. Support, etc.) that improved the well-being of beneficiaries and their communities. Finally, 100% of the participants agreed that USAID Gimbuka program supported vulnerable children to attend and remain in school by providing school subsidies (school / feeding fees, materials, etc.) which improved their attendance, progression, discipline, and performance.
RQ 2: To what extent do microcredit services contribute to USAID GIMBUKA program beneficiaries’ economic development?
The extent to which microcredit services contribute to USAID GIMBUKA program beneficiaries’ economic development.
| Statement | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
| Financial literacy trainings provided to program beneficiaries have helped them to actively participate in the economic strengthening and microcredit services.
|
0% | 0% | 2% | 61% | 37% |
| USAID GIMBUKA Program beneficiaries have bank accounts in community microfinance institutions and can borrow money from the bank to start or expand their businesses (individual or collective).
|
0% | 0% | 10% | 70% | 20% |
| Being a member of the saving groups and working with microfinance institutions promotes self-esteem and stimulate a culture of savings among supported beneficiaries.
|
0% | 0% | 0% | 37% | 63% |
| Household Economic Strengthening services received have reduced the economic vulnerability of vulnerable families and empowered them to get the basic needs of their families.
|
0% | 0% | 3% | 47% | 50% |
Source: Primary Data, 2023.
Table 7 table shows that out of the 30 participants, on average (across four statements above) 96% agreed that microcredit services provided to USAID Gimbuka program beneficiaries contributed to their economic development. In detail, the results revealed that 98% of participants agreed that financial literacy trainings provided to program beneficiaries have helped them to actively participate in the economic strengthening and microcredit services. Again, 90% agreed that USAID GIMBUKA Program beneficiaries have bank accounts in community microfinance institutions and can borrow money from the bank to start or expand their businesses (individual or collective). Furthermore, 100% agreed that being a member of the saving groups and working with microfinance institutions promotes self-esteem and stimulate a culture of savings among supported beneficiaries. Lastly, 97% of the participants agreed that household economic strengthening services received have reduced the economic vulnerability of vulnerable families and empowered them to get the basic needs of their families.
RQ 3: What is the contribution of the USAID GIMBUKA program to the job creation of vulnerable families supported by the program?
Contribution of the USAID GIMBUKA program to the job creation of vulnerable families supported by the program.
| Statement | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
| Technical Vocational Education Training (TVET) support provided to USAID GIMBUKA beneficiaries has allowed them to gain practical experience in their chosen field (tailoring, welding, mechanical, etc).
|
0% | 0% | 3% | 47% | 50% |
| Beneficiaries supported through TVET successfully completed their training and received the start-up kits that helped them get employment (self-employed or employed by others).
|
0% | 3% | 9% | 45% | 43% |
| Business development training and services provided to program beneficiaries have helped them to run and maintain individual and/or collective income-generating activities.
|
0% | 0% | 3% | 40% | 57% |
| Through the assistance of the USAID Gimbuka program, vulnerable families are involved in small and medium trading activities (commerce, livestock, farming…). | 0% | 3% | 7% | 77% | 14% |
| USAID Gimbuka program interventions have resulted in the job creation of vulnerable families supported by the project. | 0% | 0% | 7% | 63% | 30% |
Source: Primary Data, 2023.
The above table also shows that out of the 30 participants, on average (across five statements above) 93% agreed that USAID GIMBUKA program contributed to the job creation of vulnerable families supported by the program. In particular, the results revealed that 97% of participants agreed that Technical Vocational Education Training (TVET) support provided to USAID GIMBUKA beneficiaries has allowed them to gain practical experience in their chosen field (tailoring, welding, mechanical, etc). Similarly, 88% agreed that beneficiaries supported through TVET successfully completed their training and received the start-up kits that helped them get employment (self-employed or employed by others). Also, 97% agreed that business development training and services provided to program beneficiaries have helped them to run and maintain individual and/or collective income-generating activities. Moreover, 91% of the participants agreed that through the assistance of the USAID Gimbuka program, vulnerable families are involved in small and medium trading activities (commerce, livestock, farming…). Finally, 93% of the participants agreed USAID Gimbuka program interventions have resulted in the job creation of vulnerable families supported by the project.
Qualitative portion also captured the experiences of USAID Gimbuka program staff, volunteers, stakeholders and beneficiaries on the program implementation and results. I developed interview guide with questions that focused on what services USAID Gimbuka Program offers to program beneficiaries and their impact of the health, social and economic development of supported families. As discussed in research method, I interviewed 6 participants including 2 beneficiaries (1 male & 1 female); 2 Program Staff (one at management level and one on field level); on program volunteer and one stakeholder. Using semi-structured interviews helped me to identify the perspectives of program staff, volunteers, stakeholders and beneficiaries on USAID Gimbuka program of Caritas Rwanda.
In this regard, qualitative findings revealed that program beneficiaries are satisfied with the services they received from Caritas Rwanda through its USAID Gimbuka Program. Below are examples of some representative cotes:
“I am a program volunteer of USAID Gimbuka Program for 3 years; this program provides many services to its beneficiaries including assisting them to access heath services, HIV/GBV prevention and response services, education and economic strengthening among others, which improved their life” reported by a program volunteer.
My family and my self has been in USAID Gimbuka Program for 2 years, we are a family of 6 (4 children, my wife and myself). The program provided us many trainings and education, now we know the services we need and we are supported to access them. Revealed by a beneficiary.
I am an active saving group member since I joined in 2021. We meet weekly and do savings. Everyone saves depending on capacity. We are supported to start income generating activities and he money we make help us to cover family basic need such as school fees for our children, food, cloths and etc. I thank Caritas Rwanda and USAID Gimbuka for the life saving. Said beneficiary
In brief, NPOs are involved in a range of activities like health and social activities, social welfare, and education. NPOs play a significant role in the socioeconomic development of many people, especially those with limited access to services.
Conclusions
The current study aimed to assess the role of nonprofit organizations in the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families in Rwanda. A case study of Caritas Rwanda – USAID Gimbuka Program. Research findings revealed that that NPOs contribute to the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families. Adequate USAID Gimbuka program implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and stakeholder involvement were crucial to achieving its goals, specifically in the health improvement, economic development and job creation for the vulnerable families. Furthermore, the study concluded that beneficiary capacity building, strong community volunteer structures, adequate stakeholder engagement, positive government/donor policies, and institutional management practice resulted in the success of the USAID Gimbuka Program implemented by Caritas Rwanda.
Recommendations
The importance of understanding the level of which NPOs contribute to socioeconomic development is relevant to the social innovation discipline, primarily since most studies focused on how NPOs empower vulnerable populations. NPOs play a vital role in serving the most vulnerable in different communities, directly and indirectly contributing to the immediate and long-term health and social wellbeing of vulnerable populations and their communities.
As noted by Omura and Forster (2014), “Most NPO’s projects are short-time periodic, leaving critics that they may not necessarily add value to the nation’s socioeconomic development”. This was the main reason of this study, where besides the challenges behind NPO work, I intended to deeply assess their contribution to the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families.
The study has concluded that USAID Gimbuka Program services and economic strengthening (microcredit interventions) significantly contributed to health improvement, economic development, and job creation of vulnerable families. In addition, based on the research findings, adequate training, awareness, and education practices resulted in positive changes in the social and health habits of vulnerable families in the Rubavu District. Capacity building was a critical component that helped the USAID Gimbuka program achieve its goals. Bringing beneficiaries into groups (saving groups) was remarkable in promoting the savings culture, running income-generating activities, and working together to achieve a common goal. Additionally, the program provided vocational training, internships, and start-up kits that helped them to get employment enhancing their economic development. Education support (school subsidies) to vulnerable children was also vital for students to remain and perform in their schools. Furthermore, USAID Gimbuka Program was involved in community mobilization, providing awareness education services to the broader community, including GBV prevention, child rights protection, and SRHR education and services, among others. Stakeholder engagement strategy also played a big role in the USAID Gimbuka Program success, through the collaboration with different partners and government entities to implement and evaluate the program. Based on research findings, community volunteers were vital in monitoring and implementing program interventions. They better understand what would work for them as they live in the same communities as beneficiaries. In addition, these volunteers assist program staff in delivering services to beneficiaries; their beneficiaries get health services and perform home visits for follow-up when needed. We cannot conclude without mentioning that institutional management practice was also crucial for the USAID Gimbuka Program’s success. As some staff highlighted, they regularly get training and refresher training to ensure they appropriately implement the program with high standards. Having staff with capacity in place is important for any organization’s mission.
Recommendations to nonprofit organizations / Civil Society
Based on research findings, recommendations to nopprofit organizations, in general, include focusing on beneficiary capacity building, establishing strong community volunteer structures to support the implementation, adequate stakeholder engagement, availability and use of policies and guidance, and institutional management practice. This was proven by research findings where the application of all the above strategies resulted in the success USAID Gimbuka Program implemented by Caritas Rwanda in Rubavu District, Rwanda.
Specific recommendations to Caritas Rwanda and USAID Gimbuka program
Like many other NPOs, Caritas Rwanda faces various challenges, especially in community high demand compared to available resources. Caritas Rwanda provides interventions enhancing the health, social, and economic development of vulnerable populations. Although, based on the interventions that Caritas Rwanda provides under USAID Gimbuka program, they have a high demand while they have limited funds and time allocated to their interventions. In addition, with its limitations, Caritas Rwanda cannot provide all the services needed by vulnerable families in the community, which is another challenge. To overcome all these challenges, this study recommended Caritas Rwanda strengthen their graduation model so that beneficiaries who reach a certain level or spent a certain period with the program would graduate – giving room for new enrollment. Graduation would always base on specific graduation benchmarks to ensure the success and sustainability of the program.
Based on research findings, it was recommended that Caritas Rwanda consider integrating more services to meet community needs. Recommended services included Early Childhood Development (ECD) interventions targeting children under five and their parents. Also, an evidence-based positive parenting curriculum (FMP) was recommended for more parents of adolescents. Besides that, implementing FMP might require many efforts due to its conception and delivery mode, but they can be beneficial for many vulnerable families, especially in improving parents-children (adolescents) communication and support.
Moreover, we recommend that Caritas Rwanda increase its community mobilization activities that reach the wider community. These community awareness activities reach many people at a minimum cost and time, which would solve the high-demand challenge. Lastly, It was appreciated to see how community volunteers intervene in service delivery and program follow-up; however, staffing was shared as an issue, where the program seems to not have enough staff to support the implementation. Research findings noted that more than one field staff per 3 or 4 sectors is needed to monitor the implementation and support volunteers and beneficiaries in the catchment area.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study aimed to assess the role of nonprofit organizations in the socioeconomic development of vulnerable families in Rwanda. The study focused only on Caritas Rwanda – USAID Gimbuka Program looking at only three areas: health improvement, economic development, and job creation. This study did not capture all NPOs working domains, therefore, I recommend more research on other socioeconomic development domains such as nutrition, hygiene, water, and others. However, it is also important to mention that NPO invests in different sectors to ensure the development of various communities such as infrastructures and technology. Furthermore, due to time and resource constraints, this study covered only some aspects of socioeconomic development; therefore, further studies should be carried out on socioeconomic development aspects that were not explored in this study.
References:
Appleton, J. V. (1996). Working with vulnerable families, a health visiting perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing 23:, pp 912-918.
Berg.M. (2013). The Importance of Nonprofits in Our Economy. . https://borgenproject.org/importance-nonprofits-economy/ .
Ciucescu, N., & Alecsandri, V. (2009). The role and importance of Nonprofit Organisations. Studies and Scientific Researches. Economics Edition, : University of Bacau, Romania. https://doi.org/10.29358/sceco.v0i14.35 .
Creswell, John W. (2009). Chapters 5-6-7. “The Introduction”, “The Statement Purpose”, “Research Questions and Hypotheses.” pp. 95–144. Research design:quantitative, Qualitative and mixed research methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Gamage, S. K. N., Kuruppuge, R. H. and Nedelea, A. M. . (2016 ). Socio-economic determinants of wellbeing of urban households: A case of Sri Lanka. . The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration, 16, 2(24),, pp 26-35.
Hassan, A. and Ahmed, F. . (2013). Contributions of the non – governmental organizations in Bangladesh – are they merely a hegemony of tagging ‘sustainability’? . Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter), 2(9), , pp 14-26.
Jan Marie Fritz (2021) SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT – Vol. I – Socioeconomic Developmental Social Work – University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA https://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c13/E1-20-01.pdf
Kirby et al (2017). Chapter Five: Why? The Literature Review. In Experience, research, social change: critical methods. Ontario: University of Toronto Press. Pp. 107-132.
Nel, E., Binns, T. and Motteux, N. . (2001). Community based development, non-governmental organizations and social capital in post apartheid South Africa. Geografiska Annales Series & Human Geography, , p 83, 3-13.
Omura, T., & Forster, J. (2014). Competition for Donations and the Sustainability of Not for Profit Organisations. Humanomics, (3): , p 255 -74. https://doi.org/10.1108/H-12-2012-0026.
Patel, M .& Dubey. (2010). NGOs and Social Work, Crescent Publishing Corporation, 2010. Practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26:, pp 439-464.
Rossman and Rallis (2017) Analysis and Interpreting Data In Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Pp. 227-263.
Roy, I., Raquib, T. A., and Sarker, A. . (2017). Contribution of NGOs for socio-economic development in Bangladesh. . Science Journal of Business and Management, 5(1),, pp 1-8.
Rwanda Governance Board (2015). Rwanda Civil Societty Development. https://www.rgb.rw/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=17526&token=2dde4f96c4f176528fba21b493fe08fb51bbffc6
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (2012). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross-national analysis. John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, 15-16. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Saldana, J. (2013). Chapter 1: An Introduction to Codes and Coding. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage Publications. Pp. 1-40. (Online)
Services Catholic Relief. (2010). Savings and Internal Lending Communities Field Agent Guide Nairobi: CRS. Kenya: : Nairobi.
Suresh, N. (2013). Concepts and Functions of NGOs. Rai Technology University. . Bangalore – 561204. : www.raitechuniversity.in [ 7 July 2017].
Uma Devi, R. (2013). An analytical Study on the role of NGOs in the poverty reduction of India, Research World,. Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce, Vol. – IV, Issue., p 4.
Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. Connell, A. Kubisch, L. Schorr & C. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating comprehensive community initiatives (pp. 65–92). New York: The Aspen Roundtable Institute.
Wright, O. E. (2015). Challenges in achieving nonprofit sustainability. A Study of Social Service Nonprofit Organisations in the Central Okanagan. Scotiabank Centre for Nonprofit Excellence.
Zajacova, A., & Lawrence, E. M. (2018). The relationship between education and health: reducing disparities through a contextual approach. Annual review of public health, 39, 273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044628