Research from Uganda shows why community development programs should examine changes in participants’ confidence, relationships and capacity to contribute alongside economic outcomes.
Community development programs often measure success through changes in income, assets or employment. Those outcomes matter. But they may miss another important change: whether participants gain the confidence, relationships and practical knowledge to address challenges together.
Are programs helping people become partners and leaders in their communities, as well as providing assistance?
A study by Leach and colleagues, Working for the Greater Good (2025), explores that question through Heifer International’s Values-Based Holistic Community Development programs in Central and Northern Uganda. The research examines how participants described civic and community engagement at different stages of program involvement, from their initial participation to four years or more.
Their accounts suggest a progression from feeling unable to contribute beyond their households toward seeing themselves as capable of helping their communities. The lesson is that economic improvement and personal change both deserve attention when evaluating community development.
Why local knowledge mattered
The researchers used qualitative interviews to understand participants’ experiences and perspectives. An important part of their approach was working with local enumerators—the people who helped collect interview data.
Recruited from within or near the project communities, these collaborators brought knowledge of local relationships, cultural expectations and sensitive issues. They helped the researchers develop relevant questions, interpret responses and navigate communities where outsiders could encounter skepticism.
That contribution matters because the meaning of participation can be difficult to understand from outside a community. An interview response may reflect local expectations about leadership, family obligations or who is entitled to speak.
People with trusted community relationships can contribute to how an evaluation is designed and interpreted. Their role can extend beyond helping researchers reach participants to helping them understand what participants are saying.
At the beginning: Household needs came first
Participants at baseline recognized problems in their communities but often described limited capacity to address them. One explained: “All that people care for is how to get money for caring for their families.”
It would be easy to interpret that response as a lack of interest in community life. A more careful reading recognizes the pressure of meeting immediate needs. Concern for others does not necessarily translate into available time, money or confidence to act.
This distinction is relevant to practitioners working with financially vulnerable households. Before asking why someone does not attend a meeting or volunteer, consider what participation requires of them.
The research provides a reminder that household responsibilities shape the possibilities for civic involvement. Programs need to understand those circumstances rather than assume that nonparticipation reflects indifference.
In the first year: Possibilities emerged through working together
Among participants with six to twelve months of involvement, accounts began to reflect new possibilities for collaboration.
Through self-help groups and program training, participants developed relationships and shared practical knowledge. Training included subjects such as livestock management and financial literacy, while group activities created opportunities to learn from one another.
One participant explained: “We have now learned how to work, and also we have learned the danger of certain things which we used not to see.”
These experiences did not mean that participants immediately became financially secure. They suggest that relationships and learning can develop alongside efforts to improve livelihoods.
For community organizations, that distinction matters. A program’s value may include the connections people build while participating, even before large economic changes become visible.
After several years: Participants described taking initiative
Accounts from participants involved for two to three years included examples of organizing meetings, recruiting others and taking on leadership responsibilities.
One participant described organizing young people to address theft in his village and subsequently working with World Vision Uganda to provide vocational training.
That example illustrates a change in how a participant understood his potential contribution. A community problem became something he could help address by organizing people and connecting with another institution.
The distinction is between being present in a program and exercising agency: the ability to make choices and take action.
For practitioners, attendance records alone may not capture that difference. Evaluation can also ask whether participants initiate activities, bring others together or pursue solutions beyond the program itself.
Over time: Contributing became part of community life
Participants with four years or more of involvement described a stronger orientation toward collective wellbeing.
One shared how he gave mangoes to neighborhood children without charging them, explaining: “The money is not important. It is unity which is important.”
That account does not establish that financial needs had disappeared. It shows how one participant described the value of maintaining relationships and contributing to others.
Taken together, the accounts suggest that civic engagement can develop through changing relationships, experiences and understandings of what a person can contribute. They should not be treated as a fixed sequence that every participant follows.
The experiences of these communities raise broader questions about how programs support participation and recognize change. Applying those lessons elsewhere requires attention to local circumstances, relationships and institutions.
What this means for community development
The research points to three practical lessons for organizations designing and evaluating community development programs.
Measure personal and social changes alongside economic outcomes. Income and assets remain important. Interviews can add insight into participants’ confidence, relationships and willingness to take initiative. Asking people how their experience has changed can reveal outcomes that administrative records miss.
Make relationship-building part of program design. Group activities, shared learning and trusted local conveners can create opportunities for participants to work together. Organizations should consider whether their programs provide meaningful space for those relationships, rather than treating them as incidental benefits.
Allow time for participation to develop. A short funding cycle may capture immediate assistance while missing changes that unfold over several years. Where feasible, follow-up evaluation can examine whether participants remain involved and how their roles evolve.
The study also informs an ongoing effort to develop a Personal Transformation Index, intended to assess changes in confidence, collective orientation, communication and civic agency. Further research could test the tool’s usefulness and examine how program activities relate to those changes.
For now, the practical question is straightforward: Are organizations creating conditions in which people can contribute to their own communities?
Meeting immediate needs and supporting community leadership belong in the same conversation. Programs that listen to participants, invest in relationships and allow time for change may gain a fuller understanding of what their work makes possible.