Community Engagement, Awareness and Participation in Uganda’s Parish Development Model: Evidence from a Community Survey

Uganda’s Parish Development Model (PDM) places the parish at the centre of planning, financial inclusion and socio-economic transformation, and relies on community mobilisation. This study examined the perceived levels of community engagement, awareness and participation in PDM implementation, and the extent to which engagement and awareness are associated with participation. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from October to December 2025 among households that had accessed PDM funds and had running projects in Jinja, Kamuli, Kaliro and Luuka districts in the Busoga sub-region of Eastern Uganda. Local Council I chairpersons purposively selected households, and research assistants administered a structured questionnaire in person, yielding 286 valid responses. The study analysed eighteen five-point Likert items using descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha, Pearson correlations, multiple regression with robust standard errors and regression diagnostics, and a bootstrap mediation test. The scales were reliable (α = 0.759–0.768), and perceptions were positive (engagement M = 4.00; awareness and participation M = 3.97). Meeting involvement scored highest (M = 4.28), while awareness campaigns (M = 3.84) and community ownership (M = 3.79) scored lowest. Engagement (β = .371) and awareness (β = .415) significantly predicted participation (p < .001), jointly explaining 52.2% of its variance. Awareness partially mediated the engagement–participation association, carrying about 44% of the total effect (standardised indirect effect = .286; 95% bootstrap CI (.186, .405)). Diagnostic tests suggested that common method bias was unlikely to dominate the results. The study concludes that the PDM’s participatory structures are visible and accessible, but participation has not fully moved beyond attendance and consultation towards influence and ownership. Because the data are self-reported, cross-sectional and drawn from beneficiary households, the findings indicate associations rather than causal effects. The paper recommends structured community feedback mechanisms, consistent communication of programme rules, inclusive participation standards and routine local monitoring

Parish Development Model; citizen participation; community engagement; public awareness; Uganda

1. Alscher, P., Graf, E., & McElvany, N. (2026). Political participation and the Civic Voluntarism Model: How do resources, psychological engagement, and recruitment shape willingness to participate during adolescence? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 155(1), 73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Andriani, L., & Christoforou, A. (2016). Social capital: a roadmap of theoretical and empirical contributions and limitations. Journal of Economic Issues, 50(1), 4-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Annan-Aggrey, E., Arku, G., Atuoye, K., & Kyeremeh, E. (2022). Mobilising ‘communities of practice’for local development and acceleration of the Sustainable Development Goals. Local Economy, 37(3), 219-229. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Asiimwe, F. M. (2025). Adoption of the Parish Development Model (PDM) for socio-economic development of Ugandans: A case study of Banda and Kyambogo Upper Estate Parishes. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Baguios, A., King, M., Martins, A., & Pinnington, R. (2021). Are we there yet? Localisation as the journey towards locally led practice. London: ODI. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bernados Jr, S., & Ocampo, L. (2024). Exploring the role of social capital in advancing climate change mitigation and disaster risk reduction. Community Development, 55(4), 470-490. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287-1294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Claridge, T. (2018). Functions of social capital–bonding, bridging, linking. Social capital research, 20(1), 1-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (2017). Influence without authority. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cornwall, A. (2017). Introduction: New democratic spaces? The politics and dynamics of institutionalised participation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. (2019). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Managing Democratic Organizations I, 5-43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. David, W. (2026). Financial Literacy or Financial Inclusion? Which is Which, What is What—To Achieve Uganda’s 10-Fold Economic Growth By 2040. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. De Lombaert, T., Braekers, K., De Koster, R., & Ramaekers, K. (2025). Is it good to have a choice? The value of participatory order assignments in warehousing. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 45(3), 783-806. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ebrahim, A. (2019). Measuring social change: Performance and accountability in a complex world. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. El Moussaoui, M. (2023). Spatial Transformation—The Importance of a Bottom-Up Approach in Creating Authentic Public Spaces. Architecture, 4(1), 14-23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fiala, N., & Premand, P. (2018). Social accountability and service delivery: Experimental evidence from Uganda. Ruhr Economic Papers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Field, J. (2016). Social capital. routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Gaventa, J. (2019). Applying power analysis: using the ‘powercube’to explore forms, levels and spaces. Power, empowerment and social change, 117-138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Goetting, K., & Becker, S. (2025). Explaining political participation intention through the lens of the civic voluntarism model and extended theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 519, 145437. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Green, E. (2018). Decentralization and development in contemporary Uganda. In Decentralization, Democracy, and Development in Africa (pp. 82-100). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Greenberg, J. L. (2022). Governance, Citizenship, and Accountability: A Pilot Study of People-Centered Development in the Ugandan Health Sector. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Katusiimeh, M. W., & Wamara, C. K. (2025). Self-competence and preparedness in implementing the Parish Development Model in Uganda: Voices of Parish Chiefs and Community Development Officers. African Journal of Development Studies, 15(3), 217. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kayizzi-Mugerwa, S. (2024). Uganda’s Parish Development Model in practice: rationale, impact and relevance for bottom-up economic development in Africa. Southern African Journal of Policy and Development, 7(2), 4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kyohairwe, S., Karyeija, G., & Nduhura, A. (2024). Evolution of local governance in Uganda and its implications for policy and practice. African Journal of Governance and Development, 13(2), 23-47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lo, M.-C., & Fan, Y. (2020). Brightening the dark side of “linking social capital”? Negotiating conflicting visions of post-Morakot reconstruction in Taiwan. Theory and Society, 49(1), 23-48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217-224. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Lovan, W. R., Murray, M., & Shaffer, R. (2017). Participatory governance: planning, conflict mediation and public decision-making in civil society. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mackie, G., Moneti, F., Shakya, H., & Denny, E. (2015). What are social norms? How are they measured. University of California at San Diego-UNICEF Working Paper, San Diego. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. McComas, K. A., Arvai, J., & Besley, J. C. (2020). Linking public participation and decision making through risk communication. In Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 364-385). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mendoza-Botelho, M. (2013). Social capital and institutional trust: Evidence from Bolivia's popular participation decentralisation reforms. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(9), 1219-1237. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Musgrave, M. K., & Wong, S. (2016). Towards a more nuanced theory of elite capture in development projects. The importance of context and theories of power. Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Nakiwala, M., Mukiibi, S., Hailu, E., Kiggundu, A. T., & Wangadya, C. (2024). Advancing Agenda 2063 by Improving Mortgage Access in Greater Kampala: A Logistic Regression Analysis of Eligibility and Developer Challenges. Journal Of Project Management Practice (JPMP), 4(2), 97-114. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Ndlovu, J., & Muringa, T. P. (2026). Rethinking public participation in South Africa’s local governance system: A systematic review. Cogent Social Sciences, 12(1), 2604320. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Okrah, M. (2018). Decentralised planning and ‘scales’ of participation: an analysis of multi-scale bottom-up planning in Ghana University of Reading]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Panday, P. K. (2026). Networks that matter? Community organisations and citizen participation in local governance forums in Bangladesh. Journal of Rural Studies, 124, 104173. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Pateman, R., Dyke, A., & West, S. (2021). The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 6(1), 9-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Penker, M., & Kirbiš, A. (2026). Extending the Civic Voluntarism Model: A cross-national study of environmental public sphere behavior. Heliyon, 12(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Penny, J. (2017). Between coercion and consent: the politics of “Cooperative Governance” at a time of “Austerity Localism” in London. Urban Geography, 38(9), 1352-1373. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Ramsey, J. B. (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 31(2), 350-371. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., De Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner‐Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., & Sidoli del Ceno, J. (2018). A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration ecology, 26, S7-S17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Rwamigisa, P. B., Birner, R., Mangheni, M. N., & Semana, A. (2018). How to promote institutional reforms in the agricultural sector? A case study of Uganda's National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS). Development Policy Review, 36(5), 607-627. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Sharma, V. (2025). Revisiting arnstein’sa ladder of citizen participation: Strengths and limitations in the 21st century. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 16(2), 75-80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Simonsen, W. (2018). Citizen participation in resource allocation. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Sonnenfeld, A., Stevenson, J., & Waddington, H. S. (2024). Does citizen engagement improve development outcomes? A realist-informed systematic review of participation and accountability mechanisms. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 16(1), 27-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Taylor, P., Macdonald, K., Huckstep, S., & Sun, Y. (2023). Shifting norms, multiplying actors, turbulent times: An emerging landscape of international development co‐operation. Development Policy Review, 41(4), e12686. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Wabwire, P. M., & Nakiwala, M. (2026). Community Mobilisation and Development Outcomes Under Uganda's Parish Development Model: Evidence From Empowerment, Productivity, And Sustainability Indicators. World Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research, 3(7), 13–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21738430 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]