The Challenges and Examination of New Programme Ubudehe 2020 in Rwanda ()
1. Introduction
In the present context, Ubudehe can be understood as a socio-economic stratification system in which poor Rwandans are supported with social protection schemes. The exercise was conducted by the Local Administrative Entities Development Agency (LODA) and sought to ascertain the true economic status of each Rwandan household. Ubudehe is a long-standing and cultural value of mutual assistance which was adopted by the government in 2000 as part of the strategies to address poverty reduction. Currently, Rwandans have been classified under four categories with the first category designated for the poorest people in society while the fourth category is for the wealthiest members of society. Currently, there are four Ubudehe categories with the first category designated for the poorest people in society while the fourth category is for the wealthiest members of society. Despite the huge financial outlays in the social protection sector, poverty reduction levels have been low in the last five years. Between 2012 and 2017, annual public spending on the social protection sector increased from Rwf 64 billion to over Rwf 130 billion. Over the last five years, Shyaka said, Rwanda recorded just 0.9 per cent improvement in poverty reduction. To him, this is “probably because we were not supporting the right people”. Under the new reforms, categories of Ubudehe have been revised to five after national consultations with communities, citizens, faith-based organisations and civil society organisations.
“The special focus on the new categorisation is the graduation of communities from poverty. If we want to transform the person who’s receiving the support, they need to understand that support will not be eternal except for those who are more vulnerable,” he noted.
1.1. Objectives
This articles focus on the follow three main objectives:
➢ To examine the main challenges of new program ubudehe 2020;
➢ To evaluate criteria of categorization system in the new ubudehe program 2020;
➢ To compare the old ubudehe program (2005-2019) to the new program of 2020.
What informed the review?
Previous categories have been characterized by several challenges including over-dependency of Rwandans on the government, and slow graduation of communities from poverty.
“As we invested in people, we became a state that is seen as so kind to give to its people. To some extent, that created a mindset of dependency where people say it is good to [always] expect from the government,” the minister said. The current categories were also characterized by repetitive and constant appeals and complaints to change categories and petty corruption and bribery in a bid to get lower categories. The second phase of categorization was also characterized by nepotism at local levels, as well as poor implementation framework of categories by programme users.
It is the same reason, the minister said, “the implementation framework needed to be reviewed to ensure that we actually support those that need to be supported”.
What’s new?
The new categories have attempted to fairly re-distribute households into their socio-economic welfare status. Previously, they complained that households with different socio-economic welfare status were classified in the same categories. For instance, households in the upper category 1 and lower category 2 had almost the same household characteristics. The naming of the categories was changed from numerical numbers to letters, which means that the new categories will be referred to as Category A, B, C, D & E (Special Category). Shyaka told this publication in an exclusive interview on Thursday, June 25 that the new Ubudehe approach was inspired by the graduation paradigm. “Category ‘C’ and ‘D’ are the main categories that will be the focus for graduation and upon reception of any social protection intervention or service, they will be obliged to sign households’ performance contracts,” he explained.
The new model, he added, is envisaged to be cost-effective and evenly spreads resources and assigns roles and tasks across all categories.
Category E (Special) is a completely new category. Households in the category are those who are aged, more vulnerable and probably have no skills to pursue any job.
These households will benefit from full state social protection, accessing everything from Vision 2020 Umurenge programme, subsidies for solar-based domestic electrical systems, community-based health Insurance, fortified blended foods, and Girinka, among others.
Households in category A & B won’t benefit from social protection schemes, rather they are expected to be partners in community development through their investments and skills that create jobs and corporate social responsibility.
Ubudehe: Ubudehe is the traditional Rwandan practice and cultural value of working together to solve problems (Republic of Rwanda, 2007) . In this study, it refers to a traditional Kinyarwanda word that defines the collective effort employed towards solving social problems.
Ubudehe Categories: Ubudehe categories are income categories used in Rwanda for household classification; the identification of which household belongs to which category is usually based on a community participatory approach and categorization depends on the economic status of each individual household. In the context of the study, the categories are used to group the households in Rwanda according to their economic standards and ability to make contributions towards the community based health insurance.
Households: A domestic unit consisting of the members of a family who live together along with non-relatives such as servants or relatives. In this study, households are also taken as relatives and non-relatives that are living together and are dependent on one another.
1.2. What the New Categories Mean
A & B: Category of households with diverse life choices and self-reliant that spur community empowerment and graduation from poverty.
C & D: Category of self-reliant households that benefit from social protection interventions and multi-sectoral interventions and have to sign performance contracts (Imihigo) for graduation within a period of 2 years.
Special category (E): This category of households is expected to benefit from full state social protection and individuals in this category are not expected to graduate and will not sign performance contracts.
Shyaka said the implementation is expected to be effective January next year 2021.
The newly revise Government social protection scheme (Ubudehe) categories have drawn mixed feelings with citizens using social media platforms to say that the new categories are out of touch with reality and have many discrepancies.
The revised Ubudehe version published last month September by the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC) was a result of several citizen’s complaints in 2019 accusing local authorities of “being corrupt” in classification process (MINALOC, 2019) .
The government said the new categories will be informed by findings to make them more effective. Initially in 2001, the government set up this program as a way of providing direct support, financial, education, medication fees among others to the poor of the poor while the middle-income earners and the rich have to be self-reliant. These categories were in 2014, narrowed down from seven categories to four (classified as 1, 2, 3 and 4) with the last two categories being classified as able. Though named differently (as A, B, C, D and E) the new 2020 Ubudehe categories retained four categories but with a classification based on a family (especially the husband and wife) income per month. In the published document, the A and B are classified as A—those earning above Rwf 600,000 per month and B—for those earning between Rwf 65,000 - Rwf 600,000. While categories C and D will be considered as the poor of the poor (needy ones) and category E as the elderly and weak ones. Prior to this, the initial categories had become a basis for every service delivery; giving cows, public works, awarding government scholarships and other vital services in Rwandan community. However, in the revised 2020 Ubudehe categories the ministry said that the earlier government scholarship offers will no longer be determined by the categories but one’s merit.
The debate harshly deepened on the how the income categories were determined with most Rwandans wondering how a family that earns Rwf 65,000 can be in the same classification as the Rwf 600,000 bracket.
Though named differently (as A, B, C, D and E) the new 2020 Ubudehe categories retained four categories but with a classification based on a family (especially the husband and wife) income per month.
In the published document, the A and B are classified as A—those earning above Rwf 600,000 per month and B—for those earning between Rwf 65,000 - Rwf 600,000.
While categories C and D will be considered as the poor of the poor (needy ones) and category E as the elderly and weak ones. Prior to this, the initial categories had become a basis for every service delivery; giving cows, public works, awarding government scholarships and other vital services in Rwandan community. “How can you compare a family that earns Rwf 65k and Rwf 590k? Where is their residence, school fees and transport in this city? These should not be comparable household especially if there are support systems designed based on ubudehe!” said Esther Kunda on Twitter. Independent Journalist, Micomyiza Jean-Baptiste wondered how this is compatible category, especially when one’s income is almost ten times the other, while former Journalist Matthew Rwahigi asked for another oversight on this exercise if it is to reflect the true incomes of families. Other concerned citizens asked that these new categories should be revisited with the review of lawmakers, and allow more citizen input before the subsequent implementation (https://www.minaloc.gov.rw/news).
Category A
It consists of households that are considered well-off.
Those include families with an aggregated income of more than Rwf 600,000 per month from various sources such as salaries or pension benefits, or other income-generating activities.
Also in this category are households with over 10 hectares of land in the rural areas, and more than one-hectare plot in urban centres, or carry out livestock farming activities that enables them to get the above-mentioned income.
Category B
This category comprises households that earn between Rwf 65,000 and Rwf 600,000 monthly from similar sources as those cited above. For land, they should own between one and 10 hectares for rural areas, or between 300 square metres and one hectare in cities.
Category C
It consists of households that make an aggregated income of between Rwf 45,000 and Rwf 65,000 per month. Their land ownership ranges from 0.5 hectare to one hectare in rural areas, or 100 square metres to 300 square metres in urban areas.
Category D
This category is for households that earn less than Rwf 45,000 a month (casual workers). Their land is less than half a hectare in the rural areas, and less than 100 square metres in urban areas.
Category E
This is a special category comprising people out of the labour force as a result of age, major disabilities or incurable diseases, yet they do not own other assets or other sources of livelihoods. Those found in this category include those where the head of household and their spouse is at least 65 years old and have no source of income to provide for the family. Ubudehe categories are revised every three years, and cover more than 2.7 million households (Niringiye, 2012) .
2. The Ubudehe System, Its Main Purpose to Rwanda Development Population and Literature Review
Ubudehe refers to the long-standing Rwandan practice and culture of collective action and mutual support to solve problems within a community, according to a recent academic research paper. It is not known exactly when Ubudehe was first practiced, but it is thought to date back more than a century. ubudehe. Ubudehe is a Rwandan practice and cultural value of mutual assistance among people living in the same area in order to overcome or solve their socio-economic problems. In the past, Ubudehe focused on agricultural activities to ensure timely agricultural operations for food security purposes. The focus of traditional Ubudehe was mostly on cultivation.
Colonization and the introduction of a cash-based economy weakened the practice of Ubudehe as some members of the community were able to pay others to do work. While this trend occurred across the country, in some places Ubudehe was still practiced up until the 1980s.
As part of efforts to reconstruct Rwanda and nurture a shared national identity, the Government of Rwanda drew on aspects of Rwandan culture and traditional practices to enrich and adapt its development programs to the country’s needs and context. The result is a set of Home Grown Solutions - culturally owned practices translated into sustainable development programs. One of these Home Grown Solutions is Ubudehe.
2.1. Ubudehe: The Community Plays an Active Role in Solving Problems at Cell Level
The Ubudehe Program was launched in 2001 as part of partnership between the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and the Ministry of Local Government in a bid to draft the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, PRSP. During field visits of Ubudehe facilitators to people in their cells, they are empowered to discuss the characteristics of poverty and their role in poverty reduction (Martin, 2005) .
When Ubudehe was launched into Rwandan life it was as way to better involve communities in their development by setting up participatory problem solving mechanisms. The program was seen as a way to strengthen democratic processes and good governance through greater community involvement in decision making. Ubudehe creates opportunities for people at all levels of society, especially the village level, to interact with one another, share ideas, create institutions and make decisions for their collective development.
Ubudehe is one of Rwanda’s best known Home Grown Solution because of its participatory development approach to poverty reduction. In 2008, the program won the United Nations Public Service Award for excellence in service delivery. Today Ubudehe is one of the country’s core development programs.
This process was named UBUDEHE with reference to the Rwandan culture of mutual assistance and conviviality whereby people would come together to address problems facing them so as to work for their development. In a remote past, Rwandan people resorted to UBUDEHE mainly in agricultural and house building activities as the latter were the main activities of the time. Nowadays, Rwandans are faced with various problems (construction of roads, ensuring child education, health facilities, security…) which require combined efforts to address them as was the case in the past when people resorted to UBUDEHE.
2.2. Umudugudu, Ubudehe and Social Policy Making In Rwanda
The government of Rwanda’s efforts at establishing grassroots participation and capitalizing on indigenous knowledge or homegrown ideas in social policy action centers around the Ubudehe categorization of poverty at the lowest administrative unit, the Umudugudu. Ubudehe was drawn from ancient Rwandan history and can be rightly described as an indigenous knowledge and 13 grassroots based approach to community development which has been scaled up to conform to the requirements of modern rural administration and grassroots governance. Historically, Ubudehe is a term used to refer to the culture of collective work by community members aimed at either addressing general challenges or to assist individual households who are short of labour to address their own challenges. Ubudehe in the area of agriculture, for instance, would see some members of community coming together to assist vulnerable households such as the handicapped, aged and widows to cultivate their land at no cost. The idea is that any member of the community could be in need of community efforts and that the community should be available to assist.
Ubudehe categorization much more than any other governmental policy, Ubudehe plays a central role in determining the flow of government resources aimed at social protection. To a large extent, it determines the politics of who gets what and how at the grassroots level. Presently, the government channels its health insurance policy, cash transfer, credit scheme, public works and education bursary assistance through the Ubudehe categorization. Each of these is discussed in more detail in the next segment. The categorization of Ubudehe from inception until February 2015 was based on the six following categories:
1) Umitindi Nyakuja—handicapped, destitute and beggars who depend on alms for survival
2) Umutindi—able to work but little or no land and no health insurance
3) Umukene—no savings but access to regular if less nutritious meals, often no health insurance and limited access to education for school age children
4) Umukene Wifashije—owners of small land holdings with children of school age able to attend primary school, may have small savings
5) Umukungu—owners of large land holdings and livestock, gainfully employed and employ farm hands on own farms, health insurance and school fees are guaranteed
6) Umukire—wealthy with good housing, automobile and access to credit. In February 2015, the Minister for Local Government and Social Affairs launched a new categorization for Ubudehe.
Reasons advanced for the new categorization include the fact that the general economic status of Rwandans had risen dramatically over the five years since the previous categorization. The enhanced living standards have been attributed to several factors, including numerous social protection policies of the government, such as Girinka and the Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme (VUP). Other reasons include the fact that under the previous categorization, many people resisted being classified due to the derogatory names attached to the different levels. For instance, the first level, Abatindi Nyakuja, is a Kinyarwanda term for those without hands and feet, meaning one who is helpless and without hope. Being a people whose culture is firmly founded in dignity and self-respect, many Rwandans at the community level fought against being rightfully categorized due to the stigma attached to such terms, while some sought and tried to influence being placed in categories of a much higher economic status than they belonged as that will increase their respect in the eyes of other villagers. The new categorization is as below: Category 1: Very poor and vulnerable citizens who are homeless and unable to feed themselves without assistance. Category 2: Citizens who are able to afford some form of rented or low class owned accommodation, but who are not gainfully employed and can only afford to eat once or twice a day. Category 3: Citizens who are gainfully employed or are even employers of labour (KPMG, 2008) .
2.3. 2020 Vision Evaluation
Good governance and a capable state Governance is defined by UNDP as “the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels, comprising the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which that authority is directed.” While referring to good governance, we seek to highlight attributes of governance that are most likely to promote development, human rights, justice and peace. Some attributes of good governance that we considered are: 1) State capability: The government should be capable of ensuring security and rule of law and providing the goods and services required for development. 2) Accountability: Mechanisms should exist for the public to hold politicians and civil servants responsible for their performance. Accountability may be horizontal between governmental bodies or vertical between government and citizens. 3) Responsiveness: Government policymaking should be responsive to the demands emerging from society. Participatory mechanisms can promote this. 4) Fairness: Established rules should apply equally to everyone. 5) Inclusiveness: Government employment, institutions and services need to be open to all individuals and groups in society without discrimination. 6) Legitimacy: The basis of state institutions should be widely accepted across society. Our paper argues that Rwanda’s governance performance is the most important measure of all sustainable development; it captures the country’s main sectors as reported by different indices both nationally and internationally. Among the national indices, the Rwanda Governance Scorecard (RGS) produced by the Rwanda Governance Board has been assessing the state of governance in Rwanda over three years along eight indicators—participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus oriented, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency and accountability. RGS (2016) measures Rwanda’s governance performance along eight indicators—rule of law; political rights and civil liberties; participation and inclusiveness; safety and security; investing in human and social development; control of corruption, transparency and accountability; quality of service delivery; and economic and corporate governance. Outside Rwanda, many indices have also been reporting annually on the country’s progress including Gallup, Inc., the Mo Ibrahim Index on Africa Governance (IIAG), the Doing Business Index, the Global Competitiveness Report (World Economic Forum), the Human Development Index, the Corruption Perception Index and the Global Open Data Index. In 2015, Rwanda’s transformational journey was noticed by many international ranking institutions that report on countries’ performances in different areas. Rwanda was ranked among the top performers on the African continent as well as on a global scale (EDPRS 1, 2008) .
2.4. Comparison between the Old Ubudehe Program and New Ubudehe Program
The Ubudehe system and its evolution into a targeting mechanism 1
Shah provides a detailed description of the history and role of Ubudehe in his doctoral work on the subject. He reviews the role and potential of social mapping and participatory statistics in Ubudehe, a Government of Rwanda-led policy and approach initiated in 2001 “designed to increase the level of institutional problem solving capacity at the local level by citizens and local government by putting into operation the principles of citizen participation through collective action” (shah 12).
Ubudehe Categories up to 2015
There were six Ubudehe poverty categories from inception until February 2015 which were as follows
Abatindi Nyakujya (Those living in abject poverty): This category of the population owned no property, lived by begging and was wholly dependent on others.
Abatindi (Very poor): This category of the population had poor housing, lived on a poor diet, depended on others and did not own land or livestock.
Abakene (Poor): This category of the population was malnourished, owned a small portion of land, had low production capacity and could not afford secondary school education for their children.
Abakene bifashije: (Resourceful poor): This category of the population owned some land, cattle and a bicycle, and had average production capacity. They could afford secondary school education for their children and had fewer difficulties accessing health care.
Abakungu-Jumba: (Food rich): This category of the population owned a large portion of land, could afford a balanced diet and lived in decent houses. They employed others, owned cattle, and could afford university education for their children.
Abakire (Money rich): This category of the population had money in bank account(s), could receive bank loans, owned an above-average house, a car, cattle and fertile land, and had access to sufficient food and permanent employment.
2.5. 2015 Ubudehe Categorization
In February 2015, the Minister for Local Government and Social Affairs launched a new categorisation for Ubudehe. One reason was that since the previous categorisation, many Rwandan households’ economic situations had risen dramatically, requiring a recategorisation. Another reason was that under the previous categorisation system, many households resisted being properly classified due to the derogatory names attached to the different levels, distorting the categorisation process.
There were now four Ubudehe poverty categories which started in February 2015; these were as follows:
Category 1: Very poor and vulnerable citizens who were homeless and unable to feed themselves without assistance.
Category 2: Citizens who were able to afford some form of rented or low-class owned accommodation, but who were not gainfully employed and could only afford to eat once or twice a day.
Category 3: Citizens who were gainfully employed or were even employers of labour. This category included small farmers who had moved beyond subsistence farming, or owners of small and medium-scale enterprises.
Category 4: Citizens classified under this category were Chief Executive Officers of big businesses, employees who had full-time employment with organisations, industries or companies, government employees, owners of shops or markets and owners of commercial transport vehicles or trucks.
These categories were subject to constant appeals and complaints from people who wanted to be placed in lower categories, some using bribery and nepotism to attain their goal.
The 2015 categorisation provided weak implementation frameworks for users of social programmes. It was marred by over-dependency on the government, and slow graduation of communities from poverty (Charles, Dallery, & Marie, 2014) .
2.6. Ubudehe Categories from 2020 Onwards
The new 2020 categorisation attempts to fairly re-classify households according to their socioeconomic status. A common complaint was that households with different welfare levels were classified in the same category; another was that households in category 1 and 2 had almost the same standards of living.
The new Ubudehe approach puts emphasis on the graduation principle, fostering upward social mobility. The new model seeks to be cost-effective, evenly spreads resources, and assigns roles and tasks across all categories. Category names have also been changed from numerical numbers to letters.
2.7. The 2020 Ubudehe Categories
A & B: These categories of households have diverse life choices and are self-reliant in ways that can also spur community empowerment and help other households graduate from poverty. Households in categories A and B do not benefit from social protection schemes but are expected to be partners in community development through their own investments and skills, which can create jobs through application of corporate social responsibility principles.
C & D: these two categories are self-reliant households but that also benefit from social protection interventions and multi-sectoral interventions; but to do so they must also sign performance contracts (Imihigo) containing a plan for graduation from this assistance within a period of 2 years. These categories will have graduation as the main focus.
Special category (E): This category of households is expected to benefit from full state social protection; individuals in this category are not expected to graduate and will thus not be obliged to sign performance contracts. This is a new category; those in it may be aged, vulnerable or may have no skills to pursue any job. These households will benefit from full state social protection, accessing everything from the Vision 2020 Umurenge programme, subsidies for solar-based domestic electrical systems, Community-Based Health Insurance, fortified blended foods, Girinka, and other schemes.
The majority of literature and journalistic pieces refer to Ubudehe as a “revived traditional practice”. Indeed, the literal origins of the word refer to it being a Rwandan practice and cultural value of working together to solve problems, traditionally digging fields collectively before the rains came and the planting season began. It is considered a “home-grown initiative”, aiming to nurture citizen participation in development through collective action, with roots in the Rwandan tradition where people used to sit together to analyze their problems and help each other in problem-solving at a local level.
3. Methodology
Methodology study area the study was carried out in Rwanda. Rwanda is a country situated in Central Africa, bordered to the North by Uganda, to the East by Tanzania, to the South by Burundi and to the West by the Democratic Republic of Congo. Rwanda’s total area is km2 26,338, with a population density estimated to be 445 people per km2.
26,338 km2 Size; 12.3 Million Population; 21˚ - 27˚ Temperature; 67 years Life expectancy; $787GDP per capital; +8% GDP growth per annum
Rwanda 4 Provinces and the City of Kigali; 30 Districts; 416 Sectors; 2148 Cells; 14,837 Villages.
3.1. Research Design
This research is descriptive in nature and it used a mixed quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative approach was used while collecting primary data with the questionnaire with close ended questions. Qualitative approach used interview with a sample of administrators and some population with their representatives villages and the local administrative leaders/staff at district, sector, cells and village levels. 3 focus group discussions of 10 members respective to three sectors were organized.
The challenges and examination of new programme ubudehe 2020 in Rwanda is representative at national, urban/rural and district levels. The sampling frame was provided by Research. The sample was designed according to the latest Census through the listing information conducted in the selected Enumeration Areas (EA). All households in the selected EAs were listed. As such about 398,986 households were listed. Within each selected EAs, ninety-six households were randomly selected from the listed households. Within the selected households, individual respondents were randomly selected using the automated Kish Grid. A total of 385 interviews were conducted during May 2022 to October 2022 by research survey group.
The analysis showed that the questionnaire was well understandable and the responses collected were logic and full of needed information. In order to test the validity of the questionnaire, the research used content validity test recommended by the research tested the questionnaire for validity through.
3.2. Research Variables
The goal of this research is to establish the causal relationships between two types of variables: Independent variables and dependent variable. Kwan and Wolf distinguish the term for the cause as independent variable; the term for the effect as dependent variable. A series of cause constitute a series of independent variables.
This chapter explains the way the researcher will collect data from the field. It explains in detail the methodological aspects to complete this research work taking new ubudehe program in Rwanda, Musanze District. The main items dealt with include research design, sources of data, techniques of data collection, methodology, and processing and study limitation.
3.3. Research Design
The research is quantitative and qualitative. We achieve our main objective using statistical data from the field. Qualitative analysis will only be done for personal understanding of the researcher and broad insight of problems to be solved in this research.
3.4. Study Population
Target population is the group about which the researcher would like to make statements based on the conditions and concerns under the study. In line with this, the target population will be 368316 citizens of Musanze District (Table 1).
![]()
Table 1. Population composition and their sectors.
Source: NISR, 2012 Population and Housing Census results and Researcher 2022.
3.5. Sampling Design
Upon selecting the study’s respondents, the researcher will use both universal sampling and Convenience Sampling strategies. Universal sampling refers to the selection of the samples where all the people in the population have the same probability of being included in the sample while convenience sampling as the name suggests, the elements of such a sample are picked only on the basis of convenience in terms of availability, reach and accessibility.
3.6. Sample Size
According to article 20 of the CBHI law stated earlier, mobilization is conducted at village levels by committees of 5 members serving on voluntary basis. Mobilization committees at cell and 15 sector levels assume the coordination and those are the keys person to focus on under this research since they have full targeted information. In additional to the above, due to the time and financial constraints, it is difficult to conduct research on every element of the research population. We have calculated the sample size of the study in two phases:
● Sample size of sectors to be visited among the 15 sectors of Musanze districts,
● Sample size of interviewees in each sector to be visited.
From a population of 30 District, the Cochran formula has been used to sample only 1 District with 15 sectors as shown below.
This study adopted descriptive cross sectional survey design. The target population in this study concerned the 13,029,060 people of all Rwandans categories. The sample size in people was chosen using the COCHRAN formula.
N= Population size = 398,986
n = Sample size to be determined
Z = Standard normal deviation at 90%, confidence interval which is 1.96
p = Proportion of people members of Ubudehe program Project
q = 1 − p = proportion of people not concerned with Ubudehe program Project.
d = Degree of accuracy or tolerance error margin which is usually 10% or 0.1.
We generally use probability p to equal to 0.5 leaving error margin of 5%, the 95% of confidence interval.
when
The purposive sampling technique was used to select 385 respondents. The information used in this study was originated from primary and secondary sources. Thus, the required sample size is 384 citizens from 15 sectors to be selected among 416 total sectors of Rwandan districts.
The data collection techniques included questionnaire and documentary techniques. The data collected were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative technique and the provided results were presented using the descriptive methods of data analysis.
4. Data Analysis and Discussion
In this part, we explored different findings and results drawn from different analysis made on our data set to answer our research questions. The target population was 368,316 citizens of Musanze District and this number includes the existing all categories of ubudehe at District level. A sample of 385 respondents was drawn and all of them were willing to participate in our interview.
Below Figure 1 illustrates the personnel information of respondents where 15 sectors were 385 respondents, where Busogo, Cyuve, Gacaca, Gashaki, Gataraga, Kimonyi, Kinigi, Muko, Muhoza, and Musanze are 26 households each sector means 6.75% per each sector, where Nkotsi, Nyange, Remera, Rwaza, and Shingiro is 25 households each sector means 6.49% per each sector.
Below Figure 2 illustrates The categorization of respondents by age as described above shows a large number of respondents being above 20 years (i.e.: 20 out of 385 or 5.2%), 85 respondents are less than 21 years old (22%), 100 were
![]()
Figure 1. The bar graph representing the sectors of Musanze by respondents. Source: Primary data, 2022.
![]()
Figure 2. The bar graph of the interviewees’ identification by age and by sex. Source: Primary data, 2022.
between 21 - 30 years old (25.9%), 40were ranged between 41 - 50 years old (10.3%), 40 were ranged between 51 - 60 years old (10.3%). According to the status (Married, single, or widow) there were 263 (68.3%) were the married, 100 or 25.9% were single, 22 or 5.7% were widow. The data above show that all categories of people participated in the research and contributed with their opinions, views and ideas.
The 39 or 10% respondents are in category B, The 138 or 35.8% respondents are in category C, The 134 or 34.8% respondents are in category D, The 74 or 19% respondents are in category E. According to the level of education, 86 or 22.33% have no primary level, 134 or 34.8% has finished Primary education(P6), 85 or 22.3 have education level at secondary education (S6) and 80 or 20.7 have university level (Figure 3).
Below Figure 4 shows that 16% are the teachers, 75 or 19.4% ate the businessmen, 12.9% are the small businessmen, 12.9% are the leaders and 28.5% are the others populations.
![]()
Figure 3. Ubudehe categories vs education level. Source: Primary data, 2020.
![]()
Figure 4. Ubudehe categories vs source of your income. Source: Primary data, 2022.
Below Figure 5 shows that 39.4% are male and 60.6% are Female.
Below Figure 6 shows that 64.9% have the Challenges related to categorization, categorisation system, some village members made attempts to be classified into lower categories than would be appropriate given their true socioeconomic status, in order to benefit from support from social security programmes such as health insurance and Girinka. 25.9% have the Challenges related to project implementation, communities have difficulty defining the problems affecting their development, and struggle to know how best to prioritise the projects and select the most crucial project to execute. 5% respondents are out of information for new program ubudehe, and 3.8% are affected by Covid-19. (Income for them is low and there is a decrease in their daily productivity) The information from village leaders are different from their home place.
![]()
Figure 5. The Ubudehe categories by sex. Source: Primary data, 2022.
![]()
Figure 6. The respondents by the challenges.
Below Figure 7 shows us that 9% are Hungers, 13% are Negative thoughts, 2 are have an issues of Lack of clothes, 5% have an issues of Lack of energy, 6% have the issues of Malnutrition for their children, 19 have a Low incomes, 7% are Jobless, 3%insufficient harvests, 9% have a JOB, 3% have a Valuation Property for their land.
7% are Poverty, 2% handicapped and dependent, 15% have access to health is difficult (lack of money).
In General they have to beg and have nothing; no clothes, no food, no shelter. Their children cannot go to school, they cannot afford medicare and have no farmland.
They do not have sufficient food but can work for others to survive, they dress poorly, have insufficient farmland and can hardly get medicare. They have shelter but no livestock and are always suffering.
![]()
Figure 7. Characteristics and problem of Ubudehe program. Source: Primary data from collection, 2022.
![]()
Figure 8. There income from Ubudehe program.
They have small and poor shelter, and a minimal harvest, their children can go to primary school, they can clothe themselves but with difficulty, they can hardly access medicare, but manage to have sufficient to eat and they have small ruminants.
They have excess harvest to sell and livestock, they can afford medicare, and have a little money. Their children can go to secondary school. They eat well, are neat, have a good house and a bicycle, and can engage others as labour.
When asked if given the opportunity, they would rather be in another Ubudehe category, 325 responded “yes”, while 60 responded “no”. A follow-up question as to which category was preferred yielded a total of 385 responses as shown in Figure 8.
5. Results and Discussion
Ubudehe program appears to be largely relevant and consistent with the policies of the Rwandan government for fighting poverty and developing the country’s economy. The exact name of the programme: “Ubudehe mu kurwanya ubukene”, actually means “Ubudehe to fight Poverty”. Ubudehe is relevant and consistent with the “Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme” (VUP), the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP - 2002-2005), the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS - 2008-2012) and the Millennium Development Goals, which are guiding all the reform initiatives being undertaken by the government of Rwanda. In particular, Vision 2020 includes a specific objective to achieve “Rural economic transformation”, while the PRSP and EDPRS identified the key priorities as rural development and agricultural transformation, as well as the need to intensify small-scale agriculture, livestock and skills development. About 100% of the questioned people consider that the selected project corresponded to one of their priorities, thus demonstrating a very high relevance of the Ubudehe programme. It can be concluded that programme and operation objectives are mainly consistent with the beneficiary’s needs.
Ubudehe consists of eleven methodological stages implemented at the village level. All the Ubudehe stages are briefly explained, but the third stage, which has a direct bearing on inequality determination, is considered in greater detail. Eleven Ubudehe stages:
1) The determination of poverty among members, according to community perception.
2) Identification of the causes and consequences of poverty by community members.
3) Placement of all community residents on a social and economic categorization set, provided by the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC).
4) Construction of a social map of the village.
5) Identification of all common challenges facing the village, followed by prioritization.
6) Formulation of a collective action plan for tackling the most pressing of community challenges.
7) Election of committee members tasked with implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
8) Testing of the relevance of identified challenges and analysis of selected strategies for tackling challenges.
9) Signing-off of the community strategy by community members and request for funds from the closest government administrative unit.
10) Opening of bank account and funds transfer.
11) Repetition of cycles and learning from mistakes.
The investment, however small, in terms of livestock, radical terraces, small shops, crafts, storage silos, agriculture, small road improvements or tracks, facilitate the improvement of production and trade and increase the general wealth, which is leading the development of other sectors by increasing demand. Good governance is properly carried out at the level of the village, which is significantly due to strong local social control, which does not facilitate any attempt to bypass the programme. The village communities are incredibly close-knit, so that in addition to Ubudehe Committees for management and control, social control itself is also very significant. It is therefore, almost impossible not to manage the Ubudehe funds transparently. In conclusion, the results confirm that good governance is properly carried out at the level of the village. Despite the various audits, monitoring and evaluations carried out since 2003 within the framework of Ubudehe or the DPRPR and underlining these important gaps in terms of follow-up-evaluation and impact studies of the programme , one should never forget that the genocide took place only 17 years ago, which has deeply disorganized the country economically as well as sociologically. Therefore, we cannot expect all the structures and tools to be in place in such a short time. Sustainability If Ubudehe is to become increasingly more self-sustainable, the fundamental question remains to determine whether the initial funding of the two phases were sufficient to provide the impulse for a long-term movement or if it is necessary today to envisage additional funds to amplify the action undertaken and to promote a durable Community development. By analyzing the sample with regards to the sustainability of the projects undertaken, it was confirmed that 98% of the respondents, i.e. almost all of the 300 groups surveyed, believe that the improvements acquired through Ubudehe will continue. It is interesting to see this “entrepreneurship spirit” appearing here, which we already evoked, since nearly 57% of the respondents state that they wish to reinvest their profits realized. Savings are not the first objective, for those people who do not live in a monetary world. For these agro-stockbreeders, the true capital remains as the cattle and the ground, the money being only the means to acquire them. Nearly 47% of the households in addition, estimate that their future development is ensured, because their business was going well at the present time, whereas this does not represent in any case a certainty for the future. 151 But the sustainability of proposed acquisitions of livestock is also based on the system of gift and counter present (“Kugabira”) established by Ubudehe, as already noted in the audit/review conducted by KPMG in 2003: “Furthermore, it was clear to the respondents that they were only initial beneficiaries in a chain event, and were expected to ensure continuation of the process. The illustration most commonly used was the passing on kids or calves once born to the next identified member of the Cellule.” “The high rate of increase by the small animals coupled with the commitment to give one animal to another family makes it feasible that the distribution of livestock among the members of the community will continue even after EU funding is exhausted.” Concerning the sustainability of construction of roads and bridges, most communities use the “umuganda”, that is to say “work in kind” that the entire population of Rwanda is obliged to provide a few hours a month, usually on the last Saturday morning each month. The roads in question are, indeed, mainly arrangements of tracks, which can be easily maintained by the villagers concerned. The health centres depend on Sectors that service them with the support of the Districts (Musanze, 2010) . Classrooms are either extensions of schools, or new classes. Their maintenance is the responsibility of the schools concerned. The water conveyances depend either on specialized co-operatives, or directly on the villages, which envisage in the selling price of water a supplement in preparation for maintenance. There thus does not seem to be a particular problem for the future maintenance of the whole of these infrastructures. Agricultural projects include two main types of community projects: either crop (new or extension of existing cultures) or radical terraces. The radical terraces record impressive growth of production rates, with increases in output multiplied from two to five according to the types of production. The productivity of these terraces should still increase in the future, thus ensuring the sustainability of the investments carried out. The 534 tontines initiated throughout the country during the second phase of Ubudehe, for example, present an interesting case. By placing all or part of the funds in a tontine and asking the villagers to add their contributions, efficient microcredit structures were developed. Final acceptance of projects for funding is made by members of the tontine and beneficiaries pay back at an interest rate defined by the same members. Repayment of principal and interest increases steadily the amount of the tontine for new potential investments. The state also encourages rural people to develop their capital by tontines or co-operatives so as to continue the Ubudehe actions partly by their own means. All these strategies for achieving sustainability are benefitting from the very high degree of ownership by the beneficiaries, because the great force of Ubudehe is precisely to be rooted in the Rwandan community. The system is based on deep and secular cultural roots, which enable it to be in phase with the local culture. There is not any doubt that micro projects thus conceived on pre-existent cultural compost have a real impact on the fight against poverty. As such, we cannot presume that the Ubudehe model could be easily exported as such. Finally, despite previous recommendations, monitoring, audit and evaluation reports have not sufficiently been taken into account, there had been some recent evolution in terms of the M&E of the programme and its related projects; notably through the pressures of “Imihigo’s” regular evaluations, but also due to the different M&E initiatives that were utilized in the field of the VUP (Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme) and also inside the Common Development Fund.
During the launch process, the community listed their main poverty concerns as insufficient harvests, ignorance, extreme variations in weather conditions, laziness, and sickness. Characteristics associated with these problems were identified through pair wise comparisons: hunger, negative thoughts, lack of clothes, lack of energy, and malnutrition They then carried out the preference scoring, by giving scores out of 10 for each problem against each characteristic. This process generates open discussion and debate. At the end of the debate, the community confirmed that insufficient harvests were a problem that they could transform within their control (Republic of Rwanda, 2007) .
Community level collective action is reported through a simple reporting system, which enables the Ubudehe team at the centre to respond to needs from the field. A report is generated at the cellule level and sent through the district office to the centre. As the evidence in the previous pages suggests, there is significant data related to poverty and self-managing capabilities (important for decentralisation) that is generated at the cellule level. This can be aggregated, as these examples show, for the use of policy and operational needs, at the level of sector, district, province and nation-wide.
6. Conclusion and Recommendation
6.1. Conclusion
This paper aimed to examine the main challenges of new program ubudehe 2020; to evaluate criteria of categorization system in the new ubudehe program 2020; to compare the old ubudehe program (2005-2019) to the new program of 2020. The Ubudehe objectives can be considered as widely achieved in terms of the empowerment of people and community participation, with a very high feeling of ownership. On impact, 95% of the sample confirms that their incomes had improved; within that, about 71% consider that their income had doubled and 22% consider that their income had more than tripled. In addition, unplanned and unintended changes occurred through Ubudehe, as actually noticed in the sample of villages with the creation of 4805 temporary or more long-term jobs, through the construction of class-rooms, health centres, roads and bridges, mills, electricity and water infrastructures, as well as the creation of radical terraces. The radical terraces make it possible to fight against erosion, which is important in Rwanda because of strong frequent rains on steeply sloping grounds. A notable cultural change has also been witnessed. The sustainability of proposed acquisitions of livestock is based on the system of gift and counter present (“Kugabira”). In addition, 98% of the respondents, i.e. almost all of the 300 groups surveyed, believe that the improvements acquired through Ubudehe will continue. The radical terraces record impressive growth of production rates, with increases in output multiplied from two to five according to the types of production. Concerning the sustainability of construction of roads and bridges, most communities use the “umuganda”, that is to say “work in kind” that the entire population of Rwanda is obliged to provide a few hours a month, usually on the last Saturday morning each month. As an overall conclusion, it can be emphasized that Ubudehe is one of the best achievements. Ubudehe has won the prestigious UN Public Service Award due to the participation and ownership of millions of citizens and the strong support of the Authorities of Rwanda for poverty alleviation. As such, the prize that was awarded seems totally justified. This success was no coincidence, but the result of work, often unique, made by all project stakeholders, led by the Rwandan government more especially President Paul Kagame and the constant support provided by the European Union, Action Aid and other donors who participated in the programme.
Ubudehe has resulted in significant achievements for poor households. These include the following:
➢ Improved incomes
➢ Greater capacity to pay for food expenses
➢ Greater capacity to pay for school expenses
➢ Greater capacity to pay for health expenses
➢ Increased capacity to renovate houses
➢ Strengthened intra-community bonds of friendship and solidarity
Community-level benefits of Ubudehe include the following:
➢ The promotion of livestock rearing (and associated dietary benefits and income growth)
➢ The construction and repair of rural roads and other infrastructure
➢ Together, households have increased economic demand for local businesses
➢ Improved agricultural development due to increased investment by poor households in agricultural inputs such as fertilisers and improved seeds
➢ The construction of administrative infrastructure such as office buildings to alleviate shortages of such spaces
One of the most significant impacts of Ubudehe is the way in which it has transformed citizens’ engagement with their own development. Ubudehe has achieved almost nationwide coverage and communities across Rwanda are now actively involved in developing their own social maps, visual representations, and collection of data on the extent of poverty in their village. This information is used to determine national development objectives against which the national government and its ministries are held accountable.
The way in which Ubudehe has brought communities together for collective action based on their own priorities is also considered a major achievement of the programme.
The provision of a bank account to each community has facilitated thousands of community-led actions such as purchasing livestock, undertaking agricultural activities, building clean water facilities, classrooms, terraces, health centers as well as silos for storing produce.
6.2. Recommendations
It remains crucial to review and enhance the whole mechanism of monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of Ubudehe and all related programmes. This must include the establishment of an appropriate database in order to best inform the government, all line and sectoral Ministries and all the Districts on the exact development and impact of poverty reduction programmes and projects implemented in the field. The current on-going work for establishing the VUP M&E system could be the basis for this mechanism. Any suitable monitoring and evaluation system at national and district levels should be designed jointly with other donors, so that all projects and budget supports dedicated to poverty reduction are co-ordinated efficiently. Now is the right time to start mapping all major existing M&E systems in Rwanda, in order to seek their co-ordination. This would assist in more effective data collection and aggregation. This task could be completed under the umbrella of the NDIS, which is already working on this important issue. Appropriate mechanisms for planning and M&E are also urgently required at sectoral ministries and Districts levels. Until an effective M&E system is established at the district level, they could ask their villages to update their social map once a year. This information, summarized to the level of sectors could be sent to districts to monitor the changes recorded in the field in terms of poverty trends, housing or new infrastructure. There is need to increase the contributions of the local communities and government so that eventually this successful Ubudehe program is sustained without foreign support. In addition, there is need to increase the number of household beneficiaries, compared to the current system where only one household benefits from the revolving fund in each village. The first beneficiary almost becomes like a lottery winner and this may create social tensions. Even if it means starting with chicken but a large number of poor people benefit in the process, would be much better than the current system (World Health Organisation, 2002) .