A new evaluation by RISE-Ghana has exposed significant weaknesses in grassroots governance in the Bolgatanga East District of the Upper East Region, raising concerns about the functionality of Unit Committees, community participation and the ability of residents to hold local authorities accountable.
The assessment revealed that although Unit Committees exist across the district, many are only semi-functional, with some meeting infrequently, operating with fewer than the expected five members and lacking adequate training to perform their responsibilities effectively.
The evaluation also found that Bolgatanga East, which has approximately 60 electoral areas, has only one Area Council, located at Zuarungu. The council was reportedly not holding meetings, raising further questions about the effectiveness of the district’s grassroots governance arrangements.
The findings were presented to selected journalists by the Executive Director of RISE-Ghana, Awal Ahmed Kariama, as part of an evaluation conducted under the Evidence for Development (E4D) project, supported by the Centre for Democratic Development Ghana (CDD-Ghana).
The initiative seeks to strengthen local government accountability, promote evidence-informed policymaking and improve the responsiveness of public institutions to the needs of citizens.
One of the key findings was the limited functionality of Unit Committees, which are expected to serve as important links between communities and local government authorities.
According to the evaluation, respondents described five-member Unit Committees operating at the electoral-area level, but their meeting frequency varied considerably, ranging from monthly meetings to gatherings held only twice a year.
The assessment also identified gaps in committee membership, with some electoral areas having fewer than the expected five members.
These shortcomings raise concerns about whether the committees have the membership, organisational capacity and consistency required to perform their responsibilities effectively.
Unit Committees play an important role in grassroots governance. They are expected to help identify community needs, mobilise residents for development activities, monitor local projects and communicate concerns to the appropriate authorities.
However, when committees meet irregularly or lack the capacity to carry out these functions, communities risk losing an important avenue for participating in decisions that affect their lives.
The evaluation further indicated that some committee members had not received adequate orientation or training from the district assembly to enable them to understand and perform their duties effectively.
This gap in capacity development could undermine the ability of the committees to engage residents, monitor development initiatives and contribute meaningfully to local decision-making.
RISE-Ghana also identified a possible misunderstanding of the statutory responsibilities of Unit Committees among some members and community stakeholders.
According to the findings, several respondents described the primary responsibility of Unit Committees as supporting Assembly Members.
However, Ghana’s Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936), provides for specific functions for local government structures, including responsibilities that extend beyond assisting elected Assembly Members.
The evaluation suggests that this perception could limit the independence and effectiveness of Unit Committees in carrying out their own responsibilities.
When committee members see themselves mainly as assistants to Assembly Members, their potential contribution to community mobilisation, local monitoring and accountability may not be fully realised.
The assessment also raised concerns about community involvement in committee activities. A chief in Yarigabisi reportedly stated that he was not invited to Unit Committee meetings.
The reported exclusion highlights the importance of ensuring that traditional authorities and other relevant community stakeholders have appropriate opportunities to participate in grassroots governance.
For Unit Committees to function effectively, their activities must be sufficiently inclusive, with residents able to raise concerns, discuss development priorities and receive information about decisions affecting their communities.
Beyond the challenges facing Unit Committees, the evaluation found that Bolgatanga East has only one Area Council, situated at Zuarungu, despite having approximately 60 electoral areas. Kariama observed that the district should have at least two Area Councils to support effective local administration and improve coordination of grassroots development activities.
According to the evaluation, the Secretary to the District Planning Coordinating Unit stated that the Area Council did not hold meetings, while an Assembly Member described it as “not functioning at all”.
An ineffective Area Council could weaken coordination between communities and the district assembly, particularly where local concerns require collective attention or follow-up.
The situation raises questions about how effectively the existing structure serves communities across the district and whether adequate mechanisms are in place to ensure that local development concerns receive attention.
The evaluation therefore points to the need for the district assembly to examine both the functionality and adequacy of its grassroots governance arrangements.
Another concern identified by RISE-Ghana was the absence of a reliable, consolidated record of the district’s local government sub-structures.
The assessment found that two senior respondents provided different figures for the number of electoral areas and Assembly Members. Additionally, no respondent could state the total number of Unit Committee members across the district.
The inability to establish consistent figures raises concerns about the quality of information available to support planning, supervision and resource allocation.
Accurate records are essential for determining whether all electoral areas have functioning committees, identifying vacancies, organising training and monitoring the performance of grassroots structures.
Without reliable information, the district assembly may struggle to identify gaps and determine where support is most urgently required.
For an evaluation focused on evidence-informed policymaking, the absence of a clear record of the structures expected to support grassroots governance represents a significant institutional challenge.
RISE-Ghana’s findings point to the need for a comprehensive review and documentation of Unit Committees and other local government structures in the district.
The evaluation also uncovered weaknesses in communication between communities and the district assembly, particularly in the feedback provided after residents submit concerns.
According to respondents, community concerns are generally channelled to the assembly through Assembly Members. However, information about the progress or resolution of those concerns often fails to return to the affected communities promptly.
Some respondents described feedback as slow, delayed or entirely absent. Others said they were simply told that an issue was “on the way” without receiving a definite timeline for action.
Focus group discussions highlighted examples of communities repeatedly requesting a maternity room without receiving a response. In another case, residents said officials inspected a dam but did not provide a subsequent update.
Although these examples relate to development requests, the broader governance concern is the lack of a dependable feedback mechanism through which residents can track the status of issues they raise.
When communities are unable to establish whether their concerns have been considered, referred to the appropriate department or scheduled for action, confidence in local governance processes can weaken.
The evaluation further found that where communication appeared to work effectively, respondents sometimes attributed it to the efforts of individual Assembly Members rather than a consistent institutional system.
This suggests the need for a more structured approach to communicating decisions, progress and outcomes to residents.
The consequences of weak communication appear to extend beyond delays in resolving community concerns. According to the evaluation, some residents have become reluctant to attend community meetings because they believe their participation yields little when issues raised are not followed by visible action.
This development presents a challenge for grassroots accountability, which depends on residents being willing to participate in discussions, identify local priorities and monitor the performance of public institutions.
When people repeatedly raise concerns without receiving feedback, they may gradually withdraw from community engagement.
Such participation fatigue could leave local authorities with fewer opportunities to understand residents’ needs and reduce the level of public scrutiny of development activities.
Strengthening Unit Committees must therefore involve more than ensuring that members are appointed or meetings are held. It also requires a governance system in which community concerns are documented, followed up and communicated back to residents.
The evaluation also drew attention to the district assembly’s internally generated revenue performance, identifying a possible connection between effective grassroots structures and local resource mobilisation.
Kariama disclosed that the district’s 2026 budget projected internally generated funds of approximately GH¢164,000, while the evaluation indicated that actual revenue was about 64 per cent below the projected target.
The shortfall raises concerns about the assembly’s capacity to mobilise local resources to support development priorities.
RISE-Ghana believes that functional Unit Committees and other grassroots structures could contribute to improved revenue mobilisation by helping identify potential revenue sources, engaging residents and encouraging compliance with legitimate local revenue obligations.
However, this would require effective collaboration between the assembly and communities, transparent revenue administration and greater public confidence in how collected funds are used.
Functional grassroots structures could also provide opportunities for residents to understand local revenue policies and engage authorities on development priorities.
Nevertheless, stronger Unit Committees alone may not resolve the revenue shortfall; improved financial administration and accountability would also be necessary.
Although the evaluation focused on Bolgatanga East, RISE-Ghana believes the findings could provide useful lessons for other districts in the Upper East Region and beyond.
As part of its regional learning efforts, the organisation brought together representatives from Nabdam, Talensi and Bongo districts to share experiences and good practices with Bolgatanga East.
Kariama cited experiences shared during the forum, including the reported effectiveness of youth and community structures in Nabdam, as examples of approaches that could inform improvements in grassroots governance.
He expressed hope that wider dissemination of the findings would encourage residents to take greater interest in local governance while motivating policymakers and technical officers to adopt practices that strengthen public participation and accountability.
RISE-Ghana also indicated its willingness to explore opportunities to mobilise additional resources to extend the evaluation to other districts, depending on the impact of the pilot initiative and the lessons learned.
The findings place renewed attention on the need to strengthen the structures intended to bring local government closer to the people of Bolgatanga East.
Key priorities include providing adequate training and orientation for Unit Committee members, addressing gaps in committee membership, establishing reliable records of local government structures and reviewing the functionality of the existing Area Council.
The district assembly must also consider how to establish a consistent feedback system that enables residents to know what action has been taken on concerns submitted through their representatives.
Greater involvement of traditional authorities and other community stakeholders could further improve participation and ensure that grassroots governance structures reflect the needs of the people they serve.
The media also has an important role in tracking the response of local authorities to the findings, examining whether proposed improvements are implemented and keeping residents informed about progress.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of grassroots governance should not be measured merely by the existence of Unit Committees or Area Councils, but by whether these structures meet, engage residents, communicate community priorities and contribute to accountable local administration.
For Bolgatanga East, the evaluation presents an opportunity to address longstanding weaknesses in community participation and local accountability.
The central challenge is to transform Unit Committees from structures that exist largely on paper into functional platforms through which residents can influence development decisions, monitor local initiatives and demand accountability from public officials.
Source: Apexnewsgh.com/Ngamegbulam Chidozie Stephen