Unit committee (In selected communities)
Stages involved in bringing out comprehensive development plan	Extent of participation (actual participation)	Gap identified	Remarks from team/researchers
Plan preparation	45.5% of unit committees considered in the study were involved in Plan preparation	54.5% of the unit committees were not involved in Plan preparation	Inputs from the unit committees are necessary; thus, the need for the Assembly to consider the unit committees in plan preparation
Implementation	Plays collaborative roles in plan implementation (100% involvement in terms of implementation)	--	The assembly needs to be recommended for full involvement of unit committees in project implementation
Monitoring and evaluation	Supervisory role through daily on-site inspection. 81.8% were involved in monitoring while 18.2% were involved in evaluation	18.2% gap in terms of monitoring while 81.8% gap in terms of evaluation	The gap could be attributed to the logistical problems faced by the Unit committees. This implies that unit committees should be provided with logistics so as to undertake monitoring and evaluation
Community members
Plan preparation	22.3% of community members were aware of plan while 26.5% were involved in plan preparation	77.7% of community members not aware of plan while 73.5% were not involved in plan preparation	The views of community members need to be solicited in terms of plan preparation
Plan implementation	44.4% were involved in plan implementation	55.6% of community members were not involved in plan implementation	Communities’ involvement in plan implementation is essential since it ensures sustainability of projects. This calls for need for the Assembly to involve communities
Monitoring and evaluation	0% of community members were involved	100% gap in terms of community participation in monitoring and evaluation	The MPCU should endeavor to involve community members in monitoring and evaluation since they could provide valuable inputs to inform project implementation