CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Adult literacy programmes do not operate in isolation. They are located in villages and neighbourhoods, use community buildings, depend on local facilitators, and draw learners from local households. The degree to which a community welcomes, supports and takes ownership of a programme can therefore make a large difference to whether it succeeds. This idea is now embedded in international policy thinking on adult learning. The Fourth Global Report on Adult Learning and Education observes that the success of community learning centres is a result of active involvement by the community, whose members act as learners, instructors and managers, and that the community has ownership of the site (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning [UIL], 2019, as cited in Belete et al., 2022). A background paper for the Global Education Monitoring Report goes further, recommending that community participation and ownership become a central goal of adult learning programmes because they ensure the relevance and sustainability of programmes and contribute to social cohesion (Hanemann, 2021, as cited in Belete et al., 2022).

Community support takes many forms. It includes the provision of land, buildings and furniture; contributions of money, food or materials; the mobilisation of adults to enrol; encouragement from traditional rulers, religious leaders and women’s groups; voluntary or low-cost services from local facilitators; participation in management committees; and moral support for learners within families. Belete et al. (2022) describe how, in Ethiopia and Uganda, community learning centres are governed by elected management committees made up of community members who engage regularly with service providers on the quality, sustainability and finances of the centre, and how many centres were established in buildings donated by local government. They add that the interest of communities exceeded expectations.

The evidence on community involvement is not uniformly positive, however, and the relationship between literacy programmes and communities is two-way. Nkansah (2022), in a qualitative study of two rural Ghanaian communities, found that adult literacy may not necessarily lead to community development and concluded that, however well literacy classes are organised, people-led, self-reliant community development is needed if communities are to act on their own behalf rather than wait for government. Akintolu et al. (2022) found that learners, facilitators and government factors inhibited the progress of adult community learning centres in KwaZulu-Natal, while centre managers tried to support the centres by involving different stakeholders in adult education and prioritising it. Kolawole and Pusoetsile (2022) found no significant difference in literacy attainment between participants and non-participants in a government-funded programme in Botswana, which they attributed partly to lack of effectiveness and implementation challenges. Taken together, these studies suggest that community and stakeholder engagement is a significant part of the story, but that its precise effect needs to be examined in each setting.

In Nigeria, adult literacy provision is coordinated by the National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education (NMEC) and State Agencies for Adult and Non-Formal Education, with substantial reliance on communities, faith-based organisations and non-governmental organisations. The scale of need is large: the adult literacy rate is estimated at about 70.4 per cent (World Bank, 2025), and the National Bureau of Statistics reported in 2022 that nearly 80 million Nigerians were non-literate (allAfrica, 2025). Public resources for adult and non-formal education are limited, and NMEC itself has said that it lacks recent national literacy data (“Federal Government directs NMEC,” 2026). In this context, community support is not a luxury but a practical necessity for keeping literacy centres open and effective.

Cross River South Senatorial District has a mix of urban, peri-urban and rural settings, with communities that differ in their traditions of collective action, in the influence of traditional rulers and churches, and in their economic capacity. Adult literacy centres operate in these communities under the State Agency for Adult and Non-Formal Education and its partners. Some centres reportedly enjoy strong local backing, for instance through free use of community halls and active mobilisation of learners, while others appear to receive little local support. This variation provides the basis for asking whether community support makes a measurable difference to how effective the centres are, and this study seeks to answer that question.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Adult literacy centres in Cross River South Senatorial District are expected to help adults acquire reading, writing and numeracy skills. Their effectiveness, however, varies. Some centres record steady enrolment, regular attendance and visible learner progress, while others struggle with dwindling numbers, poor facilities and demotivated facilitators. Programme managers frequently attribute these differences to the level of community support, but there is no empirical evidence to show whether this is so, what forms of support matter most, or how much difference support makes.

International literature suggests that community involvement and ownership are important for the success and sustainability of adult learning centres (Belete et al., 2022; UIL, 2019). At the same time, studies elsewhere in Africa show that centres remain constrained by learner, facilitator and government-related factors even where stakeholders are involved (Akintolu et al., 2022), and that literacy classes do not automatically lead to development unless communities take an active, self-reliant role (Nkansah, 2022). What is missing is local evidence that links particular forms of community support to specific indicators of programme effectiveness in southern Cross River State.

Without such evidence, the State Agency, local governments, traditional rulers and development partners cannot judge where to focus mobilisation efforts, how to structure community participation, or how to encourage communities to sustain literacy centres. The problem this study addresses is therefore the lack of empirical evidence on the effect of community support on the effectiveness of adult literacy programmes in adult literacy centres in Cross River South Senatorial District.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to determine the effect of community support on the effectiveness of adult literacy programmes in adult literacy centres in Cross River South Senatorial District. The specific objectives are to:

1. identify the forms of support that communities provide to adult literacy centres;

2. determine the effect of community provision of physical facilities and materials on programme effectiveness;

3. examine the effect of community mobilisation and encouragement of learners on enrolment, attendance and retention;

4. assess the influence of community involvement in the management and monitoring of centres on programme effectiveness; and

5. identify the challenges to community support for adult literacy centres and suggest ways of strengthening it.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What forms of support do communities provide to adult literacy centres in Cross River South Senatorial District?

2. What is the effect of community provision of facilities and materials on the effectiveness of adult literacy programmes?

3. How does community mobilisation and encouragement of learners affect enrolment, attendance and retention?

4. What is the influence of community involvement in management and monitoring on programme effectiveness?

5. What challenges hinder community support for adult literacy centres?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of significance:

H₀₁: Community provision of facilities and materials has no significant effect on the effectiveness of adult literacy programmes.

H₀₂: Community mobilisation and encouragement of learners has no significant effect on learner enrolment, attendance and retention.

H₀₃: Community involvement in the management and monitoring of centres has no significant effect on the effectiveness of adult literacy programmes.

H₀₄: There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of literacy programmes between centres with high and low levels of community support.

1.6 Significance of the Study

Adult literacy centres and facilitators. The study will help centres understand which forms of local support matter most and how to engage communities more effectively.

Adult learners. Stronger, better-directed community support can result in better facilities, more encouragement and greater relevance of classes to learners’ lives.

Community leaders, traditional rulers, religious organisations and community-based groups. The findings will show communities how their contributions influence programme success, encouraging them to take ownership of literacy centres in line with the emphasis on community participation and ownership in international policy.

The State Agency for Adult and Non-Formal Education, NMEC and local governments. Evidence on the effect of community support can guide mobilisation strategies, supervision, and partnerships with communities and other stakeholders.

Non-governmental organisations and development partners. They will be able to design support that builds on, rather than replaces, local contributions.

1.7 Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study covers adult literacy centres in Cross River South Senatorial District of Cross River State. Respondents include adult learners, facilitators, centre managers or supervisors, and community leaders associated with the centres. The study focuses on community support in three main dimensions: provision of facilities and materials, mobilisation and encouragement of learners, and involvement in management and monitoring. Programme effectiveness is examined through enrolment, attendance, retention and learners’ progress as reported by facilitators and learners. Support from government and external agencies is considered only where it interacts with community support.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The study is limited to one senatorial district and may not reflect conditions in other parts of Nigeria. Community support is difficult to measure precisely because much of it is informal and unrecorded, so the study relies on respondents’ reports and, where available, centre records. Some respondents may overstate or understate community contributions. Programme effectiveness is influenced by several factors other than community support, such as facilitator quality and government funding, and the study can therefore establish association and perceived effect more reliably than strict causation. The researcher used triangulation between learners, facilitators and community leaders to reduce these problems.

1.9 Operational Definition of Terms

Community support: the material, financial, moral, organisational and management contributions that members and institutions of a community give to an adult literacy centre.

Adult literacy programme: an organised non-formal education programme that teaches adults to read, write and use basic numeracy.

Programme effectiveness: the extent to which a literacy centre achieves its aims, measured in this study by learner enrolment, attendance, retention and reported progress in literacy skills.

Community mobilisation: activities by community members and leaders to inform, encourage and persuade adults to enrol and stay in literacy classes.

Community ownership: the feeling and practice among community members of treating the centre as their own, including contributing to its running and taking part in its management.

Adult literacy centre: a designated venue where adult literacy classes are held regularly.

Cross River South Senatorial District: the senatorial district in the southern part of Cross River State that forms the study area.

References

Akintolu, M., Uleanya, C., & Letseka, M. (2022). Examining key challenges in the programmes of adult community learning centres in KwaZulu-Natal. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714211070307

allAfrica. (2025, August 1). Nigeria: Basic education – Govt targets 80 million non-literate youths and adults. https://allafrica.com/stories/202508010056.html

Belete, S., Duke, C., Hinzen, H., et al. (2022). Community learning centres (CLCs) for adult learning and education (ALE): Development in and by communities. International Review of Education, 68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-022-09954-w

Federal Government directs NMEC to enhance literacy data collection for adults and youths. (2026). Nigeria News Digest. https://www.nigerianewsdigest.com/federal-government-directs-nmec-to-enhance-literacy-data-collection-for-adults-and-youths/

Kolawole, O. D., & Pusoetsile, T. (2022). What difference does literacy make among adult learners? Impact of adult basic education programme in a rural community in Botswana. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 28(1), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714211007495

Nkansah, T. (2022). The role of adult literacy in community development in Ghana: Perceptions and experiences of two rural communities. The International Journal of Community and Social Development, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/25166026221110728

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2019). 4th global report on adult learning and education: Leave no one behind – Participation, equity and inclusion. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.