First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund State Report
Download 0.5 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 4.6 Recommendations
- 5. Monitoring and Evaluation
- 5.2 Assessment of the ME
- 5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
- 6. Program Management Issues
- 6.2 Guidelines and manuals
- 7. Conclusions – Findings and Recommendations
- 8. Annexes List of important People and Institutions Met
4.5 IssuesMandate too large to handle –The target for Capacity Development under BRGF is very ambitious and too big to handle under BRGF alone. The presumed thinking behind this was that the framework would be lead by and supported by funds and personnel from other schemes and departments; however, this mandate has remained limited to the BRGF programme. Hardware focused Capacity Development - BRGF guidelines call for ‘providing sufficient office infrastructure, including office buildings wherever required and connectivity to these offices through roads, telephones, power supply and e-connectivity.’ The guidelines further clarify that this includes physical infrastructure for the conduct of panchayat affairs provided 30 percent of the cost is contributed from other sources. The indicated funding source for this has been the Development Grants while the computers, peripherals etc are to be bought from the Capacity Development Fund. In Madhya Pradesh the scope of using other available buildings was not explored and 189 BRCs were approved for each BRGF block. Nearly Rs 28 crores of the Capacity Development Fund will be used for the construction of these BRC, and contribution from other sources was not explored. During the visit to Barghat Block of Seoni district, the RT found that the BRGF-BRC had been completed 6 months back but was largely unutilized except for some staff of NREGS using the premises. The BRC of Education department built under SSA which was adjacent to this BRC was also unutilized with its two training halls being used for storing education material for the current academic year. The larger question is whether the BRC is seen within the context of NCBF as an institution or a building! Relevance of spending- It was found that approximately Rs 2.67 crores from the CD fund was given for trainings under total sanitation campaign (TSC) programme. The SIRD explained that this fund was given for training of Village Water and Sanitation Committees (VWSC) under TSC. It was later found that since the release of funds to MP for TSC from GoI had been delayed, SIRD was asked to release these funds to the districts - a clear case of resource substitution. This also brings attention back to the importance of having a strategy in place for such an activity to avoid ad-hocism. Limited focus- The NCBF recommends going beyond the trainings of representatives and functionaries and also involve in development of village level social capital by supporting the ‘building of the capability of pressure groups such as SHGs and CBOs to participate more meaningfully’ in the Gram Sabhas. It also suggests consolidation of the learnings from the field in the form of best practices and case studies and disseminating them widely. Such a system was found to be used in the case of NREGS in the visited districts where a media advisor has the responsibility to capture such practices and disseminate them widely through the media. Under NREGS, a media plan and strategy (however rudimentary) had been prepared. Illiteracy training - On the illiteracy training, the BRGF has not yet started, but there is a tremendous need for medium term training of the illiterate political representatives at the PRI/ULBs levels. Some funds are available from the SSA scheme, but there is need for convergence with the BRGF to ensure that courses/training can be more elaborated. Support to PRI functionaries and BRC - The important component in the BRGF guidelines on support to PRI functionaries where there are gaps in staffing and performance has not yet been fully addressed. The state has reserved the 5 % for this purpose, but due to various administrative procedures, it has not yet been possible to release funds and cover the actual staffing gaps at varies tiers of government, including BRC. Others - Some of the other weaker areas noted and require attention are: Lack of coverage of the ULBs and their need for CD support; the continuance of TSI support should be revisited. 4.6 RecommendationsThe Review Team recommends that the following is considered: Revamp and strengthening of the SIRD by revisiting the entire structure and competence to deliver results. An accountability framework10 for the personnel involved in delivery or commissioning trainings to the representatives and functionaries of PRIs. The outcome of capacity building measured by the extent to which the participants/ client has been able to use those skills for the purpose has been capacitated. In the present context, the outcome should be linked to the appraisal/ evaluation of the person/ trainer/ manager responsible for these trainings-creating incentives for better performance. This kind of a framework is currently missing among the state/sub-state institutions and is also not built into the ToRs of the empanelled TSIs Since the capacity of SIRD is limited, empanelment of a network of established/credible institutions/NGOs within the state to partly deliver the mandate of SIRD. Use of and familiarity with Rural Distance learning methods including radio and SATCOM for increasing the outreach of the SIRD. In the future stages of the CB there should be a move gradually towards an approach where the PRIs, particularly the districts, could have a stronger say on the services rendered, e.g. through a system with a drawing right within a certain ceiling, or established genuine CD grants to PRIs as tested in various countries. There is a need to rethink the TSI approach. The support is strongly required and there is need to train institutions/NGOs and other to perform this task if there are no qualified providers in the current set-up. Sufficient amount of funds should be allocated to this important function. A CB baseline survey of the present capacity and performance of PRIs should be conducted using a well elaborated tool. The impact of the activities should be regularly monitored. The 5 % allowed for support to improve the staffing functions, should be used as soon as possible to cover the functional gaps at the PRI levels. The CB should increasingly focus on institutional performance improvement. 5. Monitoring and Evaluation5.1 Systems for M&E within the BRGFThere is a limited monitoring of the activities conducted under the BRGF, both within the development grants and on the use of the CB support. Retired Chief Engineers and Superintendent Engineers have been empanelled under BRGF and allotted districts where they make periodic monitoring visits, undertake technical evaluation of works and report on their quality. In case the works are not satisfactory, the BRGF cell in Bhopal sends the report to districts and demands an Action Taken Report - ATR, which the district has to provide within a month of the receipt of the ATR. The PRIs have a system of reporting where the GP reports to the IP level, which reports to the District level. There are monthly monitoring meetings conducted with follow-up on projects and expenditures. However, there is no system of impact assessment or other kinds of evaluation of the performance of the PRIs and/or the support rendered through the CB components. Accounts and Audit Till February 2008, audit of Gram Panchayats was not conducted by the Director of Local Fund Examiner (DLFA). Orders have since been issued by the state finance department (December 2007) to facilitate audit by DLFA from 1 March 2008. C&AG formats have been adopted for Panchayat accounting. ‘Panchlekha’ is the software designed to support panchayat accounts in the local language, and training on the use of the software was provided. Its coverage and use in the state however could not be fully ascertained (a One-Day Training Program on Panchlekha Software to the Officials, Accountants and Data Entry Operators of Zila Panchayat/ Janpad Panchayats in Balaghat District was provided on 28 February, 2009) Annual external audit by a firm of chartered accountants for the BRGF programme expenditure for FY 2007-08 is yet to be conducted. It is understood that a list of 3 firms empanelled with the C&AG have been provided to the districts for appointment. Further progress on it could not be ascertained. 5.2 Assessment of the M&EThe M&E system needs further improvement, particularly on the “E” part, both within the development grant and CD supported components. There is need for establishment of an early base-line to use as a benchmark for the future improvements, and need for elaboration of clear indicators for service needs and institutional performance of each PRI. 5.3 Conclusions and RecommendationsThe Review Team recommends: Establish a baseline for PRI performance which can be used as a benchmark for future improvements; Ensure that the State is conducting regular assessment of the impact of CD support; Improve the social audit and the use of utilization certificates – these should be endorsed by the Gram Sabhas; Improve publications of PRIs’ performance and initiative dialogue on how to improve; Link the actual performance of the PRIs with the support rendered. 6. Program Management Issues6.1 HR IssuesState level At the state level, the program is handled by few people under the Commissioner of Panchayati Raj and Rural Employment. A Director with additional officer and few contracted staff for the services handle the work on the coordination of the BRGF. Most of the people involved in the BRGF have other responsibilities in addition to this, and there is limited time available for monitoring, evaluation and follow-up. District Level The district administration of the BRGF is mostly handled by the CEOs. There are no dedicated BRGF staffs – staff engaged on other schemes is used as project Officers/Asst. Project Officers. This would not have been an issue provided that there was a strong planning unit/cell in the district, but this is not the case in any of the districts. 6.2 Guidelines and manualsBRGF guidelines were seen as very useful and appreciated by all PRIs, but the issuing of core BRGF support documents was done late and after the planning of the FY 2007/08. This has caused up-start problems and confusion about the overall objectives and allowed activities under the programme. Furthermore, there is need for more dissemination of the information about the BRGF and clarification of issues such as investment menu and level of discretion in the untied grants. 7. Conclusions – Findings and Recommendations7.1 Summary of core findings and recommendationsState Level Review Team core recommendations for consideration at the State level are: 1. State to issue normative formula for allocation of BRGF funds with indexing for backwardness 2. Advance the Planning Process with a start in July and completion prior the FY 3. Urban sector allocation should include a weightage for slum population and schemes restricted to slum area/BPL pockets 4. Announce the resource envelop at all levels of PRIs before the start of the planning process. 5. Reward better performing PRIs 6. Lesser reliance on augmenting popular national schemes e.g. IAY 7. Avoid changes in the priorities of the IPs, GPs and ULBs after approval of their plans 8. Value base allocation ? of schemes (administrative and financial approval) between GP, IP and ZP should be revisited and schemes are classified and implemented at the demanding PRI level. 9. Urban sector funds should be transferred directly from the state to the local body as in the case of the PRIs. 10. For capacity building component, prepare State-specific strategy with a training need assessment, section 4.6. 11. Revisit setting up BRC at each block level – assess need and sustainability first. 12. Include urban sector in the capacity building programme by allotting funds proportionate to urban sector population 13. Appoint external auditors for annual audit of BRGF programme expenditure. Central Level Review Team core recommendations for consideration at the National level are: 1. Reform the system of transfer of funds: There are several options. One option is to simplify and fasten the system of fund releases – consider front loading of funds with replenishments or rules on maximum amounts on the bank accounts – high level of up-front loading of accounts combined with replenishment of eligible expenditure incurred is reimbursed on quarterly submission of UC; 2. Clarify guidelines for use of the 5% fund earmarked for functionaries 3. Avoid the delaying step of approval of all plans at the High Powered Committee level. The HPC should monitor, evaluate etc, and not do a formal re-approval of a plan which has already been consolidated and approved by the DPCs under state legislature. [In MP District Plans are awaiting HPC approval for few months now] 4. Up-date the National Framework for Capacity building which should be based more on objectives, principles and strategy and less on input details. Also clarify inclusion of urban sector under the CB programme. The NCBF should be a framework and not a prescribed structure. By spelling out the content of the trainings etc, it has restricted the imagination of the SIRDs to engage in Capacity building around those components only. 5. Clarify the use UC and links to social audit (who, how, when) 6. Design a Communication Strategy across all tiers of governance. 8. AnnexesList of important People and Institutions Met
1 Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme Guidelines, Prepared and Circulated by Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India, 2007, hereafter referred to as “Programme Guidelines”. 2 According to TOR for this review, dated May 26, 2009. 3 It is not possible within the time available and the scope of the review to quantify the exact expenditure needs required to fill the regional imbalances, also as the data on the existing infrastructure is not fully available at the local levels. However, the statement is based on thorough qualitative review, field visits, comparison with similar schemes in other places and the funding available from other sources in India. 4 Rs. 1 crore is Rs 100 lakhs or Rs. 10 million 5 The authors do not take the responsibility of any inconsistency in the data in this table and all following tables with source: ‘State Presentation 1 July 2009’ as these are reproduced from the source mentioned. 6 See p. 6 in the BRGF Programme Guidelines. 7 Page 15 in the BRGF Programme Guidelines. 8 BRGF guidelines define the purpose of the development fund as one to be used for 1) filling critical gaps vital for local development; 2) gap-filling in local infrastructure of flagship programmes; 3) rural electrification; 4) drinking water for hilly and tribal areas and 5) Augmenting IAY if the local PRI sees this as a priority. 9 In this Report, the words “Capacity Building” and “Capacity Development” is used interchangeable. 10 Defines the nature and scope of responsibilities, identification of key results, performance expectations, and the monitoring and reporting strategies. Directory: rti rti -> Last updated on 26 2014 Manual-1 Particulars of organization, functions and duties [Section 4(1)(b)(i)] rti -> Calendar of activities; Academic; Co-scholastic and Games & Sports calender of activities for session 2015-16 rti -> Rti’s Integration Designer® apex programming Software is Now Available rti -> Template for the information handbook under right to information act rti -> Intercom Telephone Directory of iasri room office /epabx resi Download 0.5 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||