DRAFT REPORT OF THE

WORKING GROUP ON

CAPACITY BUILDING

( FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY)

CENTRAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE COUNCIL

MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP; Ashwani Kumar (Member, Central Council) ----Chairman

Pramathesh Ambasta (SPS, MP) --------------------Member

Ved Arya (SRIJAN, Delhi) -----------------------------Member

Dr. Bhagirathi Panda (NEHU, Shillong) ----------—Member

Prof. S.Narayan (Institute of Social Studies, Delhi) ---- Member

Official Members from the Government

Mr. P.K. Kesavan, Director, MoPR (GoI)

Mr. SK Singh, JS, Department of Rural Development, (GoB)

Mr. Badrinarayan, Add. Commissioner, MGNREGA( Govt. of Rajasthan)

6JULY 2010

Acknowledgement

At the outset, the Working Group thanks Dr. CP Joshi, Hon’ble Minister RD (GoI) for initiating the process of governance reforms for MGNREGA. The Working Group is thankful to Dr Mihir Shah, Member Planning Commission, Shri BK Sinha, IAS, Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India and Ms. Amita Sharma, IAS, Joint Secretary (MGNREGA), Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India for their guidance and unstinted support. The Working Groups places its special thanks to Shri Mathew C. Kunnumkal, IAS, Director General and Dr MV Rao, IAS, Registrar & Director (Administration) of National Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad for their logistic and coordination support.

We also place on record the support of Shri K. Raju, IAS, Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Shri T Vijai Kumar, IAS, Joint Secretary, NRLM, Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India, Shri Rajashekhar, Chief Executive Officer, APSERP, Hyderabad, Shri Phani Kumar, Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Academy of Rural Development, Hyderabad, Shri SM Vijayanand, IAS, Principal Secretary, Local Self Government, Govt. of Kerala, Shri Santhosh Mathew, IAS, Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Bihar, Mr. Vijay Prakash, IAS, Secretary , Planning, Govt. of Bihar, Shri R Parasuram, IAS, Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Shri Shiv Shekhar Shukla, CEO, SREGS, Madhya Pradesh, Shri C S Rajan, IAS, Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan, Mr. Tanmay Kumar, IAS, Secretary, Rural Development and Commissioner, MGNREGA, Govt. of Rajasthan, Shri Arun Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Govt. of Assam, Ms. Swahil, IAS, Additional Commissioner, MGNREGA(Chhattisgarh) and Mr. Brahma Dutt Tiwari, SDO, Sohara district. and Collectors and District Magistrates of Jehanabad, Gaya, Khagria districts in Bihar. The Working Group also thanks Prof. Vinay Singh, Director, NIRD-NERC(Guwahati) and Prof. Ramakanthan, Director, Kerala Institute of Local Administration,(KILA) Thrissur, Kerala, Prof.Hemanth Rao, Administrative Staff College, Hyderabad, Prof. G. Nagraj of Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, Dr Jayashankar, IRS, Additional Director, DTA, Nagpur, Shri Prashuram Roy, CFES, New Delhi, Achut Das, Director Agramgamee, Kashipur, Orissa for their support and knowledge sharing

The Working Group appreciates continuous support received from Dr. Rajani Kant, NIRD ( Logistic Coordinator for the working group) and also thank Prof. K. Hanumantha Rao, Professor & Head, Centre for Wage Employment and Poverty Alleviation, NIRD, Ms. P. Leelavathi, Visiting Fellow (CWEPA), NIRD, Dr Joseph Abraham, Mr. David Brenyard, Consultants (CWEPA), Mr K. Sudhir Kumar, Stenographer (CESD) and Ms. B. Prasanna, Electronic and Data Processing Assistant (CWEPA) of National Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad. We, in the end, are grateful to labourers for their continuing hope in MGNREGA!

Chairperson and Members

Index

S.No. List of Contents Page No.

1 Acknowledgements

2 List of Abbreviations

3 Preface

4 CHAPTER – I : INTRODUCTION

5 CHAPTER – II : GOVERNANCE REORMS FOR CAPACITY BUILDING

Part-I : Reforming Governance Systems at all levels

Part-II : Assertion of Workers Rights wrt Social Mobilisation, Planning and Social Audit – Lok Sevak/Lok Karmis

PART-III : STRENGTHENING CAPACITIES OF WORKERS TO ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS : INFRASTRUCTURAL AND MOBILISATION SUPPORT

6 CHAPTER – III : Strengthening Capacities of Workers to enforce their rights : Infrastructural and Mobilisation support

7 CHAPTER – IV : Capacity Building Reforms for Implementation and Transparency : ICT/GIS based capacity building reforms

8 CHAPTER-V : Strengthening Research and Evaluation Systems for MGNREGA

Part – I : Policy Evaluation and Research Service (PERS)

Part – II : Innovations in Research Methodologies for Evaluation

9 CHAPTER – VI : Capacity Building Reforms for strengthening Panchyati Raj

10 CHAPTER – VI : Capacity Building Reforms for Training

11 CHAPTER - VII : Capacity Building Recommendations for North East

12 ANNEXURES

List of Abbreviations

PREFACE

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) notified on 7 th

September, 2005, aims at enhancing livelihood security of households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual labour. On 2 February 2006, Prime Minster Dr. Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Mrs. Sonia Gandhi travelled to Bandlapalli village in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh to launch the ‘National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme’ (NREGS) as the most radical and largest plan of public employment, poverty reduction and rural development in the human history. From 200 districts, the plan has now been extended to cover all of rural India. The guarantee of 100 days of unskilled works now extends to more than 5.8 crore households in 2009-10, covers now about 79 lakh work projects and it has also led to opening of about 11 crore bank accounts, a rare feat in the history of financial inclusion of poor in the socio- economic architecture in India.

First of its kind, nationally and internationally, MGNREGA with its rights-based framework and focus on creation of ‘durable assets’, and propelled by proactive disclosures rules of right to information, has the potential to address the challenges of rural unemployment, food security and regenerate the village economy in India. MGNREGA’s most significant impact has been on the Minimum Wages Act as awareness about minimum wages has increased considerably and the notified minimum wages rates have gone up especially after the Government of India decided to provide ‘ a real wage of Rs 100 a day as an entitlements” under MGNREGA”, (Ref to FM’s budget speech 2009). It is also radical in the sense that it ensures rural labourers to have a legal entitlement not only to work on demand but also to minimum wages and in case of non-availability of work, the poor labourer is entitled to unemployment allowance. Similarly, the Act by emphasizing lateral public accountability systems like social audits, and proactive disclosure of information has internalized the spirit of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Right to information Act. Centrality of the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the implementation of MGNREGA has the potential to institutionalize people’s power at the grassroots and radically transform governance in rural areas. The government has also taken a giant leap by owning up the responsibility of providing complete fiscal resources and administrative mechanisms for implementing MGNREGA. All these call for innovating new governance structures, mainstreaming existing service delivery mechanisms, and re-designing more effective means of public monitoring for successful expansion and consolidation of MGNREGA. This indeed requires a paradigm shift in the way ‘capacity building’ has been conceptualized and mainstreamed in the implementation of MGNREGA.

Executive Summary

Working Group on Capacity Building for MGNREGA

MGNREGA with its rights-based framework and focus on creation of ‘durable assets’, has the potential to address the challenges of rural unemployment, food security and regenerate the village economy in India. In order to realize the goals that MGNREGA has set out for itself, there need to be first and foremost human capacities. The capabilities of these human capacities need to be developed so that they are able to undertake the responsibility mandated to them. Human capacities and capabilities further need to be backed by proper supporting institutions, which act as decision support systems, assisting in concurrent monitoring of outcomes and better management of the schemes initiated under MGNREGA.

The Working Group proposes to define capacity building not as ordinary shortage of staff and lack of training facilities but as the dynamic process of developing, strengthening and institutionalizing the ‘rules of game’, norms, standard operating procedures, skills, abilities, and resources that organizations, communities and individuals need to survive, adapt, and thrive in the fast-changing world of policy implementation.

Capacity building, broadly speaking, has two major aspects; for organizations, it relates to whole gamut of governance, administration (including human resources, financial management, and legal matters), business processes, program development, evaluation, and policy changes for innovation. For individuals, capacity building refers to excellence in individual performance, leadership development, socializing managerial values, technical skills, training opportunities, organizing abilities, and other areas of personal and professional development that includes sensitivity to values of equity, participation and inclusion. Thus, individual empowerment eventually needs to result in the ‘communitization of capacities’ especially marginalized and socially excluded groups in the society.

Issues.

The Working group found the following issues bedeviling the implementation of MGNREGA with special reference to the capacity building aspects.

1. Lack of Coordination among horizontal and vertical tiers of the government . Various institutional structures are not working in tandem and District Collectors (DPC) and Program Officers are still struggling with conflicting demands of vertical and horizontal coordination across departments and different tiers of government especially Panchayati Raj in the implementation of MGNREGA. For instance, Maharashtra has not suffered not only from lack of social mobilization of agricultural laborers and work site management issues but also from the usual bureaucratic turf wars and coordination conflicts between Chief Executive Officers of Zila Parishad and Collectors.

2. Poorly Crafted Administrative Systems . Some governments, for example, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, continue to suffer from ‘deficits’ of poorly crafted and inadequate administrative and management systems at all levels. The innovation of a separate ‘MGNREGA cell’ has not yet produced desired outcomes. (Refer to Appendix on Chhattisgarh).

3. Shortage of Professionals and Training Facilities. Our field visits and interactions with implementing support staff in the districts and blocks not only note shortage of dedicated personnel, poor training facilities and lack of community participation.

4. Ad Hoc Appointments of Professional Staff, Inadequate Compensation and Turnover. Unwittingly or otherwise, the government incentivized ad hoc appointments of low quality staff in large numbers, with every RD secretary and district collector somehow scrambling to recruit whoever s/he could get in the local job market. Many states suffer from high staff turnover. The process failed to take into account the fact that the Indian job market for professionals has become open and nationalized and salary expectations are to be calibrated to the demand-supply phenomenon.

5. Dissatisfaction among Contract Staff . We find evidence of growing dissatisfaction of the staff especially those ‘contract staff’ with regard to poor working conditions and arbitrary contract appointment policies of various state governments. Except AP, no state government has yet formulated a clearly articulated Human Resource Development policy.

6. Failed experiments of social mobilization such as “Gaon Sathi” in Orissa and the idea of providing ‘uniform’ for mates and Rozgar Sevaks in Jharkhand, a state battling against ‘uniformed and un-uniformed’ Maoist rebels. At the same time there is acceptance in some states that SHGs be mobilised.

7. Lack of Strong Governance System at the National and State Level . The current system is mired into departmental rules and functioning style and doesn’t have the strong management teams that can function autonomously to support the mission mode that is needed to realize the true objectives of MGNREGA.

8. Lack of Dedicated Pro-active Teams at the Cutting Edge . Barring a couple of states such as AP and Rajasthan, the implementation structure stops at the block level, relying as it does on Panchayats whose implementation capacities vary widely across states and districts. Thus often the system is in reactive and fire fighting mode rather than in a pro-active mode with adequate capacities to plan ahead and to implement these plans well.

9. There is a huge gap in training system, characterized by the following: (a) Training institutions has very little practical experience of doing what they are

training in and have very little touch with the intricacies of ground-level realities, implementation and social engineering; (b) Training institutions are located at a geographical distance, far removed from where the actual development intervention is scheduled to take place; (c) These institutes are run by personnel who speak a language which is largely incomprehensible to the people and whose attitude is didactic rather than dialogic, and who seem to lack the passion for the work which their training will enable; and (d) There is little follow-up in the field to ensure that the benefits of training are materialised at the field-level for which it was meant; and (e) there is near absence of any kind of role assigned to Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in this crucial area.

10. There is no in-house capacity to undertake evaluation and assessment of MGNREGA on a continuous and comprehensive basis; PIN (professional Institutional network) of MoRD is highly decentred and fragmented and run mostly by bureaucratic fiats. As a result, genuine policy analysis and feedback for course correction in the policy is often lacking. As states have not yet developed any robust mechanism of evaluation or assessment, the MIS of MoRD remains the only source of public scrutiny of the implementation of MGRNEGA; we are aware that MIS suffers from reporting discrepancy between states and the Center. So establishing an evaluation system becomes urgent.

11.Capacity Deficiency in MGNREGA in North East . Deficiency in capacity is found in all the three levels i.e. (i) Individual stakeholders(workers, govt. officers and officials, PRI functionaries, functionaries of officials created under act in the absence of PRI system, neighborhood functionaries etc.), (ii) community and (iii) institutions involved in implementation and monitoring of this programme. Often the deficiency in one of these stakeholders affects the other and vice-versa. For example, capacity deficiency in institutions leads to capacity deficiency in individual stakeholders and community and vice-versa. Hence, in the North-East, there exists a low level circle of capacity deficiency in rural development programmes in general and MGNREGA in particular. These low capacity bases in these three levels act and react upon each other keeping the overall level of capacity in MGNREGA delivery in the region in a perpetual state of underdevelopment. To be specific these deficiencies manifest in the front of manpower availability, training institutions, capability of the institutions to undertake and impart training, training modules, institutional capacity to mobilize workers, PRIs and their functionaries, civil society, governance and leadership.

Recommendations

Working Group’s recommendations are as follows in brief:

1. The term “Administrative Expenses’ needs to be replaced by “Capacity Building” Expenses.

2. Anchoring Management Structure in a Council Secretariat in Order to Support the Central Employment Guarantee Council. Two organizational forms could be considered – (a) One with complete autonomy with the Chairperson of the Central Council and the key functionaries of the Central Council Secretariat in-sourced from outside the normal channels; or (b) a hybrid structure may be adopted with the CEGC and Chairperson remaining as they are, and key positions in-sourced through external channels.

a. In either case, all key positions of accountability should be filled in after a due high-level search and screen process. Serving government officers may also be identified and placed through such a screen process. The process should shortlist potential candidates from within the government or outside.

b. The Council Secretariat should be headed by a Director General (DG). She is the executive officer through whom the will of the CEGC is expressed in action. There will be Deputy Director Generals to manage functions such as grievance redressal, human resources, Information technology, monitoring, evaluation and social audit.

3. Independent Society at the State level . It is recommended to set up an "Independent Society" with Chief Minister as Chair and Rural Development Minister as Deputy Chair, and Principal Secretary RD as member -secretary within the nodal agency of department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj. Bihar is actively pursuing this approach (refer to appendix on Bihar). The Society would be operated by a Governing Committee/Council (GC) and present Commissioner (NREGA) would be the CEO or ‘State Programme Coordinator’ assuming full responsibility for implementing MGNREGA, assisted by a Directorate comprising subject specialists/experts and support staff. The other members of the GC could be secretaries from Planning, water resources, finance, labour, road, environment & forest. Two to three prominent members from the civil society especially involved in the implementation of Employment Guarantee programmes/Social Audit/ Rural Entrepreneurship could also be nominated to the GC for a policy feedback and interface with civil society.

4. Project facilitation team (PFT) at the Cutting Edge of Implementation . A very strong fulltime spearhead team is needed at the sub-block level, which almost on a daily basis, can easily reach out to, mobilize and empower the poor, wage seekers to make demands on the system.

a. Such a dedicated PFT is will prepare an annual micro-plan for each gram panchayat each year resulting in shelf of works and annual budget estimates (material and labour budget both). The PFT will train Gram Panchayat representatives and functionaries and work with them on all aspects such as implementation, asset verification, measurement

and payment, and monitoring and evaluation, MIS maintenance, and social audit.

b. PFT will compose of the four members including the team leader to perform the following functions: (i) Social mobilization and awareness raising about their rights (reaching out potential job seekers, through SHGs or otherwise), (ii) Surveying, planning and budgeting of individual works apart from infrastructure and rehabilitation of common property resources such as pastures tanks, rivers and streams, canals; (iii) monitoring and measurement; and (iv) payment, accounts and MIS keeping. At least one person needs to be from IT background.

5. Village Development Cluster . PFT will reach to a population about a third of a block, or about 30 villages, and in terms of geographical area a maximum of 15,000 hectare. This aligns with the recommendations of the WG on Planning and Execution which also defines the village development cluster. Thus, there would be, in most cases, three PFTs in a block each led by a PFT team leader and reporting to the Program Officer at the block level.

6. Full Involvement of Institutions of the Poor such as SHGs and Federations. WG makes a strong recommendation of ensuring full involvement of women self help groups in micro-planning, monitoring, as well as in social audit exercises. MP government has shown willingness to look at this idea.

7. Harnessing NGO Capacities in Mobilisation, Micro Planning, Building PRI capacity, and Support in Implementation. Looking to the proposals of MP and Rajasthan governments, roles for NGOs could be worked out as per their core competence and track record of implementation. MP Government has identified micro-planning as well as implementation roles while they train and support the PRIs in works related to community ponds, roads and wells. This also aligns with the Ministry’s proposal of Lok Sewak and the original directive to involve reputed NGOs. Section 4.6 elaborates the role of NGOs as Lok Sewaks further and suggests allocation of 6 per cent of the expenditure for their effort.

8. States should adopt a scientific and unbiased process in recruitment and selection of professionals to get the best out of the national pool. Methodology must eliminate biases in selection, especially over-reliance on interviews. It should include tests not just for cognitive ability (Intelligence Quotient tests) but tests for attitudes such as ability to work in teams, empathy with the poor in the villages and achievement motivation. Such recruitments could be outsourced to credible agencies, backed by administrative and political support as has been done in number of states (livelihoods projects) such as Bihar and Tamil Nadu. A four-step process has been laid out in the main text.

9. We strongly recommend that a similar system of recruitment and selection is designed and implemented for Gram Rozgar Sahayak or Field Assistant.

10.Ensuring Accountability through Performance Management System . Once recruited often the question of accountability of contract staff is raised. WG recommends a performance management system with 360 degree evaluation system to be done in the field situations and linking salary and non monetary awards to performance grade. It has been done successfully by a livelihoods project in Tamil Nadu that works in 15 districts (VKP).

11.Human Resource Policy for Contract Staff . Working group strongly recommends formulation of a comprehensive HR policy for contract staff in each state that inter alia have the features such as specification of their salary in scales and grades, annual increments, leaves, transfer norms, travel allowances, cell phone allowance, lap top allowance, and grievance redressal.

12.Organizational Structure for Training needs to be set up to meet the needs

arising out of MGNREGA implementation. Secondly CSOs could play a

critical role here, since many have done a very good work across the country

in enabling wage seekers and village communities to access their

entitlements under MGNREGA and since CSOs have also had a long history

of mobilization, capacity building and support to village communities.

Accordingly, WG makes the following recommendations:

a. At the national level, a National MGNREGA Training and Support

Organization (NMTSO) needs to be created to anchor the entire

training effort for MGNREGA. It would draw upon the best resources

across the country and pool them to create hubs in each state and

district of the country. In terms of roles, it will (a) act as a coordinating

and anchoring agency between different state level resource centres;

(b) help to define and refine training policy at both state and national

levels and make traiing needs assessments; (c) act as a clearing

house for training material and resources and as a nodal centre

actively involved in development and dissemination of training material,

methods and resources; and (d) identify and mobilize institutions which

can play the role of training institutions for MGNREGA across the

country. More details are available in the main text.

b. At the state level, a State MGNREGA Training and Support

Organization (SMTSO) needs to be set up to oversee the training

functions throughout the state. This should actually be a Consortium of

carefully selected CSOs, available professional and technical

institutions with practical experience of planning, who will act as Anchor

Organizations (AOs), anchoring the training effort at the state level and

creating master trainers and master trainer organizations at the district

level. The purpose of this state level consortium will be to create

District MGNREGA Training and Support Organizations (DMTSO)

which are master trainer and support organizations at the district level

for the purposes of MGNREGA planning, implementation and

mobilization for entitlements.

c. At the district level, there is need to set up a District MGNREGA

Training and Support Organization (DMTSO). This is a master trainer

organization which imparts training to block and sub-block

implementation teams. The DMTSO may be formed by the state

government by inducting full-time dedicated resource persons who will

act as master trainers for MGNREGA. The DMTSO will also provide

support to Project Implementation Agencies under MGNREGA. These

would be trained by Anchor Organisations, where necessary.

13.In terms of curriculum for field staff training , a 20-day Foundation Course may

be visualized, followed by another 20-day follow-up module. Otherwise a

more rigorous 30-day Foundation Course may be followed up by a 20-day

refresher module. An evaluation of the performance of the trainees is a must.

This could take the form of a course-end examination as well as concurrent

review of trainees on their attitude, skills and behaviour. Both could lead to

course-end grades. Certificates clearly stating that the team members have

been trained to act as Master Trainers at the district level will be awarded by

the SMTSO, mentioning the course-end grades attained, in order to maintain

quality of trainers and in the interest of transparency.

14.Costs and collaboration with RUDSETI . It is estimated that provisioning for

such a training structure down the line will come to less than 1% of the

MGNREGA budget. This cost is expected to decline after the initial years

since the more critical handholding requirements will be in the first and

second years. It is recommended therefore that the Operational Guidelines

be suitably modified to cater for such expenditure. Where CSOs are inducted

for the task of training DMTSOs or play the role of DMTSOs, their training and

staff expenses should also be taken care of. Possibilities of convergence with

RUDSETI type institutions should be explored in terms of infrastructure and

human resources for training.

15.There are quality issues in selection of CSOs and the main text gives detailed

process and criteria so that genuine, reputed ones are only selected.

16.Harnessing IT systems to monitor and to redress grievances. IT system could

(a) speedily process data, (b) enable availability of data nearly concurrently

with its online updation/entry through networks, and (c) break down artificial

barriers of geography, boundaries etc. to flow of information (present in paper

systems). These are key to engendering transparency and together make for

contributions in governance. Assuming better connectivity backbones and

hardware, WG recommends an Online Real Time Work Demand System

where demand could be generated on Mobile Phone by a potential job

seeker. Further, if MGNREGA correspondents with a handlheld or a

computer are available even within the perimeter of the cluster or the block,

the application can be made online. WG recommends Online Real Time

Grievance Redressal on similar lines.

17.Real Time Online Muster Rolls, Work Attendance and Measurements . A

system can be visualized whereby handhelds are issued to field workers

under MGNREGA, and muster rolls are directly updated online to the state-

level servers by biometric identification of the workers who are present on

site. Such an immediate updation will go a long way in aiding concurrent

monitoring. In fact, the paper muster roll can be a print out of the online

muster. Fitted with GPS and webcam facilities, the system should further aid

in verification of the work being done on the site at which is reportedly being

done. It seems that this has also already been piloted in different states by the

MoRD. The results of this pilot should be made public and appropriate policies

framed on the feedback

18.Biometrics and UID-Enabled IT Application Layer for MGNREGA thus

integrating with UID. Since UID is going to be the identity proving mechanism

in the not-too-distant future, its relationship with any application layer in the

social sector becomes critical and synergistic. Critical because (1) any non-

UID based authentication architecture potentially faces the problem of non-

conformance and redundancy in the not-too-distant future; and (2) if the

MGNREGA IT architecture is not sufficiently prepared for the backend

authentication proposed by the UID, there will be problems. Synergistic

because the sort of connectivity backbone that is required to make UID

authentication foolproof will also benefit MGNREGA.

19. It is this Working Group's recommendation that a coordination mechanism

between MGNREGA and UID is pro-actively worked out by MoRD. It is on the

basis of this understanding that a clear IT plan to be rolled out should be

made so that MGNREGA has strategically positioned itself to maximize the

wage-seeker's benefits.

20.We propose using Banking Correspondent model for wage payments.

Despite its various problems, everyone (including the villagers themselves) is

agreed that payment through bank transfers is a good thing and must stay. Its

basic premises of separating those in-charge of work execution from those in-

charge of payments and doing away with the handling of cash is

fundamentally sound. In each village, Banks place a Customer Service

Provider (CSP) identified by the banker equipped with a smart card reader

networked to the bank server. Each beneficiary is given a bank account after

biometric authentication by the bank. All disbursements are credited

electronically to the accounts of the beneficiaries. Banks arrange cash to the

CSP using a Business Correspondent (BC). The MIS showing disbursement

is available online. A printer may give out details of the transaction as a paper

record.

21.ICT/GIS Enabled Asset Management System . Based on Working Group’s

field visits in different states, interaction with different key stakeholders and

also a workshop help at NIRD on 14 May 2010, the Working Group

recommends setting up ICT/GIS enabled Assets Management System for

MGNREGA. A Public –Private Partnership (PPP) framework needs to be

created for accessing and using the best skills, tools and technologies for

developing and maintaining Assets Management System. The district

administration with the help of ICT enabled ‘Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendras

‘(RGSKs) at the panchayat and block levels would uplink the AMS to NREGA

division of MoRD.

22.Strengthening Policy Research and Evaluation Systems (PERS) For

MGNREGA. As the implementation of MGNREGA has entered its fifth year

in a row, the Working Group recommends setting up PERS as a continuous

policy evaluation and research think tank for enhancing the capacity of MoRD

in its effective and efficient implementation of NREGA by

a. developing innovative participatory approaches and syncretic

methodologies for impact analysis,

b. anticipating policy research needs of key stakeholders and responding

to specific policy analysis requests in the areas of innovation,

convergence and capacity building on all current and emerging issues

in MGNREGA,

c. functioning as a forum and clearinghouse for the sharing of information

as well as the dissemination of best practices through workshops,

seminars, publication of journals, reports, bulletins, briefs and other

literature, and

d. helping create an environment for imparting expertise to people

interested in rigorous program evaluation and training to policy

makers/implementers on how to conduct randomized and qualitative

evaluations in social policies.

23.With a rigorous adherence to objectives of MGNREGA especially articulating

voices of poor in the realm of livelihood security , PERS would help create a

robust, dynamic and self-evolving knowledge-space that is authoritative,

objective, nonpartisan and transparent in generic terms of monitoring and

evaluation as mentioned in the Section 11 of the Act. Further, PERS is

intended to breakdown the silos in social science research and deepen the

sphere of participatory and informed dialogue between policy makers and civil

society.

24.Why PERS? A couple of reasons behind suggesting PERS are: (i) there is

nothing in terms of independent policy research and evaluation support at the

central or state level. PIN (Professional Institutional Network) in the

MGNREGA cell of MoRD is generally bureaucratically driven and often

operates on the principles of ex-post-facto analysis of the implementation of

MGRNEGA. the impact of PIN studies on course correction, innovation and

policy change is rather limited as most policies changes in MGNREGA have

been carried out without any research and analysis support of PIN; (ii) Based

on the field visit, interaction and meeting with key officials at NIAR (LABSNA)

the Working Group on 28 April 2010 does not think that NIAR is equipped

with enough in-house resources, skills, aptitudes and backed by quality

researchers including dedicated professionals to justify the role of “ National

Resource Center” for MGNREGA. In short, members of Working Group

recommend that the NIAR needs to focus more seriously on research for

teaching and training of career civil servants rather than undertaking

Livelihood based development research.

25.Location of PERS : It should ideally be located in the proposed branch of

NIRD in Jaipur (Rajasthan).

26.Structure of PERS : PERS will be composed of three units (or sections);

namely “Independent Evaluation or Impact Assessment Unit’ that will focus on

various implementing aspects including impact analysis and appraisal of

MGNREGA. Second, ‘Research and Analysis Unit’ will be a new avatar of

current PIN (Professional Institutional Network) for commissioning, guiding,

and coordinating studies from a network of universities, social science

institutes, and civil society organizations for fostering public-private

partnership in the monitoring and evaluation of MGNREGA. Third unit will be “

Publication &Communication Unit”. This will be primarily responsible for

publishing Policy Briefs, Occasional Papers, Special Reports, Working

Papers, documentaries, short films etc. for effective and transparent

dissemination of information and setting the stage for informed dialogue

between people and the government about the implementation of MGNREGA.

27.Capacity Building Reforms for Strengthening Panchayati Raj . Some specific

recommendations are I) Converting PRIs into Mission Mode: “Panchayat

Empowerment & Accountability Incentive Scheme” of MoPR ( Ministry of

Panchyati Raj) may be made an integral part of the Mission; (ii) Following

Maharashtra Experience, state governments need to make six meetings of

Gram Sabha as mandatory for enhancing the implementation of MGNREGA.

Necessary amendments in the Constitution may be made in this regard; (iii)

Borrowing from Kerala experience, a campaign mode of decentralization must

accompany the implementation of MGRNEGA in various states. Either

transfer cadre (Kerala model) or create a new cadre for PRI( Bihar model):

Learning from Kerala experience, the Working Group suggests that even

while the State Government is the staff-creating and cadre-controlling

authority, PRIs need to have full freedom in assigning work, supervising its

execution, reviewing performance and even imposing minor punishments, if

required.

28.For urgent need of ‘communitization of capacity building’, MoRD needs to

declare people based rural development centres in Ralegaon Siddhi, MKKS in

Vijaypura, SPS(MP), Vilasrao Salunkhe (Pani-baba)’s experiments in

Purandhar block in Pune, Subhas Palekar’s Zero budget agriculture in

Amaravati and various similar innovative experiments across the country as

“National Centres for excellence for Community Learning’ for imparting

training in rural development.

29.Urgent reforms are necessary for NIRD and SIRDs; the working group

welcomes the initiative of MoRD to setup an Expert Group to consider the

feasibility of reforms for NIRD.

30.Capacity Building Recommendations for North East . To overcome capacity

deficiency in the north eastern states, we suggest strengthening, streamlining

and mainstreaming the faculty strength, infrastructure and training modules

respectively of NIRD-NERC, Guwahati and all the SIRDs in the region. Large

states like Arunachal Pradesh should open more extension centers of SIRDs

in three different regions of the state. We also suggest better networking of

these SIRDs with their extension centers and with NIRD Guwahati through

video conferencing etc. Power cut is a problem in interior regions of North

East. These remotely located power deficient SIRDs and their extension

centers must be equipped with alternative sources of power like solar power

and DG Sets. The expenditure undertaken on this head can be met from the

administrative cost of the rural developmental programmes including

MGNREGA.

31.Iimportant stakeholders of the programme particularly the programme officers

(BDOs) be imparted a short course on “The Theory and Practice of

Development and NREGA”. The course should have some (i) elements of

development theory that includes current thinking on development( like

sustainable development, participation and role of institutions (ii) an

understanding of development practice that relate and flow from these

theories including role of democratic decentralization, (iii) an explanation of

how NREGA is an intervention in development practice and finally (iv) an

understanding of the dynamics of rural development through NREGA that

provide insight to read and rewrite the theory and practice of rural

development in the context of the North East. The essential investigation of

the course should be to link up NREGA with capability enhancement,

sustainable development and participation in the region.

32.The SHG movement is slowly but steadily gaining ground. Hence we suggest

better coordination between SGSY and NREGA and explore the SHG route of

mobilising workers in NREGA.

33.Social Audit . Once the acceptability of social audit been established, initially

this exercise can be undertaken by reputed organisations like MKSS and

afterwards can be passed on to regional organisations of credibility, import

and expertise.

34.Financial Inclusion . Financial inclusion is limited because of thin spread of

banks/post offices. The topography and cultural practices of people also

contribute to it. To overcome the topographical compulsions, we suggest the

introduction of bike-cum-barefoot satellite banking system by the postal

department/banks. The postal department is undertaking innovative

expansion in its activities. We find that in states like Meghalaya home delivery

of letters/documents are not undertaken in remote rural areas. This is the right

time that a model like bike-cum- barefoot satellite banking (with biometric

cards) with postal article delivery can be combined by the postal department

and the job can be undertaken by the modern postman.

35.Role of SIRDs in Awareness Generation . SIRDs of respective states, can be

given a project to identify the major languages of their states, collaborate with

the local linguistic departments of respective universities and can get efficient

translation done for dissemination of MGNREGA material.

36.To overcome the problem of shortage of technical assistants , in addition to

having a HR policy in place in MGNREGA and increasing remuneration

associated with this post, the authorities can recruit local youths with class XII

pass certificates and train them for two/three months by the government

engineers of the district/block/divisions and then employ them for

measurement and technical supervision of NREGA works.

37.Ombudsmen . Many of the NER States except Assam and Tripura, do not find

enough candidates for the position of Ombudsman. Where ever, they are

available, the list is heavy with retired bureaucrats only. To overcome this

problem, to make the selection inclusive and to strengthen this institution, the

required 20 years experience may be reduced to 15 years so that we get

candidates from the civil society, as in many states civil society is of recent

origin including separation of judiciary from executive.

38.Helpline . No state in the region has a dedicated MGNREGA 24*7 help line.

This should be immediately taken up and activated.

PS: The Working Group notes with some concern that a parallel ‘working group’ has also been formed by MoRD on 11 March 2010 to recommend ‘appropriate measures for the technical and administrative strengthening of the States and their implementing agencies’. (Ref; No.J-11011/15/2007-NREGA). Therefore, members of Working Group wonder as to how MoRD would like to reconcile the recommendations of Working Group on “Capacity Building” with those of Working Group on’ technical and administrative strengthening” as the task of capacity building indeed involves suggesting measures for the technical and administrative strengthening of the States and their implementing agencies’. We would have appreciated if MoRD could have shared its own perspective on what it considers “capacity building” before venturing into setting up another group.1

1 The report has been written by unofficial members of the working group; official members provided logistic, coordination and research support as and when required. Since the official members were busy with multiple governmental tasks and not often

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

What is Capacity Building?

Based on discussions with various stakeholders, field visits in various states and learning from theories of neo-institutionalists,( Olson& March,1997; Steinmo, 2001), the Working Group proposes to define capacity building not as ordinary shortage of staff and lack of training facilities but as the dynamic process of developing, strengthening and institutionalizing the ‘rules of game’, norms, standard operating procedures, skills, abilities, and resources that organizations, communities and individuals need to survive, adapt, and thrive in the fast-changing world of policy implementation. (Ann Philbin, 1996). Capacity building, broadly speaking, has two major aspects; for organizations, it relates to whole gamut of governance, administration (including human resources, financial management, and legal matters), business processes, program development, evaluation, and policy changes for innovation. For individuals, capacity building refers to excellence in individual performance, leadership development, socializing managerial values, technical skills, training opportunities, organizing abilities, and other areas of personal and professional development that includes sensitivity to values of equity, participation and inclusion. Thus, individual empowerment eventually results in the ‘communitization of capacities’ especially marginalized and socially excluded groups in the society. In other words, capacity building is not a stand-alone, top-down strengthening of managerial systems and imparting technical know-how to implementers but in reality a ‘polycentric’ governance (ala Vincent Ostrom) that covers the whole range of implementation, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation of policy at multiple levels including systems and community at the grassroots.

Capacity Building for MGNREGA:

MGNREGA is certainly the largest and most innovative flagship program of the Central Government of India in terms of its outlay, coverage, expected outcomes and the potential to change the face of rural India.

With a cumulative employment generation figure of 578.65 crore person-days, and a

budgetary allocation of Rs.40,100 crores for 2010-11, MGNREGA promises the

largest employment guarantee in the world. Its current budgetary allocation stands at

Rs.40,100 crores. As the truly comprehensive Operational Guidelines (2008) backing

MGNREGA clearly enunciate, the intention behind the legislation goes well beyond

the narrow goal of providing relief employment or unemployment doles. It is perhaps

worthwhile to remind ourselves of the goals of MGNREGA as set out in these

available for consultation, discussion and field visits, the division of labour worked optimally and effectively.

21

guidelines in order to define the framework within which the idea of capacity building

for it needs to be looked at:

“ a. Strong social safety net for the vulnerable groups by providing a fall-back

employment source, when other employment alternatives are scarce or inadequate

b. Growth engine for sustainable development of an agricultural economy. Through

the process of providing employment of works that address causes of chronic

poverty such as drought, deforestation and soil erosion, the Act seeks to strengthen

the natural resource base of rural livelihood and create durable assets in rural areas.

c. Empowerment of rural poor through the processes of a rights-based law

d. New ways of doing business, as a model of governance reform anchored on the

principles of transparency and grass-root democracy”

[MoRD, 2008, Chapter 1, Section 1.2; emphasis added]

Backed by a constitutional right, it is MGNREGA's mandate of addressing chronic

causes of poverty, redressing imbalances and deficiencies in the natural resource

base, empowerment of the poor and governance reform that makes it stand apart

from all social sector initiatives hitherto attempted. Taken together, a fulfillment of

these mandates may well translate into reality the potential of MGNREGA. The

above mandate points to the inherent challenges and the tremendous opportunities

present in MGNREGA. If the opportunities are seized, the goal can be realized.

However, in order to seize these opportunities, several challenges have to be

overcome.

This becomes all the more critical given the yet unfinished agenda of grassroots

devolution and decentralization first embarked upon nearly two decades ago with the

constitutional 73rd Amendment, followed by its extension to scheduled areas in

1996, widely heralded as the dawn of a new era in the history of India and also as

the largest decentralization project in the world.

The report of this Working Group seeks to deal with some of the major challenges which, despite the impressive progress registered by MGNREGA in the initial years, need to be addressed, if the true potential of MGNREGA is to be realized.

It is true that MGNREGA is anchored in the decentralized administration of PRIs,( section 15,16,17 of the Act), but the role of career civil servants especially District Collectors better known as District Program Coordinators (DPC), Program Officers, officials from Line departments and various support staff at the grassroots continues

22

to be critical to the success of MGNREGA. Given the unique rights perspective of MGNREGA, conventional models of public administration and management have become largely irrelevant. Implementing MGRFNEAG provides us rare opportunity for social re-engineering of citizen-centric administration and innovating the participative and decentralized public service delivery (Ref; “Unlocking Human Capital”, Second Administrative Reforms Commission). Although a multi-tier structure of administrative and institutional arrangements for implementation and monitoring with specified roles and responsibilities have been set up, ground level reports suggest that various institutional structures are not working in tandem and District Collectors (DPC) and Program Officers are still struggling with conflicting demands of vertical and horizontal coordination across departments and different tiers of government especially Panchayati Raj in the implementation of MGNREGA. For instance, Maharashtra has not suffered not only from lack of social mobilization of agricultural laborers and work site management issues but also from the usual bureaucratic turf wars and coordination conflicts between Chief Executive Officers of Zila Parishad and Collectors. In contrast, Bihar, Chhattisgarh etc continue to suffer from ‘deficits’ of poorly crafted and inadequately managed administrative and management systems at all levels. The innovation of a separate ‘MGNREGA cell’ has not yet produced desired outcomes. ( Refer to Appendix on Chhattisgarh). Our field visits and interactions with implementing support staff in the districts and blocks not only note shortage of dedicated personnel, poor training facilities and lack of community participation, but also find evidence of growing dissatisfaction of the staff especially those ‘contract staff’ with regard to poor working conditions and arbitrary contract appointment policies of various state governments. Except AP, no state government has yet formulated a clearly articulated Human Resource Development policy. Therefore, the open protest marches and rallies of MGNREGA support staff in states like Bihar and Maharashtra, remind us about the looming crisis in MGRNEGA.

Apart from ‘moral hazards and distorted incentives’, MGNREGA also suffers from ‘path dependencies’ of top-down bureaucratic mode of governance. This not only results in known administrative failures such as underutilizations of funds (Jharkhand failed to spend Rs. 1000 crore in 2008-9), poor-project completion( total number of works taken up under the scheme from February 2006 to September 2009 is over 79 lakh but the number of works completed is less than 31 lakh, about 39%, according to a study of Planning Commission ) but also failed experiments of social mobilization such as “Goan Sathi” in Orissa and the toying of idea of providing ‘uniform’ for mates and Rojzar Sevaks in Jharkhand, a state battling against ‘uniformed and un-uniformed’ Maoist rebels! Therefore, capacity building from a uniquely rights perspective and communitization of governance has indeed emerged a major critical pillar to the success of MGNREGA; much hyped ‘convergence’ has suffered largely because of lack of innovative administrative and management systems at district and block levels. In short, the implementation of MGNREGA suffers as much from the so-called capture by “particular interests” or “ dominant factions” as from the lack of institutional and managerial capabilities to perform at multiple levels.

Therefore, the so-called crisis of ‘capacity building’ has, in part, been caused by “demand over load” and in part caused by “supply- side -distortions’ due to the complexity of multilevel implementation from the Center to Gram Sabha. This has further been aggravated by ‘astronomical numbers of stakeholders” that demand not only a robust structure of Human resources but also a well defined strategy to

23

develop the capabilities of these stakeholders to perform the assigned tasks efficiently and efficiently. According to a note submitted to the Working Group by NIRD, the tentative estimate of the number of stakeholders in the implementation (other than the millions of the worker households) is more than seven millions. And a tentative training estimate informs that the current coverage is about 1.5 to 2.0 millions ( Ref to Appendix on NIRD by Professor Hanumantha Rao’s to the working group dated 24 June 2010). Considering the bureaucratic inertia and lack of cutting-edge research environment that NIRD suffers from and the comatose in which SIRDs have entered into, it is almost impossible to think that training needs of key Officials/Staff of MGNRGEA and PRIs functionaries could be undertaken without an innovative “government-civil society’ partnership.

Though mandated under section 18 of the Act and harshly reminded by CAG report (2008) and various civil society reports about the shortage of key staff and distortions in the delivery systems, state governments have been rather tardy or wilfully negligent in laying down requisite human resources structures in place, however every state government loves the ‘quick bite’ of so-called “untied NREGS funds’ from the Center! Other than Rajasthan, AP and Kerala, most state governments have been implementing MGNREGA with skeleton support staff from line departments without any professional and moblizational support from civil society, which is a critical stakeholder in ensuring the integrity of the implementation of MGNREGA. For example, Sidhi district of Madhya Pradesh is one of the top ten districts in terms of high expenditure but the state of Madhya Pradesh began appointing dedicated Program Officers (POs) only in 2009. North East is also an instructive case where much of the work is being implemented without any community participation and adequate management systems. Except Tripura and Sikkim, states in the North East have taken up implementation in a ‘food for work mode’ or ‘BRGF format’. Although they need specific strategies for planning and implementation, regions like Ladakh and Andaman Nicobars do not exist on the radar of MGNREGA.

In this scenario country wide, much has been expected from over-burdened, fatigued and politically challenged District Collectors and Program Officers who multitask much beyond their human and managerial capacities. Notorious Line departments have increasingly become life-line of MGNREGA. And also much faith has been placed in the efficacy of PRIs which often work without any infrastructure and human resource support systems. In other words, MGNREGA requires broad based institutional reforms in the administrative systems, and management reforms especially in areas of human resources right from the national level to the Panchayat. It is this challenge of addressing ‘capacity building” at multilevel, the Working Group takes up in the following chapters of the report; each chapter is designed in a separate ‘diagnostic and problem solving’ format.

Capacities, Capabilities and Support Systems

In order to realize the goals that MGNREGA has set out for itself, there need to

be first and foremost human capacities. The capabilities of these human

capacities need to be developed so that they are able to undertake the

responsibility mandated to them. Human capacities and capabilities further

24

need to be backed by proper supporting institutions, which act as decision

support systems, assisting in concurrent monitoring of outcomes and better

management of the schemes initiated under MGNREGA. It is this Working

Group's considered view that the key to maximizing the gains from

MGNREGA implementation and the key to effective democratic devolution

and decentralization is the creation and enhancement of capacities available

with the PRIs at all levels,

The institutional framework which defines the interactions of these human

capacities has to be designed in order that the challenges of accountability

and autonomous spaces are both met. Such a framework must also recognize

that better governance is not merely about increased “efficiency” (which is no

doubt important) in the sense of cost or time efficiency but has to be seen as

the ability to respond with concrete outcomes, while at the same time

following due process, transparency and regularity.

Further, the organization (both in the sense of a body carrying out a task and the

underlying structure, allocation of responsibilities and the interconnections

between the various components) delivering MGNREGA to the people of this

country needs to be characterized by a common sense of purpose and

cohesiveness, inter-connectedness, sharing and flow of needed expertise and

insights, with an ability to work across walls rather than in silos.

The subject of this report therefore, deals with:

1. Capacities, i.e., personnel required at different levels to carry out the

tasks which go towards fulfilling the goals above

2. Capabilities of these personnel to carry out the tasks mandated

3. the support systems at national, state and district level for the

capacities and capabilities to be fully realized

Since the last of these is the most challenging and in this Working Group's view, has the maximum bearing on the first two, this report will first look at this aspect and then the other.

25

26

CHAPTER-II

GOVERNANCE REFORMS FOR

CAPACITY BUILDING

4. Management Support Systems for MGNREGA

2.1 Anchoring at the National Level

MGNREGA has assigned several responsibilities of steering and guiding the

programme to the central government. The MGNREGA also assigns the following

powers to the Central Employment Guarantee Council (CEGC)

"(a) establish a central evaluation and monitoring system;

(b) advise the Central Government on all matters concerning the implementation of

this Act;

(c) review the monitoring and redressal mechanism from time to time and

recommend improvements required;

(d) promote the widest possible dissemination of information about the Schemes

made under this Act;

(e) monitoring the implementation of this Act;

(f) preparation of annual reports to be laid before Parliament by the Central

Government on the implementation of this Act;

(g) any other duty or function as may be assigned to it by the Central Government.

(2) The Central Employment Guarantee Council shall have the power to undertake

evaluation of the various Schemes made under this Act and for that purpose collect

or cause to be collected statistics pertaining to the rural economy and the

implementation of the Schemes." [Section 11 of MGNREGA]

The Act also provides for establishment of similar State Employment Guarantee

Councils in each state to oversee and monitor the MGNREGA implementation.

The Working Group's observations on human resources, capacity building and

evaluation in the earlier portions of this report indicate that there is need for a greater

degree of cohesive effort across the board to make MGNREGA realize its true

potential. While the provisions of the Operational Guidelines are more than adequate

with regard to different aspects of MGNREGA implementation, they cannot realize

27

their true potential until a proper organizational structure and business plan is in

place and a clear sense of purpose2 and cohesion across the board is achieved in

pushing this business plan. Such an organizational structure needs to be

accountable, flexible, highly professional and open.

As the history of several rural development interventions in India have shown, the

best pieces of legislation and the most well thought out scheme for betterment of the

lives of the rural poor have tended to falter because of a failure to set systems in

place which are critical. And this failure itself can be traced to some or the other

stakeholder in the chain moving without the necessary commitment3. MGNREGA

represents a set of constitutional obligations, which leave little room for slack in the

delivery mechanism, since such a slack would mean legal entitlements being denied

to the poorest. Thus a strong and proactive oversight mechanism is critical. We use

the term proactive to suggest that rather than wait for grievances or violations to

arise, the mechanism responds to ensure that the necessary pieces are in place to

minimize the possibility of violations.

While Section 11 of the Act, cited above point to the powerful oversight functions of

the Central Council, which is the apex body for MGNREGA, it has also been pointed

out that:

" . . . it is interesting to compare the facilities and structures that are available for NREGA at the centre with those of say, the Election Commission, the Census of India, or Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan – other national programmes with a much smaller budget and mandate. The NREGA cell at the Ministry of Rural Development is a dwarf in comparison . . . "4

2 “Purpose” here is used in the sense of Charles Heckscher's usage [see Charles Heckscher, “The Limits of Partcipatory Management”, Across the board, Nov-Dec 1995 and is distinct from “goals”, which often degenerate into quantitative targets or “vision” or “mission”, which are prone to becoming sweeping and large: “A purpose is something in the middle: a complex statement of the organization's challenges and objectives over a three to five year time frame. It usually can't hang on a wall, because it is far too complicated. The limited time frame keeps the purpose concrete, away from airy abstractions. But it is a long enough period to provide a challenge worth caring about”

3 For instance, with regard to ombudsmen, it has been observed by the Working Group that different state governments have shown varying commitments to the idea, with some perceiving this to be an additional “burden” on an overloaded system

4 Jean Dreze, Kartika Bhatia and Reetika Khera, Making NREGA Work, Unpublished Report for the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS), 2009

28

and that:

“NREGA is a complex legislation with many different actors. The Central Government has wide powers to define the implementation framework of NREGA through Guidelines, Rules and other means (including amendments in the Schedules of the Act). The state governments are responsible for implementing state-specific “employment guarantee schemes” within that framework. And the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), especially the Gram Panchayats, are the main “implementing agencies” of NREGA works on the ground, though the Act also allows other implementing agencies such as Line Departments. In this operational maze, clear principles and guidelines are essential. This requires, in particular, close coordination between the Central and state governments.”5

In a detailed two-volume report submitted to the Prime Minister of India, based on

intensive field surveys, the NCEUS recommends for MGNREGA that :

“. . . a full fledged Employment Guarantee

Mission (on the lines of health and education

missions) should be created in order to provide

adequate support structures for the Central and

state governments.

”6

Indeed, for a national level programme such as the National Rural Livelihoods

Mission (NRLM), whose budgetary outlay is about a quarter of that of the

MGNREGA, a well structured implementational scheme has been envisioned with a

national level mission governed by a proposed apex NRLM Council at the national

level. Under the circumstances, it is unclear why a similar strengthening of the

MGNREGA has progressed much more slowly, if at all.

The Working Group believes that the largest employment programme in human

history requires a dedicated anchoring structure at the national level to fulfill the

mandate of the Act and to strengthen the functioning of the apex council, the CEGC.

5 Jean Dreze, Kartika Bhatia and Reetika Khera (op.cit.)

6 The Challenge of Employment in India: An Informal Economy Perspective

Volume I - Main Report (pg. 227), NCEUS, 2009, New Delhi

29

The Working Group had intensive discussions on the form of such an anchoring

structure, whether Mission, Authority, Directorate, or other. It was felt that the exact

form of such a structure could emerge through wider debate but it would be

worthwhile to spell out the mandate that such a structure should ideally fulfill.

Since the CEGC is the apex Council responsible for MGNREGA and since the idea

behind the anchoring structure is to strengthen the Act, the Working Group has

preferred to use the term Central Council Secretariat to mean the above anchoring

structure meant to act as the executive arm of the CEGC. The idea of this anchoring

structure can be seen to be an elaboration and enlargement of the scope of the

Technical Secretariat proposed under Section 11 of the Central Council rules.

Such a Council Secretariat will take the responsibility of overseeing the following

most important functions to make NREGA effective:

b) Human resources and Capacity Building

c) Monitoring

d) Information Technology

e) Social Audit and Evaluation

f) Grievance Redressal

Such a Council Secretariat should be a dedicated structure. Setting up of such a

structure will also help to separate the functions of executing the programme from

those of evaluation and grievance redressal, since as a matter of principle, the

agency executing the programme should not be the one also assessing its own

work. The Council Secretariat is also required also so that appropriate focus can be

given in key areas such as deployment of IT and human resource development,

without which NREGA will not realise its potential.

Two organizational forms may be considered for this structure:

• one favouring complete autonomy with the Chairperson of the Central Council

and the key functionaries of the Central Council Secretariat in-sourced from

outside the normal channels

• while full autonomy may be preferred, its constitutional and legal implications

may take time to work out. Thus a hybrid structure may be adopted with the

CEGC and Chairperson remaining as they are, and key positions in-sourced

through external channels.

30

In both cases, all key positions of accountability should be filled in after a due

high-level search and screen process. Serving government officers may also be

identified and placed through such a screen process. The process should shortlist

potential candidates from within the government or outside. The Council Secretariat

should be headed by a Director General (DG). She is the executive through whom

the will of the CEGC is expressed in action.

The executive Secretariat should have the following departments:

Monitoring: Headed by a Deputy Director General, responsible for concurrent

monitoring of work under NREGA and establishing and refining systems of

monitoring the work under MGNREGA

Evaluations and Social Audit: Mounting evaluations through a carefully selected

panel of experts and consultants from across the country, ensuring that social audits

are undertaken and monitoring the action taken on the findings of such social audits;

Grievance Redressal: Headed by another DDG, the department will be a window for

complaints made by wage-seekers, lay citizens, representatives of wage-seekers,

organizations working with wage-seekers or any other agency or institution wishing

to bring to the notice of the CEGC any violation of the Act or its operational

guidelines in any part of the country. The Ombudsmen throughout the country will

work as the eyes, arms and legs CEGC.

Information Technology Department: Also headed by a DDG, who will report to the

DG, this department's role will be to:

1. assess ICT needs, in terms of both hardware and software, for providing a

proper ICT backbone for NREGA implementation and come up with a blueprint

for effective ICT deployment for NREGA which caters to information needs vis a

vis transparency, monitoring and grievance redressals

2. deploy the best possible expertise available in the country to advise it on ICT

deployments

3. ensure that the ICT blueprint is deployed once it has been ratified by the CEGC

4. ensure ICT deployment across the country, conforming to the best standards

anywhere in the world

5. ensure that states are complying with the ICT requirements of data returns and

updation

31

6. ensure that latest developments in ICT which are potentially beneficial for use in

NREGA implementation and monitoring are screened, piloted, developed

further and disseminated

7. pro-actively set up a coordination mechanism with other major ICT-centred

initiatives of the government such as the UIDAI

8. NREGA implementation personnel are trained in use of ICT

Human Resources Department: Also headed by a DDG, who will report to the DG,

this department's primary responsibility will be

• to work out standards for human resources recruited for NREGA

implementation,

• to work out recruitment processes, human resource policies, performance

evaluation criteria and so on

• to assess gaps, (including region-specific gaps) in human resource

deployment and availability and to work out short-term responses and

medium-term and long-term mechanisms for ensuring a steady source of

human resources for MGNREGA

• to widely promote a gender-sensitive, pro-poor and pro-active work culture

down the line

• to work out a system of certification for human resources, which all

implementation structures have to comply with,

• to identify and set standards for identifying training institutions across the

country who can discharge the responsibilities of capacity building for

NREGA

• to work out syllabi for training courses that NREGA personnel should go

through,

• to arrange for trainings for these personnel

• to network with professional and technical institutions, Civil Society

Organizations, subject matter specialists and experts to create the necessary

human resource infrastructure for effective capacity building

• to assess training material available, to ensure its wide dissemination across

the country and to promote the production and dissemination of high quality

resource material (print and electronic) for MGNREGA

32

Each of these departments may induct and in-source professionals from across the

country for their functions. Such a fully empowered Secretariat will report to the

CEGC from time to time.

Each of these departments may also be steered by Standing or Empowered

Committees set up by the CEGC, headed by a CEGC member and optionally

inducting experts of impeccable integrity and standing.

Several of the separate recommendations of this Working Group made in earlier

sections may be dovetailed into this structure.

2.2 Other Specific Recommendations at the National Level

While the above structure may emerge after due deliberation, the Working Group

also sees the need for some specific and immediate recommendations with a view to

strengthening the oversight mechanism inherent in the constitution of the CEGC as

the apex council, which have emerged from discussions with Central Council

members.

1. There is need to set in place a mechanism whereby the CEGC is informed

about the action taken on the recommendations made by it. The CEGC

may also be empowered to ask for such action taken information, not only

from the Central Government but also from State Governments if and as

the need arises.

2. Given a minimum number of CEGC members which may be deemed to

constitute a quorum, desiring to convene a meeting of the CEGC and

submitting this request in writing, the same should be convened.

3. With regard to Ombudsmen, it is important that the Ombudsmen also

report to the CEGC or a Steering Committee thereof on the complaints

received by her, the action taken by her and the action taken on her

recommendations by the state government. This is important since, in the

event of the SEGC or the state nodal department failing to Act, or failing to

Act within a reasonable time-frame or in the best possible manner, the

CEGC's power may be used to insist that action is taken. Without such

backup it may not be practicable for the ombudsmen to discharge her

duties in the best possible manner.

33

4. A system of national level ombudsmen may also be considered with

sufficient oversight powers to create the necessary backup. These

National Level Ombudsmen should be people of impeccable integrity with

a record of the highest standards of public service and should be

appointed transparently through a very high level search process. They

should also be empowered to conduct suo-moto inquiries and reviews if

they perceive the need to arise.

34

2.3 Mission Mode at the State Level

Currently, most state governments barring Rajasthan and AP as observed in our

field visits, rely on adhoc administrative systems for implementation and monitoring

of MGNREGA. State Employment Gurantee Council functions minimally and are

mostly limited to giving approvals to administrative actions carried out by the

Department of Rural Development or Department of Panchyati Raj as the case may

be. Therefore, given the ‘polycentric nature” of the design and implementation of

MGNREGA, governance reforms in the existing administrative arrangements for

implementing at the state level are urgently needed.

As the success of MGNREGA depends on the “institutionalized co-operations” from

state governments, it is recommended to set up an "Independent Society" under the

Department of Rural Development or Panchyati Raj dedicated to the implementation

and monitoring of MGRNEGA in the state. Bihar is actively pursuing this approach

(refer to appendix on Bihar). The Society would be operated by a Governing

Committee/Council (GC) which would be headed by Principal Secretary RD and

Commissioner, RD as member -secretary. Commissioner Rural Development

assumes the responsibility of ‘State Programme Coordinator’ for MGNREGA and

would be assisted by a Directorate comprising subject specialists/experts and

support staff. The other members of the GC could be secretaries from Planning,

water resources, finance, labour, road, environment & forest. Two to three prominent

members from the civil society especially involved in the implementation of

Employment Gurantee programmes/Social Audit/ Rural Entrepreneurship could also

be nominated to the GC for a policy feedback and interface with civil society. The

proposed Society would function more of Executive arm of the ‘State Employment

Gurantee Council’ and would oversee all administrative and technical issues arising

out of the implementation of MGNREGA in the state. The Society needs to adopt

Mission approach with observable outcomes for achieving the goals of MGNREGA.

Attached is an indicative diagram outlining the structures and their

interconnections at different levels

35

36

CHAPTER III

3.1 Reforms in Human Resources

1. There is a need to lay down uniform guidelines under the MGNREGA for recruitment of staff particularly at the levels of Field Assistants, Technical Assistants and Additional Programme Officers who lead the project at the Block level. States like UP have been very reluctant to recruit staff on contract placing enormous burden on the existing staff of PRIs, while the neighbouring state of Uttarakhand has appointed large number of management graduates on contract basis. The terms of contract are not uniform among states or even staff categories. Job descriptions are not clear for positions filled up both by contractual employment and deputation from other state departments. In essence, while studies have preceded organisational changes in DRDAs, MGNREGA has not had the benefit of a comprehensive HR policy for project staff.

2. Given that the MGNREGA made a paradigm shift from conventional “relief” or wage employment generation programs by making a constitutional guarantee to wage seekers, the organizational governance and management (delivery) structure must be in a state of high preparedness and must have the internal capacity and systems, so as to timely and adequately respond to the demand as and when it arises. While the Act makes it incumbent on the central and state governments to deliver on this guarantee, simultaneously PRIs are expected to deliver. SHGs, line departments and NGOs could also be, at least in theory, equivalent to project implementation agencies (PIAs), but the emphasis is on the panchayats.

3.2 Existing Capacities – An Analysis

3. Preparedness of the institutional structure or lack of it remains a huge concern, however. This is primarily a function of weakness in planning function and in turn that depends on the quality of staff, team composition, and their capacity and willingness to work for the poor and at the grassroots, round the year. Working Group’s observation is that the human resources placed at the disposal of the Gram Panchayat (GP) are by and large inadequate and widely varying. The systems of recruitment, appointment, remuneration, termination and terms of service, where on contract are also either absent, or have not been able to sustain themselves after the initial round (example Bihar).

4. By making GPs the major implementation partner and assigning critical roles to PRIs at the intermediate and district levels, backed by a direct transfer of finances to districts, MGNREGA has moved ahead in terms of taking care of two of the bottlenecks in the way of effective democratic decentralization and devolution. However, in the absence of adequate functionaries at the GP level and above, the core mandate of MGNREGA is suffering. Adequate human resources with systems for their placement are therefore urgently needed. An assessment of existing capacities made by the Working Group through direct field observations and study of reviews of MGNREGA implementation has led to the conclusion that the human resources placed at the disposal of the Gram Panchayat (GP) are by and large inadequate and widely varying. The systems of recruitment, appointment, remuneration, termination and terms of service, where on contract are also either absent, or have not been able to sustain themselves after the initial round (example Bihar).

37

5. When one does a SWOT analysis of the MGNREGA institutional structure, one finds that the delivery of the employment guarantee has faltered, due to weaknesses in either in the state apparatus, or in PRIs, or there is a slack in people’s mobilization to demand (due to lack of people’s movement or people’s organization at the grassroots). Supply driven systems seem to be strong in a few states (AP, TN, Rajasthan and MP) and they haven’t depended on or waited for the demand to emerge. In cases where PRIs are strong (WB, Kerala) and a supporting state government apparatus exists, again the performance is better. In the rest of the states, neither of the three is strong, and the performance has suffered. The same formulation seems to apply in tribal areas in central Indian belt across from the west to east.

6. Lack of Demand . Demand strengthening processes and systems must be put in place in this phase of MGNREGA. The Working group recommends pro-action regarding the processes enabling community mobilization and awareness raising regarding their rights that irrespective of the actors. As a first measure, the government must recognize the role of formations such as SHGs and producer groups comprising of BPL families, and their aggregations at the village level and above, in helping the poor assert their rights and in helping them bargain a better deal from the PRIs in the gram sabhas as well as the government, and often with banks and market forces too. Given that the SHG movement is still weak in many parts of the north and tribal India, the government must give it further momentum. It will synergise the efforts that now NRLM is putting in at a vast scale. MGNREGA could then hope to have more assertive poor in Gram Sabha, and dictate their priorities in work selection.

7. Ad Hoc Appointments and Lack of Understanding of Job Market . By allocating a very low administrative expenditure, unwittingly the government incentivised ad hoc appointments of low quality staff in large numbers, with every RD secretary and district collector somehow managing with whoever s/he could get in the local job market. Indian job market has become open and nationalized and movement of all categories of human resources, from professionals to unskilled workers, across states to job intensive areas is a common phenomenon. It is also clear that with private sector opening up, the salary expectations are higher. It is amply demonstrated in many of the government projects having to raise their salaries constantly in order to retain older staff and to attract higher quality staff, and is also evident in actions of certain states within NREGA too and what is likely to be prescribed by NRLM. Problems commonly found in state NREGA systems are the following: (a) compensation structure indicating ad hoc nature of employment such as lump sum monthly payment; (b) much of the responsibility to hire staff is left to the DPC without specifying “how” or to the Mukhia/Sarpanch; and (c) high turnover.

8. Where does the capacity exist within the government system or outside? All states seem to be recruiting staff from the market to build institutional capacity for NREGA implementation, although leadership and certain senior level engineering and accounts positions are being filled by staff on deputation. A close examination of organograms of AP, MP and Rajasthan reveals that management teams at all levels, namely, the state, district and block level, are being set up with contractual staff. Contractual recruitment from market under NRHM further proves that this is now a widespread phenomenon across sectors. If this is so, why should there not be a proper policy and proper process for recruitment and selection for this category of staff?

3.3 Decentralization at the Cutting Edge of Implementation: Gram Vikas Sankul (Village Development Cluster)

38

9. Based on experiences across several livelihoods projects like SERP AP and Jeevika, Bihar, it is evident that a dedicated governance and management structure is unavoidable to produce the results at scale and across districts. A very strong fulltime spearhead team is needed at the sub-block level, which almost on a daily basis, can easily reach out to, mobilize and empower the poor, wage seekers to make demands on the system. Such a dedicated PFT is will prepare an annual micro-plan for each gram panchayat each year resulting in shelf of works and annual budget estimates (material and labour budget both). The PFT will train Gram Panchayat representatives and functionaries and also village-level workers, and work with them on all aspects such as implementation, asset verification, measurement and payment, and monitoring and evaluation, MIS maintenance, and social audit. WG makes a strong recommendation of ensuring full involvement of women self help groups in micro-planning, monitoring, as well as in social audit exercises.

10.PFT will reach to a population about a third of a block, or 30 to 35 villages, and in terms of geographical area a maximum of 15,000 hectare. This is a large enough area to employ and distribute the cost of hiring quality staff. Thus there would be three PFTs in a block each led by a PFT team leader and reporting to the Program Officer at the block level. Such an implementation unit would also become the cutting edge of implementation, instead of the block. This can be seen as an innovation in governance delivery in rural India, as decentralization is deepened further beyond the current District → Block → GP model.

11.On an average there are about 90 villages per block in India. We may divide the block into 3 parts, each to be called the Village Development Cluster (Gram Vikas Sankul, GVS) comprising 30 villages each or about 15 GPs (or one-third of the block). This middle tier GVS will be the cutting edge level of MGNREGA implementation between the GP and the Intermediate Panchayat. Such a layer will be co-terminus with optimum deployment of personnel, and will ensure: (i) proper planning; (ii) greater cohesion and coordination between GPs and within project teams; (iii) time-bound sanctions and releases, smoother functioning, through a reduction in the critical distance between GP and MGNREGA implementation hub; (iv) timely measurements and valuations of work; and (v) powerful social mobilization and social audit. Apart from increasing human resource allocation at the cutting edge of implementation, the Gram Vikas Sankul also ensures a level of efficiency of use of such resources since they are collectively used by several GPs.

12.While preparing its report, this Working Group also is in receipt of the recommendations of the Working Group on Planning and Execution (P&E) and is happy to note that there is convergence in recommendations on this aspect. It is also in agreement with the recommendation of the Working Group (P&E) tat the delineation of this cluster or GVS needs to be done on the principle of area and distance rather than administrative boundaries and accepts the recommendation of setting the delineation limit at about a population size of 40,000. In terms of national averages, this coincides with roughly one-third of the block. This Working Group also notes that this is roughly the area on which the cutting edge of NRLM implementation is also proposed to rest. This gives grounds for convergence and pooling of human resources at the disposal of PRIs.

3.4 Dedicated Implementation Structure at Cluster Level

39

13.We further propose that along with this decentralization of implementation, a fully dedicated professional support team for MGNREGA is placed at the Gram Vikas Sankul. This team is recruited on contract from the open market through a selection and screening process. In terms of the composition of the team, this Working Group is of the view that the GVS team should comprise at the very minimum 3 Technical Assistants, one person in-charge of social mobilization and one village- level community mobilizer for each GP. The team should be led by a Programme Officer or Additional Programme Officer. Since the Working Group (P&E) has examined the issue in detail from the point of view of effective planning and execution, this Working Group accepts the team structure outlined by the Working Group (P&E), with the following points for consideration: i) the proposed JE at the Block level may be increased to 2; and (ii) the proposed Agriculture and Livelihoods TS be pooled at the block level and may be optionally be routed through the NRLM implementation team. The cost implications of the above changes are negligible and can be easily accomodated. Exact composition, educational qualifications and experience, and compensation structure is to be worked out separately. Suffice it to say that cluster team needs to be headed by some one who has at least three years experience in rural development, or by someone with a MSW or Post graduate degree in rural development or rural management with at least two years’ experience. Other members could be fresh or although preferably they too should have a year’s experience (often large number of experienced professionals are not available).

14.Specific Observations related to Mate system. The active job seekers are being organised into groups under a ‘mate’ who is an educated worker. He/she helps in taking the muster and in organising work at the work site. Mates are being trained in various aspects of programme implementation for which a separate organization has been created. Kudamshree model of Kerala offers an innovative perspective on mobilizing women as ‘mates’.

15.Specific observations related to Field Assistant (FA) or Gram Rozgar Sevak( AP Model). Being the linchpin of MGNREGA at the GP level, active and accountable GRSs can make a major difference. Their quality, motivation and skills need to be developed and sustained through careful selection, training, technical support, incentives and clear accountability. Many irregularities spring from this level since he/she is the muster registering agency. There is much political interference in identifying this person. In order to insulate this institution from such pressures, it is recommended that the FA/GRS is automatically appointed by a computer programme that selects the literate person who has worked the highest number of days in the village. Such a person is trained in programme implementation.

3.5 Recruitment and Selection Process for Professionals

16. AP and MP experience in NREGA and that of Jeevika in Bihar and VKP in Tamil Nadu shows that:

• the system of recruitment and selection of professionals must be an objective, transparent and systematic exercise, not just for management cadre at the state and district level (in AP, even mate selection is done scientifically);

• Methodology must eliminate biases in selection, especially over-reliance on interviews;

• Such recruitments could be outsourced to credible agencies, backed by administrative and political support. The involvement of SRIJAN and SIDS7 in

7 Self-Reliant Initiatives through Joint Action (Srijan) is an NGO working on water and agriculture related issues in several states of India. Srijan Infratech and Development

40

the recruitment process for the Jeevika project of the Government of Bihar is an illustration of such outsourcing. The project is being executed by an autonomous agency, the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (BRLP) which also outsourced the recruitment process.

17. Recruitment and Selection Process for MGNREGA must follow the following steps:• Step One. The first key task is to create a profile of the desired candidate

with respect to her knowledge, skills, attitude and values (KSAV) with respect to the job profile. Once clearly defined, these attributes help in deciding on the right person, a methodology (tests) would be finalized.

• Step Two. Methodology must include Multiple and formal Tests of Selection: This allows for a more wholesome understanding of the person to be selected. It should include tests not just for cognitive ability (Intelligence Quotient tests) but tests for attitudes such as ability to work in teams, empathy with the poor in the villages and achievement motivation.

• Step Three. In order to be able to understand and rate candidates, three kinds of tests can be used: (i) Psychometric Tests: These are tests designed to indicate how psychologically comfortable an individual is with the kind of work expected to be taken up in the project. There are various types of psychometric tests which are used depending on what we want to assess in an individual. (ii) Sociometric Tests: These tests are used to indicate an individual’s ability and attitude towards working in peer groups or in a team; (iii) Evaluation Interview: If handled well, this gives an overall view of what makes an individual tick. It also helps determine whether the candidate would ‘fit’ with the role as well as with the organization or not. The interview, like other tools in this methodology, is used not so much as a tool of selection, but as a tool of rejection; (iv) In order to further test the suitability to rural development, the process must also include village immersion at least for fresh graduates who apply for field positions. Each of the tests would have a weight assigned and the final selection arrived at after a total of all scores. Hence weights for interview should never be more than 20% in the overall selection process.

• Step Four. Administration of the tests must be outsourced and should be formalized rather than be left to chance and vague. A Selection panel should be formally constituted to oversee the process. The interview panel should consist of experts who had experience of working in similar Projects (rather than only department officials or academicians). Clear, unambiguous and transparent criteria for selection or rejection of candidates should be placed. Having panelists who have been formally trained in the use of Selection techniques: Persons sitting as members of the selection panel should be oriented towards the selection process and techniques of observation/ evaluation for the various tests. It should not be assumed that anybody with general work experience can be a good observer/interviewer.

18.It bears repetition that the success of the initial process led the Government of Bihar to approve a similar process of selection across all levels of Jeevika. Thus, almost 300 staff across all the three levels were recruited for the first phase of implementation. Similarly more than 1200 district and field level staff were recruited in Tamil Nadu. Now Panchayati Raj department has also adopted this process. National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) too has outsourced recruitment and selection in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Chhattisgarh for state and district positions.

19. We strongly recommend that a similar system of recruitment and selection is designed and implemented for Gram Rozgar Sahayak or Field Assistant, the lynchpin of MGNREGA at the GP level, since many irregularities spring from this level since he/she is the muster registering agency and there is much political interference in

Services (SIDS) is Srijan's consultancy arm

41

identifying this person. Further, their quality, motivation and skills need to be developed and sustained through careful selection, training, technical support, incentives and clear accountability.

3.6 Accountability through Performance Management

20. Once recruited often the question of accountability of contract staff is raised. Experience of VKP, Tamil Nadu and that of anti poverty project Gemi Dirya of Sri Lanka indicates that a system of performance management that grades the performance of staff on annual basis and rewards or punishes them by linking it to salary and non monetary awards, and to promotion or termination, can be hugely effective.

21. MGNREGA must introduce a system of performance management with following salient features:

• Performance assessment is done in the field through village visits and areas to be assessed would include potential wage seekers’ participation, reviewing books maintained, reviewing social audit process;

• Individual as well as team’s performance must be assessed as per stated Key Performance Indicators;

• Assessment teams come from the state and other districts and also include village leaders from other villages;

• Appraisal follows a 360 degree feedback system, with comments from senior, peer and juniors.

• The System is to be followed for district and block and sub-block teams but also for state teams.

• The 360 degree appraisal method must build in a system of detailed feedback from the village community and the PRIs at different levels. In particular, the involvement of the panchayats and gram sabhas in planning, decision-making and the emergence of strong grassroots institutional structures should be a key element of the evaluation.

• The HR system must also work as a coordination mechanism for smoothening out implementation-related issues that may arise between the PFT and the PRIs. For this the HR structure at district and state level must play a pro-active role.

3.7 Human Resource Policy for Contract Staff

22. Government must take a long term perspective regarding its HR policy for NREGA. AP NREGA, Bihar’s Jeevika and Tamil Nadu’s VKP experience shows that contract staff would work under well defined rules that include specification of their salary in scales and grades, annual increments, leaves, transfer norms, travel allowances, cell phone allowance, lap top allowance, grievance redressal, and even exit interviews in case of resignation. Except giving provident fund and security of lifetime permanent employment, the rest of the stuff seems to be what a normal employment would provide for. These agencies also have a well defined compensation structure in a matrix form that allows for increments within each category. They define a promotion policy ensuring career growth. This leads to a sense of job security and eliminates arbitrary decisions on part of the authorities.

23. Working group strongly recommends formulation of a comprehensive HR policy with abovementioned features, especially for contract staff in each state.

3.8 Governance

42

24. Imperative for improving governance of a major program like this is to set up a separate organization registered as a society with a full time CEO who is given the best team recruited through a transparent and competent method, from open market just has been done in many programs even in the education sector (e.g. National Literacy Mission). This must be repeated at the state and district level too.

3.9 Culture25. The functioning and implementation of such a structure would be helped by adopting

a culture with clear purpose, results orientation, business plan for at least three years, and systems of planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation, in place.

43

CHAPTER IV

Capacity Building for MGNREGA

4.1 The Challenges and Problems

The operational guidelines of MGNREGA clearly state that there is need for setting

up a chain of resource centres from the national to the state to the district level

[Chapter 13]. While these resource centres will act as technology discovery,

development and dissemination centres, the cutting edge in terms of training and

capacity building has correctly been envisaged at the district level [Section 13.4.1.e].

It is the working group's view that the capacity building and technical support hub

envisaged at the district centre is the need of not only MGNREGA but also all rural

development initiatives and social sector delivery schemes. The working group is of

the view however, that a strategy needs to be thought of for operationalization of this

vision so that high quality capacity building and support hubs are indeed made

possible at the district level. The following section hopes to detail such an

operationalization vision. This will involve an understanding of what has troubled

capacity building efforts in rural development interventions in general and

MGNREGA in particular in the country thus far.

The capacity building experience of MGNREGA in particular and rural development

programmes in general has shown that this is on aspect which has suffered neglect.

There appear to be serious gaps in terms of training infrastructure, training material,

resource-persons to undertake training, syllabi and course content. These were

observed in most states during the Working Group's visits. Either there is no training

infrastructure at the district and sub-district level in several states, or where such

infrastructure exists, trainers of good quality are missing or the capacity building of

these trainers itself is a huge gap. There exists variation in the contents,

methodology, duration, expected outcome and available physical infrastructure in

training programmes of MGNREGA across states in India (if we look at Kerala,

Andhra Pradesh, NE States, Bihar, Rajastan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and

Maharastra). Although, some of these variations can be explained in terms of

different nature of institutions and stakeholders involved, level of social mobisation

and presence of regional specificities; yet a good amount of variation is due to

unnecessarily differently designed course contents and delivery mechanisms.

In this respect, it is also clear that institutions such as NIRD and SIRDs have not

been able to deliver in the last 5 years or so. It is also not clear to this Working

Group whether they have the capacities to deliver the kind of training and support

44

required to fulfill the objectives cited in the Operational Guidelines Section 1.2(b)

cited above. The Working Group has also gone through the concept note and

material available on the website with regard to a joint initiative of the MoRD and

UNDP which seeks to build capacities of MGNREGA stakeholders across the board.

While the initiative is important, as we have observed in our field visits and

interactions with NIAR (Mussoorie), NIRD and SIRD that government training

institutions woefully lack the capacity and also orientation to impart training for

NREGA. The Working Group suggests that an excessively government –centric

approach would not only be inadequate but also counterproductive given the people-

centric nature of MGRNEGA and also PRI centred planning and implementation.

Therefore, not only voluntary organizations would provide hand-holding support but

also efforts need to be made to establish People’ Learning Centres at the block or

sub-block levels. It is also observed that the above initiative would benefit by a series

of CSO consultations held across the country to seed the concept and invite

partnerships. It would also be appropriate to consider CSO partnership in the

steering of the project itself by giving space to CSOs in the Empowered Committee

overseeing the initiative.

There also seems to be a lack of a training plan or strategy at the state and national

levels. It is clear that there is a lack of cohesion and shared sense of purpose across

the board. This is seriously impacting the quality of outcomes on the ground. In

general, the problems that have beset capacity building efforts with respect to rural

developments can be seen as arising from the following:

g) Training institutions has very little practical experience of doing what they

are training in and have very little touch with the intricacies of ground-level

realities, implementation and social engineering8

h) Training institutions are located at a geographical distance, farm removed

from where the actual development intervention is scheduled to take

place.

i) These institutes are run by personnel who speak a language which is

largely incomprehensible to the people and whose attitude is didactic

8 This was further confirmed by the visit of the Working Group to a few government training and support institutions considered at some point or other by the MoRD to get involved in the capacity building effort around MGNREGA. The personnel had very little clue as to what could be done with village communities, had never interacted much with them and certainly could not be seen as adding value to human resources at the PRI levels.

45

rather than dialogic, and who seem to lack the passion for the work which

their training will enable.

j) A very serious lacuna has been the absence of any kind of follow-up in the

field to ensure that the benefits of training are materialised at the field-level

for which it was meant.

k) There has been an absence of a recognized system of certification for the

training efforts

l) Training also tends to become too specific9. Overall, the planning and

implementation requirements can become so tightly structured that it

discourage imaginative and innovative training methods, sticking to what is

“allowed”.

m) There seems to be a mismatch between what an institution is capable of

delivering and what it is actually expected to deliver. Thus, some of the

above mentioned issues could be taken care of by using existing training

institutions and infrastructure as a facilitation and networking centres,

which could also perhaps cater to the training needs of certain types (such

as entitlements of wage seekers, procedures and guidelines) but cannot

train implementing teams in the intricacies of plan preparation, execution,

conflict resolution, social mobilization and social audit.

n) There is also a lack of a certification system whereby teams can be judged

to have capability to address the task they are entrusted with.

o) Another lacuna relates to the near absence of any kind of role assigned to

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in this crucial area. It is quite clear that

this is one sphere in which civil society organizations have done well and

have the potential to contribute.

4.2 Chain of Capacity Building Institutions

Given the multi-faceted challenges facing MGNREGA implementation, there is an

urgent need to create a proper structure for capacity building at the national, state

and district levels. Since several CSOs have done very good work across the

country in enabling wage seekers and village communities to access their

entitlements under MGNREGA and since CSOs have also had a long history of

9 In one field visit, the working group members found that after appointment, the MGNREGA Project Officers and the technical personnel had only been given a two-day orientation on estimation and planning of roads, which they were mechanically applying to the task. In another state, which seemed to have a more structured and better approach to training, the standard interventions of watershed development were being taught to village-level personnel.

46

mobilization, capacity building and support to village communities, capacity building

for MGNREGA is one area where CSOs must be invited and mandated to play a

role. The proposed structure outlined below will benefit by maximization of CSO

participation.

4.2.1 National Level

At the national level, a National MGNREGA Training and Support Organization

(NMTSO) needs to be created to anchor the entire training effort for MGNREGA. The

Working Group is of the view that this is of critical importance. This is especially

because the capacity for capacity building cannot be presumed to exist at the level of

states10 and districts but may need to be either created or enhanced significantly.

Thus, this effort of capacity building needs to draw upon the best resources across

the country and to pool them to create hubs in each state and district of the country

which service the aims and objectives of MGNREGA and eventually other social

sector interventions (Forest Rights Act and National Food Security Act to name just

two).

This organization will:

• act as a coordinating and anchoring agency between different state

level resource centres

• help to define and refine training policy at both state and national levels

and make traiing needs assessments

• act as a clearing house for training material and resources and as a

nodal centre actively involved in development and dissemination of

training material, methods and resources.

• identify and mobilize institutions which can play the role of training

institutions for MGNREGA across the country

• define training content and syllabi for different stakeholders

• draw up a national level training plan for different stages of MGNREGA

implementation and for different stakeholders, factoring in state level

training plans

10 Some states may have such capacities but a majority do not seem to, despite presence of infrastructure and monetary allocations. Indeed, if the aim of capacity building is to create human resources capable of applying their minds and skills to any situation or problem arising in a village (not just this or that specific issue about which they are taught in training sessions), it is unclear that such a capacity building has even been attempted since independence.

47

• identify and induct capable CSOs with proven track records ,

professional agencies, technical institutes and other institutions who

can play the role of Lead Resource Centres or Anchor Organizations

(AOs) for MGNREGA in different states, with the active participation of

the state level training and support organizations

• ensure that training requirements for MGNREGA are actually being

fulfilled across the country as per the training plan

• monitor the quality of training imparted and make specific, germane

recommendations for improvement of the same

• give clear recommendations and set clear deadlines to state

governments who are not acting complying with the training road map

to bring them on track

• Seek advice from the Central Employment Guarantee Council as the

apex body steering the MGNREGA and report to the CEGC on the

action taken by it and state governments in furtherance of its

recommendations. A Steering Committee of the CEGC may be formed

to oversee the functioning of the NMTSO. This committee may also induct representatives from reputed and prominent CSOs to guide and

monitor its work.

4.2.2 State Level

At the state level a State MGNREGA Training and Support Organization (SMTSO)

needs to be set up to oversee the training functions throughout the state. This should

actually be a Consortium of carefully selected CSOs, available professional and

technical institutions with practical experience of planning, who will act as Anchor

Organizations (AOs), anchoring the training effort at the state level and creating

master trainers and master trainer organizations at the district level. Officials of the

state government should also be represented in this SMTSO to ensure maximum

coordination, mutual accountability and mutual respect.

The purpose of this state level consortium will be to create District MGNREGA

Training and Support Organizations (DMTSO) which are master trainer and support

organizations at the district level for the purposes of MGNREGA planning,

implementation and mobilization for entitlements. The SMTSO will also help to

formulate training courses, syllabi, training material and also set up district-level

training resource centres and identify and appoint persons who can run these

centres.

48

In case CSOs capable of performing this role at the state level cannot be found, the

SMTSO may consider tying up with the SMTSO of another state for the training

requirements of their district level resource centres or inviting interested and

prominent CSOs from other states identified by the NMTSO to set up a centre or

office in their state to help them in the task of capacity building by playing the role of

AOs. It is expected that the NMTSO will monitor and help address such lacunae

where they arise.

4.2.3 District Level

At the district level there is need to set up a District MGNREGA Training and Support

Organization (DMTSO). This is a master trainer organization which imparts training

to block and sub-block implementation teams. The DMTSO may be formed by the

state government by inducting full-time dedicated resource persons who will act as

master trainers for MGNREGA. The DMTSO will also provide support to Project

Implementation Agencies under MGNREGA. The recruitment of such resource

persons may be undertaken through the same channels as that of the project

implementation teams at block and cluster levels. The DMTSO can be a CSO

provided one of high quality, impeccable credentials and some experience of

planning and execution or working on nature-based livelihoods is available. These

CSOs will have to be selected through a rigorous screening process.

If credible and capable CSOs are available but are capable of operating at the scale

of one or two blocks, then the DMTSO responsibilities for these blocks may be

entrusted to them, while the responsibilities for the other blocks may be shouldered

by the dedicated master trainers and support personnel.

If technical and professional agencies such as Krishi Vigyan Kendras, agricultural

colleges or other are available and can support the core staff of the DMTSO in the

performance of their tasks, such support should be actively enlisted.

The DMTSO team will be trained by the Consortium of AOs selected to be part of the

State MTSO in a series of foundation courses. These courses will be designed after

due deliberation at the state-level as to their duration and subject matter. If the

selected DMTSO already has some experience in training and support for micro-

planning, a 20-day Foundation Course may be visualized, followed by another 20-

day follow-up module. Otherwise a more rigorous 30-day Foundation Course may be

followed up by a 20-day refresher module. An evaluation of the performance of the

49

trainees is a must. This could take the form of a course-end examination as well as

concurrent review of trainees on their attitude, skills and behaviour. Both could lead

to course-end grades. Certificates clearly stating that the team members have been

trained to act as Master Trainers at the district level will be awarded by the SMTSO,

mentioning the course-end grades attained, in order to maintain quality of trainers

and in the interest of transparency.

The SMTSO Consortium will also provide handholding support to the DMTSO, once

established, will review the training being imparted by the DMTSO members and

decide on the best road map for improving the quality of trainers.

In a year it should be expected that one AO can reasonably cater to the training

requirements of 4-5 DMTSOs. It is estimated that about the DMTSO on an average

will work well with 6 dedicated professional resource persons, 3 of whom will attend

to the requirements of technical training and support and the other 3 to issues

relating to social mobilization, social audit and entitlements.

Attempted below is an operationalization scenario for training of all VDC and block

team members:

• Given that there are about 6000 blocks and about 600 districts in the

country, the average number of blocks in a district can be taken to be

10.

• Each block will have on an average 3 Village Development Cluster

(VDC) teams. The combined strength of the implementing teams at the

block level and VDC level comes to about 18 personnel (see Chapter 2

of this report) in each block at the cutting edge of implementation

whose training needs will have to be taken care of.

• With 10 blocks on an average, this means 180 persons. In the first

year, the VDC/block teams must undergo a Basic Training Course

(BTC) of at least 30 days' duration at the DMTSC. If these 180 persons

were to attend the BTC at the DMTSC in batches of 36 (which is an

ideal number in terms of trainers being able to attend to trainees), at

least 5 batches will have to be trained. This means 5 months of the

year.

• Another two months should be reserved for refresher courses or

specialized courses, orientations, workshops, meetings etc. This

leaves about 5 months for field support work

50

• At least two field support visits for each VDC of about 7 days each visit

must be envisioned. These field support visits will double up as on-site

training for the VDC and Block teams, so that the training imparted at

the DMTSO will be followed up with on-site training, support and

handholding for plan preparation and execution. . A system may be

envisioned whereby during the BTC, trainers set the team members

practical tasks which the team members have to fulfill by the time of the

support visit.

• In this support visit, In each support visit, a team comprising at least

two members from the DMTSO should visit the VDC. In 5 months

about 10 VDC field sites can be effectively visited by one team.

• Since there are about 10 blocks per district on an average, we have 30

VDC teams and 30 VDC field sites. Thus 3 support teams of 2 support

persons each at the DMTSC will be able to carry out this workload.

The capacity building of village level community mobilizers can further be undertaken

by the implementation team itself, once it is prepared and certified to be prepared.

Over time the capacity building and support requirements for MGNREGA will go

down or change in character to encompass more areas such as convergence with

other programmes and entitlements under other social sector.

A system of certification will be established at this level too, whereby the DMTSO will

conduct concurrent and course-end evaluation of the implementation team members

during the BTC and the on-site field training, on the basis of which a certificate may

be issued to the team member, mentioning the grade attained.

The Working Group also recommends that there should also be a space

within the operational guidelines wherein CSOs with capacity and caliber

can actually function as project implementation teams as well.

4.3 Costs

Some estimated costs of the DMTSO and the costs of training to be conducted by

them have been attempted by the Working Group. It is estimated that provisioning

for such a training structure down the line will come to less than 1% of the

MGNREGA budget. This cost is expected to decline after the initial years since the

more critical handholding requirements will be in the first and second years.

However, this 1% of MGNREGA funds needs to be seen as an investment in the

future of not only MGNREGA but virtually all rural development interventions since

51

this small amount can effectively mean a very big difference to the total expenditure

made and the quality of outcomes thereof. It is recommended therefore that the

Operational Guidelines be suitably modified to cater for such expenditure. Where

CSOs are inducted for the task of training DMTSOs or play the role of DMTSOs,

their training and staff expenses should also be taken care of.

The Working Group also takes cognizance of the fact that there is a proposal to

create RUDSETI type of institutions at the district level for the NRLM. Possibilities of

convergence in terms of infrastructure and human resources for training should be

explored so that facilities and human capabilities are used for wage employment

programmes to be effectively converged.

With MGNREGA effectively providing financial resources for work on the ground

which can make an irreversible change to the poverty situation in the country, the

case for multilateral donor or aid agencies providing support to the GoI for the

“software” portion of MGNREGA is considerably strengthened. This is because the

small percentage of funds invested by such agencies in ensuring human resource

allocation, capacity building has the potential of leveraging benefits which are

several-fold. Such investments are also a step towards ensuring better quality of

programme execution, better outcomes from public investment and improvement in

the human resource and skill base of the country which is in the form of a permanent

investment. Possibilities of inviting such grants-in-aid should be explored.

Possibilities of Public-Private-Partnership may also be explored with Indian

companies who may see such investment in human resources as part of their CSR

and may like to participate either at the state or at the district level by contributing

resources. However, such participation should be to ensure that the quality of

MGNREGA is improved as per the road map prepared by the NTMSO and approved

by the CEGC.

4.4 Quality Issues in Civil Society Participation

Within the Working Group there is a shared concern w.r.t both participation of Civil

Society Organizations and the quality of CSOs with whom partnerships are forged

for executing the above recommendations. The Working Group is of the view that

there is every need to mainstream high quality CSOs with proven track record into

this nation-wide training and capacity building effort. The Working Group considers it

fit to particularly mention the efforts made by states such as Andhra Pradesh and

52

Madhya Pradesh in this regard. While the former has entered into agreements with

civil society organizations to partner the state governments, the latter has initiated

programmes of natural resource management and convergence with a clear policy

on CSO participation.

The Working Group also is clear that while bringing CSOs on board, there is need to

ensure the highest standards of CSO accountability a concern which has also been

voiced by several state governments. However, it has also noted with concern that in

discussions with some state governments on this issue, the attitude has sometimes

tended to border on throwing the baby out with the bath water and characterizing all

CSO participation as a non-starter. It is the understanding of this Working Group that

this situation has arisen only partly because of quality of CSOs themselves. It stems

in a major part due to an apprehension that their own systems are not geared up

enough to keep undesirable elements out of the process.

Discussions of the Working Group with CSOs of different hues and calling have

underlined the need for CSO participation and the Working Group recognizes the

truly excellent work done by several such organizations in mobilization, participatory

planning, execution, social audit and so on. Such CSOs have also cited numerous

instances of violations by local administrations or implementation interfaces which

have been brought to light by them and which have also led to problems for them.

They also cite the fact that their role is not mandated by any formal institutional

space within the framework of the Act. As a result, there is also a constant hurdle

faced by them of convincing local administrations about their participation and their

locus standi.

The Working Group is of the view that concerns on both sides may be addressed by

adopting an approach which puts premium on quality and provides an autonomous

and institutionalized space for the selection and functioning of CSOs. This will

ensure to high quality CSOs a space where they can work smoothly and will also

ensure a fallback mechanism for them if and when local conditions turn “difficult” for

no fault of theirs. The process will also facilitate and strengthen the selection process

of CSOs by state governments. This can be done by the NMTSO leading a joint,

two-stage selection and evaluation process, wherein the first round of screening and

shortlisting is done by the concerned state level agency and the final round of

screening is done by the NMTSO with oversight by its Steering Committee. In order

to arrive at such a decision, the NMTSO will have to make use of a panel of carefully

53

selected evaluators who evaluate the work of these CSOs. A high-level search

committee may be formed which looks into the issue of empanelment of evaluators.

In this entire scheme of things, CAPART could also potentially play a role. However,

for this fundamental structural changes will have to take place in the institution in

order for it to do justice to this role. The Working Group recommends that this

institutional reform process in CAPART should be completed as a pre-condition to its

partnership in the process

Criteria for Selection of CSOs as AOs

This Working Group suggests that at the very minimum, the following factors need to

be assessed:

• Length of time for which organization has been working in the field

• Vision of the organization, especially in terms of having a decisive pro-poor

and pro-women thrust

• Stability of organization in terms of personnel and core leadership

• Annual budget and quantum of funds handled

• Adequate support staff for finance and administration and ability to handle

accounts, documentation and reporting and manage projects

• Systems and management practices

• A minimum of at least 7 years of experience of working on micro-planning,

water conservation and nature based livelihoods

• Quality of work done in its technical and other aspects (particularly relevant

for livelihoods, convergence and watershed programmes)

• Institutional arrangements put in place for management and sharing of

benefits and local people's institutions created

• Organisation’s presence in the field and its credibility and reputation among

the communities it is working with

• Organisation’s links and relationships with PRIs at different levels

• Organisation’s relationship with local government at the block and district level

• Presence of qualified and experienced team with social workers, mobilisers,

technical personnel and grassroots “barefoot” activists

54

• Presence of team members with requisite communication skills, capable of

becoming trainers and support personnel

• Non-adherence or opposition to any form of discrimination based on grounds

of region, community, caste, religion, gender or colour.

In order to bring such AOs on board a thorough evaluation needs to be carried out

before empanelling them as members of the SMTSO, since high quality is a matter

of very serious concern. However, once selected, the CSOs concerned must be

under a formal agreement with the SMTSO and NMTSO so that their operation is

smooth and well coordinated and there is mutual accountability.

4.5 Designating Institutions as Training and Certification Institutions for MGNREGA

Given the urgent need for human resources of quality for the implementation of

MGNREGA, the above recommendations point to a medium-term approach to

solving the problem, by first matching the supply with demand and then training this

supply.

However, it needs to be recognized that the creation of human resources is going to

challenge MGNREGA implementation constantly. There is thus a need to create a

longer term plan for provisioning human resources steadily. This calls for a creation

of a human resource pool which may be drawn upon when needed.

This Working Group recommends that CSOs identified through the rigorous process

described above may be formally recognized as Training Institutions for MGNREGA,

with the provision that they can organize and carry out diploma courses for

MGNREGA, which are recognized. Such a recognition must only be made for those

CSOs who have the capability and practical field implementation experience to play

this role. Tie-ups of such CSOs with technical colleges and institutes at state and

national level may be further promoted so that students can carry out this diploma

course as part of their formal degree course by requesting a field placement or an

internship. The duration for such a course should be 6 months to a year and a

rigorous system of trainee evaluation should be part of this system.

4.6 Proposed Lok Sewak/Lok Karmi Scheme

Considering the general crisis of ‘capacity building’ especially at the level of Gram

Panchayat (Act clearly assigns pivotal role to Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat in

55

the implementation), Working Group recommends rolling out the Scheme of ‘Lok

Sevak/ Lok Karmis’ (under active consideration by MoRD) for enhancing the capacity

of Panchayats/ representatives of Panchyati Raj in the implementation of

MGNREGA and also realisation of entitlements of labourers. Section 2(g) of the

MGNREGA clearly mentions that “Implementing agencies includes ... Voluntary

organizations authorised by the Central Government or the State government to

undertake the implementation of any work taken up under a scheme”. Based on our

field visits and interaction with key stakeholders (internal and external), we think that

a careful and calibrated approach towards involving voluntary organizations in the

capacity building aspects of implementing MGNREGA is the need of the hour. Field

visits in Rajasthan, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Assam, Chhattisgarh have made

it clear that at present, without adequate capacity enhancement, Gram Panchayats

will not be very successful in implementing the following activities:

• Receiving applications for registration

• Verifying registration applications

• Registering households

• Issuing Job Cards

• Receiving applications for employment

• Issuing dated receipts

• Allotting employment within 15 days of application

• Planning of works/preparation of shelf of works

• Executing works

• Maintaining records

• Convening the Gram Sabha for Social Audit

• Monitoring the implementation of the scheme at the village level

The disastrous experiences of Gaon Sathis in Orissa, whereby local labour

contractors became community mobilizers or facilitators without any robust

institutional framework suggests that there is a strong and urgent need for creating

an enabling environment for involvement of reputed and credible voluntary

organizations in the mobilization tasks for MGNREGA especially tasked with the

work of energizing Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat. Though, there is provision for

Gram Rozgar Sahayak/ Employment Guarantee Assistant (EGA) in each GP for

facilitating Gram Sabha, the field reality about the shortage of trained staff and lack

56

of social mobilization of wage seekers compels us to recognize the need for

deployment of Lok Karmi as “ Community Resource Person” in each Panchayat (GP)

who would be anchored in the Voluntary Organizations (Lok Sevaks) for insulating

him or her from the usual collusion between local representatives of PRI and officials

from Line Departments in the implementation of MGNREGA. The involvement of

voluntary organizations following a consortium approach will also galvanize

grassroots community organizations for resource support at the level of Gram

Sabha/Gram Panchyat. Therefore, the need for involving a concurrent system of

capacity enhancement to strengthen the gram sabhas.

Following Suggestions are offered for implementing Lok Sevak/Lok Karmi:

1. The Lok Sevak/Lok Karmi scheme needs to be first piloted in the 200 districts

where MGNREGA had been first implemented for field testing and policy

feedback. This is important since universalization in haste may lead to severe

loss in credibility and quality

2. At present the role assigned to “agencies” reflects a somewhat typical notion

that CSOs are good to create awareness and facilitating environments for

government interventions. However, the track record of CSOs clearly shows

that there is wide ranging expertise and a wide variety of responsibilities that

they are capable of discharging.

3. Thus, while the statutory responsibilities of implementing MGNREGA need

not be outsourced from DPC/PO/ and PRIs; the role of Vos under the scheme

should be enhanced to providing technical support, mobilizing, facilitating, and

assisting Gram Sabha/PRIs for discharging their functions under the Act. This

will involve broadening the scope of the scheme from the present one. Two

scheme outlines of this nature have been prepared for CAPART by Sub-

Group 1, set up as part of its restructuring initiative. This may be considered

for a broader space to CSO partners.

4. The name of Lok Karmi needs to be reconsidered; the terms Sevaks and

Karmis convey an implicit hierarchical order; this needs to be avoided. Lok

Karmis are basically “Local Resource Persons” or “ Community Resource

Persons”.

5. In the selection of Lok Sevaks (Voluntary Organizations), “consortium

approach” may be considered, as a method of ensuring collective

responsibility and accountability

57

6. In the selection of Lok Sevaks, state government’s needs to be consulted as

part of an institutionalized system of selection process; MoRD could seek the

help of CAPART and state governments for identification of voluntary

organizations as Lok Sevaks.

7. Consider using “Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra”(RGSK) as ‘capacity building

hub” for facilitating the work of Lok Sevaks/ Lok Karmis.

8. The call for Expression of Interest (EOI) for the identification of voluntary

organizations by the State Government should be displayed at the portal of

State-NREGA site or portal of PR department of the state government. And

the role of the state government in the identification of voluntary organizations

needs to be clearly spelled out for the success of the scheme.

9. A list of selected Lok Sevaks must be sent by the state government to MoRD

(Govt. of India) for perusal and making sure that procedural and transparency

provisions have been followed in the identification/ selection.

10. The annual turnover of Rs. 20 lakh proposed in the note of MoRD wrt

Lok Sevak (Ref; note of MoRD) will work against smaller, locally efficient

Voluntary organizations; it needs to be made more flexible keeping in mind

the nature, capacity (skills, resources etc) and reputation of the Voluntary

organizations are more important than “turn over criteria”!

11. Ordinarily, the Lok Karmi needs to drawn from NREGA households.

Based on Rajasthan experience, mates need to be preferred for the work of

Lok Karmi.

12. Efforts should be made to involve members of local Neighbourhood

Groups or Self-Help-Groups for the identification of committed Lok Karmis.

This will energize the convergence space between MGNREGA and proposed

NRLM.

13. The insistence on 12 class criterion for selection of Lok Karmi as

proposed in the note of MoRD on Lok Sevaks/Lok Karmis needs to be

dropped as most NREGA households are illiterate.

14. Terms of Reference (ToR) for Lok Sevak/Lok Karmi needs to be clearly

spelled out leaving no scope for ambiguity in terms of job profile and

functional responsibility.

15. Voluntary Organizations need to be supported under administrative

expenses of 6% for providing training of Lok Karmis.

58

16. There is a concern that Lok Karmi may not be able to handle ICT

related issues. There should be a separate cadre for ICT related functions at

the GP. Lok Karmis should not be over loaded with work that they can’t

deliver.

17. As Lok Sevaks/ Lok Karmis are anchored in Voluntary Organizations,

they are insulated from nexus between local PR officials and government

functionaries. The success of several ‘consortium partners’ of leading

Voluntary Organizations in different parts of the country have showed that

they act primarily as “Local Area Resource Persons” or “Community Resource

Persons’ trained regularly by the Vos.(Partners of the National Consortium of

Civil Society Organizations on NREGA such as the Jaisamand Consortium in

Rajasthan, Wassan in AP, Karnataka Consortium, Western Orissa consortium

in Orissa and so on)

18. In cases of violations of provisions of the Act /Guidelines with regard to

implementation of Lok Sevaks/ Lok Karmis, appeals can be made to DPC and

District Ombudsman for MGNREGA. However, care needs to be taken that

credible and reputed voluntary organizations are accorded protection of

‘natural justice” so they do not become victim of district level administrative

politics.

19. All expenses on operationlizing the scheme of Lok Sevak/ Lok Karmi

should be borne under 6% of the administrative expenses.

3.7

4.7 iInfrastructural and mMobilisation sSupport

Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendras: Infrastructural and Moblizational Capacity Building Support

The Construction of Bhart Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra’ under schedule I para 1(g) at the Gram Panchyat and Block level vide notification no. S.O. 2877(E) dated 11/11/2009( MoRD) is a much needed step to bridge the gaps/shortages in ‘infrastructural resources’ for Panchayati Raj Institutions and also provide additional

59

support facilities for establishing dedicated office of MGNREGA for implementation at the GP and Block level. As we know that there are about 40% of Panchayats in the country without any building for office space; several states barring Kerala have long been demanding infrastructural and human resource support for robust functioning of PRIs. The Working Group agrees with the policy guidelines of constructing Bhart Nirman RGSK and supports the construction of BNRGSK on a priority basis over the next three years as a major capacity building initiatives under MGRNEGA for realisation of the rights of labourers and reenergizing PRIs in the implementation of MGNREGA. The major capacity building activities at the Gram Panchyat/ Block level could easily be placed. BNRGSV should be equipped with telephones, photocopiers, fax machines etc. This will function as an ICT enabled “Knowledge Resource Center” or “Public Facilitation Centres’ where MGNREGA labourers can submit applications for job cards, works, Muster roll scrutiny, Complaints and interact with MGNREGA staff/personnel along with representatives from PRIs. This will also enable mobilization of labourers through the proposed scheme of Lok Sevak/Lok Karmis for social audit. The grievances may be transferred to the concerned NREGA authorities and Ombudsman for disposal. Software on People’s Information System with touch screen facilities may be developed and hosted in these centres to ensure quick delivery of information and recording of public views and complaints. Toll free helpline services can also be provided at the RGSK and also be equipped with the facility to facilitate coordination with the Media, organize visits of media persons to worksites, track media stories on MGNREGA implementation and refer them to the MGNREGA Authorities for verification. BNRGSK will also function as Single window information centre for all MGNREGA related information, and most importantly, all training and capacity building efforts could be organized at BNRGSK at the GP and block level. Additionally, BNRGSK will also help set the tone for facilitating the implementation of Panchyati Raj activities into a ‘Mission Mode’.

60

CHAPTER – V

A New Cyberstructure for MGNREGA;

ICT/GIS BASED CAPACITY BUILDING

REFORMS

5. Information Technology for Management Support

Apart from implementation, a critical role in ensuring entitlements under

MGNREGA is that of monitoring. To ensure timely delivery of deliverables in any e-

governance initiative, concurrent monitoring is a must. In this endeavour, apart from

professional assistance that IT for MGNREGA becomes crucial in ensuring best

results. Already, the IT system for MGNREGA is a pioneer in terms of the huge

amount of information that it has warehoused and made available. We look at how

this good start could be made better.

The potential advantage of using IT systems for governance lies in:

1. the speed with which data can be processed and made available in

meaningful forms

2. the availability of data nearly concurrently with its online updation/entry

through networks, so that information is available pro-actively and to a

larger audience (in a paper system, this information would have to be

dug out to become available)

3. the breaking of artificial barriers of geography, boundaries etc. to flow

of information (in paper systems such boundaries do not automatically

break there therefore a systemic support for information suppression)

61

Of these, the last two are key to engendering transparency and together all

three make for contributions in governance which only IT make. Thus, IT systems

can become tremendous potential allies in concurrent monitoring, enabling

preventives to be placed in line before situations deteriorate. They can also directly

enable attaining entitlements and finally, they can become potent tools for grievance

redressal

5.1 Usefulness of IT in the MGNREGA Context

We look at the present status of IT systems in the MGNREGA context and

discuss how it can be improved. The following table illustrates the broad stages of

MGNREGA workflow and the requirements of different stakeholders.MGNREGA Workflow and Stakeholder Expectations from IT

Stakeholders and Objectives of IT Use

Wage Seekers Implementors Monitors/ Grievance Redressers

Primary Objective: Getting Entitlement in the Act

Primary Objective: Implementing and

Planning Work to Fulfill Legal Mandate

Primary Objective:

Monitor Programme for Quality, Smooth Out

Bottlenecks and Ensure that Entitlements Reach Wage Seekers on Time

Stages of MGNREGA Workflow11

What IT must Enable to Fulfill these Objectives

• Worker registration and issue of job cards

• Work demand applications

• Planning and estimation12

• Sanction of work

• Estimating

• demand for work must be visible to implementor

• work must be provided within the stipulated time

• wages for work done should be paid transparently, without any

• that information of work demand reaches them

• estimates and plans are drawn up in the shortest possible time to meet this demand

• estimates of cost are not

• availability of updated information which is as close to reality as possible

• tracking of the implementation of the MGNREGA schemes as they go from stage to stage

11 This does not attempt to capture all complexities involved in the work flow but is offered more by way of illustration. A more detailed discussion on the workflow (as analyzed for the APREGS) can be found in Tata Consultancy Services (2006)

12 Although shown in a sequence, planning and estimation are not activities that need to wait for work demand . Nor should work demand be contingent upon work estimates prepared which seems to be the de facto situation today, because proper shelves of work rarely exist. So work demand on the MIS is always made equal to the work supplied by the simple method of normally entering work demand when a particular work has been estimated and sanctioned

62

material requirements

• Start of work

• Daily attendance and preparation of muster rolls

• Measurement and valuation at fixed intervals

• Preparation of pay order

• Payment to wage-seekers through bank accounts

• Accounts/book keeping

leakages and preferably at the doorstep

• work done must be visible to monitors to ensure that entitlements are fairly met

• non-fulfilment of demand or non-compliance with legal requirements of wage payments should become known to monitors for concurrent redressal

bloated• the process of

sanctions and releases is expedited

• work is started with minimum delay

• worker payments are made within a stipulated time

• wage payments reach workers and fraud and fudging is rooted out

However, for IT to be able to deliver along the above lines a necessary

condition is that it becomes central to the workflow and is tightly integrated end to

end. In mixed mode systems, IT often ends up being an appendage to the main

workflow which is carried out through the normal channels of paper. Under the

circumstances there is no a-priori reason to presume that the information in the IT

system is up to date. Hence the cutting edge advantage is lost.

In addition, for maximization of benefits, it requires a system that is real time

and online. The first is a case for better use of IT. The second requires better

connectivity backbones and hardware and innovations to ensure that more and more

such aspects of work are brought under the purview of IT which are traditionally

thought of as belonging to the domain of notesheets and files.

Both of the above lead to a situation that enables information to be as fresh as

possible across a network and thus enable tighter monitoring. We discuss below

some possible directions in which IT systems need to move (and are already moving

in some states), with the recommendation that the MGNREGA implementation and

monitoring system is strengthened by mainstreaming these. Where needed, the

MoRD needs to build partnerships and common steering groups in order to enable

this, such as with the UIDAI.

Online Real Time Work Demand

A common issue with work demand is that work demand is not immediately

visible on the MIS. It is equal to the work supplied because entries are made post-

facto. It is also quite common for functionaries to refuse to entertain work demand

applications because of lack of adequate preparedness to open works. Under the

63

circumstances, information on real work demand may be suppressed. In terms of IT

for monitoring, the issue is to make this work demand visible as soon as it arises. If

MGNREGA correspondents with a handlheld or a computer are available even within

the perimeter of the GVS or the Block, the application can be made online.

For those monitoring the system, this is enough information to trigger needed

oversight functions. A cellphone based online work demand application system can

be worked out wherein a short message from a wage seeker's cellphone in a pre-

defined format lodges itself on a server at the state level. The PO's office, which is

also part of the network takes cognizance of the application and ensures that

employment is provided.

It needs to be emphasized here that from the viewpoint of IT for monitoring

MGNREGA, the sanctity of the work demand application is unquestionable. Since

this is the demand which the entire system is geared to provide and is thereby a

monitoring yardstick against which the sluggishness of the delivery system needs to

be measured.

Similarly, the opening of works is again an event which is recorded post-facto

along with wage payments. If the initial work demand is visible, the system will be

able to flag any delays in subsequent stages and raise the necessary alerts down

the line.

Online Real Time Grievance Redressal

A similar system can be visualized for complaints and their redressal. Either

they are entered through handhelds or directly by the wage seeker through her

cellphone and the complaint is lodged to a central server. A recent move in Uttar

Pradesh to enable a cellphone based complaints and grievance redressal system is

on simlar lines (see Seth, 2009)

The major contribution of such IT reforms will be to ensure greater and tighter

monitoring of MGNREGA work so that essential parameters of timely delivery are

ensured. It will also support, by making available current information for public

scrutiny such as social audits. Together with decentralisation of implementation, this

is the second step in ensuring that the core objectives of MGNREGA are met.

Real Time Online Muster Rolls, Work Attendance and Measurements

A system can be visualized whereby handhelds are issued to field workers

under MGNREGA, and muster rolls are directly updated online to the state-level

servers by biometric identification of the workers who are present on site. Such an

immediate updation will go a long way in aiding concurrent monitoring. In fact, the

paper muster roll can be a print out of the online muster. Fitted with GPS and

webcam facilities, the system should further aid in verification of the work being done

on the site at which is reportedly being done. It seems that this has also already

been piloted in different states by the MoRD. The results of this pilot should be made

public and appropriate policies framed on the feedback.

64

Alternatively, all job card holders in a village are loaded in the registered

mobile available with the field assistant. Each day, for each work, the muster

attendance is easily registered name-wise and sent to the central computer by a

compressed SMS system. Details of the number of workers at each work-site can be

queried both on the website and through SMS by any interested public for

verification. The verification teams use this extensively to weed out any bogus

muster rolls.

Each technical assistant responsible for taking measurements is given a

mobile phone where measurements are recorded and sent by compressed SMS to

the central server along with GPS coordinates. This will ensure that the TAs visit the

work site and avoids delay in processing the payments at the mandal computer

centers

5.2 Biometrics and UID-Enabled IT Application Layer for MGNREGA

Each of the online systems referred to above can use the authentication

mechanism proposed under the UIDAI. Non-repudiable, de-duplicable and possibly

bi-directional13 authentication mechanisms, with a facility for beneficiaries locking

their identification information14 have been mooted as part of the UIDAI design. This

has the potential of engendering far greater transparency than a paper based system

which is far more susceptible to identity fraud. Simultaneously, this mechanism can

also ensure that crucial data are concurrently available for monitoring. The identity

can function as a single window for the entitlements of the poor not only under

MGNREGA but all government schemes such as the proposed Food Security Act,

health care, education and so on. The business of manual updation of job cards and

the consequent bad practices of some people keeping workers cards can potentially

become redundant.

13 A bi-directional authentication mechanism can potentially prevent identity fraud made possible through system crackers cracking the handheld device used for authentication and using it to spoof identity. Consider the following: the UID holder (say a MGNREGA worker) authenticates against the UID servers through her biometrics. The equipment used to facilitate this authentication may be a handheld device. The underlying technology used in the device may be cracked by malicious crackers to spoof the identity. Under the circumstances, a bi-directional authentication mechanism also authenticates the handheld device for its genuineness and integrity.

14 Once the transaction is over, the beneficiary, using her identification mechanism, locks her identity data. Essentially, this means that only she can herself unlock it, thus preventing unauthorized access, misuse and possible encroachments on privacy.

65

The technology architecture of UID is geared towards using biometrics15

based authentication systems on the basis of a unique identity number. The system

is proposed to guarantee maximum accuracy when it is used online. It is quite clear

from the UIDAI design architecture that smartcard technologies are not part of the

architecture. The authentication mechanism is biometric based and does not need

smart cards. Further, differing backend technologies for smartcard-based

authentication, or any other design point which violates the fundamental principles of

open standards and interoperability are unacceptable to the UID design.

Since UID is going to be the identity proving mechanism in the not-too-distant

future, its relationship with any application layer in the social sector becomes critical

and synergistic. Critical because (1) any non-UID based authentication architecture

potentially faces the problem of non-conformance and redundancy in the not-too-

distant future; and (2) if the MGNREGA IT architecture is not sufficiently prepared for

the backend authentication proposed by the UID, there will be problems. Synergistic

because the sort of connectivity backbone that is required to make UID

authentication foolproof will also benefit MGNREGA.

It is this Working Group's recommendation that a coordination mechanism

between MGNREGA and UID is pro-actively worked out by MoRD. It is on the basis

of this understanding that a clear IT plan to be rolled out should be made so that

MGNREGA has strategically positioned itself to maximize the wage-seeker's

benefits.

Another advantage of a single unified identification mechanism is in its

potential to make possible digital sanctions and orders by providing a mechanism for

non-repudiable authentication of any transaction. This can greatly speed up

processing of work flows at critical points and its uses for MGNREGA also need to

be explored.

5.3 Banking Correspondent Model

Labour payments in MGNREGA through banks or post office accounts16 have

been made compulsory since 2008. With 80 million MGNREGA wage seeker bank

accounts opened and 80% of MGNREGA wage payments already being made

through this route, MGNREGA has ushered in unprecedented financial inclusion.

Under the circumstances, it is desirable to think of ways in which the problems in the

system are taken care of such as:

15 There is also considerable debate around the use of biometrics and its efficacy in a high-volume transaction environment. The GoI has set up a Committee for framing the Biometric Standards for UID has also been set up (http://uidai.gov.in/documents/Biometric%20Standards%20Committee%20Notification.pdf)

16 In this section, the term "bank" is used to mean banks and post offices

66

• There are not enough bank branches to deal with the number of wage-

seeker accounts that need to be created.

• The accounts, if created, have a lot of paper work associated with them

and banks are understaffed to take on this load, or otherwise do not

see it as a profitable enough proposition.

• At payment time, there are a large number of wage-seekers who come

for cash withdrawal to cater to by a very small staff.

• Panchayats too do not have the human resources to help wage-

seekers with all the paper formalities that banks require to be

completed

• wage-seekers are often not aware of bank procedures and do not know

how to use their accounts

• bank branches are located at a large distance from where the workers

live, so it is difficult for the to make frequent trips. For wage-seekers

under NREGA, frequent cash withdrawals are necessitated because

this cash is used to facilitate day to day consumption

• most shockingly, there may arise different types of collusion

mechanisms to beat the system. A "good samaritan" in the village can

volunteer to make withdrawals on behalf of several villagers. He can

collect their passbooks, get withdrawal slips signed, fill in one amount

and give the wage-seeker another, or ask for a cut for his services.

Even more serious cases are cited where for instance, contractors get

bank accounts opened in the name of the wage-seekers without their

knowledge. He then, along with the panchayat sewak fabricates muster

rolls. Whatever money is transferred to the bank accounts of the

labourers is eaten up by the two and unscrupulous elements in the

bank

Despite its various problems, everyone (including the villagers themselves)

are agreed that payment through bank transfers is a good thing and must stay. Its

basic premises of separating those in-charge of work execution from those in-charge

of payments and doing away with the handling of cash is fundamentally sound.

Here the role of Information Technology is being leveraged. All payments with

effect from March 2011 needs to be done in the village using bio-metric identification

process through smart cards. Under this, each beneficiary is issued a biometric

smart card (finger print technology) at the village level. In each village, Banks place a

Customer Service Provider (CSP) identified by the banker equipped with a smart

card reader networked to the bank server. Each beneficiary is given a bank account

after biometric authentication by the bank. All disbursements are credited

electronically to the accounts of the beneficiaries. Banks arrange cash to the CSP

67

using a Business Correspondent (BC). The MIS showing disbursement is available

online. A printer may give out details of the transaction as a paper record.

While extending the BC model to MGNREGA beneficiaries, a critical issue is

one of accountability, transparency and oversight. If individuals are chosen as BCs

there is a risk of unwanted practices setting in because of a lack of strong regulatory

mechanisms. There is also a risk that influential village persons may be found fit to

become BCs, which may actually be opening a backdoor entry channel for

moneylenders or may otherwise be discriminatory against the poor.

A possible solution to this issue which takes care of the accountability

concerns while using the BC model to the MGNREGA worker's advantage, may be

to harness the BC function within the MGNREGA's Project Officer and VDC Team.

Thus the PO's office and its associated VDCs are institutional BCs and it is the

institution which is responsible for the individuals carrying out the interface at the

village level.

5.4 Asset Management System for MGNREGA

Based on Working Group’s field visits in different states, interaction with different key stakeholders and also a workshop help at NIRD on 14 May 2010, the Working Group recommends setting up ICT/GIS enabled Assets Management System for MGNREGA. (AMS).( Ref to Appendix on the Workshop). This may be anchored /located in the Independent Research and Evaluation Division at the proposed Jaipur branch of NIRD (MoRD). Annual census of Assets of MGNREGA and regular updates on the progress of works could easily be monitored by the proposed AMS. This policy recommendation is in line with discussion being initiated by MoRD (Ref to 5Feb2010 MoRD Workshop on Decentralized Planning and Monitoring) A Public –Private Partnership (PPP) framework needs to be created for accessing and using the best skills, tools and technologies for developing and maintaining Assets Management System. The district administration with the help of ICT enabled ‘Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendras ‘(RGSKs) at the panchayat and block levels would uplink the AMS to NREGA division of MoRD.

In view of enormous size, complexity of implementing MGNREGA in diverse social, political and geo-climatic conditions and challenges of transparency and accountability, the Working Group recommends state governments to make best use of latest Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and frontier technologies like GIS to help ensuring effective planning, implementation and proper management of the programme and to bring transparency and accountability at all levels of implementation. Since MGNREGA is not only about wage payment but also about creating ‘durable assets’, (Section 2 Schedule1), census of asset on a continuous basis has emerged a major challenge. Let us not forget that MGNREGA has increasingly come under serious criticism for undertaking unviable and

68

untraceable works. Planning Commission of India in its studies have pointed that the actual ground level status of works is unknown in most cases unless physical verification is carried out. Therefore, the Working Group suggests setting up a robust and dynamic ICT/GIS enabled “Assest Management System’ as one of the most crucial ‘second generation reforms” for making MGNREGA a great success! Based on Working Group’s field visits in different states, interaction with different key stakeholders and also a workshop help at NIRD on 14 May 2010, the Working Group favours Assets Management System being anchored /located in the ‘Monitoring and Evaluation’ Division at the proposed Jaipur branch of NIRD (MoRD) or alternatively ‘Technical Secretariat’ of MGNREGA at MoRD. Annual census of Assets of MGNREGA and regular updates on the progress of works could easily be monitored by the proposed AMS. This policy recommendation is in line with discussion being initiated by MoRD (Ref; MoRD Workshop 14 Feb/2010). A Public –Private Partnership (PPP) framework needs to be created for accessing and using the best skills, tools and technologies for developing and maintaining Assets Management System. As mentioned in the ToR’s section a, subsection (iii) for “Strengthening Administrative systems at all levels”, creating Assets Management System is intended to enhance the capacity of existing administrative systems for efficient, effective and transparent delivery and tracking systems in MGNREGA. The Asset Management System will also support and promote application of various other ICT/GIS technologies for better implementation of MGNREGA in the country.

Policy Implications of applying ICT/GIS tools for MGNREGA

Many states such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, UP, West Bengal, Kerala, etc. have started using ICT tools like smart cards and hand held devices for the wage disbursement. ICT initiatives like Smart Cards have the potential to capture details of the Workers, Work and Wages (WWW) including the muster rolls and the job cards. One innovative aspect of smart cards and hand held devices are to use them, from wage disbursement to make them operate like a Job card, so that all transactions of MGNREGA programme be captured, like: registration, Job card, demand for work, issue of dated receipt, allotment of work, entry into muster roll like attendance from the field through hand held devices, which will be able to record latitude and longitude of the area, ensuring presence of worker at the worksite and using biometric based technology or through low cost ATMs. Among ICT initiatives, the Smart card and hand held devices have additional advantage of capturing delays and can be updated instantly in the MIS and accessible to the beneficiaries as well as the public, enhancing the management and monitoring of the programmes.

Geospatial technologies play a key role in generating timely and reliable information for planning and decision making at all the levels, i.e., from macro to micro. Even though it is widely recognized that Geographic Information System (GIS) has the capacity to analyse both spatial and non-spatial data including temporal aspects in a cost-effective and efficacious manner, its application at micro-level for utilities planning and resource management is fast emerging with the advancement of GPS and High Resolution Satellite Data. Planning at micro-level, a village is considered to be a viable micro-administrative unit and development of spatial database

69

infrastructure at village level will help in inventorying these resources into micro-level database, which can be a emerging potential technology tool for MGNREGS for effective planning, implementation and proper management of the Programme

The GIS based integrated geo-database at village level consisting of various thematic maps (e.g., village boundary map, block/tehsil boundaries maps, etc.), demographic data, socio-economic data and data related to infrastructural facilities (e.g., roads, educational facilities, health facilities, drinking water, power supply, etc.), proves a critical base for judicious decision making and realtime applications at village level.

A GIS based spatial model identifies the spatial gaps for provision of basic facilities and to propose new village locations for providing additional infrastructure by effective implementation of development programmes and policies. It is expected that user friendly GIS based spatial data infrastructure generated at micro-administrative unit will increase the efficacy of administration and resource mobilization as well as help in informed decision-making, thus generation of a Geographical Information System (GIS) based for Micro-level Planning evolving an application areas of Participatory GIS, for identifying strategies for community empowerment. Thus GIS offers solutions for social, rural development planning and provides an opportunity for Panchayats for integrated local development.

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is an example of frontier technology, promoting the concept of convergence. Systems developed with integration of spatial and non-spatial data, has brought a paradigm shift in implementation of GIS technology by extensive use of Satellite Remote Sensing, Global Positioning and other mobile mapping technologies. With power of integration, GIS today is being considered the nerve system for planning and has been providing effective services around the world. Visualization of terrain through high resolution satellites data, aerial pictures or maps, LIDAR captures spatial data. Embedded in GIS with non-spatial information has brought revolutionary changes in the implementation of traditional Management Information System (MIS). The power of visualization not only projects the ground reality, but also is capable of validating data.

Possible Areas of ICT & GIS intervention

An ICT and GIS interventions in the implementation of NREGA is important from the following perspective:

p) ICT & GIS ensures transparency and help in information dissemination (b) An ICT & GIS tools are required because the size of the programme is very large, not only from the geographical and financial perspective but from the perspective of the size of the target group of beneficiaries as well.

q) ICT & GIS facilitates online monitoring and evaluation of the programme. The timely feedback helps in timely corrective actions.

r) An ICT & GIS tools help in social audits whereby the local bodies and citizens may actually audit the programme at their end.

s) ICT& GIS plays important role every phase of the implementation of the MGNREGA.

70

Communication & Mobilization

4. Some of the ICT interventions that can be possibly used for communication & mobilization include community radio, television, public address systems, panchayat websites and the Internet to publicize the NREGA.

5. Information kiosks that have been set up in some villages and the 100,000 Common Service Centres being implemented by the Dept. of IT can be used as focal points to disseminate information on the scheme.

6. Village Resource Centre which has both communication and GIS and Satellite Remote Sensing based resource information on various works undertaken under MGNREGS for planning, implementation and monitoring.

Planning Phase

9. Creation of a database of durable, productive, labour-intensive works at Panchayat level. Mapping out socially productive and durable assets/infrastructure which can be created in the respective zones/clusters.

10. Issuing of job cards, digitization of muster rolls, persons employed, their output, wage rates, working hours etc can also be available for verification by the Panchayats, peers and the community through the use of ICT & GIS

11. The use of Smart Cards/Biometric cards to identify and track every beneficiary in the region and can be integrated with GIS.

Execution of Works

• Works Management System with authentic records of the attendance at the worksites with simultaneous updating of the employment records is necessary. Works identified in a particular block to be taken up under the scheme must be available for viewing and measurement by all Panchayats within that block.

• Work Flow Automation System may be introduced since the approval of works, allocation of works to an implementing agency etc. must be sanctioned by the Programme Officer or such local authority (including the Panchayats at the district, intermediate or village level).

• Disbursement of wages and unemployment allowance.

Monitoring

1. ICT provides for ensuring that the members of the designated rural household are only availing the guarantee of 100 days of employment and their wage employment rights are not being misused by others. Biometric

71

systems like fingerprint recognition may be used as potential solutions to address this issue. A fingerprint recognition based time and attendance system at the front-end backed by a comprehensive computerized MIS at the back-end may be able to address the issue.

2. Geographical Information System – The use of GIS can greatly enhance the monitoring of the NREGS. Digital maps can be made available for viewing to show the assets that have been created under the scheme and provide for the assessment of the quality of assets created.

Grievance Redressal System

Citizens registration of grievances at all Panchayat Levels and in offices of the Programme Officer and the District Programme Coordinator, made available online.

5. Citizens to track their grievances online.6. Number of households demanding jobs and number of households who

have been issued job cards. 7. Avoiding payment of unemployment allowance, whoever is provided a job

is registered.8. Variations in wage rates paid State wise.

SMS based fund transfer

To enable speeding up the process of fund transfers an innovative solution using mobile phones has been suggested. It works as follows;

Site Assistant Engineer sends the day's muster roll of NREGS beneficiaries by SMS. Village Payment Agent receives the SMS Village Payment Agent makes payment to NREGS beneficiaries based on muster roll received, a second SMS about payments made is sent to Panchayati Raj Department's Banker .On receiving the SMS, the Panchayati Raj Department's Banker transfers funds to Village Payment Agent's bank account. SMS database will be integrated with NREGS web portal to generate weekly payment details.

Using Rural ATMs

The low-cost rural ATM (Gramin-teller) can be implemented if the bank account transfer mechanism is put in place. The ATM works with both used and new notes and has a fingerprint based authentication system. It works on very low power with a built-in battery back-up and does not require air conditioning.

Synergetic Approach

There are other projects like Common Service Centres, e-Panchayats, etc., percolating down to the panchayat level and State-Wide Area Networks are also available at the panchayat level in some States, where the use of ICT & GIS in NREGA implementation should be seen in synergy and complementary to all these

72

initiatives that are contemplated or in progress. Then only can the full potential of ICT be harnessed for empowering the common citizen.

CHAPTER IV

STRENGTHENING RESEARCH AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR MGNREGA

PART-I

Policy Evaluation and Research Service (PERS)

73

Policy evaluation is a systematic process for assessing the design, implementation and outcomes, intended or unintended, of public policies. Evaluation uses social science research methods, including qualitative and quantitative techniques, to examine the effects of policies. Some policy scholars describe policy making as a sequential process marked by distinct steps, such as agenda-setting, policy formulation, adoption and implementation. For others, evaluation/assessment is the final step in this process. However, they all caution that the public policy process is ongoing, with evaluation often resulting in policy changes/correction which are then implemented and evaluated again. Policy evaluation enables all participants in the policy process, including legislators, executives, agency officials and citizens at large, to measure the degree to which a program/scheme has achieved its goals, assess the effects and identify any needed changes to a policy.

The two main types of policy evaluation are formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation examines the operations of the program, usually for the purpose of improving the program and assessing its implementation. For example, most PIN studies are primarily formative evaluation. Summative evaluation asks whether the program achieved its intended goals. Often, the best policy evaluations employ a creative hybrid or syncretic approach that uses both formative and summative techniques. Policy evaluation is rarely as simple or straightforward as some analysts may suggest. Factors that complicate evaluations include identifying goals, measuring performance and isolating the effects of policy from those of other endogenous or exogenous factors. Let us not forget that though policy makers often want immediate information on policy effects, but many programs/schemes have long-term effects (cascading or ripple) that will not be known in the short term.

Objectives: As the implementation of MGNREGA has entered its fifth year in a row, the Working Group recommends setting up PERS as a continuous policy evaluation and research think tank for enhancing the capacity of MoRD in its effective and efficient implementation of NREGA by developing innovative participatory approaches and syncretic methodologies for impact analysis, anticipating policy research needs of key stakeholders and responding to specific policy analysis requests in the areas of innovation, convergence and capacity building on all current and emerging issues in MGNREGA. Additionally, PERS would also function as a forum and clearinghouse for the sharing of information as well as the dissemination of best practices through workshops, seminars, publication of journals, reports, bulletins, briefs and other literature . PERS would also help create an environment for imparting expertise to people interested in rigorous program evaluation and training to policy makers/implementers on how to conduct randomized and qualitative evaluations in social policies. With a rigorous adherence to objectives of MGNREGA especially articulating voices of poor in the realm of livelihood security , PERS would help create a robust, dynamic and self-evolving knowledge-space that is authoritative, objective, nonpartisan and transparent in generic terms of monitoring and evaluation as mentioned in the Section 11 of the Act. Further, PERS is intended to breakdown the silos in social science research and deepen the sphere of participatory and informed dialogue between policy makers and civil society.

Why PERS? In the existing architecture of governance and capacity building support for MGNREGA, there is nothing in terms of independent policy research and evaluation support at the central or state level. PIN (Professional Institutional

74

Network) in the MGNREGA cell of MoRD is generally bureaucratically driven and often operates on the principles of ex-post-facto analysis of the implementation of MGRNEGA. Though Professional Institutional Network (PIN) has been instituted as an “integrated structure” (or network) for concurrent appraisal, diagnosis, remedial action and capacity building for steady, sustainable interventions, to enhance the quality of the programme, the impact of PIN studies on course correction, innovation and policy change is rather limited as most policies changes in MGNREGA have been carried out without any research and analysis support of PIN or any independent think tank located in the government or civil society. (expert groups of MoRD have indeed provided crucial support for policy changes) So far 61 studies have been commissioned by MoRD for the network of PIN but only 25 studies have been completed for policy appraisal in the last four years. Bulk of PIN studies (about 37 studies) have been commissioned in the last two years. Many of them have not yet submitted draft report. PIN suffers from not only from usual flaws of bureaucratic decision making but also usual selection bias, standardized format for impact analysis, and arbitrary criteria for choosing partners of PIN. There is also not clarity about the strategic vision of PIN. For instance, it is not clear what NIIT would do in its analysis of implementation of MGNREGA in the state of Delhi. Consider the case of Central Institute for Fisheries Education, Mumbai. Rather than doing study on ‘convergence” between MGNREGA and fisheries” or pissiciculture, the institute was awarded study on a generic impact analysis in Thane and Akola. Now, Central Institute of Fisheries Education has been give to undertake a generic impact analysis. In contrast, leading experts on poverty and rural development in places like Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research or IIT in Mumbai were either not consulted or not considered good enough to undertake impact analysis. .

Based on the field visit, interaction and meeting with key officials at NIAR (LABSNA) the Working Group on 28 April 2010 does not think that NIAR is equipped with enough in-house resources, skills, aptitudes and backed by quality researchers including dedicated professionals to justify the role of “ National Resource Center” for MGNREGA. In short, members of Working Group recommend that the NIAR needs to focus more seriously on research for teaching and training of career civil servants rather than undertaking Livelihood based development research. At the most, NIAR could be given resources for organizing peer learning workshops especially for DPC/ Collectors. Though MGNREGA is anchored in the decentralized administration of PRIs, the role of career civil servants especially District Collectors better known as District Program Coordinators (DPC) continues to be critical to the success of MGNREGA. (For a detailed report on NIAR, kindly refer to Annexure)

Though MoRD has now set up an Expert Group to recommend innovative methodologies for carrying our impact analysis, and commissioning impact analysis studies, there is urgent need for reforms of existing systems of evaluation and institutionalization of National Assessment or Evaluation System at the disposal of MoRD. The MGNREGA Technical Secretariat mainly provides administrative- professional support for the execution of MGNREGA as per the provisions of the Act. The Executive Committee of the Central Council is primarily an executive body engaged in giving directions to carry out the mandate of the Central Council. Barring some occasional and arbitrary impact analyses through PIN, there is no robust mechanism of continuous and comprehensive policy evaluation or appraisal of the implementation of MGNREGA at the state level. As they are mostly involved in the training programmes and providing logistic support to various programmes of Rural

75

Development, NIRD and SIRD have also not done more than lip-service to the needs of policy analysis of MGNREGA. Given the scale, reach and significance of MGNREGA in transforming the lives of poor and altering the meaning of social sector, an independent policy evaluation and research service is urgently required for MoRD.

Approach of PERS: Supported by existing mechanism of field-research based studies of PIN (Professional Institutional Network,) PERS would encourage interdisciplinary research methodologies in its framework of policy evaluation and analysis. The Book Series, Occasional Papers, Special Reports, Policy Briefs and Working Papers (published periodically) would present substantial research findings on data, methodological, and conceptual issues related to the implementation of MGNREGA. PERS would continue to use PIN’s network for commissioning research from independent researchers, collaborators, and partner institutions (Universities, Social Science Institute, IITs/IIMs etc) across the country. This will link governmental and non-governmental efforts in areas of policy research for MGNREGA and also give credence to research studies undertaken by PIN.

Location of PERS: It should ideally be located in the proposed branch of NIRD in Jaipur (Rajasthan). Headed by eminent persons from academia, development sector, civil society, and bureaucrats having experience in social sector, PERS would be functionally independent and may be registered as an autonomous society within the purview of MoRD. Or alternatively, PERS could be conceptualized as a dedicated division of Research and Evaluation in the Technical Secretariat of MGNREGA in MoRD. Ideally, this should be headed by eminent scholars/researchers from academia, development sector and civil society.

Structure of PERS: PERS will be composed of three units (or sections); namely “Independent Evaluation or Impact Assessment Unit’ that will focus on various implementing aspects including impact analysis and appraisal of MGNREGA. Second, ‘Research and Analysis Unit’ will be a new avatar of current PIN (Professional Institutional Network) for commissioning, guiding, and coordinating studies from a network of universities, social science institutes, and civil society organizations for fostering public-private partnership in the monitoring and evaluation of MGNREGA. Third unit will be “ Publication &Communication Unit”. This will be primarily responsible for publishing Policy Briefs, Occasional Papers, Special Reports, Working Papers, documentaries, short films etc. for effective and transparent dissemination of information and setting the stage for informed dialogue between people and the government about the implementation of MGNREGA.

Functions of PERS

---- It will provide critical policy research support to crucial areas of improving delivery systems, innovation, convergence and social audit in the implementation of MGNREGA. It will act like a “think tank” or policy hub” for incubation of research and analysis support to key stakeholders of MGNREG. In short, it will provide private-public interface in the assessment/evaluation of MGNREGA.

---- It will assist the Central Council and MGNREGA Technical Secretariat of MoRD by conducting independent research, review, appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of the implementing of MGNREGA for better policy feedback, impact analysis and innovation in course correction strategies.

76

-- It will operationally facilitate institutionalizing consortium approach of MoRD as reflected/articulated in PIN (Professional Institutional Network). In other words, PERS will formulate appropriate research methodologies and also commission studies from the network of PIN. Additionally, PERS will also provide knowledge support to NIRD and SIRDs in areas of training and capacity building. In short, PERS is proposed as “National Resource Support System” for implementation and monitoring of MGNREGA.

------ For greater public participation or what we call institutionalization of “epistemic community “ in the development discourses, PERS will also encourage and assist MoRD to support setting up ‘Centres for excellence in Rural Development/Livelihood’ and endowment of professorial chair/fellowship in the universities and research institutions. A beginning could be made from Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, known for best practices in the implementation of MGNREGA, in 2010-11.

PART-II

INNOVATIONS IN RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES FOR EVALUATION

Consider following propositions for innovation in methodologies for research& evaluation:

1. Livelihood Security ; Voice, participation and equity in MGRNEGA

Participation of labourers under MGNREGA, ( ‘the opening of work’) often takes place under ‘command and sovereign’ authority of bureaucratic power that places responsibility of participation (or burden of participation) on the "participants" as in most cases Panchayats collaborate/cooperate/collude with ‘authoritative power’ rather than people, especially poor. In other words, ‘transactions costs” are structurally biased against poor, more so if they remain unorganized and ill (under)-informed. Therefore, the idea of “Livelihood Security” as mentioned in the preface of the Act needs to given analytical anchorage in the evaluation studies because it has inspired not only a facile dichotomous analysis in terms of wage security vs creation of assets but also a growing schizophrenia in the current practices of evaluation analysis/or ‘appraisal science” that refuses to assign any value, normative or empirical, to the idea of ‘autonomous self’ or ‘agency’ in realization of the goals of MGNREGA. The voice (heard or unheard) and Will (general or insurgent) of the labourers, both as individual agent of change and also collective action, cannot be captured unless there exists a clearly defined robust and dynamic syncretic index of ‘Livelihood Security’ which looks not only at ‘income generation’, migration, financial inclusion, social capital, infrastructural development etc. but also interrogates starvation deaths, extent of destitution, layers of exclusion, transparency, accountability, equity, voice, participation and justice etc as markers/ indicators of success or failure of MGNREGA.

77

2. As we all know that the differences between quantitative and qualitative research methodologies are neither natural nor man-made; they are basically rooted in the difference between ‘styles and specific techniques’ as both apply a ‘unified logic of inference’. (King, Keohane & Verba; 1994). Quantitative research uses numbers and statistical methods where as qualitative research refers to case study based ‘interpretive methods” (ethnographic-historical or discursive). As we propose a propoor ” hermeneutic turn’, we wish to reject the so-called bifurcation of research methodologies into ‘quantitative-systematic-generalizing’ branch and ‘qualitative-humanistic- discursive’ branch for the purpose of analysis and interpretation (ala Clifford Gertz) of the impact of MGNREGA.

3. It is important to note that selection of Research Methodologies (RM) depends largely on the nature of the policy intervention being evaluated. Therefore, it is important to build research methodologies in the program/scheme from the beginning rather than treat them as “stand-alone” evaluation or assessment decided by arbitrary bureaucratic fiats. The organic grounding of Research Methodologies (RM) will allow policy makers, government, operational staff and management to focus on variables that are of long term use to implementers and also allow for mid-course correction in the policy. Therefore, though ‘randomized evaluations’ are popular (because of their high internal validity ), we should not ignore the importance of ‘interpretive methodologies” that map human motivations, contingencies and reversals in hierarchies of power.

4. We all know that quantitative methodologies have more secular and rigorous requirements in terms of data collation and analysis . Therefore, attempts need to be made for normalization of existing data. For example, MGRNEGA website has generated so much ‘crude data’ (the collection and posting of data on the site has not been perfect as Prof. Dreze has observed in his various analyses/reports on MGRNEGA) but without much rigorous analysis. We often hear ‘success stories’ in terms of person days at the aggregate level but rarely hear about the fate of ‘disaggregated data”. In other words, we need to develop methodologies to capture variation in time and space and also different sectors. Though many sophisticated mathematical models and statistical techniques are available in social science research, but their application needs to be kept to minimum for the sake of equity and access as ‘digital divide’ or ‘cyberspace inequality’ has a serious implication for the participation of poor in the employment guarantee program.

5. Participatory Actions Research Methodologies such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA ala Robert Chambers), Process Documentation, Barrier Analysis, etc. need to be used with more calibrated and critical case studies as several approaches of traditional participatory research have increasingly been challenged. Similarly, monitoring and evaluation methodologies for MGNREGA need to look into some of the popular accountability tools such as participatory budgeting/planning, public expenditure tracking, citizen monitoring of public service delivery, citizen advisory boards, community score card, development compact etc. for developing a people-centric methodology for evaluation. The voice of the participant needs to be articulated not as “subject” but as proactive agent of change. Much could be learnt from practices of ‘Neighbourhood Groups’ or Self-Help Groups”. Therefore, local cultural resources such as traditions of

78

dance-drama could be re-invented as an analytical tool in the assessment of MGNREGA and giving voice to the poor.

6. One of the serious shortcomings in the current system of appraisal or evaluation is lack of ‘Comparative Case Studies’ as it is quite known that some states have performed better than others. Using latest advances in comparative methodologies such as “Event Structure analysis”, “path dependency analysis’ etc., cumulative insights could be gathered about the differential impact and also nature of ‘social policy regimes’ in implementing MGNREGA. (Kohli, 1991; O’ Connor, 1993). The performance of MGNREGA has varied not only in terms of inter-sectoral dimensions but also has been impacted by changes in the ‘policy regimes’ both at the centre and also states.

7. Considering the growing significance of MGNREGA in the country, it would be useful to consider the feasibility of deploying ‘future research methodologies’ such as forecasting and scenario analysis. Since both methods look at the future course of direction of a policy, forecasting proposes to predict the facets/contours of the future by presenting a set of estimates and their likelihood of becoming reality. In contrast, a ‘scenario’ is more of a story, a plausible description that presents a series of causal links illustrating decisions and consequences of a policy. (Glenn and Gordon 2003) Though it seems premature to privilege any particular methods for forecasting future of MGNREGA, it may be useful to try out modified Delphi methods (with structured group of labourers, not experts), SWOT and PEST (political, economic, social and technological) analysis, for generating a ‘consensus model’ for assessing ‘group communication processes’ involved in the implementation of MGNREGA.

8. Additionally, methodologies for assessment or impact analysis need to consider factors such as attrition, (many labourers in places like Bihar, Orissa continue to migrate to high paying labour markets) spill overs ( the effect of MGNREGA on improved agricultural activities), noncompliance, contamination etc., for a more accurate assessment of the impact of the policy.

9. It would also be good to devise a different set of indicators or variables for assessing the impact of MGNREGA in ‘Left Wing Extremism affected areas’. In such areas a ‘diagnostic tool kit’ may be prepared for energizing the implementation of MGNREGA. Secondly, regions having unique climatic, topographical and social conditions such as North East, Leh etc., require a differentiated approach for developing suitable research methodologies.

10. The members of Working Group noticed during their group and individual field visits in states like Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Assam, and Meghalaya, that unless mobilized by civil society/ community based organizations in the villages, MGNREGA labourers generally lack the capacity for social mobilization due to multiple deprivations of class, caste and gender. They often suffer from systematic exclusion of their ‘voices’ from the Gram Sabha, a key element in the architecture of MGNREGA implementation. (This may be corroborated by various monitoring reports of MoRD and also independent civil society reports) This invariably results in the syndrome of capture of MGNREGA by ‘dominant interests” in the village society. Since the dominant perceptive on “Capacity Building” revolves around issues of personnel development, staffing

79

patterns, and training, poor labourers get left high and dry, often without any capacity whatsoever for resolution of dilemmas of collective action. Therefore, rather than wasting time and resources on so-called studies on “Social Capital”, PIN studies need to focus on various kinds of transactions costs and asymmetries that inhibit the social mobilization of labourers.

11. Given the shortage of trained-quality cadre and lack of skill development in Rural Development and Voluntary sector, the Working Group strongly suggests that MoRD should seriously consider recognising a one-year diploma course on MGNREGA, conducted by government and non-government training institutions spread across the country to build capacity. The proposed PERS at NIRD (Jaipur) needs to be involved in identifying eminent institutes of Social Sciences, IITs, and Agricultural Universities for running courses on Rural Development/ Rural Management/ Development Studies/ Social Entrepreneurship /Social Audit etc. to bridge the gap between demand and supply of Staff and personnel for implementing programs like MGNREGA. Necessary resource support for this could be made available from the Administrative costs of MGRNEGA.

CHAPTER V

CAPACITY BUILDING REFORMS FOR STRENGTHENING PANCHAYATI RAJ

80

Panchyati Raj and MGNREGA: Capacity Building reforms for PRIs

The Panchayats at district, intermediate and village levels are the principal authorities for the planning and implementation of NREGA under Section 13 of the Act. The main responsibilities of PRIs are outlined in the Sections 13 to 17 (salient features at Annex. I). It is worth recalling here that (i) at least 50 percent of NREGA funds are to be spent directly by the Gram Panchayats (GPs), (ii) the Gram Sabhas (GSs) are to recommend specific projects to the GPs and conduct social audit of NREGA works, (iii) the District Programme Coordinators and Programme Officers are to assist the District and Intermediate Panchayats respectively in the discharge of their functions. These features of NREGA offer a unique opportunity to strengthen and enable PRIs, particularly the GPs and GSs. The rejuvenated and enabled Panchayats, in turn, can become powerful instruments in making NREGA a great success. It is generally seen that States with vibrant and optimally sized Panchayats with requisite manpower have implemented MGNREGA better. For instance, the success of MGRNEGA in Rajasthan is positively correlated with the success of Panchayats in ushering in a new era of decentralization of power which is also turbocharged by new forms of associational energy and public activism. But it is worth recalling here that while panchayats are the primary planning and implementation agency for the NREGS, but they are often overburdened without requisite capacity to implement various development programs. There are more than 200 central schemes for rural areas and panchayats have to implement over three-fourths of them. Additionally, the Bharat Nirman programme has a component to be implemented through panchayats. The Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) is also to be implemented by panchayats alone. In a sample study done in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, the World Bank found that, on average, a village sarpanch or official has to keep track of 470 accounts and deal with 17 line departments involving 50 officials. Not only Panchayats are overburdened and understaffed but their critical deliberative and delivery institutions are also not functioning optimally and effectively. The working group has observed in its field visits in states that Gram Sabha rarely meets and occasionally performs its assigned statutory functions in the Act. Therefore, a better symbiosis between the NREGs and PRIs offers a unique opportunity to strengthen & enable PRIs with necessary manpower and infrastructure and in turn the enabled PRIs can become more powerful instrument in making the Mahatma Gandhi NREGA a much better success.

The Working Group, based on the field visits and also interactions with key stakeholders that include Ministry of Panchyati Raj, would like to suggest some policy steps for more effective integration of PRIs in the implementing architecture of MGRNEGA;

1. Converting PRIs into Mission Mode: “Panchayat Empowerment & Accountability Incentive Scheme” of MoPR ( Ministry of Panchyati Raj) may be made an integral part of the Mission.

2. Following Maharashtra Experience, state governments need to make six meetings of Gram Sabha as mandatory for enhancing the implementation of MGNREGA. Necessary amendments in the Constitution may be made in this regard.

81

3. For activation of Gram Sabha, Self-help groups of women may be given a salutatory role by state governments; the meeting of Mahila Groups must precede the meeting of Gram Sabha. Since MoPR (GoI) has already declared 2010 as the “Year of Gram Sabha”, we recommend adopting a “campaign mode of activation of Gram Sabha” with the help of leading civil society groups in a select panchayats in the country. An Expert groups needs to be formed to formulate the moblizational strategy in this regard.

4. Borrowing from Kerala experience, a campaign mode of decentralization must accompany the implementation of MGRNEGA in various states. Either transfer cadre (Kerala model) or create a new cadre for PRI( Bihar model): Learning from Kerala experience, the Working Group suggests that even while the State Government is the staff-creating and cadre-controlling authority, PRIs need to have full freedom in assigning work, supervising its execution, reviewing performance and even imposing minor punishments, if required. In future there should not be any permanent recruitment by the State Govt. for panchayati raj cadre. Instead Gram Panchayat needs to hire local cadre on contractual basis. On successful completion of contract for 3-5 years, local cadre will become eligible for permanent Govt. employee in future. A proper HR policy must back these measures.

5. Social Audit and participatory planning from MGNREGA could be used for enhancing financial and social accountability through due process in budgeting, transparency in decision making, particularly in selection of beneficiaries and in expenditures and mandatory reporting of performance to constituents.

6. Urgent steps need be taken to deploy essential staff such as Accountants, Gram Rozgar Sewaks, “Barefoot Engineers”, Data Entry Operators, Coordinators for social audit and grievance redressal etc. according to the need/size/terrain etc. of the Panchayats; MGNREGA Staff need not to be used as ‘proxy staff’ for Panchayats but as “ supplemental support systems”.

7. Role clarity: Key GP functionaries should be familiarized with their roles and responsibilities along with precise accountability. This may be facilitated through clear “Job Charts”. A system of modest honorarium and travel expenses need to be considered for representatives of PRIs. This can be financed from levy of local taxes by PRI.

8. Technical Manuals: Technical manuals for MGNREGA works need to be developed in a user-friendly format to facilitate GPs and GSs in the planning and implementation of Act. Some useful technical booklets, films, posters, etc., have already been developed by reputed NGOs such as PRADAN and Samaj Pragati Sahayog. The manuals prepared by MKKS and Right to Food Activists may also be used for MGNREGA.

9. Media(Electronic and print) and Community Radio: Rural newspapers such as ‘Khabar Lahariya, run by women in places like Chitrakoot and Banda districts of Uttar Pradesh needs to be given special support for promoting awareness about the employment guarantee Program by MoPR and MoRD.. Similarly, community radio and community video volunteers need to be used

82

for monitoring and social audit of MGNREGA. Technical and financial support to promote rural media needs to be supported under the administrative expenses and states need to be given flexibility to rely on local, indigenous resources.

CHAPTER VI

CAPACITY BUILDING REFORMS FOR

TRAINING

A. The Present Status of Training

1. The list of stake holders currently being imparted training is not inclusive.

2. There exists variation in the contents, methodology, duration, expected outcome and available physical infrastructure in training programmes of MGNREGA across states in India. (Example: Kerala, AP, NE States, Bihar, Rajasthan, Maharashtra).

83

3. Although, some of these variations can be explained in terms of different nature of institutions and stakeholders involved, level of social moblization and presence of regional specificities yet a good amount of variation is due to unnecessarily differently designed course contents and delivery mechanisms.

4. In all the states, most of the stakeholders of NREGA including DPCs, ADPCs, POs, Line Officers, Zilla Parishad Heads, Panchayat Samiti Chairmen, Gram Panchayat Heads, Civil Society Members do not realize that NREGA is meant to be an effective process of rural development but not an end in itself in the form of wage employment. They fail to understand that NREGA is an effective intervention in contemporary rural development practice. This failure in understanding, leads to consider NREGA as simply a wage employment programme.

5. There is no bench marking of course contents and institutional capability, identification and preparation of a list of trainers and experts at national, regional and sub-regional levels.

6. Training Needs Assessment for different stakeholders has not been undertaken.

B. Following are some of the general recommendations;

• A dedicated division in MoRD for looking after the training needs of various development programmes of MoRD. Further, MoRD could identify eminent social workers, academics and policy makers as “National Fellow” and place them either in NIRD/SIRDs or Universities/ Social Science Institutes for strengthening the training and skill development of communities from the civil society and government.

• MGNREGA division of MoRD urgently needs to set up an ‘Expert Group’ to identify the training gaps and shortcomings for strengthening the implementation of Act. The ToR of the Expert group needs to cover NIRD and SIRDs as well as SIRDs are in most places are imparting mechanically and almost dysfunctionally without any input from latest research and analysis. The Expert group also needs to identify eminent institutes of national repute for placing key officials and staff for training and skill development.

• For urgent need of ‘communitization of capacity building’, MoRD needs to declare people based rural development centres in Ralegaon Siddhi, MKKS in Vijaypura, SPS(MP), Vilasrao Salunkhe (Pani-baba)’s experiments in Purandhar block in Pune, Subhas Palekar’s Zero budget agriculture in Amaravati and various similar innovative experiments across the country as “National Centres for excellence for Community Learning’ for imparting training in rural development.

• MoRD also needs to benefit from an innovative public and civil society partnership model in which voluntary organizations, foundations and social science research institutes, IITs, IIMs etc. provide continuous and

84

comprehensive learning. CAPART needs to be made more proactive in “ communitization “ of training pedagogy, tools and course contents; CAPART could easily undertake the exercise of identifying leading, credible and innovative civil society organizations or voluntary organizations involved in the development of rural India. This can be done by the “National Standing Committee of EC members of CAPART.

• The whole net work of Nehru Yuvak Kendras which can be used for awareness generation, planning and training in MGNREGA remain stuck in some cosmetic works of youth development. This trend needs to be reversed by convergence between Nehru Yuvak Kendras and MoRD.

• Based on visits and interactions with key officials and researchers at NIRD, SIRD (Rajasthan/ Bihar/ Guwahati) and KILA (Kerala), the Working Group recommends NIRD (Hyderabad) to undertake urgent reforms for restructuring the existing institutional and management processes . NIRD indeed could provide excellent logistic and coordination support and create congenial support systems for debate and discussion but it seriously lacks quality research environment. This will not happen unless NIRD is gradually freed from excessive bureaucratic control and given more academic freedom for introducing innovative course contents and teaching tools through new perspectives on participatory and inclusive rural development. For management reforms, NIRD could learn a lot from KILA model in Kerala. Given the vast resources and faculty available at its disposal, NIRD could easily transition into a full-fledged institution for imparting training to officials involved in the implementation of various flagships programs of rural development (MGNREGA, NRLM etc.) Since MoRD has already formed an Expert Group they consider reforms for NIRD (Hyderabad), the Working Group would prefer to wait for the report of the Expert Group.

• The proposed chapter of NIRD at Jaipur needs to be declared a dedicated “National Institute of Rural Development” for fulfilling the goals of MGNREGA and NRLM (National Rural Livelihood Mission) by undertaking the tasks of research, impact analysis, training and advocacy services. Jaipur chapter of NIRD should ideally be designed as“ Policy Hub for Innovations(PHI)” in rural development in India.

• As the exclusive focus on courses and programmes in various aspects of Rural Development and Management has been missing in the current architecture of university education in India, the Working Group recommends MoRD to urgently set up an “Expert group” to examine of the feasibility of incubating new courses and studies in the university system.

• . Overhauling of training ethos and contents: Most of the stakeholders of MGNREGA including workers, GP functionaries, officers and officials at the block level consider NREGA as a wage employment programme. However,

85

MGNREGA is now focused to be an effective intervention in contemporary development practice. To recast NREGA in the developmental canvas, we suggest that the important stakeholders of the programme be imparted a short course on “The Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”. The course should have some (i) elements of development theory that includes current thinking on development( like sustainable development, participation, social capital creation through mobilization, capability expansion of individuals and communities and role of institutions (ii) an understanding of development practice that relate and flow from these theories including role of democratic decentralization, (iii) an explanation of how NREGA is an intervention in contemporary development practice and finally (iv) an understanding of the dynamics of rural development through MGNREGA that provide insight to read and rewrite the theory and practice of rural development. The essential investigation of the course should be to link up MGNREGA with capability enhancement, sustainable development , social mobilization and participation.

• Four national level training Institutes in four regions: The Working Group feels the necessity of identifying four national level institutes in four regions of the country for organizing training and workshops on NREGS for DPCs, ADPCs, Zilla Parishad Presidents/chairmen, senior civil society members, Ombudsmen, senior journalists and other elected representatives like MPs and MLAs. Since NIRDs have their branches in Hyderabad, Guwahati, Patna and Jaipur (Upcoming), we feel that the Hyderabad branch can accommodate participants from Southern and Eastern states, Guwahati branch can accommodate participants from all the North eastern states, Jaipur branch can cater to participants from western regions and Patna branch can accommodate participants from northern and central states. However, NIRDs need to overhaul their infrastructure, course contents, and faculty competence. As Patna NIRD is hardly functional so efforts need to be taken up for revamping the existing architecture of NIRD.

• Strengthening of SIRDs; SIRDs can conduct training programmes, workshops, brainstorming sessions on NREGS for other stake holders . However, they need to be strengthened in terms of physical infrastructure, faculty number and core competence. Their existing ETCs also need to be strengthened and more ETCs need to be established. Use of ICT like videoconferencing should be encouraged.

• Preparation of Register of national level experts in NREGS training: A list of national level eminent subject experts on NREGS can be prepared by NIRDs/NREGS Cell of MORD and the same can be displayed in the website of these institutes/MORD along with the detailed contact addresses of them. Similar exercise can be done at the state and regional level by the SIRDs/NREGS cell of State Governments.

86

C: Following are some of the specific recommendations:

1. Need to expand the list of stakeholders for training:

(a) Government Functionaries: DPCs, Additional DPCs, Programme Officers, Additional Programme officers, Police Officers, Officers of line departments like agriculture, horticulture, tourism, irrigation, soil conservation, forests , Assistant Engineers, junior engineers, block Panchayat secretary, secretaries of Gram Panchayat.

(b) Elected Representatives and Members of PRIs : MPs, MLAs, Zilla Parishad chairman, Panchayat Samiti chairperson, Gram Panchayat heads like sarpanch, members of Panchayat Samiti/block Panchayat, Members of Gram Panchayat, Members of Gram Sabha.

(c) Technical Staff working and would be working under NREGS : TA, Gramrojgar Sahayak, Accredited Engineers, Data Entry Operators and Accounts Assistants/Accountants, Mate etc.

(d) Representatives of Civil Society: NGOs, Vigilance and Monitoring committee members, Self Help Groups, Neighbourhood Groups, social audit professionals.

(e) Ombudsmen

2 Model Training Module for District Programme Coordinators

(This is a model training module for DPCs. Same modules can be prepared for other stake holders in MGNREGA)

Objective

To sensitize the participants the relevance and potential of MGNREGA in development perspective in general and rural development perspective in particular.

To understand the requirements, components, processes of planning, implementation and monitoring of MGNREGS.

Expected Outcome

The training programme would enable the participants to

87

Contextualize MGNREGA in the current development theory and practice

Understand the role of DPC in management of the programme both in its processes and outcomes.

Ensure convergence of development schemes, minds and skills

Handle MIS for effective data management and monitoring of NREGS

Understand the role, use and importance of ICT in asset management in NREGA

Appreciate the importance of NREGS in ensuring good governance

Understand the details of management of finance, people, pragramme processes and outcomes.

Content Details

1. NREGS as an effective intervention in contemporary development practice

(a) Evolution of the concept of development as theory and practice from economic growth to sustainable development. Concepts and practices in capability expansion, sustainable development, participation, mobilisation and empowerment.

(b) Evolution of economic system, agents of development and mechanism of resource allocation in the context of development theory and practice.

(c) Linking these concepts and practices with rural development theory and practice.

(d) Genesis and evolution of Rural Development models and practices in developing countries including India

(e) NREGS as a contemporary rural development practice in Livelihood security.

(f) Evolution and appraisal of wage employment programmes in India

(g) NREGS from programme to Act

2. NREGS and its relevance for the state of -------

3. NREGS Process

88

(a) Understanding the provisions of NREG Act, with respect to demand for work, job card availability, workers entitlements, institutions involvement in its planning, implementation and evaluation.

(b) Preparation of scientific district perspective plan for NREGS, labour budgeting, demand forecasting in the light of the seasonality of jobs, cultural and social practices of the people etc.

4. Convergence of works and schemes in NREGS

Identifying the works, schemes, departments , officers and officials for convergence and exploring the possibility for convergence in meetings of the district planning committees.

5. Role of DPC in management of the programme both in its processes and outcomes.

(a) Duties and responsibilities of DPC under the act.

(b) DPC and sound management practices with respect to planning, implementing and monitoring of NREGS processes and outcomes.

6. MIS and NREGS monitoring

(a) Why data management in NREGS?

(b) MIS and NREGS-An Overview

(c) Areas of process monitoring and MIS

(d) District level appraisal and monitoring mechanism.

7. Use of ICT in Asset Management in NREGS.

(a) Importance of ICT in asset management

(b) Potential of ICT use in asset management

8. Good Governance and NREGS

(a) NREGS and Transparency

(b) NREGS and Accountability

(c ) NREGS and public vigilance

89

(d) NREGS and Social Audit

(e) NREGS and Ombudsman

9. Management of Finance and people

(a) Funds Flow in NREGS

(b) Sectoral utilization

(c ) On line reporting

(d) Deployment of people in NREGS

(d) Reporting in NREGS-monthly and Annual

CHAPTER VII

CAPACITY BUILDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NORTH EAST

The Northeast

The North Eastern Region of India includes the eight sister states of Arunachal,

Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, and a recent entrant,

Sikkim. It has a landmass of 2.62 lakh sq. km that covers 7.9 per cent of the total

area of the country. The total population of 39 lakh (2001 census) accounts for 3.8

per cent of the country’s total population. About 70 per cent of the region is hilly, and

the topography varies within each state. Mountains and hills cover most of Arunachal

Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Sikkim and about half of Tripura, one-fifth

90

of Assam and nine-tenth of Manipur. The economy of the region reflects its

backwardness with 56 per cent of workers engaged in agriculture as per census

2001. The region is industrially very backward with the contribution of this sector

being less than 3 per cent in all the states, except for Assam and Manipur where it is

12 per cent and 8 per cent respectively. The poverty level in the region is among the

highest in the country with the percentage of population below poverty line in the

states ranging from 36 to 29 per cent4, compared to the all India average of 26 per

cent.

The region is also characterized by low per- capita income, low capital formation,

inadequate infrastructure facilities, geographical isolation and communication

bottlenecks, and higher unemployment rate . The level of agriculture productivity is

very low with a large section of the farmers, especially in the upland areas engaged

in shifting cultivation. In both the periods i.e. 1980s and 1990s, the average growth in

NSDP for the north eastern region as a whole, has been lower than the all India

average. In 1990s the situation has even worsened. Whereas for the country as a

whole, the average growth rate has marginally increased from 5.5 in 1980s to 5.8 in

1990s, for the north eastern region, it has decreased from 4.4 to 3.6 during the same

period. The situation has grossly deteriorated in Assam. Except for Arunachal and

Tripura, in all other states, growth rates in NSDP have not exhibited any difference

during the last 20 years.Inequality in the north eastern region as measured by the

Gini coefficient, has increased for the period from 1993-94 to 1999-

2000(Panda:2010). What worries one is the fact that this inequality has increased

during this period in all the north-eastern states except Meghalaya. The fact that the

primary sector contributes close to one third of the GSDP and in terms of

employment to more than half of the workers, strengthens the belief that there is

disguised unemployment and underemployment in the rural sector of the economy.

Thus, considering this high degree of underdevelopment manifested in poverty,

inequality, disguised unemployment and underemployment, environmental

exploitation, the necessity to initiate a programme like NREGS was all the more

necessary in this region.

91

It has been more than four years that phase-I of NREGA have come in to effect in

the region. Since this programme is comprehensive both in terms of its coverage and

explicit and implicit objectives, and initial appraisal of its process of implementation

and the extent, nature , productivity and sustainability of its outcome(Panda:2009),

inter alia, brings up the issue of capacity deficiency at different levels as one of the

limiting factors for the overall success of the programme; a comprehensive

understanding of the capacity issues in MGNREGA in the North East is all the more

important and pertinent.

Capacity Deficiency in MGNREGA in North East

Deficiency in capacity is found in all the three levels i.e. (i) Individual

stakeholders(workers, govt. officers and officials, PRI functionaries, functionaries of

officials created under act in the absence of PRI system, neighbourhood

functionaries etc.), (ii) community and (iii) institutions involved in implementation and

monitoring of this programme. Often the deficiency in one of these stakeholders

affects the other and vice-versa. For example, capacity deficiency in institutions

leads to capacity deficiency in individual stakeholders and community and vice-

versa. Hence, in the North-East, there exists a low level circle of capacity deficiency

in rural development programmes in general and MGNREGA in particular. These

low capacity bases in these three levels act and react upon each other keeping the

overall level of capacity in MGNREGA delivery in the region in a perpetual state of

underdevelopment. To be specific these deficiencies manifest in the front of

manpower availability, training institutions, capability of the institutions to undertake

and impart training, training modules, institutional capacity to mobilize workers, PRIs

and their functionaries, civil society, governance and leadership.

Manifestation of Capacity Deficiency: Some Facts

Individual awareness about the programme details is not comprehensive. A Quick

appraisal of NREGA in the state of Meghalaya undertaken by Panda in 2009 shows

that 45% of the workers (stakeholder-I), 35% of the AEC and VEC Members

92

(stakeholder-II), 40% of the Third party (stake holder-III) are not aware of the basic

provisions of MGNREGA. This study also further highlights that (i) half of the workers

surveyed in a study area did not specify their required demand of employment, (ii)

Forty percent (40%) of the workers agreed to the fact that the job card was not

issued to them within 15 days of their application, (iii) On an average 76.25 % of the

workers opined that they did not get work with in 5 km range of their village.

According to stakeholder II, (i) in 40% of the cases Gram Panchayat does not issue

receipt of the application, (ii) 50% of the Vigilance and Monitoring Committee

members are not be trained regarding NREGA and (iii) about 89% of the mates

and 13% of Gram Rozgar Sewaks recruited have not undergone any formal training

on NREGA (iv) in 15 percent of cases, works in progress are not being technically

supervised regularly, (v)19 % of the work completed are not recorded in the Asset

Register, (vi) Gram Rozgar Sewak is not available for each Village/Dorbar, (vii)

payment to workers is not made trough banks and post offices, (viii) There is the

absence of PRI institutions in some of the NE states like Meghalaya and Arunachal

Pradesh.

Capacity Deficiency in Training:

The visit of the working group to the North East and its interaction with various

stakeholders(minutes of it are given in Appendix-) brought out the deficiency in

training institutes, spread of these institutes, training modules in NREGA very clearly.

NIRD-NERC which is located in Guwahati runs with only four regular faculties

including its Director. It does not have enough in-campus residential facility to

accommodate participants. In the absence of accomplished faculties in adequate

numbers with appropriate physical infrastructure, senior functionaries in NREGA like

state secretaries, DPCs, ADPCs are not interested to have their training undertaken

there. Further, the course modules for senior functionaries in NREGA deal more with

NREGA Process monitoring and management devoid of the required understanding

of the philosophy and theory of rural development and the role of NREGA therein.

SIRDs too suffer from same deficiency in faculty, supporting staff; concept

,management and understanding of the theory and practice of NREGA.

93

To overcome these deficiencies, we suggest strengthening, streamlining and

mainstreaming the faculty strength, infrastructure and training modules respectively

of NIRD-NERC, Guwahati and all the SIRDs in the region. Large states like

Arunachal Pradesh should open more extension centres of SIRDs in three different

regions of the state. We also suggest better networking of these SIRDs with their

extension centres and with NIRD Guwahati through video conferencing etc. Power

cut is a problem in interior regions of North East. These remotely located power

deficient SIRDs and their extension centres must be equipped with alternative

sources of power like solar power and DG Sets. The expenditure undertaken on this

head can be met from the administrative cost of the rural developmental

programmes including MGNREGA.

Most of the stakeholders of NREGA including workers, GP functionaries, officers and

officials at the block level do not realize that NREGA is meant to be an effective

process of development but not an end in itself in the form of wage employment.

To make it happen, we suggest that these important stakeholders of the programme

particularly the programme officers (BDOs) be imparted a short course on “The

Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”. The course should have

some (i) elements of development theory that includes current thinking on

development( like sustainable development, participation and role of institutions (ii)

an understanding of development practice that relate and flow from these theories

including role of democratic decentralization, (iii) an explanation of how NREGA is an

intervention in development practice and finally (iv) an understanding of the

dynamics of rural development through NREGA that provide insight to read and

rewrite the theory and practice of rural development in the context of the North East.

The essential investigation of the course should be to link up NREGA with capability

enhancement, sustainable development and participation in the region.

Capacity Deficiency in Mobilisation of Workers

In the NE Region, there is absence of institutions like strong civil society or grass

root NGOs to effectively mobilize and empower workers. However, the SHG

movement is slowly but steadily gaining ground. Hence we suggest better

94

coordination between SGSY and NREGA and explore the SHG route of mobilising

workers in NREGA.

Capacity Building and Social Audit

Concept of social audit is new to some parts of the people of the North East and

often runs in to problems because of age old cultural practices and community ethos

in the north eastern region. However, as social audit is mandatory in MGNREGA, we

suggest social audit workshops to be preceded social audit exercise and be

undertaken at village, block and district levels to reassure the people that it is not a

fault finding system rather a system of transparency, certification and inclusion. Once

the acceptability of social audit been established, initially this exercise can be

undertaken by reputed organisations like MKSS and afterwards can be passed on to

regional organisations of credibility, import and expertise.

Integration of substitute Institutions of PRI with indigenous/traditional

institutions and their capability Expansion.

The North Eastern region does not have PRIs in place in many NER sates like

Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. They have their indigenous/traditional

institutions like the Durbar and Gaon Budha System. Bringing in PRI-proxies by

legislation and integrating them with the traditional institutions and power structure in

the context of NREGA is a bigger challenge. The substitute of PRI framework that

has been introduced in states like of Meghalaya through MREGS is in its infancy.

The members of the AEC(Area Employment Council) and VECs(Village

Employment Council) need to be continuously provided trainings on the necessity,

practices, procedures, objectives and achievements of PRI institutions and their

relevance for a movement and programme like NREGS. A short course “Rural

Development and NREGA” needs to be tailor-made for this category of

stakeholders that should incorporate elements and practices on democratic

decentralization, rural development and NREGA.

Capacity Building for Financial Inclusion

95

Financial inclusion is limited because of thin spread of banks/post offices. The

topography and cultural practices of people also contribute to it. To overcome the

topographical compulsions, we suggest the introduction of bike-cum-barefoot

satellite banking system by the postal department/banks. The postal department is

undertaking innovative expansion in its activities. We find that in states like

Meghalaya home delivery of letters/documents are not undertaken in remote rural

areas. This is the right time that a model like bike-cum- barefoot satellite banking

(with biometric cards) with postal article delivery can be combined by the postal

department and the job can be undertaken by the modern postman. This delivery,

collection of postal articles along with banking can be undertaken in remote areas

twice in a week. Further, the postal department being a government organisation has

the trust of the people, unlike other small private players.

Capacity Building in Awareness and Dissemination:

One of the reasons for poor awareness about NREGA in North East particularly with

workers is because of non-availability or limited availability of literature on

MGNREGA in local languages because of limited and or poor translation in to local

languages. We suggest here that SIRDs of respective states, can be given a project

to identify the major languages of their states, collaborate with the local linguistic

departments of respective universities and can get efficient translation done for

dissemination of MGNREGA material.

Absence of technical people to be employed as technical assistants:

To overcome the problem of shortage of technical Assistant, in addition to having a

HR policy in place in MGNREGA and increasing remuneration associated with this

post, the authorities can recruit local youths with class XII pass certificates and train

them for two/three months by the government engineers of the district/block/divisions

and then employ them for measurement and technical supervision of NREGA works.

Capacity Building and Ombudsman

Many of the NER States except Assam and Tripura, do not find enough candidates

for the position of Ombudsman. Where ever, they are available, the list is heavy with

retired bureaucrats only. To overcome this problem, to make the selection inclusive

96

and to strengthen this institution, the required 20 years experience may be reduced

to 15 years so that we get candidates from the civil society, as in many states civil

society is of recent origin including separation of judiciary from executive.

Capacity building and Convergence

Existence of a pervasive culture of contractor raj in the North East is basically

exploitative on man and environment. This institution prevents convergence in

NREGA as it fears its extinction if MGNREGA processes are bench marked for other

departments and schemes.

To realize the full potential of NREGA as a process of rural development,

convergence of schemes, skills, and minds is a necessity. Ideally, we suggest the

critical level at which the convergence should happen is the block. The head of the

PRI at the block and the BDO are the institutions who command the respect of the

other line officers. Although we feel that the BDOs are overburdened with other

works, but considering NREGA to be central to rural development and the centrality

of the institution of BDO in the block hierarchy, it is the best suited institution to

promote convergence through commanding the services of other line officers. Any

other separate institution created for NREGA implementation at the block level may

not command the respect as that of the BDO. Once the PRI institutions are

strengthened, and become the central agency of rural development, the role of the

BDO can be taken over by the PRI head at the block level. Till it happens, we

suggest the strengthening of the institution of BDO in line with the model of the

deputy commissioner at the district level with the creation of an institution of APO

(Additional Programme Officer) who would be assisting the BDO in day to day

activities in MGNREGA.

Capacity Building and Planning and Execution of MGNREGA work:

The State Employment Guarantee Councils should be strengthened in line with the

Central Employment Guarantee Council at the centre. To do so, the states in the

region should induct men of integrity, capability, expertise in to the council who are

apolitical in nature. Once this is done, the council should have its secretariat that can

undertake the planning and monitoring work of MGNREGA by commissioning to

97

undertake effective demand forecasting mechanism that takes in to account

seasonality in jobs as seasonality in employment is an important issue in MGNREGA

in this part of the country.

MGNREGA Help Line

No state in the region has a dedicated MGNREGA 24*7 help line. This should be

immediately taken up and activated.

In Passing

The greatest asset of the NER region is its community centric living system in the rural areas particularly in the upland Hill Areas. This arrangement reduces information asymmetry and moral hazard in the implementation of developmental schemes making the cost, conflict and time-line of implementation of the programme significantly reduced. On the other hand the biggest challenge to implementation of MGNREGA is the typical cost, time and struggle associated with the geography and topography related factors. This brings us to the necessity of the use of innovative and appropriate modern technology in the form ICT, GPS etc. in reaching out to the tribal people. Let us maximize the impact of the capacity multiplier in MGNREGA in this region by adopting the required modern technology with a mindset that is not exploitative on men and material and free of rent seeking.

Chapter VIII

Conclusion: A New Era of Governance for MGNREGA!

Therefore, while we emphasise on governance, innovations, accountability and equity as key principles for new regime of ‘capacity building’, we also like to underline that MGNREGA needs to increasingly rely more on public-private partnership, better interorganizational processes, information technology, performance oriented incentive structures for human resources, more transparency in the social audit procedures, building quality human capital and supply bottom-up accountability to the public works. Emphasizing collaboration and empowerment rather than hierarchy and control, we focus on more proactive, transparent, equitous mechanisms of governance between various agencies located at the centre, state and panchayats. By suggesting a ‘Mission Mode’ implementation system for states, we also recommend taking measures for making states as ‘stakeholders’ in the key capacity building areas for deepening ‘institutionalized trust and reciprocity’ between the Center and States for effective implementation and monitoring. Unless state governments, district administrations and Panchyati raj institutions develop long term stakes, the implementation of MGNREGA would continue to be suffering from

98

distortions and deficits. There are those who marvel at the extent, depth and significance of MGNREGA, and there are also those who see it as fragile and inadequate in meeting the demands of durable human security and sustainable development. On balance, both optimists and cynics would agree that MGNREGA reveals more than it conceals about securing durable basis for livelihood security, transforming the lives of millions of poor and the rising participatory forms of democratic governance at multiple, overlapping social environments in the Indian Society. We are sure that with new governance reforms in place and innovative capacity building support systems available at all levels of implementation from the National to Gram Sabha level, MGNREGA has the potential to usher in what Jawaharlal Nehru evocatively called “tryst with destiny”, a destiny in which poor become ‘game changers”!

99

ANNEXURES

10

ANNEXURE - I

STRATEGIES FOR CAPACITY BUILDING UNDER MGNREGA( A Note by NIRD(Prof. Hanumantha Rao)

The multiple stakeholders and astronomical numbers of stakeholders and multi-dimensionality of MGNREGA demand a well defined strategy to develop the capabilities of these stakeholders to perform the assigned tasks ably .The tentative estimate of the number of stakeholders (other than the millions of the worker households) is around seven millions (At present the coverage is about 1.5 to 2.0 millions). Further more, the socio-economic profiles of different stakeholders do vary considerably and there by the strategy should be innovative and multi-pronged. It also suggests that some of them need to be trained periodically so as to learn, practice, relearn and acquire the skills. The MGNREGA insists on participation, transparency and accountability which are (necessary conditions) indicators of good governance.

The current strategy of capacity building through a network of training institutions has to be supplemented by a variety of non-formal training approaches. In fact, some of these training institutions are not well equipped (for quality delivery) more number of trainees and organsie some specialised programmes. Some of the faculty members of these institutions may need to be trained in participatory and other innovative training methods. Providing funds and (additional) staff in project mode may be worth considering in these cases. The present network should be extended to include reputed civil society organisations and implementers of successful projects.

This four year old programme has been fraught with certain structural constraints leading to certain deficiencies. It is imperative that the CB strategy should be sensitive to the current and emerging challenges in planning and execution of MGNREGS. Given the magnitude of task, the training priorities have to be laid down both with respect to themes and (key)

10

functionaries need to be identified and trained to make the MGNREGS more effective. The District Programme Coordinator (DPC) / CEO of ZP should play a key role in the CB endeavours by periodically informing the performance problems to the nodal department to identify relevant training solutions in consultation with the training institutions. This approach would be more effective in linking training to programme performance / outcomes.

Revamping Delivery system: Institutional restructuring is a key element of the capacity building which enables the institutions to function as autonomous institutions with accountability besides imparting of knowledge and skills. The centre and states should pay attention to these design considerations for strengthening them as units of planning and execution. This is critical to realization of MGNREGA objectives. Checks and balances system should be in place to prevent possible check misuse rather than sidetracking / sidelining them. Assigning specific roles and responsibilities in MGNREGA to reputed NGOs to act as one of the support systems is a case in point.

Based on the evaluation and process studies, it is observed that the attitudes of the delivery system have to be changed to make the institutions work with pro-poor bias and also with sensitivity to issues of gender and disadvantaged. Thus, inclusion of “ABC“ and ”gender“ modules etc., in training programmes, more so for functionaries at grassroots level, will have significant impact on the quality of service delivery.

Training priorities: Among the training themes, community mobilization, participatory planning and social audit should receive priority and with emphasis on hands holding.

Engaging CSOs for community mobilization and awareness building : lack of awareness about ‘rights and entitlements’ and inadequate knowledge about grievance redressal procedures are the major constraints for not making MGNREGS a demand led scheme. The delivery system may not be well equipped (appropriate agency) for this task; more so when the scheme is a ‘rights’ based one. The CB strategy should also deal with the ‘choice of agency’ for all the key activities. The success of CB can be ascertained in terms of successful mobilization, education (including counseling) and enabling workers to use Gram Sabha for communicating their needs and expectations as well as providing feedback on the reliability, adequacy and quality of services delivered. So, feasibility of creation of a network of VOs to work with community in allocated GPs may be explored in this regard. Independent agencies can monitor the changes in awareness levels, quality of participation, employment generation, quality and durability of assets created etc., to judge the effectiveness of this suggested intervention. It is obvious that a series of workshops for development of training material in partnership mode have to be planned to support the CB initiative.

Building community’s capacity warrants that the educated among the workers / leaders should be targeted and imparted on skills required to facilitate/guide the community in participatory planning and social audit. This cadre of para professionals in the GP would be the driving force for operationalisation of bottom up planning and community driven social audit.

Non-formal modes of capacity building :Organizing weekly interactions through TV during specified timings at Mandal / sub-block level with state nodal department to appraise the functionaries with latest developments / circulars and to provide clarifications and instructions for correcting the field level problems (as in AP) has been found to be very effective. The replication of such practices may be explored. The Video Conferencing and SATCOM (as in Karnataka) type of arrangements would be attempted to build the capacities of functionaries on a continuous basis. Interactive DVDs may be produced and provided on

10

the specified thematic issues with illustrations / documentation of successful practices elsewhere as reference material in the execution of tasks.

CB for vibrancy of GPs: To make PRIs more accountable and to function as units of local government, the framework provided by 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments should be made effective in practice. CB of PRIs more so of GPs should enable them to work with the community, officials and CSOs on partnership basis .The exposure visits to successful projects / GPs would enhance confidence levels of members of GP. Rewards and awards for GPs and GP members excelling in MGNREGA in terms of generation of more number of employment days, inclusion of SCs / STs / OBCs (poor) and women, creation of durable assets, conduct of Gram Sabhas in participatory mode etc., might provide the required incentive framework.

10

ANNEXURE - II

TENTATIVE LIST OF FUNCTIONARIES TO BE TRAINED UNDER MGNREGA

* The number may alter in the light of recommendations of working groups on MGNREGA (The Source is not specified by NIRD )

10

S.No. Level Designation of functionary No. of Units No. of functionaries (in lakhs)

1 State Commissioner / Director (MGNREGS) (1) , GRO (1), Accounts Officers (2), MIS Manager (1), Technical Persons (1+1), Social Audit coordinator (1) and supporting staff (1)

35 0.05

2 District DPC(1), PD (1), SA (1), MIS (1), Accounts Officer (1+), GRO (1), Ombudsmen (1+2),

619 0.06

3 District Line dept. functionary @ 10 per district 619 0.06

4 Block PO (1), APO (1), J.E (1), MIS manager (1+1), Accounts officer (1), T.A @ 1 per 10 GPs

6100 0.6

5 GP GP Secretary (1), GRS (1), Mates (2) 2.4 lakh 9.6

6 GP Social Audit Committee members @ 5 per GP 2.4 lakh 12

7 BPMs / SPMs / Banker 3.5 lakh 3.5

8 State Line department officials – IAY, Watershed, Forest, Tribal Welfare, Agriculture, NHM, RWS (6 per district)

619 0.5

Total number of official functionaries to be trained 26.37

9 Vigilance Monitoring Committee

District Vigilance & Monitoring Committee members (10 per district) 619 0.65

10 Zilla Panchayat Core ZP members @ 2 per district 619 0.01

11 Pamchayat Samiti Core PS members @ 2 per district 6100 0.12

12 Gram Panchayat GP Sarpanch / Pradhan 2.4 lakh 2.4

13 ZP Members of ZP @ 6 per ZP 619 0.037

14 PS Memebrs of PS @ 6 per PS 6100 0.37

15 GP Members of GP @ 8 per GP 2.4 lakh 19.2

16 GP Vigilance and Monitoring Committee @ 9 per GP 2.4 lakh 21.6

Total number of public representatives to be trained 44.387

Grand Total 70.757

ANNEXURE-III

Notes on the visit of MGNREGA WG on Capacity Building in Kerala 15 May 2010

This meeting was arranged at short notice. ( The Chairman, Working Group had confirmed Kerala visit on 10 May 2010 and Dr. Rajani Kant agreed to fax all the necessary information to Ernakulum DPC and, KILA director and also Principal Secretary RD, Kerala.) Moreover ‘field visits, under MGNREGA may be unannounced to observe a neutral and objective view of the ground zero where work is going on. And Dr. Joseph, consultant from NIRD was deputed for facilitating the visits of Working Group in Kerala.

The meeting in the Project Directors office at Ernakulum began at 3.pm; there was sufficient notice already given to DPC about the purpose of the Working Group; I am under the impression that a copy of the MoRD notification wrt Working Group had been sent to DPC. The attendance was thin. Not only thin but was not organized properly keeping in mind the purpose of the visit of Working Group from MoRD. The District Mission Coordinator (DMC) of Kudumbasree was absent; this plays a major role in the implementation of MGNREGA in the state. The DP Secretary was also absent.

The PD PAU was absent. The DPC was not able to attend the meeting as she has other very important commitments at the Vallarpadam Container Terminal. However the DPC made no effort from her side to either brief or contact Working Group. Given the pivotal role of DPC in the implementation of MGNREGA, the indifferent approach of DOC may be noted for future reference in the assessment of MGRNEGA in the district. A general perspective on the capacity of district administration to implement could have been easily gathered if DPC had made any effort! The Chairman Dr. Ashwani Kumar asked the APO- PAU (DRDA) to explain the Organization Chart and the Job Chart of PAU Officials. As the APO could not do it a note on it was requested. It clearly demonstrated the lack of capacity in a state known for practicing innovative methods of training by KILA. The Assistant DMC of Kudumbhasree who was present could not explain the Job Chart as well she was also requested to provide a description of her Job Chart. But she could not do it. Same story of lack of training or perhaps awareness about MGNREGA; recommend urgent training for all key staff involved in the implementation of MGRNEGA at the district level. The BDO/BPOs present informed that they are holding addl charge of BPO NREGA, this looked a serious handicap as none was prepared to implement MGRNEGA; it seemed like MGNREGA being low priority in the schemes of things in Kerala

The Chairman wanted a copy of the order issued by the Govt. prescribing the qualification and experience of Accredited AEs. Data Entry Operators. No such copy ever received any one from Kerala When asked as to Why the GPs are implementing all the MGNREGA works and not the Block and District Panchayaths, there was no immediate response from the assembled staff at the district headquarters—Given the history of decentralization in Kerala, it appeared logical that GP would be drive force in the implementation of MGRNEGA The Chairman wanted an organizational chart of the MGNREGA Officials working at the GP Level.; No such information has be handed out to the Working Group. However, it was

10

noted that MGNREGA has been placed in a separate administrative unit for Poverty Alleviation, an umbrella administrative unit.

After a disappointing experience at the district headquarters, the Working Group decided to go to Thiruvaniyoor GP of Vadaucode Block Panchayath of At 5pm The Working Group along with some POs reached the work site. Vandipetta Road Canal Cleaning. The work was being done by Kudumbhasree SHG members. There were 26 workers at site, 23 women and three men. Job cards were there. Muster Rolls was also present at the work site yes. But some of the details in the job cards and muster rolls were not complete. The woman mate has got training for two days, two times. Accredited AE (Accredited Engineer) was present. She has Diploma in Civil Engineer with 7 yrs work exp. So Rs 9000 per month is paid to her. Her appointment policy is part of a broad HR policy for human resources in MGNREGA in Kerala. The MGNREGA board was incomplete. There was no MGNREGA Logo or board detailing the work. In fact, the details of the work were written on cardboard attached to the eclectic pole; The Chairman raised issues of transparency and accountability as mentioned in the Operational Guidelines. The fear that work done under MGRNEGA could be replicated under some other works may be genuine in the absence of a sign board for MGNREGA No estimate copy was with the AE and No AS copy. As amount Rs 38000. A person day to be generated was 277. The workers at site have worked for 11 plus 5 days during the year 2010. This work was suggested by Kudumbasree SHG members.; it was all women that carried the work and the wage was paid on the basis of daily rate. MGNREGA staff was not aware of the difference between daily wage and piece rate; they needed more training and also exposure.

AT GP Office at 5.30 pm, The Working Group met the Panchayat President and his staff, it was a good interaction and the Working Group noticed the good conditions of Panchayat Bhavan (building) and other resources. Surprisingly, the GP building or secretariat does not display any information about Development programs on its walls. In other words, the so-called “Janta Information System” developed by MKSS was absent in the GP. No work order or Muster Rolls of MGNREGA were pasted on the walls. Interestingly, the administrative cost of MGRNEGA in the GP was 8% in 2009-10. There are six GPs in this BP. About 5 to 6 works are on at the same time. The copy of the monthly progress report and AAP cloud not be got as the computer and printer was not working? Rs 57 lakhs expended this year. The GP was getting help from Agri and Irrigation departments for work projects preparation and execution.

No AS Register was located in the GP. The Chairman, Working Group had a discussion with GP president about maintaining MGNREGA records and registers, GP President seemed oblivious of various provisions about MGNREGA, seemed he was not properly trained though he had attended a training program at KILA. No material cost incurred in the GP; this is one of the outstanding elements of MGRNEGA in Kerala. No works on individual plots of SC/STs so far; it clearly showed lack of diversity in the works of MGNREGA in Kerala though GP president reflected on expansion of permissible works for Kerala. A watershed Plan is being prepared in the GP. No unique ID to each work executed is given.

There is no clear cut HR policy for these contract personnel, a discussion with RD secretary required on this. Wages are delayed by one month in the GP. The delay

10

due to delays in taking work measurements by AEs; this is surprising given the capacity of Accredited Engineers in the GP The work bills are made only after completion of the works. The field visit ended at6.30 pm on a note of the raising the wage in MGNREGA. In his discussion with GP president, the chairman explained the position of MoRD on the issue of Rs 100 as the minimum wage though Kerala has been paying Rs.140 to MGNREGA laborers under the state government wage policy for agricultural workers into eh state.

16.5.10; Visit in Cochin/Ernakulum District

Interestingly, the members of the Working Group were very politely apprised the significance of “Sunday Holiday” in Kerala; So the Working Group decided to venture out in the fields on its own though one of the PO courteously joined the visit. The Working Group members decided to visit rural parts of Cochin/Ernakulum district to get a hang of various aspects of development in Kerala. On the way to Chirai beach where Working Group decided to stay overnight on the way to KILA, the members of Working Groups observed the ‘fabled Kerala” tale on the status of schools, hospitals and also extension of urban amenities. It appeared clearly that MGRNEGA does not suffer from ‘infrastructural issues”; the members of Working Group in interaction with officials and local people noticed the prevalence of high market wage for labour that often impede the participation of labourers in MGRNEGA. After checking in Country Cottage on the Chirai beach, the members of Working Group decided to visit the nearby GP Kuzhippally but got held up in massive traffic jam and returned to the hotel. Decides to leave the CBR at 6.30 am of 17.5.10 to KILA at Trichur.

On 17.5.10 at 6.30are leaves to Trichur. Reaches KILA at 8.30am.

At 10 am the meeting started at KILA Trichur in the presence of director,KILA and his team

The Chairman Prof. Ashwani Kumar wanted a brief note from the Director KILA, on the ToT Modules in use by KILA for MGNREGThe CB Gaps identified by KILA was called for. The Director of SIRD explained the elements of the special CB Model being executed (. I would have needed some more information on this—Ashwani) The Chairman wanted to know the nature of trainings—course content/modules etc--- given to DPCs in Kerala. The Chairman wanted that the trainings must also take care of the Voice and Choice aspects of the MGNREGS workers as well.—some methodological issues were also discussed in the presentation by KILA. Impact assessment of trainings was called for by the Chair from the Directors of KILA and SIRD. The tracking of trainees and their contribution to CB was to be assessed by KILA and SIRD. The Chairman urged KILA director to track the quality of training imparted to PRI representatives, he shared his experience of discussion with GP president of Thiruvaniyoor GP of Vadaucode Block Panchayath. It was suggested in the meeting that that the use of Community Radio could help CB MGNREGS, the director, KILS agreed to look into the issue.

The convergence affected by Kudumbhasree and MGNREGS was noted very effective. The Chairman and members of Working Group impressed with the capacity building exercise of Kudamshree more in the form of social mobilization of MGRNEGA laborers. The Director, KILA also gave a flavor of real class room of training to Working Group; members were taken to a class on Awareness and Social

10

Audit and participated in lively and fruitful discussion with participants. The Working Group wishes to place on record the warmth and democratic nature of discussion in the class room; it was interesting to note that most participants in the class were not trained in computer. The Director, KILA noted it and promised to remedy the situation.

After the meeting with Director KILA, the Working Group met Sri. S. M Vijayanad IAS, LSGD Prl. Secretary in the office of Director KILA and had a long discussion on implementation of MGNREGA in the state; The Secretary Shri Vijayanad gave following observations on the issues raised by members of Working Group:

• Kerala has got some kind of HR policy for MGNREGA though it was not spelled out but there does exist some systems for recruitment etc...

• The mates to be trained to become a technical worker to speed up taking work measurements.

• These mates to become Bare- foot Engineers.

• The Ombudsman is being attempted in the Districts not started for want of suitable persons, it seemed.

• Third party independent evaluators is being attempted in the State; the Secretary shared the assessment of social audit done by MKSS in the State, the Chairman , Working Group discussed with him his experience of field visits and also the indifference approach of Ernakulum district authority. The Secretary was quite forthright about the shortcomings in the implementation.

• 400 GPs have prepared Watershed based Action Plans in 2010-2011 for MGNREGS to help go green.

The chairman wanted the SIRD and KILA to identify the training need Gaps and new subject areas that need more training by the Officials and elected representatives at different levels for strengthening of MGNREGS.

The meeting came to an end at 1.30.pm. The Chairman thanked all participants and especially appreciates the environment of KILA as one of the best training places in the country and returned to Cochin on the way back to Mumbai in the late evening.

Present.

Ashwani Kumar,( Chairman, Working Group)

Sri. S. M Vijayanad IAS, LSGD Prl. Secretary

SIRD Director, Sri A.P. Pillai

KILA Director, Prof. N.Ramakanthan.

Dr.B.Panda ( Member, Working Group)

Dr.D. Nraryana ( Member, Working Group)

10

(Draft Minutes were prepared by Dr.Joseph Abraham, NIRD and modified/corrected by Chairman, Working Group)

10

ANNEXURE - IV

Meeting of Working Group at NIAR (Mussoorie) on 28 April2010 to assess the performance of NIAR as “National Resource Center” for MGNREGA

Following are observations of the Working Group

• Key officials and staff at NIAR generally treated members of Working Group with due respect and courtesy, however, Director of NIAR was neither present in the meeting on 28 April nor made any effort to contact Working Group for any sort of knowledge sharing or dialogue. Chairman of the Working Group was informed by Mr. M.Gupta, officer-in –charge of NIAR, that director was busy in a meeting on 28 April though he was already informed about the meeting by the NIRD. ( The detailed note for organizing NIAR meeting was emailed by Chairman to NIRD on 11 April 2010)

• Though Mr. Gupta had already been briefed about the purpose and rationale of the meeting in his interaction with Chairman on 27 April, the meeting was organized hastily without any resource support such as facility to make presentation etc. (Interestingly, minutes of the meeting at NIAR were never made available to the Working Groups despite several requests by the Chairman. On 28 June 2010, the Chairman made last attempt without any success to reach NIAR through the good offices of NIRD) NIAR indeed relies on home-grown lessons in capacity-building!

• After an assessment of material discussed in the meeting and also submitted to the working Group, the Working Groups recommends that rather than conducting evaluation and appraisal studies for MGNREGS, it would be better if NIAR helps LABSNA in developing teaching and training material on social sector policies and their impact on administrative and management practices in the government for enhancing the ‘knowledge- base’ of career civil servants. The members of Working Groups in their interaction with key officials/researchers at NIAR conclude that the key officials/researchers of NIAR have very little exposure to the tools of survey research, case study, process evaluation, cost benefit/ barrier/ outcome analysis etc. It would have been much better if they had worked closely with NIRD (Hyderabad), KILA (Kerala), IITs, IIMs, Social Science research institutes and various civil society organizations to develop requisite knowledge base and learning before rushing into the area of evaluation studies. Moreover, members of Working Group also feel strongly that conclude NIAR in its existing form does not have necessary academic and research environment and resources for incubation of studies on MGNREGA.( In fact, the report on social accountability by NIAR was outsourced to consultants). Therefore, it won’t be a bad idea to involve some eminent consultants or experts from

11

open market to enhance the capacity of NIAR to undertake impact analysis in near future. The Working Group appreciates the efforts of NIAR to set up professorial chair headed by eminent people from academia and civil society.

• Members of Working Group were disappointed by the casual, cavalier, and subjective manner in which various so-called evaluation studies have been undertaken by NIAR in different parts of the country. MoRD needs to develop a more calibrated and cautionary approach for awarding research studies to members of academic staff colleges who have little exposure or no exposure to rigors of evaluation and monitoring studies or policy research.

• Al though we see something on selection of tools, selection methodology etc, and hear about reference about quantitative and qualitative, but we could not figure out whether these studies are a process documentation or impact analysis or quick appraisal, Interestingly, no tool from participatory rural research has been used in the studies. Word on methodology. The issue of “hypothetical indicators” is quite interesting as researcher seems to be confused by the gap between hypothesis and validity.

• Consider issue based workshops and studies conducted by NIAR. Rather than being turbocharged by the theoretical understanding of “Human Security”, the fascination with the notion of ‘social capital’ seems to be guiding the choice of methodologies and also pedagogies at NIAR without realising that ‘social capital”, a concept that has lost much of its initial charm and the vigour in the recent policy literature on development as policy scholars have suggested that concept of social capital "…risks trying to explain too much with too little [and] is being adopted indiscriminately, adapted uncritically, and applied imprecisely…" (Lynch et al. 2000:404). The research study on Social Capital by NIAR in Jharkhand is quite an eye-opener; how the construction of road, harnessing water, development of waste land, assets under draught proofing, flood control” could have created ‘social capital” (Hope, Putnam listening all this!) A couple of reports/ studies of NIAR are so shoddy that they dont deserve mention; we recall one study where the researcher has used all his creativity in taking pictures of the project And Words such ‘ latency’ are used rather loosely!

• Now, consider the findings of a study on convergence in Gujarat. They are so clichéd that the study does not merit attention! For example, it is not clear how “funds of the public” could be equated with public participation “as both need clarity. Plus the report’s tendency to give a character certificate to officials from Line departments by saying that “willingness of the line departments....in a willing manner’. This is not only symphonic of poor research but also raises the issue of objectivity!

11

• Now, consider a couple of more studies by NIAR on MGNREGA. For instance, a study on Mate system in Chhattisgarh does not offer anything other ‘known facts’ Neither ethnographic details or analytical insights accrue from the study. The study on social audit in Rajasthan seems eyewash as both ground reality and intuitive understanding of social audit movement by MKKS contradict the findings of the report. Consider this finding in the report” Social Audit in Rajasthan failed to emerge as a good practice,” (How would civil society activists especially MKSS respond to this). Let us not forget that MKKS’s Janata Information system has become a powerful tool of social audit. The researchers from NIAR need to visit Vijaypura, the birth place of the movement of social audit before making tall claims about the ineffectiveness of social audit. And also needs to keep in mind the famous ‘Bhilwara Social Audit” campaign that galvanised the whole country.

• It is not clear how the study on impact on left wing extremism’ concludes that “casual members” dropped out of the moist groups. What is the basis for this conclusion? The findings reek of clichéd generalizations without any evidence of strong research. This kind of research breeds complacency and also leads to suboptimal policy feedback. Consider another study on gender empowerment in Jharkhand; it is not clear how the researchers from NIAR would have come up with this interesting observation; “The women participation rate is low as a large segment of women population is physically not strong enough to undertake strenuous earthen work”. Is it based on some eyewitness account or reports on nutrition deficiency in the region? Moreover. Khunti is a place quite known for right to food movement that has resulted in the mass mobilization of MGNREGA labourers leading them to get “compensation for delay payment” under the Act. Similar clichéd conclusions are repeated for Rajasthan, Punjab etc. It is disturbing to note that without much capacity or resources, NIAR has been allowed by MoRD to undertake in several states; it could have been better if it had conducted studies in Uttarakhand and UP and developed some much needed skills/knowledge for undertaking research studies.

• The Working Group recommends that the culture of state government officials being posted on deputation for conducting research or impact analysis needs to be arrested and a strong academic environment needs to be cultivated by investing in hiring quality professional researchers both from academia and civil society. Since most those at NIAR come from the background of implementing policies, they need to be involved in the preparing of training modules and ‘manuals” and leaflets/pamphlets etc for better communication across board. They also need to involve in social mobilization and awareness generation if they themselves enjoy certain amount of ‘social capital” among MGRNEGA labourers!

11

• The members of Working Group also conclude that NIAR’s efforts to produce print material such as 1 pad on convergence, 8 brochures (on convergence, grievance redressal, transparency & accountability) would contribute to duplication of material already produced by MoRD in collaboration with NIRD/SIRDs and civil society organizations. More importantly, a complex issue like convergence need not be trivialized by printing 1 pad!

• The Working group also recommends that NIAR needs to be updating its website; the findings on ICT needs to be utilized!

The meeting at NIAR was attended by Ashwani Kumar, Chairman, Working Group, Dr. B. Panda, Member Working Group) and Mr. Pramathesh Ambastha (Member, Working Group)

ANNEXURE V

NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON ICT & GIS APPLICATIONS IN MGNREGS(14 th May, 2010)

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

The National Workshop on ICT & GIS Applications in MGNREGS was held at NIRD on 14th May, 2010. The primary objective of the workshop was the following:

1. To discuss the capture of both spatial and attribute data pertaining to MGNREGS

at micro level for planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.2. To discuss on various scenarios by convergence by various programmes like

watershed, forestry irrigation, rural connectivity etc for assessing potential

employment aspects under MGNREGS.3. To devise appropriate processes and methodologies for the effective,

implementation and monitoring of MGNREGS programmes at micro level.About 35 delegates, 25 from various organizations from IITs, Corporate

Sector, Institutions, Government sector, etc., and 10 faculty from NIRD participated in the National Workshop. The Chairman, Working Group on Capacity Building and 2 Members of the Working Group and a National Level Monitor from MORD participated in the National Workshop.

The deliberation has two parts namely the first part deals with ICT & GIS Applications for Planning for MGNREGS and the second part deals with Implementation and Monitoring of MGNREGS. There were 19 Presentations by NIRD, MORD, Corporate Sectors, Institutions and Government Agencies.

The National Workshop started with a welcome address by Dr M.V. Rao, Deputy Director General, NIRD, who stressed the need for capacity building for

11

solving the problems in Planning, Implementation & Monitoring of MGNREGS. He emphasized that technological solutions could prove effective for reducing leakages and ensuring participation of the field functionaries, PRIs and local people through demystification and simplification of technology solutions.

He identified problems and leakages at various levels in the process of MGNREGS implementation. He was of the opinion that satellite imagery can be used for pre and post position inquiry. He advocated for demystified and reachable technology. He applauded Andhra Pradesh MGNREGS software, especially estimate generation part, reducing dependence on engineers. He understood measurement to be a vital issue as it is linked to wage payment. Drawing from his own experience as Commissioner, MGNREGS, West Bengal, he reflected that tribal benificiaries are not realizing minimum wages indicating something wrong in schedule of rates. He laid more emphasis on technology transfer.

Prof. Aswini Kumar, Chairman, Working Group on Capacity Building, stressed the need for beating the system by technology. He stressed pre and post identification of change and capturing indications ahead of the systems. The need for reducing engineering control and making the system peoples centric was emphasized. The work measurement linked to payment and technology solutions at local level was urged.

Sri. S.N. Tripathi, Commissioner cum Secretary (Panchayati Raj), Govt. of Orissa attended the National Workshop as a Special Guest and emphasized the need for an integrated ICT & GIS System for MGNREGS. He pointed out that the measurement is the key issue and the technology should reduce the distance in payment. He stressed on users perspective and process driven in simplification of technology. In spite of rolling out Electronic Job Card in Orissa state and making it web enabled, it was found that the methods are not foolproof and that smarter technologies are needed to make a robust ICT & GIS based MGNREGS. Further, he stressed for common databases like Census, BPL, Landholdings, Watershed and MGNREGS in the web for transparency for effective empowerment of the Communities.

Shri S. N. Tripathi, observed that the process of releasing funds till the process of paying wages has to pass through many hands. This indicates that technology is not used since the process is not simple and it’s complicated. Technology should be developed and adopted through usage perspective. Workers could be assigned the job of taking preliminary measurements at the worksite using some simple technology, which could be further verified by the junior engineers (JE). He informed that on 2 February, 2010, Orissa Governments issued electronic job cards. He suggested that a software/ database should be there which would have not only the list of MGNREGS beneficiaries but the beneficiary list of all the other government schemes. It should be an integrated beneficiary list. He is of the opinion that installing of any software/hardware may be easy but capacity building of the villagers to use them is very critical success parameter for the effective implementation of the Scheme.

Prof. Aswini Kumar, gave Outline of the progress of work on capacity building and policy architecture since 31st March, 2010 and stressed the need for robust architecture for MGNREGS policy initiatives. He felt that beyond training, capacity building, innovation and governance, reforms are needed towards efficient delivery systems.

11

Prof. Aswini Kumar feels that the MGNREGS suffers from crisis of capacity building and is currently facing a challenge for efficient implementation of guidelines and delivery for ensuring optimum socio-economic benefit. He further elaborated on demand supply, asset management and long term sustainability. It was also said about size and scale to ensure proper planning, implementation and management of programmes for which ICT GIS can assist towards achieving this goal. There is a need to reduce uncertainty and establishment an open and transparent asset management system.

The MGNREGS being the world’s largest social welfare programme which Rs.79.00 lakhs works being taken up across the country, there needs effective monitoring of completed works at national, state and district level. The census of asset management is a critical policy survival measure of MGNREGS. There need to be partnership on PPP mode and between people and technology.

Prof. Ashwani Kumar thanked DDG for extending support to Working Group. He pleaded for a ploy centric, multi stakeholder, multi directional, multi functional policy architecture of MGNREGS, which is beyond the conventional mechanical and linear understanding of Capacity building. This will be aligned with governance and delivery system. He observed that MGNREGS does not suffer from bureaucratic commitment or political will, but from capacity prices. These capacity prices are capacity to prioritize, deliver services and unleash social and economic multiplier effects. He identified asset management system to be a critical element of Capacity Building. He underlined that programmes of this scale suffer from uncertainties. These are- information asymmetry, transaction cost and lack of bargaining power. Technology offers open, transparent and repetitive tools to deal with these uncertainties. He observed that 79 Lakh works has been executed under MGNREGS, till date and they have been monitored manually. But, monitoring to be effective, we have to use technology such as GIS. He underscored the necessity of MGNREGS work census. He stressed the need of strengthening of PRIs. He delineated two levels of asset management – i) already existing at micro level and ii) at MoRD level. These two realities are needed to be converged to set up a system, including isolated actors such as corporate. He argued for engaging in partnership between people and technology.

Shri. Tripathi stressed the need to integrate Census 2010 data, Household data, village and revenue data and with unique ID for making MGNREGS a transparent and robust process.

The technical presentations on ICT & GIS Applications planning of MGNREGS under Chairperson of Prof Aswin Kumar was conducted in Technical session -1 during 10.30 am to 1.30 pm, in which 7 presentations were made.

Dr V Madhava Rao, Head(CGARD), NIRD demonstrated the design and development of a Village GIS in a Template Mode for planning and decision making at micro level and an effective integration of household, cadastry, village level, census, BPL, LULC & other point level reference data for ensuring participation and decision making for MGNREGS at village level. The Team also presented specific GIS Application process for asset capturing, monitoring and implementation of MGNREGS programmes. The workshop recommended that the Census 2010 and revenue information should be integrated with the Village GIS for making it widely usable decision making tool at village level.

11

Col. U B Singh of MORD stated that the MGNREGS should concentrate on user end and should have demand based systems with appropriate fund management, and not led by rigid procedure base. Presently he felt that the capacity development are not adequate and the asset management and IEC efforts are minimal. The efforts on inspection, infrastructure base monitoring of schemes require proper architecture, systematic approach and a MIS for improving the data capturing process and helping the planning and decision making process at local level. Further he said that the voucher based accounting system should lead to Case Records and Geotagging and the technology should be doable, watchful and simple to ensure participation.

Col. U.B. Singh observed that there is huge gap between implementation and policy making. Instead of demand based scheme MGNREGS has become target based fund management exercise. Human errors in the field can be eliminated by the use of technology. Asset management is very essential. IEC should help all the villagers get genuinely trained.

Prof. Nagarjuna of TIFR demonstrated Open Source Software initiatives developed by software foundation of India through knowledge lab. He suggested open standards exchange solutions and knowledge based systems for effective planning, implementation and monitoring of MGNREGS. He stressed need for localization and ontology in process, assets, people for developing processes and systems for MGNREGS. There were questions as to how free is free software and it was mentioned that the free software is permissible to change and customized which is a great advantage over commercial software. Shri G. Nagarjuna, TIFR made a presentation on Digital Inclusion. He explained the concept of Free Software. He cautioned that exclusion is done via discretization of knowledge.

Shri S.N. Tripathi enquired about Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of open software, to which Prof G. Nagarjuna responded that this is not ‘free’ but ‘freedom’ of use is the feature of open software.

Dr N Jaya Shankar, NIDR, Nagpur, explained the role of statistics and Operational Research in monitoring and evaluating along with problem solving in MGNREGS, to make the system secure for livelihood assessment and heuristic base for efficient management.

Prof. Aswin Kumar stressed the need for evaluation of assets, and developing a systematic process for addressing the needs of MGNREGS.

Prof. H K Misra of IRMA illustrated the indexing and sustainable livelihood approaches of MGNREGS. Prof. H.K. Mishra, IRMA commented that policy architecture and data architecture should marry. UID project is one such attempt.

Dr B Panda of NEHU, Shillong & Member of the Working Group, stated that segregating impact of MGNREGS is important to justify promotion of MGNREGS in reducing the rural poverty and participation. Dr. B. Panda observed that any scheme is only a means and the end is to develop the capacity of people. He threw up the idea of measuring the quality of participation.

Col. S S Rao of TCS stressed the need for qualitative assessment for MGNREGS and stated that policy architecture and qualitative measures are needed for making MGNREGS a people centric programmes. Prof. Panda stressed the need

11

for game theory and convergence while Col. Singh stressed the need for infrastructure development at Gram Panchayat level.

Dr M V Rao, Deputy Director General stressed the need for SMS based system to update and monitoring of inventory and web based solutions for trickledown effect. DDG, NIRD pointed that technology is a tool to expedite planning and implementation process. In MGNREGS, decision making power has been given to Gram Panchayat, therefore tools should be developed thinking this line. Referring to SMS based monitoring; he said that in real time information transfer, chances of anomalies are less.

Prof. K H Rao, Prof & Head, CWEPA, NIRD stressed the need for convergence, game theory, and local initiatives for promoting MGNREGS. Dr. K. Hanumantha Rao, advocated a planning framework where convergence becomes the natural derivative. Two types of convergence have been experienced in the field – top down and local initiatives. He envisaged that ICT should play a role of facilitator to enable planning where convergence is natural.

Ms. Rajeshwari of Pragna, reflected that over the time the responsibility has moved from community to government. The scheme should focus on bringing responsibility back to people.

Prof. Misra recalled Convergence Bill of 2000, where transaction based system is more appropriate than a mere MIS. The inflated schemes and fraudulent registration could be curtailed through transaction based systems. He suggested seasonal allowances based on soil conditions, materials used etc for making MGNREGS implementation effective. Col. S. S. Rao, TCS made a presentation about the MGNREGS software used for MGNREGS.

Prof. Aswin Kumar Stressed the need for immediate implementation of census of MGNREGS assets and stressed to develop asset recording system along with provisions for social audit.

Dr Y V S Murthy and Dr V V Sarath Kumar of NRSC, Hyderabad, demonstrated e-FMS handheld device for asset capturing, implementation and planning and monitoring systems through retagging, biometric attendance and SMS alerts.

Prof. HK Mishra stressed on systems approach, convergence, usability, ease of use and usefulness for making ICT & GIS base systems effective use in MGNREGS. He stressed the need for convergence of content and convergence of carriage for a demand driven livelihood centric services for MGNREGS.

Prof. Panda stressed the need for cultural sustainability and environmental sustainability for making MGNREGS robust. He further, stressed the need for the NIRD role for a synergy and a road map by networking all stakeholders in consortium and participation mode.

The scientist from NRSC presented Pocket Digital Device based information system catering to demand synchronization which can help in bench marking processes and works at local level and has an opportunity to look beyond in effective planning, implementation, monitoring of MGNREGS by integrating the location based services by satellite navigation system and asset management by high resolution satellite data, in a simple and powerful visualization tool in the handheld device.

The Shri Pankaj Kumar Kamilya of Gujarat Government illustrated various challenges faced for successful implementation of ICT & GIS Applications in MGNREGS. The proposed cell phone and PDA based information sharing, capturing and updation in server in a web based system, is being contemplated in Gujrat, which was presented.

11

Dr D Sudharshan of IIT Mumbai presented the forth coming technology of Geo ICT Sensor, which is developed by IIT Mumbai and Japanese Scientists, the price of which is expected to be very affordable within a period one or two years. The Geo ICT sensor can monitor all the MGNREGS assets on a continuous basis and can be portable to cover upcoming assets in other places for successful implementation and monitoring of MGNREGS works at field level.

Dr NK Das of Pragna, Orissa explained the need for people and technology to work in tandem and capacity building development for making technological solutions acceptable to people and better implementation of MGNREGS works.

Shri Santosh Sam Koshy of CDAC , Hyderabad, illustrated the application of ubiquitous computing for large scale application of anywhere and anytime information capturing for MGNREGS assets and information for planning, implementation, monitoring purposes.

Shri. NS Jadhav of Real IT, Pune demonstrated the application of automatic engineering estimation and spatial decision support system which can be of effective use in implementation of MGNREGS at field level.

Shri. G Santhosh Kumar, AIMIL India representing Trimble International demonstrated handheld GPS/DGPS for capturing coordinates, photography assets transmitting the same through GPS to Cell Phones or Servers, which has exhibited tremendous potential in asset management, monitoring of MGNREGS structures.

Shri B Srikhar Reddy of Navayug Technology, Bangalore presented various applications at village level customized IT and GIS solutions in a simple and easy to understand mode with strong analytical and decision making capability which has great potential in application for MGNREGS at local level.

Prof. Mishra brought the attention of the house to system complains conforming to guidelines of MGNREGS and stressed the need for designing and developing affective operational guidelines for implementation of MGNREGS at village level. Prof. H.K. Mishra, IRMA made a case for adopting systems approach for administering MGNREGS.

Dr Panda stressed the need for the role of CBOs for maintenance and sustenance of the MGNREGS assets.

Shri Ramjan Ali of NIIT presented ESRI, ArcPAD & Mobile GIS which can be effectively used at local level for asset management and planning, implementation, monitoring of assets created under MGNREGS.

Shri P. Sirish Chandra of Luminous, Hyderabad presented the Mobile GIS applications namely super pad–3 where the source code is provided to the user for making necessary customization and modification to suite to the requirements of local applications of MGNREGS. This technology has been expressed as a very useful and effective tool of asset management and decision making for MGNREGS.

The Chairman sought suggestions and recommendations of the delegates participation in workshop for asset capturing management, planning, implementation and monitoring of MGNREGS, convergence and appropriate technology processes and methodologies for MGNREGS implementation at local level.

The National workshop concluded with a Summary by the Chairman, Prof. Aswini Kumar. The following are the Concluding Remarks by the Chairman.

• NIRD, IRMA, TIFR and Working Group to consolidate and network among all

11

• technology providers for suggesting appropriate ICT & GIS based solutions for MGNREGS at local level;

• A Proceedings highlighting the ICT & GIS technology applications in • MGNREGS to be submitted to the Working Group within 2 weeks;• ICT & GIS models such as village GIS, Integrating with aspect such as • sustainability analysis and common data bases such as Census, BPL

Census, land information and any other information at village level etc to be integrated in the system;

• Open source tools to be extensively used in the pattern of TIFR for customizing to

• the requirements of time and programmes as per the needs of the people at local level;

• Much of the processes to be automatic like report generation, local level language

• interface, compatibility etc to be ensured;• The ICT & GIS based application need be Mobile or Hand Held device based

and • should be web based to ensure transparency and public information for

making MGNREGS, a truly people centric Scheme;• The ICT & GIS Applications need to be simple and easy to use mode for

ensuring • participation from stakeholders and local people;• The ICT & GIS application models need to be flexible for changing

parameters • from time to time as per the need of the policies and programmes of MORD;• Capacity building and hand holding to be an integral part of the ICT & GIS • Application package to make people aware, participate, use and implement

the technology facilitation process at Gram Panchayat Level;

• Multi function device with navigation facility(GPS) and with camera and internet

• with a good memory capacity with GIS & IT software and a mobile window software could be the ideal instrument for wide use of ICT & GIS at local level. The cost of present equipment could be around Rs. 11,000/- and within a year the cost may be reduced by half or below making the technology more affordable for popular use of systems;

• The present MIS formats developed by NIC and TCS ( in case of AP) should be

• integrated with the ICT & GIS formats developed for planning, implementation, monitoring of MGNREGS.

• The day long discussions resulted in following Action Points:-• A short term consortium among Dr. V. Madhava Rao, Shri Nagarjuna, Shri • Jayashankar and Prof. H.K. Mishra to develop a technical note delineating the

pathway – Framework and Road Map.• A note on Challenges of Mobile based system and some Success Stories.

(Shri • Pankaj Kumar Kamliya)

11

• One page Write Up on Application of Sensor Technology in MGNREGS. (Shri D. Sudharshan)

• A Concept Note based on day’s Presentation. (Dr. V. Madhava. Rao)

Annexure VI

Working Group’s North East Visit from 24 May to 27 May 2010

The following members of the working group accompanied the team;

1. Ashwani Kumar, chairman

2. Prof. S, Narayan, member

3. Dr. B. Panda( NEHU), Member

North East visit; 24 May 2010

Assam Visit; Kamrup district.

The working group have had an informal meeting with Director, NIRD regarding rationale and schedule of the visit. The Chairman gave some instructions about organizing the review meeting on 27 June with various stakeholders including district administration. It was brought to our attention that state governments were still struggling with confirmation of their participation and most state governments have sent their junior officials. After initial meeting at NIRD, the Working Group comprising chairman and Prof. Narayan (Dr. Panda could not join us because of some urgent meeting at NEHU) headed to the visit of work sites and interaction with workers and Panchyat officials in Kamrup district. Accompanied by Director Prof. Vinay Singh and JE Mehtab Hussain. We inspected a site in Demoria Block and name of village of Hahara (Panchyat name)

Name of site; Vishnupur

12

We met workers at the site; Kalpna Das, she told us that she had worked for 100 days.she told that she was getting Rs.80 but the other women around her told us that they were not getting more than Rs.60. Another worker Pawitra Raham 40 year’s old worker claimed to work as a “Mate” but getting the wage of a worker. She also told that she had attended one-day training in Sonapur Block. We also talked to Lakhi Sahwna and Titeliyat Pathar. Both of them claimed to have worked for about 50 days. We also talked to Basanti Inzal, Panchyat member and also Vice president of Gram panchayat. Kamal Kumar das is the President of Gram Panchyat. She claimed that since there was no Panchyat Bhawan so the meetings of GP are held at the house of the President. There was no computer as reported by the ward member. Ward member generally mobilizes workers. She attended training at SIRD on Women empowerment. We further interacted with Digendra Das(SC) and Silkandra Das( SC) age 75.... Job Card number; Family ID is 74, ID for Job Card---AS-26-003-001-0014-74-30-10-2008. He claims to have completed 100 days and from April again working and getting an Rs 100 per day for work, land filling job he performs.....he does not get old age pension though he belongs to BPL family. There needs to be support to him as he works in other’s fields when NREGA work gets completed. Sajal Das Job card number AS-26-003-001-0014-141-date of registration 19/12/2009. He is the lone member of his family to work, gets 100 rs, he is 10 pass and belongs to BPL family but has no access to PDS system. We also checked the job cards of some workers; entries were by and large in order.

Observations;

1. The MGNREGA board is not properly maintained; the board does not have NREGA logo neither unique work ID, neither number of workers having performed work; this raises a serious issue of duplication of the work as the village road is kaccha and may easily get washed out during heavy monsoon rains.

2. The job cards of most workers were dully filled out....

3. The worksite facility was non-existent; the child care facility was not in place, the reason was the close proximity of work with village.

4. Work site facility not available....small children were carrying each other. Siblings.

5. The oldest worker at the site was 74 years who should have been given relatively light work

After this, we moved to another site...

.Harhara Panchyat.... Block name; Demoria Development Block

12

.Maniram Medhi—secretary of Panchyat and Pradeep Datta is President of Panchyat from 2007. There was no Janta Information system...He did not get any training at SIRD( SIRD needs a capacity building support)

Name of Rozgar Sahayak Manoranjan Thakuria---he gets Rs 3000 on contract. And complained about poor work conditions. Need for HR policy was noted by the working group!

Jonu Das, he was card holder but he could not show his job card, He claimed that he was getting only Rs 80.

Following observations were noted;

1. Capacity building training need was expressed by PRI representatives;

2. President gets honorarium of Rs.1000 per month

3. Panchayats generates a revenue of Rs 45000 per year

4. Gram Sabha takes places however the register shows that Gram Sabha does not take place( A major issue in Assam)

5. Muster roll register was not maintained, when asked for it, the Gram President said that the MR was in the office of Block.

6. The group of about 15 women were there who mentioned to us about not opening new works by the Panchyat president....

7. Panchayat secretary...complained about lack of fund at Panchyat despite telling DPC several times about work demand from workers.

8. No Mate system in existence; they

9. Vigilance committee members on paper as process of social audit was hardly known to PRI representatives

10.Unemployment allowances not provided

11.The Panchyat Office was in good condition and had computer facility as well. The Panchyat President and Secretary appreciated the idea of RG Seva Kendra and showed willingness to implement this.

12.We also interacted with a group of 20 women workers who demanded work; Panchayat President claimed that DPC was not releasing fund as per labour budget so last work was opened 16/12/9... Sangeet, one of the workers pleaded with the Working Group that they need to be informed about their entitlements and they need work but their demand was not registered by the Panchayat President and secretary. After the intervention of Chairman, Working Group, the Rojzar Sayhak started

12

taking their applications for work with dated receipt. However, the Chairman was later informed that the registration drive for work was stopped as soon the Working Group left the Panchayat.

25/5/2010 ; Working Group’s Meghalaya Visit— Ri Bhoi District

Preface : The district budget is 41 plus crore in 2010-11. The work completion is poor as only 184 works have been completed out of 1294.

Village employment Council (VEC) is the most fundamental unit at the grassroots for implementation of MGNREGA in Meghalaya; VEC is akin to Gram Panchyat. Following the traditional system of ‘Dorbar” in the hills of North East, the VEC is the most critical institution but it works both ways; given the communitarian ways of life m it often becomes difficult for ordinary citizens to bring VEC to task for violation of provisions of MGNREGA. Community Coordinator is considered a fulcrum in the implementation architecture; he or she keeps record and also mobilizes workers. (Para Staff)

The working group met at the circuit house for interaction with key officials in Ri Bhoi district. The DC/DPC was busy in his regular work and joined the meeting later. The working group, however, with great dissatisfaction places on record that apparently “ aggressive and negative attitude” of DC towards Working group as if the visit of Working group was some kind of encroachment on his “ bureaucratic privileges”. The DC needs to be counselled to handle meetings with courtesy and grace. The chairman very politely explained him the rationale of the visit though he was already sent a letter from NIRD (Guwahati) in this regard. Mawlong, Project director of DRDA and also looks after MGNREGA. ---She needed “training” in the planning and implementation as she was hardly aware of some of the basic entitlements, not aware of convergence or any new policy initiatives... (The DC was opposed to the idea of frequent training though he did not appreciate the fact that his key personnel were not aware of basic things about NREGA. We were not convinced with the argument that “training hampers” the implementation of MGNREGA)

Project economist—Matthew Makdos alone looks around 700 work sites, 200 sites functional...

Capacity Building Observations;

1, SIRD needs to train VEC and AEC members about implementing; peer learning workshop needed.

2. Perspective planning was also missing.

3. There were 4 technical assistance present in the meeting; most technical assistant were either undertrained or no trained.

12

4. Wage payment was in cash though banks are available in the area (needs to be ascertained as to under what conditions “Cash payment “is still allowed. DC could not cite any exception granted by MoRD in this regard)

5. Mate system seems to be unknown to the region including DC/ DPC who was not aware of the job profile of Mate.

6. No evaluation or impact study DPC admitted that no effort has been made in this regard.

7. DC/DPC was not aware of Operational Guidelines, other than shortage of staff he could not give satisfactory answers on various other aspects of implementation; showed no interest in perspective planning, monitoring( we were told that a NGO has approached for social audit) and .

8. Until today, there is not a single complaint on record as we were told; the working group discussed with the “myth of zero complaint”; he agreed that there was no substance in this as this depends on reporting system. In short, transparency issues are a major casualty.

The Program officer was out in the field with NLM Mr. PK Sinha, perhaps this may be the reason that DC/DPC was not very enthusiastic about meeting with Working Group though he was already informed by NIRD( Guwahati Branch) about the purpose and scope of the Working Group. At the end of the meeting/interaction, DC/DPC agreed to provide all the information sought by the Working Group within a reasonable time frame of one week. The letter and questionnaire are attached with the report. We regret that it never reached the working group!

The Working visited Umdhiar Village----Block Umling in.district Ri Bhoi

General Observation: Despite the good conditions of Panchayat building and having computer facility,( BRGF fund helped) , there is no reporting on key parameters such as delay payment, wage-material ration, work register, social audit etc; it is clear that the most basis provisions are either not being reported or being violated with impunity.

Worksite observations—Construction of Approach Road 4 Km long...

1. No Board for MGRNEGA work.

2. No worksite facility

3. One person was taking attendance at 2; 45 PM, when asked; he said he was taking attendance on the directions of secretary VEC. He was not worker though j ob card holder, some minors were also there.working; How can we penalize who takes “ kuccha muster roll” in broad day light

12

that too in front of visiting central team!( detailed comments have been entered in the block office’s inspection register)

4. Lyngdoh Jenny, BA pass typist in VEC, she was at the site and defended the person who was taking attendance.

5. Secretary is the key functionary in the implementation.

6. Mary Wankuen Lyngdoh, diploma and a technical assistant for 5 moths...but did not know anything about the work. needs training

7. Barkyntilin Ryntothiang, another TA, diploma holder, 5 months RS 6000 per month. wants raise in salary. No training has been received, they were not even aware of MGNREGA...shock and disbelief greeted. the working group!

8. Given the status of poor training and lack of awareness, the role of SIRD in imparting training comes under the scanner; most staff involved in the implementation attributed their lack of awareness about Operational Guidelines to the poor or almost non-existent training by SIRD. The North Eastern branch of NIRD also seems to have failed to impart proper and adequate training on various aspects of implementing MGNREGA as many pointed out.

9. The Convergence of BRGF with MGNREGA in areas of capacity building could be a major concern among officials implementing the Act in North East.

10. BDO continues to discharge the responsibility of PO, however Meghalaya has started the proactive of hiring Additional Program officer who is paid Rs.10,000

11.Technical Assistants are very weak link; most of them we met were newly appointed and seemed strange to rural world especially MGNREGA. when asked about their training and preparation in the area of planning and scrutiny of works, they gave

12.We were told that banks and post offices are not having enough reach in the district Ri Bohi, the cash payment is the only solution. Although we saw bank branches on the road side, we were not convinced with this explanation. We discussed the possibility of ‘mobile banking” or Banking Correspondent to rid the cash payment of various distortions. We did not find any semblance of

13. Mates must be universalized across North East...this is serious issue of capacity building if MGRNEGA has to succeed. Given the history of

12

stranglehold of contractor raj over the development schemes (as informed by various sources); the Mate selected from workers will be a critical pillar.

14.Muster rolls until 24 May were completed and payment, but the work beginning 25 May was being done without MR. When asked, the person who was representing told in the presence of Project Director that Muster rolls have not yet been issued by program officer. To verify this, when we asked Project director about PS, we were told that he was accompanying NLM and his phone was out of reach.

15.the practice of kaccha muster roll seems rampant as muster rolls were not found at the worksite. The muster rolls maintained in the VRC officer were so neatly recorded that it gives the impression that attendance of workers are carried first kaccha and then made pucca. Muster rolls are without dates.

16.Muster rolls in the block office no; 053277 to 053296work id no 245/01 requires to be investigated.

17.The office of DPC/DC was not far enough; a physical visit to the VRE would have solved a lot of issues and also sent a strong message down the line.

18.The workers were not aware of any entitlements . It looks like as if they were still continuing with old practice of food for work.... Any discussion on rights with implementing staff invited either ignorance or feigned pretence of doing proper things.

19.Social audit in a single word has become a causality of lack of transparency; the guilty parties are not only Village employment Council but the top district officials who have not adhered

20.Observations have been recorded in the Inspection register at the block office for further verification and also necessary action to take remedial and disciplinary actions. The chairman working group...recorded his observations in the Inspection Register in the presence of Prof. Narayan, Dr Panda (members of working group) Project director and also economist Matthew.

26 May 2010:The Working Group visit

12

Sohra in East Khasi Hill district: total fund available is 60.71 crore for MGRNEGA

Inspected a worksite in Mawsmai village of Shella-Bholaganj in Sohra; the site was being built under village road connectivity.

Accompanied by Prof. Vinay Singh, director, NIRD (Guwahati), the Working Group comprising Ashwani Kumar, Dr. Panda and Prof. Narayan reached circuit house of Sohra and held consultation with key officials including Mr. Brahmadutt Tiwari, IAS and SDO. Mr. F. Kharamujai, BDO holds the additional charge of PO. The BDO seems to have not aware of various provisions in the Act and also operational guidelines; training of officials and sensitization is major issue in the state. Mr. Tiwari was quite enthused about the implementation of MGNREGA in the region and shared with the group some of the challenges of implementation.

Following observations were made during the visit of the nearby site.

1. Though traditional village council headed by village headman implements MGNREGA, the village Dorbar does not involve women; this needs to be looked into. MGNREGA is also about gender equity. Most women on the worksite seemed quite enthusiastic about MGNREGA as it has given them a new sense of livelihood and participation in public works.

2. Secretary of the Village council is custodian of MR.

3. The JR Albert Swer was taken from PWD

4. Technical Assistants were recently appointed and not aware of various aspects of the implementation.

5. Workers awareness was very poor, to say the least.

6. Job card number 02007006001186, family ID 186, name Ka letleinele Chyne age 39, she said she was getting Rs 100 as wage payment. And she worked for 60 days last year.

7. Job card entries are not properly filled

.

Annexure VII

WORKING GROUP MEETING ON CAPACITY BUILDING UNDER MGNREGS: REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE IN NORTH EASTERN STATES

12

(MAY 27, 2010)

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

At the very outset the Director, NIRD – NERC welcomed the Chairman & Members of the Working Group and also the delegates from the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim. The Director felicitated the Chairman and Members of the Working Group with Phulam Gamochas. This is followed by the self introduction of the delegates.

Prof. Ashwani Kumar, Chairman of the Working Group explained the objectives of the meeting in the context of the Capacity Building under MGNREGS: Review of Performance in North Eastern States. After explaining the Terms of Reference (ToR), he emphasized capacity building from supply and demand perspectives a to minimize the gap in systemic distortions in the implementation of MGNREGA. He was of the view that a specific capacity building model exclusively for the North Eastern States is necessary. He also shared his experiences of field visits in Assam( demoria block) and Meghalaya (rivohi and sohra) and especially focused on poor record keeping, lack of training for key implementing officials/staff including PRIs and also representatives from village employment council/area employment council, poor awareness level of primary stakeholders. The lack of capacity in the area of social audit was also noted. He also mentioned the vulnerabilities associated with ‘cash payment’ in the region and suggested implementing ‘mobile banking’/ Banking Correspondents. He sought frank opinion and observations from the participants based on the experience gained in the implementation of MGNREGS for improving and strengthening the implementation of MGNREGS. Having highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of fundamentals of the Act, he opened the house for generating a lively discussion on the implementation of MGNREGA in a region characterized by mind-boggling ethnic diversity, unqiue ecological conditions and long-history of violent conflicts.

Prof. B.K. Panda, Member of the WG in his inaugural comments emphasised to look at MG-NREGS not as an income approach for rural development but to look it as a wider canvas of rural development dealing with the issue of empowerment and more particularly the capacity building aspects of development.

The presentation of the state scenario began thereafter. The first session was Chaired by Prof. S. Narayan, Member of WG. The state-wise presentation and salient points reflected in the deliberation are as below:

Arunachal Pradesh

Mr. K. Loyei, Deputy Director, SIRD, Arunachal Pradesh presented the activities of SIRD, AP with special focus on MG-NREGS.

12

• There are capacity building programme planned every year with budgetary requirement to support the delivery of the same. The experience in getting the budgetary support to carry out capacity building programme has been highly disproportionate to the requirement.

• Secondly, the demand factor for capacity building at District, Block and Gram Panchayat level is of very high order as compared to the strength of SIRD as its provider. Further, the reach of the capacity building at District and below level has been another challenging task for SIRD in the absence of any Extension Training Centres (ETC) in the state.

• Capacity building on the maintenance of online MIS has been rather a difficult proposition in view of non-availability / erratic supply of power.

Assam

Shri Arun Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department in his frank assessment of capacity building related measures in the region especially Assam pointed out the following constraints in smooth implementation of the MGNREGS.

• Flow of fund from Center to State has been the real hurdle in putting various provisions of the Act in order.

• There is no provision of float in the fund allocation system whereas ensuring guaranteed employment for 100 days at the wish of the worker is the mandatory provision of the Act. He urged members of the WG to convey to MoRD about setting up a transparent, fair and predictable system of fund flow system.

• In his view, the uniform policy adopted at the national level is not suitable for states like Assam where labour absorption pattern is heavily guided by the seasonal variation of the climate. During Monsoons, the work in large parts of Assam gets stopped. This needs to kept in mind while assessing the needs for capacity building.

• The state has initiated necessary action through engagement of CA firm for maintenance of accurate and updated accounting system.

• Another initiatives of the state is in the strengthening of the technical manpower. The initiatives include recruitment of 1100 Diploma Engineer (Civil) during the current year.

• Augmentation of the job of Extension Officer posted at the Block has been made through modification of job description, so that the post of Programme Officer in the capacity of BDO is enhanced to look after the implementation process in the MGNREGS.

• There is engagement of Gramin Rozgar Sevak at grass root level. In respect of engagement of Mate, the action is not initiated. He welcomed

12

the idea of Mate and would take necessary action in this regard. Keeping the population density in the villages, he opined that the five Mates per village is a very high ratio.

• Payment of wages through Bank account / Post Office account has been made compulsory through out the state. In view of inadequate coverage of Bank and Post Offices, exception is provided to Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao (NC Hills) Districts.

• The administrative cost of 6% is short to meet the HR requirement as enlisted in the Act and the operational guidelines. This has caused difficulty in arranging the required support structure at District, Block and Gram Panchayat level.

• The convergence envisaged has not been implemented yet. • Asset registration through MIS is yet to be introduced. • The recent circular of Central Government directing Banks to operate the

accounts of MGNREGS workers without service charge has been a shocking event to the implementation of the programme as Banks have refused to render such services without service charge. The immediate intervention on this issue is a must for management of transparent payment system.

• Shri K. Kalita, Director SIRD, Assam presented the capacity building activities completed upto 31st March 2010 and the proposal made for FY 2010-11 in Assam.

• In a period of three years (2006-07 to 2009-10), SIRD has conducted 361 programmes covering 13630 participants in the state representing elected representative of PRIs and functionaries connected with MGNREGS.

• The capacity building activities proposed fot FY 2010-11 include 225 programmes targeting 7865 participants to cover. Awareness building of Gram Sabha is another proposed activity of the year. The target under it is to cover 20,000 participants under 200 awareness building campaigns.

• In his opinion, the SIRD along with its ETCs can meet all varieties of capacity building requirement in the state provided the following support is extended-

• (a) Funding of Rs.300.00 lakhs annually to meet all expenditure.• (b) Faculty Support to ETCs at the rate of two faculties per ETC and 3 at

the SIRD Headquarters

Manipur

The officers from Manipur was absent. The officer however, had turned up for the round table discussion on 25th May 2010 as per earlier invitation. The Chairman of the working group requested NIRD( Guwahati) to seek a detailed note from Manipur in areas of capacity building for the state.

Meghalaya

Mr. BS Rumnong, Sr. Faculty Member, SIRD, Meghalaya presented the case of the state as under:

13

• Because the WG has had direct feedback from the field and also at the office level, the detailed position in respect of MGNREGS implementation was not presented.

• 80% of SIRDs training is concerned with the capacity building of MGNREGS staff. Prof. Panda from WG sought a detailed note on the training modules and calendar in this regard.

• All technical assistant engaged under MGNREGS have been trained at SIRD. The Chairman intervened in the discussion to point out the poor training of technical assistants. Based on field visits in Meghalaya, he observed that a technical assistants need to properly trained and also made familiar with the prospective planning process.

• Edusect network is under use with 15 terminals.• Radio is also used for awareness building about the provisions of

MGNREGS. • ICT infrastructure is weak. Internet connectivity is also weak. Even it is not

available in the three BRGF Districts also. Similarly, the helpline for MGNREGS is also absent.

• About HR deployment at different levels, the contract terms of service for the post of Additional Programme Officer at Block level has stood as a problem. The remuneration as well as the TA/DA provision arranged are not at all attractive resulting in lack of motivation and also frequent turn over the contract staff. This according to him as adversely affected the implementation performance.

• The office bearers of Village Employment Council (VEC) who discharge critical functions in the implementation have no provision for any kind of remuneration. Adequate provision is necessary.

The next session of the roundtable discussion was Chaired by Dr. B. Panda, Member of WG. The state-wise presentation and salient points reflected in the deliberation are as below:

Mizoram

Mr. Laldinliana, Asst. Director, SIRD, Mizoram presented the case of Mizoram.

• Provided the structure of HR related to implementation of MGNREGS at State, District, Block and Village Council level.

• The concept of social audit is alien to the psyche of Mizo social life. By tradition Mizos shy away from pointing out the weakness of others. Social audit need not be fault –finding, he argued. A culturally sensitive module of social audit needs to design for regions like Mizoram.

• The Faculty strength is available with SIRD and two ETCs are inadequate to cope with the capability building demand of MGNREGS.

• The frequent changes in the operation of MIS came up for discussion it was observed that this has resulted repeated need for equipping the staff with the new system.

13

• The payment of wages to workers through Bank / PO account is limited, because of non-availability of the same in many Blocks. Banking correspondent is a must.

Nagaland

Mr. Kelei Zeliang, Joint Secretary, RD, Nagaland presented various aspects related to the implementation of MGNREGS besides highlighting the problems. The role of SIRD was added further by Dr. Kedise Pucho, Sr. Lecturer, SIRD, Nagaland & OSD ETC Phek

• The organogram for implementation for the programme at State, District, Block and Village Council level has been presented.

• The post of DPC in respect of Nagaland is held by the Project Director. As regards DPC, it was felt in the discussion that more state service official’s needs to be involved. This will ensure better and effective administrative control and management.

• At village level the implementation is looked after by VDB.• Fund at grass root level is released to VDB and the joint account is

maintained by Programme Officer and VDB Secretary. • Workers are paid in cash and payment is made by VDB Secretary.• Bank account / Post Office account is not introduced for the workers for

payment of wages.• The Social Audit is the responsibility of Village Council which it conducts in

the presents of the villagers. • Convergence is not attempted in the state. Need for issue of guidelines is

necessary for the purpose.• The SIRD has seven Faculty Members besides two ETCs which no

additional Faculty posts. At three levels trainings are being imparted. At the District level SIRD has covered 609 officers, at Block level 545 and at Village level 12700 participants.

• SIRD has translated the salient features of MGNREGS in to five local dialects and distributed in the villages for awareness generation and transparency building.

Sikkim

Ms. Bhumika Pradhan, Asst. Director, SIRD, Sikkim presented the status of implementation of MGNREGS along with the constraint encountered.

• The HR structure followed in the state starting from State, District and Block level has been provided along with the strength of manpower in terms of regular and contractual services.

13

• The post of DPC held by District Development Officer and the post of PO is held by the BDO. Panchayats which is two tier system in the state is fully used for implementation of MGNREGS.

• There is Assistant DPC and PO engaged on contract service. The package for the former is Rs. 15,000/- per month and for the later Rs. 12,000/- per month.

• The plan estimates are prepared using a software package (estimate automation). The Chairman of WG observed that NIRD( Guwahati) needed to consider conducting a feasibility study for up scaling ‘autorotation system’ across the region as generic capacity building support for planning in MGNREGA.

• Agriculture appears to have taken a back seat, because of the growth of new tendency of farmers to manage their livelihood through earning of wages under MGNREGS.

• Dated receipts application seeking job by the job card holder is not maintained. This was noted as a serious shortcoming in the implementation of MGNREGA.

• Working season is very limited. There should be a specific time slots for implementation of MGNREGS and the arrangement of fund flow should be there accordingly. NIRD (Guwahati) in consultation with Sikkim SIRD needed to work out a project planning system for completing 100 days of work within limited working season, the Chairman of WG observed.

• Attempt has been made for carrying out Social Audit. The experience however is not encouraging creating disturbance in the relation between and amongst officers.

At the end of the meeting, It was noted that states that were absent in the meeting would present a detailed note in their capacity building requirements within a week. The Chairman of the Working Group congratulated the delegates from different states for their active participation and frank opinions. The Chairman thanked Prof. Narayan and Prof. Panda (members of Working Group) and Shri Arun Kumar, Principal Secretary, Assam for their fruitful interventions in the discussion. At the requests of representatives from different states, he also agreed to undertake detailed visit of the region. He praised Dr. Vinay Singh, director NIRD (Guwahati) for giving a new facelift to the programs of NIRD in the region and urged him to undertake more MGNREGA related training workshops during monsoon season. He also noted the courteous behavior of the faculty and staff of the institute. He requested all the states to submit an update on the status of their capacity building exercise. He suggested to participants to provide Working Group their detailed

13

assessment of needs for capacity building in soft copies within a week. In addition the Chairman also requested each state to work out item wise budget for strengthening of SIRDs and ETCs and also the budgetary requirement for developing video conferencing facilities at State, District and Block level. Headed by Director, SIRD Assam and comprising members from Sikkim, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh, a subgroup was formed to deliberate on this issue. The report of the subgroup would be submitted to the Director, NIRD (Guwahati) in a week for consideration of WG.

The meeting concluded with vote of thanks from Dr. K. Haloi, Asst. Prof. (Sr), NIRD – NERC, Guwahati.

13

ANNEXURE - VIII

Notes from Prof. Narayan (Member, Working Group on Capacity Building)

Visit report of Chhattisgarh; 9April 2010

The member met MGNREGA commissioner and also met joint secretary of MGNREGA; they were very proactive about the implementation. Later, he also visited Uparwara village of Uparwara Panchyat of Zila Janpad Panchayat of Raipur district with Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, Assistant Programmer M. NAREGA. He reached the site without prior information. He found that Panchayat Bhawan was in good condition with stationary and furniture. There was room and furniture for each functionary. Money recently resale for purchase of Computer and are likely to be installed in a week time; Panchayat was not earning enough revenue; MGNREGA was not very successful because the area was declared urban area. Sarpanch and Ward member were present. Panchayat Secretary, Rozgar Sahayak (Employment Assistant) was also present. Register of Gran Sabha was update and reflect regular meeting. Rozgar Sahayak also showed registers of M.GNREGA. The Member also checked a couple of worksites. Vashudeva worked in MGNREGA last year before rainy season for 14 days and was paid @ Rs. 75/- per day. No employment was provided last year. He also interviewed four persons about the functioning of MGNREGA; most workers generally appreciated the timely payment and were supportive of the program but workers were not happy about the quality of the work.

Observations;

1. The first and foremost recommendation is that we must ensure the democratic functioning of the gram Sabha as per the Constitution and the findings of the committee is that Gram Sabha is not functioning anywhere which is the most important institution of MNAREGA

2. People be made aware of their rights to get work under MGNARGEA otherwise the 100 days work will never achieved.

3. Appointment and Training of Mate be made uniform across the country.

4. Ward Sabha be made unit for demanding work/projecting work instead of Gram Sabha.

5. Some more regulatory mechanism on Mukhiya and interface of Mukhiya and Pramukh with Rojgar Sewak/Programme Officer from MGNAREGA point of view is required.

13

6. Training for maintaining records specially Muster Roll be organized for the functionaries and beneficiaries from panchayat to district level.

7. Accredited Engineers be trained properly in measurement. The observation of the committee is that in most of the state we find either no Engineer or cosmetic Engineer.

8. Each panchayat must have PANCHAYAT GHAR with required infrastructure.

13

Annexure IX

Organnogram of Chhattisgarh MGNREGA (Submitted by Add. Commissioner, MGNREGA)

Organnogram of MGNREGA administration

Commissioner

Additional Commissioner

Joint Director, Finance Joint Commissioner

(2)

Account Officer Deputy Expert Expert Expert Expert

Comm. (Irrigation) (RES) (Forest) (Agri.)

(2)

Asst. A.O.

13

¼2½

Accountant Asst. Statistical Publicity Advisor

(2) Comm. Officer Officer Social

(1) (1) (1) Audit

(1)

District level (18)

District Programme Coordinator

13

CEO, ZP (Additional District Programme Coordinator)

Coordinator APO Coordinator Coordinator Coordinator Programmer Coordinator Expert Asst.

Finance Grievance Social audit TechnicalTraining Monitoring Publicity

Redressal &Evaluation Officer

Account Officer Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant

Grivance Social audit Technical Programmer

Redressal

Block level (146)

Programme Officer

Coordinator CoordinatorAssistant

13

Technical Social Audit Programmer

Assistant Assistant

Technical Social Audit

Gram Panchayat level (9734)

Gram Rozgar Sahayak

• The State Mahatma Gandhi NREGA cell is headed by the Commissioner (at

present senior IFS officer Shri K.Subramanium). Besides an additional

commissioner, one deputy commissioner, two technical experts, one publicity

officer, one assistant commissioner and one officer in charge of social audit is

posted at the State level.

• Commissioner is responsible for the overall implementation of the programme

within the State.

• Contractual Staff at all levels are recruited under the Chhattisgarh Contract

Service Rules, 2004.

14

• Recruitment of contractual staff is for the period of 1 year and after 1 year

service is extended or terminated on the basis of performance report. The

performance report evaluate the performance of the concerned officer/staff on

the basis of achievement of physical and financial progress, outstanding

achievement in any of the areas, quality of work, knowledge of the work,

approach to work, communication ability, performance in the team, ability to

make plans, ability to inspect and review the works and integrity.

• The process to appoint Ombudsman in the district is complete for 16 districts.

Two meetings of the selection committee made for this purpose has been

held so far. The details of the candidates for twelve districts were posted on

the website for inviting objections and after that the second meeting of the

selection committee took place. The appointment orders for these will be

issued shortly. No suitable names were suggested in the panel of names for

four districts. Therefore, names were invited after fresh advertisement. These

names will be posted on the website for inviting objections soon.

• The draft of Chhattisgarh MGNREGS Grievance Redressal Rules has been

framed and posted on the website and notified in the extraordinary gazette

dated 11th June 2010, for inviting objections and suggestions.

• The department of Panchayat & Rural development conducts the training

programmes for officials and staffs at the state, district and block levels.

Besides State Institute of Rural Development is the main institution which has

been preparing training modules for officials, staff as well as PRI

functionaries. Since the beginning of NREGA SIRD has conducted 1247

sessions and more than 55,000 participants, which includes 10,473 PRI

functionaries have been trained. SIRD has prepared 200 facilitators who go to

the block and clusters of villages to train the village level functionaries.

Trainings for officials have been conducted on NREGA in general, social audit

under MGNREGA, village development planning, for maintenance and

updation of MGNREGA records. Engineers from Rural Engineering Services

14

have been trained at the State level to facilitate and trained the gram rozgar

sahayaks and mates at the block level.

Trainings for wage disbursement through post offices have also been

conducted by SIRD through Edu-sat. The participants of this training were

Programme Officers and Post office staff.

SIRD has prepare modules on the main provisions of the MGNREGA,

on the working of village monitoring committee (VMC), social audit and has

prepared short films on the process of implementation, social audit and wage

disbursement.

Members of Panchayati Raj have been trained on MGNREGA and

social audit in MGNREGA in particular.

• State Level Bankers Committee meetings are taking place every month

regularly under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary. Various issues

related to the problems faced by the field functionaries in wage disbursement

through institutions are discussed there and brought to the notice of bankers.

Besides regular reviews by the Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development

takes place through meetings and video conferencing. In such review

meetings the CEO, ZPs along with Programme Officers, bankers and post

office staff are also present. The SLBC Convener and Director, Post have

also been attending such review meeting regularly.

Wage disbursement to MGNREGA workers is taking place through

BCM in five districts. However, the remote districts having very low density of

bank branches and post offices are still facing the difficulty in timely wage

disbursement. State bank of India was assigned some parts of Bastar division

for BCM, however no progress has been made in this regard due to non

availability of staff at the customer service points.

14

14

Annexure X

Bihar visit of the Working Groups( May 3 to 5 May 2010)

Schedule ; 3 May – Chairmen and the team comprising Mr. Ved Arya, Mr. Pramathesh Ambasta, Mr. Badrinarayan reaching Patna. As soon as the chairman arrived at 3PM, he left for field visits and interactions with officials in Jehanabad-Bodhgaya –Gaya region. Mr. Pramathesh and Ved Arya left for Khagaria on 4 May.

4 May— The chairman covers Gaya/Bodhgaya—field visits—night returns to Patna

5 May— The meeting of Working Group with govt officials and roundtable at AN Sinha after 3PM.

6 May---The Chairman extended his visit and interacted with officials and had a meeting at ADRI(Patna).

7 May—The Chairman returns to Mumbai

Rationale of the Visit; As we all know that Bihar is one of the low performers in MGNREGA. Consider following facts; the average days of employment under National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) in Bihar has been 35 in 2006-07, 22 in 2007-08 and 26 in 2008-9 and 26 in 2009-10. Consider some districts with very low coverage of MGNREGA in 2009-10; Bhojpur(19 days), Darbhanga (19 days), Gaya(19days),Kaimur (19 days), Madhubani (12 days), Nawada(14 days), Purnia (15 days), Rohtas (19 days), Samastipur(19 days), Sheohar(19 days), Khagaria(19 days), Madhepura (13 days), Paschim Champaran( 15 days) until December 2009.( The Working Group decided to visit two low-performing districts namely, Gaya and Khagaria )

Compare the latest incident in Vaishali in which four dozen unemployed people of Chandi Village in Vaishali district of Bihar have allegedly burnt their job cards on Sunday7 February 2010( according to a news report) with the eruption of violence during the social audit on 23 December 2009 in Jamua Panchayat of Araria District. The district administration filed F.I.R against the infamous ‘Mukhiya Pati’. The social audit not only indicated the extent of neo-rural mafia’s hold over NREGA, but also shockingly revealed that 76% of the 1710 job card holders of the panchayat did not even get one day of work in 08-09. These seemingly isolated incidents are in fact part of an unfolding systemic crisis that MGNREGA has been facing in Bihar for long. In a state where it is estimated that there are approximately 1.5 crore BPL families (as argued by the state administration), the number of household provided employment has not exceeded more than 34 lakh in 2009-10. Ironically, although majority of people in Bihar are BPL, SC, ST, IYA beneficiaries and SF/MF but only

14

1% work has been done on individual Category IV works. With a meagre spending of only Rs. 136 crore on MGNREGA Bihar fails to shed the clichéd image of anti-poor state! Let’s also not forget that the Bihar Rural Development Minister Bhagwan Singh Kushwaha has admitted in the state assembly that rich people including government officials were given job cards under NREGA in ‘Sataur panchayat under Navhatta block in Saharsa district.

Though Bihar government has done some innovation wrt sms based monitoring/ biometric muster rolls, formalization of contract system of hiring, efforts to formulate an independent society to implement MGRNEGA etc. it is still struggling to implement MGNREGA. Apart from capacity issues, in some GPs Mukhiyas escaped with the funds. Some officials are also very creative. Consider the case of Gopalganj: In a review meeting with MoRD, the officials from the district informed MoRD that total Fund available with Gopalganj was 70 crore Rs. but the district could not spend more than 20 crores until December 2009. However, the creative officials proposed to MoRD that they would spend the remaining 50 Crore Rs in the next three months! It seems MGNREGA continues to be bogged down by the infamous practices of “March loot” in Bihar!

Notes form the visit; 3 May 2010

After arrival at the Patna airport at 3PM, the Chairman left immediately for field visits and interaction with key officials and workers in Jehanabad-Gaya- Bodhgaya region. Accompanied by Mr. Badrinarayan, Add. Commissioner, MGRNEGA, Rajasthan and Mr. SK Singh, JS (department of RD, GoB), the team reached Jehanabad circuit house. The district Collector/ DPC Ms. Sahani gave a brief summary of the progress of the implementation in the district. Total 2952 schemes have been taken and 1036 schemes have been completed and Total Expenditure incurred on themes is Rs. 2221.93 Lakhs until Feb.2010. Jobs are provided to the job cards holders on their demand for work and payment of wages are made through account of Banks/Post Offices. More than 16 lakh person days of work has been created in 2009-10 in the district. The DPC reported that the implementation of MGRNEGA has also diluted the effect of Naxal movement in the district; it was here in Jehanabad where Naxals in 2005 attacked the district jail and released their cadre. Since the time was very limited, the chairman appreciate the works of the DPC and proposed to undertake an independent monitoring for assessing the impact of MGNREGA on Naxal movement in the district. Regarding staff, the DPC shed some light on the issues of ‘contract staff” and their training. The process of contract staff seems to be still evolving in Bihar and training is major handicap. The DPC also has not had much exposure wrt training and expressed her desire to attend to training at some nationally reputed training institute. The DPC enquired with Mr. Badrinarayan about the experience of “mate. And social audit as conducted in Rajasthan. The lack of civil society participation was noted in the implementation.( Locals opine that district administrations looks at NGOs with suspicions as some of them are considered sympathisers of Naxal causes.) The DPC agreed that much of MGRNEGA was being carried out by Line departments and PRIs have not yet showed much success in realising their potential in the implementation. The Chairman drew the attention of DPC about the role of mate in worksite management. Presently in Bihar the mate only takes attendance for the workers; this has adversely affected the

14

implementation. The Chairman discussed the possibility of Capacity Building and training for Mates on issues such as task napi, lead and lift principles, calculations, SoR et al. It was clear that Bihar not only lacks “ managerial capacity “ but also serious requires a massive Upgradation of its existing training and skill development capacities for key functionaries of MGNREGA. The awareness about works for individual land development and works meant for SC/ST/ etc was found wanting among the key functionaries in the district. However, it was noted that DPC had a very positive attitude towards MGNREGA. After thanking DPC for promptly organizing the meeting, the Chairman left for Bodhgaya-Gaya at 6:30PM. The chairman reached late in Bodhgaya due to a massive road held-up during the journey and was received by Mr. Durgesh Nandan, DDC of Gaya.Gaya/Bodhgaya Visit: 4 May 2010

Early morning in Bodhgaya, the Chairman visited the ‘Samanvaya Ashram’ run by veteran Sarvodlya social worker Mr. Dwarko Sundrani for a discussion with him on local conditions wrt implementation of MGNREGA. Mr. Sundrani told him about violations of various provisions of MGNREGA especially non-opening of work despite demands of local labourers. He presented him a complaint about non-implementation of MGNREGA in Bodhgaya in which several card holders have not been jobs. The complaint was duly received by Gaya administration and DDC was directed by the DPC on 30 March 2010(letter no; 1459) to take immediate action in this regard. It was quite frustrating to see that an old man in his 80s was struggling to secure jobs for poor under MGNREGA without any proactive support from the district administration. Accompanied with DDC, director SGSY, Sundraniji, and Mr Badrinarayan,( member, working group), the chairman decided to visit Gram Sarvodyapuri (post koshila) block Bodhgaya where it was alleged that some 88 cardholders had never got any work under MGNREGA. . Most job cards do not have photographs .In some job cards basic details such as work and payment are completely missing. And people narrated many instanced in which no dated receipts were given. The village was largely a SC habitation and the dismal conditions of various development programs of GoI were writ large. The villagers assembled in large numbers for an impromptu public hearing with the visiting team; the DDC and his staff agreed to record the proceeding so that a proper remedial action could be taken. The local Sarpanch was not available. The Program Officer finally reached the site after a long wait; she had apparently no idea about the conditions of the implementation of MGRNEGA in the village as most labourers (many of them were women) complained about no work under MGRNEGA. Some reported that after 4/1/ 2009, no work was ever started in the village; this was quite shocking given the acute poverty and also a Maoist area! The team concluded that ‘no demand for work’ was at best an administrative myth that needed to be investigated. In contrast, women working under “Jeevika project” expressed a lot of satisfaction with works of Self Help group. It was strange to see that many SC families (also BPL families) such as Suraj Paswan did not job card. Manu Majhi job card number 641 bitterly complained about having worked only 6 days in MGNREGA. The Program Officer and Employment Gurantee Assistant along with Sarpanch needed to be made accountable for lapses in the implementation. DDC promised to discuss the matter with DPC/Collector in this regard. At the intervention of local people, the DDC instructed PO to start a work registration campaign and ensure opening of the work. The Visiting team after assuring the people that follow up action would be taken; this also showed that “ capacity building” needs to broaden its ambit to look at the issues

14

of ‘social mobilization’ and “ community participation” as integral to the implementation of MGRNEGA.

After this, the visiting team proceed for Gram Banfar in block Barachatti (Bodhgaya). The same story was repeated here also. DDC and Program Officer failed to explain as to why poor sc families were not getting MGRNEGA work. Most families told the same story of “neglect by the local administration” and no means to lodge any complain. A detailed visit report had been prepared by DDC. However, ironically, the school building had information about IYS and other programs painted on its walls but without any effect. The school was also a temporary shelter for ‘para-military forces involved in anti-Naxal operations. Given the influence of Maoists in the area, the neglect of MGNREGA defied commonsense as well. In contrast, Mr. Dwarko Sundrani was quite welcomed by the local SC families and they appreciated his social work in the region. The working group recommends taking prompt administrative measures to ensure the implementation of MGNREGA in the villages the team visited. Despite the poverty and Naxal problem, the youth of the village were quite enthused about MGRNEGA and also SGSY; one disabled youth showed his talent in weaving carpet; the DDC promised to involve the village in the net of SGSY. It was quite clear that local block level officials and key support staff were not propoor. After the visit of the village, the team went to Barachatti block office; it was quite an eye-opener in terms of “poor management of MGRNEGA” and pathetic work conditions for MGNREGA staff. The computers for MGNREGA were used for other block works and the operator was missing on the pretext of MIS uploading. When the team wanted to inspect the registers and muster rolls, they were told that these are locked in the almirah and key were with the PO who after several calls did not pick up his phone. Mr. Badrinarayan pointed several errors in the reporting on the MIS; DDC agreed to take action in this regard. Though there was so much ‘hype” about Panchyati Raj, it was apparent that PRIs were in dismal conditions.

After site visits, the Working Group met Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh. DPC/District Collectors. He gave a patient hearing and also agreed with several points raised by the Working Groups. He promised to take urgent action on Mr. Sundrani’s complaint about no work for jab card holders. The Chairman reminded him about his critical role in ensuring the integrity of the Act. He shared with the working group the remedial actions and also disciplinary actions taken against Employment Gurantee Assistant and also program officers; the district did indeed suffer from capacity related issues such as lack of POs, Rozgar Sevaks, and JEs etc. However, the district administration seemed to put ‘transparency and accountability’ issues on the back burner. The working group then attended a public meeting organized by DPC in which key stakeholders from administration, PRIs, banks and post-officers participated. The silver lining in the meeting was DPC’s imitative to launch an awareness campaign for MGRNEGA in a campaign mode; this has already been launched from 13 April 2010. The chairman, however, urged him to involve reputed and credible civil society organizations in the planning and monitoring of MGRNEGA. The Mukhiya and other PRIs representatives generally complained about lack of funds and bureaucratic controls. In the discussion, it became clear that district administration continues to implement MGNREGA through old administrative systems without any dedicated management support systems. In fact, the circulars/directives of MGRNEGA are being issued from confidential section

14

(Gopinay Shakha) of the collectorate; this is quite ironical as framers of MGNREGA had relied on proactive disclosures rules and RTI for making implementation more transparent and people friendly. In contrast, Bihar is still stuck in “colonial practices of administration”. If MGNREGA continues to implement from ‘Confidential sections” of district administration, there is no future for the poor!

5 May 2010. Meeting with Secretary, Rural Development, and Secretary, Planning, Government of Bihar.

Meeting with Mr Santosh Mathew, Secretary, RD, GoB.

Key observation made by the WG was that with a low rate of wage days (9 per year?), although major effort was made by the then RD Secretary, Mr Mukherjee to streamline recruitment of staff at the district level, especially engineers, through a transparent system, the ground level implementation left much to be desired. Mr Mathew made the point that the political will and leadership is strong and favourable for reforms. WG members made the observation that even then today there was little preparedness in the system to plan for works in the year ahead. The selection of mate was completely in control of the Mukhia and capacity of the field assistant was abysmal even to measure the work done on simple works like raising a wall of the well above the ground. The Secretary said he wasn’t clear how many staff could be recruited and how much money could be paid. Is it proportionate to the population served or it was to be for a geographical area? We welcomed his idea of putting together a resource material on what is working and what’s not working in various states from which he said he could learn (he quoted the example of NHSRC that has done a wonderful job in the health sector, w.r.t. NRHM).

5 May 2010: Interactions with key officials and roundtable at AN Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna

At the outset of discussion Professor D M Diwakar, Director, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies welcomed Ashwani Kumar, chairman Working Group for visiting A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna for consultation regarding capacity building of MNREGS. He also extended his warm welcome to participant of the consultation meeting. While welcoming he expressed his opinion for strengthening the implementation, monitoring and evaluation network of MNREGS. He underlined the need of extensive awareness campaign for procedures, and entitlements. He emphasized to activate Gram Sabha and develop wage labour groups of catalysts and provide them proper training about entitlements, procedures and redressal mechanism in case of non-implementations.

Professor Ashwani Kumar introduced the background of the formation of the group and objectives of the visit. He informed the participants that the Ministry of Rural Development has formed Working Groups for looking into the issues of wages, planning, transparency, and capacity building towards strengthening MNREGS. Emphasis was on ways and means to strengthen administration,

14

evaluation, monitoring, uniformity in operational activities and guidelines. Capacity building in terms of governance reforms Bihar is at the threshold of new model. He also expressed concerns of Bihar not being a front-ranking states in the implementation of MGNREGA and also not following operational guidelines of MNREGS. Average days of employment created in Bihar were quite low. Need assessment of society leading to a micro planning, and efficient support system including law and order, institutional finance, banking linkages and procedures, and developing indigenous model for MNREGS in Bihar is necessary. The question of inequality and share in power remained major challenge. His colleagues from the Working Group echoed the same observations; Ved Arya and Pramathesh also wondered if Jeevika could be a successful program then why not MGNREGA. They underlined the need for new management systems for Bihar.

Dr P P Gosh (ADRI) underlined the severe shortage of infrastructure at PRI level. Stakeholders from BASIX emphasized on SHG models for implementation. Pramathesh acknowledged the need of effective decentralization; however, he underlined the difficulties in acquiring efficiencies in PRIs. Mr Ved Arya expressed his concerns as to what were happening in Bihar. Lapses in institutional delivery and insensitive power groups working against the interests of effective implementations of the NREGS. Dr. Shaibal Gupta very eloquently explained the notion of “lack of good governance” in the institutional memory of the state power as the prime culprit for the poor implementation of MGRNEGA. He expressed his concerns on quality of governance of NREGS. He argued that the people in villages are empowered but in absence of infrastructure and secretariat PRIs do not translate into effective implementations. Dr Meera Datta raised the issues of gender friendly environment for effective implementation. Members from civil society raised the issue of “community participation in the planning and monitoring of MGNREGA. Mr Mathew talked about emulating the successful example of Jeevika in terms of recruitment and selection by an independent agency.

Jeevika CEO Mr Arvind Chaudhury, iAS, clearly articulated the successful experience of outsourcing the task of recruitment and selection to a professional agency SRIJAN IDS that helped Jeevika find quality human resources to work as a dedicated staff at the cutting edge working with people directly as well as all management levels from block, district to the state. They have a HR policy for the contract staff (as most of the staff is).

Following Members were Present in the roundtable:

1. Ashwani Kumar Chairman,

2. Dr. Pramathesh Ambasta Member

3. Prof. Sachindra Narayan Member

4. Mr. Ved Arya Member

14

5. Prof. D M Diwakar Director, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna

6. Jagdish Prasad A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna

7. Sudhir Kumar, ANSISS, Patna,

8. S M A Yousuf ANSISS, Patna,

9. Shri Badri Narayan Addnl Commissioner, NREGS, Rajasthan

10.Shri Sunil Kumar Singh Joint Secretary, RDD, Government of Bihar

11.Anil Kumar DDC Patna, Govt of Bihar

12.Uma Shankar Prasad DDC Vaishali, Govt of Bihar

13.Vinay Ohdar R M, Action Aid, Bihar

14.Byomesh Kr. Lal Pro Manager, Action Aid

15.Rakesh Tiwary M&E, Cell, Planning Department

16.Shaibal Gupta Member – Secretary, ADRI, Patna

17.P P Ghosh Director, ADRI, Patna

18.Meera Datta Development Research Institute,

19.V Sharan, CIMP, Patna

20.Arvind Kumar Chowdhary Proj Dir BRLP, Patna

21.Dharmendra Sr Manager, Basix

22.Mihir Basix

23.Ved Arya Programme Leader, SRIJAN, Patna

24.Sanjay Kr Prasad Ekta Parishad, Patna

25.Ms Pradeep Priyadarshini Ekta Parishad, Patna

Patna Visit: 6 May 2010

The Chairman interacted with Mr. Rajwardhan Sharma, Additional DG (Police) at the state secretariat at 10 AM on the specific issue of Maoist affected areas and the need for development programmes. It was felt that programmes like MGNREGA had great potential the blunt the appeal of Maoists. However, it needs to be done in an organized and systematic manner with the help of civil society groups/voluntary

15

organizations. And this initiative needs to keep separate from police action or Green Hunt. In the identification or selection of Voluntary Organizations, care should be taken to deploy good, efficient and reputed voluntary organizations; local voluntary organizations should be partnered with good voluntary organizations having reputation and good track record.

The Chairman also visited ADRI (Asian Development Research Institute) at11 AM for a discussion on implementation of MGNREGA and the role of PRIs. The issue of RG Seva Kendra came up for discussion. It was appreciated that Central Government has been trying to provide infrastructural and service support to PRIs especially for implementation of MGNREGA. However, the participants also pointed out that it needs to be integrated with Bihar’s scheme for a three-storied infrastructure for locating all offices of PRIs. Bihar has planned to spend Rs 80 lakh for building infrastructure for PRIs at the panchayat level. The field experience in Gaya was also shared with ADRI. One of the major issues that impede the implementation of MGNREGA was absence of civil society organizations/Voluntary Organizations in the field. The capacity of PRIs to deliver MGNREGA would improve if VOs begin to organize or mobilize primary stakeholders (labourers) was noted by ADRI. It was also noted that leading research institutions need to be involved in the Evaluation Work of MGNREGA. The state government and Central government need to focus on ways and means to broadbase the existing framework of PIN (Professional Institutional Network) of MoRD. It was also noted that state governments hardly pay any attention to evaluation aspects of implementation of MGNREGA. As regards recharging MGNREGA in Maoist affected areas, ADRI agreed with the perspective of taking RD programs to the people with the help of Voluntary Organizations. However, the participants also suggested that it must be done with PRI’s active involvement. As regards creating a new rural cadre for rural development programs, Bihar seems to have made some progress as the state has already laid down a separate cadre at the block level that comprises officials and staff from existing supervisory cadre at the Panchayat level. The BDOs and others have been relocated to district. The governance reforms in Bihar also came up for discussion. It was felt that with further administrative reforms, Bihar would also catch up with best performing MGNREGA states. The fragile base of governance systems was highlighted as the major capacity hindrance.

The Chairman also visited BIPARD (Bihar Institute for Administrative and Rural Development) at 2:30 PM for a discussion with Mr. Amithabh Verma, DG of BIPARD. The issue of training of officials and staff was frequently mentioned in the Bihar visit. The shortage of training facilities that include systematic and organized training modules has been noted by the Working Group. The DG BIPARD was quite welcoming and shared his perspective on the role of the institute. The Institute was set up after bifurcation of the state and still undergoing the process of transitition. The DG explained the rationale of the institute and also the onerous challenges of serving the multiple needs of capacity building. Currently, the institute does not have

15

a full time DG as the current DG is also Secretary Cooperatives and Animal Husbandries. Therefore, the need for a full time dedicated DG is urgently needed for taking the institute through the transition process.

On the generic issue of “training for MGNREGA” the DG frankly accepted that not much was being done except organising workshops/seminars/. The working group gathered from the discussion with DG and also a submission dated 29June 2010(almost a gap of two months) that BIPARD itself needs capacity building support! Other than mechanically and linearly organized (without any exercise for TNA), block level training programmes/ one day orientation programs are being organized in the state for MGRNEGA. Most block level programs are for 3days. According to BIPARD, total number of training programs in 2008-9 was 269(all block level programs) and total number of participants was 17357. From April 2009- march 2010, BIPARD conducted only 8 training programs and the total number of participants was only 303; surely, there is dilution of focus on training in Bihar. BIAPRD is not currently not equipped though the numbers are impressive on their own but if they are evaluated on some outcome parameters, there seems to be a “crisis in the training systems” for MGRNEGA in Bihar!

(The Chairman appreciates the support provided by Mr. SK Singh, JS( department of RD, GoB and also member of the Working Group), however NIRD could not provide any quick assessment of the performance of MGNREGA in the state of Bihar as suggested by the Chairman in his e-letter dated 27 April2010. The support from NIRD, Patna was wanting in many respects and efforts need to be taken to make Patna NIRD functional enough to support the works of MoRD, if not the working group. If the OSD of Patna, NIRD does not even know the location of BIPARD in the city, rest we can leave to the imagination of decision –makers at NIRD(Hyderabad)!

15

Annexure XI

Working Group’s visit in Rajasthan(Jaipur); 7 April 2010

Chairman’s note on the visit

My meetings with Officials at NREGA cell of Rural Development Department (Rajasthan Govt) on 7 April 2010 went very well; Since NREGA Commissioner Mr. Tanmay Kumar was away to Delhi, the meeting was organized by additional MGNREGA Commissioner Mr. Gupta. The intervention of Mr. Tanmay Kumar whom some of us met at the Planning Commission (New Delhi) on 6 April resolved the issue of nominating a member from Rajasthan Government to the Working Group. He promised to nominated Mr. Badrinarayan, additional commissioner. However, I must place it on record that it delayed the functioning of our Working Group. In the meeting, the MGNREGA officials in Rajasthan agreed to supply information sought within a week. I would appreciate if Dr. Rajni Kant follows it up and circulate the information as early as possible.

In the meeting with Rajasthan Officials, it became clear that MGNREGA was being implemented without any HR policy especially for officials/staff working on contract. Ved and Pramathesh kindly pay attention to HR issues as discussed in Hyderabad. Dr. Panda can you give some thoughts on how to make more effective ‘Capacity Building Training Report’ on MIS of MoRD; presently it gives consolidated figures on the status of training without any information of various relevant parameters of training , levels and frequency of training.

In meeting with SIRD (Rajasthan) officials-faculty including DG SIRD on 8 April 2010, it has been resolved to place on record all the information relating to capacity building especially training for the perusal of members of Working Groups. Since Rajasthan has pioneered the concept of Mate training so it would be necessary that Working Group gets all the relevant information about the training of Mate. SIRD has agreed to supply information on training needs of Mate and other stakeholders Again, Dr. Rajanikant would coordinate with SIRD and get the required material within a week.

I also visited the site of proposed branch of NIRD in Jaipur. We need to ask NIRD (Hyderabad) to supply information about this for ascertaining as to how the branch of NIRD in Jaipur could be conceptualized as a world-class institution on all ‘capacity related issues relating to MGNREGA and Panchyati Raj. The idea of setting up a dedicated Research and Evaluation System for MGNREGA could be located at this proposed site. Since we have slowly and surely entered the era of “innovation” in

15

the policies for rural development, the proposed branch of NIRD could easily become a “Hub for Innovation Studies” (HFIS) where innovations in MGNREGA, NRLM, Bhart Nirman, and BRGF etc could be institutionalized. Currently, MoRD is bogged down in attending to too many things apart from regular administrative issues

Annexure XII

Note on Information Constraints/ Research Support Challenges faced by the Working Group

Following observations need to be kept for remedial action;

1. The Working Group places on record that no state government ever responded to the detailed questionnaire prepared by Working Group.

2. A brief questionnaire prepared by the Working Group was replied by Rajasthan and Bihar during study visits. Though Chhattisgarh did not respond to the detailed questionnaire during Prof. Narayan’s visit, but it provided a short summary within a span of 24 hours after the Chairman reminded on 27 June the MGNREGA cell of the state on Chhattisgarh.

3. And other than three SIRDs, (Jabalpur, Pune and Guwahati) and APARD, no SIRDs ever responded to Working Group’s questionnaire, e-letter of chairman 9 April2010. The letter from NIRD dated 23 April 2010 notes receipt of

15

material from three SIRDs but procured material never reached the Working Group. The Chairman’s final reminder dated 17 June 2010 met with no success. Despite Chairman’s personal visit and interaction with DG and his staff at Rajasthan, SIRD on 7 April 2010, no material on training was ever submitted to the Working Group. After several reminders through NIRD (Hyderabad), Bihar BIPARD finally on 29 June submitted a list of trainings workshops.

4. The functioning of NIRD (Patna) and its OSD are noted with great dissatisfaction by the Working Group. We would have appreciated if NIRD(Hyderabad) and SIRDs could have done an analysis of challenges of training in terms of pedagogy, course content and learning tools for the quick appraisal by Working Group.

5. The note on NIAR, Mussoorie is self-explanatory for taking a view on the capacity or lack of capacity of NIAR to live up to the expectation of being “National Resource Center”.

6. Not only this, the support from MoRD was found wanting as no material wrt capacity building was ever sent to the Working Group for its information. The NIRD was reminded about it several times without any success. Following information/material was sought from MoRD through NIRD;

• Assessment of training needs by NIRD for MGNREGA officials and personnel right from the block to the national level; a written submission on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of training may be submitted to the working group by 15 April 2010. ( letter Ist April 2010)

• The working group needs information from MGNREGA division of MoRD on the whole spectrum of ‘capacity building’ for examining the possibility of greater professionalization of NREGA division right from the national level to Block level. It is in this context, the Working Group requires from MGNREGA division of MoRD consolidated as well disaggregated information on the status of staff/personnel (filled and unfilled). The working group would also like to be briefed on the partnership of MoRD with any multilateral agency for capacity building tools and management support capacities for MGNREGA. This information and assessment will help the working group to recommend necessary steps for strengthening the capacity and effectiveness of NREGA division at the national Level as per the ToR of the Working Group.( letter dated April 4/2010)

• The Working Group needs consolidated information from MGNREGA division of MoRD on the status of training of officials and staff involved in the implementation of MGNREGA. It would be appreciated if working group is provided the whole basket of information on the agencies/institutions and civil society organizations involved in the training aspects of capacity building.( letter April 4/2010)

15

• The Working Group requires from MGNREGA division of MoRD information on the communication strategies or policies aimed at strengthening/enhancing capacity building efforts/initiatives in the implementation of MGNREGA.( ( letter April 4/2010)

• The Working Group needs from MGNREGA division MoRD consolidated and disaggregated information and analysis of current norms wrt to administrative expenses. In 2009-10, the administrative expenses have not crossed more than 3%. The administrative expenses were enhanced from 4% to 6% from March 2009. (Circular No J-11011/182007 dated March 2009). As states governments are authorized under Operational Guidelines to decide the percentage of administrative expenses to be incurred at different levels and by different implementing agencies, we need information for a comparative analysis of utilization of administrative expenses and also for suggesting some administrative benchmarks for spending administrative expenses across board. ( letter April 4/2010)

• The Working Group needs information from MGNREGA division of MoRD about the proposed administrative expenses on setting up Office of Ombudsman in states. ( letter April 4/2010)

• . The Working Group needs information from MGNREGA division of MoRD on the status of PIN(Professional Institutional Network) to assess the existing research and evaluation capacities right from the MoRD to State level. ( e-letter April 4/2010)

7. In contrast, Mr. Kesavan, director, MoPR very promptly provided all necessary information wrt PRIs.

8. We place on record the research support the Working Group received from NIRD(Hyderabad) in the preparation of questionnaire and the concept note for workshop on Asset Management System(C-GARD).

15

Annexure XIII

Brief questionnaire for States( prepared on 7 April2010 by the Working Group)

• Organnogram of MGNREGA administration at multiple levels including state level

• Role , responsibility and functional specialization of Officials and Staff at the state level.

• Since the processes, procedures and institutional arrangements for MGRNEGA and Drought Relief are same, it would be better to understand the nature of how this convergence works at the administrative level.

• Human Resource management systems, if any, for handling Contractual Staff right from the state to the block level.

• Functional clarity of contractual staff • Performance Evaluation System of contractual staff. • Information regarding action taken under section 25 of the Act; status of

administrative action taken for grievance redressal. Any institutional arrangement for this.

• Administrative /institutional Steps taken to implement the Ombudsman; appraise the progress on this with a clear time line.

• Incentives for Officials and Staff working for MGNREGA implementation.• The status of e-governance in the implementation of MGNREGA in the state

right from the state to GP Level.• Training of Officials and Staff for MGNREGA implementation; details on

institutional and organizational arrangements, course content, modules, pedagogy etc.

• Training efforts for primary stakeholders that include key panchayat functionaries, mates etc...

• Capacity building steps for making Gram Sabha more effective in the implementation of MGNREGA

• Information on the functioning and performance of SIRD in the institutional architecture of MGNREGA implementation.

• Efforts for independent Evaluation of MGNREGA works in the state; any institutional arrangement as per the directives of State Employment Gurantee Council.

• Steps taken to establish coordination mechanisms between state/district administration and banks/post-offices as per the relevant advisories of MoRD.

• Administrative issues arising out of the scheme of banking correspondent for wage payment of MGNREA workers.

• Details of Administrative expenses at all levels; suggestions are welcome.• Administrative steps taken for census of MGNREGA works in the state.• Any other matter arising out of ToR of the working group.

15

Annexure XIV

Detailed Questionnaire Sent to States for Response

MGNREGA Administrative System/ HR Polices of Select States

States :

West Bengal; Kerala, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgargh, Andhra Pradesh.

PART A: Regular Permanent Personnel.

PART B : Contract Personnel, CBOs, NGOs etc

PART.C. Elected Peoples Representatives

Personnel at State District, Block and Grama Panchayath levels.

1. State Level Personnel

Designations Cadre Nos Nature of Posting (Regular, Deputation, Contractual) Qualifications and Experience Prescribed and possessed, Tenure of Postings, Scale of Pay, Gross Emoluments, Nature of Tasks and Responsibilities, Reviewing and Reporting structures, Training undergone, Skills possessed, skills needed. Sanctioned Posts and Vacant Posts, since when the post is filled up and is lying vacant for how long. Remarks.

2. Disrtict Level Posts

(Same as above)

15

3. Block/Mandal Level Posts

(Same as above)

4. Grama Panchayath Level Posts

(Same as above)

15

Issues.

1. Is there any mandatory staffing pattern meant for MGNREGS at different tiers by the state, at district, Block, and GP level?

2. Is there a shortage of personnel in the RD department to man these MGNREGS posts?

3. Are there a shortage of qualified personnel in the open market to meet with the skills sets needed for MGNREGS tasks?

4. What percentage, number of these MGNREGS posts are at present contracted out at different tiers?

5. Will the states governments decide to place a majority of these MGNREGS posts on contractual mode? If yes will these personnel be made regular after some time or a new team put in place?

6. Are their qualifications and pay packages fixed to be suitable and remunerative enough to draw up the required talents?

7. Are the exiting regular personnel able to carry out the mandatory MGNREGS job tasks? Are they over worked?

8. What infrastructural facilities already exist and are additionally needed by these MGNREGS personnel at different tiers? e.g. of computers at GP levels.

9. What could be the sort of package and composition of personnel needed at Grama Panchayath and Block Panchayath levels to meet with HR challenges of MGNREGS?

16

10. Is there an HR cell exclusively for MGNREGS in the state level to meet with policy matters?

11. The effectiveness of the contribution of informal structures like, Mates, SHGs, Contract Engineers, CBOs, and NGOs are assessed /studied or not by State and PRIs ?

12. The role of PRIs in managing the HR engaged in MGNREGS need be looked into in detail as to the control and review, monitoring needs?

13. What is the training strategy for MGNREGS at different tiers and levels?

14. What training needs – gaps are identified of the incumbent MGNREGS personnel’s?

15. Are there relevant training modules available for better HR creation at all levels?

16. What is the training coverage of existing personnel? All personnel are covered or not?

17. Are there replicable success stories at HR development for MGNREGS personnel at grass roots levels?

I. State Level Human Resource on MGNREGS

I. A.I: Regular Personnel at state level.

Sl :No

Designation and Name

Cadre/ Grade

Current Gross Monthly

Pay (Rs)

If in position

since when :

(date )

If now the post is vacant

since when ?

Date of

Entry in

service

Date of Retirement

At present do you hold other duties besides MGNREGS?

At present are you officiating on more than one post?

16

( date) Yes/No Yes/No

1

to

n

I. A.2. Skills and Capacity Building Assessment at state level

Sl.No

Highest

Education

possessed

Specify any Technical

/ Professional

skills

possessed

Got training on

MGNREGs Yes/No

If yes duration and topic of training received?

Training attended

at which institutions?

Give name

Do you need

more training on MGNREGs Yes/No

If yes what sort/ subject

of additional training is

Needed by you?

( Describe)

Remarks

1

to

N

I.B.I. Contract/ Deputation Personnel at state levels

Sl.No

Designation and Name

Cadre/ Grade

Posted by

Deputation

( yes/ no)

Posted By Contract

(Yes/No)

Name of

Parent

Department

Gross Monthly

Pay (Rs)

If in position

since when :

(date )

If the post is vacant since when (Date)

Date of Entry in service

Date of Retirement/ end of contract

16

1

To

n

I. B.2. Skills and Capacity Building of Contract/ deputation personnel assessment at state levels

Sl.No

Highest

Education

possessed

Specify Technical

/ Professional skills

possessed

Got training on

MGNREGs Yes/No

If yes duration and topic of training received?

Training attended

at which institutions

Do you need

more training on MGNREGs Yes/No

1

to

N

II. District Level Human Resource on MGNREGS

II. A.I: Regular Personnel at district level.

Sl :No

Designation and Name

Cadre/ Grade

Current Gross Monthly

Pay (Rs)

If in position

since when :

(date )

If now vacant

since when

( date)

Date of

Entry in

service

Date of Retirement

Who is the controlling officer?

Remarks

1

to

n

16

II. A.2. Skills and Capacity Building Assessment of regular personnel at district level.

Sl.No

Highest

Education

possessed

Specify Technical

/ Professional skills

possessed

Got training on

MGNREGs Yes/No

Training attended

at which institutions

Do you need

more training on MGNREGs Yes/No

What sort/ subject

of training is

needed by you

( Describe)

Remarks

1

to

N

I.B.I. Contract/ Deputation Personnel at district levels

Sl.No

Designation and Name

Cadre/ Grade

Posted By

Deputation

( yes/ no)

Posted By Contract

(Yes/No)

Name of

Parent

Department

Gross Monthly

Pay (Rs)

If in position

since when :

(date )

If vacant since when (Date)

Date of Entry in service

1

16

To

n

I. B.2. Skills and Capacity Building of Contract/ deputation personnel assessment at district levels

Sl.No

Highest

Education

possessed

Specify Technical

/ Professional skills

possessed

Got training on

MGNREGs Yes/No

Training attended

at which institutions

Do you need

more training on MGNREGs Yes/No

What sort/ subject

of training is

needed by you

( Describe)

Remarks

1

to

N

I.B.I. Regular Personnel at Block/ JP/Mandal levels

Sl.No

Designation and Name

Cadre/ Grade

Posted By

Deputation

( yes/ no)

Posted By Contract

(Yes/No)

Name of

Parent

Department

Gross Monthly

Pay (Rs)

If in position

since when :

(date )

If vacant since when (Date)

Date of Entry in service

1

To

n

16

I. B.2. Skills and Capacity Building of Regular personnel assessment at Block/JP/Mandal levels

Sl.No

Highest

Education

possessed

Specify Technical

/ Professional skills

possessed

Got training on

MGNREGs Yes/No

Training attended

at which institutions

Do you need

more training on MGNREGs Yes/No

What sort/ subject

of training is

needed by you

( Describe)

Remarks

1

to

N

I.B.I. Contract/ Deputation Personnel at Block/JP/Mandal levels

Sl.No

Designation and Name

Cadre/ Grade

Posted By

Deputation

( yes/ no)

Posted By Contract

(Yes/No)

Name of

Parent

Department

Gross Monthly

Pay (Rs)

If in position

since when :

(date

If vacant since when (Date)

Date of Entry in service

16

)

1

To

n

I. B.2. Skills and Capacity Building of Contract/ deputation personnel assessment at Block/JP/Mandal levels

Sl.No

Highest

Education

possessed

Specify Technical

/ Professional skills

possessed

Got training on

MGNREGs Yes/No

Training attended

at which institutions

Do you need

more training on MGNREGs Yes/No

What sort/ subject

of training is

needed by you

( Describe)

Remarks

1

to

N

16

16