You are on page 1of 45

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund State Report

September 2009

Core Team members Yadab Chapagain, Steffensen Consult Ruchi Pant, UNDP

APO BRGF BPL CD CBO CSO DPRDO DRP DTC ETC GoI GP GS HDI HR IT IP IPE MDG MIS M&E MOPR NGO NREGS PAAO PDO PMU PRDD PRI RSVY PFM RM SHG SIPRD SC ST TOT SCO TSI ULB UNDP ZP Assistant Project Officer Backward Regions Grant Fund Below Poverty Line Capacity Development Community Based Organisation Civil Society Organisation District Panchayats & Rural Development Officer District Resource Person District Training Centre Extension Training Centre Government of India Gram Panchayat Gram Sansad (Sabha) Human Development Index Human Resource Information Technology Intermediate Panchayat Infrastructure Professionals Enterprise Ltd Millennium Development Goals Management Information System Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of Panchayati Raj Non-Government Organisation National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Panchayat Audits and Accounts Officer Panchayat Development Officer Project Management Unit Panchayat & Rural Development Department Panchayati Raj Institution Rastriya Sama Vikas Yojana Public Financial Management Review Mission Self Help Group State Institute of Panchayats & Rural Development Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribes Training of Trainers Schedule of Costs Technical Support Institution Urban Local Body United Nations Development Programme Zilla Parishad


Table of Contents
First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund State Report.............i Chhattishgarh..........................................................................................................................i Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents...................................................................................................................iii First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund Report on Chhattisgarh State..................................................................................................................1 1. Background ......................................................................................................................1 2. BRGF Development Grants................................................................................................5 3. Planning ..........................................................................................................................13 4. Capacity Development .....................................................................................................18 5. Monitoring and Evaluation ...............................................................................................25 6. Program Management .....................................................................................................27 7. Conclusions Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................30 8. Annexes...........................................................................................................................36


First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Regions Grant Fund Report on Chhattisgarh State 1. Background
1.1 Introduction to the review
A team was fielded from July 1-6, 2009, composed of team members from the World Bank, MoPR and Steffensen Consult (hereafter referred to as the Review Mission or RM) to conduct an independent review of the functioning of the Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF). The objectives of BRGF, as defined in the Programme Guidelines1 are to: 1) Bridge critical gaps in local infrastructure and other development requirements that are not being adequately met through existing inflows, 2) Strengthen, to this end Panchayat and Municipality level governance with more appropriate capacity building, to facilitate participatory planning, decision making, implementation and monitoring, to reflect local felt needs. 3) Provide professional support to local bodies for planning, implementation and monitoring their plans. 4) Improve the performance and delivery of critical functions assigned to Panchayats, and counter possible efficiency and equity losses on account of inadequate local capacity. The expected outcome of the BRGF is to: Mitigate regional imbalances, contribute towards poverty alleviation in backward districts and promote accountable and responsible Panchayats and Municipalities. The overall objective of the Review Mission was to review progress in the implementation of the programme with respect to programme objectives, highlight what has worked, identify challenges and recommend what needs for improvement2. A detailed questionnaire was prepared beforehand, including issues and questions on the overall programme management, funding issues, planning and governance issues, capacity development support, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and performance of the programme within various areas such as Public Financial Management (PFM). This report includes the field-mission findings and derived recommendations from Chattishgarh State. The RM visited 2 districts (Dhamtari, and Bilaspur), 2 intermediate Panchayats, and 2 Gram Panchayats, see Annex 1 for a list of institutions/people met. Similar reports are produced for 7 other states (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and West Bengal).

Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme Guidelines, Prepared and Circulated by Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India, 2007, hereafter referred to as Programme Guidelines. 2 According to TOR for this review, dated May 26, 2009. Chhattisgarh 1

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

The team consisted of the core team members: Yadab Chapagain from Steffensen Consult, and Ruchi Pant from UNDP. The core team was supported by an experienced official from the State level, Mr. S. Alok, Deputy Commissioner Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development The team is very grateful for the strong support rendered throughout the field-work and the valuable inputs provided by all stakeholders met during the 5 days mission. The RM had meetings and interactions with a large number of stakeholders from various tiers of government (State, District, Municipality, Intermediary Panchayats and Gram Panchayats) as well as Capacity Development (CD) institutions, see table 1-1 below. The RM visited two districts, 2 intermediate Panchayats (Janapad Panchayats), 2 Gram Panchayats and 2 Municipalities (see below). The team member was given an audience by Hon. Mr Ram Bichar Netam, the Minister Panchayati Raj and Rural Development of the State, and other political leaders at the Panchayats and ULBs. Table 1-1: Overview of the Panchayats/ULBs met: No. District Municipality Intermediate Panchayat Panchayat (Mandal) 1 Dhamtari 2. Dhamtari 3. Kurud Janapad Panchayat 4. 1. Bilaspur 2. Bilaspur Municipal Corporation 3. Kota Janapad Panchayat 4. Gram Panchayat

Kathauli GP

Karra GP

During most of the meetings a large number of citizens and officials of the respective and other Panchayats were represented. The population and local bodies in Chhattisgarh Data from Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Chhattisgarh shows that the total Population of Chattisgarh is almost 21 million, of which rural population comprise about 17 million. Scheduled cast 2 million and scheduled tribes 6 million. The local bodies in Chattisgarh, according to the Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam (1993), are provided in Table 1-2. Table 1-2: Overview of Local Bodies Local bodies Panchayati Raj Zilla (District) Panchayats Institutions (PRIs) Janapad (Intermediate)Panchayat Village (Gram) Panchayat Urban Local Bodies Municipal Bodies Source: Chhatisgarh Government Diary 2009
Chhattisgarh 2

Total 16 146 9,820 110

BRGF 13 110 6,908 69

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Out of the 16 districts 13 are eligible for BRGF grants. Eight of the 13 districts overlap with RSVY. They are: Bastar, Bilaspur, Dantewada, Jashpur, Kanker, Kabirdham, Rajnandgaon, and Surguja. Five districts - Dhamtari, Korba, Korea, Mahasamund, and Raigarh - are covered only with BRGF. The total population of the BRGF districts in Chhattisgarh is 1.375 crores according to the census of 2001 as shown in the table 1-3 below. Table 1-3: Population of Chhattisgarh Total BRGF Urban 4,185,747 2026364 Rural 16,648,056 11,714,544 Chhatisgarh 20,833,803 13,740,908 Source: Calculated from Chhattisgarh Government Diary 2009 The annual BRGF grant entitlement for Chhattisgarh is 235 crores. This works out as annual per capita entitlement of BRGF development grant as IRs 171 (USD 3.8 @ 45:1). The average size of a GP is 1700. Calculating the average fund by population @171 the allocation for a GP comes close to Rs. 290,000.

1.2 Overall Views and Summary of Overall Findings

BRGF is considered as a filler program and not so big in size by the stakeholders at the state and GP level. However, since the program funds are discretionary it has provided authority to the local bodies to cater to the needs of grassroots. BRGF has triggered off the process of decentralized planning and generated enthusiasm among stakeholders. The stakeholders view that BRGF offers opportunity to focus more on gap filling with regard to social sectors including livelihood opportunities, setting up of anganwadi centres, schools and health centres especially in regions with low HDIs. It is contributing significantly to the improvement of the local planning processes. In general the BRGF funding system is supporting all four objectives, but the expected outcome - to mitigate regional imbalances and contribute (significantly) to reduce poverty, will require increased amounts of funds, better convergence with other funding sources and improved targeting of the flow of funds towards the backward areas. The use of IT such as plans in websites with Plan Plus, operation of resource centers at block level, video-conferencing facility at the Zila Panchayat level, and computerization of GPs is encouraging. It makes the plans of local bodies already in the public domain. Because of this it is difficult to change pans abruptly once decided. This enhances the credibility of the local authority among public and there is in-built pressure to go by good governance practices. The stakeholders have identified several operational issues, which if addressed timely then would further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation. The key among these include the timing of the planning process, the system of plan approval, the operations of the TSIs, the use of the funds for improved staffing capacity, and the need to move towards more demand driven CD intervention support. The existing CD support has been appreciated by the stakeholders as they are relevant, but
Chhattisgarh 3

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

it was regarded as grossly inadequate and inappropriate. There is a need to expand the existing CB support, both in terms of coverage and content, and to strengthen the PRIs planning capacity and HR management with field support and consultancy inputs. Below is a brief overview of some of the general views from the various tiers of government. State Level The officials at the state level have high opinion about BRGF. The principal secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, and other stakeholders mentioned that the untied nature of the programme, and its emphasis on local planning and gap filling elements are highly instrumental to advance the decentralized governance objectives. There is a strong wish to make the BRGF targeted towards addressing the backwardness within the State and the state department is ongoing, however it has not yet put in operation. The State has already extended a number of CB support activities, such as the video connections and transmission of training sessions to all districts, and there are plans to deepen the support in the future. District Level At the district level there was a similar strong support to the BRGF funding for its primarily untied nature which allows the district authorities to fill the critical gaps in service provision, which otherwise would not be possible to address through the existing schemes. The support of BRGF in the bottom-up planning procedures, preparation of holistic plan for the district, upholding good governance practices such as transparency and capacity development support provided to the GPs were highly appreciated. The use of IT tools such as PlanPlus has also help achieve political interventions at the local level. The district level stakeholders also pointed out some of the operational modalities that can be improved, but the BRGF in general was highly appreciated. Some of the major challenges have been delays in the planning process, delays in allocation of funds and insufficient awareness about the operations, such as the allowed eligible investments and lack of interests and converge with the sector investments (line departments). Janapad (Intermediary) and Gram Panchayat level All at the GP levels, the BRGF has imparted a sense of hope in terms that the GP officials were able to mobilize resources to projects of local needs that have been so far not been addressed through any other schemes. However, since the resource envelope was not provided to the GPs and the planning process had to be repeated without knowing whether funding will be available the Sarpanchas showed their reservations. The Sarpanchas viewed that while availability of fund for otherwise unfunded mandates would enhance their public confidence, the exercise of planning without resource would erode them. The Gram Sabha has started to question why they should sit for planning if support were not guaranteed. However, wherever funding was available for projects the investments were properly utilized and with a greater level of benefit for the public. Municipalities

Chhattisgarh 4

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

The BRGF support to the urban authorities has been equally appreciated by the stakeholders from the ULBs. The investments made by the urban authorities have been long-standing gaps of the municipal communities. Particularly the women members of Dhamtari municipality had very high regard to the BRGF funding for their chosen projects. Even the Municipal Corporation people appreciated the BRGF support, as their city development strategy was being supported by it. Some of the challenges include delays in planning and fund transfers and disregard of municipal Schedule of Costs to implement BRGF investments. However, the BRGF is welcomed by the municipal representatives and there are great expectations to the future operations.

2. BRGF Development Grants

2.1 Size of the BRGF
Size of Development Funding As on May 2009, the fund released to the State of Chhatishgarh under BRGF Development Grant by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR) for the past two fiscal years is provided in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Status of development grant released and utilization for Chhattisgarh
Budget amount Crore 2007/08 236.75 Rs. Sanctioned/ approved amount Rs Crore 226.21 Released amount Rs Crore 226.21 Utilised amount Rs Crore 208.54 Comments, delays e.g.

Rs. 21.00 Crore to 5 District Dhamtari, Mahasamund, Korba, Koria and Raigarh against their Annual Plan 2006-07 Utilization as reported to GoI








released Districts Total

against Annual

balance amount of Plan 2007-08 472.23 418.66 418.66 208.54 Source: Data provided by the State

District: Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh 5

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Budget amount Lakh 2007/08 1436 2008/09 1436

Sanctioned/ Rs. approved amount Rs Lakh 1436 1436

Released amount Rs Lakh 1295 1277.3

Utilised amount Rs Lakh 1295 0

Comments, e.g. delays Released in March 009

Population: 613,007 (rural population total) District: Bilaspur Budget amount Lakh 2007/08 2085 2008/09 2085

Sanctioned/ Rs. approved amount Rs Lakh 1878 1683

Released amount Rs Lakh 1878 1683

Utilised amount Rs Lakh 1878 0

Comments, e.g. delays Released in March

Population: 1,511,661 (rural population total) Refer to Annex 8.2 for funding in the GP and ULBs visited. Per capita BRGF development grant The BRGF development grant per capita in the PRIs/ULB of the two districts is presented in table 2-2 below. Table 2-2: development grant per capita Unit Population Development Grant Grant per allocation Rs capita State 13,740,908 2,350,000,000 171.02 ZP Bilaspur 1,511,661 157,720,384 104.34 Mun. Corp. Bilaspur 274,000 27,500,000 100.36 ZP Dhamtari 613,007 124,100,000 202.44 Municipality Dhamtari 82,111 15,600,000 189.99 Calculated from the figures of fund and population The BRGF amount per unit of PRIs is not presented as the districts have not allocated funds for the IPs and GPs.

2.2 Allocation criteria Vertical and Horizontal

The district uses population as the fund allocation criteria, which has come from the formula (10 crore plus the amount in proportion of population and area) that the central government uses in the case of districts. In both the districts visited in the state the fund is not allocated to the lower level PRIs. Distribution among the ZP and the ULBs is made on the basis of population. The allocation of funds between the ULB and ZP is made based on population. The ULBs know their allocation before planning, while among the PRIs it is only the ZP that knows the resource envelope under BRGF program. However, the ZP and State officials assert
Chhattisgarh 6

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

that they give due consideration to strike a fund distribution ratio of 50:30:20 between GP, IP and ZP while sanctioning projects. The central government distributes the BRGF funds to the districts based on an equal share amount and the population and the area. The practice of allocating BRGF funds within the district territory is limited to the PRIs and the ULBs. In Chhattisgarh the distribution between the PRI and ULB is done taking population as the sole criteria. The distribution to among the ULBs also takes place accordingly. The practice of allocating BRGF funds across different tiers of PRIs has not started. As practiced the entire BRGF fund rests with the District/Zilla Panchayat from which the projects are funded the PRIs at the sub-district level are not involved, but provided planning input, see the section on Planning. The state and the district officials admit that shortcomings remain in the fund allocation system as they have not been able to include backwardness indicator while approving the projects funded under BRGF. The GPs view that they should obtain certain predictable amount for their planning purpose.

2.3 Timeliness and Predictability of Transfers

Predictability of BRGF support The transfer is well known up to the district level, and to the ULBs. It is fixed according to the formula set by the BRGF up to the District level and then based on the percent of urban population within the district. The Janapad Panchayats (IPs) in Chhatisgarh are not considered as implementing agencies therefore they are not provided with an allocation the IPs as well do not expect a transfer of their own. The JP is merely compiling the plans of GPs and making some adjustments to them before submitting to the district. Timeliness of funding Table 2-3 gives an overview of the fund release in the two districts in Chhattisgarh. The table clearly shows that the release of fund is late. For example the fund for investment of 2007-08 was released to the Dhamtari in mid-January 2008, which leaves merely 2.5 months to implement before the fiscal year ends in March; in the case of Bilaspur the release was in mid-March, i.e., just two weeks before the end of the FY. The reasons for delay have been many. Difficulty in collecting UCs, delays in meetings and deliberations after the UC is submitted, and delay in planning starting right from start of the planning process and approval by many layers. Moreover, the release was hampered due to elections in 2009, as the election code of conduct would not allow the authorities to sanction funds for development works. In sum, the funds under BRGF have not flown smoothly and timely as a result the districts were not able to obtain funds at time when they needed.
Chhattisgarh 7

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Table 2-3: Funds to Dhamtari And Bilaspur Under BRGF Development Date of Installmen Amount Date in which the Amount release t No (Rs. in fund was (Rs. in from GoI to Lakh) released to the Lakh) State District from State District: Dhamtari 24-5-2007 I 100.00 11-7-2007 100.00 11-12-2007 31-12-2008 23-2-2009 II III IV 1194.68 241.32 1036.00 1878.00 209.00 1474.00 16-1-2008 7-3-2008 16-2-2009 17-3-2009 16-1-2008 7-3-2008 10-2-2009 20-3-2009 716.80 477.88 241.32 1036.00 1126.80 751.20 209.00 1474.00

Plan Comment clarification


For Annual 2006-07 For Annual 2007-08 Balance of 2007-08 For Annual 2008-09

Plan Plan Plan Plan

District: Bilaspur 6-12-2007 I 25-11-2008 2-3-2009 II III

For Annual Plan 2007-08 Balance of Plan 2007-08 For Annual Plan 2008-09

2.4 Investment Menu and Use of Funds

The investment menu defined in the BRGF guidelines is broad and funds are largely untied, and discretionary for the PRIs/ULBs. The BRGF Programme Guidelines sets a few strings on the use of funds, e.g. maximum 5% of the funds can be allocated for provision of adequate functionaries for the Panchayats for planning and implementation, and the funds cannot be spent for construction of religious structures, structures of religious institutions, construction of welcome arches or similar activities3. Furthermore, a special sub-plan for use of scheme-wise allocations for SCs/STs and schemes, benefiting SCs /STs, should be provided in an amount at least reflecting their proportion of the total population in the area. Amenities such as schools, anganwadis (kind of kindergarten), health centers, etc. should be given a strong priority in villages, which have a substantial SC/ST population. Annex 4 of the BRGF Guidelines gives an indication of the priority schemes for funds earmarked for SC and ST development. The guidelines do not have a clear distinction between capital and recurrent costs. However the capacity building support under the second window of the BRGF the CB grants to the states indicate that areas of CB support will be covered by the 250 crore fund for CB (1 crore per district). The state of Chhattisgarh and the two districts visited were of the view that maintenance could not be funded by the development grant. As mentioned under the Planning Section, the State provides some guidance to the DPCs on how the funds should be guided at the PRI and ULB levels. Conditions for Access to Funds

Page 15 of the BRGF Programme Guidelines Chhattisgarh 8

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

The conditions for access to funds are clearly stated in the BRGF guideline. The conditions are generally complied by the districts. Bank accounts are opened in all Panchayats as per the guidelines. The GPs are authorized to issue UCs by the BRGF guideline but in practice it is the auditor who issues UC. Use of funds BRGF is an untied fund, which is appreciated by the stakeholders. The stakeholders understand that the fund can be used for filling gaps of funding through available schemes, and they are also aware of the negative list mentioned in the guideline. The programs implemented cover many sectors (refer table 2-4). Table 2-4: the use of funds in different sectors in Chhattisgarh Sector Expenditure (crore) No. of Projects Education 9.93 379 Health 27.66 665 Nutrition 54.98 5069 Infrastructure 76.09 8043 Energy 18.85 1765 Livelihood 12.72 7707 House 17.71 7180 Connectivity/Road 7.1 209 Civil empowerment 1.59 769 Others 2.34 160 228.97 31946 Source: PRD Chhattisgarh % of total expenditure 4.34 12.08 24.01 33.23 8.23 5.56 7.73 3.10 0.69 1.02

It is noted that infrastructure had remained as the primary area in which the funds are used even within the different sectors. Table 2-5 gives a summary of the pattern in which the two districts have used the BRGF support. Table 2-5: The use of BRGF by the two districts Sector Dhamtari Expenditure No. of % of total (crore) Projects expenditure Education 0.69 14 5.39 Health 3.68 57 28.77 Nutrition 1.26 72 9.85 Infrastructure 4.39 152 34.32 Energy 1.79 44 14.00 Livelihood 0 0 0.00 House 0.78 313 6.10 Connectivity/Road 0.2 5 1.56 Civil empowerment 0 0 0.00 Others 0 0 0.00 Total 12.79 657
Chhattisgarh 9

Bilaspur Expenditure (crore) 1.77 3.75 3.07 6.31 0.84 0.43 0 1.26 0.09 0 17.52

No. of Projects 31 61 159 313 10 9 0 46 2 0 631

% of total expenditure 10.10 21.40 17.52 36.02 4.79 2.45 0.00 7.19 0.51 0.00

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

The table clearly shows that the BRGF investments focus on infrastructure. Average size of projects in Dhamtari is IRs 195,000 in Dhamtari, and IRs 278,000 in Bilaspur. In the GPs visited however, the RM found a project as large as 517,000 in Kathauli GP of Dhamtari, while it was IRs 225,000 in Karra GP in Bilaspur. Use of funds by Urban Local Bodies The table 2-6 below provides the summary in which Municipal Corporation Bilaspur had made use of the BRGF funds in the two fiscal years. Table 2-6: Use of funds by ULB Bilaspur 2007/08 Purpose % of total No. of Amount amoun Projects (Lakh) t Community 7 65 23.6 Buildings School improvement / Training Center 4 125 45.5 Street Light/ urban Facilities 1 25 9.1 Municipal 1 20 7.3 infrastructure Health 2 40 14.5 Total 15 275 100 Source: Municipal Corporation data 2008/09 Aver. % of Size of total projects No. of Amount amoun Projects (Lakh) t 9.3 5 33 11.3 Aver. Size of projects 6.6

31.3 25.0 20.0 20.0 18.3

5 7 0 0 17

142 117 0 0 292

48.6 40.1 0.0 0.0 100

28.4 16.7


The table shows that average size of projects in the municipal corporation area is around IRs 1.7 or 1.8 million. In both years the highest portion of the fund is spent on improving schools and training centers within the city area. Similarly, the figure on use of funds by Dhamtari Municipality is provided in the table 2-7 below. Table 2-7: Use of funds by ULB Dhamtari 2007/08 Purpose % of total No. of Amount amoun Projects (Lakh) t Community Buildings/hall 4 24.00 16.7 School 0 0 NA improvement / Training
Chhattisgarh 10

2008/09 Aver. % of Aver. Size of total Size of projects No. of Amount amoun projects Projects (Lakh) t 6.0 NA 15 1 33.75 15.40 20.0 9.1 2.3 15.4

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Center Street Light/ urban Facilities 1 2.50 Municipal infrastructure (road, electricity etc) 24 80.00 Stadium /playground 1 28.00 Social welfare/IG 7 3.50 Health (leprosy) 1 6.00 Total 53 155.00 Source: Municipality data







55.6 19.4 2.4 4.2

3.3 28.0 0.5 6.0 2.3

8 1 2

83.99 15.00 10.30

49.8 8.9 6.1

10.5 15.0 5.2




Absorption capacity and fund utilization The absorption capacity of the functionaries appears relatively high; reportedly the situation of fund utilization is satisfactory. Once the funds are released the PRIs and ULB utilize the funds within stipulated time. For the FY 2007/08 the funds were used between the months of October and March. The case of 2008/09 has been different as the fund itself was released in late March (the last month of the FY); therefore the utilization has not been done within the fiscal year.

2.5 Challenges in the Funding System

GPs in Chhatisgarh are taken as implementing agency of the Districts. They are not autonomous in this sense, therefore they do not get funding of their own. They do not have authority to approve their plans themselves. They cannot contract out works to any other operators they are themselves the agents of district Panchayat managing the project implementation. An activity mapping exercise that started some 4 years ago has not concluded. This has resulted into a situation in which the fruits of devolution have reached up to the district level at the most. The predictability of fund is also limited to the district level. The GPs are not sure of their resource envelope to plan their activities and programs. At present they are simply listing out the local needs - following participatory methods and submitting the local demands after prioritizing them in a wish-list modality for planning. The GPs can only hope their demands are approved by the higher level authorities, and have no authority to make it happen themselves. The internal resource of GPs is small and is consumed in regular GP expenses such as meetings and allowances. Therefore the planning system remains largely transfer based. For example Kathaulia GP under Kurul JP in Dhamtari raises fund around
Chhattisgarh 11

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

600,000 from users fees (drinking water) and rents as its own source of revenue. It has not mobilized its tax revenues. Distribution of funds between the ULB and the PRIs is done taking population as the sole criteria. The study did not come across any backwardness criteria used to distribute funds. This has resulted into a situation where the remote, sparsely populated, areas continue to get little funds from BRGF. An important arrangement made in the BRGF guideline is provision of functionaries in GPs which will be funded from 5% of the total development grant. However, the RM found that there was no clarity regarding how to make use of the provision. The stakeholders were unaware as to who should manage the fund and recruitment process, and how. The State authorities were also hesitant to recruit personnel under BRGF as it may create longer term liability on the PRIs and the government. Due to these considerations the entire development grant was distributed among the PRIs and ULBs for the purpose of implementing development programs. Fund flow is delayed. Requirement to submit utilization certificate, after Chartered Accountants audits, has been one of the major reason for delay in funds flow. In this context the stakeholders were of the view that BRGF should trust its functionaries if

2.6 Recommendations on BRGF Funding System

The following recommendations are made with regard to BRGF funding system: Provide resource envelopes to the PRIs of all tiers. The GPs should know the resource envelope before planning. Similarly, since the IPs are also independent planning unit they should also be provided with funds. As yet the IPs are considered to be only the implementing arms of ZP or technical service provider and facilitator to GPs. Define the vertical and horizontal distribution criteria among the PRIs. Introduce backwardness criteria for distribution of funds among PRIs. Proxy has to be identified for backwardness index. BPL is considered not appropriate as it is old and has several weaknesses. The number of SC/ST population is another agreed indicator of backwardness. The Healthy Village Index recently developed by Department of Health and Family Welfare could also be considered, in which the State Health Resource Center, Chhattisgarh has started with 32 indicators of which 4 pertain to the MDG targets (see annex for the list of the indicators). Planning with hard budget constraint right from the GP level should be practiced. At present the GPs identify projects without knowledge of the resource envelope. This has resulted into GP plans merely into wish lists on the one hand, and on the other development of planning fatigue mind-set among the Gram Sabha members. One way to address this situation is to provide resource envelope to the GPs. BRGF fund in Chhattisgarh is equivalent to IRs 171 per capita, which means a GP with an average of around 2000 population can receive 340,000 Rs as their BRGF envelope. However, this amount gets reduced as the same kitty has to be shared by IPs and ZPs, yet the study estimates that it is still attractive.
Chhattisgarh 12

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

The Intermediate Panchayats (the Janapads) should be provided with resource envelope and let plan their programs. The state of Chhattisgarh has identified 12 activities for the Janapads for which the Janapads should plan. Improve fund flow: There is a need to improve the fund release system. The State has a role to play in this regard. A number of decision making layers can be cut, and direct funding to ULBs and PRIs from the State can be introduced. There is a need for the State to define as to what investments are allowed under BRGF. This has been the source of discontent when the DPCs approved funding for police posts in Naxal affected areas, the HPC disallowed. Similarly, the districts are not using the 5% amount of development grant in functionaries because of their inadequate understanding of the guideline. The BRGF guideline allows that a State can develop its own guideline within the spirit of BRGF.

3. Planning
All districts in Chhattisgarh have constituted District Planning Committees, and it is evaluated that the BRGF support has been instrumental in this respect. The DPC in Chhattisgarh is headed by Minister responsible for the district. As such the DPCs in the State have become more like statutory bodies rather than active and functional as envisaged in the BRGF guideline. This has been the cause of delays in some districts, because it takes considerable time to get the meetings of the DPC. Furthermore, the planning process is delayed due to various other reasons as well. The two districts visited have submitted their annual plans for 2009/10.

3.1 Planning procedures

At the GP level the planning exercise involves calling of GP assembly, where list of local needs is prepared along with priorities accorded to each. The participation of women is found to be limited in the GP assemblies, but the participation of women has been in an increasing trend though at a slow pace. The GP assembly has to identify projects without the knowledge of resource envelope, or assurance that the proposed projects would be approved. A Sarpanch noted that this exercise is therefore not rewarding to them, and there is no enthusiasm among Gram Sabha people in the planning exercise. There is no elaborated practice of preparing single and integrated plan for the GP it is prepared generally in a silo mode. At the GP level the integration of plan of several other vertical programs is considered to take place automatically as the same people are involved in planning for BRGF and other programs; no formal integration exercise takes place. However, the GP assemblies are called on for planning of individual schemes. Vertical integration of plans between IP and GP is not a strong case as the IP planning exercise involves simply compilation of plans of GPs. Whereas in Dhamtari the review team noted that some case of addition or deduction of plans of GPs take place at IP level, it is not so in Bilaspur district where if the IP officials found some plans to be
Chhattisgarh 13

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

revised then they send such plans back to the GP to include in the proposed list of projects. Planning at the IP level involves consolidating the GP plans and some deliberation on the plans looking into the situation of the IP area. The IP is provided with responsibility to incorporate some plans of its own, but it has no budget of its own. Therefore the IP often adds or cuts some of the projects the GPs have proposed. At the district level, a meeting of line agency officials is organized to identify the projects to be funded under BRGF. The planning exercise at the district level consists of reviewing of plans or proposals from different agencies (line agencies, various schemes, districts own plan, and GPs proposals), assessing the resource envelope available in all these sources, adjusting overlaps and vertical and horizontal integration. In this process the gap finding is done and BRGF projects are decided upon. The ULB planning process interestingly does not include holding of Ward Sabhas as prescribed in the planning manual. Normally the Ward members bring their plan to the ULB where considering the resource envelope and medium-term city development plans the Mayors Council approves the plans for BRGF, in the same way as is done with other programs. The GPs receive support from TSI, but the TSI support has been largely reported as inadequate and inappropriate. Reportedly the TSI staff themselves are not experienced people, who can guide the process or who can help resolve any problem that may arise in practice. Procedure of preparing perspective plan The districts have not prepared perspective plans. However, some discussion on sectoral targets have been set through a series of steps and activities such as situation analysis, preparation of vision, and then preparing the five-year sectoral targets. The stakeholders view the document as the perspective plan. The review mission found that such plans are by and large simple consolidation of five year plan of the PRIs/ULBs and the line agencies. However, efforts towards making the planning more systematic can be seen. For example Dhamtari district has prepared a vision of the district first (Box 1-1), and then worked on the annual action plan. Box 3-1: VISION OF DISTRICT DHAMTARI Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger All mothers healthy All children immunized and nourished hence reduce child mortality All children in school to achieve universal primary education targets in a more systematic manner. Employment for all & opportunities for Self-Employment/ trade/business for the enterprising Houses for all Roads Drinking Water Agriculture and irrigation Ensure environmental sustainability
Chhattisgarh 14

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Source: District Plan of Dhamtari 2007/08 Similarly, the annual plan document prepared by Dhamtari district elaborates the situation, funds flow in the district through different line agencies, and sets out sectoral targets in a more systematic manner. The district of Bilaspur has taken BRGF planning process as an opportunity to practice self governance (plan to rule ourselves Box 3-2).

Box 3-2: Bilaspur: Plan to Rule Ourselves

The programme (BRGF) would be driven strictly by beneficiary demand. Priority would be given for empowering Gram Sabha's and ULBs members and organising beneficiary groups with responsibilities of planning, implementation, operation and maintenance, arrangements and cost sharing. The resource would be managed directly by the beneficiaries. District Plan of Bilaspur 2007/08 (Chapter III)

3.2 Capacity of the Planning Unit

The GPs and IPs do not have separate planning units. The GP has only one Secretary who is a junior staff. As mentioned earlier the IPs do not carry out planning exercise as such they merely compile the requests coming from the GPs and forward the same to the District Panchayat. The districts are not expected to create a separate BRGF specific planning unit at the district level in the BRGF manual. According to the manual the regular mechanism in which planning is done should take care of the planning of BRGF. District Panchayats have an officer who provides support to the CEO for planning purpose. The function that the unit currently engaged more is on data collection. Stakeholders feel that the unit has inadequate competencies to carry out data analysis and synthesis and present them meaningfully to support planning process. However, in one of the districts visited Bilaspur the RM noted a responsible APO (assistant project officer) was appointed for BRGF activities. The RM found that the appointment of the APO has facilitated better organized management of the activities of the program compared to the other district. In general the stakeholders opined that the planning has been too fragmented and if a consolidated plan at the district Panchayat level were to be prepared the existing number of staff and the capacity would not be adequate.

3.3 Assessment of the Procedures and Quality of the Plan

The districts in Chhattisgarh have not prepared perspective plans. Therefore the annual plans are basically the annual plan of actions for the PRIs. Each district at the end produce annual plan with interventions grouped under different sectoral areas: namely
Chhattisgarh 15

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Education, Health, Nutrition, Infrastructure, Energy, Livelihood, House, Connectivity/Road, Civil empowerment and Others. Efforts are made to come up with an appropriately balanced funding in all these areas; however there is no mechanism or guideline as to decide what an appropriate balance is. It is noted that it is difficult to assess the quality of plans, since no perspective plan is prepared. However looking at the allocation patterns and the projects in approved in different areas one can notice that the plans are heavily skewed towards infrastructure the RM noted that even in areas such as nutrition and health the projects identified are buildings or similar construction works that are essentially infrastructure. Among the ULBs Municipalities and Municipal corporations have their city development plans, which are considered to be their perspective plans. The ULBs visited mentioned that the plans identified for BRGF funding come from the City Development Plan. The State has not operationalized the devolution of functions to GPs and Intermediary Panchayat (Box 3-3). This Box 3-3: According to the activity mapping done perpetuates wish-list approach to in 1999, the following are the functions devolved planning exercises at the district to GPs and JPs: and sub-district levels. Gram Panchayats: Drinking water, roads, Gram Sabha is active, as they sit bridges and culverts, maintenance of community as many as 4 times a year at the assets, fairs and festivals, health and cleanliness, minimum, and more depending public distribution system, and social welfare (8 upon the need of a particular functions) program. However it is also noted Janapad Panchayats: Agriculture, social that the enthusiasm and energy of forestry, animal husbandry, fisheries, public Gram Sabha has been eroding as health, adult education, communication, cottage it is used as a tool to establish that industries, women and child development, social the programs are the result of welfare, family welfare, and fairs and festivals (12 bottom-up planning process. As a functions) result the quorum (which is 10% of the voters including 1/3rd women) is difficult to meet in several GPs. Thus making the Gram Sabha as effective and inclusive is a huge challenge. A good step towards addressing the challenge is that the State has already given direction to the district Panchayats that there should be one Gram Sabha for planning in a year; it is yet to be put into practice. Although at face it appears that participatory planning process has begun, but there are lapses. Only a few women the RM interacted had attended Gram Sabhas. Efforts made to involve the SC/ST in Gram Sabha meetings are inadequate. Use of IT tools in Planning has begun the Plan Plus and is used, and portals for GPs are under construction. IP level resource centers are under construction, videoconferencing facility is operational. However, it is going to take time before the system is operational and functional. There are several issues in this regard a) the GPs are not equipped with computers, facilities and skills; b) Planplus is used as a program to record the decisions rather than a tool for planning, and c) line agencies have not shown much enthusiasm to put their information in the software. The state is taking several measures to address these issues clusters of villages are being supported with a computer facility, training programs are there to enhance skills, and ZP level people are helping
Chhattisgarh 16

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

the GP people to input data and others. It is early to comment as how things will take shape in future. Plans of Line agencies and ULBs are included in the district plan, which is a good practice and in line with decentralized planning. However, it is not adequate. The RM inquired about the extent in which the alignment and convergence objective of the BRGF are taken into account. The RM found that at the PRI levels the parallel system of planning and implementation exists Har Baat ke Alag Gram Sabha (Gram Sabha for every schemes) was the response of the GP Presidents. From the IP level the RM noted that and there are only a few investments that are combined with investments from other schemes or coordinated with these schemes. The IPs provide hand-holding support in planning to GPs, which is appreciated. However the RM noted that the support is provided to put on demands and sometimes in prioritizing the needs. Such supports are not geared towards decentralized planning, which is a challenge. The RM considers that there is need to develop the capacity of the IP officials as well in decentralized planning. The role of TSI in planning has been not effective as envisaged which shows the seriousness of the situation. The RM noted that the Data collection has started right from the GP level and there is also facility to input and process data. However, the RM also found that the PRIs do not have adequate competencies to analyze the data in a meaningful way to help planning. The RM noticed efforts to take plan for livelihoods programs in Bilaspur district where the BRGF fund is utilized for supporting activities of Lac Production. But since such initiatives have just begun it is early to come to a conclusion. According to the stakeholders the key factors facilitating participatory and bottom-up planning process include early knowledge of the resource envelopes, and technical backstopping and support from higher authorities and experts. Concerning the quality of the investments made and the related maintenance Issues, the RM found that the investments made under BRGF were targeting long-standing unmet needs of the community people. The Women Ward Members in Dhamtari Municipality expressed that they would have lost face if BRGF were not there to build the community building (like an aanganwadi). It is a success and their achievements to provide service to their community. The RM got an impression that the investments are generally need based, cost efficient, and of a sufficient high quality. However, the RM also found that the Operation and maintenance issue of the schemes have not been deliberately thought about.

3.4 Recommendations on how to improve planning

The recommendations of the review team with regard to improve planning are: Adopt measures to improve the quality of plans Develop annual plans linked with the perspective plan. The perspective plans are also understood as perspective sectoral target, which should not be the case. Prepare a holistic plan for the planning unit.
Chhattisgarh 17

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Stop practicing separate planning exercise by different schemes. Practice planning on all sectors with infrastructure and human interventions. Consider setting aside budget for operation and maintenance of assets created in the villages.

Improve the process of planning Introduce system of planning with a known fund envelope to each GP prior to the start of the planning process. Start of the Planning Process earlier for example in the month of July so that it gets complete prior the FY. Encourage women and BPL section of population to take active part. If needed be hold separate women-only gram sabha or BPL only gram sabhas for example. Encourage ULBs to hold ward sabhas, or mohalla committees. Provide more capacity development support to PRIs/ULBs and functionaries. Use profiles while planning Enhance skills to analyze socio-economic data and make its use in planning specially among the elected representatives. Update the profile on an annual basis. Institutional improvements Review the composition of DPC, which is currently chaired by the Minister. Shorten the plan finalization time: review the number of approval layers let PRIs decide their plan within the fund envelope given to them, and the higher authorities only take note of the PRI plans for the purpose of consolidation. Exante relaxation in the approval process will demand strong ex-post monitoring and supervision. Redefine role of the DPC from approval to guidance, consolidation, monitor and support in line with the Constitution, and that of HPC in policy making, norms and standards setting, and rewarding good performers. Avoid changes in the priorities of the IPs, GPs and ULBs after approval of their plans if problems are noticed, e.g. on the size of the submissions, there should be a dialogue prior to approval. Support creation of a strong planning cell and DPC secretariat at the district level (staff, equipment and facilities).

4. Capacity Development
4.1 Introduction
Capacity Building (CB) in the State of Chhattisgarh is seen as a broad range of support instruments to enhance the capacity of people and institutions. It is covering training, equipment, provision of infrastructure, provision of technical assistance, establishment and maintaining of systems and procedures, such as accounting and auditing systems, development of baseline data bank/M&E systems and support to provision of adequate staffing (functionaries).
Chhattisgarh 18

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Size of the Capacity Development Support According to the guidelines of the BRGR, each district will be allocated 1 crore p.a. In this way the BRGF capacity development grant to Chhattisgarh is 13 cror per year. The entitlement and release of the Capacity Development grants under BRGF, is presented in table 4-1 below. Table 4-1: CD entitlement and release in State of Chhattisgarh Budget Sanctioned/approved Released amount amount amount Rs. Crore Rs Crore Rs Crore 2006/07 9.100 2007/08 2008/09 13.000 13.000
Source:; 26 June 2009 and State report

Utilised Comments, amount Rs. e.g. delays Crore 9.0396 13.000

The release of the annual capacity development grants in the two fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09 has been 9.1 crore and 13 crore respectively. Of the total of 22.10 Crore the state has utilized an amount of 22.0396 Crore. Allocation criteria Vertical and Horizontal The CB funds are kept under coordination of the Nodal Institution SIRD, which coordinates the use of funds. Funds are not distributed across the PRIs/ULBs. Funds are not earmarked for each districts of other tiers of government, but used according to an agreed and approved CB plan, hence there is no vertical and horizontal allocation formulas for CB support. It is based on the planned activities, which do not vary much across the various PRIs. Conditions for Access The CB of the State of Chhattisgarh has to be approved by the High Powered Committee and the MoPR at the central level.

4.2 Existing System of CD

State Level: At the state level, the SIRD is the only institution entrusted with all CD mandate. The funds under the BRGF for Capacity development are directly transferred to the SIRD based on a 5 year plan and an annual calendar. Referring to the report on the trainings provided in the last three years with the Capacity Development component of the BRGF, it is evident that over the years the number of elected representatives receiving trainings has reduced (attached as Annex 1). It is also reflective of the fact that SIRD does not have sufficient capacities to cater to the large numbers of elected representatives for CD. However, the SIRD has a strong leadership with a good vision for CD of the various stakeholders involved in decentralized governance. The SIRD has developed an
Chhattisgarh 19

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

innovative strategy of working with partners and using new technologies such as multimode trainings through SAT COMs, GP libraries and Panchayat Resource centers. CD plan The SIRD in Chhattisgarh has prepared CD plan including training and non-training measures. Excerpts of CD measures taken out from Dhamtari district amply shows the diverse measures adopted for capacity building (Box 4-1). Tools The CD plan prepared by SIRD has pointed out the need for a combination of tools to use for CD (Box 4-2). These include CD programs that need to be conducted on a recurring basis and those non recurring. The table below shows the identified interventions for capacity development.
Box 4-1: CD Plan of Dhamtari District 2007-08 Components of capacity building training Foundation course for all elected representatives Functional courses in main aspects of Panchayat functioning Refresher courses each year Strengthening of training through interaction and handholding: Gram Sabha level campaigns, PR TV and Radio programmes, Panchayati Raj Newsletters Formation of networks of Panchayat members Exchange visits between Panchayats Setting up Panchayat resource centres at the Intermediate Panchayat level, Setting up helplines Source: Dhamtari district plan for BRGF

Box 4-2: Different CD tools Recurring - SATCOM: Studio at CGSIRD; SIT at 110 Janpad Panchayat - Panchayat Resource Centre 110: Civil works: 10 Lakh/centre; Receiving facility; Computers - Community Resource Centre (709): Civil works: 1.5 lakh/centre, Computers Source: SIRD presentation

Non-recurring - Training of Elected Representatives of PRI & ULB: Orientation, sectoral, functional & refresher programs - Study tours - Training of Officials: Sectoral, functional upgradation & ICT - Study tours - Studies, Media campaign & Module preparation

Target Groups Target groups identified in the SIRD CD plan encompasses a wide range of audience as envisaged in the guideline (table 4-2).
Table 4-2: Target Groups for CD intervention Target Groups Elected Representatives Chhattisgarh 20 No 1,60,000

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

PRI Officials Self Help Groups Members of VMC ULB Elected Rep ULB Officials Source: SIRD Presentation

13,000 80000 98200 3000 700

However the inputs are limited and supply driven. Moreover, the method employed is prescriptive and directive. On meeting members and officials of the Municipal corporation (Nagar Nigam) in Bilaspur and the Nagar Pallika in Dhamtari, it was noted that they had not received even a single training so far under the CD.component of the BRGF. This is despite the fact that the CD plan mentions about foundation course as well as refresher courses for PRI/ULB officials. This shows that even the available capacity development training in Chhattisgarh is in short-supply.

4.3 Achievements in CD plans

The achievements of CD training plan The table 4-3 below provides an overview of the training conducted by SIRD under BRGF. Table 4-3: Overview of SIRD training Year Courses No of Participants 4010 18154 37746 2006-07 136 2007-08 457 2008-09 807

Source: SIRD Presentation The achievement compared to the huge number of target groups is very small. The reason for such a meager achievement is paucity of faculties at SIRD. A breakdown of the training by the type of participants is presented in Annex. Non-training CD supports The RM was appraised of non-training CD measures the State has taken up. District and Sub-District level: there are hand holding supports, and reviews and workshops at this level provided for CD of PRIs. The IPs organize orientation
PRC Janpad Janpad Janpad Janpad Janpad

Knowledge & Information network



Welcome to multi mode Training


Gram Panchayat: Swami Atmanand Library Facilitators

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

workshops, participates in the programs organized by district and SIRD. IP organizes 2 meetings every month of GP Secretaries for monitoring purpose, which is also used as forum for capacity support to GPs. IP Kurud appointed local assistant to help GP prepare comprehensive plans. Moreover, the APO visits to GPs according to a predetermined calendar, in regards to different vertical programs, that provides backup support to the GPs capacity to plan and implement. The State has taken a program of IT application in the PRIs in a phased manner. The ultimate target is to equip each GP with computer and networking facility and connect them online. In the beginning the State is planning to group 10-15 GPs into a cluster and equip the cluster with the computer and network facilities. The SIRD has decided to set up Block level Resource Centres and Panchayat Resource Centres in a cluster of 10 GPs. The Block level Resource Centres have SATCOM facility and a 2-way video conferencing facility is available for extending technical guidance to all levels where 4 experts will be sitting. This service has however yet to reach the GP level. SIRD has also set up libraries at the GP level and stocked the library with new books in English and Hindi. This requires a more creative thinking in the selection of books and IEC material, given the fact that the literacy rate is reasonably low in the state. Use of technical support institutions (TSI) BRGF programme guideline allow states/ districts to elicit the support of Technical support Institutions (TSIs) in order to extend technical expertise in the preparation of decentralized plans. However, it was found that the support of TSIs in the state in general and in the districts covered in particular is inadequate. The team noted that the capacity of the TSI itself was poor the main TSI NIRD (national institute of rural development) has outsourced the tasks to local agency (Debate). The stakeholders found that the outsourced agency has employed junior local experts, who at the most have expertise in one sector. The TSI itself do not have multi-sectoral expertise that the GPs need. At time of need the local bodies cannot access to CD support. On meeting a TSI person, it was found that the TSIs in general have grudges against the state: timelines for the preparation are too short; expectations of the state government are not in tune with the guidelines. The TSIs are not supposed to prepare the plans but merely provide handholding support to the local bodies in planning. The state government expects the TSIs to ensure that the plan is readied and submitted within the short timeframe. District authorities suggested that they should be empowerd to select a TSI from the list provided by the Centre or the agency identified by the Centre for the state to be the officially designated TSI. Many a times national level agencies either are not too eager to reach out to all the stakeholders and many a times they do not have enough staff to cover the entire district. It has also been found that the budget for the TSI is inadequate to cover the entire district. The government gives Rs 10 Lakhs to the TSI per district. For Dhamtari and Bilaspur, the TSI identified was NIRD. They sub-contracted the work to DEBATE at half the rate. DEBATE felt the funds were inadequate to cover the district effectively. And of the total amount allocated to them, they have yet to receive the balance of 30%. It was also found that often TSIs do not have the multi-sectoral experience as required in the preparation of a district vision, profile and the plan.
Chhattisgarh 22

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

In a meeting with DEBATE, it was noted that the agency had got 5 year perspective plans for each GP in the districts of Dhamtari and Bilaspur. Whereas in meetings with the district, block or gram panchayats, it was found that the issue was not discussed.

4.3 Assessment and views on the CD support

Capacity development interventions provided by SIRD has not been sufficient. The first CD input that the GP officials obtained was after two years they assumed their offices, and after that there is little input availed through training. Similarly the CD intervention in the form of training to the GP secretaries has taken place as planned. However, the SIRD as well as the stakeholders admit that the training content and the way it is delivered are not geared towards solving practical problems and issues that the GPs face. The GPs depend on the hand-holding support provided by the IP officials for their daily operations. Moreover it is not based on demand. Officials of the block (intermediate Panchayat) were of the view that their inputs are not solicited while developing the CD strategy or the CD module/ curriculum, whereas they are the closest to the potential trainees and understand their needs best. Although there is a good perception of the concept of CD in the state and to a great extent at the district and block level too, the CD funds are not available to the levels below state to plan and roll out their own CD plans. The preparation of the CD plan is rather centralized at the state level. However, it was noticed that in a district the 5% of development fund which was meant for the 4 persons to be hired to work at the GPs have been used for the purpose of building capacities of lower staff (GP functionaries). A 5 - day training of GP secretaries and Rozgar sahayaks was in progress during the visit of the review team in Bilaspur and it got the opportunity to interact, both with the trainers and the trainees. This particular training was to improve the computer literacy among these GP level officials. It was felt at all the levels that the focus of the trainings was more on the officials than on the elected representatives. In addition to the computer training, the trainer was also providing the trainees a hands-on training on the use of Plan plus software using real data. It was felt that the Panchayat functionaries need to be trained in other areas as well such as accounts and record maintenance. A suggestion was made by the team to associate with the Accountancy Training institutes existing at the divisional levels to train the functionaries. This would require action to be taken at the state level Principal Secretary (Panchayati Raj) will have to write to PS (Finance). Although the guideline provides for either outsourcing or engaging people on contractual services in different subject areas, the Panchayats at different levels are not sure on matters such as who will place a request for these services and who will approve these. Hence, the limited staff at different levels is overburdened with work of several schemes. The Leadership at the state level in the SIRD is well motivated and has a good vision. But due to paucity of staff, the institute is unable to achieve its stated vision, mission and mandate. SIRD has only 2 faculties out of an approved 5. Among other posts 11 out of 54 or 20% is lying vacant. The training centers are having severe shortage of faculty as well as administrative staff.
Chhattisgarh 23

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

An encouraging aspect of the CD plan and implementation in Chhattisgarh has been that the ULBs are considered in the plans and are included in the training programs. This is despite the fact that mentioning of ULBs is missing in the BRGF guidelines as well. The CD plan discusses about the inadequacy of the CD inputs and inappropriateness of the methods employed. The training mode is acknowledged as have been largely prescriptive and supply driven. The institutional capacity of SIRD itself is weak to cater to the immense need for CD input to PRIs. Against this backdrop the SIRD has identified four pronged strategy to address the situation a) Increasing reach and volume of activity, b) building capacity of Panchayat as an institution, c) develop rapid response capability and d) autonomy of the SIRD. Capacity of people in general to be engaged meaningfully with the state agencies is considered to be an important facet of decentralized governance. The notion has been expressed by the CEOs during the videoconferencing session. They view that civil awareness was important to safeguard the process from excessive political interference, to adopt a balanced approach in local planning (not only plan for infrastructure but also for livelihoods and citizen rights etc) and identify the actions required to address backwardness through multiple angles. The SIRD has also identified public awareness and strengthening of SHG as their areas of support, but so far no concrete intervention appears to have been taken towards this end.

4.4 Impact of CD
Since it is only the third year for the BRGF scheme to be in existence, it is a little early to see any overall development of capacities of the Panchayats. The number and quality of trainings hasnt been adequate to show visible progress. However, the SIRD was itself of the view that the training programs have not been demand based, training contents are more of prescriptive nature, not based on comprehensive training needs assessment, and coupled with the fact that the coverage itself was very low; an impressive impact cannot be expected.

4.5 Recommendations on how to strengthen the CD support

The following are the recommendations of the review team: Capacity Development Training related Carry out research and needs assessment before developing training programs so that the trainers know the practical difficulties and provide appropriate solutions to the trainees. Evaluation of the impact of training through measures such as Tracer Studies should also be conducted and the information used to improve the training contents and methods. Introduce descriptive mode of training from the present prescriptive which would mean carrying out comprehensive capacity development training needs, development of practical modules and so on. Develop a mechanism in which the effectiveness of the supply side interventions is improved and skill and competency demand of individual GP is also addressed
Chhattisgarh 24

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Carry out research and needs assessment before developing training programs so that the trainers know the practical difficulties and provide appropriate solutions to the trainees. Evaluation of the impact of training through measures such as Tracer Studies should also be conducted and the information used to improve the training contents and methods. Put efforts to find local trainers through enlisting skilled persons in roster and conducing training of trainers. The focus of CD training should be decentralized governance and not merely concentrate on the BRGF guidelines and systems.

TSI related Let State authority or Zila authorities to employ appropriate TSI Find expertise in local resources enable the appropriate PRIs to choose appropriate skills and expertise in the line agencies, local service providers, and individuals Related to improve connectivity Continue with the move for e-connectivity of GPs as planned Strengthen the resource center and cluster of GPs Improve the CB content and use of multiple of tools Promote the use of ToT, Peer Reviews, sharing of best practices, hotlines, long distance VC connections, IT equipment, etc; and Develop and disseminate self-learning materials Others Implement programs to develop the capacity of mass through dissemination of public information Elaborate good tools for monitoring of capacity and trends

5. Monitoring and Evaluation

5.1 Systems for M&E within the BRGF
There is a regular monitoring of the activities conducted under the BRGF, both within the development grants and on the use of the CB support. The PRIs have an elaborated system of reporting where the GP reports to the IP level, which reports to the District level. There are monthly monitoring meetings conducted with follow-up on projects and expenditures. However, there is no system of impact assessment or other kinds of evaluation of the performance of the PRIs and/or the support rendered through the CB components. The use of utilization certificates has the potential to be a powerful tool. The GPs consider the regular audit as the part of M&E.

Chhattisgarh 25

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

5.2 Assessment of M&E in Chhattisgarh

The monitoring of schemes under BRGF is primarily carried out by the IP level in Chhattisgarh. However, recently monitoring at by the grassroots level has started with the introduction of social auditing practice for all kinds of PRIs interventions in the state. The state government, assessing the benefits of social auditing in the activities of NREGS, has issued orders to the effect that similar exercise has to be followed for other types of schemes as well. At the Gram Panchayat level Gram Sabha is organized to carry out social audit. For social audit, the implementers of a project, the beneficiaries and the workers are gathered where the budget, estimates, and expenditure data are publicly announced. The Gram Sabha then scrutinizes whether the details provided match with the actual. The social audit has of late become a popular measure to uphold accountability and good governance. At the GP level there is provision of supervision committee nigarani samiti (vigilance committee). However, the mandate of the supervision committee is to oversee the implementation of NREGS. There is possibility of strengthening the supervision and monitoring with increasing the scope of responsibility of supervision committee. Monitoring takes place while releasing the installments of the schemes. As practiced in case of construction works, the technical section at the JP provides technical layout, inspects the works in terms of quality and quantity and the JP CEO inspects before releasing an installment. The fund is released in three installments 40% on commissioning of an activity, 40% based on progress and the rest 20% upon completion of works. At the IP level, monitoring begins with the staff from the IP technical section giving initial layout for a scheme before the GP initiates the works. The IP also holds 2 meetings of GP secretaries (and Sarpanch and Rojgar Assistant) every month on predetermined dates to monitor the activities and review progress. Moreover IP officials pay regular visits to a cluster of 15/20 GPs every week as per a calendar of operations. Besides, meetings of Line Agency officials are also organized at the IP level to review progress and monitor activities. At the district level, the monitoring of BRGF activities takes place in regular monthly review meetings that are organized by CEO with line agencies and IP officials. The monitoring of BRGF investments at the ULB is done in the same manner as the urban bodies do monitoring of their regular activities. The monitoring formats prescribed in the guideline are duly filled up, as they are connected with the release of funds.

5.3 Challenges within M&E

The RM assessment is that monitoring system set up is appropriate. However, there are lapses in operations. It is found that the practice at the PRIs and ULBs are done
Chhattisgarh 26

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

regularly and in the manner as envisaged. Particularly the weaknesses are noted in the following: The state has not provided clear guidelines on social audit by Gram Sabhas in rural areas and Area Sabhas or Ward Committees in urban areas as provided in the guideline (section 4.15 of the guideline). Some initiatives to provide directives have been noted to the effect that social audit of BRGF expenditures should be made but it is still to be enforced in practice. Monitoring and evaluation of training and capacity development programs have yet not taken place. Review committee at the district level has not been constituted or functional. Peer review of progress by Panchayats has not been put in practice. The HPC has not reviewed the monitoring system and its effectiveness. The vigilance committee envisaged in the guideline is not functional at the grassroots for BRGF investments. Quality monitoring of works is weak. Similarly the monitoring of capacity of local bodies (PRIs and ULBs) is not done. These observations suggest that there is room improving in the monitoring and evaluation system. It is observed that while the system of monitoring of individual investments of BRGF is functional the lapses are in the area of monitoring and evaluation of the overall program management and drawing lessons to improve the performance.

5.4 Recommendations on how to strengthen M&E

The following recommendations are made to strengthen M&E Implement peer review system as envisaged in the guideline. Monitor the CD programs and the effectiveness of capacity development interventions. Carry out quality monitoring of implemented schemes. Activate and broaden the scope of Vigilance Committees formed at the GP level. Use ICT tools to monitor physical as well as financial performance and progress.

6. Program Management
6.1 Organizational Arrangement and HR
Central level The programme at the center is managed by a small core team under Additional Secretary who is supported by a Director, an Under Secretary and a Section Officer. Three assistants, three consultants and a couple of computer operators include the team
Chhattisgarh 27

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

strength at the central level. The national informatics center (NIC) supports the core team with respect to development of software, creating and maintaining database. State level At the state level, the Deputy Commissioner is appointed as the nodal person to handle the BRGF programme, who oversees the program along with other responsibilities. In general the program management capacity at the State level appears weak. However the State officials use the video-conferencing facility, and other IT measures to remain in close contact with the district officers. Because of this and because of the good facilitative role played by the nodal person, and personal interest and initiative of the Principal Secretary the programme implementers at the district levels are well taken care of. District level At the district level the RM found two different modalities of programme management. In Dhamtari district for example the management of BRGF is done through the regular District Panchayat functionaries, while a full time APO (assistant programme officer) is appointed to look after the BRGF activities in Bilaspur district. The impression of the RM is that the activities of BRGF are better organized and focused in Bilaspur. The RM noted a capacity development intervention being implemented (training of GP secretaries and Rojgar Assistants on PlanPlus and IT), and initiative to support Lac producers as local innovations. Sub-district levels and ULBs The management of the programme activities at the sub-district level PRIs and ULBs are done through the regular functionaries. The GPs in Dhamtari and Bilaspur district are not managing the BRGF program as such they are at most handling the implementation of the project funded under BRGF in their GP area (that too if the project cost is below IRs 600,000 the execution of the projects of bigger scale than this are done through the line departments).

6.2 Guidelines and manuals

The guidelines and support from the Center were viewed by the stakeholders as very useful and facilitative. In this regards the central support is appreciated. Overview of manual MOPR has issued a program guideline which is by and large open ended and non restrictive to the autonomy of local bodies. The guideline sets out the objectives of the BRGF and a description of the funding windows and allocation criteria for the development as well as capacity development fund. The guideline leaves for the state authorities to develop appropriate funding formula to the urban local bodies and the PRIs both vertically and horizontally.

Chhattisgarh 28

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

The manual has then outlined how the planning process should function. It emphasizes the need to make the planning process bottom-up participatory, and inclusive. Moreover, BRGF intends to institute an integrated planning system for a local body in which the plan of the local bodies reflect the plans of all PRIs, ULBs, line agencies, NGOs, and CBOs having BRGF funded plans as a part of the plan. BRGF has emphasized to strengthen the process set out by the National Planning Commission the manual instructs the local bodies to go by the regular planning process, and has avoided creating any structure to the program. However, it has suggested a High Powered Committee (at the state level) for approval of district plans, which is a structure to be created for the implementation of the BRGF. With regard to capacity development the guideline has given a comprehensive CD framework that encourages adopting a broader view of local capacity. Similarly the guideline has set out arrangement for the implementation management including the financial management and fund flow mechanisms at Panchayat and state levels. Assessment of use of the manual The authorities in the state and the districts have found the manual to be useful in general. Leaving aside some difficulties implementers use the document as guide for planning, resource allocation, monitoring, and fund management. However, the review mission noted some deviations from the guidelines have been noted in practice (Box 61). Box 6-1: Deviations noted in practice are Sub-district level PRIs are not provided with resource envelope before planning CD fund is not allocated to individual PRIs No backwardness considerations are applied while distributing projects under the BRGF No monitoring functions done by HPC Sub-district level Panchayats (GPs and IPs) are not taken as planning units

The stakeholders at the state pointed out rooms for improvement in the guideline and central support. They are: The guideline allows funding for both urban and rural local bodies, but when it comes to the procedural matters does not mention about ULBs. While an audit of CA or LG Fund Auditor is considered sufficient in the guideline, in practice both are required. Who should issue utilization certificate is not clearly mentioned in the guideline. The MOPR decisions supersede the provisions in the guideline. While the BRGF fund is considered to be an untied fund, the state could not construct police posts in Naxal affected areas with BRGF fund due to such interventions. The HPC (high powered committee) is created by BRGF against its own set norms not to create additional structure. The HPC is an additional layer to approve plans, which has contributed to delays in decision and thus funds flow.

Chhattisgarh 29

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Stakeholders feel that despite the funds being an untied one, the central government has retained strings to approve or not to approve the funding proposal While as per the guideline the HPC approval has to be the final, in practice it is MOPR that makes the final approval of plans and decisions regarding fund release. Funds are not released on time fund for 08/09 projects are released to the district on March 2009! Similarly, the DPC in the districts are poorly functioning. In the first place DPCs have not been able to coordinate and integrate the plans of different agencies into a District Plan effectively. Even the perspective plans prepared are of poor quality. DPCs do not have a secretariat. It is necessary to develop the capacity of DPCs.

7. Conclusions Findings and Recommendations

7.1 Summary of core finding
BRGF has been taken as more than just a grant to local bodies. It is a grant system that promotes local decisions, actions and governance thus it is viewed as an instrument to promote and strengthen local autonomy and decentralization. The grant is untied which is an aspect that is most admired by stakeholders in the state, districts and sub-district levels. The Sarpanchas of GPs have high hopes from the grant system as they are in a position to address the long unmet local needs and priorities. The state of Chhattisgarh is implementing the BRGF program in this spirit, although there are areas for improvement. A short description as how the program is implemented in the State is given prior to pointing out the challenges and problems. At the State level the program nodal person is the Deputy Commissioner, PRD, who acts as the nodal person. There is no separate team or office to manage the program. The High Powered Committee (HPC) and District Planning Committee (DPC) are active but it is not effective in its role whereas in regards to aspects such as giving guidance, monitoring and supervision, targeting to backward and poor the HPC and DPC have not been active, it has often time given an impression of an authority that delays the process, and curtails or adds schemes at the time of approval of district plans. There is shortage of human resource at the state level. At the district level the program is managed by the CEO District Panchayat. Among the two districts visited by the mission the CEO has assigned a dedicated Deputy Project Officer in Bilaspur to look after BRGF programs, whereas in Dhamtari district the regular functionaries manage the program. The RM observation is that although the program activities are being implemented efficiently in both the districts it is more focused and coordinated in the one where a dedicated officer is identified. The IP level is not considered to be a planning and implementing unit in Chhattisgarh. The IPs provide technical assistance, supervision and monitoring support to GPs; the CEO IP are the key persons to manage these functions. The GPs are considered as key implementers of program, but have only one Secretary and depend completely on IP for technical assistance. The lack of clear budget envelopes prior to the planning process is a major issue to be addressed.
Chhattisgarh 30

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Funding The States is entitled a total of 235 cror as BRGF development grant fund for the eligible 13 districts (out of 16 districts in the State). The fund to the State comes to IRs 171 per capita. Although higher per capacity than many other states, it is however still considered to be too little to bring about change and address backwardness. The fund is divided between the rural and urban local bodies based on the population. While the fund for ULB is distributed horizontally among the ULBs on the basis of population, the fund with PRIs are not allocated to any of the sub-district level PRIs. The fund flow has delayed due various reasons, including to elections as a result the State is lagging a year in terms of implementing their programs. Even in the year before elections the funds were released on October which is marginally sufficient for implementations. The PRIs and ULBs are generally found to have good financial management system including keeping book of accounts, auditing and reporting. Planning The bottom up planning process has started from the Gram Sabha level among PRIs. However, due to unavailability of entitlement figures for the GPs and APs the process has lost its meaning the Gram Sabha has turned into a forum to prepare a wish list of needs. Moreover, a comprehensive planning exercise for different schemes does not take place at the Gram Sabha level. In the case of ULBs, even the Ward Sabha is not organized. In ULBs the ULB committees make decisions and send their BRGF plans to the DPC. At the AP level the State law provides that the APs simply consolidate the plans of GPs, therefore they are not supposed to plan. In practice however, some GPs and AP officials experience have been that APs also alter (add or take out) the plans of GP. In Bilaspur, a practice has started to send back the plans with alteration proposals to GPs if strong suggestions to change GP plans come at the AP. This way the process is not distorted but this causes considerable delay. The actual planning exercise takes place at the ZP level in Chhattisgarh. Here, the plans of all GPs are consolidated, the plans of the line agencies are reviewed, duplication are avoided, options for sectoral integration and convergence are evaluated and final plan is drawn. However, in practice it does not happen the way it is envisaged. The line agencies often themselves do not have sufficient information to share, or the planning cycle of the line ministries and the PRIs differ, or there may be resistance to share the internal information to any other agency. Once the plans are selected, then the GPs are then informed about the schemes awarded to them. Thus, not all GPs are sure to get schemes each year; they receive schemes in discretionary rotation. The perspective plan is prepared following the procedure of the guideline. However, there is no uniformity in the format of the perspective plans of the two districts visited. Program implementation and absorption The programs are implemented in general by PRIs/ULBs and the SIRD. The projects to be implemented under BRGF at the GP levels are implemented by the respective GP provided the scheme cost is less than IRs 600,000. The schemes beyond the limit are implemented by respective line agency. ULBs normally implement the projects under
Chhattisgarh 31

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

BRGF through regular bidding process. Since ULBs are required to follow the schedule of cost (SOC) prepared for PRIs the ULBs find it impractical for them on two grounds a) the SOC itself is 5 years old and needs revision, and b) the SOC differs greatly to the SOC approved for ULBs. As a result the ULBs view is that the projects are completed with the rural SOC at the cost of the quality. The PRIs and ULBs have shown their efficiency with regard to the implementation of program thus showing a great absorption capacity. This is how the program has been successful to achieve the targets in large extent despite a delayed fund release in a given year. It is observed that the program management is strong in terms of PFM and execution. The accounting, record keeping and financial practices are well developed and functional in the State and districts levels. Similarly the projects are implemented efficiently and the fund is absorbed well in relatively short period of time that is available to the implementers after the fund is released. Capacity building With regard to the capacity development aspect the nodal agency at the state level is the SIRD, which itself, with only 5 faculties, is severely short in human resources to take up the capacity development responsibility in an effective manner. However it has conducted a number of CD training programs in line with BRGF guidelines, and is engaged actively in non-training capacity development measures such as computerization, networking, and videoconferencing. The performance of TSI support has been dismal. The State and district officials strongly view that provision to recruit and monitor TSI should be devolved to the State and district themselves. Monitoring and evaluation Ideally monitoring and evaluation of the program should take place from State, District, and sub-district (PRIs/ULBs) levels and the scope of monitoring and issues to be monitored should be so identified among these authorities that there is no overlap or duplication. For example the State may monitor the guideline, and the standards and norms along with providing oversight support. Similarly the district level monitoring could concentrate on overall progress, vertical and horizontal coordination and financial matters. The RM found that the State is weak in such aspects; the monitoring is carried out more effectively at the PRIs/ULB levels. All GP level schemes are monitored by the IP officials, and by Gram Sabha through tools such as Gram Sabha recommendation of the utilization and social auditing in some occasions in case of PRIs. The ULBs have their own set mechanism to monitor the program implementation. At the IP and district levels monitoring meetings are organized where the respective PRIs, ULBs, concerned line agency officials take part.

7.2 Main challenges and problems

BRGF has emerged as a different funding mechanism from the existing numerous other transfer schemes in India. However, it has adopted several objectives to achieve all of which appears to be very difficult given the size of the program. As it is laid out the
Chhattisgarh 32

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

programme guideline there are two key objectives to redress regional imbalance of development and public services, and to develop the capacity of PRIs and ULBs in the program area. As it is now for readdressing the regional imbalance the grant fund is very small, given the huge service delivery gaps that exist in the backward regions and the timeframe of the programme. On the other hand the program is still developing interventions and support modalities to strengthen capacity of PRIs/ULBs, as the effectiveness of an untied fund inherently depends on the capacity of the implementers to make the best use of the investments. It appears that the program should consider reviewing the objectives and take more focused and phased approach. On redressing backwardness there is little initiative. There is no criteria for allocating funds on the basis of backwardness though the guidelines provide for it. BPL was proposed to be included as criteria for allocation of funds to districts. This suggestion was rejected by the High Powered Committee. The criteria for backwardness should be applied at the Gram Panchayat level and in the state of Chhattisgarh, the State Health Resource Center has come up with 32 indices to prepare a Swasth (Healthy) Panchayat index. Among the 32 indicators 4 are related to MDGs. This HPI (Healthy Panchayat Index) could be used to allocate funds to the GP level. The GPs are not allocated the fund on an annual basis. They send their proposal to the ZP through IPs which in turn decides to approve one or more projects or not approve any. The ZP people consider that distributing the amount to each GP every year would result into a small and insignificant amount. On the other hand the GP concerns include the requirement to plan each year without knowing the available resource envelope resulting into preparing a laundry list of projects- this in turn erode public confidence in the planning process. BRGF fund allocation criteria are yet not fully developed. The State has still to work out the systems and procedures to effectively implement program of such nature. Shortage of human resource to manage the program at all levels is reported in State. There is only one person at the state level with multiple responsibilities. It is observed that although a nodal person is identified and given responsibility at the State level the workload of the person does not permit to give full attention to BRGF operations. Similarly at the district level as well the capacity has appeared as a determinant factor. The district that could assign a dedicated program assistant is implementing programs in a more organized way than other without a dedicated person to look after the BRGF investments. The human resource capacity at the GP level it is a serious issue. The GPs existing staff the Secretary is already occupied in managing so many projects. Responsibility of BRGF may be asking too much from a junior staff if BRGF were implemented as envisaged (carry out annual multi-sectoral planning, execution, and monitoring). At present they are delivering the duties as GPs are only taken as agents to implement plan of District Panchayat. Additional staff is required at the Gram Panchayat and Block level. The stakeholders were facing issue of coordination at the State and district levels. Although vertical coordination among the actors is improving there are rooms for improving it. The funding of ULBs by BRGF requires coordination between rural and urban authorities. BRGF investments being untied in nature require multi-sectoral coordination. At present the program is implemented by the MOPR and it is regarded as a project of MOPR, but the success of the program rests on the coordination and support it can obtain from other government functionaries.
Chhattisgarh 33

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Continuous monitoring of capacity and implementation of appropriate CD measures is therefore one of the essentials of such a program, and CD interventions work better if they are customized to the need of a specific PRI/ULB or a person in the local bodies. Horizontally there are no clear incentives for the sectoral agencies to coordinate with the local bodies. The structural mechanism envisaged to this effect (the DPC) is weak in delivering its expected role. The HPC is also not focused as envisaged. Operational challenges are also many. The roles, authorities, and performance of the committees needs further review. Specifically the stakeholders had their views on the role of HPC and that of the MOPR for effective implementation of the program. The processes in which the program is approved and funds flows are another operational issues to for review.

7.3 Recommendations
The specific recommendations are made under the respective sections. The recommendations are presented here in summary form. Grant fund related Increase the amount of the grant fund Practice formula-based transfer system for both vertical and horizontal distribution (incorporate backwardness criteria in the formula) Provide resource envelope to the GPs, IPs and ZP as an incentive to carry out serious planning exercise by the GP and IPs. Adopt measures for efficient and direct release of funds to PRIs/ULBs Introduce a system of rewarding better performing PRIs/ULB with more funds

Planning and Implementation Consolidate the planning process through better convergence, and timing, Promote participation of women in the planning and implementation of programs. If required organize separate consultation events with Self-help groups, Mid-day meal groups and elected women. Review the plan approval authority. It may be considered to involve the Center and the HPC in approving the perspective plan, but may not necessarily be involved in annual planning process. Plan for operation and maintenance of the assets created at all levels should be elaborated Review the schedule of costs

Capacity development Accord a balanced approach between training and non-training supports Make use of the provisions in the guideline with experts recruited to work at the GP level Improve effectiveness TSI. A suggestion to this effect is to authorize the PRIs/ULBs to engage TSIs for their support.


First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

Move gradually towards a more demand driven approach to CB, with strengthening of the PRI HR functions.

Programme management Review the role, authorities, and operations of DPC and HPC. The HPC would be better suited to carry out monitoring of the programme, providing guidelines to the PRIs and ULBs, capacity development supports, and setting standards and norms. Redefine the role of DPCs and improve their capacity and functioning. Strengthen the secretariat for DPC, including up-grading of the strategic planning functions and M&E Improve monitoring and supervision support Improve the capacity of the program management units at different levels Further promote good governance practices such as social audit, transparency, and public consultations Strengthen management unit at State level. Have experts in M&E, Fiscal data analyst and allocation criteria, Communication specialist PFM specialist

Chhattisgarh 35

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

8. Annexes
8.1 List of Institutions and People Met
Institution Department of Rural Development and Panchayatirj Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department, SIRD (State Institute for Rural Development) SIRD, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department Gram Panchayat, Kathauli, Dhamtari Janapad Panchayat (IP) Kurul, Dhamtari Municipality Committee, Dhamtari Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari GP, Karra, Bilaspur Kota JP, Bilaspur State Health Resource Center, Chhattisgarh State Planning Department Position Hon. Minister Principal Secretary Director Faculty State Statistics Officer Deputy Commissioner (Panchayat) Sarpanch, GP Secretary, Gram Sabha members CEO, APO, DEO, District Planning and Statistics Officer Adhyaksha, Chief Municipal Officer, Asst. Engineer, Women ward members, Citizens CEO, YP, APO, Monitoring Expert, IP CEOs, Sarpanch, Gram Sabha members, CEO, SEO, S/E, J/E Director, Sr. Program Coordinator Director

Chhattisgarh 36

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

8.2 Tables
Development Grants Dhamtari Municipality, Dhamtari Budget Sanctioned/approved amount Rs. amount lakh Rs lakh 2007/08 156.00 2008/09 110.00 Released amount Rs lakh 156.00 60% Utilised amount Rs lakh 111.00 0.00 Comments, e.g. delays 1st release received only in June 2009

Population: 82111 Bilaspur Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Budget Sanctioned/approved amount Rs. amount Lakh Rs Lakh 2007/08 275.00 2008/09 Population: 274,000 GP: Kathauli, Dhamtari (Got two projects approved in FY 2009/10) Budget Sanctioned/ Released Utilised amount Rs. approved amount Rs amount Rs amount Rs 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 700,000 0 0 Population: 1700 (300 households) GP: Karra, Bilaspur (Got two projects approved in 2008/09) Budget Sanctioned/ Released Utilised amount Rs. approved amount Rs amount Rs amount Rs 2007/08 2008/09 325,000 325,000 0 Comments, e.g. delays Because of Elections funds released in March 009 Comments, e.g. delays Fund awaited is 292.00 Released amount Rs Lakh 275.00 00.00 Utilised amount Rs Lakh 117.14 1.70 Comments, e.g. delays Works are well in progress Fund released in 2009 March

2009/10 Population: 3200 (1300 households)

Chhattisgarh 37

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

8.3 Achievements on Capacity Development Training

Chhattisgarh State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD), Nimora, Raipur. Report on B.R.G.F. Training
Urban Training on B.R.G.F. Year 2007-08 S.N. Training Subject Female B.R.G.F. in Bangalore B.R.G.F. in Urban area B.R.G.F. in Urban area Of Campus Manendragarh, Koria. Of Campus Chirimiri, Koria Of Campus Vishrampur, Sarguja Of Campus Pratappur, Sarguja Of CampusJashpur Of Campus Sarguja. Of Campus Kirandul, Dantewada Of Campus Bacheli,Bastar Of Campus Kondagaon, Bastar Of Campus Kanker Of campus, Kavardha Of Campus Kairagarh (Rajnandgaon) Of Campus ,Dongargarh(Rajnandaon Of Campus Dongargaon(Rajnandgaon Of Campus (Rajnandgaon0 Of Campus Mungeli(Bilaspur) Of Campus Ratanpur(Bilaspur) Of Campus Dipika(Korba) Of Campus Sarnggarh(Raigarh) Total 6 & & 6 10 7 13 16 5 19 14 13 5 9 9 8 16 10 9 11 9 10 205 Male 22 24 39 38 35 35 27 26 44 23 31 28 35 39 41 38 32 16 34 32 37 33 709 Duration 02-09-07 To 08-09-07 03-10-07 To 04-10-07 15-10-07 To 16-10-07 21-01-2008 23-01-2008 25-01-2008 27-01-2008 29-01-2008 12-02-08 04-03-08 05-03-08 07-03-08 08-03-08 10-03-08 11-03-08 12-03-08 13-03-08 14-03-08 17-03-08 18-03-08 19-03-08 20-03-08 Attended Participant 28 24 39 44 45 42 40 42 49 42 45 41 40 48 50 46 48 26 43 43 46 43 914 Elected 13 & & 39 36 35 32 42 49 35 40 38 32 34 43 34 29 26 33 32 40 34 696 Officials 15 24 39 5 9 7 8 & & 7 5 3 8 14 7 12 19 & 10 11 6 9 218

Rural Training on B.R.G.F. Year 2007-08 S.N. Training Subject B.R.G.F. Workshop B.R.G.F. Workshop B.R.G.F. Workshop B.R.G.F. Workshop Chhattisgarh 38 Female 8 & & & Male 69 32 44 36 Duration 03-08-07 To 04-08-07 17-09-07 To 1809-07 20-09-07 To 21-09-07 05-10-07 To Attended Participant 77 32 44 36 Elected & & & & Officials 77 32 44 36

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

B.R.G.F. Workshop D.P.C.Members off Campas, kila, Karla D.P.C.Members off Campas, kila, Karla State level Workshop at vikas bhawan, Raipur D.P.C.Members off Campas, kila, Karla B.R.G.F. 11th Fifth Year Planning TOT D.P.C.Members off Campas, kila, Karla B.R.G.F. 11th Fifth Year Planning TOT B.R.G.F. Facilitator Total Grant Urban) Total (including

1 6 6 5 6 9 4 4 1 50 255

50 18 18 45 15 59 17 31 39 473 1182

06-10-07 09-10-07 To 10-10-07 10-12-07 To 14-12-07 17-12-07 To 21-12-07 03-01-2008 07-01-08 To 11-01-08 14-02-08 To 17-02-08 14-01-08 To 18-01-08 20-02-08 To 23-02-08 25-02-08 To 29-02-08

51 24 24 50 21 68 21 35 40 523 1437

& 16 18 & 13 & 15 & & 62 758

51 8 6 50 8 68 6 35 40 461 679

Rural Training on B.R.G.F. Year 2008-09 S.N. 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Training Subject Workshop on Plan Plus B.R.G.F. Facilitator Workshop On B.R.G.F. (Distt. Planning) Workshop On B.R.G.F. (Distt. Planning) B.R.G.F. Facilitator B.R.G.F. Facilitator Incharge Panchat Recourse Centre Traning Incharge Panchat Recourse Centre Traning Development in Gram Panchayat Through Education Development in Gram Panchayat Through Education Development in Gram Chhattisgarh 39 Female 1 6 6 4 3 2 & & 14 5 4 Male 47 15 120 111 11 15 12 17 29 9 4 Duration 02-06-09 To 030608 02-06-08 To 06-06-08 12-06-08 13-06-2008 15-07-08 To 19-07-08 21-07-08 To 25-07-08 08-07-08 09-07-08 05-08-08 To 07-08-08 21-08-08 To 23-08-08 16-09-08 To Attended Participant 48 21 126 115 14 17 12 17 43 14 8 Elected & & & & & & & & 16 & & Officials 48 21 126 115 14 17 12 17 27 14 8

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Panchayat Through Education Set-com Training on B.R.G.F. B.R.G.F. Facilitator B.R.G.F. Facilitator Distt. Planing On B.R.G.F. Media Training on B.R.G.F. B.R.G.F. Facilitator B.R.G.F. Facilitator B.R.G.F. Facilitator B.R.G.F. Facilitator Total

17-09-08 & 5 1 & 5 4 5 17 82 13 35 10 9 18 34 16 14 9 548 19-09-08 27-09-08 To 29-09-08 20-10-08 To 24-10-08 03-11-08 To 04-11-08 15- 01-09 To 16-0109 19.01.09 To 22.01.09 27.01.09 To 30.01.09 16.02.09 To 19.02.09 17.03.09 To 20.03.09 13 40 11 9 23 38 21 31 9 630 & 1 1 & 01 2 0 01 22 13 39 10 9 22 36 21 30 9 608

UrbanTraining on B.R.G.F. Year 2008-09 S.N. 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Training Subject Nagar Nigam Jagdalpur(B.R.G.F.) Nagar Nigam Sarguja(B.R.G.F.) Double Entry Accounts Training Double Entry Accounts Training Double Entry Accounts Training Double Entry Accounts Training Double Entry Accounts Training TOT Nagar Panchayats Training N.G.O. of Departments Urban Female 15 3 1 3 0 4 7 9 42 124 Male 30 19 9 17 7 17 17 19 41 176 724 Duration 07-04-2008 16-10-08 To 17-1008 20.01.09 To 25.01.09 27.01..09 To 01.02.09 07.02.09 To 12.02.09 25.02.09 To 02.03.09 03.03.09 To 08.3.09 17.03.09 To 21.03.09 23.03.09 To 27.03.09 Attended Participant 45 22 10 20 7 21 17 26 50 218 848 Elected 45 0 0 0 0 45 67 40 Officials 22 10 20 7 21 17 26 50 173 781

Total Grant Total (including Chhattisgarh

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

PRI) Rural Training on B.R.G.F. Year 2009-10 S.N. Training Subject B.R.G.F. TOT Accounts Training Module Distt. Planning & Module Planning B.R.G.F. ToT Plan Plus Training Plan Plus Training Training Design & Module Preparation B.R.G.F. Facilitator Accounts Training Module & Design Distt. Planning Preparation & State De-Centralization & Module Preparation Total Female 5 1 1 4 & 1 7 4 1 1 25 Male 21 12 29 22 12 16 17 10 3 20 162 Duration 29&30 April 09 14&16 May9 18&19 May 27&28 MAY 09 15&16 Jun 09 17&18 Jun 09 15&22 Jun 09 24&27 Jun 09 26 Jun 09 29&30 Jun 09 Attended Participant 26 13 30 26 12 17 24 14 4 21 187 Elected & & & & & & & & & & Officials/ Master trainers 26 13 30 26 12 17 24 14 4 21 187

Urban Training on B.R.G.F. Year 2009-10 S.N. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Training Subject B.R.G.F. Facilitator Office Management Double Entry Account System Office Management off Campus, Sarguja Office Management off Campus, Jaspur Office Management off Campus,Korba Office Management off Campus, Koria Total Grant total (including rural) Female 7 4 1 & & 5 5 22 47 Male 31 38 06 41 42 36 36 230 392 Duration 05&09 April 09 13&16 May 09 26&30 May 09 01&04 Jun 09 24&27 Jun 09 27&30 Jun 09 15&22 Jun 09 Attended Participant 38 42 7 41 42 41 41 252 439 Elected & & & & & & & Officials/ Master trainers 38 42 7 41 42 41 41 252 439

Chhattisgarh 41

First Independent Review Mission for Backward Region Grant Fund State Report

8.4 Healthy Panchayat Indicators

1. Fully immunized children 2. Institutional delivery of children 3. Child delivery at home assisted by qualified medical practitioner 4. Weight of new born baby 5. Breastfeeding within half-an-hour 6. Supplementary food to children of 6-18 months 7. Activeness of Mitain in maternal health 8. Activeness of Mitain in neonatal and child survival 9. Activenss of Panchayat health committee 10. Activenss of Womens health committee 11. Use of domestic/community toilet 12. Anganwadi 13. Rojgar Guarantee Scheme 14. Anemia and adolescent 15. Family planning and access to sterilization 16. Outbreak of water borne disease Source: State Health Resource Centre Raipur 17. Antenatal care 18. Availability of chloroquine 19. Use of mosquito net 20. Stagnant water 21. Incentives to Mitains 22. Safe drinking water 23. Midday meals 24. PDS functioning 25. Antyoday Yojna 26. School enrolment 27. Age of marriage 28. Malnutrition 29. Low birth weight 30. Spacing of birth 31. Infant death 32. Still birth

8.5 Other documents (References)

Brief note on BRGF provided by P&RD Department Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Government, Daily Diary 2009 Annual plan of Bilaspur under BRGF 2007/08 Annual plan Dhamtari 2007/08 Swastha Panchayat Yojana (Healthy Panchayat Plan), Health and Family Welfare Department, State Health Resource Centre Raipur

Chhattisgarh 42