1 / 19

Report of the Sub-Committee on Capacity Building and Convergence

Report of the Sub-Committee on Capacity Building and Convergence . PRESENTED BY: BK Sinha DR MN Roy, Dr RK Singh, Phani Kumar . Background of the Report. Sub Committee constituted in the second meeting of the Committee( 31 st October 09); Terms of Reference of the Sub Committee:

job
Download Presentation

Report of the Sub-Committee on Capacity Building and Convergence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Report of the Sub-Committee on Capacity Building and Convergence PRESENTED BY: BK Sinha DR MN Roy, Dr RK Singh, Phani Kumar

  2. Background of the Report • Sub Committee constituted in the second meeting of the Committee( 31st October 09); • Terms of Reference of the Sub Committee: • Access the resource envelope made available for capacity building through various schemes; • Determine the extent of use of IEC/ICT and the handicaps thereto; • Assess the extent of convergence in these programs at various levels; • Prepare a concept and national framework for capacity building. The frame work should include the definition of capacity building, principles of capacity building and the structures at national, state, district and sub-district level needed for capacity building.

  3. Present Status of National Capacity Building Framework (NCBF) • NCBF – First comprehensive guide to planning and implementing capacity development investments for local governments. • NCBF supported some of the critical gaps other than training that are necessary for the capacity development of local governments • complete cycle of training • provision to access technical support • provision for availing services to cover the functional gaps at the PRI level • provision training using the cascading model • Most states have started using a combination of e-based learning approaches • satellite training centers • video conferencing facilities • telephone help lines • Limitations • far too focused on individual training and may not entirely address organisational or institutional capacity gaps. • does not require the States to conduct a capacity needs assessment for each district • omits pre-electoral training • limited to BRGF districts • no integration of line and sectors in capacity building • un-realistic costing of capacity building training programme

  4. Current Issues • Underutilisation of resources available under the flagship programs of rural development. • A substantial amount of resources committed for the capacity development under BRGF has not been utilised. • A manifestation of the weak capacity of SIRDs, the “lynchpin service providers”, and other nodal agencies. • No social audit of capacity building • Non-existent sub district training infrastructure

  5. Institution Building • Sine qua non to make SIRDs self sufficient and self renewing. • to set up institution to capacity building at the district level • to encourage learning from the people process • to create a network of institution for capacity building • Key role of civil society organisationsand private sector actors in developing capacities for local governance. • NIRD as national level ‘lynchpin service provider’ with the mandate to coordinate national level activities and facilitate collaboration among capacity development service providers dispersed across the country.

  6. Why a new framework? • NCBF not complete, mostly confined to training • NCBF provides limited flexibility to States • Provision for institutionalisation of Best Practices • Lack of a common framework that could be used for the need assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of capacity development projects • The report of the first independent review mission for BRGF recommends developing format/template and guidelines for Capacity Needs Assessment for capacity development planning while allowing flexibility and innovation at State level

  7. New Framework New Capacity Development Programme -NCDP- Direct Democratic Process PRIs/ ULBs Institutions Participatory process Electoral Gram Sabha Monitoring & Evaluation Delivering Structure Community/ CBos/ SHGs/ other Groups Individual Legal/ Policy/ Guidelines/ Framework State Constitution

  8. Objectives • Institution capacity in planning, implementation and self evolution • Self Reliance and self support • Create pressure on other institution for assertion of their share • Capacities of Dalits, Tribals, OBCs, Minorities & Women should be brought at par with other • LSG Should be able to assert vis-à-vis. Bureaucracy, State and National Government • Different tiers of PRIs institution should be able to develop ownership and template for planning & action • Should be able to create & function in a network

  9. Features • Common to the entire country • Provided the broad framework with provision for local level variation • Common feature include • monitoring & evolution • funding • accounting procedure • MIS based reporting • Electronics transfer, tracking and accounting • Integration with capacity building of all other programmes • Composite mode of training • 8 Sectoral Modules for training • Common content delivery in core areas

  10. Proposed Structure Cascading Mode Distance Mode ToT NIRD e-learning Mobile Device Private Radio Partner Self Learning Mode Master Trainers State SIRD ETCs/DTC Ground Truthing MTs MTs MTs Block Panchayat Training Peoples Training Institute

  11. Areas of Concern • Inadequate in funding personal & infrastructure • Highly segmented & Sectoral • No TNA & preparation of Training Profile • Inadequate reporting • No Social Audit of Training Delivery • Not demand driven • People’s initiatives not captured

  12. Training Delivery Structure

  13. Course objective Expected Learning out Come Subject Course Evaluations Sub-Subject CD Institutions Topic Course Content & Self Thought Mode Learning out Come Sub-Topic Games Case Studies Audio Visuals Module Mapping

  14. Role of PRIs • Largest component (44L) • Centrality of the PRIs • Integrated training concept • Monitoring & Evaluation • MIS • Social Audits • TNA

  15. Infrastructure • Creation of National Vision • Disaggregated vision at different level • Clear delineation of personal • Flexibility in personal policies • MIS • Use of ICT

  16. Funding • National common funding pattern for CD • Fund allocation for training programme to be computed at per capita basis • 3 levels of funding to be clearly demarcated • Market & other linkages • Clear cut ear marking & integration of CD funds of all CSS into NCD funds • Audit

  17. Legislative Framework • National Capacity development programme should be mandatory • Pooling of Capacity Building Training funds of all scheme into NCDP to be made mandatory • According to the Activity Mapping devolving of 3fs to be made mandatory by states • Implementation of the recommendations of 7th round table conferences

  18. Capacity Building Matrix

  19. Thank You

More Related