Performance Rating of Gram Panchayats through Community Scorecard

1. Performance Rating of Gram Panchayats through Community Scorecard PRIA, New Delhi & Nawa Anjor, Chhattisgarh

2. Background • CGDPRP (Nawa Anjor) empowers disadvantaged people • It creates infrastructure and income opportunities for rural poor • Supports rural governments to become responsive and effective • CGDPRP proposed to develop a performance monitoring and rating system for Gram Panchayats • PRIA & CGDPRP undertook the pilot study • The Pilot was conducted on 30 GPs, may be replicated in 2046 Gram Panchayats in CGDPRP project area

3. Service Delivery Context • Gram Panchayat (GP) is the lowest level in the three-tier Panchayati Raj system in India • GP comprises of elected representatives from the village • GP formulates village level development plans and is responsible for various services including water, sanitation etc. • GP supervises and monitors various village level committees, services and schemes of other departments • Gram Sabha is the forum of all adult electors in a village • Gram Sabha approves the plans and activities of GP

4. Accountability Context • Gram Panchayat is accountable to Gram Sabha • GP is responsible for organising Gram Sabhas, and services like drinking water, sanitation, small infrastructure, Nawa Anjor • GP has no direct control of providers certain services like health, education, mid-day meal schemes, PDS, taxation etc. • Service providers are mostly accountable upward to the respective line departments • Downward accountability is absent

5. Identified Services and Areas • CSC was conducted in 30 GPs of 7 districts selected from North, Centre and South of Chhattisgarh • Twelve services of GP were assessed: • Organising Gram Sabha • Health • Education • Drinking water • PDS Distribution • Other schemes (IAY, SGRY, NREG etc.) • Mid-day meal scheme • Sanitation • Physical infrastructure • Hand pump maintenance • Nawa Anjor • Taxation

6. Chhattisgarh State and the Study Districts

7. Process STAGE – 1 Preparatory Activities (Selection of resource persons; training design, training workshops, field visits, planning) STAGE – 2 Input Tracking Input Tracking Scorecard STAGE – 3 Community Assessment Community Generated Indicators & Scorecards STAGE – 4 Self Evaluation by Service Providers Self-Evaluation Scorecards STAGE – 5 Interface Meeting Action Plan STAGE – 6 Post Implementation Activities (Analysis; advocacy; dissemination’ policy changes)

8. Process • Gram Panchayat Sample Selection • 30 GPs selected from 2046 GPs under the project • Multi-stage stratified random sampling process • The State divided into 3 regions: North, Central and south • 7 districts selected from 3 regions • 14 blocks from 7 districts, and 30 GPs from 14 blocks • Tribal and non-tribal blocks, remote and proximate block to dist. HQ, single village and multiple village GP, Tribal/Non-tribal/Woman Sarpanch • Final selection of Block and GP inconsultation with the PFT

9. Process (Contd..) • Team mobilisation: Field team selected from PRIA’s partner organisations, one FRT for each region, 3 FIs and 1 FS per FRT • FRTs were trained on CSC methodology • A detailed field investigation plan prepared • Two phases of field research – Bilaspur and Raigarh covered in phase 1 • Sharing of preliminary findings of Phase 1 with CGDPRP and World Bank • The priority sectors and indicators were identified in the Phase 1 • FRTs in constant touch with the Project staff and Panchayat members

10. Process (Contd..) • Input tracking • Supply side data on services offered, budgetary allocations and entitlements were collected • The data was discussed with the community • Physical verification of actual progress in each scheme • Community assessment • GP ratings through FGDs • 4,347 (8.21%) persons out of a population of 52,975 participated • 3-4 homogenous focus groups based on services usage, interests, sex, age in each GP

11. Process (contd..) • Community assessment (contd.): • Each focus group awarded scores to each indicator on 0-10 scale • Reasons for high and low scores and suggestions for improvement were discussed and recorded • Common meeting after the FGDs to prioritise the indicators and identify practical solutions to problems • Self evaluation: • The elected Panchayat representatives and officials of PRI scored the indicators • Suggestions for improvement were also recorded

12. Process (contd..) • Interface meetings • Interface meetings attended by community and GP members • The scorecards of Community Assessments and Self-evaluation were displayed • FRT members facilitated the dialogue • A final scorecard along with a list of actions for the GP was generated

13. Results and Learnings • The Pilot study identified priority sectors and indicators for performance rating • Identified major problems in different service delivery context • Constructive and innovative solutions to problems identified • Community appreciated the problems faced by the service providers – result: increased user satisfaction

14. Results and Learnings (contd..) • Differences between community scores and self evaluation scores are nominal • Users are either satisfied with the services or ignorant of their rights • Low expectations by community from service providers • Self evaluation scores were given by PRI officials, who are not responsible for some of the services e.g., health, education, PDS, taxation • Lack of awareness among newly elected Panchayat members about their roles and responsibilities

15. Results and Learnings (contd..) • In the agreements, focus was on the actions: • which were immediately implementable at the GP level • which needed administrative interventions • Community responses to some problems were generic and some others as mere expectations • For some key problems, community had no solutions • Many issues raised by the community due to poor awareness level

16. Comparison of Average Community and Self Evaluation Scores 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 Score 4.0 AVG. 3.0 COMMUNITY 2.0 SCORE 1.0 AVERAGE SE 0.0 -1.0 SCORE Health Taxation DIFFERENCE Nawa Anjor Infrastructure Education PDS Distribution Drinking Water Mid-day Meal Scheme Organizing Gram Sabhas Type of Service

17. Services and Indicators - Example

18. Key Concerns and Way Forward • Low level of community awareness: Direct scores by community may not provide proper comparative assessment • Scaling up and institutionalization of the CSC process – a real challenge • Most of the elected Panchayat representatives are new and inexperienced • Extensive training of the PFTs and capacity building of elected Panchayat representatives

19. Key Concerns and Way Forward (contd..) • Project authorities and government officials to accept and act upon the action plans and CBOs and citizens’ groups need to be trained on CSC methodologies • Dissemination of CSC results into the public domain • Methods to prevent local specific disruptions to be developed • Linking performance with financial reward may result in exaggerated scores – neutral observer

20. Key Concerns and Way Forward (contd..) • Active engagement of senior officials in the exercise helps taking concrete actions • Frequency of monitoring performance depends on capacity of professionals and acceptance by implementing authorities