Presentation structure

1. National Infrastructure Equity Audit - Phase IStudy findings and consultation13th July 2011IIC, New DelhiBySocial Equity watch

2. Presentation structure Study Background • Vision, objectives and methodology • Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs • Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs • Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations • Access equity audit • Findings • Discussion

3. Background • Inclusive growth demands that all social groups have equal access to the rights and equal opportunity for upward economic and social mobility. • Ensuring equitable access to different services provided by the State is one of the many ways to enable this. • With majority of people in India (70%) continuing to live in around 5 lakh rural hamlets in India, the focus of government continues to be on rural development through many flagship schemes. • Village level public infrastructure assumes a central role in delivering the scheme and providing opportunities for upward social and economic mobility • Investment in infrastructure to increase from 4.6 % to around 8% of GDP during 11th plan

4. Crucial role of infrastructure in flagship schemes

5. Civil society and government services • Some of the schemes initiated by the state in last two decades are welcomed and hailed as historic and progressive (eg. NREGA, RTI, NRHM etc) by the civil society. • Campaigns groups around right to food, health, education and information etc. • knowledge has emerged as a critical tool in hands of these campaign groups when engaging and influencing the government, directly or indirectly through litigation. • Huge scope for engaging with civil society and government in engaging on equity issues.

6. Addressing structural barriers • Infrastructure related inequities are often a reflection of deep-rooted structural power imbalance. • Capturing and dealing with infrastructure related inequity is one of the important steps towards playing inclusive politics and addressing the larger structural barriers.

7. Social Equity Watch • The current action research initiated by Social Equity Watch is a step forward in this direction. • Core Group Meeting held on 11th Jan, 2010 ratified the plan to undertake NIEA. • Core Group Meeting was held on- 13th April, 2010, discussed the methodology • Praxis as secretariat, undertook three consecutive pilots- two pilot in Bihar and one in Uttar Pradesh and evolved the scalable methodology and tool • Core Group Meeting was held on- 24th Jan, 2011, reviewed pilot findings. • NIEA subgroup was formed in Feb 2011.

8. Partnering Organisations • Agragamee, Orissa • Centre for Social Equity and Exclusion, Bihar • Gram Jagat, Bihar • Maruganga society, Rajasthan • National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), Delhi and Bihar • Prajwala Sangham, Andhra Pradesh • Praxis- Institute for participatory practices, New delhi • Sanchaynela, Bangalore • Unnati, Rajasthan • Vasundhara Sewa Samiti, Rajasthan

9. Next Study Background Vision, objectives and methodology • Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs • Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs • Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations • Access equity audit • Findings • Discussion

10. Vision, objectives and methodology • Vision of the study • The broad vision of the study is to address the issues of exclusion with regard to development indicators and infrastructure • Objectives of the study • To capture how access and control over resources across different segments of the population plays a vital role in determining the status of equity in any society • To demonstrate the gross inequities that exist with the placement of infrastructure in villages while also exhibiting how this contributes to perpetuating the cycle of poverty for marginalised communities

11. Sample States, Districts and GPs

12. Sample • Basic unit- Gram Panchayat (G.P). • Sample size- twenty-five Panchayats covered in each state (except AP). • Sampling criteria • Mixed caste panchayats, which represent the normal panchayat in the district. • States identified for representing different zones and based on interest shown by partnering groups/ organisation. • One backward district and another developed district was identified in state (except in Karnataka) • GPs were identified at random subject to limitation of accessibility. • Sampling bias- The sample would underreport extent of inequity • Time period- 21 February and 10 April 2011. • Bihar and Andhra Pradesh - February and March • Karnataka, Rajasthan and Odisha - March and April. • Data entry, analysis and report writing - July.

13. Tool for equity audit • Physical Infrastructure Equity Audit Tool • Detailed structured and pre-coded interview schedule covering all habitations in a GP • Enumerated by a pair of two researchers • 2. Translated in local languages. • Infrastructure Access Equity Audit Tool • Focus group discussions with Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Religious Minority, OBC and General Caste community members in each GP. • The caste habitation for FGD was selected at random. • A group typically consisted of eight to twelve women/men. • Indicators for assessment and rating on 10 point scale. • (i) Importance, (ii) Availability, (iii) Ease of access, (iv) Regularity of use, and (v) Attitude of service providers

14. Research Steps Step 1: List of all Panchayats and revenue villages identified with support local organisations and research team. Step 2: Two day training programmes/workshops. Step 3: Met the Panchayat leaders and other local leaders and identified key respondents to administer the structured interview schedule. Step 4: A team of two researchers met the key respondents at a time convenient to them and collected the data at the Gram Panchayat, Revenue Village and habitation level. Step 5: Certain hamlet/habitations were selected randomly to validate the information given by the key respondents. The research team physically visited the infrastructure to validate it with the given information. Step 6: The research team selected one revenue village from each panchayat for focus group discussions and selected one sample group from each of the caste categories at random, who are most likely to access service from same sources. The infrastructure access equity audit, including the FGD and the infrastructure rating exercise was undertaken during this time. Step 7: Social map were developed in some of the Panchayats.

15. Next Study Background Vision, objectives and methodology Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs • Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs • Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations • Access equity audit • Findings • Discussion

16. List of infrastructure facilities covered in the equity audit 1) Primary school 2) Anganwadi centre (ICDS) 3) Health sub-centre 4) Drinking water (Bharat Niraman) 5) Primary health centre (PHC) 6) Housing under Indira Awas Yojana (Bharat Nirman)* 7) Community centre 8) Electricity (Bharat Nirman) 9) Police station 10) Agriculture centre 11) Panchayat Bhavan 12) Road (Bharat Nirman) 13) PDS 14) Post office 15) Secondary school 16) Telephone/ Information kiosk (Bharat Nirman)

17. Summary of Infrastructure status in sample G.Ps

18. Infrastructure availability in GPs

19. Infrastructure gap in each GP

20. Next Study Background Vision, objectives and methodology Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs • Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations • Access equity audit • Findings • Discussion

21. Distribution of infrastructure facilities across social habitations in sample GPs

22. Extent of equity gap in the sample GPs

23. Next Study Background Vision, objectives and methodology Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations • Access equity audit • Findings • Discussion

24. Habitation not covered as per official norms

25. Habitation not covered as per official norms (cont.) Note- * No electricity connection in the habitation # less than 10% of habitation population have electricity connection $ is underestimated seriously

26. Habitation not covered physically

27. Coverage gap with reference to other indicators

28. Next Study Background Vision, objectives and methodology Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations Access equity audit • Findings • Discussion

29. Access rating of infrastructure by different social groups

30. Access ratings of eight services by different Caste and Religious groups-I

31. Access ratings of eight services by different Caste and Religious groups-II

32. Access ratings based on location of infrastructure - I Note: Not Adequate (NA) in certain cells refers to inadequate sample size to make any inference. Due to inadequate sample size minority groups were not included in the table

33. Access ratings based on location of infrastructure - II Note: Not Adequate (NA) in certain cells refers to inadequate sample size to make any inference. Due to inadequate sample size minority groups were not included in the table

34. Access ratings of based on location of infrastructure-III Note: Not Adequate (NA) in certain cells refers to inadequate sample size to make any inference. Due to inadequate sample size minority groups were not included in the table

35. Access ratings on attitude of service provider - I

36. Access ratings on attitude of service provider - II

37. Next Study Background Vision, objectives and methodology Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations Access equity audit Findings • Discussion

38. List of infrastructure facilities covered in the equity audit

39. Findings- I • There is a continued presence of deep-rooted caste-based inequity in the distribution and availability to infrastructure and hence to the accessibility of services and entitlements. • The SCs, STs and Minorities are being fenced off from access to the functional infrastructure facilities by merely situating them in General or BC habitations. • There are still many SC/ST habitations, which are left officially uncovered. The people in these habitations have to travel longer distance and share it with larger than prescribed populations than prescribed in official norms. They are also denied the access to certain scheme. • The equity gap is severe in certain GPs, with concentration of multiple infrastructure from BC/General habitations.

40. List of infrastructure facilities covered in the equity audit • At places where the infrastructure facilities are located in SC/ST habitations, a sizable percentage of the service providers are from the General or BC category. Further, most of these infrastructure facilitates are in private lands or buildings • The rating of services by SC/ST and minorities in accessing these facilitates was much lower than their BC/General counterparts in the same habitations. The satisfaction gap was largely due to location of services in other habitations and attitude of service provider. • In certain services such as ICDS, where some government guidelines exist for encouraging equitable distribution of infrastructure, the equity gap is less than other infrastructure. Therefore there exists scope for equitable distribution of resources through proactive measures

41. Proposed Monitoring framework

42. Next Study Background Vision, objectives and methodology Findings- Infrastructure audit of the GPs Infrastructure Equity audit of the GPs Deprivation of SC/ST, Minority Habitations Access equity audit • Discussion

43. Appendix 1- National infrastructure equity index

44. Step 1-Profiling the gram panchayat

45. Step 2- Mapping Infrastructure coverage- example

46. Step 3- Compute coverage gap index • Based on presence (1) and absence (0) of a village infrastructure as per the official norms • An index for selected infrastructure capturing compete coverage with a value of one and capturing complete lack of coverage with a value of Zero. • Computed for each category of hamlets within a village, G.P, Block etc.

47. Coverage index- An example

48. Step 4- Compute concentration Index • Based on presence (1) and absence (0) of a village infrastructure in one’s hamlet • An index for selected infrastructure capturing compete absence of Infrastructure with a value of Zero and capturing presence of all available infrastructure in the village with a value of one. • Computed for each category of hamlets within a village, G.P, Block etc.

49. Concentration index- An example

50. Step 5- Compute Access gap index • Based on group perception over five indicators • Ease of access • Regularity of use • Attitude of service providers • Extent of Corruption • Quality of infrastructure • Groups in each of the study hamlets asked to rate each infrastructure (0 lowest to 10 highest) for each of the five indicators. • Overall index for all five indicators combined will give 0 if there is a complete access gap or 1 if there is no access gap