Enhancing Urban Governance: Impact of Information Campaign on the Lives of Delhi's Poor

1. Elected and the ElectorsInformation Campaign & Lives of the Urban Poor in Delhi3ie Policy ClinicColombo16 July 2012

2. Evaluation Questions • Do PEVACs affect voter turnout and vote share of the incumbent? • Are better performing incumbents rewarded in the polling booth? • Do politicians respond to the voters being more informed? • To what extent do politicians improve behavior due to feedback or pressure from constituents, and to what extent do politicians improve behavior due to the fear of losing votes? • Are voter education campaigns effective in improving service delivery and elected leader performance?

3. Motivating Question: Why doesn’t the political system face a strong pressure to improve public service delivery? • Alternative hypotheses • People are not unhappy with their living conditions • Politicians have limited influence on the problems • Slum dwellers don’t vote/ don’t vote on performance • These are not politically salient issues • Our Hypothesis • Voters lack information

4. Introduction • India has the second largest urban Population. By 2030, estimated to reach 590 millions • Over 60 cities of 1 million + • Which will contribute over 70% of GDP • A very high fraction will live in slums. According to one 2009 All India estimate: • 37 percent of urban Indians live in one room or without a proper roof • 67 percent live in less than 2 rooms • Roughly 3 million people or 600,000 households in Delhi slums • Urban slums are typically characterized by low-quality public services • Slum-dwellers are an important voter group

5. Household Survey How informed are the voters and what problems do they face?

6. Surveyed Slums

7. Information Gathered on Urban Poor: • Basic Demographics • Health Patterns • Education • Household Finances • Political awareness • Public Service Access and Usage Survey Format • Crime • Social Networks • Political Activism • Awareness of Councilor Spending • Migration History

8. Discontent around certain public goods, especially water, sewage and garbage • Lack of alignment between councilor spending and stated local preferences • Engagement in the political system is mostly through voting, with limited direct engagement • 85% households registered to vote, and 71% report voting in last councilor election • Most common outcome for direct engagement: politician is accessible, said he/she would help or tell someone to help, but nothing happened. Survey Findings

9. Are voters passive? • Registered voters: • 86% of households surveyed are registered voters • 84% of them voted in the last municipal elections • Political Participation: • 69% of HHs attended no event • 24% of HHs attended a speech/rally • 5% of them received a cash incentive to attend • 23% of them received a non-cash incentive to attend • 23% of HHs attended a march • 3% of them received a cash incentive to attend • 19% of them received a non-cash incentive to attend

10. The Intervention • Partnership with SatarkNagrikSangathan (SNS) • Right to Information • Report Cards • Spending • Committees • Meeting attendance • Previous studies • Delhi 2008 • Bihar 2010

11. Information Design • In 2010 (mid-term), performance-based report cards published in a local newspaper (Hindustan) for a group of councilors (chosen at random) and they were told that a similar set of report cards will be published in 2012 (end of term) • In 2012, end-of-term performance report cards published for the above councilors. Along with that, another group of councilors selected (at random) and a report card on their performance was published • Within some published wards, there was a door-to-door distribution of newspapers in some areas (selected at random) within the ward • The aim: • As compared to voters in wards who got no report card (control group), how do voters in other wards react? • As compared to the areas where there was no distribution, how did the areas that did get a newspaper on their doorstep react? • What is the impact of this on electoral outcomes (voting shares, turnout ratios etc)?

12. Audit Methodology • Which services to audit? • Sewage/drainage (21%) and Garbage (15%) were cited as the two most problematic issues by households • Garbage and Toilet services audited • 315 slums across 102 wards • Characteristics of every public toilet and garbage pile used by more than five households • Toilets: • Infrastructure • Use • Pricing • Garbage: • Infrastructure • Volume • Level of disruption

13. GARBAGE POINTS 2 1 3 1 5 4 8 6 7

14. Sitting Toilets  TOILETS (Some Examples)  Bowl Urinals Standing Urinals 

15. Each treatment Councilor is given a report card along with a map so as to identify the location of each toilet and garbage point audited in the ward Audits Report Cards: Maps

16. Questions for analysis • Analyzing treatment effects: • Did publication and distribution of report cards on councilor performance have an effect on electoral results? • Did the provision of audit report cards have an impact on councilor spending/toilet and garbage services? • Larger questions • Does the reduction in asymmetry of information between government officials and voters influence spending by the official and/or electoral behaviour? • Is there potential to inform low-income households about their political rights? • Information is cheap. Scale ups and replication possible?

17. Some Findings • Formal places for garbage disposal exist for most areas • Households still prefer to dispose garbage ‘informally’ (across the street, in drains, gutters or open grounds etc.) than to throw the garbage in dhalaos/bins • The MCD officials regularly clean formal points but no one cleans the informal points • Factors determining HHs throwing trash in drains/gutters/open land: • Distance to the dhalao/bins (positive and concave) • Average days between garbage collection (positive) • Proper structure of dhalaos (positive) • Factors affecting the frequency of cleaning of dhalaos/bins • How well the slum dwellers know the Councilor/MLA (positive) • Whether HHs are registered voters or not does not matter!

18. Toilets • 80.2% of audited areas have public toilets, of which around 81% are open • Around 75.5% of toilets have presence of fecal matter • Does quality improve with price charged? • Male toilets: • Price and facilities present are positively related • Female toilets: • Price is negatively related to the presence of fecal matter

19. Policy Impact Plan How do we make our results and findings known to the community?

20. Key Stakeholders • Stakeholders • SatarkNagrikSangathan(SNS) and other NGOs and CSOs • Hindustan (media partner) and other media outlets (newspaper, TV, radio) • Election Commissions • Policymakers and government officials. For example, Municipal Corporations, Rural Development Departments • Politicians and Elected Representatives (MLAs, councillorsetc) • Academics

21. Done so far • Inputs on intervention and evaluation design were solicited from the following: • NGOs/CSOs • Government agencies (MCD, DUSIB) • Experts • Elected Representatives (Councillors, Pradhans) • Media • Academics

22. Dissemination on design and baseline findings has included: • Presentations to local CSOs and GRCs, 3ie, IGC, Harvard/MIT, Gates Foundation/J-PAL workshop, IAS workshops • Discussions with NGOs and policymakers • Organized visits to sample slum areas • A paper on baseline results

23. Challenges • Governance and jurisdiction changes : - Trifurcation of MCD - Reservation and Expropriation of Councillors - Introduction of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB)

24. Changes • Refinement of intervention and evaluation plan based on: • Changes and challenges in the external context • Continuous stakeholder engagement • Findings from the evaluation

25. Next Steps • Dissemination of findings and results, based on the Policy Impact Plan through: • Policy briefs and report • Academic paper and presentations • Presentations at conferences, workshops, round tables to NGOs and policymakers • Article and media report