Indicators for Decentralized District Planning

Best Practices Foundation Funded by SDTT

1 Objectives
The purpose of this phase was to test the preliminary indicators for district planning processes through developed with partners in the initial phase. In the process, capacities of the partners are also built towards using the indicators. In the process of developing the indicators, BPF found it would be useful to develop a needs assessment tool and a citizen satisfaction tool that would be useful for any community based organization working on the ground to assess the quality of the plan. Such tools were seen as complementary to the indicators. Such a tool had to be created and piloted on the ground.

2 Indicator development process and methodology

During the initial preparatory phase, the team researched each of the partner proposals, planning commission guidelines and State Acts. This helped in identifying common and unique processes, ascertaining preliminary indicators for each of the organizations, and comparing the processes of each organization against those outlined by the Planning Commission, in the Manual for Integrated District Planning, 2008. The BPF team along with key personnel of the partner organization visited the village, block or municipality to observe and understand how elected GP, JP, or ZP members are able to understand and/or implement the process of bottom-up planning. In the second phase, the BPF team discussed the indicators with all the three partners jointly and individually in order to refine the indicators in tune with the processes the partners are following on the ground. After this, the team went back to pilot the indicators. The first piloting was done in Orccha to understand if the indicators were acceptable and usable on the ground. Later a more elaborate piloting was done in Madhubani and later tested in Raisen.

3 Indicator findings
Indicators that were developed over time, was piloted in Orccha then again in Madhubani and then tested in Raisen, based on the pilot findings. However, the work was at a nascent stage when the pilot was done in Madhubani and findings in Madhubani based on the indicators can be given after the team goes back to test the indicators again based on the pilot findings and the lessons during field testing. Findings from Raisen are given below. However, many of the indicators needs to be further refined to reach firmer conclusions. BPF is scheduled to test the indicators in Orccha in April once again.

3.1

Indicator findings from Raisen, Madhubani and Orccha

Findings from both sites have been presented in Tables 1 to 7. These findings have been presented according to each part of the planning process.

Page 2 of 13

3.1.1 Capacity needs assessment: The indicator used to assess this was: Is capacity needs assessment done? It was found that in Raisen that Debates intervention has a strong impact in terms of capacity needs assessment at the GP level (Table 1) where all the GPs under Debates project area (100%) had done capacity needs assessment while only 50% of the control area had done the same. Capacity needs assessment was also done at the block and the municipality levels. The result for municipality and blocks do not differ much in the project and the control sites since the exercise was done by Debate with both of them together (Tables 2 and 3). At the Municipality level there is not much difference in the results between the project and the control, where in both cases capacity needs assessment is yet to be done and therefore is expected to show a difference later. In Madhubani, capacity needs assessment was done in one out of the two GPs, PRIA is working in whereas it can be seen that no GP has done it in the control area (Table 4). This has not taken place at the municipality level (Table 5). It has also been done at the Block level (Tables 6). However PRIA has done a SWOT at the DPC level and this would be important to capture. One DPC member was interviewed who said that capacity assessment was not done and perhaps did not interpret the question to mean the SWOT exercise (Table 7). 3.1.2 Availability of baseline data: Indicator used to assess this was: Is baseline data made available to citizens? Indicators showed that the baseline data have been made available to citizens in the GP, municipality and blocks in Raisen. The indicator shows that the availability of baseline data is slightly better in project areas of Debate than the control sites. In Madhubani, as per the indicators, baseline data is not available in either the project site or the control at the Municipality or GP level. This is because in Bihar disaggregated data is simply not available at GP and municipality levels and line departments are also far less willing to share their data. One of the blocks that PRIA is working in has baseline data available. 3.1.3 Planning Process: Here several indicators were created to assess aspects of planning including formation of planning units, inclusion of marginalized groups and CBOs, degree of participation, autonomy of the GP as planning units. It is seen overall that the planning process is followed better in the project site with Debates intervention than the control site in both the GP and the Municipality. GPs in the project site did particularly well in having inclusive planning process. One indicator was the formation and functionality of the planning team. In Raisen and Madhubani both the project sites show higher results compared to control sites at the GP and municipality levels. In Madhubani, planning teams were seen at all levels except the ZP where it was formed but not functional. To measure participation, the first indicator used was the whether marginalized groups participate in the planning process. This is where Debates work shows up very strongly

Page 3 of 13

compared to the control at GP and municipality levels both. The results are not very clear in Madhubani. A second indicator to measure participation used was: Have CBOs (VFC, PACS, SHGs, etc.) created plans that are integrated or complementary to the GP plan? Here in Raisen close to 50% of the GPs said CBOs were involved, but this is not reflected in the municipality. In Madhubani in one project GP CBOs were involved but not in the control while in the municipality in the control site CBOs participated. A third indicator used was whether a participatory process leading to micro planning was followed. Here again the results are strong on participatory processes in Raisen at GP and municipality levels. Not much is seen on this indicator in Madhubani. A fourth indicator used to estimate participation was: Are there any Gram Sabha resolutions on plan preparation? All GPs in Debates project site had gram sabha resolutions on plan preparation while only 5 out of 8 GPs in the control had the same. Similar results were found at the municipality level. At the Municipality level it is seen that one out of two municipalities in Debates area had ward sabha resolutions in plan preparation while none in the control did. At the block level all respondents said that GS resolutions were reflected in the block plan as perhaps it is mandatory, therefore no difference was expected in control and project sites. In Madhubani all GPs said GS resolutions on the plan exist both in control and project sites. Perhaps this indicator needs to be refined to capture the process by which genuine Gram Sabhas are held, announced and to assess whether the resolutions really reflect peoples needs. This where a citizen needs assessment tool would be useful (Table 8). Such a tool is being developed but needs refining and testing. An indicator to assess line department engagement used was: Have line departments helped in projectizing the wish list? Both in Raisen and Madhubani most respondents said that line departments did not help projectize the wish list at GP and municipality levels with the odd exception. However at block levels in the project blocks the line departments have shared their budgets in Raisen. Some indicators were designed to assess whether the process of planning between the block and the GP retained the GS resolutions. The indicators used were: Is there any exclusion/alterations of GS resolutions in the GP plan? Has the block changed the GP plans? Is there any communication from Janpad to Gram Panchayat for approval/allocation of GP plan? Has GP been consulted before change? Has the change been explained by JP to GP? Has the GP accepted the change? Indicators shows that in Raisen and Madhubani, there were less alterations to the GS resolutions in project sites compared to the control sites at the GP level. This was not true at the municipality level where there were alterations to Ward Sabha resolutions. In Raisen for several project sites the block changed the plans but consulted GPs, changes were explained and

Page 4 of 13

accepted. In the control sites the GPs reported more alterations but less consultation or explanations. In Madhubani the process again appeared to be a high level of alterations to GS resolutions which was communicated to the GPs. However it was said that changes in plans were made when the GPs were present therefore the remaining indictors were seen as unnecessary. 3.1.4 Sectoral break up of plans: The four indicators used to access the sectoral break up of the plan were designed to understand if the plan included social components (health and education) instead of being only infrastructure heavy. The indicators used were: Whether there is any sectoral break up of Plan? Whether different sectors (education, health etc) have been included in the plan? At GP levels in the Debate project area all (100%) GPs reported having a sectoral break up but slightly fewer (75%) reported having a sectoral break up including health and education sectors. The control sites however have shown lower results (50%) in terms of sectoral break up. In Madubani, while GPs, municipalities and blocks reported no sectoral break up of plans, when asked specifically about education and health, a few changed their answers reporting some sectoral allocation (Tables 4, 5 and 6). Thus the first indicator was subject to interpretation in both sites. One indicator used to assess segmental allocation was: Whether there is any segmental allocation (components of women, SC, ST, OBC, etc.) of the plan? In Raisen both project and control GPs reported segmental allocation of the plan (Table 2) however this may be because it is mandatory. The difference was seen in municipalities where both project sites reported segmental allocation while control sites did not report any. Most blocks reported segmental allocation. In Madhubani GPs control or project sites reported segmental allocation of the plan with few exceptions. Better results were seen in the control municipality on this indicator. At the block level no segmental allocation was reported. One indicator used to assess knowledge of resources was: Whether there is any resource breakup of the plan (indicating sources of funds)? More project GPs in Raisen reported a resource break in terms of source of funds compared to control group in Raisen (Table1). However in the municipalities the project sites did not report a resource break in terms of source of funds while one control municipality did report a break up in terms of source of funds. In Madhubani, the project and control sites at GP, Municipality, and block levels reported a resource break up of the plan (Table 6). 3.1.5 Horizontal Integration: The indicators to understand rural urban collaboration were: Whether the rural-urban (municipal-nagar panchayat) linkage issues been discussed for the plan?

Page 5 of 13

Whether the rural-urban (municipal-nagar panchayat) linkage issues been integrated in the plan? Has any Joint Action Plan been prepared? Most respondents said there was no rural urban integration issues discussed or integrated in the plan with once exception in Madhubani where the Jhanjharpur municipality reported discussing issues but no integration or no joint action plan. 3.1.6 Capacity Building While this process is not in the planning commission guidelines all three organizations have this element in their proposals. The indicators used were: Have tools for capacity development of local bodies been adopted? Have process guidelines (manual) for capacity development of local bodies been developed? Have process guidelines (manual) for capacity development of local bodies been adopted? In Raisen, tools for capacity development of local bodies have been adopted by all GPs and Municipalities in the Debate project area (Table 1 and 2). At block level, it was found that most project and control sites have adopted capacity development tools with one exception. All GPs and Municipalities in the Debate project area reported that process guidelines for capacity development of local bodies were developed (Tables 1 and 2) and adopted. At Block level, while the tools for capacity development of local bodies were reported as having been developed less reported adopting them. In Madhubani at GP level one reported that capacity development tools have been adopted. However at GP, municipality and block levels, they reported that the process guidelines were neither developed nor adopted. 3.1.7 Resource Envelope Indicators used were: What are the sources of funds? In Raisen, at GP level project area and control have equal knowledge of sources of fund (Table 1), but at Municipality level more project sites reported knowledge of sources of fund compared to the control (Table 2). At the block level project and control sites both reported knowledge than control (Table 3). In Madhubani, GPs, Municipality, and Block level all respondents in project area and control sites reported knowing the sources of funds. This indicator needs to be refined to assess the actual depth of knowledge. Another indicator used to assess allocation of budgets was: Is the percentage of budget, allocated for social and infrastructural expenditure changed? In Raisen most project and control GPs, municipalities and blocks reported no change in sectoral allocation between social and infrastructural components. Both project and control municipalities reported special allocation for slum improvement. In Madhubani, all the GPs in both project sites said there was a change in allocation for social infrastructure and some control sites also reported a change. However the project municipality site reported no change while the control site reported a change. At the block level the project site reported no change.

Page 6 of 13

3.1.8 Monitoring of Plans The indicators used to assess the monitoring of plans are: Is a monitoring system in place and is it in use? (For GP, Municipality and Block) Are social audits being planned? Have social audits been done? (for GP and Municipality) Does the GP/Municipality report regularly to the block/DUDA? How often and what is reported? (for Municipality) Does the Janpad report regularly to the district? How often and what is reported? (for Block) In Raisen, more project sites at the GP level reported a monitoring system in place, and regular reporting and both project and control sites reported social audits being planned and conducted. Municipalities reported a monitoring system in place but no social audits in project areas but one municipality reported a social audit having been conducted. At block levels most reported a monitoring system in place, and regular reporting in control and project areas. In Madhubani, GPs in project and control sites reported having a monitoring system in place, social audits being planned and conducted. At the municipality level, monitoring is in place and in use and social audits are also done regularly in both control and project sites. The Municipality in the project area and control areas both reported a monitoring system in place. However the Block reported not having a monitoring system in place nor regular reporting between block and the district.

3.2

Issues/Gaps in the indicators

The indicators tested in Madhubani and Raisen brought out following issues: For few indicators a broad range of respondents are needed. Most of the interviews done were with the GP secretary. The responses might have been politically correct. Also the GP secretaries are usually known to have better information than other GP members; hence the response may not be representative of the GP itself. It is important to now disaggregate the questions using specific criteria such as which question are more relevant for the GP Pradhan to answer, the GP secretary and the GP members, and which questions would be more relevant for citizens and citizen groups. Also for advocacy points to emerge, there may be questions where citizens would answer more truthfully (like on genuine Graam Sabhas being held) and some where there is an interest for the GPs to be truthful and share their pain so to speak (eg: on fund flows and transparency of the line departments). This disaggregating of indicators can take place once all are tested at a later stage. Many questions needed further probing for answers to be truthfully given. The revised indicators therefore have clusters of questions around the main question which will help the interviewer probe. This has increased the indicator list of questions five times. However, while initially all these questions will be administered and tested later only a few of these questions will be targeted to select stakeholders. Many questions were complex which need to be further simplified using local diction.

Page 7 of 13

Some indicators were too broad and might have been interpreted in different ways by stakeholders. In this case the questions needs to be broken down into smaller and simpler question or reframed and not allow for any ambiguity. The indicators for probing the participation of GP members and community in GP plan especially need a larger sample size for meaningful representation and interpretation. In Bihar for example it was difficult intensively to work even with two GPs and one municipality because of the elections and strikes that delayed the work on the ground. The interviews were done by 3 different researchers, who were oriented at different points of time and in turn have administered the questionnaire differently as the indicators evolved across the sites. Some of the indicators like those on horizontal integration addressed activities expected at a very advanced stage of decentralised planning. So those questions were not relevant in the present context and indicators needs to be reworked based on the level of advancement based on the particular state context.

3.3 3.4

Overview of Decentralized Planning Across the three sites Project approach:

All three organizations have different project approaches with two organizations (PRIA and Debate) following the planning commission guidelines. Each organization has used some innovative component in their strategies to conduct even the stock taking process. In the stock taking period, for instance, PRIA enjoys the status of a TSI in Madhubani and has used some variations such as conducting a SWOT with the DPC at the initial stages to impart awareness on roles and responsibilities of DPC members. Debate did a situation analysis of Raisen district. Debate used an innovative strategy through its access to budget information to build the ownership of local authorities over budgets. Debate prepared a format for data collection for stock taking with the aim of institutionalizing stock taking. The format is kept simple so that it could be carried out by standing committees of electoral bodies. There is strong evidence of a visioning exercise being done at the GP level. Debate has also introduced few innovations within that framework by using the human development reports and data, census data and budget data in stock taking. This helps the elected representatives know where their district stood in terms of the human development indicators, what monies were spent on areas that needed attention and what future spending also needs to take place. However while this strategy created ownership among the elected officials, this information is not easily available in Bihar or in states in India like Bihar. DA is focusing primarily on environmental planning aspects and trying to work with the DPC to ensure environmental components for Orccha enter the district plan. They are deliberately not following the planning commission guidelines and intend however to introduce environmental aspects into planning. DA has conducted a stock taking process at the DPC level mainly and has conducted a State of Environment (SoE) at district level.

3.5

Organizational Capacities/ strengths:

All three organizations bring different strengths to the project. Two of the organizations (PRIA and Debate) have a very strong background and history of governance work. PRIA has a long

Page 8 of 13

history and experience of work mainly with the local government i.e. GPs, Municipalities, block and district governments being a government designated TSI. Debate has already successfully worked on decentralized planning in Chattisgarh with many of their suggestions having been adopted by the Chattisgarh government. DA has very strong experience in environmental planning and related innovations, though not necessarily in governance. It has been working on its environmental projects in Tikamgarh district for a long time and has a strong set of relations with local government and communities both in this district. Governments have invited DA to conduct state of environment reports at state levels in eight states. DA also is working on a microplan with 4 GPs and one Muncipality and has the possibility for actual rural urban collaboration.

3.6

Human Resources Required for Planning:

Typically a TSI is required to provide support within a budget of about 5 lakhs for a given district. This does not allow more than a single staff at the field (district, block, municipality and GP) level to operate especially since there has to be staff at state and national levels as well for advocacy and follow up. Staffing patterns has to be higher for the work to be effective and for staff at field levels to actually work hands on with GPs and municipalities, at least one for every two blocks, which was seen in Raisen. Even this was said to be insufficient. Having staff who have prior experience in governance (as seen in Debate) is crucial for effectiveness.

3.7

Process Documentation

Across all three sites this appears to be a gap. BPFs past experience in process documentation points to very few trained human resources being available in the country for this task. Debate has taken BPFs assistance in doing some of their process documentation. Most organizations have progress reports and activity reports. Actual process documentation requires the following: Identification of processes Interviews with various stakeholders on various processes to arrive at an in-depth understanding of each process. This also traces not just events that take place (eg: workshops, training and so on) but also what happened between events, tracing the impact of events and what happened as a result of it. Most organizations document just the event itself and produce workshop reports or training reports. Therefore both the impact as well as gaps does not get captured. Collective reflection sessions on Dos and Donts or what worked and did not work for each process. Overall there is a dire need in the country as a whole for training on documentation and specifically process documentation.

3.8

Capacity Needs Assessment:

All three partners also focused heavily on capacity building and in the process also, building ownership of the district officials. Two of the organizations focused on capacity building of elected officials at GP, block and district levels while DA focused more on the DPC on capacity building on environment.

Page 9 of 13

Capacities across the two states Bihar and Madhya Pradesh particularly of the DPC differ because DPCs have been in existence in MP for over a decade. In comparison in Bihar elected representatives themselves and the entire PRI system is only 5 years old and DPCs are barely in existence. DPC representatives in MP had a clearer understanding of what the DPC could do since the DPCs did have powers which they have lost subsequently but as a result of their past history, their capacities do not have to be built as much as in Bihar. In general, all the planning units need to be better capacitated to implement the planning commission guidelines yet. In Raisen, however, it is found that the planning units are better capacitated in project sites compared to control or other sites.

3.9

Community participation and Inclusion of Marginalized Groups:

In general it is difficult to include marginalized populations in the planning process. Many GPs interviewed reported that women do not participate in Gram Sabhas. Womens groups when asked for their needs would articulate them but when asked if they had gone to the Gram Sabha to pass GS resolutions on these needs for the plan they said they did not participate. Many even expressed a willingness to participate in the future in Gram Sabhas. Debate has a strong focus on marginalized groups. There is very high involvement of village level CBOs (like VFCs, PACs, and SHGs). However, there is low participation of women at all levels. Although, DA has a long history of work with local womens and other federations, there is no clear evidence of their involvement in the planning process in their project area because their level of intervention is at the DPC and less at the GP or federation level. One of Debates primary innovations is through CBOs. Having identified 2 lacunae in the planning process namely a lack of involvement of CBOs and of line departments Debate decided to innovate with two departments and their respective CBOs: the forest department with the Village Forest Committees and the Cooperative Departments and Primary Agricultural Cooperatives. Here it was found that line departments were more willing to engage in planning processes once their CBOs were involved. The next step of integration of CBO plans with GP plans was less clear. For instance, in the case of the PACs one avenue being explored through Debates intervention was the lack of storage space in the PACs which made them ineffective at critical times such as the planting seasons. This lack of storage forces the farmers to buy on the open market and not use the PACs facility. Placing this problem in the GP could allow for the GP to use NREGA funds to build extra storage space or to rent a room to the PACs during certain seasons. This will render the PACs more effective as well as allow them to integrate with the GP in their own planning. This can also dovetail line departments and the PRIs into addressing real issues on the ground and dovetailing their resources to address bottom plans and issues. Thus the crucial gaps identified were GPs not being able to turn gaps into actual projects (projectize). They need capacity building on how to projectize a need identified and placed in GS resolutions and line departments will need to provide technical expertise to help GPs projectize their projects. GPs do not realize that they can use NREGA, BRGF and other sources of funds (untied funds) to actually meet their own needs and that of their constituencies. As a consequence many of these funds go unspent. GPs often wait for permission to spend

Page 10 of 13

these funds when they actually do not need this permission and nor will such permission be forthcoming.

3.10 Knowledge of Resource Envelope

In Madhubani and Tikamgarh, there is no clear evidence of planning units at the GP, Block, and Municipality level having a full knowledge of the resource envelope. Debate has used innovative means to access data for Raisen and the knowledge reflected on the ground as well. The replicability of the process of accessing such data needs to be tested.

3.11 Rural-Urban Collaboration

Across all three sites it is seen that the need for rural urban collaboration is felt but was difficult to realize. Every urban and rural body experiences constraints in spending and working across jurisdiction. In Orccha, where DA is working closely with one municipality and four surrounding GPs. Here, there is a huge potential here to work on new innovations to actually set a precedent for rural urban collaboration in the future. If this is innovated seriously in the future, it will require time to implement since there needs to be a buy in from rural and urban state level departments and top secretaries, district agencies and the local authorities below them, all of which will require time. Besides this, having some seed monies in the project to initiate such a process will provide some incentive for rural and urban authorities to sit together and create a joint plan initially.

4 Refining the indicators

The indicators were examined through a reflection process with the entire research team in early March and it was decided to expand the number of questions for each indicator to help probe the issue concerned. For example on the indicator whether a planning team was formed and functional it was decided to break this down into several questions such as Was there a planning team Who is in the planning team When did the planning team meet? Where are the minutes of the planning team meetings kept and they available? What do the minutes of the meetings of the planning team consist of? What is the role of the planning team? Only these questions will provide the answer to the original indicator of whether a planning team exists and is functional or not. Likewise all other indicators now have clusters of questions around them and the first round of testing in these new indicators will take place in Madhubani in March 2010.

4.1

Citizen Satisfaction Tool

BPF has created the needs assessment tool and the citizen satisfaction tool. These now have to be tested in the field and refined in the next phases of the project. Here certain indicators will now be tested and refined for citizens and their perceptions of the planning process.

4.2

Orientation of stakeholders

Page 11 of 13

All the stakeholders in the planning process needs to be oriented on the planning indicators and their use including the NGOs. Debate is planning to pilot the indicators on their own to see how to improve them.

4.3

Suggestions on the planning commission manual

Based on the experience at the three sites and their replicability, concrete suggestions can be made to refine the planning commission guidelines further. Some suggestions on use of the indicators for monitoring can also be provided to the Planning Commission for their manual. PRIA has already got strong inroads with the planning commission and so does Debate. DA has inroads with the Ministry of Environment. These linkages can be used to share the findings and to influence decision makers on use of the indicators.

5 Ideas for Future Projects

The current innovations of all three organizations can be stream lined, tested and systematized to see whether they work in different state contexts and in sites to see what is replicable, transferable and sustainable. This work on governance is very new and one year of experiments is insufficient and organizations need to gain traction by repeating this experiment at least one more time. The lessons of these experiments need to captured through process documentation and reflection with the partners for better clarity in the future. However in the next round joint planning with the 3 partners and development of robust common research tools together can better capture lessons learnt across all three sites. There are several gaps in the current processes which were identified by partners which require future intervention and innovation including:

5.1

Creating a precedent for Rural Urban Intervention:

Here both Rural and Urban State departments would need to be brought on board in advance to provide the space for districts to act outside jurisdiction. Perhaps some seed monies may help to spear head the process.

5.2

Work with Urban communities:

The Ward Sabha equivalent of the Gram Sabhas are not nearly as robust and have much less participation by citizens. Further rural CBOs like VFCs, PACs and so on do not equivalent urban CBO entities. Where they exist they are weak like the urban SHGs. There needs strong ad separate urban intervention to test whether parallel processes can be put in place.

5.3

Convergence of Line Departments onto GP participatory plans

Pilot with plans by people and with people involved to see how line departments can respond in implementing the plans, provide technical support and possibly the financial support. Here a combination of action and research would be required to trace how existing schemes can be

Page 12 of 13

applied to peoples plans, how they can be changed to accommodate specific local conditions, and how untied funds can be better used for meeting the needs of communities.

5.4

Block level participatory planning:

There are cross cutting issues across GP. One pilot can be on what a GP can and cannot do and what needs to be done at a block level. Therefore at the block level, there need to be pilots to see how a block plan can be made participatory? How to bring in the element of people expressed needs at GS into the block plan?

Page 13 of 13