20141118, Sixteenth Report - JSC Group 2 - National Commission … · 2014-11-18 · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the Committee’s first report on the National Commission for Self-Help

i

INQUIRY INTO THE

ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS

OF THE

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF HELP LIMITED

PAPER NO: /2014 PARL NO. 14/6/13

Ordered to be printed with the Minutes of

Proceedings

and Notes of Evidence

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Fifth Session (2014/2015)

TENTH PARLIAMENT

SIXTEENTH REPORT

of the Joint Select Committee

Appointed to inquire into and report on Government Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)

Sixteenth Report of the Joint Select Committee on Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (Group 2)

ii

An electronic copy of this report can be found on the Parliament website: www.ttparliament.orghttp://www.ttparliament.org/committee_business.php?mid=19&id=149&pid=25 The Joint Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report to Parliament on Ministries (Group 2), and on the Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises falling under their purview Contact the Committee’s Secretariat

Telephone: 624-7275 Extensions 2277/2288/2282, Fax: 625-4672 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


iii

Sixteenth Report

Of the

Joint Select Committee Appointed To Inquire Into And

Report On Government Ministries, Statutory

Authorities And State Enterprises (Group 2)

ON THE

The Administration and Operations of the

National Commission for Self Help Limited

Date Laid: HoR: _____________________ Senate: ___________________


iv

THE COMMITTEE

Dr. Victor Wheeler

CHAIRMAN

Mr. David Small Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie VICE-CHAIRMAN MEMBER

.

Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP Dr. Lester Henry MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER

Mr. Collin Partap, MP Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER

Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP

MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER


v

Committee Mandate and Establishment

1.1. Section 66 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago declares, that not later than three

months after the first meeting of the House of Representatives, the Parliament shall appoint Joint

Select Committees to inquire into and report to both Houses in respect of Government Ministries,

Municipal Corporations, Statutory Authorities, State Enterprises and Service Commissions, in relation

to their administration, the manner of exercise of their powers, their methods of functioning and any

criteria adopted by them in the exercise of their powers and functions.

1.2. Motions related to this purpose were passed in the House of Representatives and Senate on

September 17, 2010 and October 12, 2010, respectively, and thereby established, inter alia, the Joint

Select Committee to inquire into and report to Parliament on Ministries with responsibility for

the business set out in the Schedule as Group 2, and on the Statutory Authorities and State

Enterprises falling under their purview with regard to their administration, the manner of

exercise of their powers, their methods of functioning and any criteria adopted by them in the

exercise of their powers and functions.

1.3. The entities which fall under the purview of the Committee is attached as Appendix I.

Powers of the Joint Select Committee

1.4. Standing Orders 71B of the Senate and 101 of the House of Representatives delineate the core powers of the Committee which include inter alia:

a. to review and report on all matters relating to:

the statute law relating to the Ministry/body assigned to it;

the program and policy objectives of the Ministry/Body and its effectiveness in the

implementation of same;

other matters relating to the management , organization of the ministry or body, as the

Committee deems it fit;

b. to send for persons, papers and records;

c. to adjourn from place to place;

d. to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not otherwise readily

available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference;

and

e. to communicate with any other Committee of Parliament on matters of common interest.


vi

Membership

1.5 The Committee comprises the following members:

1. Dr. Victor Wheeler* - Chairman

2. Mr. David Small* - Vice-Chairman

3. Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP - Member

4. Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP - Member

5. Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP - Member

6. Mr. Collin Partap, MP - Member

7. Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP - Member

8. Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP - Member

9. Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie - Member

10. Mr. Kevin Ramnarine - Member

11. Ms. Raziah Ahmed* - Member

12. Dr. Lester Henry - Member

Secretariat Support

1.6 The following officers were assigned to assist the Committee:

o Mr. Julien Ogilvie - Secretary

o Ms. Candice Skerrette - Assistant Secretary

o Ms. Katharina Gokool - Graduate Research Assistant


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 6

Background ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Objectives of the Inquiry ........................................................................................................................ 8

Conduct of the Inquiry ........................................................................................................................... 9

THE EVIDENCE .......................................................................................................... 10

Scope of Commission’s Mandate .......................................................................................................... 10

Organization Structure ........................................................................................................................ 10

Strategic Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Management of the Commission ......................................................................................................... 11

Office Locations and Accommodation ................................................................................................. 12

Internal Control Systems ..................................................................................................................... 12

Services offered by the Commission..................................................................................................... 12

Priorization of the Disbursement of Grants ........................................................................................ 16

Procedure for the Dispersion of Grants ............................................................................................... 17

Managing and Monitoring of Field Work ……………………………………………..…………………………………….. 18

Commission's Relationship with Suppliers ……………………………………………………………..……………………. 19

Commission's Relationship with Other Agencies ………………………………………………………………..……….. 21

Value for Money and Project Management …………………………………………………………………………..……… 21

Achievements of the Commission ………………………………………………………………………………………….……… 22

Challenges of the Commission ………………………………………………………………………………………….…………… 22

Impact of the Reassignment of the Commission ………………………………………………..…………………………. 25

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 26

APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX II .............................................................................................................. 47

APPENDIX III ............................................................................................................. 61

APPENDIX IV ............................................................................................................ 97

APPENDIX V ............................................................................................................. 99

APPENDIX VI ........................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX VII………………………………………………………………………………………………………....110

APPENDIX VIII…………………………………………………………………………………………………………113


viii


1

ABBREVIATIONS

CID COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND

CEO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ERRAG EMERGENCY RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION GRANT

HDC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LCHG LOW COST HOUSING GRANT

MoCD MINSTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MoFE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND THE ECONOMY

MoLA MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

MoLG MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

MoPA MINISTRY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

MoPSD MINISTRY OF THE PEOPLE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MoPU MINISTRY OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

MRRG MINOR REPAIRS AND RECONSTRUCTION GRANT

NCSHL NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF HELP LIMITED

NHA NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

NSDP NATIONAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

IDF INFRASTRUCTRUAL DEVELOPMENT FUND

T&TEC TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION

THA TOBAGO HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

WASA WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY


2

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO.

DETAILS PAGE NO.

1. No. of Beneficiaries who have accessed grants disbursed during the period October 1st, 2007 to May 31st, 2013

21

2. Allocations to the NCSHL for the fiscal years 2009-2013 (inclusive of Administrative Expenditure)

22

3. Seven (7) New Divisions 101

4. Twenty (20) New Positons 106

5. Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented CID Files 110

6. Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented MRRG Files 113


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the Committee’s first report on the National Commission for Self-Help Limited

(NCSHL). At its twenty-fourth meeting held on June 21, 2013, the Committee resolved to

pursue an inquiry into the NCSHL. The main objectives of the inquiry were as follows:

i. to gain an appreciation of the scope of the mandate of NCSHL when it was

established as a State owned company in 1997;

ii. to ascertain how projects are chosen and prioritized in terms of disbursement of

grants;

iii. to understand the process for obtaining assistance from the company;

iv. to gain insight into the relationship between the Commission and the suppliers of

material/resources for projects;

v. to be informed of the measures that are in place to ensure that the Commission is

able to manage its affairs efficiently;

vi. to determine what is considered an emergency case with respect to grants and how

such cases are dealt with; and

vii. to identify the organization’s achievements and challenges.

The Committee obtained both oral and written evidence based on the objectives listed above.

After analysing the evidence (summaried in section 3 of this report), we concluded that there

were certain issues concerning the operations of the NCSHL that had to be urgently addressed

as a means of enhancing the efficiency of the Commission and to increase the impact the

Commission has on families and communities. Some of the issues flagged by the committee

were:

a. a lack of sufficient financial resources to meet the increasing demand for grants;

b. the significant lag time between the approval of an application and the actual

disbursement of funds from the Commission;


4

c. an inadequate number of Field Officers compounded with insufficient vehicles and

equipment to conduct field visits;

d. there was a need to further develop its internal capacity;

e. the potentially high level of disenchanted amongst applicants who have been waiting

for over 5 years for action to be taken on their application;

f. delays in the payment of suppliers due to inadequate records to justify payment.

As a consequence, we formulated appropriate recommendations to address these issues.

Section 4 comprises the findings and recommendations of the

Committee. The Committee also noted some commendable aspects of the Commission’s

operations which included:

a. the role played by the Commission in nurturing and developing a culture of self-help and self-

reliance within communities. We thought that developing such a mind-set would

positively impact the psyche of citizens and encourage them to take ownership of their

communities;

b. NCHSL has adopted a more transparent and methodical approach to the prioritization

of the award of grants through the introduction of the MRRG Evaluation Form

complemented by a score sheet;

c. the introduction of a system that allows clients to a track their application. NCSHL

now issues a receipt detailing the file number and the project officer assigned to attend

to their applications.

d. the Commission’s approach in dealing with emergency cases. The Committee noted

that an attempt is made to attend to these cases within a 24 hour period and a grant

for materials can be issued immediately, subject to the applicant/beneficiary being able

to confirm the estimated cost of the required work material;

e. a new organizational structure was expected to be approved by Cabinet since the end

of 2013 and therefore should be in the implementation phase at this time.


5

We anticipate that the Parliament, the NCSHL, the Ministry of Local Government and other

stakeholders would give due consideration to the findings and recommendations contained in

this Report with a view to enhancing the operations of this essential community oriented

organization. The Committee looks forward to reviewing the Minister’s response to this

Report, which becomes due, 60 days after it is presented to the Houses of Parliament.

Chairman of the Committee


6

2. INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1. The National Commission for Self Help Limited (NCSHL) which was previously

under the aegis of the Ministry of Community Development is now under the Ministry of

Local Government (MoLG). It was established by Cabinet on April 7, 1987 and was registered

as a state-owned Company on April 14, 1997. The idea of “Self Help” was to encourage

communities to rely on the resources available to them in addressing infrastructural needs

through the use of available man power resources and financing (available at the community

level), supplemented by technical services and materials from the Government.

1.2. The NCSHL was created to give priority assistance to senior citizens, victims of natural

disasters, fire, low income single parent households, socially displaced families and persons on

public assistance or disability grants. However, the Commission is dedicated to serving all the

citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission’s projects throughout the years have been

successful in ameliorating hardships, especially in rural communities and some urban

settlements.

1.3. Type of projects which are funded by NCSHL:

a. Water b. Roads c. Electricity d. Drains e. Bridges f. Community Centres g. Homes for the Aged h. Houses of Worship i. Schools j. Environment k. Recreation facilities

1.4. The Committee selected the Commission for examination since it considered the

Commission as an important entity with the responsibility of channeling resources into

communities for the purpose of enhancing the quality of life of residents, whilst simultaneously


7

engendering a spirit of self-reliance and self-determination. In determining the objectives of the

inquiry, the Committee noted that in recent times, there have been reports in the media which

suggested that shortcomings existed in the administration of the Commission regarding the timely

payment of monies owed to hardware dealers who supply material for projects. The Commission’s

response was that this delay in payments to suppliers was as a result of the administrative

procedures which must be followed for the approval of payments. Furthermore, there was also a

concern that Self- Help grants were not being used for the purposes for which they were

awarded.

1.5. In light of the foregoing, the Committee resolved that it should undertake an

examination of the administration and operations of the NCSHL.


8

Objectives of the Inquiry

1.6. At a meeting held on June 21, 2013, the Committee agreed that the following will

comprise the objectives of the inquiry:

I. to gain an appreciation of the scope of the mandate of NCSHL when it was formed

as a State owned company in 1997;

II. to determine the impact of the shift from being under the aegis of the Ministry of

Community Development to the Ministry of Local Government – institutional

knowledge, records, disruption of work schedules and attending to applicants;

III. to ascertain how projects are chosen and prioritized in terms of disbursement of grants

– regional location, means test, based on need;

IV. to understand the process for obtaining assistance from the company;

V. to gain insight into the relationship between the Commission and the suppliers of

material/resources for projects;

VI. to be informed of the measures that are in place to ensure that the Commission is able

to manage its affairs efficiently, particularly with respect to the application of standards

associated with value for money and project management;

VII. to determine what is considered an emergency case with respect to grants and how are

such cases dealt with; and

VIII. to identify the organization’s achievements and challenges.


9

Conduct of the Inquiry

2.7. On November 08, 2013 a public hearing was held with representatives of the MoLG

and the NCSHL at which time the Committee questioned the officials on matters relative to

the objectives of the inquiry. Prior to the public hearing, notice was given as to the general

objectives of the inquiry and in response, written submissions were received from the NCSHL.

These responses provided a frame of reference for the oral examination of the representatives

of the Commission during the public hearing.

2.8. The MoLG and the NCSHL were represented at the meeting of Friday November 08,

2013 by:

1. Mr. Surujdeo Mangaroo - Chairman, NCSHL

2. Mr. Reynold Baldeosingh - Chief Executive Officer, NCSHL

3. Ms. Kousil Nandee - Project Accountant, NCSHL

4. Ms. Petronilla Basdeo - Director, NCSHL

5. Ms. Katrina Mooleedhar - Planning Officer I, MoLG

6. Ms. Meena Abiraj - Accounting Executive II, MoLG

2.9. Subsequent to the public hearing of November 08, 2013, additional information was

requested from the NCSHL. The requested information was submitted under letter dated

January 03, 2014.

2.10. The draft of this Report was considered and approved with amendments at the

meeting of the Committee held on October 10, 2014.

2.11. The Minutes of the Meeting during which the public hearing was held are attached

as Appendix II and the Verbatim Notes as Appendix III.


10

3. THE EVIDENCE

SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S MANDATE

3.1.1 The National Commission for Self-Help Limited is governed by a Memorandum of

Association and Articles of Association which outlines the mandate of the Company. The

articles provide that the Commission was established inter alia:-

“To nurture and develop a culture of self-help and self-reliance within communities throughout

Trinidad and Tobago”;

“To facilitate the promotion, design and implementation of self-help projects throughout Trinidad and

Tobago”;

To stimulate the development of individual and community industry, enterprise and cooperative efforts”;

“To receive proposals for the undertaking of self-help projects and activities and to evaluate, identify

and clarify projects for implementation;”

“To assist in the identification of resources needed to undertake self-help activities and to facilitate the

sourcing and mobilization of such resources as may be needed for the implementation of self-help

projects;”

“To provide assistance, including financial, material and technical contributions to individuals,

community and other organizations for self-help projects on a matching grant basis or on such other

basis as may be determined by the company;”

3.1.2 The Committee was informed that although there has been no change in the mandate

of the Commission since its inception, the scope of its activities has been altered/expanded to

adapt to the needs of communities. For example, eight (8) years ago, communities were

mandated to contribute approximately 5% of cost for the supply of household connections

(pipes/wires etc.) however, presently, the Commission funds the total cost of water and

electricity projects.

3.1.3 The Committee was informed that at its conception in 1987, the activities of the

Commission involved partnering with communities. However, the activities of the

Commission have evolved to include the contracting of services since voluntary help from

communities has been decreasing over the years. Moreover, since 2010, the current Board

members have been limiting the amount of contracted services and have been implementing

many more community infrastructural development projects and involving community

members to engage in the deployment of the projects. Currently, community based or “Self-

Help” work accounts for close to 40 to 45 percent of the Commission’s funds.

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

3.2.1 The NCSHL has been operating with an organisational structure that dates back to

1997 which provides for the employment of 54 positions (see current organisation chart at


11

Appendix IV) of which less than 40 positions are actually filled. Therefore, the Commission

has been supplementing its human resource requirements through the use of OJTs because

the Commission lacked the funding to hire new staff.

3.2.2. The Commission has developed a new organisational structure consisting of several

new divisions (See Appendix V) with a total of ninety-five (95) employees. Details of

functions of the Units at the National Commission for Self Help Limited are also outlined in

Appendix VI.

3.2.3. It was noted that the proposed new Organisational Structure takes into consideration

the staffing needs of the Company’s three (3) offices in Port of Spain, San Fernando and

Tobago. The proposal has been approved by the Public Management Consulting Division

PMCD and was expected to be submitted to the Cabinet by the end of 2013.

STRATEGIC PLAN

3.3.1. The Committee was informed that a draft Strategic Plan was expected to be ratified at

a Board Retreat scheduled for January 10th to 12th 2014 and would be submitted by January

17th 2014.

MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION

3.4.1. Prior to February, 2011, the Commission was operating without a CEO and as a

consequence, the functions of the CEO were performed by the Project Manager. The current

CEO was appointed in October 2010 which coincided with the appointment of the

Commission’s Board of Directors.

3.4.2. In an effort to enhance its functional capacity, the Commission recruited a Human

Resource Officer and an Internal Auditor during the period 2011/2012.


12

OFFICE LOCATIONS AND ACCOMMODATION

3.5.1. The Commission pays monthly rental fees for the lease of the following three office

locations:

i. The North Office, located at Lassalle Court, #75 Abercromby Street, Port-Of-Spain

(9,000 square footage);

ii. The South Office, located at Birjah Building, Independence Avenue, San Fernando

(1376 square footage); and

iii. The Tobago Office located at #91 Barrinton’s Court, Bonaccord, Tobago (790 square

footage).

3.5.2. However, the Company is seeking new accommodation and has written to the Ministry

of Public Administration (MoPA) requesting assistance. It was submitted that due to

inadequate funding, the Commission was unable to establish satellite offices in rural areas.

Nevertheless, the Commission has sought the assistance of Members of Parliament (MPs) and

their Constituency Offices to act as a conduit for the submission of applications received from

residents in these areas.

INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS

3.6.1. The Committee learned that the Commission had one Internal Auditor and an OJT

who assists the Auditor who in addition to other duties, is responsible for monitoring the

output of field officers and for ensuring that field visits occur. It was reported that the method

for monitoring the output of Field Officers involved reviewing photographs from site visits

and making telephone calls to officers in the field to confirm these site visits.

3.6.2. The Committee was informed that the Commission was given approval to recruit an

External Auditor in 2012. The previous External Auditor having served for ten (10) years. The

Commission’s accounts for the year 2012 are the most recent accounts to be audited. The

Committee was also informed that the Management Letter to authorize the release of the audit

for the year 2012 had not been signed by the External Auditor and was expected to be

submitted by January 17th, 2014.

SERVICES OFFERED BY THE COMMISSION

Community Infrastructural Development (CID) Projects

3.7.1. The Commission participates in community projects through its Community

Infrastructural Development (CID) Grants, which are primarily concerned with the

repairing of roads, bridges, drains and other community infrastructure such as orphan roads,

churches, temples and mosques. The targeted beneficiaries of the Commission’s interventions

are mainly low-income communities in Trinidad and Tobago that lack basic infrastructural

amenities. For example, the Commission has assisted in funding the improvement of Police

Service Youth clubs; Sporting clubs, Pan Theatres as well as activity centres for youths.

3.7.2. With regards to the criteria for obtaining the grant, any community group/NGO

exploring the option of improving its standard of living can approach the NCSHL for funding


13

through the CID Program. However the project must benefit a minimum of five (5)

households. The main determinant when choosing a community to receive the CID Grant is

that it must be willing to put out “sweat equity”.

3.7.3. The NCSHL requires the residents to supply the manual labour for projects such as

retaining walls, drains and steps, provided that there is enough skilled labor available within

the community. Projects are directly supervised by NCSHL Project Officers. However, where

voluntary skilled labor is unavailable, the NCSHL will appoint a contractor to implement the

job.

3.7.4. In addition, applicants are required to do the following:

i. appoint a Coordinator who acts as a “Liaison Officer” for the community group;

ii. Complete the CID Application Form (blue application form) and submit it to the

NCSHL Office together with the material requirements for the project.

iii. when the completed form is submitted to the NCSHL’s Office, a site visit will be

scheduled by the respective Project Officer for the district;

iv. once a recommendation is made by the Project Officer, the application is submitted

to the Approvals Committee of the NCSHL;

v. after approval is granted, the Project Officer advises the Coordinator of the date of

implementation;

vi. the project is monitored by the Project Officer until the approved funding is utilized.

A Summary of Approved but not yet implemented CID files is at Appendix VII.

Water and Electricity Projects

3.7.4. Presently, the Commission funds the total cost of water and electricity projects. The

applications for water and electricity have however been generally less as most people seek

assistance instead through the National Social Development Programme (NSDP) of the

Ministry of Public Utilities (MoPU). As a result, the Commission has received only two (2)

applications for water projects that have qualified for intervention by the Commission since

February 2011. However, the Commission maintained that it continues to accept applications

for water and electricity projects.

3.7.5. With regards to water projects, the Commission liaises with the Water and Sewerage

Authority (WASA) for an approved water design, if this is not received; WASA will not

connect the applicant to their main water line. On the other hand, for approved water designs

the Community is provided with a backhoe to dig a trench, sand to fill the trench, pipe lines,

and fittings to build the water supply. Similarly, for electricity projects, the Commission

communicates with the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC). In some


14

instances, requests cannot be fulfilled immediately because other tasks involved are often

required to obtain electricity.

3.7.6. In addition, to funding water and electricity projects, the Company is involved in the

distribution of the following Grants:

1. Minor Repair and Renovation Grant (MRRG); and

2. Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grant (ERRAG).

Minor Repair and Renovation Grant (MRRG)

3.7.7. The Minor Repair and Renovation Grant (MRRG) targets families with a combined

monthly income of less than $3000. The grant is in the sum of $15,000 (formerly $10,000).

Applicants can submit their application either directly or through a Member of Parliament

(MP).

3.7.8. The criteria which an applicant must satisfy are as follows:

a. qualifying applicants must fit into the category of senior citizens, single parents,

physically challenged, low income families, families affected by fire, windstorm and

any other natural disaster;

b. Income Eligibility: $3,000.00 per household;

c. The dwelling house must be owner occupied (proof to be provided);

d. land tenancy on which the house is located must be freehold, leasehold or rented

(proof to be provided);

e. funding is not provided directly to the affected family but is issued in the form of a

Purchase Order to the respective supplier.

3.7.9. The Commission issued approximately 1,942 MRRG approvals during the period

October 1, 2011 and September 31, 2012. A further 3,366 approvals remain to be processed

and/or funded. It was submitted that Cabinet has limited the MRRG facility to 30% of the

Commission’s annual allocation for projects. The number of grants issued per constituency

over the past five (5) years with regards to the MRRG is outlined in Appendix VIII.

Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grants (ERRAG)

3.7.10. The Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grant (ERRAG) was

established on July 7th, 2011 to assist families who suffer from the effects of fires and natural

disasters. The ERRAG differs to the Low Cost House Repair Grant (see below).

3.7.11. The Committee was informed that emergency cases are categorised as those that entail

a disaster such as where a family was displaced as a result of the roof of their home being

blown off in a wind storm or their house destroyed by fire, earthquakes or land slippage.


15

3.7.12. The approach used for dealing with possible emergency cases involves a visit by the

Commission within a 24 hour period to assess the nature of the emergency and once the

qualifying criteria are satisfied, a grant for materials is issued immediately.

3.7.13. However, in some cases, an applicant may not be in a position to confirm the materials

required for the repairs and may require additional time to determine the same. Likewise, in

other cases, where applicants need to consult with a builder or may need to acquire a new site

or demolish the structure, a delay in the process may occur. However, applicants who are able

to produce an invoice for a supplier may receive the required materials within forty-eight (48)

hours.

3.7.14. The Committee also noted that in some cases, the affected family is issued a tarpaulin

to assist in protecting their belongings until the repairs can be completed.

3.7.15. ERRAG are valued up to $25,000 and funding is issued on a case by case basis. It was

noted that this amount was considerably higher in comparison to $15,000 allotted through the

MRRG. Although the ERRAG has a higher value, applicants seldom require the maximum

amount to attend to their situation but in an scenario where a house is completely destroyed

by a fire or landslip, the maximum amount may be able to accommodate the cost of the

extensive damages.

3.7.16. During the hearing, a member of the Committee highlighted that there were two (2)

emergency cases which have been pending for approximately two (2) years notwithstanding

consistent reporting of the incidents and the cases being highlighted in the media.

Low Cost House Grant (LCHG)

3.7.17. The Committee was informed that despite the availability of the above mentioned

grants, it was the experience of the NCSHL that the facilities are not always sufficient to meet

the needs of the very severe cases of abject poverty and cases of very extensive damages caused

by floods, fire, landslides and other disasters. Additionally, some beneficiaries are not able to

effect the repairs or construction required neither can they afford the cost of services of a

builder to provide the required services.

3.7.18. As a consequence, the Low Cost Housing Grant (LCHG) was established via

Cabinet approval in April, 2013 as a one-off initiative to provide for a maximum of $75, 000

for materials only and $45, 000 to be paid to a builder in cases where the cost of labour cannot

be met by the beneficiary.


16

3.7.19. The LCHG was instituted for the construction of one hundred (100) houses. As such,

each Member of Parliament was notified to submit two (2) requests for housing to the CEO

of NCSHL.

3.7.20. It was noted that in submission of the draft Cabinet Note for this grant, it was

proposed that labour would be supplied by the applicant or through CBOs and NGOs,

therefore the grant would entail $75,000 for materials only. However the grant was not

implemented as intended. Nonetheless, the CEO has been directed by the Board to write to

the Cabinet requesting the continuation of LCHG, this decision was confirmed at a Board

meeting held on November 6th, 2013

3.7.21. With regard to the application process for the LCHG in Tobago, there is no formal

arrangement for the house grants and applications go through the similar process as is done

in Trinidad.

PRIORITIZATION OF THE DISBURSEMENT OF GRANTS

3.8.1 The Committee was informed that with regards to the CID Programme, projects are

selected based on the Community’s need and the availability of funding. In determining which

community should receive a CID Grant, the community must be willing to provide the

necessary labour (or “sweat equity”) for the project.

3.8.2 As a result, most applications are received from low income communities rather than

middle to high income communities. As well, the dispersion of funding differs amongst

communities as this is done according to the infrastructural needs of a particular community.

Additionally, due to their topography, some communities are more prone to infrastructural

inadequacies and/or adverse seasonal and atmospheric conditions.

3.8.3 Similarly, grants disbursed under the MRRG programme gives priority to the most

vulnerable applicant for example senior citizens and fire victims. The Committee was

informed that a quantitative approach was established together with the introduction of a

MRRG Evaluation Form in October 2012.

Introduction of a score sheet to assess applicants

3.8.4 A system of using a score sheet was introduced in 2011 in place of the former system

that gave priority to the aging population but did not provide young persons who may be

similarly challenged with an equal opportunity to qualify.

3.8.5 The score sheet takes into consideration the following indicators:

income, liabilities and expenditure of the household;


17

the number of dependents in the household;

the condition of the structure;

the health of applicant;

whether or not the applicant is differently abled;

whether or not they have received a grant by another agency and whether they have

indoor plumbing.

3.8.6 It was noted that other factors may hinder an application’s success for example,

applicants with income generating operations on their property are not permitted grants. This

includes parlours, barbershops, hairdressing salons as well as landlords seeking assistance in

upgrading their property for their tenants and HDC/NHA key holders who apply to the

NCSHL for assistance to renovate or for expansions. Such applicants are not given priority or

are not permitted grants unless there living circumstances qualify as an emergency. For

instance, in the past, the Commission has granted assistance to persons who reside in HDC

settlements who required emergency repairs. The Committee also noted that applicants who

are squatters are not administered grants.

3.8.7 Accordingly, the NCSHL requires applicants to also submit the land tax receipt, a copy

of the deed or the Certificate of Comfort and in the absence of these (as in cases found in

Tobago) a sworn affidavit informing of the person’s residence at the location unencumbered

for a period of years, is accepted since applicants on low income may not have land tenure.

PROCEDURE FOR DISPERSION OF GRANTS

3.9.1 The following steps are involved in the distribution of grants:

A Project Officer visits and appraises each request for assistance for the following grants:

Minor Repairs and Reconstruction Grant (MRRG) (green application form)

Emergency Repairs and Reconstruction Assistance Grant (ERRAG); and

Low Cost Housing Grant (LCHG)

The Project Officer makes a proposal/recommendation to the Chief Executive Officer

based on the following conditions:

- poverty;

- living conditions;

- income;

- urgency; and so on.

The application is further reviewed by the Senior Project Officer who endorses and/or

amends the Project Officer’s recommendation and submits it to the Chief Executive

Officer for approval by the Board of Directors


18

Confirming the receipt of applications for grants in the NCSHL

3.9.2 To confirm receipt of an application, the Commission has implemented a system of

generating and issuing applicants with a receipt containing the file number and the name of

the Project Officer assigned to the case. The applications are then processed electronically and

placed on a database.

The Approval Process for Grants

3.9.3 The approval process involves obtaining the Board’s approval. However, the funding

even for approved application is not always available. Therefore, approved files are those that

are awaiting funding and does not mean that the grants are ready to be collected. (See

Appendix VII) As such, pending approved applications are dealt with according to date.

Currently, the Commission is treating with those approved cases in 2010 thereafter application

approved in 2011, 2012 and 2013 will be dealt with in that order.

NCSHL Bar Coding System

3.9.4 The Committee was advised that a Bar Coding System will soon be implemented

subject to the release of funding in fiscal 2014, to facilitate the tracking of forms and grants.

The system is estimated to cost approximately $20,000 and requires that electronic documents

be converted from Microsoft Word Excel to Access. It was also noted that the implementation

of the bar coding system will necessitate staff to be trained to operationalize the system.

MANAGING AND MONITORING OF FIELD WORK

3.10.1. The Committee was informed that the Senior Project Officer manages and monitors

the work of field officers. The Senior Projects Officer is responsible for allocating projects for

visits and allocating a time frame for feedback. The number of applicants visited is determined

by the number of applicants and the workload of the Project Officers.

3.10.2. The mechanism for monitoring field activities is output based, where the Senior

Project Officer measures the number of field visits that were conducted per day. Additionally,

there is an audit procedure which entails internal checks to confirm whether Field Officers

actually visited. A questionnaire directed at applicants must also be completed during the visit

and this provides feedback on whether the applicants were satisfied with the responses from

the Commission.

3.10.3. However, officials contended that the ideal mechanism for monitoring field activity is

through the use of electronic resources so that information regarding the visits can be logged

in instantly and in so doing, the Commission will be able to measure the performance of field

officers rather than output.


19

THE COMMISSION’S RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLIERS

Payments to suppliers

3.11.1. It was submitted, that the NCSHL has a credit arrangement with its approved suppliers

which is regulated by Suppliers’ acceptance of authorised Purchase Orders and by their

agreement to honour the following terms and conditions:

i. to deliver items listed in accordance to specifications outlined in the Purchase Order

with the mutual understanding that the items adheres to industry standards;

ii. Purchase Orders are only valid until date listed (3 months from date issued) and

delivery must be completed within that period;

iii. suppliers fulfillment of purchase orders represents acceptance of details and

conditions including cost;

iv. invoices must only be submitted for payment after all materials have been delivered.

3.11.2. Accordingly, the process used to pay suppliers involves the following:

i. Suppliers are to Invoice the NCSHL after delivery is completed in full;

ii. Copies of Invoices are forwarded to the relative Project Officers to conduct site visits

and to verify that the items delivered were in accordance with those listed on the

supporting purchase order;

iii. A review of payment documents and file is completed by a Senior Project Officer and

authorization to proceed with payment granted;

iv. A review of payment documents, file and authorization is completed by the Internal

Auditor and authorization to proceed with payment confirmed;

v. Final review of file completed before cheque is prepared and issued.

3.11.3. Notwithstanding this process, the Committee was informed that the NCSHL has

previous claims dating back to several years and amounting to approximately $200,000 which

are outstanding for payment.

3.11.4. Additionally, it was noted that several claims are not supported by a Purchase Order

and arose as a result of instances where suppliers were requested by verbal order to deliver

material. This practice has resulted in the Commission being listed on Credit Chex based on a

supplier fulfilling a verbal order.

3.11.5. Consequently, the Committee was informed that some 12 cases of this nature were

being considered by an Internal Audit Committee of the Board. The 12 cases matters concern

suppliers with Purchase Orders issued during the period 2005 to 2009 who have not yet

received their payments although there is evidence to prove that the material were received, it

appeared that the appropriate procedures were not followed.


20

Criteria and procedures used to select suppliers

3.11.6. It was noted that previously when approval to implement a project was granted, an

applicant was required to use the three (3) quote system which involved an applicant

submitting to the Commission three (3) quotes from three (3) different hardwares for materials

required for the project. As a result, applicants who are generally low income homeowners

often sought quotes from the most economical suppliers.

3.11.7. However, it was noted that the more economical suppliers did not wish to do business

with the Commission because:

a. there is the risk of delays in deliveries (in some cases two (2) weeks after an order was

made); or

b. there may be incremental deliveries (where grant applicants may request that the

material be delivered in parts) that may result in tardiness in completing work which

in turn can bring about a delay in the payments owed to the supplier.

3.11.8. Additionally, in some cases, suppliers may have supplied material on credit to up to

five (5) applicants. As a result, it was difficult to reduce the average waiting time for paying

suppliers less than two (2) months. Therefore, it was suggested that the more feasible approach

was to utilize a large supplier, who may be able to extend more credit facilities and give the

best prices to the applicant.

3.11.9. Officials of NCSHL also informed the Committee that the application form for the

MRRG also known as a ”green form” now has an attached list of requirements entailing a list

of the materials and no longer necessitates three (3) quotes. The attached list became necessary

as quoted prices became void in instances where applicants had to wait approximately two (2)

years for a grant and also to discourage persons from paying for a quotation to submit to the

Commission which in some cases ranged between $20 and $150. As result, the Commission

has ceased doing business with several hardwares that have been charging a fee for quotations

and who have been sending invoices without delivery.

3.11.10. Additionally, the NCSHL held a symposium in the Preysal Community Centre where

approximately 150 suppliers were invited to submit prices for goods and for the common

materials for the subsequent six (6) months. However, the Committee was informed that the

response from the suppliers was poor particularly because suppliers in the construction

industry could not provide a constant price list for the ensuing six (6) months. Nonetheless,

the Commission was able to establish a list of suppliers who are willing to collaborate with the

Commission and the Committee was assured that all MPs will be provided with the list.


21

THE COMMISSION’S RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER AGENCIES

3.12.1. There is no formal relationship between the NCSHL and the Tobago House of

Assembly (THA). However; the members of the THA, the Chief Secretary and Councilmen

are invited to the distribution ceremonies when they are held.

3.12.2. The Commission reported that it did not have formal arrangements with the following

public bodies regarding the sharing of information about the eligibility of persons for grants:

- Division of Social Services, THA;

- HDC, Trinidad (which has a house grant);

- The Ministry of People and Social Development (MoPSD); and

- Ministry of Legal Affairs (MoLA).

3.12.3. However, the NCSHL was enthusiastic about utilizing a central database which is

being conceptualised by the MoLA. Officials contended that if this database was implemented,

it will be a useful tool to detect instances where an applicant is receiving a grant from another

state agency.

VALUE FOR MONEY AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

3.13.1. In order to ensure value for money in the quality and timeliness of the supply of

materials:

i. there must be supplier’s acceptance of Purchase Order, wherein it is mutually agreed

that goods delivered must match specification and adhere to industry standards; and

ii. delivery must be within a timely basis from receipt of Purchase Order and should not

exceed validity date.

3.13.2. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the measures instituted by the

Commission to ensure that it is sufficiently able to manage its affairs efficiently according to

appropriate value for money and project management standards involved stringent monitoring

and evaluation of projects specifically with reference to:

a. the delivery of materials;

b. quality of work produced by contractors according to specifications outlined by the

scope of works;

c. ensuring that cost overruns are not frequent and that materials are efficiently utilized;

d. each Project Officer is assigned a district and before invoices are paid, Officers must

visit the job site to verify that materials have been delivered and that the specified

project was completed; for example where a contractor is assigned to complete a job,

sites are visited to ensure that the work is completed and contractors are paid for

materials only upon satisfaction of the work.


22

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

3.14.1. The Committee noted the number of projects that were supported by the Commission

during the period October 1st, 2008 to May 31st, 2013. It was reported that for this period, an

aggregate of 6,654 projects were implemented which impacted 72,014 beneficiaries. These

figures are outlined in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1

Number of beneficiaries of grants disbursed during the

period October 1st, 2007 to May 31st, 2013

Project Type No. of Projects Implemented

No. of Beneficiaries

Bridges 14 2,580 Drainage 84 2,520 MRRG 5,105 20,420

Recreation 8 240 Retaining Walls 65 1,950

Roads 126 3,780 Schools 8 540 Steps 7 210 Social 146 8,760 Water 13 390

ERRAG 1,005 30,150 Activity Center 7 210

LCHG 66 264 TOTAL 6,654 72,014

CHALLENGES FACED BY THE COMMISSION

Inadequate Funding

3.15.1. The Committee was informed that one of major challenges facing the management of

the NCSHL was the inadequacy of funding to satisfy the number of requests for assistance.

It was noted that because funds are very closely monitored to give priority to disaster projects,

less urgent requests may not get attention for a number of years.

3.15.2. The details of financial allocations made to the NCSHL for the fiscal years 2009-2013

inclusive of Administrative Expenditure are stated in Table 2 below:


23

TABLE 2

Allocations to the NCSHL for the fiscal years 2009-2013

(inclusive of Administrative Expenditure)

3.15.3. The Committee was informed that the allocations granted to the NCSHL deviated

drastically from the actual amount requested via its annual estimates. It was noted, that

increased funding is required to address the following areas:

1. larger accommodation for the Company’s Head Office;

2. increase in salary; as staff are still being paid salaries that were approved in 2006;

3. improved IT facilities;

4. training; and

5. purchase of heavy duty vehicles for field visits.

3.15.4. It was also highlighted that one of the major challenges faced by the Company was

balancing its project management expenses and administrative expenses to be able to operate

within the confines of the funds allocated for Infrastructure Development.

3.15.5. With regards to the NCSHL recurrent expenditure, requests for the years 2011, 2012

and 2013 were approximately $17 million to $18 million however, the Commission received

$9.3 million, $10.4 million and $10.5 million respectively, which was considerably less. The

Commission estimated that the funding requirements of the Commission was $80 million to

finance the Infrastructural Development Fund and $18 million to cover its recurrent expenses.

However, for fiscal 2013 and 2014, the Commission received $40 million and $60 million

respectively.

Backlog of grants

3.15.6. The lack of adequate funding has adversely affected the Commission’s ability to attend

to the increasing demands for its services/assistance. As a result, in 2011, the Commission had

a backlog of qualified applicants in excess of 5,000 grants.

Fiscal Year Recurrent

(Administrative)

Expenditure

$

Total Funds Allocated

$

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

7.8 Million

9 Million

9 Million

10.5 Million

9.4 Million

30 Million

30 Million

35 Million

35 Million

40 Million


24

3.15.7. The Committee was also informed that the backlog of application received prior to

2010 was in excess of 1,500 applications. Therefore, in an attempt to reconcile these

applications, the Commission arranged for Field Officers to revisit those applicants. This

exercise revealed that in most cases, the circumstances of those applicants had improved.

Therefore, the NCSHL took a decision to inform persons who submitted an application prior

to January 2010, to reapply as a means of determining whether these persons still had an

interest in acquiring the assistance of the Commission. Correspondence informing MPs of this

decision was also sent and similar information was also posted at the NCSHL Offices. As

such, the NCSHL no longer treats with applications received prior to January 2010 and the

Commission’s focus is now on applications made after January 2010. It was also reported that

in 2011, the Commission had the capacity to issue 1,250 grants in each financial year.

3.15.8. As at January 2014, it had the capacity to issue 2,000 minor repairs and construction

grants per annum as well as the ability to respond to the emergency grant applications

separately. However, the Committee was informed that despite an increase in its capacity to

deliver, there was still a backlog of approximately 3,000 grants.

3.15.9. It was also noted that the number of applications received annually now averages

between 1,500 and 2,000 per year.

Inadequate Resources for field exercises

3.15.10. It was noted that due to the lack of funding to hire additional staff, one (1) Field

Officer was required to conduct site visits in two (2) constituencies and one (1) Project Officer

was assigned to three (3) constituencies. The Commission is also challenged to provide

officers with appropriate handheld electronic communication devices to communicate

with the Self- Help database while on the field. The Commission is also in need of a rough

terrain vehicle to access rough terrain. At present, Field Officers use their own vehicles and

receive a travel allowance of $2,000 which is inadequate to cover the cost of monthly

instalments on a vehicle. The Committee was also informed that the Commission is unable

to establish a loan facility to purchase a car to accommodate its field work operations.

3.15.11. It was also reported that Field Officers are paid $4,000 less than Field Officers

employed by the Ministry of the People and Social Development and the Sugar Welfare

Company. The officers also receive a telephone grant ranging between $86.25 and not

exceeding $200. It was submitted that this was often insufficient to conduct operations.

Salaries of staff at the NCSHL

3.15.12. The Committee was informed that the employees were being paid 2006 salaries

because the Commission was unable to obtain the necessary increases in funding for personnel

cost and due to the absence of an approved staff establishment and Organisational Chart.


25

3.15.13. Therefore, given the lack of adequate personnel to undertake visits and project

monitoring, Members of Parliament are requested to assist in collecting forms. Officials of the

Commission also visit all forty-one constituencies to liaise with members of the public as well

as the constituency offices.

THE IMPACT OF THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE

MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

3.16.1. The Committee was informed that although the removal of the Commission from

under the aegis of the Ministry of Community Development to the Ministry of Local

Government did result in some challenges. The Commission was able to address these

challenges over time as meetings were held between the Permanent Secretary, MoLG and the

CEO of the Commission to address operational and administrative issues associated with the

reassignment.

3.16.2. Meetings were also held with other senior officials of the MoLG in relation to the

procedures for the release of funds under the Recurrent Expenditure Schedule and under the

Infrastructure Development Fund (IDF). To this end, consultations were also held with the

relevant officers from the MoFE who are responsible for the disbursement of funds under

the MoCD and the MoLG.

3.16.3. The relevant changes were also made on printed stationery such as brochures and

letterheads while it was reported that signs on office buildings and vehicles are in progress.

3.16.4. Officials of the Commission could not decisively pronounce on the rationale for the

reassignment of the Commission from the Ministry of Community Development to the

Ministry of Local Government. However, it was posited that the relocation may have been

influenced by the infrastructure-type work of the Ministry and its responsibilities in relation to

Municipal Corporations.

3.16.5. Nevertheless, the Committee noted the view of officials that the NCSHL was better

aligned with the MoCD, where there existed Community Development Officers who would

assist in identifying cases for the Commission’s intervention. Therefore, the Commission

suggested that because of its Community oriented nature, the Commission complimented the

work of the MoCD.


26

4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Your Committee considered the oral and written evidence received against the

established objectives of the inquiry and submits the following findings and recommendations:

OBJECTIVE 1

To gain an appreciation of the scope of the mandate of NCSHL when it was

formed as a State owned company in 1997.

4.1.1. The Committee was able to acquire an appreciation of the Commission’s mandate

through the examination of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. We

were particularly interested in the Commission’s role in nurturing and developing a culture of self-

help and self-reliance. We thought that developing such a mind-set would positively impact the

psyche of citizens and encourage them to take ownership of their communities. Further, the

committee endorsed the general ethos of the Commission, since fostering a “let me help you

to help yourself” attitude would empower residents in communities in receipt of grants to

determine the type of intervention or relief they want for their community. Another positive

spin off was the harnessing of human capital and skills available within communities.

4.1.2. The evidence received did not suggest that the Commission has undertaken an

empirical assessment, that is, a social impact assessment to determine the effect of its

interventions within communities. We noted that fewer applications for water and electricity

projects are being received due to a similar service being offered through the National Social

Development Programme facility of the MoPSD. We were also mindful that there are other

public bodies/entities with a community-based mandate and therefore may be an alternative

option to the NCSHL. These include the Community Improvement Services Limited,

Municipal Corporations and the Community-Based Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Programme Company Limited (CEPEP).

4.1.3. On the other hand, we were pleased to note that compared to the other community

oriented entities, the Commission was primarily engaged in the preservation of the self-help

aspect of projects by implementing more community infrastructural projects and minimizing

the use of contractors to execute projects. Noteworthy, was the fact that community projects

account for approximately 40 to 45 per cent of the Commission’s utilization of allocated funds.

RECOMMENDATION

A. We recommend that the NCSHL continue to foster an attitude of self-help and self-

reliance by facilitating the implementation of more community infrastructural

projects as a means of preserving and fostering community involvement.


27

OBJECTIVE 2

To determine the impact of the shift from the Ministry of Community

Development to the Ministry of Local Government

4.2.1. Evidence received suggested that the Commission was able to minimize the potentially

adverse impacts of its reassignment to the Ministry of Local Government by engaging in

consultations with the necessary ministerial officials to ensure that the transition was as

seamless as possible.

4.2.2. In addition, the Committee notes the view of NCSHL officials which suggested that

the Commission was better suited under the ambit of the MoCD, since this ministry (as its

name suggests) was engaged in community based activities relevant to the Commission. As

well, the Committee was informed that the MoCD has Community Development Officers

who formerly assisted in discovering cases for intervention.

4.2.3. Notwithstanding these administrative considerations, the Committee is of the view

that the effectiveness of the Commission is not primarily a function of its ministerial

alignment. The Commission’s line Ministry only performs an oversight role and is not directly

involved in the day-to-day management of the Commission. Therefore, the issue of Ministerial

responsibility is much less significant to the Commission’s success in comparison with the

Commission’s internal management arrangements, strategic planning activities and project

monitoring and delivery systems.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. We recommend that the Commission continue to forge collaborations and

information sharing arrangements with all Ministries and associated entities

involved in community development/improvement activities in order to avoid

duplication of efforts and to ensure that community interventions achieve

maximum impact.

B. In furtherance of this we recommend that the Commission collaborate with these

Ministries and entities to established direct lines of communication and or an inter-

departmental forum/committee as a means of facilitating information sharing and

the optimization of resources.


28

OBJECTIVE 3

To ascertain how projects are chosen and prioritized in terms of disbursement

of grants

4.3.1. The Committee was pleased to note that there were established criteria to qualify for

the grants provided by the Commission. The Committee was also pleased to note that unlike

other agencies, where discretion is granted to political directors to determine the disbursement

of resources/benefits, it appears that the Commission has adopted a more transparent and

methodical approach to the prioritization of the award of grants through the introduction of

the MRRG Evaluation Form complemented by a score sheet.

4.3.2. In addition, we were pleased to learn that the score sheet takes into consideration a

number of social indicators such as the income, liabilities and expenditure of the applicant; the

number of dependents in the household; the condition of the house; the health of the

applicant; whether or not the applicant is differently abled; whether or not the applicant has

received a grant from another agency, among others. The use of a “means test” approach is

certainly welcomed and should be replicated by other community oriented public entities,

since the demand for grants significantly exceeds supply and there is a public perception that

public goods and services are not distributed fairly and impartially to the most needy

applicants.

4.3.3. The Committee was also encouraged by the introduction of another grant (the Low

Cost Housing Grant) for the purpose of providing low income housing solutions to persons

in abject poverty and in cases of very extensive damages caused by floods, fire, landslides and

other disasters. However, it was noted that due to a lack of sufficient funds, the Commission

was unable to expand this programme at this time. At present, the scope of the programme

is limited to the construction of one hundred (100) houses, and with only two (2) applicants

from each constituency expected to benefit.

4.3.4. Moreover, the committee was in support of the Commission’s requirement that a

community requesting a grant for a project must be willing to provide the necessary labour or

“sweat equity” in order to be awarded same. We believe that this requirement is in keeping

with the Commission’s mandate of fostering self-reliance within our nation’s communities.

4.3.5. The Committee was surprised to learn that in the past HDC/NHA key holders

received assistance to from NCSHL. The Committee endorses the Commission decision not

to issue grants to squatters.


29

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend the extension of the Low Cost Housing Grant by another year to assist

in the rebuilding of homes lost during floods, fires, landslides and other disasters and

to target persons experiencing abject poverty; who may not qualify for a house from

the Housing Development Corporation.

OBJECTIVE 4

To understand the process for obtaining assistance from the company.

4.4.1. It was quite clear from the evidence received that a lack of financial resources has

constrained the Commission from meeting the high demand for grants. Like any other public

entity responsible for distributing scarce public resources, the Commission has had to devise

methods of prioritizing the disbursement of grants. These methods were discussed above.

However, what was of concern to the Committee was the lag time between the approval of

an application and the actual disbursement of funds from the Commission.

4.4.2. It appeared that in addition to the lack of sufficient funds, the shortage of field officers,

vehicles as well as portable communication devices has severely hindered the commission’s

ability to undertake site visits in order to approve projects proposals. This has elongated the

approval process. The average three month period for a Field Officer to conduct a visit is too

long and should be an outer limit rather than the norm. Further, it was gleaned that an informal

grouping of applicants by region is done. While this may be a more effective use of resources

and would be more convenient, the urgency of each case may differ and therefore the zoning

of applicants may result in a slower response than is required. Therefore, we contended that

the process for obtaining assistance from the Commission is too slow and tedious.

4.4.3. We also found that it was unfair to ask applicants whose application was made prior

to 2010 to have to resubmit their application, because the Commission was unable to fund

their request. While the reasoning for this approach is understood, it may lead to disenchanted

applicants who may be unwilling to cooperate with the Commission’s request to resubmit.

Alternatively, it may be argued that if an applicant was serious about receiving a grant, he/she

would continue to pursue his request no matter the cost.

4.4.4. Notwithstanding, the Commission is commended for the removal of the previous

three (3) quote system that in past has caused applicants to incur between $20 to $150 per

quotation. Allowing an applicant to attach the required list of material to his/her application

form would allow the Commission to determine the estimated cost of material. It was not

clear whether the Commission would now recommend a hardware or a supplier to an

applicant. Should this be the case, the Committee encourages the Commission to avoid any

form of favoritism in the selection of suppliers.


30

4.4.5. The Committee also found it commendable that applicants are issued a receipt

detailing the file number and the project officer assigned to attend to their applications.

Furthermore, the Committee endorses the implementation of a bar coding system during fiscal

2013/2014 to facilitate the tracking of forms and grants.

4.4.6. Also laudable was the Commission’s approach in dealing with emergency cases where

an attempt is made to attend to these cases within a 24 hour period and a grant for materials

can be issued immediately, subject to the applicant/beneficiary being able to confirm the

estimated cost of work material. We were also pleased to learn that affected families are issued

a tarpaulin to assist in protecting their possessions until repairs can be completed

4.4.7. The Committee also observed that the Commission has an internal verification

procedure whereby information obtained from Field Officers is verified by a Project Officer,

whose information in turn is verified by a Senior Project Officer and approval is ultimately the

purview of the Board.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. We strongly recommend that the Commission continue to explore options to

reduce the time span of its approval process in order to make it more applicant friendly.

To this end, additional financial resources must be allocated for the purpose of hiring

more Field Officers and also for providing them with the required resources to execute

field activities.

B. We recommend that the Commission collaborate with Field Officers of the

Ministry of the People and Social Development, the Ministry of Community

Development and the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) to establish a referral

system, whereby Field Officers and or social workers from these ministries/bodies

would be trained to assist in determining the eligibility of an applicant for a Self-help

grant. The Field Officers of the foregoing Ministries would be required to submit a

report with a standard outline to the Commission along with photographic evidence.

This may supplement the shortage of Field Officers employed by the Commission.

This referral system should be applied primarily to cases where an application was

submitted previously and the Commission is desirous of determining whether the

applicant is still in need of assistance. The involvement of Members of Parliament in

the referral system should also be considered.

C. We also recommend that the NCSHL as a priority, take the necessary action to

implement the barcoding system before the end of fiscal 2013/2014.


31

D. Further, we recommend that the Commission establish a website as a matter

of priority. The website should be very user friendly and should allow applicants able

to log on to view the status of their application. This website must be updated on a

regular basis. This would reduce the need for applicant to have to visit NCSHL offices

and would reduce the timeframe for an applicant to acquire an update regarding

his/her application.

E. Regarding applications prior to 2010, the Commission should consider asking

those persons to revalidate their requests for assistance to ensure that the need is still

there thus allowing them to treat with them as a priority.

OBJECTIVE 5

To gain insight into the relationship between the Commission and the suppliers

of resources for projects.

4.5.1. The Committee was pleased to be informed of the credit arrangement between the

Commission and approved suppliers appeared to be aiming at attaining value for money in

the procurement of material, since payments are made subsequent to the delivery of materials

in accordance with specifications outlined in purchase order. Additionally, the stipulated

timeframe of three (3) month within which materials must be delivered appeared to be

reasonable.

4.5.2. The Committee also endorsed the process used to pay suppliers which appeared to

provide for accountability and transparency. Conversely, the Committee noted that there are

payments owed to contractors dating back several years and which is now valued at

approximately $200,000. It was submitted that payments of these claims was delayed due to a

lack of evidence to support the claims. However, the Committee endorses the efforts of the

Commission to establish an Internal Audit Committee of the Board to investigate the twelve

(12) cases involving outstanding payments to suppliers.

4.5.3. With respect to the Commission’s ability to acquire the cooperation of suppliers, the

committee was concerned but not surprised that certain suppliers (especially those whose

prices are more economical) are unwilling to do business with the Commission for fear that

they may encounter delays in receiving payments. Furthermore, the Committee was concerned

that some suppliers who provide credit for up to some five (5) applicants also face the

challenge of not receiving their payments below two (2) months following the delivery of

material.


32

4.5.4. On the other hand, the Commission is applauded for discontinuing business with

suppliers who charge fees for quotations as well as with those who have been submitting

invoices for payment without delivering materials to project sites. The Commission is also

commended for taking the initiative to compile a list of pre-qualified suppliers who are willing

to collaborate and for giving the assurance to the Committee that the list has been forwarded

for the attention of all MPs, who have acted as intermediaries between constituents and the

Commission.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. We recommend that as a matter of priority, the Commission review its

administrative and accounting systems to minimize delays in the process of

disbursing payments to suppliers. A fast track payment method should be

established for making payments to long-standing suppliers who have been

cooperating with the Commission for at least 5 years. This would lend additional

encouragement to suppliers to be more amendable towards doing business with

the Commission.

B. In furtherance of the first recommendation, the Commission should ensure that

suppliers are regularly updated about the status of payments owed to them.

C. Suppliers should be warned against accepting verbal or undocumented requests

for material. Likewise, beneficiaries of grants should be also warned to desist from

making verbal requests of suppliers whilst using the name of the NCSHL as a

guarantee/security.

OBJECTIVE 6

To be informed of the measures that are in place to ensure that the Commission is able

to manage its affairs efficiently

4.6.1. Similar to any other customer oriented organization, there are a number of internal and external elements/factors which impact the performance of the Commission. With regards to the internal factors, the submissions received demonstrated clearly that the Commission was still developing its internal capacity in order to effectively streamline its operations and to become a high performance and delivery oriented organization. A review of the Commission’s Gap Analysis and SWOT analysis revealed that there was a need for further capacity building in terms of a more equipped workforce (both at the operational and management levels); proper records management; more effective use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) inclusive of a website; better performance and evaluation systems among others.


33

4.6.2. It also appeared that the Commission intends to reform its organizational structure as

a means of enhancing the efficiency of it operations. The Committee was encouraged to learn

that a new organizational structure was expected to be approved by Cabinet since the end of

2013 and therefore should be in the implementation phase at this time.

4.6.3. From an external perspective, it was obvious that the most significant setback for the

Commission was the lack of adequate funding which is ultimately the most important need of

the Commission, since it is a grant distributing entity. A more expeditious release of funds as

well as an increase in the annual budgetary allocation for both recurrent and project

expenditure were cited as essential for the Commission to effectively achieve its mandate.

4.6.4. We believe that an increase in funding for the Commission must be complimented by

the necessary improvements to the operational and managerial arrangements within the

Commission. There are ample examples which confirm that more money is not always the

solution, but rather the manner in which the money is utilised is seemingly more important.

The Commission must also develop the capacity to effectively engage communities and other

government entities involved in improving the infrastructure of communities such as CISL

and Municipal Corporations.

4.6.5. It was concluded that the major goals and critical success factors outlined in the

Commission’s submission are laudable and the Commission must work assiduously and

expeditiously towards implementing these objectives within established timeframes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. We recommend that in the absence of an immediate increase in financial

allocations, that the Commission work assiduously to administer and manage its

affairs efficiently. Individuals with institutional knowledge and expertise should be

utilized to provide training to junior staff. Several of the preceding

recommendations particularly the suggestion for more use of ICT would translate

into greater efficiency in the Commission’s operations.

B. We recommend that the Commission review its Memorandum of Association and

Articles of Association to determine whether it is plausible at this time for the

Commission to approach the Private Sector with a view to positioning itself as a

median for community interventions. The Commission should develop a private

sector engagement plan/policy and approach corporate entities who are

interesting in “giving back”: to communities by sponsoring infrastructural

projects. In all, the Commission must approach its strategic objectives with an

innovative and adaptive perspective.


34

OBJECTIVE 7

To determine what is considered an emergency case with respect to grants and

how such cases are dealt with.

4.7.1. The Committee was satisfied that the Commission provided a specific grant to deal

with emergencies within communities which are infrastructural nature. The criteria to qualify

for this grant is also clear and unambiguous in that, the applicant must have been completely

or partially displaced by a fire, earthquake, flood, land slip or another form of natural disaster.

4.7.2. As was noted before, the Committee was pleased to learn that in some cases the

Commission was able to conduct assessments and approve the disbursement of grants within

24 hours. Also noteworthy was the fact that applicants who were able to produce an invoice

from a supplier were able to receive the required materials within forty-eight (48) hours.

4.7.3. The Committee conceded that there were factors which may delay the disbursement

of an ERRAG. These include, failure to confirm the cost and details of the required materials;

a need for time to consult with a builder or the need to acquire a new site or demolish a

structure. Additionally, the committee was concerned to learn that there were “emergency

cases” which remained unaddressed for approximately two (2) years. We consider such

situations as totally unacceptable.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. We strongly recommend that the Commission give priority to pending ‘emergency

cases” and treat with them accordingly without delay.

B. Additionally, we recommend that all applicants awaiting ERRAGs should be

notified of the status of their application. The Commission should provide these

applicants with an update on a quarterly basis until the grants are issued.

OBJECTIVE 8

To identify the organization’s achievements and challenges.

Achievements

4.8.1. The Committee acknowledges that the increase in funding for the MMR Grants and

the introduction of the ERRA grants are two major achievements of the Commission. The


35

Committee thought that the Commission’s record of 72,014 beneficiaries, through 6,654

projects, during the period October 1st, 2007 to May 31st, 2013 was worthy of commendation.

Table 1 above outlines the nature of these projects, which in our view was quite diverse and

would have provided valuable relief to residents of the relevant communities.

Issues and challenges

4.8.2. In addition to some of the issues highlighted previously in this section, the Committee

concluded that the Commission must also address the following issues in order to improve its

operations:

i. the need for stability and continuity at the management level;

ii. the Commission lacked sufficient financial resources to meet the increasing demand

for grants and this has resulted in backlog of approved but undistributed grants;

iii. comparatively inadequate compensation and equipment for Field Officers;

iv. lack of satellite or sub-offices in Trinidad and In Tobago;

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. We recommend that the funding of the Commission be increased in the next fiscal

year 2014/2015 so that the Commission can be more effective in providing relief to

those who are eligible.

B. We also recommend that despite its limited resources, the Commission at the very

least, should conduct telephone interviews with persons who applied for grants

prior to 2010, in an attempt to assess their current situation and to determine

whether they continue to require assistance. Telephone interviews can be used as

a form of preliminary screening for this purpose.

C. In addition, the Commission should collaborate with similar agencies to avoid

duplication in the award of grants, relief and benefits.

Your Committee respectfully submits this Report for the consideration of the Parliament.


36

Sgd. Sgd. Dr. Victor Wheeler Mr. David Small Chairman Vice-Chairman Sgd. Sgd. Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP Member Member Sgd. Sgd. Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP Member Member Sgd. Sgd. Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP Mr. Collin Partap, MP Member Member Sgd. Sgd. Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP Dr. Lester Henry Member Member Sgd. Sgd, Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Member Member October 10, 2014


37

APPENDICES


38

APPENDIX I

Entities falling under the purview

of the Committee


39


40

List of Ministries, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises that fall under the

purview of this Committee

1. Local Government

STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES:

National Commission for Self-Help Limited

New City Mall

East Side Plaza

WHOLLY OWNED ENTERPRISES:

Trinidad and Tobago Solid Waste Management Company Limited

National Maintenance Training and Security Company Limited (MTS)

2. National Diversity and Social Integration


Archaeological Committee

National Museum and Art Gallery (Royal Victoria Institute)

3. National Security


Defence Force Commissions Board

Defence Council

Firearms Appeal Board

Strategic Services Agency

Youth Training Centre Board of Management

National Operations Centre


41

4. Office of the Prime Minister


Sport and Culture Board of Management

5. People and Social Development


Social Welfare District Boards

Trinidad and Tobago Association in Aid of the Deaf

Trinidad and Tobago Blind Welfare Association

6. Planning and Sustainable Development


Advisory Town Planning Panel

Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (CARIRI)

Chaguaramas Development Authority

Council for Innovation and Competitiveness

Economic Development Board

National Population Council

STATE ENTERPRISES:

East Port-of-Spain Development Company Limited

7. Public Administration

WHOLLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:


42

Government Human Resources Services Limited (GHRS)

8. Public Utilities


Regulated Industries Commission (RIC)


The Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC)

The Trinidad and Tobago Postal Corporation (TTPOST)

MAJORITY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:

Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (TSTT)

9. Science and Technology


National Information, Communication, Technology Company Limited (iGovTT)

National Institute of Higher Education (Research, Science and Technology)

Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (TATT)

10. Sport


National Stadia Board of Management

Regional Complexes

Trinidad and Tobago Boxing Board of Control


43


Sport Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited

11. Tertiary Education and Skills Training


Accreditation Council of Trinidad and Tobago (ACTT)

Board of Industrial Training

College of Science, Technology and Applied Arts (COSTATT)

Eastern Caribbean Institute of Agriculture and Forestry (ECIAF)

John S. Donaldson Technical Institute

National Energy Skills Centre (NESC)

National Training Agency

San Fernando Technical Institute

Teachers Training Colleges

Trinidad and Tobago Hospitality and Tourism Institute

University of Trinidad and Tobago

University of the West Indies

- Open Campus

MAJORITY-OWNED ENTERPPRISES:

Metal Industries Company Limited (MIC)

- Government Vocational Centre


Youth Training and Employment Partnership Programme Limited (YTEPP)


44

12. Tobago Development

STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES

Tobago Regional Health Authority

13. Tourism

STATUTORY BOARDS AND OTHER BODIES;

Zoological Society of Trinidad and Tobago


Tourism Development Company Limited

National Academy of the Performing Arts Hotel

14. Trade, Industry, Investments and Communications


Betting Levy Board (BLB)

Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards (TTBS)

Trinidad and Tobago Racing Authority (TTRA)

Weights and Measures

Prices Council

Board of Film Censors


Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited (e-Teck)

Export-Import Bank of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (EXIMBANK)

Trinidad and Tobago Free Zones Company Limited (TTFZ)


45

Caribbean New Media Group Limited (CNMG)

Government Information Services Limited (GISL)

National Broadcasting Network (NBN)


Business Development Company (BDC)

Point Lisas Industrial Estate

Trinidad and Tobago Entertainment Company Limited (TTent)

Trinidad and Tobago Film Company

Creative TT Limited

INDIRECTLY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:

Caribbean Leasing Company Limited (CLCL) Subsidiary of BDC

National Flour Mills (NFM)

Premier Quality Services Limited (PQSL) Subsidiary of TTBS

15. Transport


Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago

Air Transport Licensing Authority

Pilotage Authority

Port Authority of Trinidad and Tobago

Public Transport Services Corporation (PTSC)

Transport Board


The Vehicle Maintenance Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago Limited



46

National Helicopter Company Limited

Point Lisas Port Development Corporation Limited (PLIPDECO)

MINORITY-OWNED ENTERPRISES:

LIAT (1974) Limited

16. Works and Infrastructure


National Infrastructure Development Company Limited (NIDCO)

National Maintenance Training and Security Company (MTS)

Community Improvement Services Limited (CISL)

Palo Seco Agricultural Enterprises Limited (PSAEL)

Rural Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago (RuDeCOTT)


47

APPENDIX II MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS


48

PRESENT

Committee Members Dr. Victor Wheeler Chairman Mr. David Small Vice-Chairman Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Member Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey, MP Member Ms. Alicia Hospedales, MP Member Dr. Lincoln Douglas, MP Member Dr. Lester Henry Member

Secretariat

Mrs. Jacqueline Phillips-Stoute Procedural Clerk Ms. Candice Skerrette Assistant Secretary Mr. Indar Sieunarine Parliamentary Intern

ABSENT

Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie Member (excused) Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Member (excused) Mr. Clifton De Coteau, MP Member (excused) Dr. Tim Gopeesingh, MP Member (excused) Mr. Collin Partap, MP Member

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED

Mr. Surujdeo Mangaroo Chairman

Mr. Reynold Baldeosingh Chief Executive Officer Ms. Kousil Nandee Project Accountant Ms. Petronilla Basdeo Director

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF

PARLIAMENT APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT ON GOVERNMENT

MINISTRIES (GROUP 2), STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND STATE ENTERPRISES FALLING

UNDER THOSE MINISTRIES, HELD IN THE ARNOLD THOMASOS ROOM (EAST), LEVEL 6 AND

THE J. HAMILTON MAURICE ROOM, MEZZANINE FLOOR, OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENT,

TOWER D, PORT OF SPAIN INTERNATIONAL WATERFRONT CENTRE, #1A WRIGHTSON ROAD,

PORT OF SPAIN ON

FRIDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2013 AT 9:38 A.M.


49

Ms. Katrina Mooleedhar Planning Officer I Ms. Meena Abiraj Accounting Executive II INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.

1.2 The Chairman indicated that Mr. Ramnarine, Dr. Gopeesingh, Dr. Tewarie and Mr. De Coteau had requested to be excused from the meeting. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

25th Meeting held on October 4th, 2013.

2.1 The Committee considered the Minutes of the 25th Meeting held on October 04, 2013. 2.2 There being no proposed amendments, the motion for the confirmation of the Minutes was moved by Mr. Small and seconded by Mrs. Ahmed. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

3.1 As per item 10.4, the Chairman advised Members that a letter dated November 01, 2013 was sent to Mr. Kelvin Ramsook, General Manager of T&TEC informing him about the allegations made by Mr. Kalam Mohamed. The letter also invited Mr. Ramsook to respond to same.

3.2 As per item 10.5, Members were informed that a letter dated October 31, 2013 was sent to Mr. Anthony Hosein advising him that a copy of his letter and submissions to the Committee would be forwarded to the Equal Opportunity Commission and to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Tertiary Education and Skills Training, with a request that these authorities thoroughly investigate the matter. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORT

Draft 14th Report on the administration and operations of the Trinidad and Tobago

Police Service

4.1 The Chairman indicated that the Draft Fourteenth Report on the administration and operations of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service was circulated via email for the consideration and comments of Members on October 08, 2013. A deadline of October 18, 2013 was established for Members to provide feedback. Feedback received from the Chairman, Mr. Small and Mrs. Ahmed was incorporated into a working draft. 4.2 The Committee commenced its review of the Draft Fourteenth Report and the following amendment was made:

Insert the following new recommendation (E), page 45: - “The Committee noted that there were numerous vacancies in the various Divisions and the Committee


50

recommends that those units be given priority when filling vacancies and should be completed within the next financial year. The Service should implement a policy whereby vacancies are filled within a calendar year.”

4.3 Lengthy discussion ensued on the committee’s position on the issue of the shortage of Social Workers within the Police Service. During this discourse, the Committee agreed to defer further consideration of this Draft Report until the conclusion of the public hearing with the National Commission for Self-Help Limited. PRE-HEARING DISCUSSIONS RE INQUIRY INTO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED (NCSHL) 5.1 Brief discussions ensued on some of the main issues to be raised during the inquiry with officials from NCSHL. 5.2 The Chairman reminded members that an Issues Paper on the submission received from the NCSHL was forwarded to members and suggested that each member pose two (2) questions each to the officials of the Commission during the first round of questioning. 5.3 The Meeting was suspended at 10:11 a.m.

[Members exited the Arnold Thomasos Room (East) and proceeded to the J. Hamilton Maurice Room]

PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED (NCSHL) 6.1 The Chairman reconvened the meeting in the J. Hamilton Maurice Room at 10:17 a.m. 6.2 The Chairman welcomed officials from the NCSHL and introductions were exchanged. 6.3 Detailed below are the issues raised and the responses which emanated from the discussions with representatives of the NCSHL:

i. Opening Statements NCSHL has two (2) types of grants; the Minor Repair Reconstruction Grant (MRRG) and the Emergency Repair and Reconstruction Grants (ERRAG). The MRRG is targeted towards eligible applicants with an income of less than $3,000.00 and the ERRAG is intended to facilitate repairs as a result of natural disasters. The Commission also offers a Community Infrastructural Development (CID) Program which funds community projects.

ii. Emergency Repair and Reconstruction Grant (ERRAG)

a. The term “Emergency” was defined as a response to a disaster, inclusive of fires, storm damage and land slippages. The NCSHL responds to emergency cases by assigning officers to conduct site visits, make an assessment and issue a Grant


51

within twenty four (24) hours. However, there are applicants who may not be in a position to confirm the materials needed and may therefore require additional time to determine same. In other cases, applicants who are able to produce an invoice for a supplier may receive the required materials within forty-eight (48) hours. b. Officials also conveyed that the response time to applicants is dependent on the financial needs of the applicant, the nature of the material/supplies required, as well as the availability of limited NCSHL funds. The maximum value of the ERRAG is $25,000 and applicants for this fund are assessed on a needs basis.

c. Despite the higher funding limit ascribed to this grant relative to the other grants, experience has proven that applicants for the ERRAG seldom require the maximum amount of $25,000 to attend to their situation.

iii. Minor Repair Reconstruction Grant (MRRG)

The MRRG was increased from $10,000 to a maximum of $15,000 by decision of Cabinet in order to match what was being issued by other state agencies.

iv. Backlog of applications a. Officials admitted the Commission’s primary challenge was inadequate financial resources to provide a grant to each applicant. On average, the NCSHL receives between 1,500 and 2,000 applications annually. In 2011, the Commission had a backlog in excess of 5,000 applications for grants. At present, the Commission has the capacity to issue 2,000 grants per annum. Therefore, there is a generally a backlog of 3,000 applications brought forward in each year. b. The Commission was challenged to revisit a backlog of 1,500 pending applications filed prior to 2010. In pursuing this exercise, the Commission came to the realization that the circumstances of some of the pending applicants had improved and support from the Commission may no longer be required. As a consequence, the Commission took a decision to have persons whose application was filed prior to January 2010, resubmit same and thereafter the Commission would seek to review them and determine whether to intervene.

v. Assessment and prioritisation of applications

a. In order to establish which applications should be given priority, a score sheet is utilized. Criteria include; income, liabilities, condition of the structure, whether the applicant is ill, whether the applicant is differently abled, whether they have been issued a grant by another agency and whether they have indoor plumbing.

b. Applicants who are not given priority or would be automatically disqualified from receiving a grant includes; applicants with income-generating activities on their premises; land lords requesting assistance to improve the standard of their apartments and persons in receipt of an HDC/ NHA House and are desirous of conducting repairs or expansions. Nevertheless, the Commission has granted assistance to persons who reside in HDC settlements


52

c. Applicants are required to submit either a Land Tax Receipt, a copy of a deed or a Certificate of Comfort. In the absence of these documents, a sworn affidavit from the applicant is required stating that they have lived unencumbered for a period of years at the particular dwelling. Although applications are received from squatters who intend to construct concrete structures, the Commission cannot issue a grant.

vi. Procedure for Applicants

a. As it concerns Minor Repair Reconstruction Grants, applications can be submitted either directly to the NCSHL or through the relevant Member of Parliament. Once an application is submitted, the applicant is given a receipt that details the file number; the Project Officer assigned to the case and the days the Project Officer will be in office. These applications are processed electronically and placed on a database. b. Thereafter, a Field Officer conducts a visit approximately within a three (3) month period; a recommendation is made and the application is then processed for approval. During this visit, an assessment is made of existing conditions and photographs are taken. The timeframe for the execution of field visits may vary according to the number of applicants in the area/region to which the Project Officer is assigned. In many instances an applicant’s request would be approved but would be awaiting funding. The Committee was informed at present there are pending cases submitted since 2010.

c. The Committee was informed that currently approval of an application is communicated solely via letter. However, officials conveyed that often funding is not immediately available to honour these grants and this undermines the expectations of applicants. Officials gave the Committee an assurance that internal discussions will be held to determine how the existing feedback arrangementss could be improved.

d. A Bar Code System is expected to be implemented during this fiscal year (2013/2014) to facilitate the tracking of application forms. The cost of introducing the Bar Coding system was estimated at $20,000, however, the training of staff in the appropriate computer programme is also a prerequisite to operationalize the system.

vii. Relationships with Suppliers a. Officials advised that suppliers are paid, subject to confirmation that materials were delivered. However, in cases where a contractor is hired, NCSHL officials would visit the job site to verify that the job was completed. b. Officials conceded that under the existing circumstances, it was difficult to reduce the average waiting time for paying suppliers below two months. In some instances, suppliers have supplied material on credit to up to five (5) applicants. Common causes of delays in making payments to suppliers include; late delivery of materials by suppliers (in some cases two (2) weeks after an order was made);


53

the customer (grant applicant) may request that the material be delivered in parts. Therefore, it was suggested that the more feasible approach was to utilize a large supplier, who may be able to extend more credit facilities and give the best prices to the applicant. c. The Committee was informed that an applicant and alternatively, a Member of Parliament can be provided with a list of suppliers that do accept invoices from the NCSHL. However, the Commission expressed reservations about adopting such an approach as it may be interpreted as the Commission is attempting to guide the selection of suppliers in a particular direction. d. The Commission organized a symposium at the Preysal Community Centre and 150 suppliers were invited. The suppliers were asked to provide a projection of the prices of commonly sourced material. However, the response was very poor, as many suppliers were unwilling to hold a price for six months in the construction industry. e. The Committee was further advised that the three (3) quote system has been replaced and applicants are now required to attach a list of materials to the application form. This new approach was adopted as many applicants were required to pay between $20 to $150 for supplier quotations and also based on the fact that delays in the actual granting of funding resulted in quotations that were filed becoming outdated relative to changes in prices. The NCSHL took a decision to discontinue business with several hardware that charged applicants for a quotation and those that send an invoice without delivering materials.

viii. Water and Electricity Projects

Officials conveyed that there has been a decline in the number of applications for assistance that concern water and electricity and most persons now go through the Ministry of Public Utilities for electrification projects. Only two (2) water projects have qualified applicants for funding between February 2011 and November 2013. Water projects require designs from the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) and a voluntary partnership with the community to construct the necessary infrastructure for the water supply. Further, electricity projects require a survey from the Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) and low voltage lines.

ix. Fulfillment of Mandate

a. The NCSHL was formed in 1987 primarily to partner with communities. However, as the economy evolved there has been less voluntary help available and NCSHL moved into contracting/outsourcing construction projects. Since 2010, the current board has reduced the number of contracting opportunities to a minimum amount and increased the level of community involvement. Currently, community based or “Self-Help” work accounts for close to 40 to 45 percent of the Commission’s funds.


54

b. In addition to the provision of the MRRG and the ERRAG, the Commission provides a Low Cost Housing Grant as well as a Community Infrastructure Development (CID) Grant. The CID Grant fulfils the “Self Help” mandate as various community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations and community groups are provided with material, project management and technical expertise in order to execute a project. Officials conveyed that approximately forty to forty five percent of funding is spent on CID Grants.

x. Presence in Tobago

Applications received from Tobago go through the same application and approval process as a Trinidad applicant. There is no formal arrangement with the Tobago House of Assembly.

xi. Relationship with other agencies The Committee was informed that the sharing of information between the Commission, the Division of Social Services at the Tobago House of Assembly, the Ministry of the People and Social Development and the Housing Development Corporation is not formalized. Officials admitted that applicants may have received a grant from another state agencies as well as assistance from the NCSHL. In such circumstances, further funding in provided on a case by case basis. Therefore, the Commission endorsed the initiative of the Ministry of Legal Affairs to create a central database and believes that this database can be a means of determining whether person are in receipt of grants/assistance from other agencies.

xii. Changes to Ministerial Assignment a. A representative of the Ministry of Local Government admitted that she was not certain about the reasoning behind the transfer of the Commission from the Ministry of Community Development to the Ministry of Local Government. She posited that the reassignment might have been influence by the infrastructure-type work of the Ministry and its responsibilities vis-à-vis Municipal Corporations.

b. However, the CEO of the NCSHL officials expressed the view that the Commission may have been better placed under the purview of the Ministry of Community Development because the Community based activities of the Commission complimented the work of the Ministry of Community Development.

xiii. Field Officers

a. The Senior Project Officer manages Field Officers by allocating project visits and a time-frame for feedback. The lack of adequate field personnel has placed additional demand on field officers. In some instances, one (1) Field Officer is assigned to two (2) and three (3) constituencies. The response rate to applicants would depend on the number of applicants and the workload of the Field Officers.


55

b. The mechanism for monitoring Field Officers is output based, where the Senior Project Officer measures the number of field visits done per day and the quality of information submitted to the Commission. In addition, the Internal Auditor depends on photographs of work done, applicants are interviewed via the telephone as a means of soliciting feedback and if necessary a site visit is conducted to determine whether visits were conducted. However, the Commission only has one (1) Internal Auditor and one (1) on-the-job trainee assigned to assist the Internal Auditor for Trinidad and Tobago.

c. Field Officers are paid $4,000 less than the Field Officers within the Ministry of the People and Social Development and the Sugar Welfare Company. They currently receive a travel allowance of $2,000 and a telephone allowance of $86.25 to $200.

xiv. Funding received by the Commission

The Commission over the past three (3) years has requested approximately $17 to $18 million on an annual basis for recurrent expenditure; however, for these years the commission was received $9.3, $10.4 million and $10.5 million. Therefore, a lack of adequate funding has prevented the Commission from acquiring the necessary resources to attend to the applicants in an efficient manner. Additional funding will assist the Commission to acquire a rough terrain vehicle, hand-held electronic communication devices and also to hire additional Field Officers.

xv. Organizational Structure a. The existing organizational structure of the Commission dates back to 1997 and has an approved establishment of less than forty (40) employees. The absence of an approved staff establishment and organizational chart has contributed to the delay in salary increases, which has been outstanding since 2006.

b. A new organization chart was initially proposed to the Ministry of Community Development and thereafter to the Ministry of Local Government. The revised chart has been approved by Public Management Consulting Division (PMCD) and recommends an increase in the compliment of staff to ninety six (96) and officials expect that it will be taken to Cabinet by the Minister of Public Administration by the end of 2013.

c. Officials indicated that the recommendation to increase the Commission’s complement of staff from forty (40) to ninety six (96) members was based on the volume of transactions forecasted over the next three to five years.

xvi. Funding for Minor Repair Grant

In July, 2011, the Commission submitted a proposal for increased funding in respect of the House Repair grant. Its proposal sought to increase the value of the grant to a minimum of $15, 000 to a maximum of $25, 000. To achieve this and to efficiently address the estimated 1,500 new applicants annually, it was proposed that an annual allocation of at least $80 million for the Infrastructure Development Fund (IDF) and $18 million for recurrent expenditure was necessary.


56

xvii. Low Cost Housing Grant

a. The Low Cost Housing Grant was established as a one-off initiative for the construction of one hundred (100) houses by Cabinet Note approved in April 2013. Notice of this initiative was communicated to Members of Parliament via letters and asked that each MP submit two (2) requests for Housing. It was confirmed that several MPs made submissions and the construction of the commensurate housing solutions had commenced. The Low Cost Housing Grant was directed to persons who are unable to improve their household when given material. b. It was intended that under this Grant, a purchase order of $110,000 would be issued, whereby $75,000 was assigned for the purchase of materials and $45,000 to cover labour costs. In addition, it was envisioned that CBOs and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) would come forward, provide their own labour and the Commission would provide only $75,000. c. The Committee was informed that at a board meeting held on November 6, 2013, the Chief Executive Officer was instructed to draft a Cabinet Minute to seek approval for the continuation of this Grant.

xviii. Audited Accounts

a. The Commission’s accounts are audited through an external auditor and audited accounts of the Commission are available up to financial year 2012.

xix. Payments owed to suppliers a. The Commission admitted that they are in possession of claims from suppliers dating back several years. However in several cases, these claims are not supported by a Purchase Order from the Commission. There are instances of suppliers who facilitated verbal orders, but the appropriate documentation was not processed to support such transactions. b. The Commission actually has a backlog of outstanding payments owed to suppliers estimated at $200, 000. The Commission’s Internal Audit Committee is presently reviewing twelve (12) cases involving suppliers with Purchase Orders issued during the period 2005 to 2009. In these cases, there is evidence that suggest that material was supplied; however, appropriate procedures were not followed.

xx. Establishment of sub-offices in rural areas.

It was submitted that due to inadequate funding, the Commission was unable to establish satellite offices in rural areas. Nevertheless, the Commission has sought the assistance of MPs and their Constituency Offices to act as a conduit for the submission of applications receive from residents in these areas.

xxi. Community Infrastructure Development (CID) Grants The main determinant when choosing a community to receive the CID Grant is that it must be willing to put out sweat equity. However, most applications come from low income communities rather than middle to high income community.


57

6.4 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Chairman conveyed appreciation to the officials for their attendance. He advised the officials that the Committee will forward correspondence in respect of the requests for additional information that arose during the discussions. 6.5 The Meeting was suspended at 11:58 a.m. REQUESTED INFORMATION 7.1 The NCSHL was asked to furnish the Committee with the following information:

i. the number of grants issued per constituency over the past five (5) years (for each type of grant) and the justification/rationale for issuing these grants to particular communities over the past five (5) years;

ii. the current number of pending applications for grants and details on how many of these applicants have benefited from site visits. How many of these applications have been scrutinised by the relevant external agencies;

iii. the existing organizational structure of the Commission and the number of vacancies within the organizational structure;

iv. the details of the proposed revised organizational structure;

v. details of the Commission’s present accommodation arrangements.

vi. the Commission’s recommendations for modifying its accommodation arrangements to facilitate the proposed increase in staff;

vii. the current strategic plan of the Commission; and

viii. the Management Letter in respect of the Commission’s Audited Financial

Statements for 2012.

[Members exited the J. Hamilton Maurice Room and proceeded to the Arnold Thomasos Room (East)]

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT INQUIRY PROPOSAL ON THE TRINIDAD

AND TOBAGO BLIND WELFARE ASSOCIATION (TTBWA)

8.1 The Chairman reconvened the meeting in the Arnold Thomasos Room (East) at 12:10 p.m. 8.2 The Chairman indicated that on October 18, 2013, a Draft Inquiry Proposal on the Trinidad and Tobago Blind Welfare Association (TTBWA) was circulated for the consideration of members via email. 8.3 The Committee reviewed and approved the Draft. 8.4 The Committee agreed that its next meeting would be held on December 13, 2013 and at that meeting, it will convene a public hearing with TTBWA.


58

DETERMINATION OF WORK PROGRAMME 9.1 The Chairman reminded Members that at its last meeting held on October 4, 2013, the Committee agreed that the order of priority and areas of focus regarding entities which it intended to inquire into will be discussed at the meeting in progress. 9.2 The Committee agreed that it would prioritise the following entities and the respective areas of focus:

i. Government Human Resource Services Limited (GHRS)

Strategic Plans

Range of services

Status of operations

Vacancies for the period 2008-2013: the number of positions advertised, the number of positions filled and existing vacancies

Major challenges

Achievements

Ministerial assignment

ii. Port Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (PATT)-Port of Port-of-Spain

Vessel Traffic Management System: who manages the system

A review of the metrics system that is applied;

The operation of the One-Stop Barrel Shop

The performance of the PPAT as compared to other local and regional ports

Strategic Plans of the organization

Status update of operations

Challenges

Achievements

To determine who is responsible for managing ports in T&T

Operations of the Tobago Inter-Island Ferry: labor, improvements and challenges that have resulted/arisen further to the restructuring of the Port of Port of Spain

Financial status

Responsibility for vessels that may be considered unseaworthy/derelict that are docked at the Port of Spain harbor

Status of vessels that have either been confiscated or anchored between Port of Spain and San Fernando

Risk management procedures or processes

Mechanisms for scheduling the arrival of other vessels that are required to be on stand-by to facilitate incoming Atlantic LNG shipments.


59

iii. Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited (eTecK)

Historical overview and mandate

Status and update of operations

Challenges

Achievements

A review of operations, in terms of accountability, transparency and operational benchmarking

Timeframe for completion and budgetary issues for outstanding projects

Mechanisms to ensure there is value for money for projects undertaken

iv. Community Improvement Services Limited (CISL)

Mandate

Achievements

Challenges

Status (timeline for completion, project budget) and location of current

projects

Procurement procedures for projects

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORT (Continued) Draft 14th Report on the administration and operations of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service 10.1 The Committee resumed its review the Draft Fourteenth Report and the following additional amendments were made:

a. New Recommendation (F), page 45 -: Insert “We recommend that the TTPS take

a critical look at the ratio of Social Workers to internal clients so that over time it can

be in alignment to international best practices.”

b. New Recommendation (G), page 45: Insert “We recommend that vacancies in positions on the ‘Executive Management Team’ such as Head of Legal and Head of Internal Audit be filled as a matter of priority.”

c. New Recommendation (H), page 45: Insert “We recommend that a proper assessment be done to determine the appropriate number of vehicles that are needed to effectively support the work of the TTPS.”

10.2 The Committee approved the Report subject to the foregoing amendments. Mr. Jeffrey agreed to present the Report in the House of Representatives.

ADJOURNMENT

11.1 The meeting was adjourned at 12:52 p.m. I certify that these Minutes are true and correct.


60

CHAIRMAN

SECRETARY

December 09, 2013


61

APPENDIX III NOTES OF EVIDENCE


62

PRESENT

Dr. Victor Wheeler Chairman

Mr. David Small Vice-Chairman

Mrs. Raziah Ahmed Member

Dr. Lincoln Douglas Member

Miss Alicia Hospedales Member

Mr. Fitzgerald Jeffrey Member

Dr. Lester Henry Member

Miss Candice Skerrette Assistant Secretary

Mrs. Jacqueline Phillip-Stoute Procedural Clerk

Mr. Indar Sieunarine Parliamentary Intern

ABSENT

Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie Member [Excused]

Dr. Tim Gopeesingh Member [Excused]

Mr. Kevin Ramnarine Member [Excused]

Mr. Clifton De Coteau Member [Excused]

Mr. Collin Partap Member

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SELF-HELP LIMITED

Mr. Surujdeo Mangaroo Chairman

Mr. Reynold Baldeosingh Chief Executive Officer

Ms. Kousil Nandee Project Accountant

Ms. Petronilla Basdeo Director

VERBATIM NOTES OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH MEETING OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF

PARLIAMENT APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT ON GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES

(GROUP 2), STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND STATE ENTERPRISES FALLING UNDER THOSE

MINISTRIES, HELD IN THE ARNOLD THOMASOS ROOM (EAST), LEVEL 6 AND THE J. HAMILTON

MAURICE ROOM, MEZZANINE FLOOR, OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENT, TOWER D, PORT OF SPAIN

INTERNATIONAL WATERFRONT CENTRE, #1A WRIGHTSON ROAD, PORT OF SPAIN ON

FRIDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2013 AT 9:35 A.M.

63

MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Ms. Katrina Mooleedhar Planning Officer I

Ms. Meena Abiraj AE II

Mr. Chairman: I will like to welcome you here today to this the sitting of the Joint Select

Committee Group 2, the committee that is set up by section 66A of the Constitution and is

mandated to inquire and examine the administration of operations of different government

Ministries and agencies.

Today we have the National Commission for Self-Help and we have members here, and we will

hopefully be joined by representatives of the Ministry of Local Government. I would first like to

invite the members of the National Commission for Self-Help to introduce themselves.

[Introductions made]

Mr. Chairman: Welcome, and I would like to invite the members, starting with Minister Douglas;

introduce yourselves.

[Introductions made]

Mr. Chairman: I would first like to ask Mr. Mangaroo, if you would like to give some brief

comments about your organization—brief opening remarks.

Mr. Mangaroo: Basically we assumed office in 2010. Of course we continue with the good works

of the commission. We are continuing the good works of the commission, reaching out to the

underprivileged and those in need in our community.

Mr. Chairman: Would you like to give a brief description of what your organization does?

Mr. Mangaroo: What should I say? We deal with grants. We have two types of grants: the Minor

Repair and Renovation Grant reaching out to the families in need, those with income less than

$3,000, and we have an emergency grant called the ERRAG, which was established two years ago

to reach out to people who have suffered from fire and natural disasters. We also deal with

community projects called the CID; that includes roads, bridges, drains and other community

infrastructure. We also deal with orphan roads and religious organizations like churches, temples

and mosques.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. I would like to invite Miss Hospedales who has some questions to ask.

Miss Hospedales: Good morning, everyone again. In the submission that you made to the

committee you indicated to us that you give priority to the most vulnerable people, specifically senior


64

citizens, fire victims, and you also stated that normally in a case of an emergency, for example, a fire

or natural disaster, that you would visit the location where the incident occurred within 24 hours,

do an assessment and then issue the grant. The first question I want to ask, is this the procedure

for all cases that would have come to your attention?

Mr. Mangaroo: Yes.

Miss Hospedales: So you said yes. The reason I am asking this—I want to ask you: In all cases

that come before you, apart from what you said to us here, how do you define emergency and

emergency case, and is it that in all cases the grants are actually issued within 24 hours of having

contact with the affected families?

Mr. Mangaroo: The CEO will answer that.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Chairman, before I respond, I would like to just inform the committee that PS

Amroodeen Ali could not come this morning because his mother died yesterday. We only found

out while we were waiting for the start.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Baldeosingh: The Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grant was established in

July 2011, and the primary purpose was to set a grant that was separate from the regular House

Repair Grant in which we could respond and deliver within—the mandate had been 48 hours. Many

times we are not informed directly of the disaster, but indirectly via the media or sometimes the

local government representatives or the Members of Parliament. So even when we become aware

of an incident, we respond.

Your question of what is an emergency—the emergency is normally a response to a disaster

in our case. So we respond to fires; we respond to storm damage; we respond to land slippage.

Even though we have an officer on site within 24 hours, there are many cases where the person who

is affected cannot say what material they need immediately.

So if the person is ready to repair the home right away and they give us an invoice for the

supplier, we are able to deliver those materials within 48 hours. Where the person still has to consult

a builder or look for a new site or demolish the structure, it takes a bit longer.


65

Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair, the reason I am asking these questions is because of my knowledge

of two cases. You said to us that senior citizens are given priority, fire victims are given priority,

victims of natural disasters are given priority. In the first case I want to identify it has to do with a

senior citizen whose home was burnt. All the forms were submitted, the police report was

submitted. The article highlighting the person’s incident had also been submitted, because the article

was in the news the day after. The individual lost a relative in the fire as well.

It took two years of having to raise the issue on the floor during debates, writing to the

Minister—two respective Ministers—establish contact with the Office of the National Self-Help

Commission for that individual to get assistance, and that was an emergency case.

The second issue that I want to raise is a senior citizen, again, whose roof was damaged

during the course of a natural disaster; no fault of hers. Her neighbour’s roof was blown off and

landed on hers. That issue, even though the report of the local government arm was made, the

forms were submitted, et cetera, et cetera, it took two years for that individual to get a response.

That is why I am asking, how long does it take for an emergency case to be responded to, because

two years for those two cases that I am pretty much familiar with to have gotten a response from

the National Self-Help Commission is way, way, way too long.

Ms. Basdeo: If I may, each particular case would turn on its own facts and there would be

extenuating circumstances that may—and I am saying may because we do not know the case that

you are specifically speaking about. If perhaps we are given a name we can justify it or at least give

a reason this was so, but to say it in a vacuum will be a little bit unfair to us.

Part of the criteria—it is not just every emergency that the National Commission for Self-

Help responds to. With our limited available funds we respond emergencies dependent on the

financial needs of the persons, and as our CEO would have indicated, depending on their availability

and having what they need at that particular point in time. Perhaps if we are supplied with a name

we can indicate what transpired, but in a vacuum we would be unable to say.

Miss Hospedales: Ma’am, for the protection of the two individuals I would not like to highlight

that in the public, but I can give you the information. They did receive the response, but I am saying


66

two years is way too long for an emergency.

The gentleman who lost his home by fire, his life has not even began to get back to a level

of normalcy because he received the grant this year. Two years is way too long. That is all I really

want to emphasize. For emergency cases, that two-year wait, that time frame to actually respond to

those individuals is really, really, really too long.

Dr. Douglas: Probably you guys could tell us what are some of the challenges or limitations or

issues you face in responding to applications, and grant application, because it seems to me that this

would indicate there is some level of disconnect or issues. I too have applied and things have taken

long. So probably you could tell us what are some of the challenges and limitations you face in

meeting the requests and demands of grants.

Mr. Chairman: If I may, before you answer, I would just like to welcome two members from the

Ministry of Local Government. I do not know if you would just like to introduce yourselves briefly.

Ms. Mooleedhar: Good morning, my name is Katrina Mooledhar. I am a Planning Officer I at

the Ministry of Local Government, associated with the National Commission for Self-Help.

Ms. Abiraj: Good morning, my name is Meena Abiraj. I am the AE II at the Ministry of Local

Government.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Chairman, in response to the concern about the turnaround time, as has been

said, the response is there but the issue of the grant may have been delayed. If we know the case,

we could determine why the response was delayed. As I said earlier, sometimes it takes long for the

applicant to decide what they need in order for us to purchase the material for them.

In response to Dr. Douglas though, I gather that we are moving away from the emergency

grant into the general grant operation.

Dr. Douglas: I am talking about in general, either way.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Yeah, because most of what I see coming from your office would be the regular

MRRG grants. In 2011, we had a backlog in excess of 5,000 grants to be issued, and we had the

capacity at that time to issue 1,250 grants in in each financial year. The volume of applications that


67

come in now averages between 1,500 to 2,000 grants a year. We are now in fiscal 2014 up to where

we could issue 2,000 grants in one year; 2,000 minor repairs and construction grants, and we are still

able to respond to the emergency grant applications separately.

But even if we respond to 2,000 per year and we have a backlog of 3,000 coming forward,

it means we have to give priority to the person who actually receives the grant. We therefore

established a system of using a score sheet and we moved away from a system prior to 2011 that

gave priority to the ageing population, but did not give any priority to a young person, maybe with

five children.

So in giving priority we look at the income, we look at the liabilities, how the money is spent,

we look at the amount of dependents in the household, and we look at the condition of the structure,

whether the person is ill, whether the person is differently abled, whether they have been issued a

grant by another agency and whether they have indoor plumbing. We have devised a quantitative

method of assessing in order to be able to justify why we could give a grant to somebody whose

condition might be worse off than another applicant.

So the major constraint really is the funding, that we are not able to issue a grant to every

applicant.

Mr. Chairman: Could I just interject. Could you just please explain the process for someone

needing assistance; what do they need to do. Just take us through that.

Mr. Baldeosingh: The person needing assistance would normally apply to us on the MRRG, Minor

Repairs and Reconstruction Grant application form, which they submit either directly to the

National Commission for Self-Help, or they submit via the off of the Member of Parliament.

When we receive that—and we have had many people coming to us and saying they sent in

an application and we do not have it on file. So what we have also implemented is a system of giving

a receipt that gives the file number and gives the project officer assigned to the case. So most

people—well, the people coming to the self-help office either in Tobago, San Fernando or Port of

Spain to apply, would receive a receipt.

The applications are then processed electronically. We create a database and we assign the


68

file to assist them.

10.35 a.m.

Then it is visited by a field officer and a recommendation is made. The field officer brings in an

assessment, as well as, he brings in pictures of the condition of the house. It is then assessed and

put forward for a process of approval.

Many times people are told that their files are approved, but awaiting funding. Some people

assume that “approved” means it is ready to be collected at the Self Help Commission. But we go

through the process and present it to the Board, and the Board will then say the application is

approved, the funding is not always available. So then that file may be waiting funding, and then at

the start of the financial year we often go back into, like right now we are going back into 2010 to

see the most needed cases that are still on the database since 2010, then we will deal with 2011, 2012,

2013.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jeffrey—[Interruption]

Dr. Douglas: I want to finish my line of questions, if I may, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Ok, sure. Continue.

Dr. Douglas: I am trying to clarify, because this is an issue for all of us, and you have given some

examples of when somebody applies for a grant, why? You know most people—as the Member of

Parliament, you have to give them and explanation why they are not getting their money as far as

they are concerned. So that is why I ask the question about the challenges, you know, when

somebody applies, they come to my office and they full out a form and next thing they are calling

your office and saying, “whe meh grant”, right.

So I wanted to understand for my own sake in terms of both rectifying the situation, and

even to fulfill some of the concerns of the Member, Miss Hospedales, as to what are some of the

things that are going on there. I know there are issues, the person might not own the house but

they apply.

You know there are lots of things that have to be—go on between—[Interruption]

Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes.


69

Dr. Douglas: What are some of the things that have to be clarified or challenges that you face in

order for them to finally have a cheque in their hand?

Mr. Baldeosingh: We have many cases—[Interruption]

Dr. Douglas: I just mentioned a few. Sorry, I did not mean to cut you off, but you did mention

about not having the funding or the quantity of request also to process and the capacity of staff. I

do not know if you have enough staff to deliver it? I do not think there is anything else.

Mr. Baldeosingh: On the applicants side we have applications from people who have income

generating operation on the premises. So they have a parlour. But then they declare that they are

getting $800 a month from the parlour. When we go we will see a parlour that we know. If we look

at property with income-generating operations, we do not normally issue a grant. In fact, we would

hardly ever issue a grant to a property with a parlour, barbershop and hairdressing salon. Then we

have people applying with tenant on their property saying to us, help them to improve the property

so that they could get the rents from the property. We do not intervene in cases like that as well.

We have had many cases from people who have received houses from HDC or NHA and then still

come to apply to do an addition or a renovation, and so on.

So, those are some of the cases that will not be given priority or not ever receive a grant,

unless it is the case of an emergency. If there is an emergency—sometime, about two years ago

there was—I remember some high wind between Arouca and Maloney, and so on, and there were

roofs blowing off even down in the HDC settlement. I remember we were there in Maloney that

very evening and we were able to give roofing material and some electrical repair material to a few

families there. So, we will not ignore the HDC housing because they received a house from HDC

when we know that the person now actually owns the home and have been maintaining the home

for a prolong period.

[Dr. Henry enters committee]

Mr. Chairman: Anything else? Mr. Jeffrey.

Mr. Jeffrey: Many hardware store owners in Point Fortin and indeed, I guess the La Brea

Constituency, are reluctant to do business with the National Commission for Self Help because of


70

the tardiness in the settling of payments. I say this against the background that you have to make

the three quotes at the lowest price hardware store. Very often they are not interested in accepting

an invoice from the National Commission for Self Help. I looked at your document here on page

3 and it gives a kind of partial explanation that worries me, under item 4.

“Each Project Officer is assigned a district and before invoices are paid, Officers must visit

the job site to verify that materials have been delivered and the work is completed.”

Now, I find that second part—“work is completed” is worrying. I believe that once the

items are delivered and the hardware store submits their invoices they should be paid. But if the

work has to be completed that is a worrying thing.

Mr. Baldeosingh: We have focused mainly on the grants for the minor repairs and reconstruction

and emergency grants. The paragraph here does not say specifically, but it also applies to the past,

because it is something that we have reduced tremendously. In the past when the Self Help

Commission would have intervened and put a contractor on site to do something. So when we

issue a grant for building materials, when the supplier sends us an invoice before we pay, we go on

site and look at the materials.

When we assign a contactor to complete a job, for instance, hand railings and steps in Picton,

coming down the slope, if at the end of that job we will not have inspected the delivery of materials

in that case because we would have given the contractor to do that, that job, to implement that

job—we will then visit to see that the work is completed. But for the supply of materials, I clarify

that it is only when the materials are delivered we are satisfied and we pay.

You mentioned the three quote system. The people who apply to us are low income home

owners and they often try to get the most material for the amount of money that they could get. So

they try to get from the best supplier, and as you say the best supplier may not want to do business

with the government or for the Self Help Commission.

Mr. Jeffrey: But how do we address that?

Mr. Baldeosingh: We have tried to own our systems but it is difficult to reduce payment below a

two month cycle. When the supplier receives the order sometimes they too delay in the delivery, so


71

they may add two weeks before they actually deliver material on site. The person may not be ready

for the material immediately as well. Sometimes they say, deliver some parts of the material but they

do not deliver the cement. That was a common one.

Hon. Member: Yeah.

Mr. Baldeosingh: So the hardware owner may have started to deliver but they cannot invoice us—

[Interruption]

Mr. Jeffrey: Right.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Because he has not completed—[Interruption]

Mr. Jeffrey: Good.

Mr. Baldeosingh: So when we start to add in on the supply side, time to the payment cycle and

then he invoices us, our officers must now visit—then it comes back to account. No matter what

we have tried to do at the Self Help Commission the average time remains a two months cycle.

Some of the suppliers are able to extend credit for five grants, maybe $50,000.

So the lowest supplier may say they give us five grants and they are waiting on payment.

Five grants will not all be within the same two-month cycle. So then they measure that they are

waiting on Self Help for more than two months, three months to get payment for the five grants

before they open credit again. The larger suppliers who may be able to extend more credit often

have higher prices. So the ideal cases are larger supplier who could extend more credit and give the

best prices to the applicant. We are challenged to get, always get that type of supplier.

Mr. Jeffrey: I think that one of the worrying thing is that sometimes we have a poor person who

want to access the grant, okay, and they are trying to get these three quotes, “ah rite” and they go

by x, y, z, and so on. After you do all of that you realize, listen, that last person there, if even though

he hasthe best prices and so on, “dey doh really want to do business with the National Commission

for Self Help”, so you have to go by another person. Is there a way, for example, we could get a list

of hardware stores that you think will accept invoices from the National Commission for Self Help

that those poor persons and them, they could go to and save a transportation cost in going from x,

y and z hardware stores?


72

Mr. Baldeosingh: The response to that is, we could not and we will provide the office of every

Member of Parliament with the list of suppliers that are willing to do business with us. We first

thought of it and we did not want to appear as if we are guiding the business to specific suppliers—

[Interruption]

Mr. Jeffrey: Yeah, yeah, I understand that.

Mr. Baldeosingh: We did have a symposium and we invited, may be 150 suppliers to a meeting in

Preysal in the Community Centre and we asked them to give prices for goods, for the common

materials over the next six months. The response to that was very poor because many suppliers do

not want to hold a price for six months in the construction industry. But yes we are able to provide

a list of the people, but I reiterate we do not want to appear as if we are guiding the business in a

specific direction.

Mr. Jeffrey: Yeah, yeah, I know.

Mr. Baldeosingh: The application form which is commonly called a “green form” has an attached

list of the requirements and we have removed the three quotes, we have just asked for a list of the

materials. As you quite rightly said, some people are waiting two years for a grant and after that

two-year wait the prices that they would have submitted then would not apply anymore. In realizing

that, we asked—we told them that a list of the materials alone would be accepted, so when the grant

is approved we could then call the applicant and tell them, even if your needs have changed you

could go back to the supplier.

We also wanted to discourage people from paying for a quotation to bring to us, and when

we discover that the supplier is actually charging for a quotation we try not to do business with those

suppliers. So we may tell someone do not go by a particular supplier if they have to pay. Some

people—and I do not want to say that I am aligning poverty with illiteracy, but many of our

applicants are unable to determine what are the requirements at the hardware and some of the

suppliers actually charged between $20 to $150 just to do the quotations. We have actually

discontinued doing business with several hardwares because of that.

We have discontinued with suppliers who try to send the invoice to us without delivery,


73

received the payment and then deliver the goods. And at first we encountered where the person

may have had to wait two or three weeks for the supplier to deliver but then we discovered that was

based on the credit capacity of the supplier. So we have not discontinued doing business with people

like that because we appreciate the business in—especially in the remote communities where the

supplier as I said may not be able to do more than 50,000 credits at one time.

Mr. Jeffrey: My next question is, why has the National Commission for Self Help decreased its

implementation of water and electricity projects?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Well, we—I would not say that we have decrease the implementation in terms

of refusal of projects, but we have had less applications for water and electricity. I think most people

for electricity now go to the NSDP facility in the Ministry of—I think it was in Public Utilities, it

may be in social services now for electrification projects.

For water projects as well, we have implemented since I am at the Self Help Commission in

February 2011, only two water projects where we have had applications that qualified for our

intervention. We have had several applications from land developers who are selling off land

without any approvals or water or electricity and then they come to us for a water project. If we

visit and we see a community, a densely populated community we may want to intervene, but when

we see more open land than houses we know that we are helping a developer increase the price for

their land. So we do not, we have refused water projects like that in the past.

Mr. Jeffrey: So people, poor people for example, they could still access the water and electricity

project unit?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, the water projects are projects that when we receive the application we ask

WASA for a design for the solution or else WASA will not connect to their main. When we have

that design we then partner with the community, we give them a backhoe to dig the trench and we

give them sand to fill the trench, we give them the pipe lines and the fittings but the community has

to come together and build that water supply.

So for electricity and a case that came to me yesterday, a young mother came asking for

electricity supply because she is 600 feet from the last pole. So I called T&TEC to see if I could get


74

some cooperation, and the first question asked, “Does she has ownership?” And she said, “No”,

she living on the train line there. So to get four poles from T&TEC seems like an easy task, but it

is not, it requires a survey, it requires low voltage lines—[Interruption]

Dr. Douglas: You see there is the limit. Those are the kinds of things I was asking about earlier,

because everybody seems to think that once you apply you get it—now you are raising some other

issues of land ownerships and limitation. Those are the kind of things I am trying to understand a

little clearer. I can understand exactly what your limitations are, but go ahead.

Mr. Chairman: I am just reminding Members to put on their mike when you are speaking. You

finish?

Mr. Jeffrey: First rounds.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. Mr. Small.

Mr. Small: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that you welcome the members of the

Commission. I see that we have run and delved into the operational issues pretty much because

those seem to be the hot button issues. I have some different questions to ask because I think that

I am, the submission for me did not necessarily help me in the discussion so far. I think that what

has come out, information or data that would have really help to guide the committee to formulate

some really hard questions. It was not all submitted.

I am trying to understand—I have a long list of questions, Mr. Chairman, so bear with me,

I am only going to ask two on this first page. When I looked at what the Commission is supposed

to do, nurture and develop a culture of Self Help, the only way I could measure that to understand

that is, okay, can you give me a spatial spread of where you did grants over the past five years and

where we issue grants in these areas and these are the numbers. These are the numbers applied for

in this area, these were granted.

I am struggling to understand how you achieve your mandate. I understand your operational

realities as so put forward by the CEO that you have operational difficulties, but I am taking it, just

rationate to that a bit. You have a mandate as an organization to nurture and develop a culture of

Self Help. For me to understand if you have achieved that, I need to understand where is the data,


75

where are your reports to say over the past year or the past two years, past three years, and what are

the spatial spread, not just tell me in total, I need to understand the spatial spread, to understand the

communities that you have targeted or have approached you or whatever to understand—are you

really serving the national community? I am not saying you are not, but in the absence of data and

reports I am struggling.

That is the first question. I would like to understand from the Chairman, because I think

this is really a high level question, to the extent that the organization has operational challenges.

Would you share with us, what is your view of your delivery to date on your specific mandate to the

organization, to the developed Self Help, because I am hearing about grants going out, it is lovely

and I have no problem with it. But grants is just one element of what you are supposed to be doing.

Could you summon from the Commission, help me to understand, this is what we are charged to

do and this is the extent to which we think we delivered on what we have been charged to do. Yeah.

Mr. Baldeosingh: The data and reports are available per constituency for the various types of

grants, but I do not think it was specifically requested here. Unfortunately, we responded to the

questions posed to us prior to this meeting in the letter that we were asked to respond to. So,

subsequently we were asked to present the data we are able to do so.

Mr. Chairman: We would like you to present that in writing, yes, thank you.

Mr. Baldeosingh: On the aspect of the Self Help, we have two, I will say three facilities. We have

the house grant, the minor repairs grant and we have the emergency grant. We have the community

infrastructure development grant and that is where the Self Help aspect comes in. That is where we

provide the materials and the project management and the technical expertise to various community

based organizations, faith base organizations and even unorganized community groups who come

together in an ad hoc way for a specific purpose. We provide the materials and the community

provides the labour. It applies to many of the religious organization in Trinidad and Tobago where

we are funding the improvement of many of the structures that people use. And what we look at is

the value of those structures to the community. We have police service youth clubs, sporting clubs,

pan theatres as well, we have constructed small, what we called “activity centres” for youths by the


76

community. That was not really a Self Help, but the Self Help aspect continues and we spend close

to 40 to 45 per cent of our funding on the Self Help side.

When the Self Help Commission was formed in 1987 it was primarily for partnering with

the communities. As it evolved, and in order to partner, voluntary help was needed from the

communities and as the economy grew there was less and less voluntary help available and the Self

Help Commission moved into contracting.

When in 2010 the Board, the current Board took charge of the Self Help Commission for

that following year, going into fiscal 2011 and even in fiscal year 2012, there was residual contracting

opportunities that were continued and have reduced now to, I do not want to give a percentage, but

to a minimum amount of where we put a contractor to do a Self Help project. We say to the

communities that if they have tried the Ministry of Works or the Ministry of Local Government and

they do not have a response, and they apply to us, then what is the equity that they will have to

bring?

So we have moved over the last financial year and may be some months before, we have

moved from mass contracting as happened prior to 2011 into more of where the community is

bringing equity. We have provided road materials, a backhoe and a roller and asked the community

to spread the material and we will let the roller pass on it.

The water project we just completed in Ramoutar Drive, Kelly Village in Caroni, the villagers

came out and they put their pipe together. So the Self Help aspect of it is what we find important

now and we also, based on the data we have seen, we are implementing many more community

infrastructural development projects by partnering with communities than with partnering with a

contractor and paying the contractor.

Mr. Small: Thank you for the response. I have—I will ask one more question and allow someone

else to ask. I have listened also to the discussions so far, and internally I would like to understand

when someone submits an application other than an emergency, a normal application, is there a

response period that you can tell people, let us say, listen, we have to check to make sure you are

not getting assistance from other places.


77

I think there must be somewhere within your system you should be able to say that within

90 days you will hear from us either way. Is that something that you can, because I have heard that

people have applied and I have heard that people have waited years or whatever? There must be in

my mind, there must be some system I wish to say, we have to check here to make sure you are not

earning from anywhere, you are not checking someplace else, you are not renting, you own the

property. There are several checks that we have to do internally and we think that on average within

60 to 90 days you will get a response for a particular type of grant or other type of grant.

I think it is important to have some rigor within the system not just—I understand there is

a backlog, but I think that there should be some way of saying listen under the best of circumstances

this is what we think our response time is going to be given that there are other vagaries, but I think

that needs to be in there. And as a corollary to that, I think that also when the organization is doing

these things what is the feedback loop? Is it that someone submits an application and then they just

sit and wait to hear from you or is it that you say listen you have to send up a little, your application

has been received. It is receiving attention.

I do not know, is there a loop in there because that often is a gap in a system that somebody

comes in brings something in and then they left in wonderment as to what is going on, and have to

be calling and showing up at your door whatever time calling the rep whatever. Is there some system

in there for feedback loop that says listen we have received your application and someone will write

a note and say listen, it is under consideration and it will—I think that is important. They get a

receipt, but I am saying—[Interruption]

Hon. Member: They get a receipt.

Mr. Small: I know you get a receipt but I am saying, I think a feedback loop that is different, I

understand you come and bring it and someone say we have it. You sit and three months you hear

nothing. I think that somewhere in the system there should be a loop that says a phone call or a

little note, or a memo whatever that says your application has been received, this is where it is at and

we anticipate it is going to happen.

So I think it is link to my first question, the timeline, is there a timeline that you can tell


78

people within 90 days or 120 days whatever it is given the best of circumstances this is when it is

going to happen or you would get some word and link to that how do you feed that information to

the person. I do not think a receipt is enough. A receipt is just saying we have gotten it. Yeah.

Mr. Baldeosingh: I understand and I accept what you are saying there. The receipt gives the name

of the project officer and the days in which that person is in office. The visit to the person is made

within a three-month period depending on the volume of applications. For instance, we may have

on a population density we may have less applications coming out of Cumuto/Manzanilla or

Toco/Sangre Grande and the officer may be able to visit in a shorter time period than the

applications coming out in Port of Spain South, more densely populated area.

So the turnaround time depends on the workload of the officer, but within 90 days the

person is visited, they know who is the officer, they know the days the person is in office and it is

our experience that the applicant contacts the officer. They come in on that specific day, they meet

the officer or they call that officer. I know that we could improve it by sending some

correspondence to the applicant but we refrain from building hope in the minds of the applicant

when we do not have the funding.

11.05 a.m.

I met a system where, for the CID grants, where if the grant was approved for $319,000, a

letter was sent to the community saying that it was approved for $319,000, and years after the people

keep coming back. They spent $200,000; they want the balance and so on, when we may not even

have funding for something that was approved in 2007 or way back when. If we send a letter to

the person who applies for the house committing ourselves further and we do not have the funding,

we are building up in the minds of the people that it is near ready.

So based on what you are saying, we will hold internal discussions and see how we could

improve the communication and, hopefully, by airing what we are airing this morning, if we ever are

able to take the funding up to where we could issue a grant to every one of the 5,000-plus people

who are on our database waiting for a grant, then the turnaround time would be faster as well as the

response would be better.


79

Mr. Small: Thank you. I just wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I want to put on record, for me, I

think it is important—I think that the National Commission for Self-Help could play a more

significant role, and for me, I think it is woefully underfunded and under-resourced. I think that

because we have so many societal challenges here and that the Commission is a community building

tool that could go into communities and get people together to do things, I was really amazed at

what the number of the budget is, given the scale of expenditure and other things.

I am concerned that—I think that I want to record that I think it is woefully underfunded

and under-resourced and I think that it has a lot of potential to do good at a community level, which

is where we have all sorts of challenges across the country, in various parts of the country, and I

know the guys—I am not pounding the guys, but I think that needs to be said. We have some

operational challenges. I am understanding better those challenges and I still think there are things

you can do to improve as you go along, but I think also that there needs to be some recognition out

of this that there needs to be some way to try to resource the organization. I have some other

questions but I will refrain and pass on.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, Miss Hospedales. First, let us welcome Sen. Lester Henry who has joined us.

Miss Hospedales: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to, at the end of this session, leave this

meeting with a little bit of hope. I listened to Mr. Mangaroo in terms of the time frame within which

a field officer is to visit an applicant, someone who would have applied for the grant, and, Sir, you

know, I do not know if you all—one of the questions I would like to ask: do you all have a system

of monitoring or evaluation, of holding these field officers to account? Because I am aware, again,

of people who have applied approximately five years and have never received a visit from a field

officer.

There has to be some kind of system in place to ensure that those officers who are to review these

people’s applications are held to account and called to report on these field visits. Something has

to be done.

Mr. Baldeosingh: One of the challenges that we faced and we did not air here earlier this morning,

is that when we looked at the backlog of grants prior to January 2010, and we started to ask field


80

officers to visit, we realized in a large amount of the cases, the circumstances had changed. People’s

children, during the five years that they are waiting, may have graduated and they are now able to

repair the house, or the house had been repaired, or the people had moved on, and we sent out

correspondence—and I know the correspondence was directed to every Member of Parliament—

to say that grant applications that were submitted before January 2010, that the applicant was asked

to reapply and resubmit information.

So we do not go back—and we have the signs up in the offices and so on. But we do not

go back to the dated ones, because there were too many and because the circumstances had changed,

it required a revisit. So we were being burdened to revisit in excess of 1,500 applications when we

made that decision. So we said that if people reapply, they give us new information that we are able

to now visit and process, and that is where we focus January 2010 onwards.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. I would just like to ask, you said you do projects in Tobago. Is it that you

have an office in Tobago to receive applications?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, we do.

Mr. Chairman: And what liaising takes place with the Tobago House of Assembly, in particular

the Division of Social Services, which I am aware does give similar grants to persons?

Mr. Baldeosingh: We do not have a formal arrangement for the house grants in Tobago. The

applications go to the Self-Help Commission’s office and it goes through the process that is

described and it gets approval and we issue the grant. We have had public grant distribution

ceremonies in Tobago and we invite the members of the THA, the Chief Secretary and his

councilmen to the distributions. But the distributions come in general from people in Tobago.

The share of information with the Division of Social Services at the THA or in Trinidad

with the HDC which has a house grant, the Ministry of Social Services here, is not formalized. I am

aware that in the Ministry of Legal Affairs a central database was being looked at from the consumer

division, and we believe that it will be a useful tool if implemented, so that we could be informed if

the person is receiving a grant from another state agency.

Mr. Chairman: So are you saying that there are persons who may be receiving grants from the


81

THA as well as from your agency?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Mr. Chairman, the people that we deal with, that receive our grants, the

condition in which they live, $15,000 maximum from us and $15,000 from THA or the Ministry of

Social Development here, or the HDC, often is not sufficient to provide a solution. So whereas we

would appreciate if we have the information or if we could share the information on the database,

we have encountered cases where people would have received a grant before and they built one

room and they have eight children in one room with an outhouse, and we cannot say because they

received a grant from another agency that we will deny them. So we do it on a case basis.

But to answer your question, we do not have official information exchange with the other agencies.

Mr. Chairman: One other question I would like to ask is: do you know what was the—and maybe

from the Ministry of Local Government—if there is a reason for transferring the National

Commission for Self-Help from the Ministry of the Community Development to the Ministry of

Local Government?

Ms. Mooleedhar: I am actually not aware why it was transferred but we have a number of other

special purpose companies which do similar work. So it might be because of the type of work that

is done—the infrastructure-type work—that they thought it might have been a better fit. As well as

the municipal corporations fall under the Ministry of Local Government so it might have just made

sense because of the way we are organized with the corporations, being able to liaise with Self-Help

in that way. So I think that might be it, but that is just speculation on my part.

Mr. Chairman: And have things improved since the transfer?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Mr. Chairman, since our focus is on a social service, our outreach had been

better at the Ministry of Community Development because of the structure of community

development officers discovering cases for intervention as well, and because of the interest of the

Community Development Ministry, or even if it happens to be the social development Ministry.

The Self-Help Commission had found a better fit in Community Development as opposed to

infrastructure development.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. Miss Hospedales?


82

Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair, I did not get a response to the question that I had asked earlier

concerning whether or not there are monitoring evaluation procedures in place for the field officers,

and whether they are held to account, particularly where the field visits are concerned. I know Mr.

Mangaroo gave us a historical overview of persons who applied five years, et cetera, and why they

have not been given a response because they had to reapply. But there are still—and as I said, you

know, I am sitting here and I really have not gotten a glimmer of hope, because there are so many

numerous, numerous, numerous individuals who would have applied over the last two years, three

years, maximum, and have not gotten a response to date, not even a visit. So I am asking: do you

all have a system of monitoring and evaluation? Do you all hold these field officers to account?

How many visits are they required to do on a weekly basis, in terms of submitting the assessments

for those visits, et cetera?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, there is a system. The senior project officer who manages the field officers

goes through a system of allocating projects for visit, and a time frame for feedback. The response

cycle would be—the percentage of people visited would always be a function of how many people

have applied, and the workload from the project officer. Sometimes because of our funding

situation we may have one field officer for two constituencies; we have one project officer for three

constituencies at times.

Currently the person who serves La Horquetta/Talparo also serves St. Augustine and Chaguanas

East. So when we look at the density of the constituency, we try to align our resources. Our

recurrent expenditure requests for the past three years have been $17 million to $18 million, and we

have received $9.3 million, $10.4 million and $10.5 million as recurrent expenses.

We are strapped in order to furnish officers with an occasional use of a rough terrain vehicle

when they have to access rough terrain. We are challenged to give the officer good handheld

electronic communication that they could communicate with the database at Self-Help and give a

response on the field. We are challenged by the volume of people waiting on the system, as you say,

but yet our senior manager allocates and measures the amount of people waiting, the applications,

and sends it out. But it is not that we have a dedicated project officer for every constituency, or two


83

officers per constituency.

In addition to visiting the applicant to assess the house the officer also has another set of

visits to determine when the material is delivered. So to solve the problem and to address the

dilemma that you described, if our recurrent expenditure is improved and we are able to hire more

field personnel, or providing rough terrain vehicles, or better communication, we could become

more efficient.

Miss Hospedales: Chair, is it possible that we can get from the Commission an organizational

structure and if within the structure you can identify where the vacancies are—significant vacancies

as well.

Mr. Baldeosingh: The establishment for the Self-Help Commission, unfortunately, dated back to

1997. When I became the CEO and I looked at what was approved at the Self-Help Commission,

it was an org. chart from 1997. So although I met 54 employees on a chart that approved less than

40 employees at the time, I met 54 employees. We have had to supplement our staff requirements

by using OJTs as well, because we are not funded to hire new staff to expand.

We have had our organizational chart as a proposal, firstly, at the Ministry of Community

Development and then at the Ministry of Local Government, eventually now approved by PMCD,

and that chart provides for an establishment of 96 persons. We expect that we would have that

official from the Ministry of Public Administration to take to Cabinet before the end of this calendar

year and, hopefully, we could present it at the mid-term review and hope to implement for the new

staffing requirements.

Mr. Small: Mr. Chair, I just want to go along the same path that Member Hospedales has been

going along. Do you have a budget in mind—a number in mind—that will allow you to clear the

backlog in the system and to sustain from you a higher rate of applications going forward? You may

not have it now but I wish to suggest that this is something that—you may surprise me; you may

already have that, but I think that as part of going forward—because I am very much focused on

going forward—the Commission should have those numbers in mind.

I am happy to hear PMCD has approved your structure. That raised another issue,


84

accommodation. I am not sure what your accommodation situation is. That raises a whole separate

issue, with accommodation and provisions and things for probably increasing your staff by 50 per

cent from what it is now. So that there are other issues that follow through that, but I am happy

that you have an approved structure.

What I am getting at also is, in terms of your forward planning I needed to understand from

you your forward planning. Yes, you have your structure. What are your plans in terms of what

you are requesting, you need to include for everything going forward, because I think it is not

sustainable to continue having X thousand applications pending, and I am vigorously against finding

a cut-off date and telling people to reapply. I am vigorously against that. I think there must be some

way to try to treat with it, and the way to treat with it is to get the resources to treat with it. There

is no way within your current resource base that you could manage it. So I accept that.

One other thing—and forgive me, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to appear as if I am

rambling. I think also in the data package that you are supplying to the Committee, I would like to

understand, however you structure it, I want to be able to say I can see the applications, dates, site

visit, ticked off; external agency checks, tick. So I would like to understand where applications are.

So that you receive 5,000—you have 5,000 in backlog—how many of those have had site visits, and

you can say, listen, 3,900 have site visits done, and then external agency checks to make sure that

everything is kosher with the external agencies.

I would like to make sure that there is some structure to the information you are supplying

that helps us to understand where those are. So it is a number, but within that number, things are

at various places, and without understanding where those things are, we may not be able to craft the

kind of recommendations that we need to craft. So that that is just, for me, a suggestion to the

members of the Commission.

Mr. Chairman: Just to supplement that, what I would also like to know is, is there a specific tool

that is used to monitor the activities of the field officer?

Mr. Baldeosingh: I would like to answer the more attractive question about the required funding.

In July 2011, when we prepared a Cabinet Note asking for funding to increase the house repair grant


85

from $10,000 to a maximum of $15,000 and to establish the emergency grant to a maximum of

$25,000, we then submitted that in order to implement and to service the backlog—not just the

backlog, but the 1,500-odd new applications that come in every year—that the requirement then

was $80 million on the IDF side and $18 million on the recurrent expenses side. In fiscal 2013 we

received $40 million, and in this financial year we are allocated $60 million. So we are not there yet,

but this year we forecast that we would move, as I say, towards issuing 2,000 of the house grants

and the emergency grants as necessary.

The mechanism for monitoring the activity on the field is really done based on an output

basis where the senior project officer is able to measure how many field visits are being done on the

person’s field day, and what is the quality of the information coming back in. But really to monitor

the field activity we would prefer the use of electronic resources. We would prefer that when we

expect someone to be in Matelot doing a field visit, that they submit their information from the

field, so it would be logged at the same time, and that we would not have to question whether they

were in Matelot, whether they done the job or not.

But apart from in the sales environment where a field salesman is still dependent on salaries

on commission, in a service organization such as ours, the field officer knows that his output does

not contribute to whether or not he gets his salary. But if we measure it against performance and

performance measurement and appraisals, then we are better able to extract the level of performance

that we require from the officers. But in order to do so, we should not be paying our field officers

$4,000 less than the Ministry of Social Development, or the Sugar Welfare Company. We should

not have field officers using their own vehicles and receiving a $2,000 travel allowance which cannot

even pay the installment on the vehicle.

We must be able to give the field officer a telephone grant in excess of $86.25—telephone

allowance—or in some cases, $200. Because when they are out on the field and they reach their

$200 they estimated, they stop calling us. We are unable to say, pay $300. We are unable to say that

we have set up a facility for a loan to purchase a car. We are unable to say, as I said, even to provide

a rough terrain vehicle for a project that is happening in Moruga or Matelot or Mayaro.


86

So in order to extract the desired level of performance that would bring satisfaction to all

stakeholders, the Self-Help Commission has to be also funded and we also have to continue to show

that we could be trusted to execute on behalf of the State, if given the resources. So it is not that

we sit and wait and say we want funding; we are saying we are performing to near best that we could

do under the current circumstances.

For instance, the tracking of the forms and the grants is soon to be done on a bar coding

system. The funding for the bar coding system only came in fiscal 2014, so now we are able to say,

develop and implement a bar coding system. So that as the forms move through the system, the

bar coding scanners will track who has it, where it is at and what stage is it at. So some of the

improvements are low cost, such as bar coding, but in order to implement the bar coding system

for about $20,000, we must convert from Excel to Access, which requires training of staff as well.

So it is a bit prolonged, but we are moving there. I am just giving you an example of what we are

trying to do with the limited funding.

Miss Hospedales: I just want to ask about the low-cost housing grant. We heard about the number

of other grants but we did not hear about this one, which was approved, according to your notes,

in April of this—

Mr. Baldeosingh: The low-cost housing grants had been approved for the construction of 100

houses via a Cabinet Note. The Minister of Local Government distributed letters of invitation to

every Member of Parliament inviting them to send to us for two houses in every constituency. The

letter said that the response should be sent to the CEO of the Self-Help, and I have had the

responses from several MPs with the letter of invitation attached. So it is evident to me that the

letter went out to those who responded, and we have constructed the low-cost housing. The

low-cost housing is really for people who, if we give material for improving the household, they are

unable to do so.

Dr. Henry: Good morning to the panel; good morning to everyone. I was just wondering if you

have any information, or how are you audited? Is it just the Auditor General? Or how is your

organization monitored in any way? Do you get an independent audit or is it from a State agency?


87

Ms. Nandee: Yes. The Commission was given approval to recruit an external auditor. The

previous external auditor operated for over 10 years and only for the audit of 2012 we recruited new

auditors, and all the accounts have been audited up to—the final audit of 2012 should be signed off

maybe in a week or two. But all the accounts are audited to date.

Dr. Henry: Okay. And there is not any problems that they flagged that you could share with is;

any major issues?

Ms. Nandee: Well, the final management letter has not been signed off yet for the last audit, so as

soon as it is available it will be forwarded to Parliament on request.

Dr. Henry: On a different note, I see that in the document you submitted you said that you were

operating at 2006 level of salaries. How is that being addressed?

Mr. Baldeosingh: As I said before, we have been asking for $18 million over the last three fiscal

years in order to implement salary increases. We were unable to obtain such increases and we know

it is because we did not have the approved establishment and organizational chart as well. That

contributed to it. On our end, we have now—as I said, PMCD has approved the org. chart and we

could perhaps approach the mid-term review—approach the Ministry of Finance at the mid-term

review for funding to increase salaries. But it is a challenge that the last increase was in 2006.

Dr. Henry: Kind of along the same lines: what process did you go about in order to say, well you

want to go from 54 employees to 96? I think it is 96 you are requesting?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes. We looked at the volume of transactions it takes for the average number

of grants, so that we determine in the clerical staff, based on—and PMCD required it as well—the

number of transactions each department had averaged a number of transactions, and we approached

it from that; and for the field officers, the volume of applications and the cycle time for dealing with

applications. We do not want to return to PMCD within a five-year period so we forecasted for

three to five years what we believe would be needed at the Self-Help Commission.

Dr. Henry: On a slightly different note, some of the requirements that you are supposed to take

into consideration when you give these grants are like—I saw there that the person is supposed to

have a freehold property and all that sort of thing. How do you check those things? Or do you find


88

yourself running into problems where you might be providing help to people who are squatting?

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Self Help Commission requires the land tax receipt, a copy of the deed or the

Certificate of Comfort. In the absence of that, especially like in Tobago where land is handed down

without a deed, we accept a sworn affidavit from the person saying that they are living there

unencumbered for a period of years. Because it is low income applicants, we get many applications

from people who do not have land tenure. We have people who are squatting, who apply and we

cannot issue a grant because the State may be issuing building material one week and breaking the

house the following week. We have intervened—

Dr. Henry: Did you ever have any incidence like that?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Where we constructed a house and it was demolished?

Dr. Henry: Yes. Or helping somebody and it turns out that they are—

Mr. Baldeosingh: No! We were about to construct a house for an 87-year-old lady in Tobago

who is still occupying lands since 1962. After Flora she said she went to live there. We had a big

ceremony because we had the business community coming forward to contribute with us, to partner

with us to build the house, and before we started we received correspondence from an attorney

saying that there is a dispute over the land ownership. So we had not started that project. The lady

remained on the land. They have not been able to move her, but we are unable to improve her

home.

Sometimes there is the compassionate side of wanting to adhere to procedure, but we have had

squatters who—I remember there was a lady, who apparently has HIV and some of her children as

well. Her house was demolished in some sort of freak accident and she and her eight children were

sleeping under trees and so on. We had to say whether she is a squatter or she is a person with eight

little children who are already ill, and we have had to intervene in a case like that. So there are some

incidences where we have to make a compassionate decision.

Dr. Henry: But in cases like that, I know there has to be a toss-up between whether you send the

person to a different agency to deal with that type of situation, or you say, “Well listen, this is not


89

really our mandate, but we are still going to do it any way.”

Mr. Baldeosingh: At risk we would have had to do that. I am saying, when we look especially at

that case I am talking about, we could not say the community was coming together and they were

not building a concrete structure or anything. They were putting back up a wooden pile to make an

enclosure and a roof for the person. So a compassionate decision is in that case. But where we are

aware of squatters building concrete structures and needing help from the Self Help Commission,

we have not responded.

Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Miss Hospedales: I just need to get clarity on something. You mentioned that communities can

apply to the Commission for community infrastructure development projects. How do you all

determine which community would actually receive such a grant? Because there are some

communities that may be what you would call middle and upper middle, but their roads are not

being maintained. In an instance like that, do you all go in, do an assessment, determine whether or

not you can assist; or would you just eliminate that particular community based on their geographic

location?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Because we want to partner with communities that would put out sweat equity,

many of the high and middle income communities will not partner with us because they will not put

the sweat equity. We focused on the low income communities because of the conditions of the

people living in low income communities. We are speaking of communities with earthen drains,

with mosquitoes, and other bacteria causing illness to small children, where we will want to put a

box drain in.

We may want to help pave a road that was once a squatting community or a land settlement area,

but to get that community to partner, the community must be able to come out on that Saturday

morning and help spread the dirt, the road material and so on. Most times the applications for the

self-help come from the low income communities as opposed to middle income or high income.

Miss Hospedales: Sir, I am aware of—I am sure you will get the application of a middle income


90

community that really needs intervention and they are willing to provide the labour.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Definitely.

Dr. Henry: Very good.

Mr. Chairman: One question. Now you mentioned that there is a backlog of applicants for grants,

is there a situation where you have hardware stores that have provided material that have not been

paid outside of the two months period of time? And if so, what sort of money are we talking about?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Yes, we do have claims coming forward from years before. In several instances,

not supported by a purchase order from the Self Help Commission are sometimes very difficult to

determine. Where we have—and this is prior to the October 2010 when the board was appointed

and prior when I came on as CEO. We have had instances of suppliers being asked to deliver

material on a verbal order. But then nothing was put in place in order to regularize that application,

or to issue a purchase order, or issue an approval. So we have suppliers with claims where they have

the invoice—they sent in an invoice.

We have been listed on Credit Chex from a supplier who sent in a claim to us for material he says

he delivered but he does not have a purchase order from us. We are saying to them: if the Self Help

Commission did not issue a purchase order, then why are we being asked to pay? But we also have

invoices from suppliers and we have supporting evidence from qualified applicants that they

received materials, and we are making all efforts in order to pay suppliers. But not all of our dated

invoices and our payables emanate from lack of procedural evidence. We actually also have a

backlog of—how much money, Ms. Nandee? About $200,000?—maybe about $200,000 from years

gone by that we are still dealing with, trying to determine where was the file, is there a file, is there

an approval, was there a purchase order, why was this issued without any procedure. But yet, we do

not want to deny the supplier if the goods have in fact been delivered.

Our internal audit committee of the board is currently reviewing 12 cases that were submitted by

the CEO to the board and asking: could we just pay these people because it is from 2005 to 2009

that these 12 purchase orders are being owed for? There was no procedure, but we have looked at

it and we have seen that people actually received material. So it is a dilemma that we face and the


91

board is responding to it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Jeffrey, you have some questions?

Mr. Jeffrey: I appreciate the increase from $10,000 to $15,000 under the minor repair grant—and

it went to $15,000. Now, I recognized that the emergency repairs and reconstruction grant is

$25,000. I am trying to find out what is the rationale of limiting the minor repair grant to $15,000

but the emergency grant to $25,000. Because I could tell you in my own La Brea constituency right

now, it “ha” no earthquake, no nothing right now, but right now in that whole [Inaudible] I got that

$25,000 very easily. What is the rationale?

Mr. Baldeosingh: The minor repairs grant which people call the house grant was at $10,000, and

in the Cabinet Note where we established we wanted $80 million, we asked to take it to $15,000.

We have never been funded to take it up to $15,000 as the standard. Yet, what we tried to do at

that time was to match what was being issued by the other agencies, which was $15,000. So that

was your minor repairs grant. The emergency grant is up to $25,000 but hardly ever issued for that

amount, because it someone’s house is damaged in a windstorm, for instance, they will not normally

need $25,000 to repair the galvanize. So we look at that on a needs basis, what is damaged, how

could we help repair.

Sometimes the entire home is damaged—and I am saying this about applicants that come

to us. Sometimes their entire home is not valued at $15,000. If we give them $15,000 or $18,000

they build better than what they were living in as well. So we set it at $25,000 to accommodate when

somebody house is completely destroyed.

Dr. Henry: Fire victims.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Well the fire victims. Especially fire victims and we have had landslip victims

where the entire house was pulled down.

Mr. Jeffrey: “I ent too comfortable with that, eh.” I think that $15,000—I guess you may have a

funding problem to really find out if $25,000—but I could tell you we have some dire cases which

will swallow that $25,000 very easily in my La Brea constituency.

The second question I would like to ask is that this low cost housing grant. I understand


92

from Mr. Baldeosingh where you mentioned about the two houses per constituency, right—I know

about that—but as it is stated in the document here, I got the impression that $75,000 is available

for low cost housing and so on, and then $45,000 in the case of labour constraints. But hearing

about this two houses per constituency, I remember when I came up it was “ah” kind of rush thing.

Okay? But now, for example, if, for example, I have somebody in my constituency who want to

access this $75,000, what is the situation?

Mr. Baldeosingh: It was a one-off approval to build 100 of those houses, and in constructing the

Cabinet Note to get the approval I wrote it as $75,000 in materials and $45,000 in labour. So, we

were actually issuing a purchase order for $110,000 to someone to build that house. It was a tight

fit for a contractor to deliver a home at $110,000. If we have to return to that programme, we would

have to ask now for $125,000. So it was not a grant of $75,000 for material available outside of the

programme. But within the programme, we had valued the material at $75,000 and the labour at

$45,000.

When I wrote the draft Cabinet Note to be sent to the Ministry of Local Government, the

intention and the idea had been that there may be people coming forward and say they could provide

their own labour. We were appealing to CBOs and the NGOs. If they will provide the labour, then

we know the commitment from Self Help will only be $75,000 and we could perhaps do more with

our allocation that way. So we had broken it out that way, but it was never implemented that way.

Mr. Jeffrey: I want to come back to the community projects. Hot mix is not available under the

Self Help Programme?

Mr. Baldeosingh: If we see the need to do a road with hot mix and we contract it out with hot

mix, yes. But to give hot mix to a community organization to implement a road construction is not

always as straightforward as it appears. In that, it will require specific skill to use the hot mix. The

cold mix is very easy to use. We give the crusher run the gravel; the community spreads it; we roll

it; we send a roller; the community puts the tar onto it; then they spread the oil sands; we often give

a backhoe, a frontend loader to help spread it; and then it is rolled. So a community could come

out and implement a project like that. But to give a community hot mix to build a road, may not be


93

an easy task.

Mr. Jeffrey: Are you willing to give a commitment—that the $120,000—that you are writing up a

next Cabinet Note for an increase?

Mr. Baldeosingh: I would also like to say that although we went—we received an allocation of

$40 million for fiscal 2013. We were then transferred as of that financial year to the Ministry of

Local Government and we were asked to implement the project. So we prepared the Cabinet Note.

We got approval and the intention had been to get $12 million in the mid-term review which we did

not get in the mid-term review. Therefore, we were finding this additional $12 million out of $40

million.

So, yes, we implemented the project, and I want to say that the contractors initially got

$100,000 to build the houses. When they were struggling we went to $110,000, and then $115,000.

We have not had the funding to even reach $120,000 yet. But if we were returning to this

programme and asking for funding for it, we would be asking for $125,000.

Mr. Jeffrey: My final question has to do with sub-offices.

Mr. Baldeosingh: Before you ask the question could I just say though, at the board meeting held

on November 06, I was instructed by the board to prepare a Cabinet Note to seek approval for

continuing the low cost housing programme.

Mr. Jeffrey: What is that?

Mr. Baldeosingh: I was asked to prepare a draft Cabinet Note to ask for approval to continue the

low cost housing programme.

Mr. Jeffrey: Okay. Right! Good!

Mr. Baldeosingh: The board has directed it already.

Mr. Jeffrey: Okay. Very good! My last question has to do with the sub-offices. I am talking about

the south-western peninsula. You know, we have to come to San Fernando to drop in your forms

and so on. People from Icacos and so on—I mean, that is a tall order and I was wondering whether

or not a sub-office could not be established maybe in the Point Fortin area to facilitate poor people

in that area.


94

Ms. Basdeo: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty as we have already highlighted is with funding. In order

to facilitate other persons who live at a greater distance, we have requested the assistance from the

parliamentary officers—from the MPs—and the forms can be dropped at the MPs office and then

to our office where we would facilitate them. So that is how we have broached that particular

subject.

Mr. Mangaroo: And through you, Mr. Chairman, I myself, I traverse all 41 constituencies as far as

possible. So to take care of that shortcoming of not having the sub-offices and so, I visit the

constituency offices as well, seeing members of the public and that do help quite a bit.

Miss Hospedales: Mr. Chair, it was just to get a little bit of clarity regarding the communities that

can apply for the community infrastructural development programmes. Is that the blue form that

they have to submit the application on?

Mr. Mangaroo: Yes.

Miss Hospedales: I just needed to get clarity.

Mr. Mangaroo: Yes, it is the blue form. Yes. We have identified the green is the MRG and the

blue is the CID forms.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I have one final question. I am sorry to be coming back to it. I know you

had pointed out the challenges that the field officers have in terms of remuneration, vehicle and so

on, but is there a specific monitoring tool that is used to determine what is done, or you should rely

on the field officers bringing back information that you send them out to collect? Is it an ad hoc

arrangement or do you have a specific method by which the activities of the field officers are

monitored?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Based on what I have said before, we depend on the output. The audit

procedure, internally, provides a check as to whether the field officer was actually there and whether

the recipient is satisfied with the response from the Self Help Commission.

Mr. Chairman: So there is, for example, a questionnaire that each recipient is asked to fulfil to say,

okay, what they expected it was achieved, were they happy with it, something along that line?

Mr. Baldeosingh: No, currently—and again we return to the resources and the allocations, but


95

currently it is the internal auditor making a phone call and, if not satisfied, making a field visit.

Output from the project officer is what we measure on now and the internal audit is the—the Self

Help Commission operates with one internal auditor; and one OJT is assigned to internal auditor.

So—

Mr. Chairman: Sorry. This is for Trinidad and Tobago, or just Trinidad?

Mr. Baldeosingh: Trinidad and Tobago. So based on what we could do with such level of staffing,

is to make phone calls and occasional field visits. The internal audit also depends on the actual

pictures of the evidence of work done as well.

Mr. Chairman: Well if there are no other questions, I would like to thank you for appearing. Is

there anything else that you or anyone of your team would like to say that you have not covered, or

anything you will want to reinforce? Any final comments?

Mr. Mangaroo: I do not think any member has anything else to say.

Mr. Chairman: Any final plea? [Laughter]

Mr. Baldeosingh: Chairman, in examples of the community projects, Miss Hospedales—I know

that we actually had applications from within your constituency in the Maloney housing, and if we

find it is the responsibility of the HDC—remember, the footpaths connecting the buildings came

in as something that the community wanted us to contract and build. It is not that they wanted to

build for themselves.

So a project like that we said it seems to be the HDC’s responsibility. But the pedestrian

crossover outside—I think it is Building 5 from the highway—is something we know that the

community cannot build and we know it was necessary for the community to move from the

highway into the HDC compound. So we were able to contract that one. So those are examples of

how we look at—because I know a large part of your constituency has actually HDC or former

HDC structures, but where we intervened is on the outside to cross the drain from the highway into

the housing. But the footpaths that they were asking us to actually contract out we felt that that was

the responsibility of the HDC.

Mr. Mangaroo: In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to


96

better understand the operations of the National Commission for Self Help and thanks once again

for the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. I would like on behalf of the committee, thank you for appearing and we

will be sending to you in writing request for additional information that was raised during the session.

I would also like to thank the media for appearing and the members of public for looking on.

This meeting is now suspended while we, the members, go to another area. Thank you.

11.58 a.m.: Meeting suspended.


97

APPENDIX IV

CURRENT NCSHL ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

98

99

APPENDIX V PROPOSED REVISED


100

101

APPENDIX VI DETAILS OF PROPOSED



102

TABLE 3

Seven (7) New Divisions

New Divisions

Functions

1 Internal Audit To conducts audits of all systems, procedures and processes undertaken by the NCSHL. This Division will be managed by an Internal Auditor with the support of two (2) Auditing Assistants.

2 Legal Services To provide legal services and interpret legislation for the Board and Senior Management of the NCSHL. This Division is to be managed by a Corporate Secretary and is further strengthened by the addition of one Paralegal Assistant.

3 Procurement To ensure that the Company’s purchasing and contracting activities are such that all required equipment, tools, materials, goods and services, including consultancy services are procured at the best possible prices and quality. This Division will be managed by the Procurement Manager with the support of a Procurement Officer and two Assistant Buyers. The positions of Driver and Officer Attendant and IT Technician will be streamlined from the Executive Secretary to the Procurement Manager.

4 Finance To oversee the Commission’s overall accounting system and operations, to ensure that appropriate accounting records are kept and monthly financial statement are prepared accurately. The Project Accounts Division will be renamed Finance.

5 Human Resource Management

Undertakes all human resource management functions in the NCSHL.

6 Communications To plan and implement public relations programmes and projects designed to favorably publicize the Commission. The Public Relations function will be replaced by the Communications Division.

7 Project Management To plan and coordinate the analysis and evaluation of project requests to determine suitability for assistance, to ensure that all approved self-help projects are effectively monitored and reported on during execution. The Project Management division will be renamed the Programme Management Division

Details of Functions of the Units at the National Commission for Self Help Limited


103

1. INTERNAL AUDIT The role of the Internal Audit Unit is to conduct periodic audits to ensure that all policies,

systems and procedures are being effectively implemented and adhered to. The Internal

Auditor is responsible for reviewing hundreds of project files on a daily basis and visiting

project sites to ensure that there is compliance.

2. LEGAL The Company does not have an internal Legal Unit; therefore, Legal services are sourced

externally. The purpose of this unit is to provide in-house counsel on industrial relations,

environmental matters, regulatory issues, contracts and litigation. Currently, legal services are

outsourced at an average of $100,000 per year.

3. PROCUREMENT The following functions are undertaken by the Procurement Unit:

a. Purchasing of goods and services of the best quality and at suitable prices b. Supply Chain Management c. Contractor Prequalification d. Supervision of Procurement Staff e. Facility Management f. Vehicle Maintenance g. Supervision of Drivers h. Supervision of Office Attendants

4. FINANCE The Accounts Unit comprises two sections, one section deals with MMRGs, DPs, and

ERRAGs and the other deals with Community Centers. The following functions are

undertaken by the Accounts Units:

a. Purchase Orders for Development Programmes

Prepares and updates disbursement records for project files

Files copy of purchase orders

Updates disbursement records for cancelled purchase orders. b. Purchase Orders for Recurrent Expenditure

Enters on Peachtree

Files copy of purchase orders c. Recurrent and Development Expenditure

Checks for accuracy of invoices

Prepares payment vouchers

Issues cheques


104

Releases cheque to payee d. Salary Processing

Maintains increases and deduction records on Peachtree

Prepare and Review employees’ payroll

Prepare detailed listing for bank remittances and salary deductions

Issues cheques to banks or other beneficiaries

Remits P.A.Y.E., Health Surcharge, NIS Insurance and Credit Union payments e. Bank Reconciliation

Compare returned cheques to bank statement

Compare bank statement to general ledger

Update bank reconciliation statement

Prepares and posts journal for bank charges

Liaises with bank to have errors corrected

f. Cumulative Development Programme Performance Reports

Updates information for each type of payment made

Prepares summary report of payments by project type, current month expenditure and expenditure for the previous months of the current financial year

g. Monthly development Programme Expenditure Report

Updates information for each type of payment made h. Suppliers Queries

Reviews and Records suppliers’ statements

Reviews outstanding bills i. Outstanding Invoices

Updates information under each project type according to invoices received and payments made

j. Prepares for Audit of Financial Statements

Reconciles the Group Health Insurance Account

Reconciles the Accounts Payables Account

Reconciles Accounts Receivable Account k. Funding

Prepares a listing of new projects by type to support request for funds

Completes bank deposit slip and source of funds document for bank upon receipt of funds

Updates Register upon receipt of funds l. Reports


105

Monthly status reports of the performance of the Infrastructure Development Programme

Quarterly request for Funds under Recurrent Expenditure and Infrastructural Development Fund with supporting documents

Annual preparation of draft estimates under Recurrent Expenditure and Infrastructural Development Fund

Semi-annual reports on the Social Sector Investment Progress for the Ministry of the People and Social Development

Responds to ad hoc request from line Ministry and Ministry of Finance

Monthly Cash flow Reports for the Ministry of Finance

Quarterly Financial Reports for the Ministry of Finance

Distributed Audited Financial Reports Annually to the Ministry of Finance

5. HR The following functions are undertaken by the HR unit:

a. Performance Appraisal review and Processing b. Recruitment c. Training and Development d. Personnel data entry and records maintenance e. Policy Development f. Employee Benefits (Health Care Insurance, Life Insurance and Workmen’s

Compensation)

6. COMMUNICATIONS The following functions fall under the Communications Unit:

a. Management of the office of the Chairman (appointments, meetings, follow up on projects, responds to Members of Parliament and Regional Corporations).

b. Preparation of speeches, notes and briefs for the Chairman c. Arrangements for all Board and Approval Meetings d. Company brochures and tokens e. Staff uniforms f. Press releases and all media related functions g. Company’s website h. Management of Customer Complaints i. Management of projects which have not been recommended for funding.


106

The following activities were undertaken by the Communications Unit for the year 2012:

a. Commissioning of the Hydroponic Project in Cedros b. Opening of the road project of Edoo Trace, Ben Lomond c. Commissioning of the Flush Toilets Project in Granville d. Opening of the pedestrian bridge at Beetham Gardens e. Distribution of Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRGs) in Tobago f. Distribution of Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRGs) at the South

Regional Office g. 25th Anniversary Interfaith Service h. 25th Anniversary Gala and Awards Ceremony i. Distribution of Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRGs) to fire victims at

Point Cumana j. Ministry of the People Direct Impact Outreach Programme in La Horquetta / Talparo k. Ministry of Community Development Outreach Programme in Caigual l. Community Development Fund (CDF) Community Outreach Programme at the

Preysal Community Centre m. Community Outreach Programme at Macoya Health Centre n. Retreat for Board Members in Tobago o. Training Seminar for staff of all MPs offices p. Meeting of all NCSHL’s Contractors and Suppliers q. Meeting with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) r. Staff Seminar s. Christmas Luncheon for Staff

7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT The Project Management oversees the implementation of the following projects:

a. Minor Repair and Reconstruction Grants (MRRG) b. Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Assistance Grants (ERRAG) c. Development Programmes (DP) d. Community Centers e. Activity Centers f. Starter Houses


107

TABLE 4

Twenty (20) New Positions

Position / Title Function

1 Internal Auditor To conduct periodic audits to ensure that all policies, systems and procedures are being effectively implemented and adhered to.

2 Procurement Officer To ensure that the Company’s purchasing and contracting activities are such that all required equipment, tools, materials, goods and services, including consultancy services are procured at the best possible prices and quality.

3 Accounts Clerk To perform accounting, clerical and related tasks including, accounting records in accordance with approved policies, procedures and accepted accounting practices. Activities, which are essential to the running of the organization include updating the general ledger, bank reconciliation, bills payable, filing, payroll and preparing vouchers for payment etc.

4 HR Manager To provide overall management and coordination of the activities and staff, direct the formulation and implementation of HRM strategies and programmes to enhance the overall performance of the Commission. The number of employees has grown from 25 to 53 since 1997 and it is estimated to increase to approximately 95 within the next three years.

5 Communications Manager

To plan and implement public relations programmes and projects designed to favorably publicize the Commission. The role of the Communications Manager includes delivering a range of professional communications activities (media and public relations, public affairs, resident communication, stakeholder engagement, publications, marketing and internal communications) to the highest quality and standard.

6 Senior Project Officer For the effective management and supervision of Project Officers and Assistant Project Officers. Currently, there are three Senior Project Officers with an average of six (6) subordinates each. There is estimated to be approximately twenty-eight (28) Project Officers and Assistant Project Officers within the next three (3) years.

7 Administrative Assistant

To provide administrative support to approximately twenty-eight (28) Project Officers and Assistant Project Officer and oversee ten (10) clerical staff who serve both internal and external (approximately 100 per day) customers.


108

8 Corporate Secretary To provide in-house counsel on industrial relations, environmental matters, regulatory issues, contracts and litigation. Currently, legal services are outsourced at an average of $100,000 per year.

9 Paralegal Assistant To provide paralegal support to the Corporate Secretary in activities such as researching laws, investigating facts, preparing pleadings, opinions and briefs, maintaining case files and assisting in the preparation of legal documents.

10 Auditing Assistant To provide support to the Internal Auditor to ensure that all policies, systems and procedures are in accordance with regulations.

11 Assistant Buyer To provide support to the Internal Auditor to ensure that all policies, systems and procedures are in accordance with regulations.

12 IT Technician To provide hardware and software maintenance, training and consultation and recommendations about future planning and development of resources in an effective and efficient manner to ensure maximum access to and implementation of technology services and resources. Currently, the IT service is outsourced at a cost of approximately $9,000 per month.

13 Accounts Manager To oversee the Commission’s overall accounting system and operations, to ensure that appropriate accounting records are kept and monthly financial statement are prepared accurately. The Commission is responsible for managing funds of approximately $50 million per year, for recurrent and Development Programme projects.

14 Senior Accounts Clerk To provide support to the Assistant Accountant in the administration of the Commission’s accounting systems and oversee the Accounts Clerks (approximately 9).

15 HR Assistant To provide clerical support to the HR Manager as it pertains to acquisition, training and development and retention of employees. The number of employees has grown from 25 to 53 since 1997 and it is estimated to increase to approximately 96 within the next three years.

16 Communications Specialists

The Communications Specialist is responsible for the coordination and administration of media programmes and projects relating to the various aspects of Communications, Events Management and Community Outreach of the NCSHL.

17 Communications Assistant

To assist the Communications Manager in a wide range of communications and public relations tasks.


109

18 Health and Safety Officer

To ensure that all the Commission’s activities are compliant with Health and Safety regulations. Currently, this service is outsourced at close to $500,000 per year.

19 Civil Engineer To plan and oversee the various construction activities of the Commission and to ensure that structures are constructed in the safest, sturdiest manner. Currently this service is outsourced at a cost of approximately $1 million per year.

20 Procurement Manager To oversee the functions of the Procurement Department and ensure that the Commission’s purchasing and contracting activities are procured at the best possible prices and quality.


110

APPENDIX VII SUMMARY OF APPROVED BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED CID

FILES


111

TABLE 5

Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented CID Files

Constituency Number of Applications Value $

Arima 39 4,967,348

Arouca North 6 1,574,769

Arouca South 1 683,100

Arouca/Maloney 4 532,070

Barataria/San Juan 29 1,224,279

Caroni Central 15 3,464,685

Caroni East 8 1,614,935

Chaguanas East 7 924,874

Chaguanas West 1 98,525

Couva North 22 6,765,296

Couva South 20 2,084,168

Cumuto/Manzanilla 5 704,115

D'abadie/Omera 6 719,368

Diego Martin Central 12 788,647

Diego Martin East 17 1,138,005

Diego Martin West 13 1,117,631

Fyzabad 16 1,700,855

La Brea 10 1,331,856

La Horquetta/Talparo 0 0

Laventille East 44 2,723,195

Laventille West 1 98,525


112

Lopinot/Bon Air 4 443,199

Mayaro 14 1,185,759

Moruga Tableland 6 526,975

Naparima 41 6,104,003

Nariva 2 308,679

Oropouche East 9 520,206

Oropouche West 12 3,950,818

Point Fortin 13 2,197,731

Pointe A Pierre 54 14,707,691

Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West 13 1,065,676

Port of Spain South 11 1,297,533

Princes Town 40 5,177,069

San Fernando East 20 1,869,334

San Fernando West 7 1,849,721

Siparia 22 3,336,431

St. Ann's East 34 2,389,232

St. Augustine 5 398,304

St. Joseph 14 1,563,654

Tabaquite 10 1,768,153

TETE 7 1,128,162.95

Toco/ Manzanilla 4 1,552,679

Toco/Sangre Grande 24 6,382,632

Tunapuna 14 2,593,968

TWTW 5 364,810

Total 661 95,810,503


113

APPENDIX VIII SUMMARY OF APPROVED BUT

NOT YET IMPLEMENTED MRRG FILES


114

TABLE 6

Summary of Approved Not Yet Implemented MRRG Files

Constituency Number of Applications Value $

Arima 183 1,830,000

Arouca/Maloney 41 410,000

Barataria/San Juan 80 800,000

Caroni Central 87 870,000

Caroni East 67 670,000

Chaguanas East 93 9,300,000

Chaguanas West 24 240,000

Couva North 120 1,200,000

Couva South 102 1,020,000

Cumuto/Manzanilla 77 770,000

D'abadie/Omera 27 270,000

Diego Martin Central 66 660,000

Diego Martin East 142 1,420,000

Diego Martin West 79 790,000

Fyzabad 114 1,140,000

La Brea 90 900,000

La Horquetta/Talparo 25 250,000

Laventille East 174 1,740,000

Laventille West 150 1,500,000


115

Lopinot/Bon Air 29 290,000

Mayaro 244 2,440,000

Moruga Tableland 91 910,000

Naparima 214 2,140,000

Nariva 3 30,000

Oropouche East 133 1,330,000

Oropouche West 113 1,130,000

Point Fortin 286 2,860,000

Pointe A Pierre 162 1,620,000

Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West 48 480,000

Port of Spain South 144 1,440,000

Princes Town 341 3,410,000

San Fernando East 163 1,630,000

San Fernando West 79 790,000

Siparia 289 2,890,000

St. Ann's East 133 1,330,000

St. Augustine 40 400,000

St. Joseph 103 1,030,000

Tabaquite 180 1,800,000

TETE 130 1,300,000

Toco/ Manzanilla 97 970,000

Toco/Sangre Grande 275 2,750,000

Tunapuna 70 700,000

TWTW 190 1,900,000

Total 5,298 61,350,000

Documents

20141118, Sixteenth Report - JSC Group 2 - National Commission … · 2014-11-18 · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the Committee’s first report on the National Commission for Self-Help