Improving Public Expenditure Outcomes
of MDMS and NREGS through Social Accountability Approaches:
Field Experiences from Rajasthan, India
George CheriyanCUTS International
The World Bank, Washington DCJune 4, 2008
About CUTS
• Established in 1983, pursuing social justice and economic
equity within and across borders.
• CUTS has five programme centre and five resource centres:
six in India, two in Africa (Lusaka & Nairobi), one in London
and one in Hanoi. One resource centre in Geneva will be
opening shortly
• Good Governance is one of the key programmatic area.
Working in the area of promoting transparency and
accountability at all levels of governance through increased
people’s participation from its inception
Introduction
• Traditionally focus has been on supply side of institutions
and systems with less attention to demand side
• Today the situation is fast changing
• This includes actions to enable citizens to exert
accountability over public institutions and services
Framework for Accountability Relationships
Users Providers
Policymakers
Making Services Workable for the Poor (WDR 2004)Making Services Workable for the Poor (WDR 2004)
Voice Service Compact
Client Power
Demand Side Approaches
Supply Side Approaches
Enabling Environment
• Democracy works when citizens ask questions, seek
accountability and participate in the process of governance
• Information enters the debate on governance at this point
• Access to Government held information is a pre-condition for
good governance
• Enactment of the RTI Act (2005) in India had triggered the
genuine demand for SAc mechanisms
SAc Pilots in Rajasthan, India (in partnership with the World Bank and as part of SASANet)
1. Child Nutrition – “Improving Outcomes of Nutrition based
Mid Day Meal Scheme (MDMS) in Rajasthan” (Oct. 2005 to
Sept. 2006)
2. Wage Employment – “Assessing the Outputs of the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS)
Rajasthan” (June 2007 to August 2008 - ongoing)
Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS)
Context• 1995 - National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary
Education, commonly known as the Mid-Day Meal Scheme
(MDMS) started
• Largest school meal programme in the world
(Budget Allocation, 2008-09 is INR 73 billion = ~ $1.8
billion)
• Covers all primary school (Class I to V) students in
Government schools
(10.2 million children in 75,000 primary schools in
Rajasthan)
• 2001 - India’s apex court, the Supreme Court, directed all
State Governments to provide cooked mid day meal
Why a Mid-Day Meal Scheme?
• School meal programs support health, nutrition
and education goals
• A strong incentive to parents to send children to
school, thereby encouraging enrolment,
reducing absenteeism and dropout rates
• A special focus on girl child, mainly to enhance
enrollment of girl child
Nutrition Based Entitlements
• Primary school children provided daily with one
nutritionally adequate cooked meal
– 300 calories and 8-12 grams of protein per child
per day
– For a minimum of 200 days per year
– GoI provides 100 grams of food grain (wheat or
rice) per child per school day
– Conversion cost is shared by the GoI & GoR
Pilot Methodology• Combination of two social accountability tools – Public
Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) and Citizen Report Cards (CRC) used– PETS for gathering information regarding budget allocations, budget
transfers and expenditure – CRC for assessing citizen’s perceptions and satisfaction levels on
MDMS management/delivery
• Survey restricted to one district, Chittorgarh, of Rajasthan (population: 1.8 million)
• Sample size - 211 primary government/aided schools from 14 blocks; a total of 2,110 students, 2,110 parents, 422 teachers and 211 cooks were interviewed;
• Scientific sampling techniques - school selection on the basis of parameters such as size, access by road, remoteness, etc.
Key Survey Findings• High Overall Satisfaction Level: 90% parents and students satisfied
• Acceptable Quality of Food Grains: 97% of the teachers reported receiving
acceptable to good quality of food grains
• Indeterminable Quantity of Food Grains: Only 23% of the schools received food
grains after getting them weighed before delivery
• Lack of Basic Infrastructure: 95% of the schools do not have a kitchen shed,
while only 36% have a separate store room.
• Trade-off between Education Quality and MDMS Management: 68% teachers
spend more than 1 hour (17%) of allotted teaching time, in MDMS activities
• Delayed Receipt of Funds for Conversion: 79% schools receive funds with
delays ranging from 2-6 months (against the mandatory 15 days) affecting meal
quality adversely
Key Survey Findings: Impact of MDMS
Positive Impact of the MDMS: Response of Parents
72% 72%77%
28% 28%23%
1% 0% 0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Attendance Education Health & Nutrition
Yes
No
Don't Know
Key Findings: Quality of Education
Quality of Education
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes No Not Properly
Able to read sentences
Able to w rite sentences
Improving Outcomes through Feedback
Education Service Provider
District Administration/ Government
State Government
Feedback
Accountability
Services
Redesign Programs
Reallocate Resources
Improved Quality of Service Delivery
Feedback
Pilot Impacts: Policy Changes
• Redesign of program: – Advance transfer of funds for cooking meals:
Release of sufficient amount for three months in advance (from –3 months to + 3 months)
• Reallocation of resources: – Improvements in basic infracture: School Grant
Facility extended to construct kitchens, food grain storage rooms
– Revision of Unit Conversion Costs: Conversion cost rates increased from INR 0.5 to INR 1.00
Pilot Impacts: Institutional Changes• Improvement in quality of food grains:
– Food grains supplied after thorough checking and proper weighing;
– Increase in number of inspections; – Faster redressal of complaints
• Increased involvement of parent-teacher associations and PRIs: – PTAs and PRI members have started to take active part in
monitoring MDMS implementation• Increased awareness about entitlements:
– Increased parent oversight over MDM preparation; – Reduced burden on teachers leading to availability of
more time for teaching
Assessing the Outputs of NREGS
Context• India's ruling Government enacted the NREGA on August 25,
2005.
• The scheme started since February 02, 2006 in 200 districts (out of a total of 593 districts in the country) and has been scaled up to all districts of the country from April 2008.
• Budget allocation for 2008-09: INR 160 billion = USD 400 million ; INR 14.4 billion for Rajasthan)
• The commitment to transparency and accountability runs through the Act
• There is a provision of compulsory social audit built-in the scheme, first time in the history of independent India
Employment Based Entitlements
• Legal guarantee for 100 days of employment in every financial
year to adult members of any rural household willing to do
unskilled manual work at the statutory minimum wage within a
5-km radius.
• Minimum NREGS Wage: Rs 73 (USD 1.70) per day; this has
been increased to Rs. 100/- from April 1, 2008) per day to one
member of every rural unemployed family
• A failure to provide work within 15 days or within 5 km radius
gives the applicant the right to draw an unemployment/
transport allowance
Methodology: Social Accountability Tools Used
• Combination of CRC, PETS & CSC was used to assess the scheme– CRC & CSC for qualitative feedback and to
assess beneficiary perceptions and satisfaction levels
– PETS for the quantitative assessment of fund flow, fund utilization, etc.
Survey Findings: Satisfaction LevelsMajority of the surveyed people endorsed
the NREGS stating that it:
• Provides employment during lean season in own villages itself (97%)
• Has improved facilities in the villages (94%)
• Has ultimately helped in reducing migration (93%).
• Has helped in increasing the monthly income (87%)
• Has helped in creating assets, which will result in sustainable
livelihoods (85%) and
• Has increased bargaining power of laborers
Opinion - Scheme Supportive In
93
85
94
80
85
90
95
ReducingMigration
Livelihood Security Improving villagefacilities
Survey Findings: Gender Empowerment
• 71% of the women surveyed felt that the increase in
incomes had increased their importance in the family
leading to increased say in decision making
• 51% of the women felt that NREGS had improved their
living standards
Survey Findings: Accountability Issues• Lack of awareness about entitlements (63%)• Lack of participation in the decision making process
(42%) as people were not informed about Gram Sabha meetings
• Opaqueness in wage payment – Measurement of work done in a mystified manner and not done to the satisfaction of beneficiaries (50%) – space for misappropriation in wage payment
• No effective grievance redress mechanism available (39%)
• Absence of social audit as per the provisions of NREGA
• Low wages paid to the NREGS Supervisors (INR 1,800 = 45 USD/per month) which force them to look for other means income
Pilot Impacts (Till Now):
Operational Changes: • Facilities at work sites: District level authorities have issued
orders to ensure amenities at work sites are made available• Appointment of women supervisors: Initiatives taken for the
appointment of more female supervisors• Availability of forms for demanding work: Forms are now
available in all important places in the village • Daily measurement of work: Work done is measured on a
daily basis in the presence of the beneficiaries; all beneficiaries have been provided with a measuring tape
• Use of more broad-based communication strategies: Dissemination of information about entitlements and Gram Sabha meetings is more widespread
Pilot Impacts (Till Now):
Changes in Development Outcomes: • Citizen Awareness & Empowerment:
– Increase in awareness about NREGA entitlements; – Beneficiaries are realizing that they have the power and
opportunity to evaluate/assess the actions of the service providers
• Women Empowerment: – Women supervisors are being appointed under NREGS; – Increased participation of women in household decision
making processes as they earn
• Policy Changes: To Be Determined
Remaining Challenges
• Institutionalization
• Building constituencies in the supply side
• Resource re-allocation
• Creating civil society coalitions
In Conclusion…
Improving Outcomes through Feedback
Education Service Provider
District Administration/ Government
State Government
Feedback
Accountability
Services
Redesign Programs
Reallocate Resources
Improved Quality of Service Delivery
Feedback
SAc Approaches Outcomes
Citizen Report CardsCommunity Score Cards
Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
Right to Information (RTI) Compliance
Development Outcomes• Improved Quality of Service Delivery • Program Redesign and Resource Reallocation to Improve Program Effectiveness and Public Expenditure Efficiency • Improved Governance through Demand Side Approaches in Governance
Institutional Outcomes• Institutionalization of continuous user feedback mechanisms • Formation of community-public-private partnerships for implementation of development programs•Stronger linkages between local governments and civil society
THANKS