MAKING MGNREGA WORK FOR THE SOCIALLY EXCLUDED: LEARNING FROM THE PACS PROGRAMME

Transcription

1 PACS Knowledge Product PACS Knowledge Product The Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) programme is an initiative of the UK government's Department for International Development (DFID). Under PACS, DFID partnered with Indian civil society to help socially excluded groups claim their rights and entitlements more effectively, so they receive a fairer share of India's development gains. PACS, in its second phase of implementation ( ), had been supporting the work of CSOs to promote inclusive policies, programmes and institutions at local, district and state levels in the areas of livelihoods and basic services. MGNREGA is one of the flagship programmes of the Government on which PACS Programme worked from 2011 to 2015 in 78 districts across seven states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. This document presents the approaches, strategies, results, achievements and key learning from the intervention along with the stories of change from the intervention area. PACS National Office, CISRS House, 14, Jangpura B, Mathura Road,New Delhi Phone: , , info@pacsindia.org, MAKING MGNREGA WORK FOR THE SOCIALLY EXCLUDED: LEARNING FROM THE PACS PROGRAMME

2 This document is a part of the Knowledge Product Series of the Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme. This document was developed by Saarthak Development and Business Solutions Private Limited ( as an outcome of an independent assignment commissioned by PACS Programme. Coordination and editing: Avinav Kumar, Head of Knowledge Management and Innovation, PACS Programme Review and inputs from PACS team: Anand Kumar Bolimera - Director, Arti Verma - State Manager Bihar, Jayeeta Dasgupta - State Manager West Bengal, Johnson Topno - State Manager Jharkhand, Mihir Kumar Mohanty - State Manager Odisha, Pragyan Mohanty - Stater Manager Madhya Pradesh, Prashant Kumar Anchal - State Manager Uttar Pradesh, Rajkumar Bidla - Head of Programmes, Rajpal - Programme Manager, Rebecca David - State Manager Chhattisgarh, Santosh Kumar Sharma - Head of M&E, Swati Kundra - Head of Finance and Shivani Bhardwaj - Programme Manager. Content development and design: By Saarthak Development and Business Solutions Private Limited Content strategy: Divya Gandhi, Gowri Sundararajan, Adesh Sah Writing and editing: Sukriti Chaudhari, Suyasheii Malgundtt Design: Prabir Dhar, Shakti Singh Photo credits: PACS Programme PACS Programme is a programme of Department for International Development (DFID) Government of UK managed by ifirst Consortium. However, the views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect either DFID's or the views and official policies of the members of the ifirst Consortium and the PACS Programme.

3 PREFACE 1 The Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) programme aims at reducing the welfare gap between socially excluded groups and the rest of the population, and achieving gender equality. The programme has identified livelihoods one of the major facets of human development as one of the core areas of the programme's focus in India. Driving on a Civil Society Organisation (CSO) and community-based approach, the programme works to empower socially-excluded groups (SEGs) towards greater awareness and access to key government schemes related to livelihoods. In doing so, the programme aims to support access of these groups to the rights and entitlements enshrined in the schemes. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) was implemented in 2006 by the Government of India as a flagship scheme focussed on measures for livelihood security. The programme design is centred on a rights-based, bottom-up approach with a strong promise of benefiting the most marginalised and vulnerable sections of the population. It has distinct provisions to strengthen the livelihood resource-base and create a safety net for SEGs who have little alternate recourse. In addition to livelihood provisions, MGNREGA supports a broader mandate on aspects such as building risk-resilience during lean agricultural periods, enabling food security, mitigating distress migration and facilitating financial inclusion. PACS recognised a convergence with the objectives of MGNREGA and its potential to directly benefit socially excluded groups and create a significant improvement in their livelihood status. The programme initiated an intervention to support MGNREGA in 2011 The intervention design had a specific focus to promote awareness and access among socially excluded groups by facilitating their participation and improving the responsiveness of the programme. It therefore chose to work on facilitating demand, supporting community-centred planning and to strengthen accountability and transparency in the programme. The intervention built leadership of excluded communities as an overarching element across these processes to facilitate community-led assertion of rights as a precursor to sustainability. PACS partnered with 122 CSOs across 78 districts to make this initiative one of the largest programmes implemented by PACS in India. The intervention also celebrates a unique collaboration with government agencies that was manifest across levels state, district, blocks and villages. The varied dimensions of this collaboration spanned technical support on programme design, capacity building of programme staff and working together on implementation in the field. This document presents a compilation of the myriad experiences of the PACS intervention to support efforts for future programming and to further strengthen the implementation of MGNREGA. It presents a narration of design considerations, implementation processes, programme impacts and the learning emerging for the ensuing years. The diverse experiences shared are likely to support both strategic and operational considerations for a range of stakeholders engaged in supporting MGNREGA and addressing challenges of exclusion faced by poor and vulnerable populations in India. with the objective of enabling a voice to socially excluded groups to empower them with knowledge on MGNREGA, strengthen their ability to understand their rights and to claim entitlements under the scheme. 1 The Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) programme is an initiative of the UK government's Department for International Development (DFID). Under PACS, DFID partnered with Indian civil society to help SEGs claim their rights and entitlements more effectively, so they receive a fairer share of India's development gains. PACS, in its second phase of implementation ( ), had been supporting the work of CSOs to promote inclusive policies, programmes and institutions at local, district and state levels in the areas of livelihoods and basic services.

4 FOREWORD I am happy to present this document 'Making MGNREGA Work for the Socially Excluded: Learning from the PACS Programme' which captures the key learning, details of the approaches and strategies adopted, their efficacy from the eyes of multiple stakeholders, including the communities, involved in the implementation of the programme. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 holds great importance in the lives of rural poor in multiple ways. More than the security of at least 100 days of work on demand, the programme in the recent years has presented multiple opportunities for developing the livelihood and asset base for the communities. The provisions for developing individual assets for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes has presented the possibilities of long term sustainable impact that helps families come out of cycle of poverty and deprivation. I hope that this document is able to further strengthen the discourse on looking at the issue of poverty and social exclusion in multiple dimensions and how they impact each other. This document also presents the efficacy of a constructive approach of working closely with the state and how changes brought about by influencing the system are more sustained and lasting. Due to the diversity and scale of experiences of the PACS Programme I am sure this document will find value in the eyes of multiple stakeholders, key among them being the development practitioners, implementers and others who have a responsibility of working on flagship programmes of the Government, like MGNREGA. Anand Kumar Bolimera Director, PACS Programme PACS Programme during its implementation period of , chose to work on MGNREGA due to the changes it could bring in the lives of the socially excluded communities with whom the programme worked across 90 of the poorest districts across seven states of the country. PACS and its partners worked on strengthening work demand, making MGNREGA planning inclusive and responsive to socially excluded and fostering accountability and transparency through the mechanisms of social audits and public hearings. Working in collaboration with the biggest stakeholders, the Government, was the hallmark of the approach, which the PACS Programme, adopted and demonstrated its efficacy at scale. It enabled the programme and its partners to take up innovative interventions, work on addressing specific bottlenecks and barriers and try out strategies which brought about awareness and change at scale.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary 12 Executive Summary 14 1 PACS intervention: a background 20 5 Connecting the communities with entitlements 62 2 MGNREGA: the challenges prior to the PACS intervention 32 6 The impact 78 3 Overview of the programme approach 42 7 The way forward 90 4 Working with the community finding voices 54 Annexures 100 Biboliography 106

6 LIST OF CHARTS LIST OF ANNEXURES SI. NO TITLE PAGE SI. NO TITLE PAGE 1 Stakeholder consultation 24 2 Process stages for development of the document 25 1 Brief descriptor of colloquial terms List of CSO partners Brief descriptor of SEGs 30 4 Likely stages of transition of SEGs to self-assertion for entitlements 35 5 The PACS programme framework 44 6 Capacity building of CSOs 47 7 Types of CBOs 48 8 Engaging with CBOs: Building capacity. Empowering communities 50 9 Key focus areas of the PACS intervention Overview of IPPE Process Key overall impacts: PACS intervention 79

7 GLOSSARY ABBREVIATION EXPANSION BDO Block Development Officer PACS The Poorest Areas Civil Society programme BPL Below Poverty Line PESA Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 BPO Block Programme Officer PO Programme Officer BPT Block Planning Team PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal CBO Community Based Organisation PRI Panchayati Raj Institution CCN Community Correspondents Network PRS Panchayat Rozgar Sewak CEO Chief Executive Officer PwD Persons with Disabilities CSO Civil Society Organisation RSBY Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana FGDs Focus Group Discussions SC Scheduled Caste IEC Information, Education and Communication SDGs Sustainable Development Goals IFIRST Indian Forum for Inclusive Response and Social Transformation SEG Socially Excluded Group IHDS India Human Development Survey SESK Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendras (MGNREGA help centers) IPPE Integrated Participatory Planning Exercise SHGs Self Help Groups JSY Janani Suraksha Yojana ST Scheduled Tribe MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act ToT Training of Trainers NCAER National Council of Applied Economic Research NREGA National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 12 13

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In India, social exclusion occurs on the basis of certain social identities, resulting in people being blocked from accessing the benefits of development, a denial of choices and the voice to claim their rights. The socially excluded communities face discrimination in accessing resources and opportunities, differentiating them from the rest of the poor population that essentially suffers from a lack of resources at its disposal. The discrimination influences several essential aspects of life and well-being and pushes them into greater levels of poverty. It places these communities in a continuing disadvantaged position within a social structure skewed towards denying them jobs, goods and services, as well as rights and entitlements provided for by law or public services. The denial or restrictions span access to education, health services, food-security schemes, housing and other social services. At a deeper level, discrimination in participation in local government systems prevents their participation in decision-making processes, serving to perpetuate their unequal treatment in the allocation of public funds or poverty-reduction programmes and provision of civic amenities. It is with this context that the PACS programme focused on the five most marginalised groups that exist at the bottom of the social pyramid and are among the most disadvantaged in terms of social exclusion: women, Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Muslims and people with disabilities. Over the years, these SEGs have faced consistent exclusion on many social and economic dimensions, with little or no voice in local development programmes. They bring with them past experiences of being excluded from benefits of government schemes; continued indifference and apathy of local governance institutions and those better placed in local power structures; and, an acceptance of the continuing exclusion as a social norm that cannot be questioned. Setting out to enable these SEGs to find a voice to claim their rights and entitlements and to work towards bridging the gap between them and the general population, one of the key themes of the PACS programme was to provide SEGs with livelihood security. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) had been implemented in 2006 by the Government of India as a flagship programme focussed on measures for livelihood security. The programme design was centred on a rights-based, bottom-up approach with a focus on maximising benefits to economically marginalised and vulnerable sections of the population. The implementation of MGNREGA witnessed substantial impacts across the country in terms of strengthening the livelihood resource base of the rural poor. The multifaceted impacts of the programme include the scale of the programme outreach with a third of rural households enumerated as workers under the programme; provision of risk resilience to small and marginal farmers (during the lean period and droughts), and for rural households with no other means of livelihood; lessening of distress migration; bringing nearly ten million rural households into a financial inclusion network; creation of sustainable assets for the individual and the community; increase in local work opportunities for females; and, positive impacts on the nutritional standards of rural households. Despite these achievements, MGNREGA witnessed a limited uptake by those who were most in need due to a range of complex challenges driven by continued social exclusion and alienation of these communities. While the benefits of the scheme did reach these communities to an extent, in many instances they were diluted or simply did not reach the intended beneficiaries. The most disadvantaged among these communities continued to remain excluded they remained unaware, without a voice and with a limited access to benefits of MGNREGA. Amidst these implementation-related challenges, the programme design continued to hold strong potential to encourage participation of SEGs and to support their access to due entitlements and benefits. The programme design was in convergence with the mandate of PACS and sought to provide a primacy to those most in need. PACS recognised this potential and initiated a programme in 2009 to support 14 15

9 implementation of MGNREGA. The intervention spanned 78 districts across the states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal each of which had significantly higher poverty levels than the average for rural India and had a high population share of SEGs. Working within the contours of MGNREGA, the intervention sought to provide a voice to the hitherto silent SEGs, to empower them with knowledge on MGNREGA, strengthen their ability to understand their rights and entitlements, speak up for themselves and make demands of those in power. The intervention simultaneously sought to create an enabling environment, both socially as well as politically, that would be responsive and accountable to these newfound voices. The programme approach thereby centred on two key elements: (i) a close partnership with government agencies to strengthen existing implementation mechanisms; and, (ii) supported by on-ground mobilisation of communities to actualise and sustain the vision of MGNREGA as a 'from the ground up' programme. The approach to mobilise communities aimed to develop and institutionalise grassroots mechanisms to build the capacity of SEGs to exercise their rights and to give them a lasting 'voice'. To do so, the intervention developed partnerships with 132 civil society organisations (CSOs) across programme districts. These CSOs possessed strong credible linkages with SEGs and brought with them an experiential understanding of the social and life context of local communities. The intervention built capacities of CSO partners on a range of functional aspects and also enhanced their engagement with government to facilitate their recognition and participation in programme implementation processes. The inputs provided by the intervention assisted CSOs to further engage with SEG communities to build knowledge on the programme, address barriers to participation and to mobilise them in the form of SEG Collectives community-based organisations (CBOs) as a key local institution that would be owned and led by the community. The programme invested in processes to form these CBOs, build leadership capacity, equip them with knowledge and confidence to engage with local governance bodies, exercise rights and claim due entitlements under MGNREGA. The support to CSOs and CBOs to activate participation by SEGs was in synergy with the support extended by the programme to government agencies and village-level governance bodies. At one level, the programme sought to develop vibrant linkages among these constituencies to enable sharing of concerns among these diverse groups. At the same time, the linkages activated channels for SEGs to seek out government entities to redress their concerns a process that was largely inactive prior to the intervention. The intervention especially focused on three key areas as pivotal aspects to ensure sociallyexcluded communities claim their rights and entitlements under MGNREGA more effectively. These comprised strengthening the implementation of work-demand generation, inclusive planning and social audits. The partnership with CSOs and CBOs enabled the programme to respond to local nuances across programme geographies. Further, the intervention customised initiatives in different regions to address challenges in ways that were culturally and socially relevant in the local context. Some examples of successful initiatives include those to strengthen local governance bodies, such as Gram Sabhas, those that assisted SEGs to resolve grievances with government agencies, and the creation of a cadre of women mates to manage projects under MGNREGA. Recognising that the success of MGNREGA rested on the critical first step of SEG households demanding work, PACS launched the Kaam Mango Abhiyan in to mobilise communities to demand work under MGNREGA. The campaign helped to raise awareness among SEGs about processes and entitlements under the scheme, it provided an opportunity to submit work demands with support from local government agencies and helped in initiating efforts to redress grievances related to application for work demand. The multi-channel campaign included work-demand camps, rallies and community meetings supported by IEC materials. PACS also worked with the government to strengthen protocols for inclusive planning to ensure 'from the ground up' planning with wider participation of SEGs. In doing so, the intervention rendered a significant contribution in the finalised implementation protocol and training modules for the Integrated Participatory Planning Exercise (IPPE) conducted by the government for inclusive planning. The IPPE design supported by PACS helped to draw participation of SEGs on a range of aspects such as prioritising assets, budgeting and developing actionable plans to create 16 17

10 sustainable assets. It created a primacy of SEGs within village communities and facilitated a more equitable planning of assets. The PACS team similarly provided technical support to refine the model for social audit. The improvements in the model focussed on assessing the inclusion of socially-excluded communities in the processes and outcomes of MGNREGA. A number of programme initiatives designed and implemented by PACS were institutionalised by local governments. Models such as the Gram Sabha Secretariat to strengthen local governance bodies, MGNREGA Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendra (SESK) to assist SEGs to resolve MGNREGA-related grievances, and the creation of a cadre of women mates, were all recognised by the government and have been planned for continuance even after the withdrawal of support from PACS. The technical supported provided by PACS for work demand, inclusive planning and social audits has been recognised and included by the government in national and state implementation protocols. At an overall level the intervention has contributed to reduction in poverty among SEGs by addressing underemployment, enabling increased wages, reducing their debt burden and increasing their ability to save. Access to paid work has led to an enhancement in the selfesteem of women workers, with an increase in their power within the household and an increased control over resources. The programme has resulted in reduction of distress migration and provided a safety net for these communities who have little alternate recourse for wage employment during the lean season. The creation of assets has had a direct impact on livelihoods for SEGs both in terms of recourse to wage employment during the lean season and to create avenues for future income streams. The improvement in income has increased the ability of SEGs to exercise life choices that were previously not possible. This is also expected to create a positive impact in the development of local markets and to transition local wage employment rates to higher levels than those prevalent prior to the programme. At the level of the community, the programme has resulted in a significant increase in the participation of SEGs in local governance bodies. The on-ground scenario indicates that the CBOs and the transition in local power equations triggered during the programme are likely to sustain well beyond the current intervention. The programme has also left a legacy of increased participation of women in family and community decisions and the recognition of women as a key constituency that can lead change. At an overall level the expanded assertion of rights by SEGs is likely to result in an increased demand for public services supported by improved service delivery to this historically deprived group. In many ways, the PACS intervention has also resulted in significant outcomes in the direction of the United Nations' (UN's) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among the geographies and the communities that the programme has engaged with. The vision of the SDGs to end poverty and deprivation in all forms, leaving no one behind and providing a life of dignity to all, while making development economically, socially and environmentally sustainable in many ways also articulates the core of the PACS intervention. In its efforts towards poverty reduction and building livelihood security, the PACS programme has taken affirmative action towards empowering the bottom percentile of income earners and promoting economic inclusion of all regardless of sex, caste, religion or disability. In particular, the programme has accelerated the process of growth with equity and sustainability. This is reflected in the emergence of strong community-led platforms among SEGs to exercise rights and gain due entitlements as well as, the quality of sustainable assets created under MGNREGA. The emergence of SEGs in local governance and the recognition of their voice is likely to continue this momentum and serve as a driver for social and economic reform. At a qualitative level the empowerment of SEGs has helped to instill a sense of dignity both in their livelihood transactions and in their social context. The creation and empowerment of community-led institutions, increased participation of women, role of SEGs in local governance, improvement in livelihood status are among many outcomes of the programme that are likely to help create a more equitable profile of power equations in rural society and support a social framework that progresses to mitigate social exclusion

11 1 PACS INTERVENTION: A BACKGROUND The Poorest Areas Civil Society programme (PACS) is an initiative of the UK government's Department for International Development (DFID). Under PACS, DFID partnered with Indian civil society to help SEGs claim their rights and entitlements more effectively, so they receive a fairer share of India's development gains. PACS, in its second phase of implementation ( ), had been supporting the work of CSOs to promote inclusive policies, programmes and institutions at local, district and state levels in the areas of livelihoods and basic services. The programme was initiated by DFID in 2001 to support and strengthen civil society to help the poorest and most vulnerable in deprived districts in India to claim their rights. Its first phase, which ended in 2008, PACS focused on reaching all poor groups and tackling the general causes of poverty. Experience gained during the first phase showed clearly that the poor in India are not homogenous: certain categories of people are particularly marginalised. While the persistent poverty of these groups can be partly attributed to general causes that create deprivation among all poor people in India, there are specific factors that aggravate hardship among the socially excluded and make it harder for them to escape poverty. The second phase of the PACS programme was implemented across seven Indian states Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, covering 90 of the poorest districts across these states. These districts are identified as those having poverty levels higher than the average for rural India. In addition a substantial proportion of the total population of these districts is made up of SEGs

12 PACS worked with 225 CSOs during its implementation. The CSO projects supported by PACS were initiated in September 2011 and concluded by December This period also witnessed a number of thematic campaigns and other interventions carried out by PACS in collaboration with multiple stakeholders including the government. PACS aimed at reducing the welfare gap between SEGs and the rest of the population, and achieving gender equality. The heterogeneity of the nature of social exclusion rendered the implementation of PACS to be specific and people centered. Driving on a CSO and communitybased approach, PACS stressed on empowering SEGs with knowledge on government schemes and enabling their access to due entitlements. The selection of schemes has been such that PACS targets three major facets of human development: Livelihoods, Health and Nutrition and Education. Strengthening upon discriminatory access of SEGs to the rights and entitlements enshrined in these government schemes in these three areas, PACS had strived towards bridging the welfare gap between the SEGs and the rest of the population. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) was implemented in 2006 by the Government of India as a flagship programme focussed on livelihood, which is among the three major focus areas of the PACS programme. The design of the MGNREGA programme held a strong potential to directly benefit SEGs and was centred on a rights-based, bottom-up approach. The MGNREGA programme, however, experienced limited uptake by these communities due to a variety of factors, underpinned by their historical exclusion. Overall these communities continued to lack belief in their ability to access entitlements from MGNREGA; nor did they have the capacity to do so. Despite these challenges, MGNREGA continued in its endeavour to reach these excluded groups and provide them with much needed support to progress to livelihood security. The PACS programme recognised the potential of MGNREGA, and its convergence with the PACS mandate, to reduce the welfare gap between SEGs and the rest of the population, and to work towards gender equality. In line with PACS' programmatic approach to empower SEGs towards greater awareness and access to key government schemes PACS initiated an intervention to support the implementation of MGNREGA for greater inclusion of SEGs. The PACS intervention aimed to provide a voice to the hitherto silent SEGs to empower them with knowledge on MGNREGA, strengthen their ability to understand their rights and entitlements, speak up for themselves and make demands of those in power. The intervention was initiated in 2009 and spanned 78 districts across the states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. 1.1 About this document The PACS intervention to support MGNREGA was implemented across programme states from The journey provided a gamut of experiences reflecting variances across geographies; among SEGs; in the status of programme implementation; and the ensuing challenges. The span of seven years from 2009 till 2016 had witnessed the finalisation of programme design, initiation of field engagement, developing partnerships with 122 CSOs, formation of CBOs and varied implementation m e t h o d o l o g i e s a c r o s s p r o g r a m m e geographies. The programme sought to d o c u m e n t t h e s e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n experiences. It sought the learning to develop a knowledge product for utilisation by programme managers for onward programming. This document captures an understanding of the approaches used in the intervention, their impacts, key learnings and good practices to guide future programmatic directions. The development of the document was preceded by a mix of primary and secondary research as a primary formative input. The secondary research spanned a review of programme design documents, process reports related to programme implementation, formative and summative a s s e s s m e n t s, a n d a n e c d o t a l p r o g r a m m e experiences including case studies, data from national and regional studies on the subject, media reports and other related information available in the public domain. The desk review was supported by stakeholder consultation in four programme 22 23

13 states Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Bihar and Jharkhand. These states were selected since they represent widely varying operating conditions and have a significant representation of the SEGs identified in the programme design. The consultations focused on interactions with a representative sample of stakeholders across the programme implementation value chain. Chart 1 below provides an overview of the respondents. Stakeholders PACS central and state programme team CSO partners Local government functionaries PRI members Community: SEG members and CBOs Chart 1: Stakeholder consultation The information gathered as an outcome of the secondary and primary research was analysed and developed in the form of this document. Chart 2 below depicts the process stages for development of the document. One-to-one interview Diad/ Triad Focus Group Discussion Chart 2: Process stages for development of the document Formative phase: Sharing of brief and existing program reports Preliminary review of existing reports, clarifications on brief Developing draft methodology and work plan Develop draft content approach and theme Consultation workshop with PACS team, including state teams Finalization of methodology & work plan; content approach & theme Output phase: Develop guidelines/ information areas for interactions with various stakeholders Pilot data collection Sharing of findings with program team to validate emerging directions Desk Review Refine query and focus areas as per need Complete data collection Data compilation Share draft content sample Finalization of layout & tone Analysis and triangulation with other data Presenting draft of document Feedback on document Finalization of document Design layout of reports Feedback on design layout Submission of final report 24 25

14 1.2 Social exclusion and livelihoods the programmatic context India has a long history of using public employment as a social security and poverty alleviation measure in rural areas. The government has implemented a number of programmes that include the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, Employment Assurance Scheme, Food for Work Programme, Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana and Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana. Many of these programmes had a central focus on building livelihood security, especially for those dependent on casual manual labour in rural areas and to create assets with the potential to 2 generate second round employment benefits. In 2005, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) constitutionally manifested the right to work and was a means to promote livelihood security in rural areas. The act was renamed as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in The Act guarantees 100 days of annual employment at statutory minimum wage rates to any rural household where adult members are willing to do unskilled manual work. It provides for the utilisation of such manual work to create sustainable assets t h a t p r o m o t e e c o n o m i c development in rural areas. The Act was notified in 200 rural districts in its first phase of implementation in 2006, and was subsequently extended across 330 districts by Since then, MGNREGA has covered the entire country with the exception of districts that have a 100 per cent urban population. 2 Planning Commission, 2008 The Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India is the nodal ministry managing the implementation of MGNREGA, with the support of line departments and state governments as implementing agencies. The main agency for implementation of MGNREGA works at the village level is the Gram Panchayat. In addition to enhancing livelihood security, MGNREGA also aims to reduce migration from rural to urban areas, creation of durable assets in villages, empowerment of rural women by providing them the opportunity to earn income independently and to participate in social groups, development of rural economy, and promotion of inclusive growth and development. The Act mandates that at least one-third of the workers should be women. MGNREGA performance in FY a glimpse** 235 crore person days of wage employment were generated - the highest in the last five years INR 43,848 crore expenditure - the highest since inception 49 average person days employment generated per household - highest in last three years Reached irrigation potential in lakh hectares with a range of natural resource management initiatives ponds, dams, check dams, wells, afforestation, land development, water shed management works etc. Reached out to lakh individual beneficiaries through creation of individual assets **Performance, Initiatives and Strategies FY and FY , Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India The scheme is distinct from other government wage employment schemes in that it brought about a paradigm shift in the design as well as approach of earlier intervention mechanisms. Founded on p e o p l e ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d p u b l i c accountability, it lays out a statutory timebound provision of employment and features a demand based approach, modified from being work-led to one that generates employment. The Act also focuses on transparency and compensation in the form of unemployment allowance in case of non-provision of employment. It seeks to create productive assets in villages such as wells, tanks, ponds, roads etc. with the idea that this would lead to a regeneration of the natural resource base, which could provide a sustained stimulus to the country's agrarian structured economy. By making the government legally accountable for providing employment to those who ask for it, the legislation goes beyond providing a social safety net, and towards guaranteeing the right to employment

15 PACS recognised MGNREGA's bottom-up, rights-based framework and provisions as being in convergence with its own mandate of poverty alleviation through rights-based efforts. The programmatic design of MGNREGA was in close synergy with the objectives of PACS to reduce the welfare gap between SEGs and the rest of the population, and to work towards gender equality. PACS also recognised that the empowerment of SEGs towards greater awareness of, and access to, this national-level programme had the potential to make a real impact by lessening deprivation, and progressing them from their current state of being among the poorest and most vulnerable sections of the Indian population, to a better social and economic status. Almost three-quarters of India's population is adversely impacted by social exclusion occurring on the basis of defined social identities. These groups may suffer from one or several forms of discrimination that negatively impact their rights and entitlements. This results in limiting their access to the benefits of development, a denial of choices and the voice to claim their rights. The discrimination in accessing resources and opportunities creates a larger risk of suffering greater levels of poverty and these groups score lower than the general population on a wide range of socio-economic indicators. The dimensions of exclusion span economic and livelihood-related impacts; education; employer markets for jobs, goods and services; health services; food security schemes; housing and other social services. Adding another dimension to this complex scenario is the multiple forms of exclusion one might experience if discrimination is faced on the basis of more than one identity. Women are generally more discriminated against than men belonging to the same social categories. The severity of deprivation increases manifold for poor communities who also face exclusion from the mainstream due to identities linked to gender, caste or religion. Poverty in itself, limits access to opportunities and creates a vicious self-fulfilling cycle of deprivation. Additionally, the multiple dimensions of social exclusion serve to prevent any form of progression to a better economic status. These may span discrimination in education services, skill development opportunities, when seeking jobs and in accessing rights and entitlements provided for by law or public services. Social exclusion: an overview of impacts The socially excluded, in addition to being affected by the lack of resources which characterizes the poor, are also subjected to discrimination while accessing these resources. Social exclusion is as varied in its impact as it is complex in its manifestation. Not only does it inhibit people from interacting freely and expressing their views and opinions, it hinders their full participation in the economic, social and political affairs of the community. Some of the economic and livelihood ramifications of social exclusion include those listed below. Lack of ownership opportunities and access to income-earning assets, e.g., agricultural land, employment and other amenities, propagating lower income and higher poverty among this group. Limited employment opportunities, especially in certain work categories, resulting in higher unemployment and underemployment among SEGs. In addition, employment on lower than average wage rates also marks the livelihood pattern of individuals belonging to excluded groups, which plays a key role in their continued poverty. Limited access to credit, factor inputs, selective restriction on scale of products, consumer goods and services and differential treatment in terms of prices paid for their purchase. The concepts of purity and pollution drive the practice of restricted purchase of goods and services from these groups by members of higher castes or religious majority groups. This adversely impacts the scale, viability and profit of business owners and operated by SEGs

16 1.3 The core beneficiaries: socially excluded groups The PACS intervention to support MGNREGA had a specific focus on five such communities that face discrimination led my more than one social identity women, Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Muslims and people with disabilities. Chart 3 below provides a brief descriptor of these groups and the nature of discrimination faced. Scheduled Castes Chart 3: Brief descriptor of SEGs Despite the practice of untouchability having been banned since 1947, discriminatory practices still persist, causing Dalits to often live apart from the rest of society, face discrimination when accessing services, receive poorer services, be barred from many occupations, receive lower pay, and encounter discrimination in the market place. Adivasis, or people belonging to Scheduled Tribes are discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity. They may face additional development challenges because they live in remote areas, and often speak a different language. Negative stereotyping plays a role in their exclusion from certain services and economic opportunities. Scheduled Tribes **The Global Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum ranks countries based on index scores which benchmarks national gender gaps on economic, political, education and health indicators, and provides country rankings that allow for effective comparisons between countries and also a comparative of country's performance over the years. It aims to understand whether countries are distributing their resources and opportunities equitably between women and men, irrespective of their overall income levels. The Global Gender Gap Index scores can be interpreted as the percentage of the gap that has been closed between women and men, with the highest possible score being 1 (equality), and the lowest possible score being 0 (inequality). In the Global Gender Gap Index 2015, India has a score of 0.664, ranking it 108 out of 145 countries. (Source: In doing so, the PACS intervention specifically aimed to support implementation of MGNREGA to reach the most marginalised groups the silent millions to empower them with knowledge on the scheme, strengthen their ability to understand their rights and entitlements under MGNREGA, speak up for themselves and make demands of those in power. It aimed to ensure that the voices of these SEGs are heard when decisions which affect their livelihoods are made, so that they may have more control over their lives. Furthermore, PACS sought to create an enabling environment in context of MGNREGA, both socially as well as politically, that would be responsive and accountable to these newfound voices. People with disabilities Cultural stereotyping, and incorrect perceptions about the limitations that some disabilities may impose cause discrimination against people with disabilities. This is exacerbated by the inadequacies in services, government, markets and places of employment that are not equipped to enable the full participation of people with disabilities. Although a subject of controversy, the minority religious group in India also suffers discriminatory treatment. Muslims are denied opportunities, resulting in low scores against a broad range of socioeconomic indicators. Muslims Women Gender discrimination remains one of India s main development challenges. The country is ranked 108 in the international gender gap ranking of 145 countries**. Girls and women face discrimination at all stages of their lives, which is compounded when they belong to socially excluded categories

17 2 MGNREGA: THE CHALLENGES PRIOR TO THE PACS INTERVENTION 1 A report published informs on numerous third-party evaluations by leading academic institutions that validate the multi-faceted positive impacts of the programme. MGNREGA is the largest public employment programme in the world providing work to 50 million rural households or 100 million workers. One in every three rural households is a worker under the programme. It addressed 41 per cent of the problem of 2 underemployment in the rural areas. Studies have shown that the income from the works in MGNREGA has been received when there is no other means of livelihood for the poor households; and it therefore has smoothened the rural consumption during the lean periods including drought. 3 Where implemented properly, MGNREGA has arrested distress migration and provided a 4 safety net for the poor in the lean agricultural seasons. MGNREGA has provided sustainable work to the rural women as evidenced by main 5 workers (female) increasing from 54.1 per cent in 2001 to 55.6 per cent in This has 6 had positive impacts on the nutritional standards of the entire household especially during lean seasons. MGNREGA has had large positive effects on consumption and poverty of SC and ST 7 households in the lean agricultural seasons. MGNREGA has provided risk-resilience to the small/marginal farmers in the face of drought. By allowing a shift towards high-risk high-profitability crops, the programme 8 has considerably raised the incomes of smallholder farmers in the medium term. MGNREGA has had a positive impact on financial inclusion by bringing 93.7 million rural 9 households into the financial inclusion network. Several useful assets have been created by works taken up under the MGNREGA. This includes millions of acres of uncultivable lands brought under cultivation in Andhra Pradesh, afforestation programme in Bihar, wells being dug in Madhya Pradesh/ Jharkhand, environmental stabilisation works in the hilly areas like Sikkim and drought resistance programmes in Rajasthan. 1 End year assessment report MGNREGA Roundup of and way ahead for , published by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India 2 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report , Government of India 3 Zimmerman, Laura, (2013), Why Guarantee Employment? Evidence from a Large Indian Public Works Programme, University of Michigan 4 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report , Government of India 5 Census Dasgupta, Aparajita, (2013), Can the major public works policy buffer negative shocks in early childhood: evidence from Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, University of California 7 Klonner, Stefen and Oldiges, Christian (2014), Can employment guarantee alleviate poverty?, University of Heidelberg 8 Gehrke, Esther (2014), Employment guarantee as risk insurance? Assessing the effects of the NREGS on agricultural production decisions, University of Passau and German Development Institute 9 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report , Government of India 32 33

18 Despite these achievements, MGNREGA witnessed a limited uptake by those who were most in need due to a range of complex challenges driven by continued social exclusion and alienation of these SEGs. While the benefits of the scheme did reach these communities to an extent, in many instances they were diluted or simply did not reach the intended beneficiaries. The most disadvantaged among these communities continued to remain excluded they remained unaware, without a voice and with little or no access to benefits of MGNREGA. The PACS programme recognised the potential of MGNREGA and the convergence with the PACS mandate to reduce the welfare gap between SEGs and the rest of the population and work towards achieving gender equality. Aligned with its programmatic approach to empower SEGs towards greater awareness and access to key government schemes PACS initiated a intervention to support the implementation of MGNREGA for greater inclusion of social excluded groups. An overview of entitlements under MGNREGA Adult members of a rural BPL household, willing to do unskilled manual work, may apply for registration in writing or orally to the local Gram Panchayat. The work entitlement of '100 days per household per year' may be shared between different adult members of the same household and the provision of employment is to be within five kilometers of an applicant's residence. The Gram Panchayat after due verification will issue a Job Card within 15 days of receipt of the application. The Job Card will bear the photograph of all adult members of the household and is provided free of cost. A Job Card holder may submit a written application for employment to the Gram Panchayat, stating the time and duration for which work is sought against which the Act stipulates that the Gram Panchayat will issue a dated receipt and provide wage employment within 15 days. An unemployment allowance is mandated to be paid, if work is not provided within this time period. The Act also sets a minimum limit to the wages, to be paid in a gender-equitable manner, either on a time-rate basis or on a piece-rate basis. The payment of wages is planned to enable financial inclusion of beneficiaries into the formal credit-banking system by routing payments through banks or the postal department. Work site facilities such as crèche, drinking water and shade at the work site have to be provided under the Act. The historical exclusion of these SEGs suggested that the programme efforts, in addition to information and knowledge, would need to build credibility and acceptance of the programme process among SEGs. The engagement would need to ensure that the SEGs perceive programme benefits to be within their reach and recognise the entitlements as their right. Chart 4 below outlines the likely stages of transition of these communities from a scenario of being unaware and excluded, to one where entitlements are accessed by assertion of the self. Chart 4: Likely stages of transition of SEGs to self-assertion for entitlements Unaware of MGNREGA and excluded from the mainstream Informed about MGNREGA Find MAGNREGA benefits relevant to self and family Believe that MGNREGA benefits can be accessed:endorsement by peers, confidence on processes, evidence of access to benefits within own community Learn of own rights under MGNREGA and processes to access entitlements from village level governance bodies and local government functionaries Believe in likelihood of access to and inclusion by village level governance bodies and local government functionaries in MGNREGA implementations processes. Participate in program processes to include: Local level planning and decision processes to identify assets Work demand and receipt of 100 days work or unemployment allowance in lieu of work Access to field functionaries functionaries to realize program benefits and to resolve challenges faced Local level program audit Assertion of rights to access due entitlements under MENREGA 34 35

19 2.1 Implementation challenges The on-ground scenario prior to the PACS intervention on MGNREGA presented a range of limitations on the extent to which implementation of MGNREGA was inclusive and served to support the transition of SEGs across these stages to exercise their rights and gain due entitlements under the scheme. Lack of awareness There was a widespread lack of awareness about MGNREGA among disadvantaged persons belonging to SEGs in the intervention areas chosen by PACS. In many instances even if there was awareness of the scheme there was a lack of knowledge on specific benefits. These groups remained devoid of their entitlements under the scheme. In places where information about MGNREGA did reach these communities, there was a lack of awareness of process aspects, variances in integrity of programme implementation and limited ability of these communities to demand their right. The multiplicity of these factors contributed to ensuring dilution in entitlements provided to the SEGs in programme states. Excerpts of findings from Log frame baseline survey conducted by PACS in 2011 Awareness of key provisions of MGNREGA 45 per cent of SEG households were aware of the provision of 100 days of employment under MGNREGA. 25 per cent of SEG households were aware of the provision of obtaining job cards from Gram Panchayats. There was a negligible level of awareness among SEGs on provisions of social audit and worksite facilities. Employment under MGNREGA 52 per cent of SEG households had received employment in the last financial year under MGNREGA. Out of these, more than two-thirds of the households had received less than 25 days of employment. 76 per cent of Muslim households reported receiving less than 25 days of employment in a year. Participation in village level meetings SEG households reported that they were not informed on most occasions about meetings of the Gram Sabha or other such meetings at village. Less than 36 per cent of SEG respondents reported attending Gram Sabha meetings. It was also reported that even if the members from SEGs participated in the meetings, their suggestions were not considered while arriving at key decisions. The SEGs were in many instances, not aware of their right to demand work. The process of work demand applications and subsequent records including job cards and muster rolls were reported to be completed by others in the village, including members of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), without involvement of beneficiaries belonging to SEGs. Similarly there were instances where due payments did not reach the beneficiaries and the records of receipts were completed by PRI members and local post office personnel. The work was assigned without issuance of job cards and payments were made as per prevailing wage rates that were substantially lower than the wage rates stipulated in the scheme. The SEG members assumed that this work was being provided by the village head or other landowners as per the usual practice in the village. In some regions of Chhattisgarh, for instance, it was reported that the Sarpanch and other PRI members allotted work to those belonging to SEGs without requiring that a work-demand application be submitted. In many locations, where job cards did reach SEGs, the communities were not adequately informed on the role of the job cards. The cards remained unutilised and the SEGs did not receive wage employment. Discrimination against women and SEG members Several cases of discrimination against women and SEG members were also reported from the programme states. It was reported that in some regions fewer job cards were issued when the applicants were women, or there were delays in the issue of job cards to women. As an example, in some locations women belonging to SC groups were not provided with job cards even though they were eligible for employment. Women were also told at times that manual labour was not meant for women and they could not participate in ongoing works as these were to 36 37

20 be primarily undertaken by men. Sometimes workers were expected to bring their own tools, such as spades and shovels and this became difficult for women carrying infants. In some areas in Madhya Pradesh it emerged that people from ST communities were discriminated against as a norm and received less than the entitled days of wage employment. It was also reported that there were inordinate delays in issue of job cards to Muslims households in some regions and that the members of these households rarely got 100 days of employment. Further, across states, there were significant challenges faced by disabled persons to gain entitlements under the scheme. Often they were not provided work opportunities and among these, disabled women were the worst hit. The lag: intended outcomes and reality Despite a robust programme design, the implementation mechanisms were unable to reach the most disadvantaged among SEGs. The 'from the ground up' approach as envisaged in the programme design could not be implemented in the spirit that it was conceived in. In place of attaining the programme goals to ensure participation of these communities in the planning of local assets, demanding work and being a part of the local monitoring mechanisms to ensure proper implementation, the social and economic exclusion of these communities continued to prevail across many villages in programme states. Their lack of awareness about the scheme, poor access to information sources, historical distancing from local governance bodies and from government agencies, a real need to make do with whatever economic opportunities are accorded to them, the unfavourable imbalance of power equations in rural society all contributed to their voices continuing to be silent, unheard. Procedural challenges in wage realisation The scheme also faced procedural challenges in timely disbursement of wages. There were recurrent delays in payment of wages in many places where work had been provided under MGNREGA. These delays had a compounding effect on the communities belonging to SEGs. Their economic condition necessitated timely realisation of wages to manage their daily existence, since alternate local work opportunities were very limited during the lean season in farming operations. This in turn, mitigated the proposed impact of the programme to reduce distress migration. Commenting on the on-ground status of MGNREGA, economist Jean Dreze noted, 'Stagnant real wages and persistent delays in wage payments have sapped workers' interest in MGNREGA work... Workers have a right to work on demand, and if they work, they 3 have to be paid.'

21 » We were not aware of the provisions under MGNREGA. -Female, SEG Member, SC Community, West Champaran, Bihar» 'We didn't know we had to fill a form to demand work.' -Male, SEG Member, ST Community, Rourkela, Odisha» 'We would be given some work without filling any application. The village head and others must have been doing that.' -Female, SEG Member, ST community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh» 'Some of us had job cards, which we kept at home because we were clueless about what to do with them; a few of us even lost them.' - Male, SEG Member, SC Community, West Champaran, Bihar» We kept the job cards but had no idea what they were used for. A few of us also worked under MGNREGA, but owing to lack of information could not keep track of our payments. It was much later that we learnt on the use of the job cards.' - Male, SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» 'People from the general caste as well ST category were getting regular employment under the scheme but people from the SC category were somehow overlooked.' -Female, SEG Member, SC community, Kanker, Chhattisgarh» 'Our work depended on a few people and on how much work they could provide us on a contract basis.' -Female, SEG Member, ST community, Mayurbanj (Baripada), Odisha» 'A few of us were called by the contractor to work on road construction in the village. We used to receive Rs 100 at the end of the day, and would work for seven to eight days, after which he would replace us with another set of people.' -Male, SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar» 'There were delays of up to six months, or at times even more, in payments and then we did not feel like working under MGNREGA. -Female, SEG Member, ST community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh» 'There is little understanding of work to be allotted to disabled persons. Mostly it is felt that they cannot work. --Male, Mate, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar» 'The job cards were kept with the village head and the Dak Babu (post office personnel) in those days. Much later in response to a complaint, a raid was conducted in this area and nearly 400 job cards were seized from the residence of the Dak Babu.' - Male, SEG Member, SC Community, West Champaran, Bihar» 'There is lot of discrimination. While people belonging to the privileged caste can easily get a job card, for us getting a job card is an uphill task. Most of the time, we are rudely turned away from the Panchayat, if we enquire about the status of the registration.' Male, SEG Member, ST Community, Madhya Pradesh» 'Delay in delivery of wages causes people to lose faith in the scheme. The lack of timely payment makes it very difficult for them to manage.' -Male, SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar» 'No work was available in the village and women also went to Lakhanpur and Ambikapur for work.' -Female, SEG Member, ST community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh» 'At times, names of women do not get featured on the job card, even if they are eligible for employment under the scheme. Still we have never raised our voice as we fear that we will not even receive whatever we do get at present.' -Female, SEG Member, SC community, Madhya Pradesh 40 41

22 3 OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME APPROACH MGNREGA found considerable success in implementing the mandate in many parts of the country, however, there were several challenges that needed to be addressed. Review reports indicated that poorer states of the country had a higher level of demand for work under MGNREGA, but there remained considerable unmet demand for work across states, including the 'poorest' ones, where the scheme was needed the most. There were incidences of misappropriation of funds and a need for increased political commitment. In addition, while the scheme was reaching a large number of the unskilled, unemployed population living below the poverty line, it's up-take, especially by SEGs, was relatively low due to a lack of knowledge and the lack of institutional and governance support. The principal issues faced by the SEGs in accessing work under MGNREGA included: - lack of awareness about MGNREGA; - problems in demanding work and job cards under MGNREGA; - being paid late or not at all; - not being included in the annual planning process to decide the works to be carried out under MGNREGA; and - not being able to access the resulting assets. The overall programme approach sought to work closely with the government while activating engagement of SEGs by developing mechanisms that were owned and driven by these communities

23 PACS Institutional capacity building Training including on IPPE & social audit Facilitating working with government CSO Chart 5: The PACS programme framework Advocacy Technical assistance and support for IPPE & Social Audit Capacity building Information on entitlements Kaam Mango Abhiyaan Training CBOs on IPPE & Social Audit Training PRIs on IPPE & Social Audit Strengthening Gram Sabhas Government State District Local Enabling engagement at larger forums with government bodies Informed on entitlements Representation in local bodies Participation in Inclusive planning Work-demand generation Creation of sustainable assets Gender empowerment Local Elected Bodies PRI Community SEGs (SC, ST, PwD, Muslim, Women) Formation of collectives - CBOs Engaging with governance institutions The PACS intervention design recognised the need to work closely with the existing implementation mechanism and partner the government at the state, district and sub-district level towards achieving planned goals. The programme design and implementation spanned aspects of advocacy with the state government to highlight issues that were likely to have a state-wide impact, work with the government to design practices for state-wide adoption and request support from the state to resolve concerns that emerged at the district or local level. At the time, the programme design supported an intensive engagement with the government at the district level and working closely with field functionaries at the block, panchayat and village level to bring in increased accountability by making government representatives accessible to the community that was thus far excluded from the benefits of the MGNREGA scheme. The programme had a specific focus to strengthen local governance institutions and build their engagement with SEGs. In addition to initiatives across programme states to engage with these institutions that included orientation programs for Gram Sabha members; the programme piloted interventions such as the formation of Gram Sabha Secretariat in villages of West Singhbhum District, Jharkhand a system which provided a platform to the local community to be heard at the sub-district and district level and made it incumbent upon government representatives to respond to the issues raised. Another such example was the establishment of MGNREGA Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendra (SESK) at Giridih, Jharkhand a resource centre that focuses on operationalising the grievance redressal system by working in close coordination with the state and district administration, providing status updates, feedback and supporting capacity building of the Rozgar Sewaks and MGNREGA Mates

24 Engaging with civil society organisations (CSOs) To enable participation from and to give a voice to the SEGs in MGNREGA, the PACS intervention design focused on creating mechanisms that enabled engagement from within these communities in place of an intervention that is perceived to be externally driven. This approach was devised to address entry barriers in effectively engaging with these 'closed' communities and to ensure sustainability in the long-term by developing a range of community-driven interventions. The programme thereby sought an association with CSOs that worked at the local grassroots level and had a sustained prior linkage with the BPL communities and SEGs. Prior experience of working with SEGs Chart 6 : Capacity building of CSOs Build institutional capacities Support and strengthen aspects of human resource management The programme set out to identify CSO partners who were working with diverse SEGs on mandates promoting inclusion of SEGs on a rights-based approach. Partners who brought with them existing linkages based on trust and credibility with these communities and understood the social and life context of these excluded groups. The CSOs varied from organisations that were primarily working at the district or sub-district level to those who had a state or regional presence. They included organisations working on a range of issues spanning livelihoods, exclusion of groups such as Muslims, or disabled persons, land rights, gender, environment, agriculture and others. The partnerships were grounded on a common mandate of working with SEGs and recognised that each partner CSO came in with a specific prior mandate and may have their own approach to address issues of concern. Financial management Programme reporting Engagement with CSOs Evaluation Monitoring The engagement was built in a manner that provided flexibility to partner CSOs within the overall programme design and supported the design of interventions aligned with the specific strengths of partner CSOs. The lack of a rigid structure in the implementation aimed to address the range and diversity of SEGs that span gender, caste as well as cultural divides, where customisation according to specific issues or subjects of social exclusion would help to increase efficacy of programme interventions. At the same time it enabled the programme to draw from the varied capacities of these organisations based on their past work with SEGs to address issues related to social exclusion in MGNREGA. The intervention invested in a concerted effort to build capacities of partner CSOs as an essential input to balance the variances in the scale and past experiences of these organisations. The capacity building initiatives spanned specific training programmes and programmatic supported extended on a need basis during the course of the intervention. Chart 6 below presents an overview of the varied facets of this capacity building effort. One of the key aspects of the programme design was to bridge the CSOs with government at the district and sub-district level in their roles as key stakeholders to enable delivery of MGNREGA entitlements to SEGs. This aspect required considerable support from both these entities since in many instances they did not have a prior record of such engagement. A few partner CSOs had never worked with government earlier and had also been leading in formats that adopted a confrontationist approach in representing issues to government. At the same time, many of the CSOs were not known to government at the district or the state level and the government had been implementing the MGNREGA programme without the involvement of these organisations. The programme aimed to build this engagement to draw from the strengths that CSOs offered by virtue of their proximity to SEGs as an input to further strengthen the implementation mechanism managed by the government

25 At an overall level, the approach to enhance the engagement of CSOs with governance institutions included ensuring a participatory process with an equal if not lead role of the CSO at all stages of programme design, review and implementation. The intervention therefore supported expanded access of CSOs to all levels of relevant governance institutions in order to create appropriate spaces to enable dialogue. Efforts were also made to formalise consultation forums to ensure an inclusive decision processes, concurrent sharing of results and leveraging strengths of individual partners. Building Community Based Organisations (CBOs) At the grass-roots level the PACS intervention underscored the need to provide the SEGs a voice and build the intervention based on rights exercised by the community. The programme design supported communities to form and participate in collectives Community Based Organisations (CBOs). Chart 7 below provides an overview of the type of CBOs. PACS CSO Partners Range of CBO's (Some of the groups take forward the mandate of s p ecific government schemes while others are thematic-enabled. They support diverse common interest groups that represented specific local issues affecting the SEGs that PACS focuses on) Chart 7: Types of CBOs Women's self-help groups supporting savings or income generation Gram Ikais reflecting specific local concerns for groups of villages such as agriculture, irrigation, livelihood, health services etc. Disabled People's Organisations CBOs working on land rights and those working on forest rights for Scheduled Tribes Coalitions working on issues affecting Muslim women CBOs for Women Mates MGNREGA Workers' Unions and Employment Collectives that focus on employment issues under the MGNREGA scheme Providing a voice to disabled people: CBO in Kandamal, Odisha Jeeban Jeebika Sramika Sangh is a CBO in a village in the remote Kandamal district in Odisha, and includes four people with disabilities as its members. The CBO working towards claiming the right to employment under the MGNREGA scheme is promoted by Aaina, an Odisha-based CSO partner of PACS. It was formed after a baseline survey pointed to poor awareness levels on the entitlements guaranteed under the MGNREGA scheme, with the objective of strengthening the implementation of the programme in the village. Once the interface meetings between the various stakeholders, including potential beneficiaries and government departments, were undertaken and interest in MGNREGA was generated, the CBO decided to initiate action on issues of common interest such as accessing bank accounts, ATM cards as well as ensuring regular employment and timely wage payments. Among the notable steps undertaken was the formation of PwD (Persons with Disabilities) groups that also included families to represent a critically disabled person, for PwD-centric interventions. These further formed a part of a labour union that consisted of all the interested households in the village. Interface meetings of the department officials with the community or the labour union were conducted to facilitate in resolving pending payment grievances and have been instrumental in building the confidence of the community in the administrative machinery. The demand for work is systematically made on 'Rozgar Diwas' under MGNREGA, wherein employment is being provided. Jeeban Jeebika Sramika Sangh also participates in micro-planning under IPPE at the village level where the need for building resources of drinking water and household toilets and other issues concerning the village are discussed or identified. The plan is prepared and followed up with the block administration. All these efforts have ensured better entitlements under the MGNREGA programme as well helped bridge the distance between socially excluded communities in the village and the structures of governance at the block and district levels

26 In some instances the CSOs were already engaged with such CBOs and the PACS intervention sought to bring in their inclusion as partners in the programme. PACS and its CSO partners worked jointly to strengthen these local community-rooted organisations by providing a range of support systems and processes to build capacities and strengthen implementation. Chart 8 below shares an overview of the support provided to CBOs. Intervention focus The intervention identified three key focus areas in keeping with its main objective of reducing the welfare gap between SEGs and the rest of the population, by helping socially excluded communities to claim their rights and entitlements under MGNREGA more effectively. These comprised work demand, inclusive planning and social audit. Chart 9 depicts the interplay between these programme elements. 23,2016 Community Based Organisations (CBOs) 93.3% of CBOs M=Managed by persons belonging to socially excluded groups 95.2 of members of the CBOs ware from socially excluded groups Enable CBO member to understand and be confident in their rights, working together to demand and secure these entitlements. Chart 9: Key focus areas of the PACS intervention Information Dissemination Capacity Building Advocacy Support Implementation Support Build awareness on employment rights under the MGNREGA scheme Build confidence to participate in meetings with local govemance bodies at village & panchayat level Organise and lead public information campaigns Conduct community based monitoring of services Inform on processes to access entitlements under MGNREGA Develop leadership capabilities through programs such as with. In leading together and CBO conclaves.» PACS has strengthened us in several areas and funded us. They helped us to develop our finance policy, gender policy, work place harassment policy etc. They helped develop our internal system, CSO Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh Plan and conduct local advocacy events such as mass rallies, interactive meeting & public hearings to teach others about their rights.» Earlier coordination with government was a challenge as the organisation was primarily engaged in activism. Now over the past couple of years a relationship has been built with the government which would also help in sustainability. We are better placed now to apply for other government projects, CSO, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Identify issues and engages with relevant authorities to ensure service obligations are met. Work demand campaign Several studies highlighted the issue of the lack of up-take of the MGNREGA and its employment benefits including work demand, even though there was a great need for more paid work. The main reason for this was identified as lack of awareness and lack of understanding of the process for demanding work among the community members. Further, the limited participation of SEGs in MGNREGA planning meetings at Gram Sabhas or at Gram Panchayats accentuated the gaps in understanding the availability of work under MGNREGA and how to apply for it. The PACS intervention designed and launched a campaign to educate and mobilise socially excluded communities to demand work under the scheme. Further, the campaign connected the concerned government representatives with the community to ensure acceptance of the work demands and consequent provision of work

27 Integrated participatory planning exercise The PACS intervention worked with state agencies and civil society organisations to make IPPE a national initiative to involve rural communities in the annual MGNREGA planning process more inclusive for the SEGs which were often left out of the process. The programme developed a systemic training and implementation module to facilitate inclusive planning that works to prioritise creation of sustainable assets at the grassroots level. Social audit The intervention worked with government agencies to improve the social audit model of MGNREGA to sharpen the focus on inclusion of SEGs. The PACS social audit model also considered a number of elements beyond the financial performance of projects such as provision of worksite facilities, timely payments and the extent to which excluded communities benefitted from and were included in MGNREGA plans. The model also served twin objectives of assessing the status of implementation and conducting a need assessment for onward plans. The need for such a comprehensive model arose due to the exclusion of certain communities from the planning process, as well as the inability of these communities to access or use the assets built under MGNREGA

28 4WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY FINDING VOICES The PACS intervention to support MGNREGA was founded on the philosophy of shifting the pivot of power to the community, responding to concerns of SEGs, and aiding an inclusive development approach that helped these groups in finding their voice. Historically and politically people belonging to SEGs have been consistently excluded from the decisionmaking process, resulting in a lack of understanding and knowledge about their rights. They had faced consistent exclusion on many social and economic dimensions with little or no voice in local development programmes. They brought with them past experiences of being excluded from benefits from government schemes; continued indifference and apathy of local governance institutions and those better placed in local power structures; and, an acceptance of the continuing exclusion as a social norm that cannot be questioned. In many programme regions, SEGs were initially non-responsive and expressed cynicism on claims that the benefits of MGNREGA were likely to reach them. The programme recognised the need to bring in their interest and belief and also, to ensure ownership of the change process among these communities.» Now the community people listen to us and the misconceptions regarding our work have reduced. The people cooperate with us and apply for jobs under MGNREGA. CSO, Kishangan, Bihar 54 55

29 PACS accorded a primacy to the need for these groups to find that understanding to enable them to find their voice, such that these voices are heard when the benefits of government policies and programmes are either not reaching them, or are being delivered to an unsatisfactory standard. It aimed to specifically impart an understanding of the MGNREGA scheme and develop the confidence to be heard at the various levels of state, district and local government. The intervention sought to support these communities to demand and secure their entitlements at the individual and the collective level. The engagement with CBOs represented a key institutional mechanism to provide this platform and to support SEGs to make their voice heard and recognised by agencies involved in implementation of MGNREGA. The intervention retained a special focus on raising the participation of people from SEGs as members and leaders of CBOs. The CBOs formed among SEGs ensured opportunities for an individual to express views and claim rights by helping to offset the imbalance in local power equations that had previously perpetuated exclusion. For an individual belonging to an SEG, the CBOs helped mitigate the risk perceived when rallying against more powerful constituencies that encouraged existing exclusion practices. At the same time, the CBOs provided a compelling momentum within the community to encourage large-scale participation. They offered a platform for the individual voice and, where required, could leverage the collective voice to improve responsiveness and accountability from agencies managing the implementation of MGNREGA. Integral to this approach was the support provided to SEGs to build networks within and external to their community, deliberate on issues of concern and to facilitate their individual or collective action to exercise their rights and gain due entitlements under MGNREGA. While doing so, the programme focused on ensuring that these deliberations and the actions originated from and were acted upon by members of these communities. The support from the programme shared information on possible pathways. The choice and the action were left to the communities. Giving a voice to gender equity: Creation of a cadre of Women Mates Under MGNREGA, all projects or works are managed by a Mate. These projects range from building roads, digging a well, or developing other community assets. Mates are responsible for managing the project worksite, deciding who and how many people should be employed, keeping the muster roll i.e., a record of the labourers' hours and monitoring the progress and quality of the work. This position was typically filled by a male, which acted as a barrier and played a role in women being turned away from work, in addition to Dalits and Muslims who were discriminated against and excluded from the allocation of labour. To address this situation, PACS undertook a pilot project in Jehanabad to train 1008 Dalit women to become MGNREGA Mates. Interested candidates were identified and trained in worksite management, ensuring good working conditions at the worksite, and provision of mandatory worksite facilities. As a result, other women in the district have been encouraged to demand work under the scheme and work has become more inclusive for people from all communities and castes. It has also led to the Government of Bihar mandating that at least 50 per cent of Mates should be women 56 57

30 4.1 Building capacity of SEGs and CBOs To develop CBOs, PACS partner CSOs with inputs from the PACS programme team invested in processes to facilitate cohesion within communities on the concept of collectives; shared possible formats on creating collectives to address issues impacting the community; built leadership capacity among members of CBOs; provided inputs on MGNREGA processes to assist CBOs in developing action plans to exercise rights and claim due entitlements; and, facilitated engagement with local governance bodies. In doing so, partner CSOs and other members of the PACS programme team ensured that their role was limited to sharing possible pathways to resolve challenges that were anticipated or that emerged during the journey. The decision to act and the consequent action originated from the community and was implemented by them.» Whenever there is work in our village, members of Naya Savera call us to the worksite and ensure we got work. We used to work continuously for 100 days for the construction of ponds. - SEG Member, ST Community, Giridih, Jharkhand» We had put lots of effort in opening bank accounts for job card holders but had many problems. People from ASRA helped in arranging meetings with the bank manager. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand In addition to capacity building and technical support for CBOs on-ground, the intervention also worked towards creating opportunities for them to share experiences and build linkages by organising state and district level conclaves. These conclaves are learning, networking and advocacy events bringing the various socially excluded community members on a common platform with district and state level government representatives from across the seven PACS states. It gives the SEGs an opportunity to have their voices heard and share their experiences, challenges and successes with others. By bringing together communities from different districts, the conclave allows them to build linkages and learn from each other. The SEGs also get a chance to raise their concerns regarding the access to their rights and entitlements under MGNREGA in front of politicians and bureaucrats. The platform has been successful in fostering community leadership and collective action, empowering the community members with the knowledge that they stand together in their efforts to claim their rights. Across programme states, the CBOs witnessed considerable success as forums providing a voice to SEGs and bridging access for SEGs to programme implementation units. In instances, the CBOs have also initiated action on other aspects of concern to SEG communities and are likely to emerge as key institutions supporting these communities to gain due entitlements under MGNREGA in ensuing years.» A proposal to build a well in my land was approved but money was not released. The CSO member spoke to the block administration and got the payment sanctioned. - SEG Member, ST Community, Giridih, Jharkhand» A lot of people applied for job cards and people from ASRA helped us to get the block administration to issue the job cards. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» People were wary of working in MGNREGA given previous experiences of not getting paid. But due to efforts of Secretary of ASRA, who visited our village and made us aware of the provisions of the scheme, people have started taking up jobs under MGNREGA. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand 58 59

31 Building capacities to advocate for employment rights: Community Correspondents Network In , PACS launched an initiative with its partner Video Volunteers in the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Called Community Correspondents Network (CCN), the initiative trained 45 community correspondents on video journalism to bring to light under-reported stories within their community. This network was further developed over the next year, including 75 correspondents to highlight issues that included MGNREGA. Capturing citizen priorities, concerns and perspectives, the videos are utilised to support advocacy at local, state as well as national levels. If the advocacy results in positive change, the Community Correspondent is then commissioned to produce an impact video to showcase the change that has occurred. The project has been successful in giving a platform for the voices and issues of historically marginalised groups to be heard. In addition, several of the Community Correspondents have proceeded to take up official leadership roles within their communities, using their video making skills and their position in local government to help SEGs to raise their voices and claim their employment rights

32 CONNECTING THE COMMUNITIES WITH ENTITLEMENTS A number of studies indicated that although many rural communities needed more paid work, the demand for work under MGNREGA was not being generated. This lack of take-up was attributed to the fact that rural community members had little knowledge, or did not understand the process for demanding work under MGREGA. Moreover, there were considerable gaps in the way that Gram Panchayats which are responsible for implementing the scheme at a community-level implemented MGNREGA in terms of planning and delegating work. The widespread exclusion of SEGs in the implementation of MGNREGA presented a complex challenge for the PACS programme team, partner CSOs and CBOs. These multifaceted issues were the outcome of a near absence of 'ground up' processes as envisioned in MGNREGA. These included lack of awareness among SEGs on programme entitlements; little or no involvement of SEGs in village-level governance bodies; limited generation of work demands; non-inclusive planning processes at the village level; inadequate social audits; and significant challenges in many locations in the integrity of programme implementation at the village, panchayat and block level. This scenario was underscored by a lack of accountability of programme implementers to the community that was most in need: the SEGs. Limiting access of SEGs to MGNREGA entitlements: a glimpse of implementation challenges Communication gaps between the office bearers at the Janpad Panchayat and the elected representatives at the Gram Panchayat level. There were no meetings held to create awareness, and official communication related to various government schemes was not passed on, leading to a gap in the elected representatives' information on the modifications, updates and changes made, including the MGNREGA scheme. Inadequate orientation of the elected representatives about their role leading to a lack of clarity on the methods to adopt for fulfilling their duties. Political interference in the MGNREGA planning process and the selection of beneficiaries, and apathy towards the needs and issues faced by the community. Non-acceptance of the village plan prepared by the Gram Panchayat at the Janpad level. Improper assessment of work by sub-engineers, leading to disproportionate wage payment to MGNREGA workers

33 Incongruence between plans and budgets allocated. Paucity of funds in MGNREGA led to delayed payments of the workers. Mobilising SEGs who lacked faith in the governance system due to years of sustained discrimination and exploitation The absence of any action taken against those responsible for improper implementation augmented distrust in the system and disinterest in applying for work under MGNREGA among SEGs. The PACS intervention addressed these issues at multiple levels to strengthen governance and to support the community to assert their rights. 5.1 Working with governance institutions The programme worked closely with the government to strengthen the implementation mechanism at the state, district and sub-district level.» Earlier the people did not pay much attention to the meetings of the Gram Sabhas. But as soon as they were made aware of their rights and duties, they started attending meetings. - CSO Deoghar, Jharkhand» Now the CBO themselves have started raising questions and issues, for instance, they ask the Sarpanch about the approved budget for MGNREGA, dates of the next Gram Sabha etc. - CSO Surguja, Odisha» Now the women themselves call our Collector madam and inform her of all their issues such as their work being delayed, having not received their money, etc. - BPO, Surguja, Odisha» Now because of the Gram Sabha, people are not afraid. They come forward and explain issues in front of the Karyakarini Samiti which offers solutions. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» Prior to PACS MGNREGA, proposals were passed claiming to be approved from Gram Sabha, but the Gram Sabha meetings were never organised. After PACS intervention, Gram Sabha is now conducted each month. People from the community put forward the proposal and everyone knows about the proposals. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand Connecting communities to governance institutions: Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendras (MGNREGA help centers) As a pilot project, PACS entered into an agreement with the government of Jharkhand in Giridih district where they set up Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendras (MGNREGA help centers) to provide MGNREGA-related information to villagers and facilitate grievance redressal where necessary. The initiative supported SEGs across the district as a responsive user-friendly location to understand their entitlements, submit work applications, followup payments, share grievances and receive support to submit grievances as per processes prescribed in MGNREGA implementation guidelines, gain information on the status of pending grievances and support for resolution. At the same time, the SESKs supported the implementation of the programme as a coordination point at the block level and worked closely with the block programme team. The programme witnessed significant positive changes in the 10 blocks of Giridih where SESK centers were functioning. There was an increase in the number of work demand applications, people were filing grievances on a range of concerns including delayed payments and the SESKs were able to support action to address grievances. The initiative has been institutionalised with the state government on conclusion of the support from PACS. SESKs are continuing to operate in two blocks under the aegis of the Government of Jharkhand

34 Gram Sabha Secretariats: strengthening local governance bodies Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, or PESA is a law enacted by the Government of India to cover the Scheduled areas, to enable Gram Sabhas in tribal areas to self govern their natural resources. The Act allows for the provision in legislation on Panchayats to be in conformity with the customary law. It aims to ensure that the Gram Sabha continues to safeguard and preserve traditions and customs of local people including providing a primacy to traditional tribal leaders. In an effort to enable the access of MGNREGA entitlements to villages that came under Scheduled areas, PACS sought the support of the tribal chieftains (Mundas) in West Singhbhum District, Jharkhand. A lack of awareness on the programme and a distancing from the program implementers had resulted in low levels of involvement of Mundas in MGNREGA. The intervention sought to approach them and bring them on-board the programme as a first key step. The engagement involved providing them information on the rights and entitlements under MGNREGA, as well as orienting them on their responsibilities and powers related to MGNREGA and building their commitment to an effective implementation of the programme. The Mundas were further supported to manage implementation aspects by formation of working committees in Gram Sabhas. The working committees ensured that people were nominated to look into the different aspects of development works, e.g., livelihood, agriculture, animal husbandry, irrigation, and forest rights. Further, the formation of Gram Sabha Secretariats were undertaken. A notable feature of these secretariats was the printing of official stationary for each Gram Sabha. All grievances and complaints pertaining to MGNREGA would be printed on the official letterheads to formalise and document the process. These Secretariats also acted as a platform where members of the working committee, as also village members, could get together and discuss matters related to the affairs of the village, including MGNREGA. This customised approach has been successful. It strengthened the involvement of Mundas and also the working of the Gram Sabhas. The Gram Sabha Secretariats provided a local platform for the community to claim their rights and entitlements. The formalised process of communication from these secretariats succeeded in ensuring district and state governments were more responsive and accountable. The Gram Sabha Secretariats today, represent a model platform to help articulate a collective voice and facilitate registration of wage demand in Scheduled areas

35 5.2 Catalysing the community: connecting SEGs with the programme The programme adopted multiple strategies to support SEGs to gain knowledge and confidence to assert their rights under MGNREGA. The efforts were led by initiatives from the communities and were centered on improving the engagement of SEGs with the implementing system. Kaam Mango Abhiyaan PACS started the Kaam Mango Abhiyaan in in the states of Bihar and Jharkhand to empower the community members to become active stakeholders and to demand their rights and entitlements. The campaign had two primary aims: 1) to mobilise communities to demand work under MGNREGA; and 2) to raise awareness amongst communities about the processes and entitlements under MGNREGA and to help them to redress any grievances. Inclusive Planning In 2013, PACS began an inclusive planning process trial with the aim of increasing the efficacy of the planning exercise such that everyone in the community participates in the MGNREGA planning process and their voices are heard. The inclusive planning trial conducted by PACS served to contribute to The Integrated Participatory Planning Exercise (IPPE) which was launched by MGNREGA in The experiences and learnings from the trial also contributed to the national training module for IPPE developed by the Ministry of Rural Development and the National Institute of Rural Development. IPPE aimed to involve community members in the planning process of identifying projects or issues that they feel need to be addressed. However, it witnessed myriad challenges in implementation and socially excluded groups were often left out of the decision-making process and the identification of projects and delegation of work was controlled by a few influential people in the village. Efforts to raise awareness included spreading knowledge and understanding of the process to register, the standard norms for the payment of wages and the role of Gram Panchayats in the planning and delegation of work. The campaign included organising work demand camps, rallies and community meetings, and raising awareness through IEC materials.» A hand-pump was installed in the budget of tree plantation with a view to serve the purpose of irrigation but it did not work. We still go to riverside to fetch water for irrigation. - Female SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar (on the IPPE process prior to the PACS intervention) The initial campaign had a strong wide ranging impact and was rolled across all the seven PACS states. In all, it helped 851,778 people to apply for MGNREGA work and 664,603 people received work under the scheme.the Work Demand Campaign was initially launched in selected parts of Bihar and Jharkhand. It was recognised by the Government and aspects were considered for further replication. It contributed to the design of a pilot work demand campaign launched by the government in September 2013 in six districts of six states. PACS partners facilitated to lead the campaign in collaboration with MoRD in West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand and Sundargarh district of Odisha. PACS partners CSOs played an active role in Katihar district of Bihar.» We had lots of wells constructed in our village. But most of them are not of any use. Nobody from the village was consulted before constructing wells. - Male SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» They informed us that widows, single woman, poor people also can work under this system. - Male SEG Member, ST Community, Rourkela, Odisha» People got to know that work has to be demanded. Before the campaign the focus was on job cards and bank accounts. - CSO, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh» After the campaign 39,000 work demands were collected from Sundargarh. It stood first in India in terms of demand collection. - CSO Rourkela, Odisha 68 69

36 The PACS intervention focused on supporting the government to ensure that everyone in a community participates in the MGNREGA planning process IPPE and that their voices are heard. The process elements integrate the participation of rural communities with a specific focus on SEGs. Chart 10 below depicts the stages of the IPPE process. Several steps were taken to strengthen the IPPE process and make it more comprehensive and inclusive during the PACS programme. These included building capacity of CSOs by PACS technical partners to facilitate micro planning activities at the village level and formulating labour budgets with a focus on SEG communities. Chart 10: Overview of IPPE Process Household survey to gain information on the current status of potential beneficiaries and the village» They provided a comprehensive training on MGNREGA. They trained us on social audit and planning. Today, we orient the government officials. - CSO Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh Share the data at the block and district level Identification of location to conduct a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercise at the village level Community informed about time and location» Initially we had to plan for each activity. Without this it would have been very difficult to manage as there are so many activities. Various trainings were conducted by PACS. - CSO Surguja, Chhattisgarh CSO's, in turn, trained block- or village-level officers, CBOs and volunteers for village resource mapping to help create a shelf of projects based on the needs of the community, the main focus being sustainable asset creation community members involved, mainly from SEGs Multiple group meetings ('Mohalla' meetings) in the village (Discussion on previous year annual budget of Panchayat to understand the various heads and provisions in the budget) Collation of active job card to prepare the Labour Budget for the next financial year Community members and organisation team members undertake a Transit Walk (To prepare a Social Map, Resource Map and Seasonal Map to understand their resources and its availability through the year and how they could be used efficiently)» We had to plan how to develop a labour budget and what would be the contribution of the beneficiaries. IPPE had not started then, so we prepared the labour budget on our own as per the earlier MGNREGA guidelines. On that basis we trained block-level officers. We also explained to the CBOs that the plans we make will be the ones to get approved. Since we wanted to create assets, we focused on that during planning and undertook resource mapping and social mapping. We did an analysis of the work, job cards, households, labourers and then prepared the plan. - CSO Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh» There are 16 types of work under MGNREGA. The prioritisation of work takes place during the planning process based on the community needs. - CSO Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) are conducted to capture their needs and identify resources that would fulfil their needs Community participates to set the priority of works in Gram Sabhas Participatory plan submitted in the Panchayat office for onward submission at the district level 70 71

37 Under the new planning process, the community members reported involvement in the mapping exercise. However, there were several instances of SEGs not being included in the planning process, and their subsequent inability to access or use the assets that were built under MGNREGA.» Mapping was done in our villages in 2014 by CSO Chaupal. They came and informed us that they would conduct the mapping exercise in our village. Everyone in the village participated and mapped resources like forest, roads, water sources etc. - Female SEG Member, ST Community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh» This time we have worked a lot on IPPE 2 using trained CBOs who made their village plans. Now the plan has been made and submitted to the district - CSO Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh» In IPPE it is very difficult to make and submit a plan for approval. But if you incorporate your plans with what the government is already doing then it can be done. They wanted some resources at the panchayat level for IPPE, so we placed several of our mobilisers from that panchayat in the BPT (Block Planning Team) along with some of our youth members. As a result, we could make our plans in most of the villages and they were approved. - CSO Surguja, Chhattisgarh Community participation in the PACS-initiated, and later government-adopted, IPPE model for the overall development of the villages has enabled inclusive planning and participation of SEGs in prioritising assets, budgeting and sending plans to the block-level administration.» We now plan among ourselves. During the Gram Sabhas, members propose assets which they feel to be important. Based on a consensus, the proposed assets are prioritised and the proposal is submitted to the BDO. - Female SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand Social audit The works being carried out under MGNREGA are monitored and evaluated through social audits that assess whether the work that has been undertaken is in accordance with the annual village plans, and is benefiting all communities. Independent social audits of the Gram Panchayats to be carried out by a third party every six months has been mandated under Section 17 of MGNREGA. This is to ensure that MGNREGA works are being undertaken inclusively, fairly and in line with annual plans. Challenges for Social Audits Issues related to registration and job cards: There were several complaints from families who did not get registered, and those to whom jobs were not provided on time. There were also instances of bribes being demanded in exchange for issue of job cards, and many job cards being incomplete, and several job cards being withheld by middlemen, village heads or the Panchayat Rozgar Sevak.» Most of the people in the village received their job cards a night before the day of social audit in the village was scheduled. - SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar» On the day of the social audit in our village, we have seen bundles of unused job cards dumped in garbage and according to me they were disposed a night before in order to secure themselves against any legal action. - CSO Jehanabad, Bihar Issues related to work demand: In some villages, there were reports of the work demand of applicants not being accepted and in some cases, accepted but the receipt not handed over to the villagers. There were also instances of work not provided on time and the application of unemployment allowance of several families was rejected. Status of worksite facilities: There were concerns related to the unavailability of first aid, the lack of an appropriate shed and drinking water facilities. There were some cases of fake bills raised that claimed the availability of these facilities. Issues related to payment of wages: Complaints were made and findings reported instances where wages were not paid on time or not paid in accordance with the work done. There were also cases of gender discrimination in wage payment and fake muster rolls were discovered. In addition, there were reports of misappropriation of funds and illegal gratification at the post office and banks for payment. Issues related to transparency and accountability: In many worksites, the board displaying the details of the MGNREGA work underway was missing. It was reported that the information was not provided despite being asked, and no action was taken on social audit findings in some cases

38 The range of issues and challenges highlighted the need for an improved and more thorough model for effective implementation of the MGNREGA scheme. PACS supported the improvement of the Social Audit model to better measure the overall impact of MGNREGA with a sharpened focus on the inclusion of SEGs. The model sought to assess the MGNREGA works on several parameters in addition to the financial aspects such as the provision of worksite facilities, timely payments, and the inclusion of socially excluded communities in the plans as well as the benefits drawn. It sought to address the following key points. 1) The status of timely delivery of the MGNREGA mandated entitlements and provisions including job cards, work, worksite facilities and wage payments. 2) Whether the entitlements and provisions are delivered without any discrimination to various social groups. 3) Whether the process of planning for works is carried out in a participatory and nondiscriminatory fashion. 4) The nature of assets that have been created by MGNREGA works and whether they are functional 5) Number of assets created that directly benefit socially excluded communities and help them to improve their livelihood opportunities. 6) Whether socially excluded groups have non-discriminatory access to the use and benefits of the community assets created under MGNREGA. 7) The status of formation and functioning of the MGNREGA Vigilance and Monitoring Committee and its level of inclusiveness. The Social Audit process The process of social audit takes place over a period of five days. It entails the following. Verification of information on Days 1&2 Visiting work done under MGNREGA and checking it against the annual plan and records of work. Inspection of all related documentation including requests of job cards, requests of work, assignment of work, and payment information. Conducting interviews of MGNREGA workers to determine how much they were paid, on-site conditions, their inclusion in the planning process and to identify any issues. Carrying out resource mapping to determine whether the assets created by MGNREGA works are being used and accessed by the whole community. Authentication of findings on Day 3 Presentation and discussion of the initial findings at a Gram Sabha. Consolidation on Day 4 Consolidation of findings into a final report. Public hearing of final report on Day 5 Presentation of the final report at the Panchayat level Jansunwai, i.e., public hearing. These hearings are attended by members of local government, block level officials and relevant government departments, and necessary action steps are identified for going forward

39 Experiences of the social audit The trial launch of PACS social audit model took place in 200 Gram Panchayats in six states 4 of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh. PACS built the capacity of CSOs with the help of its technical partners to facilitate the social audit process in few selected villages in identified blocks during the trial stage. Training of Trainers (ToT) was also provided to the associated CSOs, who further trained CBOs and other community representatives in the process. The initial phase also saw a reluctance on the part of government officials, and it took several rounds of meetings by the members of CSOs with district- and block-level officials supported with interaction at the state level before securing their buy-in.» Subsequently, the local governments were supportive of the process, in some instances actively encouraging in rooting out corruption that had been reported in the previous years. First the name of audit makes the block or district officials uncomfortable. We spoke to the district CEO and explained to him that we are not going to talk about the money or corruption but rather on the work and quality of work such as what was the benefit of the work which happened last time and was there a need for such type of work. And if there was some other work would it have been more useful and would it have provided more labour days to help in planning. The CEO then issued a letter for the three selected blocks to do a social audit process on specified dates. After which we spoke to the block CEO and PO for their approval. - CSO Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh There was increased accountability. For example, there was an instance of lack of proper record keeping of files at the district level.» During social audit it was revealed that the road construction work which has been done for one village is named differently in the file. Due to which we had to face lot of challenges while conducting social audits. We complained to the nearest police station. - Female, SEG Member, SC Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand Once the case reached police station and the enquiry started, the Block Programme Officer admitted the mistake on behalf of the administration.» The Block Programme Officer (BPO) called us and admitted that the Panchayat Sevak had inadvertently provided them with wrong files and he apologised in front of us. - Female, SEG Member, SC Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand Today, many CSO partners of PACS form part of the resource groups in the government-led social audit process and many of the trainers and facilitators who were developed during the PACS intervention have been engaged to lead the social audit processes. PACS has also been invited to be a member of the State Advisory Committee on Social Audit in Uttar Pradesh with the members of the social audit cells formed in Bihar and Jharkhand as partners.» Since previously there had been some corruption cases which had come in the newspaper in Champa. The District officials and the district CEO were very keen that the process be institutionalised and conducted in a better way. - PACS Programme Staff, Chhattisgarh The success of the PACS social audit campaign led to its scaling up to all seven PACS states covering 60 districts. In all, 80 master trainers and 2673 community facilitators have been trained by PACS to lead the social audit process. The master trainers in turn trained community-based individuals to manage social audits in the field. 593 social audits were carried out in Gram Panchayats and villages to assess whether MGNREGA work is benefitting all community members

40 The PACS initiative has had wide-ranging impacts through its diverse and multi-pronged approaches to address the various challenges faced in enabling the vulnerable and marginalised communities to effectively access, as well as assert their rights and entitlements, so they receive a fair share of the country's development gains. THE IMPACT By identifying that the success of MGNREGA is founded on the effective enforcement of its demand-driven, bottom-up structure of planning for employment creation, with substantial involvement of PRIs, PACS directed its efforts towards engaging the community at various levels, particularly focusing on empowering the socially excluded communities. In doing so, it has achieved key overall impacts as depicted in Chart 11 below, across the programme eco-system viz. SEGs-CBOs, CSOs, Government and the external environment. Chart 11: Key overall impacts: PACS intervention Strengthened multiple CSOs to prioritise work impacting SEGs and built their engagement with the government Ensured better representation of SEGs at village/ block/district level committees in CSOs and in government bodies Higher accountability and responsiveness to SEGs and removal or lessening of barriers in service delivery Dissemination of learnings from the programme These macro impacts were supported by wide-ranging impacts as evident in quantitative and qualitative information emerging from the programme states. In all Rs 1,296,261,872 were disbursed to MGNREGA workers as wages under the programme. Of this amount, 82.1 per cent went to people belonging to SEGs. Further, empowered communities helped to ensure that 1,243,082 assets such as ponds, wells and roads were built under the programme to directly benefit people from SEGs. Inclusive IPPE and Social Audits were carried out in 2972 and 593 Gram Panchayats respectively with each such exercise having positive ripple effects in neighbouring villages and Panchayats. In all, 8437 training and sensitisation events were held on the subject of MGNREGA, attended by a range of people including PACS partner staff, government officials, the media and CBO members; 2021 advocacy meetings were held with government officials and other stakeholders on the subject of MGNREGA, leading to 252 recommendations proposed on 5 improving the implementation of MGNREGA in context of SEGs. The testimonial provided by these quantitative data sets is supported in many ways by the renewed budgetary 6 support for MGNREGA with a central allocation of Rs 3,85,000 million in The allocation of the budget has served to dispel uncertainties on the continuance or prioritisation of the programme despite doubts being raised on its efficacy in many platforms

41 Impacts on poverty reduction and gender equality: The India Human Development Survey The India Human Development Survey (IHDS) was part of a collaborative programme between the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) and University of Maryland. It was the only large panel survey in India to interview the same households at two points in time and was first conducted in , just before MGNREGA was started. The second phase of the study was conducted in , after MGNREGA had been extended to all rural districts offering a unique opportunity for programme evaluation. PACS was among the entities supporting the study on the analysis and report development component. The report compared data from 26,000 rural households in 2004/05 and 2011/12 and concluded that the scheme had reduced rural poverty by up to a third. The report highlighted the locally owned and managed demand-driven approach as MGNREGA's strength. The emphasis on manual work was also seen to increase participation by poor and marginalised groups. It has played an important role in ensuring household income security and well-being by improving overall household financial inclusion. One of the biggest impacts of MGNREGA has been to bring several women into the sphere of wage employment, which has led to increased gender employment. It had provided scores of women with their first formal employment and benefits of increased financial inclusion. Reduction in poverty MGNREGA attracts mainly poor and vulnerable people such as agricultural wage labourers, SCs, STs, and small, marginal farmers. A National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) study found that the programme had reduced overall poverty by up to 32 per cent. The impact was more perceptible when sub-groups of temporal poverty were taken into account. These included people who escaped poverty and those who remained poor during the period between 2004/05 and 2011/12. The study indicated that MGNREGA had significantly contributed to prevent nearly 14 million people from falling into poverty 7 amongst these groups.» Increased income from MGNREGA has increased our savings, which we can use to rear goats, hens and pigs - Female SEG Member, ST Community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh» I used half of the money for improving our lifestyle and had deposited the remaining in the bank as savings. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand Addressing the issue of underemployment By providing seasonal work of 2.5 billion person days each year, MGNREGA has addressed 41 per cent of the problem of underemployment (estimated 6.6 billion person days) in the rural areas.» Out of us 30 persons had worked complete 100 days. - Male SEG Member, ST community, Rourkela, Odisha» We worked for 100 days consecutively for three years. - Female, SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar Addressing distress migration Implemented properly, MGNREGA has arrested distress migration and provided a safety net for the poor in the lean agricultural season. However, it has had little or no adverse impact on the horizontal mobility of educated and skilled rural work force to the urban areas.» Both males and females from the community used to migrate in search of jobs, but it was of no use since when they came back, they had to reconstruct their houses and resettle. There was no scope of savings. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» Earlier no work was available in the village and women also went to Lakhanpur and Ambikapur for work. Now only male members go for work during lean periods. - Female, SEG Member, ST Community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh 7 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research, 2015, _NCAR_MGNREGA_report-2015.pdf 80 81

42 » Migration has decreased to a great extent. Now people are not going to other places to find work. They find work within the village. - Male SEG Member, ST Community, Rourkela, Odisha As a direct indicator of increased empowerment, women's ability to freely seek healthcare rose from 66 per cent in 2004/05 to 80 per cent in 2011/12, in households where they were employed under MGNREGA, compared to all other households where it barely rose by 10 percentage points. Female MGNREGA workers were also the most likely to feel free to visit 10 a health centre alone.» In our village all the families work under MGNREGA. - SEG member, Rourkela, Odisha» After the PACS programme there is not much differentiation between men and women as both of them get equal wages under MGNREGA. - CSO Rourkela, Odisha» We have 162 families, 20 of these families used to travel to other locations for work. But after the PACS programme only three to four families go outside for work. Network CSO, Baripada, Odisha Providing employment to rural women and aiding women's empowerment Access to paid work is largely recognised as a key determinant of a rise in women's bargaining power within the household. Women workers in MGNREGA, note several qualitative studies, display significant enhancement in their self-esteem, power within the household and control over resources. An overall increase in women's empowerment was observed in the study, highlighting increased financial inclusion 49 per cent of female MGNREGA workers reported having a bank account in 2011/12, against nine per cent in 2004/05. In addition, while 79 per cent of women surveyed, had cash on hand in 2004/05, 93 per cent acknowledged cash on hand in 2011/12. The programme provided sustainable work to rural women as evidenced by main workers (female) increasing from 54 per cent to 55.6 per cent in This has had positive impacts on the nutritional standards of the entire household 9 especially during the lean agriculture season. 9 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report , Government of India» After MGNREGA women have become self-reliant as they earn money. - Male, CBO, ST Community, Rourkela, Odisha» We have formed Self Help Groups (SHGs) for females. After attending Gram Sabhas for MGNREGA, they now conduct regular meetings and have also created a fund. The males are now encouraging females to participate. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» 2 women members have been trained as 'Raj Mistri' Masons - Female, SEG Member, ST Community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh» One of the female SHGs of our village, Roshni Samuh, has been accorded the task of making 45,000 bricks to be used for the Indira Awaas Yojana. - Female, SEG Member, ST Community, Surguja, Chhattisgarh» Earlier we had to ask the husband for money even if we had to spend Re 1 but now our husband asks us for money. - Female, CBO, SC Community, Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh» Earlier the husbands did not treat their wives well, they beat them and did injustice with them but after women started earning from MGNREGA these issues have reduced. - SEG Member, ST Community, Rourkela, Odisha» The main benefit of the MGNREGA programme is that wages go directly to our account. Thus making 80 per cent of the women independent - Network CSO Baripada, Odisha 10 National Council of Applied Economic Research, (2015), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi: NCAER,

43 Decreased reliance on moneylenders Reliance on moneylenders was also reported to have decreased since the implementation of MGNREGA. In 2011/12, 27 per cent of MGNREGA workers said they had borrowed money as compared to 48 per cent who had done so in 2004/05. This development is significant because moneylenders charge interest rates that could be as high as 10 per cent per month. This reduction has been due to the rise in the overall financial inclusion, irrespective of whether households were participating in MGNREGA or not. The proportion of rural households relying on moneylenders fell from 39 per cent Rise in children's education to 22 per cent among households that took out a loan, whereas borrowing fell from 31 per cent to 18 per cent even in low MGNREGA-intensity villages. In addition, it was also found that this financial inclusion may have led to reduction of profits and incentives for moneylenders to continue to lend in nonparticipating households (where neighbours participate), where borrowing fell from 38 per cent to 21 per cent. On the other hand, the decline in bad borrowing has been accompanied by a rise in good borrowing from sources like banks, credit societies, and self-help groups. This rise in formal credit was particularly marked among MGNREGA participants from 24 per cent to 34 per cent. This growth reduces the amount of high interest borrowing that creates a longterm debt cycle, resulting in decreased reliance on bad debt and increased financial 11 inclusion. Several studies have confirmed that MGNREGA has probably helped in closing the gaps in school enrolments by income, caste, religion and gender. Children from MGNREGA households were found to be more likely to attain higher education levels and improve their learning outcomes than children from non-mgnrega households. These improvements may be an outcome of MGNREGA income being used for buying books or getting private tuition for children. Another important factor may also be that MGNREGA helps reduce child labour, thereby improving education outcomes.» Our earnings during the agriculture season were consumed during the lean season. We had no room to spend on education for our children. - SEG Member, ST Community, Giridih, Jharkhand» I will invest the additional money earned through work under MGNREGA on better education of my children. SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand Potential of MGNREGA to improve workers' bargaining power MGNREGA has the potential to indirectly impact wages by improving the bargaining position of workers who can threaten to find a public works job if employers insist on paying below MGNREGA rates. This is especially valid in remote villages where higher or similar wage rates from paid private employment may not be easily accessible. However, this rests on the notion of a widely held perception that MGNREGA work is easily available. Creation of sustainable assets Around 30 per cent of works undertaken and assets created in MGNREGA are for soil and water conservation to support sustainable livelihoods. The Government of India has now made it mandatory to spend 60% of the project funds in a district on works directly related to agriculture and allied activities through development of land, water and trees. Experiences of the PACS interventions inform of creation of such assets in many programme states.» We planted these trees under the PACS programme. Now we are receiving the land rights. 30 trees per person. We will take care of the trees. Sell the fruits and also grow vegetables such as ginger in the land around the trees. - Female, SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar 11 National Council of Applied Economic Research, (2015), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi NCAER.: 2016/PACS_NCAR_MGNREGA_report-2015.pdf 84 85

44 Developing local market economies The individual and community assets created in the PACS intervention have had a direct impact on livelihoods for SEGs both in terms of recourse to wage employment during the lean season and to create avenues for future income streams. Anecdotal evidence from the PACS programme has thrown up many instances of SEGs creating new income generating avenues such as livestock farming or opening shops as a result of the benefits gained from the programme. The uptake of such activities is expected to increase the savings potential and disposable income of these households. In turn there is likely to be a positive impact on development of local markets and further stabilise the employment wage rates at higher levels than those prevalent prior to the programme.» I have set up a kirana shop and got my daughter married with the money earned through MGNREGA. - Male, SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar» I am selected at the Panchayat level for leading our CBO, Loksangharsha Samiti, to participate in the PACS led and later government adopted programme of IPPE 2 which is based on the concept of 'Hamara Gaon, Hamari Yojana'. - Male SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar» Prior to PACS people were afraid that even if they worked there was no certainty that they would be paid. Now they know how to ensure that they receive payments. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» Earlier we did not have information as to when we would be paid for the work done under MGNREGA, but now we know because of the information provided to us and if the payments get delayed, we enquire about them. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» I have purchased a buffalo and by selling its milk I have generated another source of income for my family. - Female, SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar» Due to the well, I am now able to use my barren land for cultivating vegetables which was completely dependent on rains earlier. Now I can use this land throughout the year for cultivation. - SEG Member, ST Community, Giridih, Jharkhand SEGs speak-up: asserting rights and participation in local governance The formation of vibrant collectives of SEG grounded on the mandate of assertion of rights and gaining due entitlements is likely to extend beyond MGNREGA to other public services. SEGs have already engaged through interventions such as the Gram Sabha Secretariat and other programme platforms to raise pertinent issues related to lack or delayed provision of entitlements related to aspects such as land rights, health and others. The continuing momentum of the CBOs formed during the PACS programme is expected to further expand the claim by SEGs on due entitlements. Accompanying a transition in local power equations towards an increased recognition of SEGs, the programme has also witnessed members from these communities actively seeking positions in ward councils, working committees of Gram Sabha and Panchayati Raj Institutions. The increase in the role of SEGs in local governance bodies and the expanded assertion of rights is likely to result in an increased demand for public services supported by improved service delivery.» We used to apply for work but were denied by the administration and were asked to wait. We now approach the Block Development Officer to resolve problems. - SEG Member, ST Community, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand» The well created on my private land is used by other people in my community too. I do not have any problem in that. Like me, they are also using the water for irrigation purposes and for personal use as well. - SEG Member, ST Community, Giridih, Jharkhand» If payment is delayed we go to the panchayat office and register a complaint. After the complaint the panchayat takes action and we receive our payment within fifteen days - Female SEG Member, ST Community, Baripada, Odisha» I am 60 years old. I had applied for work under the Work Demand Campaign but my application was rejected stating that I was not eligible to work. I took this matter to the CSO and they advised me to raise the issue in the public hearing and I did so. Later I was awarded with work. I also sent a legal notice regarding the lack of provision of work. Male SEG Member, SC Community, West Champaran, Odisha 86 87

45 Strengthening Civil Society Organisations The PACS programme has served to build institutional capacities of partner CSOs and to help build sustainable linkages with the government. The programme partnership helped to strengthen capacities of these organisations across functional areas such as human resource management, finance, monitoring and evaluation. Further, CSO functionaries received training on technical aspects including IPPE or Social Audit. In many instances the CSOs which had little or no prior engagement with government agencies are recognised as key resources by state and district government functionaries. The CSOs have representation on government panels that drive programme implementation and their functionaries are accorded recognition as expert technical resources for implementation of MGNREGA. The inclusive planning model and the training protocol developed by PACS has been recognized by the government at the national level. Recommendations from the IPPE work have been included in the national training guidelines for IPPE trainers. This effort by PACS has enabled the voices of thousands of members of SEGs to be heard. In total, PACS partners have carried out 2972 inclusive participatory planning exercises. PACS has successfully carried out 593 inclusive social audits. The methodology suggested by PACS has been incorporated by the government and institutionalised in the MGNREGA implementation modalities. Resources from PACS partner CSOs and CBOs are recognised by many state governments as technical resources at the state, district and sub-district level for planning, training of social audit teams and to provide oversight.» The PACS programme helped us to develop the HR policy and improve our financial systems. Our team also improved in their ability to develop formal monitoring reports. - CSO West Champaran, Bihar» After working with PACS on MGNREGA for four years, two of our coordinators are now working as resource persons at the state level for IPPE2. - CSO West Champaran, Bihar» Now we are known at the state level and the state government sometimes refers our organisation to other states or in other districts to provide training related to MGNREGA. - CSO Giridih, Jharkhand» Due to the PACS programme we have a greater recognition from the government - Network CSO, Baripada, Odisha Working with government to reach socially excluded groups The PACS programme has recorded considerable success in its objectives to work effectively with government agencies to improve the effectiveness of programme implementation. The intervention helped bridge CSO partners with local government and many of the CSOs are now recognised as technical and implementation support agencies by the government. They along with the CBOs have emerged as channels that inform on the challenges faced by SEGs and work with the government functionaries to address issues as they emerge. The programme has also partnered the government to introduced models of inclusive planning and social audit that are now recognised and implemented at the national level

46 THE WAY FORWARD The PACS intervention to support MGNREGA had a specific focus to ensure that the most disadvantaged among those socially excluded, could assert their rights towards livelihood security. To do so, the programme has worked closely with SEGs to provide them with the tools, the knowledge, the confidence and the voice to determine their course of action to access entitlements under MGNREGA. Working at various levels, the programme has also facilitated in establishing authorities that are responsive and accountable to these communities. The intervention has developed 23,206 CBOs in 95 districts, 517 blocks and 20,784 villages that understand their rights and entitlements and have the confidence and skills to negotiate with others to claim them. This effort has given a voice to these hitherto silent SEGs, and has transitioned them to a status where they are now asserting themselves to seek entitlements that are due to them from MGNREGA. MGNREGA: a glimpse of continued implementation challenges Despite these varied dimensions of success, the implementation of MGNREGA continues to present a range of challenges for consideration by programs at the level of advocacy and on-ground implementation. MGNREGA participation is lower in poor states like Bihar and Odisha in comparison to states such as Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, suggesting that statelevel policies and priorities have a large impact and that there is need for advocacy efforts towards reviewing policies to enable greater participation;

47 Challenges persist in terms of completion and quality of MGNREGA work. Gram Panchayats may lack sufficient technical expertise to produce a well-prepared plan, and cost-overruns may lead to cancellation of projects. These suggest a need to augment on-ground technical support and capacity building efforts; There are still gaps between demand and supply of work. About 29 per cent of rural households did not get any work at all, or did not get sufficient days of work despite expressing interest. Providing assistance on design of information systems and processes that enable greater response efficiencies, may be considered; There are considerable gaps in the programme in terms of support to disabled persons. Though, the intervention has highlighted or addressed many of the issues, there is a need for a greater emphasis on: (i) delivering programme benefits to this group; (ii) and, streamlining implementation guidelines, including work measurement by type of disability. There is need for greater convergence among schemes at the village level. This would increase the efficacy of inclusive planning, thereby leading to improved impacts; In addition to policy imperatives in the long term, it may be may be considered to support creation of platforms at the district and sub-district level that enable a joint planning and implementation among government agencies working on various development issues. Continue with efforts to support and strengthen CSOs and CBOs to achieve a selfsustaining momentum. Further, consider advocacy efforts with Government agencies for systemic inclusion of CSOs and CBOs to support programme implementation at the district- and sub-district-level. For example, these entities could support programme implementation where there are vacant staff positions at block- and panchayat-level. The CBOs could also provide support to manage administrative functions related to MGNREGA at the panchyat or Gram Sabha level, and assist in developing annual and long-term plans that are responsive to challenges being faced by SEGs; Maintain a continued focus on BCC efforts to: increase awareness among SEGs on the entitlements due under MGNREGA, and the process to access these benefits; mobilise SEGs to come forward and participate in the programme; and, Provide technical assistance to strengthen programme information systems and create front-end outputs that improve mechanisms to inform SEGs and build greater transparency. Intervention practices: considerations for replication Successful practices from the PACS intervention may be evaluated for scale-up wherever MGNREGA is being implemented. These could also be used to enhance efficacy in other development programmes reaching out to disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. A brief description of some of these elements is narrated below. Directions for onward programmatic emphasis The experiences and learning, from the PACS intervention to support MGNREGA, indicate directions for onward programmatic emphasis: Advocacy efforts to develop a multi-stakeholder forum at the national- and state-level to monitor MGNREGA implementation and provide recommendations for policy and onground implementation; Support creation of a pan-national pool of resource persons at state-, district- and sub district-levels to build capacity and provide technical assistance to MGNREGA programme staff. This resource pool could assist in improving implementation of key programme elements, such as work-demand generation, inclusive planning, assessments and social audits; 92 93

48 Programme models for scale-up of MGNREGA implementation The intervention witnessed the successful implementation of pilot program modules to address specific programmatic elements. These models included: - creation of Gram Sabha Secretariat as an approach to strengthen village-level governance institutions; - developing a cadre of Women Mates to ensure the participation of women, and their assuming a primary role in implementation of MGNREGA; and, - establishing SESKs as a platform that supports local government to provide greater access to the community, and provides the community a responsive mechanism to gain resolution on grievances. Successful outcomes resulted in scale-up of these models within the pilot districts. Further, they were also recognised by local Government agencies for continuance beyond the intervention duration. These experiences suggest that these models could be considered for implementation on a larger scale in MGNREGA. Supporting implementation of Government programmes Multiple elements of the PACS intervention were based on working within the framework of an existing government programme to support greater and more lasting impacts. The intervention approach sought to gain an in-depth understanding of the programme status, implementation framework, on-ground practices and challenges prior to design of specific programme modalities. The experiences and the positive outcomes indicate an exciting potential for utilisation of similar approaches by government programs and interventions outside of MGNREGA. Opening new spaces in government-community interface The approach of the PACS intervention was anchored on two key elements: (i) to catalyse community-led institutions to seek due entitlements; and, (ii) a concerted engagement with government agencies to seek their support and activate a larger engagement between the government and the community. The limited engagement of potential rural beneficiaries with local government agencies and the low accountability of these agencies to such groups is a key challenge faced by a number of development initiatives in the country. At the same time, most programmes are actively engaged in mobilising local communities and engaging with local government agencies during the course of intervention. The intervention efforts resulted in a sweeping transition. Many community members sought entitlements as a right and experienced access to local government officials both for the first time. Government agencies proactively collaborated with CSOs to improve the effectiveness of programme implementation, and CSO staff with required expertise on MGNREGA implementation were invited by government as technical resource persons to build capacity of local government staff. Representatives of CSOs and CBOs were also included, as a first, in many consultations within government to review and improve programme implementation. Other programmes may consider utilising these approaches to create required spaces for increased engagement of communities with government agencies. Locally responsive programme frameworks The PACS intervention across states, designed and implemented programmes in response to local needs. Therefore, in terms of partnerships, the intervention approach was kept flexible enough to recognise the widely varying mandates and scales of partner CSOs. This resulted in the intervention taking on board partners with specific strengths of prior engagement with local communities; and responding with capacity-building programmes aligned to the specific needs of partner CSOs. Further, the intervention designed initiatives that were enmeshed with the local fabric, and sought to focus on local challenges. A wide variety of CBO types were developed, as were specific initiatives such as Gram Sabha Secretariats, Women Mates etc. The wide variances in the status of development, socio-cultural norms, and implementation infrastructure across the country suggest that it may be useful to consider similar localised approaches to improve the effectiveness of programmes

49 Working to improve existing programme design Many elements of the PACS intervention such as the contribution to IPPE or Social Audit were centred on taking forward the programme mandate and design (as developed by the government for MGNREGA). The PACS team worked with government agencies in a joint effort to improve design and implementation modalities. This approach could prove useful across a range of collaborative programmes focusing on improving the effectiveness of existing elements of the programme to render greater efficiencies and improve the quality of impact. Addressing social exclusion and development goals By concentrating on the participation of SEGs in the MGNREGA intervention, PACS has taken affirmative action towards reducing inequalities among communities, empowering the bottom percentile of income earners and promoting economic inclusion of all regardless of sex, caste, religion, ethnicity or disability. In particular, the intervention has accelerated the process of growth with equity and sustainability; at a broader level, it has resulted in far-reaching impacts on key aspects related to social exclusion poverty, gender inequity and migration. Addressing specific thematic concerns The PACS intervention spanned a range of thematic aspects that worked together to achieve intended goals. However, many of the elements of the programme could be utilised to address specific thematic challenges. For example, the pilot programme to build a cadre of Woman Mates in Jehanabad represents a powerful tool to address issues of gender inequity. At a broader level, the approach seeks to include women as primary stakeholders in determining the course of programme implementation, thereby providing them a muchneeded voice within their families and their community. These and other such elements of the PACS intervention that address specific themes such as strengthening local governance institutions, activating participation and ownership of programme among communities etc., could be considered for replication in other programmes. Addressing gender inequities The intervention has resulted in creation of work opportunities for women who would have otherwise remained unemployed or underemployed. This has resulted in a visible difference in their participation in decisions in their communities. Intervention aspects such as Women Mates or formation of all-women CBOs have provided women a primacy in participating and in leading decisions that affect their livelihoods and their households. Reduction in distress migration The intervention has resulted in making wage opportunities locally available during the lean seasons in agriculture; or when drought or other factors occur to disturb local labour opportunities. This has helped to significantly reduce distress migration among SEGs. Poverty alleviation: creating a safety net for SEGs The PACS intervention has supported creation of extra work opportunities and an increase in primary incomes or a creation of a supplementary source of income for SEGs. The realisations from the program have also helped some members of these communities to start their own micro- enterprises. These developments have contributed to build risk resilience on economic aspects for this most-at-risk group. There is reduction in the uncertainty of income flows and in instances, provision of a choice of income source. The intervention has also helped to create an upward pressure on agriculture & private wages for unskilled labour in programme geographies The increased certainty and higher income realizations have led to increased expenditure on nutritional and health needs and has enabled consideration of priorities such as education of children all of which were earlier not possible. The intervention has also supported creation of community assets and infrastructure to contribute to reduced vulnerability among SEGs. These assets are expected to result in improved groundwater levels, improvement in soil quality and reduction in vulnerability of the agriculture production eco-system. At an overall level, this is expected to significantly contribute to livelihood security for SEGs in the ensuing years

50 In many ways, the programming approach and the outcomes of the PACS intervention are in convergence with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs seek to continue the momentum of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with the vision of ending poverty and deprivation in all forms, leaving no one behind and providing a life of dignity to all, while making development economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. The impacts thus far indicate that the PACS intervention has been successful in driving the programme in the direction of the SDGs in many dimensions. In addition to making efforts towards building livelihood security and ending poverty, the programme has been instrumental in improving financial inclusion and security, especially for women, as well as in the sectors of health, education and sanitation. The outcomes of the intervention directly or indirectly have contributed to a range of development agenda such as livelihood security, strengthening local governance institutions, education, nutrition, health, agriculture, groundwater management and enterprise development. Most significantly, the empowerment of SEGs through the PACS intervention has contributed toward instilling a sense of dignity in the livelihood transactions of SEGs and in the social context in which they live. It augurs a more equitable profile of power equations in rural society, which in turn works towards creating a social framework that supports efforts to mitigate the scale of exclusion. 12 A background paper, prepared in context of deliberations at the Rio Summit commented on imperatives for future programming for sustainable development. The paper highlights the need to recognise the interconnectedness of various agenda to consider growth with an integrated perspective. It suggests the need for partnerships between government, business and civil society to identify and test new approaches, and to scale up promising approaches. If further emphasises the need to shift the focus from programme concept to actual implementation, with accountability based on bottom-up measurable activities. The paper recommends accountability to be assessed by considering the impact of actions, rather than what actions have been taken. The PACS intervention to support MGNREGA reflects these imperatives in terms of programme design and the outcomes. It has sought to build the intervention using a bottom-up approach with a key indicator and anchor being the formation of vibrant CBOs. It has also successfully endeavoured to build a partnership between government and civil society that is likely to sustain well beyond the intervention

51 ANNEXURE 1: BRIEF DESCRIPTOR OF COLLOQUIAL TERMS Gram Sabha 13 A village assembly, comprising all adult members of the village or a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a 14 village comprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level. Gram ikais A local intervention design in some parts of the state of Bihar. Based on concerns expressed by community members, thematic common interest groups are formed on life aspects such as agriculture, irrigation, livelihood, health services etc. These groups work further to advocate on these issues and to support implementation of development programmes to resolve concerns related to the thematic area of their group. ANNEXURE Dalit Also known as Scheduled Castes, include certain castes, races or tribes, who occupy the lowest rank in the ritual hierarchy of Indian society, suffer from extreme social, educational and economic backwardness arising out of age-old practice of untouchability, lack of infrastructure facilities and geographical isolation, and who need special consideration for safeguarding their interests and for their 15 accelerated socio-economic development. Kaam Mango Abhiyan Work Demand Campaign' aimed to educate and mobilise socially excluded communities to demand work under this government scheme. Gram Panchayats Gram Panchayat is the organisation of elected panchas by the members of Gram Sabha of the village. It is a self-government organisation. The number of members in a Gram Panchayat depends upon the population of the village Panchayat Adivasis A village council: An institution of self-government constituted under 16 article 243B, for the rural areas Is an umbrella term for a heterogeneous set of ethnic and tribal groups considered the aboriginal population of South Asia

52 PRI Members Sarpanch Is referred to the rural local self-government system in India. The Panchayati Raj institutions (PRI) consist of a three-tier system at district, zilla, and village level. An elected head of a village-level statutory institution of local selfgovernment called the Panchayat (village government or gram panchayat) in India. Indira Awaas Yojna Kirana shop A flagship programme of the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, as part of the larger strategy of rural poverty eradication, in order to reduce the rigours of poverty and to provide the dignity of an address to the poor households to enable them to 18 access different rural development programmes. A local grocery store Dak Babu Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendra (SESK) Post-office personnel deployed at the village level A resource centre that focuses on operationalising the grievance redressal system by working in close coordination with the state and district administration, providing status updates, feedback and supporting capacity building of the Rozgar Sewaks and MGNREGA Mates. Hamara Gaon, Hamari Yojana Our Village Our Plan is an intensive participatory planning exercise implemented in Bihar with an objective to prepare MGNREGA labour 19 budget for each village. Rozgar Sewaks The Rozgar Sewak is based at the level of the Panchayat as the local government representative responsible for implementation of MGNREGA works. The position supports technical personnel to strengthen the implementation of MGNREGA works & also other manages other administrative tasks related to MGNREGA. Janpad Refers to a district which is an administrative unit in India. A state comprises of districts and further districts are sub-divided into blocks. Jan sunwai A public hearing conducted after social audit where details of public 17 records are read out to the assembly of villagers. Rozgar diwas Descriptor of an event conduced under MGNREGA where work demand applications are invited and registered Raj Mistri Refers to those who are master craftsmen, expert masons, foremen, and construction supervisors, or a person who has mastered his skill in the field of construction

53 Bihar Viklang Kalyan Parishad (BVKP) Aaina Centre for Alternative Dalit Media (CADM) Centre for World Solidarity (CWS) Bihar Dalit Association for Social and Human Rights Awareness (DASHRA) Development Education & Environmental Programme (DEEP) IZAD Muzaffarpur Vikas Mandal (MVM) Samagra Shikshan Evam Vikas Sansthan (SSEVS) Odisha Development Institute for Scientific Research, Health and Agriculture (DISHA) Janasahajya Society for Promoting Rural Education and Development (SPREAD) Society for Welfare, Animation and Development (SWAD) Team for Human Resource Education and Action for Development (THREAD) Centre for Action Research and Management in Developing Attitude Knowledge and Skills in Human Resources (CARMDAKSH) Visionaries of Creative Action for Liberation and Progress (VICALP) Chhattisgarh Chaupal Gramin Vikas Prashikshan Evam Shodh Sansthan (CHAUPAL) Disha Samaj Sevi Sanstha (DISHA) Kalp Samaj Sevi Sanstha (KALP) Purvanchal Gramin Seva Samiti (PGSS) Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group (GEAG) Gram Niyojan Kendra (GNK) Rachna Manch Gramya Sansthan Chetna Vikas Evangelical Fellowship of India Commission on Relief (EFICOR) Uttar Pradesh Nav Bhartiya Nari Vikas Samiti (NBNVS) Nirmana Society (NIRMANA) Panchsheel Development Trust (PDT) Jharkhand Foundation for Emancipation of Marginalised (FEMALE) Participatory Action For Community Empowerment (PACE) Jharkhand Vikas Parishad (JVP) People For Peace Service Society (PPSS) Naya Sawera Vikas Kendra (NSVK) Purvanchal Rural Development and Training Institute (PRDTI) Samudayik Kalyan Evam Vikas Sansthan (SKEVS) Adivasi Chetna Shikshan Seva Samiti (ACSSS) Tarun Chetna Adivasi Sanrachna Sewa Sansthan (ASSS) Church's Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA) Jalpaiguri Seva Sadan (JSS) Madhya Pradesh Jan Sahas Social Development Society (JAN SAHAS) Mahila Shram Sewa Nyas (MSSN) West Bengal Nari-O-Sishu Kalyan Kendra (NOSKK) Shripur Mahila O Khadi Unnayan Samity (SMOKUS) Navrachna Samaj Sevi Sansthan (NRSSS) Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN) Self-Reliant Initiatives through Joint Action (SRIJAN)

54 BIBLIOGRAPHY Brehm, V., (April 2001). NGOs and partnership. NGO Policy Briefing Paper No.4, for the NGO Sector Analysis Programme. International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), Oxford UK. Available at: Briefing-Paper-4-NGOs-and-Partnership.pdf Commonwealth Foundation, (March 2015). Civil Society Engagement Strategy. Available at: Civil%20Society%20Engagement%20Strategy%20%28Updated%20March%202015%2 9_0.pdf Census Available at: Dakua, J., Sahoo, N.R. and Mishra R.K., Training of Trainers on MGNREGA Social Audit Manual, Centre for Youth and Social Development, supported by PACS. CYSD: Bhubaneswar. Dasgupta, A., (2013). Can the major Public Works Policy Buffer Negative Shocks in Early Childhood: Evidence from Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, University of California, Riverside. Desai, S., Vashishtha, P. and Joshi, O, (2015). Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi: NCAER. The Role and Structure of Civil Society Organisations in National and Global Governance Evolution and outlook between now and EU 7th Framework Programme ( ). Gehrke, E., (2014), Employment guarantee as risk insurance? Assessing the effects of the NREGS on agricultural production decisions.german Development Institute and University of Passau: Passau. Available at: 152_Gehrke.pdf Indian Institute of Science, (2013). Environmental Benefits and Vulnerability Reduction through Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. IISc, in collaboration with the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Bengaluru: IISc. Istanbul CSO Development Effectiveness Principles. Available at: Klonner, S. and Oldiges, C., (2014). Can an Employment Guarantee Alleviate Poverty? Evidence from India's National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg. Available at: sai/wiw/team/oldiges/klonner_oldiges_2013_employment_guarantee_india_povert y_impact.pdf Mann, N. and Pande, V., (2012). MGNREGA Sameeksha: An Anthology of Research Studies on the, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, (Mihir Shah Ed.). New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. Also available at: Ministry of Rural Development, MGNREGA Roundup of and way ahead for An end-year assessment report. New Delhi: Government of India. Mohanty,R., (2014). Impact of MGNREGA on Excluded Communities: Insights from PACS Field Sites. Study Report, October. New Delhi: PACS. Mohanty, R., (2014). 'Planning Report Chhattisgarh 2015' Impact of NREGA on Excluded Communities, Insights from PACS Field Sites. Study Report, October. New Delhi: PACS. Drèze, J. (2008). 'NREGA: Ship without Rudder?', The Hindu. 19 July, Chennai: The Hindu. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Available at: swa.pdf Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme and UPVAN. Management of MGNREGA Social Audit and Planning campaign in PACS intervention states under Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme (PACS), Process Report, UPVAN, Lucknow and PACS. New Delhi: PACS Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme. A Brief Report on the Social Audit Facilitators Training and Social Audit in Bihar. 10 December January PACS- State Office. Patna: PACS. Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme, (2015). State-level Report on Experiences of PACS Partners in Participatory Planning Process in MGNREGA, Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi, PACS

55 Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme, Planning at the Margins: Reflections from PACS-anchored Intensive Participatory Planning Exercise in Bihar: PACS. Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme. Planning at the Margins: An Account of Intensive Participatory Planning Exercise, , Synthesis of Learnings Facilitated by PACS, Anchored by PRAXIS. Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme. MGNREGA Inclusive Planning under PACS, for the Financial Year , Report on MGNREGA Inclusive Planning. Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme, (2011). Logframe Baseline Survey, PACS II, Final Report. 28 February. New Delhi: Sambodhi Poorest Areas Civil Society Programme, Midline Assessment, New Delhi: Sambodhi Research and Communications Pvt. Ltd. Simard, A., 'Knowledge Management: Leveraging NGO Resource'. Workshop on Diplomacy and Negotiation. Sahbhagi Shikshan Kendra, MGNREGA Inclusive Planning under PACS (for the year financial year). Ranchi, Jharkhand: SSK. Samarthan-Centre for Development Support. Process Report, Management of MGNREGA Social Audit and Planning Campaign in PACS intervention States. Bhopal: Samarthan. United Nations Development Programme. (2015). MGNREGA Sameeksha II: An Anthology of Research Studies ( ). New Delhi: UNDP India. Available at: Zimmerman, L., (2013). Why Guarantee Employment? Evidence from a Large Indian Public Works Programme. Michigan: University of Michigan. Available at: Websites accessed at various times mgnrega /training-and-services/supportingorganisations/fit-for-partnering/

56