Community Score Cards - SASANet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

various departments for other functions such as health services,education, and water supply. GPs are also expected tosupervise and monitor services and schemes run by otherdepartments, in collaboration with special-subject village-levelcommittees. For example, the Village Education Committee(VEC) is supposed to supervise all education activities in thevillage and the Village Water Supply Committee (VWSC) issupposed to monitor all village drinking water supply sources/schemes and liaise with the Public Health EngineeringDepartment (PHED).Accountability Context. The GP is accountable to the GramSabha 2 for all its actions.This is the only channel of “downwardaccountability” at the village level. In areas/programs such asorganizing Gram Sabhas, drinking water supply, sanitation, andsmall infrastructure works, the GP is primarily responsible forservice delivery. For Nawa Anjor, the GP is responsible for managingall village-level activities including fund management. Forservices such as health, education, midday meals, and ration distributionthrough the PDS, village-level committees or the GPdo not have any direct control over the actual service providers.The service providers are upwardly accountable to their superiorsin the respective line departments and downward accountabilityin any form is very weak. It was in this context that theNawa Anjor project wanted to develop an approach that couldmake service providers more accountable to the villagers for allvillage-level services.PROCESSThe Methodology. The CSC process can be divided into sixkey stages (figure 1): (i) preparatory groundwork, (ii) developingthe input-tracking score card, (iii) generation of thecommunity performance score card, (iv) generation of theself-evaluation score card by facility/project staff, (v) the interfacemeeting between community and providers, and (vi) thefollow-up process of institutionalization.The pilot was conductedin two phases, the first in two districts (Raigarh andBilaspur) in February 2006 and the second in the remainingdistricts in March 2006.GP Sample Selection. Thirty GPs from 14 blocks in 7 districtsout of a total of 2,046 GPs from the central, north, and southregions of the state were selected for the pilot study. A multistage,stratified, random sampling technique was used to identifythe 30 GPs. Selected districts exhibited high cultural andsocioeconomic variations.Tribal and non-tribal blocks, as wellas remote and proximate blocks to district headquarters, wereCommunity Score CardsThe CSC is a community-based monitoring toolthat is a hybrid of the techniques of social auditand citizen report cards.The CSC is an instrumentto ensure social and public accountability andresponsiveness from service providers. By linkingservice providers to the community, citizens areempowered to provide immediate feedback.included in the sample.The final identification and selectionof GPs in each block was made in consultation with the ProjectFacilitation Team (PFT) and ensured the inclusion of single/multiplevillage(s) GPs, tribal/non-tribal Sarpanches, 3 andwomen Sarpanches in the selected sample.Social Profile of Pilot Districts. The population of the 30 GPsselected for the pilot was 52,975.The Scheduled Tribe (ST)and the Scheduled Caste (SC) populations in the pilot districtswere 47 percent and 19 percent respectively.The overall literacylevel of the population averaged 51 percent, with DantewadaDistrict in the south having the lowest literacy level of15 percent.The average male/female ratio in the pilot GPswas 1,010, while the average family size was five.Field Research. Select staff from PRIA’s partner organizationswith extensive grassroots experience and an understanding ofparticipatory research methodologies were identified acrossdifferent regions in Chhattisgarh.Three Field Research Teams(FRTs), one for each region, composed of a field supervisorand three field investigators, were selected for conducting thepilot study.The FRTs were trained in the CSC methodology.Field research was carried out in two phases. In phase one, afield investigation plan detailing the investigation schedule,roles and responsibilities of each FRT member, the samplingplan, and methodology for conducting CSCs was made.Theresults of the first phase of field investigations in Raigarh andBilaspur districts were discussed with the World Bank andNawa Anjor project staff to assess whether outcomes met projectrequirements. Based on these discussions, the second phaseof the field research produced a field manual to assist FRTs2.The Gram Sabha is the Village Assembly, comprising of all adults residingin the village.3.The Sarpanch is the elected head of the GP in the three-tier system ofdemocratic decentralization in India.2
and appropriate modifications to the field investigation planwere made.The criteria, the indicators, and the priority sectorsfor GP ratings were generated during the first phase offield research through discussions with the communities andCGDPRP staff.The FRTs were in constant touch with bothproject staff and Panchayat members.Input Tracking. The FRT collected supply-side data on servicesbeing offered by the GP.These data included budgetaryallocations and entitlements of each village in the GP undervarious schemes, such as toilets under the Total SanitationCampaign (TSC); houses under the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY);quantity of rations through the Public Distribution System(PDS); handpumps under the Drinking Water Supply Scheme;cement concrete roads and Panchayat Bhawans constructedunder CGDPRP; and books distributed and classrooms constructedunder the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Subsequently,the data was discussed with participating community membersand actual progress under each scheme was physically verifiedand recorded.Community Assessments. The GP ratings were done primarilythrough Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). In the 30 selectedGPs, 4,347 people (8.21 percent) out of a total population of52,975 participated in the FGDs. A preliminary stratificationof the community on the basis of usage of various services,participation in Gram Sabha meetings, poverty, landholding,and overall socioeconomic conditions assisted the FRT inconducting FGDs on homogenous groups.Three or fourfocus groups of 15–20 members each, comprising adult men,adult women, village elders, and Common Interest Group(CIG) members, were formed in each GP. All GP membersand officials were excluded from the FGDs to avoid biases.Each focus group awarded relative scores on a scale of 0–10(higher score being “better”) to each of the indicators andgave reasons for the scores.The groups also provided suggestionsfor improving poor performance resulting in low scores.After the FGDs, a common meeting was held to prioritizeindicators and identify practical solutions to existing problemscollectively.Two indicator scoring techniques were used: (i) anFigure 1. Stages in the Community Score Card ProcessSTAGE – 1Preparatory Activities(Selection of resource persons; training design,training workshops, field visits, planning)STAGE – 2Input TrackingInput Tracking Score CardSTAGE – 3Community AssessmentCommunity GeneratedIndicators & Score CardsSTAGE – 4Self Evaluation by Service ProvidersSelf-EvaluationScore CardsSTAGE – 5Interface MeetingAction PlanSTAGE – 6Post Implementation Activities(Analysis; advocacy; dissemination’ policy changes)3
Page 1: Note No. 5 • September 2007OCIAL
Page 5 and 6: TABLE 1: PROBLEM SOLVING BY COMMUNI
Page 7: a need for capacity building across

Community Score Cards - SASANet

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?