1. Local Government Performance Rating System Maharashtra

2. 2 Context  73 rd, 74 th Amendment- giving more powers to the PRIs  Governance and service delivery best managed by appropriate tier of government  Basic service delivery like: water, sanitation, primary education, primary health etc supposed to be devolved to the appropriate PRIs.  Decentralisation took place..but varying in nature and context in different States  Despite this, service delivery poor in many states

3. 3 Accountability Framework for Public Services The State Providers Client Power Compact PoliticiansPolicymakers FrontlineOrganizations Management Citizens/clients Non poorPoor Coalitions/inclusion Services Voice

4. 4 Context..  Some main reasons for poor service delivery even in PRI managed services  Lack of accountability  Lack of transparency  Lack of knowledge and awareness amongst users/ citizens and thereby no ‘voice’.  Lack of benchmarking of performance  Lack of appropriate incentives  Lack of appropriate tariffs and therefore no ‘client power’.

5. 5 What to Do!?  Go for: More investments Technocratic solutions But these can only yield temporary/ partial results  For long term and sustainable change make the institutions that deliver services: Responsive to situation Accountable Competitive Fix the institutions that fix the pipes

6. 6 Towards accountability.  Kerala and Maharsahtra have started innovative approaches to increase the effectiveness of service delivery by the PRIs by:  Benchmarking performance (temporary)  Encouraging Competition  Offering Rewards and Incentives  Building user/ citizen awareness

7. 7 Kerala Experiment SWARAJ trophy in Kerala  Formally launched in 2000 to reward best GPs/ Blocks/ ZPs and Municipalities.  PRIs evaluated on all sectors of their respective work  Competition advertised every year and interested LGs apply by providing details of their performance  Evaluation carried out through desk work by officers. Best ZP, Block and GP given rewards/ cash prizes  Only about 30% of LGs participating

8. 8 Swaraj trophy..  Best GP at State level gets: Swaraj Trophy, cash award of Rs 5 lakhs and Special Plan assistance of Rs 25 lakhs  AT district level GPs get 1 st and 2 nd ranks.  Best GP gets Rs 1 lakh cash and Rs 10 lakhs plan assistance  2 nd GP gets Rs 5 lakhs plan assistance  3 Block Panchayats/ Municipalities get awards at State level. They also get Rs 25/ 15/ 10 lakhs Special Plan assistance  Best ZP/ Municipal Corporation get the Trophy only and no cash incentives

9. 9 Maharashtra Experiment Sant Gadge Baba Cleanliness Campaign  Started in year 2000  Primarily GPs oriented and are evaluated for a range of 10 activities, more weight for WSS aspects  GPs to plan, mobilise resources and execute plans  Field evaluations by a team of officers, elected representatives, and civil society organisations- from other areas  5 rounds of elimination- best 3 at each stage gets cash rewards  Universal participation, by default  ZPs ranked on the average score of all the GPs.

10. 10 Gadge Baba Campaign… ItemMARKS 1) Drinking Water10 2) Personal Hygiene10 3) Food Items 5 4) Preventive Measures 5 5) Unconventional energy sources 5 6) House arrangements 5 7) Community Participation10 8) Toilets15 9) Solid Waste Disposal15 10) Waste Water Disposal10 11) Family Welfare Activities10

11. 11 Gadge Baba Campaign… PRIZES  3 BEST VILLAGES IN EACH BLOCK –Rs. 25000, Rs.15000, Rs.10000  3 BEST VILLAGES IN EACH DISTRICT –Rs.0.5 Mn, Rs.0.5 Mn, Rs.0.2 Mn  1 BEST VILLAGE IN EACH REVENUE DIVISION –Rs. 1 Mn  3 CLEANEST VILLAGE IN THE STATE –Rs. 25 Mn, Rs. 15 Mn, Rs. 1.25 Mn  TO 3 CLEANEST BLOCKUNITS  Rs. 1.5 Mn., Rs. 10 Mn., Rs. 5 Mn  TO 3 DISTRICTS  Rs. 2.5 Mn, Rs. 1.5 Mn, Rs. 1 Mn

12. 12 Strengths Maharashtra Own initiative and high acceptance High Citizen awareness High community participation Local level competition amongst GPs People decide, plan and execute High local resource mobilization (1:30) Impartial, transparent rating Kerala Own initiative and high acceptance Rating covers all the services of the PRIs and all tiers of PRIs Participation by interest Encourages competition amongst all the tiers of PRIs Effective use of allocated resources

13. 13 Weaknesses Maharashtra  Does not cover all the essential services  Voice element poor  ZPs/ Blocks are not rated for their own work  Information generated in rating is not used for institutional development Kerala  Evaluation process is bureaucratic  No voice element  The not-interested (not- performing) PRIs miss out the benchmarking  Information generated in rating is not used for institutional development

14. 14 Way Forward…  A rating system that builds on the strengths of both the experiments  Incorporation of ‘Citizen’s Voice’ captured through instruments like CRC/ CSC etc  Establishing a periodic benchmarking system (measures changes over years) in place of ‘current year’/ temporary benchmarks  Development and funding of ZP plans based on weak/ priority areas identified through the rating process  Use the rating to ‘build capacity’ of PRIs in weak areas, rather than stopping at giving awards/ rewards

15. 15 ZP Rating Design- Maharashtra Process of Design Development  Understanding new tools like CRC  Filed discussions to identify ‘Voice issues’  Workshop and dialogue with ZP representatives from 9 districts on the process and indicators.  Development of Design for pilot/ field test

16. 16 ZP Rating Design- Maharashtra  Measure performance in 6 key areas: Health, Education, WSS, Social Development, HRD & Financial management.  Assessment from both Consumer side (through CRC) and supply side (internal outcomes records)  Focus is to identify weak areas for capacity building. Working with YASHADA to develop specific CB modules.  An annual assessment will reflect progress made (intra and internal benchmarking)  Foster healthy competition amongst ZPs through incentives for good performance. These can be untied cash rewards or untied additional plan grants like in Kerala.

17. 17 Example of indicators (Health Sector)  Proportion of PHCs having Operation Theatres with facilities for anaesthesia.  Proportion of PHCs working with full staff strength.  Proportion of PHCs without shortage of medicines for common ailments and life saving drugs.  Proportion of people affected with water borne diseases during the last year.  IMR & MMR – scale w.r.t state averages  Proportion of users of public facilities reporting getting treatment when visiting the facility  Proportion of users of public facilities reporting availability of free medicines  Proportion of respondents who reported paying extra money for services.  Proportion of users of public facilities reporting complete satisfaction with the behaviour of the staff.  Proportion of users reporting complete satisfaction with the services provided by the public health facilities

18. 18 Cost of the rating  It costs only about Rs. 5-7 lakhs to do the performance analysis as against the high budgets managed by the ZPs.  This cost also can come down as the ‘Local Capacity’ in the State is built. Look at organizations like YASHADA/ AIILSG/ TISS for doing CRCs on a regular basis.

19. 19 Pilot -GP Incentive Fund  Pilot in 9 districts  There are 114 Blocks in 9 districts.  I GP from each Block to be selected (scrutiny at 2 levels –Block and ZP  Pre-selection is based on past performance in competition like SGBC, water conservation, sanitation etc.  Final selection is based on performance in areas like: financial management, hrd, managing physical resources, equity, etc.

20. 20  Selected GPs given financial assistance upto Rs 1 mn and capacity building support for developing village development plans.  Community should contribute 15% of the plan costs  Gram Sabha is supreme body for the decision making and implementation.  Implementation is monitored through Report Card and CSC.

21. Thank you