MAKING MGNREGA WORK FOR THE SOCIALLY EXCLUDED: LEARNING FROM THE PACS PROGRAMME PACS National Office, CISRS House, 14, Jangpura B, Mathura Road,New Delhi-110014 Phone: 011-24372660, 011-24372699, email: [email protected], www.pacsindia.org 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 (2009- 2016), 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 Knowledge Product PACS Knowledge Product
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.
1The 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
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.
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.
PREFACE
1The 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
(2009- 2016), 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.
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.
PACS Programme during its implementation period of 2011- 2016, 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.
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5 Connecting the communities with entitlements 62
6 The impact 78
7 The way forward 90
1 PACS intervention: a background 20
2 MGNREGA: the challenges prior to the PACS intervention 32
3 Overview of the programme approach 42
4 Working with the community
—finding voices 54
Glossary
Executive Summary 14
12
Annexures
Biboliography 106
100
LIST OF CHARTS
SI. NO
2 25
3 30
4 35
5 44
6 47
7 48
8 50
9 51
10 70
11 79
1 24
TITLE PAGE
Stakeholder consultation
Process stages for development of the document
Brief descriptor of SEGs
Likely stages of transition of SEGs to self-assertion for entitlements
The PACS programme framework
Capacity building of CSOs
Types of CBOs
Engaging with CBOs: Building capacity. Empowering communities
Key focus areas of the PACS intervention
Overview of IPPE Process
Key overall impacts: PACS intervention
LIST OF ANNEXURES
SI. NO
2 106
1 101
TITLE PAGE
Brief descriptor of colloquial terms
List of CSO partners
BDO Block Development Officer
BPL Below Poverty Line
BPO Block Programme Officer
BPT Block Planning Team
CBO Community Based Organisation
CCN Community Correspondents Network
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CSO Civil Society Organisation
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
IEC Information, Education and Communication
IFIRST Indian Forum for Inclusive Response and Social Transformation
IHDS India Human Development Survey
IPPE Integrated Participatory Planning Exercise
JSY Janani Suraksha Yojana
MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
NCAER National Council of Applied Economic Research
NREGA National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
PACS The Poorest Areas Civil Society programme
PESA Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
PO Programme Officer
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRI Panchayati Raj Institution
PRS Panchayat Rozgar Sewak
PwD Persons with Disabilities
RSBY Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana
SC Scheduled Caste
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SEG Socially Excluded Group
SESK Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendras (MGNREGA help centers)
SHGs Self Help Groups
ST Scheduled Tribe
ToT Training of Trainers
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
GLOSSARY
1312
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1514
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 socially-
excluded 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 2012- 13 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
1716
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 self-
esteem 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.
1918
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
(2009- 2016), 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.
PACS INTERVENTION: A BACKGROUND
1
2120
PACS worked with 225 CSOs during its implementation. The CSO projects supported by PACS
were initiated in September 2011 and concluded by December 2015. 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 community-
based 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.
The PACS intervention to support MGNREGA was implemented
across programme states from 2009. 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 consultat ion in four programme
1.1 About this document
2322
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.
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.
Chart 1: Stakeholder consultation
Chart 2: Process stages for development of the document
StakeholdersOne-to-one interview
Diad/ Triad
Focus Group Discussion
PACS – central and state programme team
CSO partners
Local government functionaries
PRI members
Community: SEG members and CBOs
Formative phase:
Output phase:
Sharing of brief and existing program reports
Preliminary review of existing reports, clarifications on brief
Consultation workshop with PACS team, including state teams
Develop draft content approach and theme
Finalization of methodology & work plan; content approach & theme
Pilot data collection
Complete data collection
Data compilation
Analysis and triangulation with other dataShare draft content – sample
Finalization of layout & tone
Presenting draft of document
Feedback on document
Finalization of document
Design layout of reports
Feedback on design layout
Submission of final report
Refine query and focus areas as per need
Sharing of findings with program team
to validate emerging directions
Develop guidelines/ information areas
for interactions with various stakeholdersDesk Review
Developing draft methodology and work plan
2524
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 2generate 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
2009. 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 2008. Since then,
MGNREGA has covered the entire country with the exception of districts that have a 100 per
cent urban population.
1.2 Social exclusion and livelihoods—the programmatic context
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 FY2015-16 – 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 46.43 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 33.61 lakh individual
benef ic iar ies through creat ion of
individual assets
**Performance, Initiatives and Strategies FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, 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 time-
bound 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.2 Planning Commission, 2008
2726
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.
•
•
•
•
2928
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 socio-
economic indicators.
Chart 3: Brief descriptor of SEGs
Scheduled Castes
People with disabilities
Women
Scheduled Tribes
Muslims
**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:
http://reports.weforum.org/)
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.
3130
MGNREGA: THE CHALLENGES PRIOR TO THE PACS INTERVENTION2
1A 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 of2underemployment 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 a4safety net for the poor in the lean agricultural seasons .
MGNREGA has provided sustainable work to the rural women as evidenced by main5
workers (female) increasing from 54.1 per cent in 2001 to 55.6 per cent in 2011 . This has6had 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 ST7households 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 programme8has 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 rural9households 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 2014-15 and way ahead for 2015-16, published by the Ministry ofRural Development, Government of India
2 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report 2014-15, Government of India3 Zimmerman, Laura, (2013), Why Guarantee Employment? Evidence from a Large Indian Public Works Programme,
University of Michigan4 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report 2014-15, Government of India5 Census 2011 www.censusindia.gov.in6 Dasgupta, Aparajita, (2013), Can the major public works policy buffer negative shocks in early childhood: evidence from
Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, University of California7 Klonner, Stefen and Oldiges, Christian (2014), Can employment guarantee alleviate poverty?, University of Heidelberg8 Gehrke, Esther (2014), Employment guarantee as risk insurance? Assessing the effects of the NREGS on agricultural
production decisions, University of Passau and German Development Institute9 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report 2014-15, Government of India
3332
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
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.
•
•
•
•
•
•
3534
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.
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
Excerpts of findings from Log frame baseline survey conducted by PACS in 2011
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.
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.
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.
Awareness of key provisions of MGNREGA
Employment under MGNREGA
Participation in village level meetings
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3736
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.
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 3have to be paid.'
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.
3http://www.catchnews.com/india-news
3938
»
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
» '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
'People from the general caste as well ST category were getting regular employment»
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
» '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
» '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
‘We were not aware of the provisions under MGNREGA.’ -Female, SEG Member, SC
4140
OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME APPROACH3
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.
4342
Advocacy
Technical assistance and
support for IPPE & Social
Audit
Enabling engagement at larger
forums with government bodies
Capacity building
Information onentitlements
Kaam Mango Abhiyaan
Training CBOs on IPPE& Social Audit
Training PRIs on IPPE & Social Audit
Strengthening Gram Sabhas
Informed on entitlements
Representation in local bodies
Participation in Inclusive planning
Work-demand generation
Creation of sustainable assets
Gender empowerment
Institutional capacity
building
Training including on
IPPE & social audit
Facilitating working
with government
Local Elected Bodies
Community – SEGs (SC, ST, PwD, Muslim, Women)
Formation of collectives - CBOs
PRIPACS
CSO
Government
State
District
Local
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
vil lage level to bring in increased
accountability by making government
representat ives access ib le 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.
Chart 5: The PACS programme framework
4544
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chart 6 : Capacity building of CSOs
Build institutional capacities
Support and strengthen
aspects of human resource management
Monitoring
Evaluation
Programme reporting
Financial management
Engagement with CSOs
Prior experience of working with
SEGs
4746
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.
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.
Chart 7: Types of CBOs
PACS
CSOPartners
Range of CBO's
(Some of the groups take forward the mandate of s p ec i f i c govern ment schemes while others are thematic-enabled. They support diverse common interest groups that represented specific local issues affecting the SEGs that PACS focuses on)
Women's self-help groups supporting savings or income generation
MGNREGA Workers' Unions and Employment Collectives that focus on employment issues under the MGNREGA scheme
Gram Ikais– reflecting specific local concerns for groups of villages such as agriculture, irrigation, livelihood, health services etc.
Disabled People's Organisations
CBOs for Women Mates
CBOs working on land rights and those working on forest rights for Scheduled Tribes
Coalitions working on issues affecting Muslim women
4948
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.
»
finance policy, gender policy, work place harassment policy etc. They helped develop our
The trial launch of PACS social audit model took place in 200 Gram Panchayats in six states 4of 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.
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.
»
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
» “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
“First the name of audit makes the block or district officials uncomfortable. We spoke to
There was increased accountability. For example, there was an instance of lack of proper
record keeping of files at the district level.
Once the case reached police station and the enquiry started, the Block Programme Officer
admitted the mistake on behalf of the administration.
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.
»
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
» “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
“During social audit it was revealed that the road construction work which has been
7776
THE IMPACT
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.
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.
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 2016- 2017. 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.
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
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 2004–05, just before MGNREGA was started.
The second phase of the study was conducted in 2011–12, 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.
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 7amongst these groups.
Reduction in poverty
»
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
“Increased income from MGNREGA has increased our savings, which we can use to rear
Addressing the issue of underemployment
Addressing distress migration
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.
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.
»
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
» “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
»
“Out of us 30 persons had worked complete
“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
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research, 2015, http://www.pacsindia.org/assets/uploads/docs/resource_page/2016/PACS _NCAR_MGNREGA_report-2015.pdf
7
8180
»
»
»
“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
“In our vi l lage al l the famil ies work under
MGNREGA.” - SEG member, 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 2011. This
has had positive impacts on the nutritional standards of the entire household 9especially during the lean agriculture season.
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 10a health centre alone.
»
as both of them get equal wages under MGNREGA.” - CSO Rourkela, Odisha
» “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
“After the PACS programme there is not much differentiation between men and women
National Council of Applied Economic Research, (2015), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi: NCAER, http://www.pacsindia.org/assets/uploads/docs/resource_page/2016/PACS_NCAR_MGNREGA_report-2015.pdf
10
9 Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report 2014-15, Government of India
8382
Decreased reliance on moneylenders
Rise in children's education
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 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 long-
term 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
We had no room to spend on education for our children.” - SEG Member, ST Community,
Giridih, Jharkhand
“Our earnings during the agriculture season were consumed during the lean season.
»
better education of my children.” – SEG Member, ST Community, West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand
»
“I will invest the additional money earned through work under MGNREGA on
Potential of MGNREGA to improve workers' bargaining power
Creation of sustainable assets
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.
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
11National Council of Applied Economic Research, (2015), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi NCAER.:http://www.pacsindia.org/assets/uploads/docs/resource_page/2016/PACS_NCAR_MGNREGA_report-2015.pdf
8584
Developing local market economies
SEGs speak-up: asserting rights and participation in local governance
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.
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.
»
through MGNREGA.” - Male, SEG Member, SC community, West Champaran, Bihar
» “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
“I have set up a kirana shop and got my daughter married with the money earned
» “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
» “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
8786
Strengthening Civil Society Organisations
Working with government to reach socially excluded groups
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 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.
»
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
“The PACS programme helped us to develop the HR policy and improve our financial
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.
8988
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 assert ing themselves to seek
entitlements that are due to them from
MGNREGA.
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 state-
level policies and priorities have a large impact and that
there is need for advocacy efforts towards reviewing policies
to enable greater participation;.
MGNREGA: a glimpse of continued
implementation challenges
•
9190
•
•
•
•
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.
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 on-
ground 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;
Challenges persist in terms of completion and quality of MGNREGA work. Gram
Directions for onward programmatic emphasis
•
•
•
•
•
Continue with efforts to support and strengthen CSOs and CBOs to achieve a self-
sustaining 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.
§
§
9392
Programme models for scale-up of MGNREGA implementation
Supporting implementation of Government programmes
Opening new spaces in government-community interface
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.
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.
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.
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.
Locally responsive programme frameworks
9594
Working to improve existing programme design
Addressing specific thematic concerns
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.
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.
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 much-
needed 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 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.
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.
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.
Addressing gender inequities
Reduction in distress migration
9796
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.
12A 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.
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.
9998
ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE 1: BRIEF DESCRIPTOR OF COLLOQUIAL TERMS
Gram Sabha
Gram ikais
Kaam Mango Abhiyan
Panchayat
Adivasis
Gram Panchayats
Dalit
13A village assembly, comprising all adult members of the village or a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a
14village comprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level .
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.
Work Demand Campaign' aimed to educate and mobilise socially excluded communities to demand work under this government scheme.
A village council: An institution of self-government constituted under 16article 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
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
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
15accelerated socio-economic development .
101100
PRI Members
Sarpanch
Sahayata Evam Sansadhan Kendra (SESK)
Rozgar SewaksRozgar Sewaks
Janpad
Jan sunwai
Rozgar diwas
Dak Babu
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 self-government called the Panchayat (village government or gram panchayat) in India.
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.
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.
Refers to a district which is an administrative unit in India. A state comprises of districts and further districts are sub-divided into blocks.
A public hearing conducted after social audit where details of public 17records are read out to the assembly of villagers .
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.
Post-office personnel deployed at the village level
Indira Awaas Yojna
Hamara Gaon, Hamari Yojana
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
18access different rural development programmes .
Our Village Our Plan – is an intensive participatory planning exercise implemented in Bihar with an objective to prepare MGNREGA labour
19budget for each village .
A local grocery store
103102
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Bihar Viklang Kalyan Parishad (BVKP)
Centre for Alternative Dalit Media (CADM)
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)
Centre for Action Research and Management in Developing Attitude Knowledge and Skills in Human Resources (CARMDAKSH)
