Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. Introduction
There is a growing international consensus concerning the role good governance plays in
the attainment of sustainable human development (SHD). UNDP's recently published policy
paper on governance defines governance as the "exercise of political, economic and
administrative authority in the management of country's affairs at all levels". In an era of
2
The shift toward sustainable human development (SHD) as the commonly accepted
paradigm for development is still in the making. But policy-makers in more and more countries
are reaching the unavoidable conclusion that development must be people-centered,
equitable distributed and environmentally and socially sustainable. As demonstrated by recent
Human Development Reports, many countries have managed to improve human development
despite economic hardship. However, this progress in human development will not hold unless
reinforced by economic growth. New evidence and theory suggest that growth and equity
3
need not be contradictory goals. And there is strong historical evidence that heavy national
investment in improving skills and meeting basic social needs has been a springboard for
sustained economic growth over the decades. Many countries have been able to foster
creation of a 'virtuous cycle' where progress in human development has been stimulated by
economic growth as well as contributing to it. The recognition that good governance is a
condition for sustainable human development makes a primary shift in development thinking.
The shift is, to a large extent, influencing strategies for pursuing accountability reforms and
improving institutional policy.
Experiences in many developing countries have also shown that there are no automatic
links between economic growth and human development. But when these links are forged
with the policies, procedures and determination of good governance, they can be mutually
reinforcing and economic growth will effectively and rapidly improve human development.
Countries that are able to improve governance through increased openness, accountability,
and participation will be better positioned to adapt to globalization and achieve more broadly
based economic growth.
The term good governance has gained currency for two main reasons. Firstly, it has shown
that improving standard of living of the masses in the developing countries, is not in any way
4
related to the amount of development aid they receive. Papua New Guinea, Bangladesh, Sierre
Leone and Madagascar are just some stellar examples. It has been realized that strong,
effective and accountable institutions - in the government, in the private sector, in the civil
society – are crucial for rooted, relevant and sustainable efforts in improving the lives of the
masses.
Human development is defined by the UNDP as expanding the choices for all people in
society. This means that men and women - particularly the poor and vulnerable - are at the
centre of the development process. It also means; protection of the life opportunities of future
generations ... and ... the natural systems on which all life depends. This makes the central
purpose of development the creation of an enabling environment in which all can enjoy long,
healthy and creative lives.
poor alike - and these become striking when human development among indigenous peoples
and ethnic minorities is evaluated separately.
There are five aspects to sustainable human development - all affecting the lives of the
poor and vulnerable:
Empowerment - The expansion of men and women's capabilities and choices increases their
ability to exercise those choices free of hunger, want and deprivation. It also increases their
opportunity to participate in, or endorse, decision-making affecting their lives.
Co-operation - With a sense of belonging important for personal fulfillment, well-being and a
sense of purpose and meaning, human development is concerned with the ways in which
people work together and interact.
Equity - The expansion of capabilities and opportunities means more than income - it also
means equity, such as an educational system to which everybody should have access.
6
Sustainability - The needs of this generation must be met without compromising the right of
future generations to be free of poverty and deprivation and to exercise their basic
capabilities.
Security - Particularly the security of livelihood. People need to be freed from threats, such as
disease or repression and from sudden harmful disruptions in their lives.
All development strategies should focus on four critical elements of sustainable human
development: eliminating poverty, creating jobs and sustaining livelihoods, protecting and
regenerating the environment, and promoting the advancement of women. Developing the
capacities for good governance underpins all these objectives.
There are clearly many different forms of democratic governance. Democratic societies
vary a great deal in terms of the institutions and procedures that characterise their specific
governance systems. Academic debate around the meaning of democratic governance shows
increasing awareness of the multiple ways in which different societies give shape to
democracy. As such, the meaning of democracy cannot be derived from dominant Western
7
models: it is a concept that is evolving over time as societies grapple with its implementation
and practice.
On the other hand, it does not seem useful to suggest that democratic governance has no
identifiable underlying principles. Adopting a position that ‘anything goes’ under democratic
governance will not necessarily advance the evolution of the concept, nor its practice in
different contexts. What then, if any, could be considered as fundamental principles of
democratic governance? In developing a Democracy Index, Robert Mattes and Richard Calland
(Idasa 2002) suggest the following principles:
• Consensus on the need for democratic governance: agreeing to ‘the rules of the game’
• Participation in popular self-government
• Popular selection of decision-makers
• Popular control over decision-makers
• Protecting citizens’ equality and their ability to control representatives
• An ability to influence the process of addressing economic and social inequality.
8
Governance includes the state, but transcends it by taking in the private sector and civil
society. All three domains are critical for sustaining human development. The state creates a
conducive political and legal environment, the private sector generates jobs and income and
civil society facilitates political and social interaction and mobilizes groups to participate in
economic, social and political activities.
9
Across the world, we find citizens are mobilizing, often locally, to demand better services.
Not by shouting, but by counting. Making sure their governments spend effectively, and keep
their promises. It is not just about people protesting and making noise. This new approach to
citizen action actually involves systematic analysis and intelligent use of data, making sure
their governments spend effectively and keep their promises.
These citizens are demanding accountability from their public institutions. At the heart of
this is getting and using critical information about budgets, expenditures, corruption,
performance, etc. the new breed of citizen voice is thus about using information in a way that
can lead to results.
The concept of accountability – referring to the ways by which individuals or groups are
held responsible for their actions – has become a buzzword in recent years, enjoying broad
currency in debates that extend beyond the narrow disciplines of political theory and
corporate governance. Concerns about accountability are increasingly being raised, from a
10
variety of quarters, in relation to the burgeoning ‘third sector’ of civil society organisations
(CSOs) and popular social movements, whose role in contributing to and shaping public life in
communities around the world can no longer be ignored.
2. Elected representatives, in turn, have the right and duty to hold the executive
accountable. In many democratic systems, there is a legal obligation on the executive arm
of government to explain and justify its decisions and the implementation of these in
terms of the responsibilities conferred on it. Legislatures play a critical role in securing
accountability when they exercise oversight of government on behalf of citizens. They
have the task of making sure that the executive is implementing agreed policies and
spending public money raised through taxes. In this way, the executive is accountable to
elected politicians – within the legislatures – for fulfilling its functions.
3. Democratic societies may also have – or nurture – a culture of accountability. In this
sense, accountability might be understood as part of a broader value system that guides
interaction between citizens, between government officials and members of the public
seeking assistance or information, between service-providers and beneficiaries, employers
and employees and so forth. For example, where there is a culture of accountability, a
government official may make a point of reporting back regularly to a community about
progress in establishing a promised health care clinic in their area, even though no law or
regulation enforces such communication.
Accountability is a complex notion regardless of the actor or entity to which it is applied.
The notion of accountability is particularly complex in relation to civil society organizations
13
(CSOs), however, because of the multiplicity of actors with whom civil society engages and to
whom it is therefore accountable. We can speak of ‘upward’ accountability (to funders,
donors, governments or other external actors, often in the context of accounting for resources
or the fulfilment of particular service targets) and ‘downward’ accountability (to
constituents such as community groups, activists, or other beneficiaries of CSO activity). Some
also speak of ‘horizontal’ accountability to refer to the relationship that exists between civil
society actors, who see themselves as part of a public process rather than part of a
competitive culture (as is the case within the business community).
All states have some form of mechanisms in place to promote or ensure accountability of
public servants. Systems of accountability that are internal to the state are often referred to as
“horizontal” mechanisms of accountability (Schedler et al. 1999). These include: (i) political
mechanisms (e.g., constitutional constraints, separation of powers, the legislature and
legislative investigative commissions); (ii) fiscal mechanisms (e.g., formal systems of auditing
and financial accounting); (iii) administrative mechanisms (e.g., hierarchical reporting, norms
of public sector probity, public service codes of conduct, rules and procedures regarding
14
transparency and public oversight), and; (iv) legal mechanisms (e.g., corruption control
agencies, ombudsmen and the judiciary) (Goetz and Gaventa, 2001).
Accountability has a certain reflexive quality: we can think of CSO accountability in terms
of its ‘external’ dimension (striving to meet certain established standards of conduct) and in
terms of its ‘internal’ dimension (self-motivated efforts to act in concert with organisational
mission and values to attain prescribed goals). CSO accountability can also be thought of in
both functional and strategic terms, where functional accountability is concerned with
concrete requirements, such as accounting for expended resources and registering immediate
accomplishments, and where strategic accountability focuses upon measuring the longer-term
impact of an organisation’s work upon the larger environment. 1
There are a range of accountability mechanisms that are being used by civil society groups
to proactively and self-critically take responsibility for their organisational structures,
operations, policies and activities. These tools are far from mutually exclusive and, in many
instances, combinations of these techniques are integrated in order to meet the different
demands of ‘upwards’ and ‘downward’ accountability. These include:
1
Ebrahim, Alnoor, ‘Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs,’ in World Development, vol. 31, no. 5, 2003. p. 814.
15
• Governing boards, comprised of individuals external to the organisation, that are selected
by and operate according to clearly defined and transparent procedures. The specific tasks
of governing boards vary, but they are generally intended to act as guardians of the
interests of the organisation’s membership or constituency, while also ensuring that the
organisation operates in a way that is in compliance with both statutory obligations and in
accordance with its own mission and values.
16
• Standards for disclosure and public reporting, are determined in some countries by
national legislation, but are adopted by CSOs in other contexts on a voluntary basis. Vehicles
such as annual reports, organisational or project evaluations, strategic plans based on
external assessments, and regular communications (newsletters, updates, briefs) can
provide channels for public access to information about the organisation’s work, financial
status, governance structure and operational impact.
• Consultative and participatory mechanisms, that allow for the meaningful involvement
of diverse constituencies (including beneficiaries) in the organisation’s work, from project
planning to evaluations.
There are also two critical ‘built-in’ accountability mechanisms that bear mentioning. The
first is the principle of ‘perform or perish:’ not a single cent secured to undertake CSO
activities is secured on the basis of obligation. Whether funding is derived from a government
agency, individual donor, foundation, business organisation or multilateral institution,
resources will not continue to be available if the CSO is not performing on the basis of its
vision, mission and objectives. (Moreover, sanctions are easily imposed if even basic
accountability requirements are not met.) In contrast, most governments, and inter-
governmental organisations, to a lesser extent, are guaranteed a steady revenue flow from
taxation or from other countries’ annual member contributions.
17
The concept of accountability applies equally well to all levels of government and to public
services and other agencies that deliver public services to citizens (Paul, 1996). Accountability
stands on three integral pillars: financial, political and administrative. Financial accountability
is the obligation of anyone handling resources, public office or any other position of trust, to
report on the intended and actual use of the resources or of the designated office. This
includes ensuring transparency in the process to achieve that obligation. Administrative
accountability includes critical systems of control internal to the government, which
complements and ensures the proper functioning of checks and balances supplied by the
constitutional government and engaged citizenry. These include civil service standards and
incentives, ethics codes, criminal penalties, and administrative review. Political accountability,
most fundamentally found in an election, is another effective form of oversight. In an electoral
democracy, people have a regular, open method for sanctioning or rewarding those who hold
positions of public trust. One mechanism to achieve this more specific oversight is to have the
two political branches (executive and legislative) watch over each other. In addition,
separating the institution that raises and spends funds from that which actually executes the
spending decision helps ensure that the underlying public interest is served.
Integrity is a key element that completes the notion of accountability and transparency in
governance. It is defined as incorruptibility, an unimpaired condition of soundness, and is
synonymous to honesty. In terms of public service, integrity requires that holders of public
office should not place themselves under financial and other obligation to outside individuals
or organizations that may influence them in the performance of their official duties. Integrity is
not an end in itself rather a path leading to the effective delivery of the services and
performance of functions which the public is entitled to receive from those who govern them.
Accountability and transparency are indispensable pillars of good governance that compel
the state, private sector and civil society to focus on results, seek clear objectives, develop
effective strategies, and monitor and report on performance. Through accountability and
20
transparency, governments (together with civil society and the private sector) can achieve
congruence between public policy, its implementation and the efficient allocation of resources.
The absence of accountability and transparency in governance results, among others, in the
misuse or misallocation of resources. It can lead to inefficiency, waste, and corruption, and
even impede development In many cases, it can also breed injustice and violate human rights.
It causes political discontent and social unrest if left unchecked (CONTACT, 2003).
There are three main arguments underlying the importance of social accountability –
improved governance, increased development effectiveness, and empowerment.
Each is discussed below. First, the issue of governance. Accountability of public officials is
the cornerstone of good government and a prerequisite for an effective democracy. At the
present time, when notions of citizens’ rights and responsibilities are evolving and expanding,
relations between citizens and their governments are characterized by what some have
termed “a crisis of legitimacy” (Gaventa, 2002) or simply a “governance crisis” (Paul 2002).
Citizens in both the North and South express growing disillusionment with their governments –
citing a lack of responsiveness, abuse of discretion, corruption, favoritism and weak
accountability on the part of public officials and bureaucrats. (Commonwealth Foundation,
1999, Narayan et al. 2000). Especially in developing country contexts, the effectiveness of
conventional “horizontal” mechanisms of accountability has proved limited. As discussed
above, elections, the principal traditional “vertical” mechanism of accountability, have also
proved a weak and blunt instrument for holding government officials and employees
accountable for specific actions. Social accountability mechanisms allow ordinary citizens to
access information, voice their needs, and demand accountability between elections.
Emerging social accountability practices enhance the ability of citizens to move beyond mere
22
protest toward engaging with bureaucrats and politicians in a more informed, organized,
constructive and systematic manner, thus increasing the chances of effecting positive change.
Since poor people are most reliant on government services and least equipped to hold
government officials to account, they have the most to gain from social accountability
initiatives.
Accountability (narrow sense) A widely used definition of accountability is ‘the means by which
individuals and organizations report to a recognised authority (or authorities) and are held
responsible for their actions’ (Edwards and Hulme 1996, quoted from Mulgan 2000). This
definition includes several underpinning notions:
• it involves social interaction and exchange: ‘being answerable to someone and accepting of
sanctions’; and
• it implies rights of authority: ‘to call someone to account, demand answers and impose
sanctions’.
Voice refers to the strength of the impetus decision makers or duty bearers receive from
rights holders. Responsiveness refers to the way in which a development agent – public or
private – perceives the needs and responds to the demands of particular groups, such as the
poor.
Vertical accountability denotes the direct relationship between citizens and their
representatives holding public office primarily through the electoral process but also through
more direct forms of participation and civic engagement.
26
Over the years, auditing has retained its significance in public finance and, as such,
Supreme Audit Institutions (SAI) receive constitutional recognition in many countries
28
around the world. As watchdogs of public finances, the public auditors act as critical links in
enforcing the accountability of executive agencies to national and state legislatures and
through them to the general public. The public sector auditor reviews financial management of
public sector entities to ensure that transactions have been undertaken with due regard to
propriety and regularity.
Modern day public auditors perform a variety of audits aimed at satisfying different
financial management goals. Financial audits assess the accuracy and fairness of both the
accounting procedures utilized by a government agency and the financial statements reported
29
by the agency. Compliance audits assess whether funds were used for the purposes for
which they were appropriated and in compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
Performance audits analyze cost-effectiveness (economy), operational efficiency, and the
general effectiveness of government programs in achieving their objectives. There has been a
trend in recent years among SAIs toward increasing the number of performance audits as
these audits are seen as revealing more about the effectiveness of government operations.
However, a comprehensive audit framework requires that all three types of audits (financial,
compliance, and performance) be combined to provide a complete overview of public financial
management.
Despite its critical role in enforcing accountability, SAIs are beset by severe institutional
and operational limitations. In some countries, SAIs are not created by legislation that provides
adequate independence and freedom from executive interference. Even in cases in which SAIs
have sufficient auditing mandates10, they may lack additional investigative powers to enable
them to follow-up on apparent violations and ensure the prosecution of relevant agencies or
individuals. Similarly, SAIs in many countries do not have adequate powers to decide what
should be audited or how the audit findings should be presented. In many developing
30
countries, SAIs lack skilled staff to perform the tasks expected of a modern auditor, such as
detecting fraud using information technology. Similarly, financial constraints on SAIs often
mean that they lack adequate infrastructure (office space, computers, and vehicles for
transport), which further hampers the effective conduct of their work.
In many countries, SAIs report their findings to legislatures and particularly the public
accounts committee (PAC) within legislatures. Due to time constraints, the PAC is able to
consider only some of the audit reports11 and audit findings — and poor coordination with the
SAI may prevent the PAC from taking up the most critical findings. The audit reports in these
cases are then shelved and no action is taken against agencies or individuals that have broken
the law or committed fraud.
The Lima Declaration of Guidelines on Auditing Precepts was adopted at the Ninth
International Conference of SAIs in Peru in 1977. This declaration sets out the internationally
accepted basic tenets of public sector auditing, including emphasizing the need for SAIs to
have independence from the executive, defining the audit powers that should be granted to
31
SAIs, detailing the relationship that SAIs should have with the executive and with the
legislature, and explaining the nature of the reporting that should be carried out.
In 2001, more than two decades after the adoption of the Lima Declaration, the
International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) published the
results of a survey conducted in 113 member countries (excluding the European Organization
of SAIs, which had previously been surveyed). Using the parameters set out in the Lima
Declaration, the survey examined the independence (or lack thereof) of SAIs in each country.
The INTOSAI Task Force report summarizes its findings by stating, “…it can be concluded that
a considerable number of the SAIs surveyed are not really in a position to fulfill their mandates
in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Lima Declaration of Guidelines on
Auditing Precepts”.”
In 2004, the IBP conducted a survey in 36 developing countries (drawn largely from Africa,
Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America) to assess transparency in national budgetary
processes. The survey focused in part on key issues concerning public disclosures of audit
findings. Respondents in each of the countries covered in the survey were experts drawn from
civil society organizations. The results of the IBP survey reinforce the concerns that the earlier
INTOSAI survey highlighted regarding the institutional and other weaknesses of SAIs in many
32
countries. As the responses to the survey cited below show, public audit systems can often
exclude civil society organizations – and, in some cases, even national legislatures – from
effectively discussing major audit findings.
• Accessibility: The results of the IBP survey show that not all the annual audit reports are
made public. In 12 of the countries surveyed, citizens did not have access to the auditor’s
reports even though the reports were produced in 11 of these countries.17 In 19 of the
countries surveyed, the year-end audit reports of departmental expenditures that are
released to the public do not include an executive summary.
• Timing: Only 6 of the 36 countries included in the IBP survey reported that the SAI
produced its attestation report within six months of the end of the fiscal year as
recommended by The OECD Best Practices for Budget Transparency. In 15 countries, final
audited accounts of national departments are either not completed within two years after
the end of the fiscal year or are not released to the public; in 8 countries, final audit
accounts are released more than a year after the end of the fiscal year.
• Comprehensiveness: In 19 of the countries surveyed by IBP, the SAI either does not
release to the public reports of audits of extra-budgetary funds or it does not audit such
funds. No audit report is viewed or scrutinized by a committee of the legislature in 4
countries, while in 11 countries only some of the reports are viewed and scrutinized.
33
• Follow-up: In 7 of the countries surveyed by IBP, the executive does not report (either to
the legislature or publicly) on the steps it has taken to address audit recommendations nor
does it release findings that indicate a need for remedial action. In 23 of the countries
surveyed by IBP, neither the SAI nor the legislature release to the public a report that tracks
actions taken by the executive to address audit recommendations.
It is thus obvious that in their current form, audits do not always provide a direct measure
of government performance in those specific areas in which citizens have the greatest
interest. For example, the citizen might be interested in measuring the performance of the
government on health policy. The usual methodology employed by the government auditor
when auditing the health department will comment on the veracity of the funds expended for
health programs but will rarely comment on the appropriateness of the government’s health
policy. How then can a citizen measure whether health programs reflect health policy – and
whether the underlying health policy responds adequately to the nation’s health needs?
There are two ways to increase the ability of audits to provide information on government
performance that is directly relevant to citizens. First, the scope of audit mandates can be
increased and audit methodologies developed that will enable auditors to offer some
comments on the government policies that underpin agency performance. A second way to
34
improve the ability of audits to provide information directly relevant to citizens is by allowing
citizens to participate in the conduct of audits. As citizens will look for specific measures of
performance, they will use their access to (and participation in) audit institutions to obtain
information on those measures that they are interested in reviewing. Allowing citizen
participation in audits will require that audit institutions create spaces in which citizens can
meaningfully participate in audit programs and thereby obtain specific measures of
government performance.
The audit sector faces substantial challenges. Returning to the spirit and practice of
‘audire’ — the public hearings of accounts — will assist the sector in meeting several of these
challenges. Greater collaboration between SAIs and civil society organizations can assist SAIs
in overcoming some of the challenges that they face. An enhanced partnership between SAIs
and civil society organizations will also help to insert the practice of audire – the public
‘hearing’ (meaning examination) of government accounts – into public auditing. It is not
argued that civil society organizations can replace formal audit institutions. Instead, it si felt
that greater interaction between SAIs and civil society organizations is likely to lead to
stronger budgetary oversight by both sets of institutions – and that this interaction will
strengthen a country’s governance framework and the effectiveness and efficiency of its
antipoverty programs.
35
There are two sets of barriers, one that could weaken the power of voice and the other
that can render the compact ineffective. Voice, for example, will not work when citizens/clients
do not have the necessary information or knowledge to make it effective. This can happen
when people have limited knowledge in a specific area and are therefore unable to digest new
information and make use of it. Even if they are educated, but have no access to information,
then again the outcome will be no different. Thus, governments can create barriers to voice by
denying people knowledge about their rights and entitlements, and standards and norms
pertaining to services. Even when such information is available, if citizens do not have a
sufficient background for understanding this information, it can potentially act as a barrier to
voice. The poor often tend to suffer from this handicap.
36
There are equally important barriers to collective action as a form of voice. Collective
action calls for time, organizational skills, and resources. It requires capacity to identify key
issues and knowledge about possible remedies. The poor typically are weak in terms of these
capabilities. When they are struggling to survive, they may neither have the ability nor the
incentive to invest in collective action. It is the reason why intermediary organizations (such as
NGOs) enter the scene and organize the poor and marginalized communities. Collective action
is easier to organize for the better off sections of society. Nevertheless, it is an uphill task even
for them because of the “free rider” problem and the indifferent characteristic of many middle
class citizens who seek easy exits. It is not uncommon, for example, for people to pay a bribe
to get their work done.
Barriers to information and collective action could render voice ineffective when citizens
try to influence service providers directly (the short route). Delivery of services to the poor and
the accountability of the providers to the people will not improve under these conditions. To
conclude, unless the barriers to information and collective action are somehow eliminated, and
citizens’ voice is strengthened enough to weaken the grip of collusion and corruption in the
machinery of government, it is unrealistic to expect that public accountability will improve.
37
The civil society initiatives for accountability presented below fall into five categories: (1)
community management of local services, (2) independent budget analysis and tracking, (3)
public hearings, (4) public interest litigation, and (5) citizen report cards on services. A brief
description of each follows.
There are many public services that lend themselves to direct monitoring and supervision
by local communities. In many cases, citizens and users of the services could participate in
aspects of managing and monitoring such services. A good example is the local school where
the parent-teacher association could actively participate in planning and supervising the
school programs. Similarly, the maintenance of drinking water facilities and community toilets
has benefited from the participation of user groups. A recent case from the slums of Mumbai,
India has shown how local communities have pitched in to manage and maintain the newly
built toilet facilities. NGOs and local communities have played a lead role in this project and
the government has funded it through a World Bank project.
38
The initiative for community management has come largely from NGOs working in the field
in local communities. Their primary interest is in promoting community participation in local
development programs and services so as to make them more relevant to the people and
more sustainable. But it turns out that such participation is also a powerful means to hold the
government or service provider accountable to the people. When the latter influence the
design of a service and monitor its delivery or contribute to the maintenance of public
facilities, they have a strong interest in ensuring that the agencies involved are responsive to
their problems and needs. Being closer to the scene and with a seat at the table, they can
observe and challenge abuses and poor performance. Community management of local
services can thus act as an aid to accountability, and to a large extent, compensate for the
inherent problems in monitoring local activities that higher level officials encounter. In several
countries, governments and international donors are now encouraging and facilitating
community management of public services and facilities.
Budgets are the basic instrument of governments to mobilize, allocate and monitor scarce
resources (money and personnel). By bringing government budgets under public scrutiny, civil
39
society groups are able to raise important questions about taxation, public expenditure, and
the distribution of benefits to different groups of people. This initiative, of course, calls for
special skills in terms of analysis and evaluation. Examples of civil society groups engaging in
budget analysis and using the findings for advocacy are therefore not many. But wherever it
has been attempted, the process has resulted in informing and educating both the people and
the authorities (legislators and officials) on the implications of the allocations and on the need
to modify them to achieve the stated policy objectives. Budget analysis can also be used to
advocate reforms, especially with reference to the poor, as their interests are seldom
adequately addressed in the complex bargaining processes behind the budgetary allocations.
A classic case of such budget analysis where citizens are actively involved comes from
Porto Alegre, Brazil. Here communities participate by articulating their needs and priorities.
This is an open process that helps the government to listen to the people’s voice and arrive at
allocations that take into account public concerns. Needless to say, the process presupposes a
government that is inclined to listen and seek ideas from the people. It is also a time
consuming process that calls for a great deal of involvement by community groups. Broad
based budget analysis has been carried out in South Africa under the auspices of a local NGO.
The International Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington DC is engaged in
strengthening civil society capabilities to undertake budget analysis in developing countries.
40
A more limited form of budget analysis has been attempted by DISHA, an NGO in the
Indian state of Gujarat. The focus here has been on analysis of the budget from the standpoint
of the poor, especially the tribal population. The findings are used by the NGO to engage in
dialogues with elected representatives and officials. The findings are publicized through the
media in order to create public support for the proposals made by the NGO.
A third example is from Africa where public expenditure tracking has been attempted to
monitor the effectiveness of public spending on services for the poor. The World Bank has led
this effort in Uganda and other countries, but the approach lends itself to be used as an
initiative to increase accountability. Budget analysis, of course, is primarily a means to
improve the process of resource allocation by governments and to nudge them to be effective.
But when civil society groups engage governments in this exercise, it can act as a force for
greater public accountability.
c) Public Hearings
Public hearings are a well-known mechanism for eliciting the views and concerns of the
people on a variety of issues. Regulatory agencies use this approach in the determination of
41
tariff rates and other policies. In recent years, NGOs and other civil society groups have
organized public hearings as a means to demand increased public accountability towards the
poor and marginalized communities. Being an open process, it attracts the attention of the
media and lends itself to being used as an aid to advocacy to improve the conditions of the
poor. NGOs act as intermediaries in the process as the poor are not equipped with the skills
and organization necessary to make a success of public hearings. When people face highly
localized problems, it is possible to stimulate the poor to participate in public hearings.
A documented case from India narrates how MKSS, an NGO based in Rajasthan, India used
public hearings in rural areas to publicize the abuses in public employment programs. This
adverse publicity led to the authorities taking corrective action that benefited the local
communities. It also gave a strong push to the right to information movement that was
gaining momentum in the country in the early 1990s. Public hearings were used in this case to
demand accountability in the programs that are supposed to benefit the poor. In the absence
of the resultant pressure, abuses in the employment program might have continued unabated.
Public interest litigation refers to legal action taken in a court of law for enforcing the
public interest or to protect the legal rights and liabilities of the public or a community of
people. The term, PIL, was first used in the USA in the 1960s to describe a legal development
that sought to widen civic participation in governance. In some developing countries like India,
PIL has been widely used to get the courts to direct governments to take corrective steps to
restore the rights and entitlements of the poor. An independent judiciary and a democratic
constitution are essential prerequisites for PIL to succeed. PIL is a potent accountability
mechanism when the executive and legislative branches of government are unable or
unwilling to protect the rights and entitlements of the poor. Individual citizens, especially the
poor, will find it difficult to resort to PIL to hold the government accountable for the denial of
their rights simply because of the time and costs involved. As in public hearings, it is NGOs
and organized civic groups that make use of PIL in most countries.
A citizen report card (CRC) is a new way to rate different service providers from a user
perspective and to utilize this information to make the providers more accountable to the
people. User feedback is a cost effective way for a government to find out whether its services
are reaching the people, especially the poor. Users of a public service can tell the government
43
a lot about the quality and value of a service. Surprisingly, this is not a method that is known
to or used by most developing country governments. The continuing neglect of the quality of
services is in part a consequence of this gap. This is in sharp contrast to the practice of
seeking “customer feedback" that is common in the competitive market place.
A CRC on public services is not just one more opinion poll. Report cards reflect the actual
experience of people with a wide range of public services. The survey on which a report card is
based covers only those who have had experiences in the use of specific services and
interactions with the relevant public agencies or other aspects of public services. Users
possess fairly accurate information, for example, on whether a public agency actually solved
their problems or whether they had to pay bribes to officials. Of course, errors of recall cannot
be ruled out. But the large numbers of responses that sample surveys generate lend credibility
to the findings. Stratified random sample surveys using well structured questionnaires are the
basis on which report cards are prepared. It is generally assumed that people from similar
backgrounds in terms of education, culture, etc., are likely to use comparable standards in
their assessments. But these standards may be higher for higher income groups than for the
poor whose expectations about public services tend to be much lower. Dividing households
into relatively homogenous categories is one way to minimize the biases that differing
expectations can cause.
44
The Public Affairs Centre (PAC), founded in Bangalore, has taken initiative to prepare CRCs.
The first report card on Bangalore’s public agencies in 1994 covered municipal services, water
supply, electricity, telecom, and transport. Since then, PAC has brought out report cards on
several other cities, rural services and also on specific sectoral services such as health care.
The findings of the first CRC on Bangalore were most striking. Almost all of the public service
providers received low ratings from the people. Agencies were rated and compared in terms of
public satisfaction, corruption, and responsiveness. The media publicity that the findings
received and the public discussions that followed brought the issue of public services out in
the open. Civil society groups began to organize themselves to voice their demands for better
performance. Some of the public agencies responded to these demands and took steps to
improve their services. The inter-agency comparisons and the associated public glare seem to
have contributed to this outcome. When the second report card on Bangalore came out in
1999, these improvements were reflected in the somewhat better ratings that the agencies
received. Still several agencies remained indifferent and corruption levels continued to be
high.
The third CRC on Bangalore in 2003 has shown a surprising turnaround in the city’s
services. It noted a remarkable rise in the citizen ratings of almost all the agencies. Not only
45
did public satisfaction improve across the board, but problem incidence and corruption seem
to have declined perceptibly in the routine transactions between the public and the agencies
(See the charts below). It is clear that more decisive steps have been taken by the agencies to
improve services between 1999 and 2003.
What accounts for this distinct turnaround in Bangalore’s public services? What lessons
can we learn from this experiment? Needless to say, without deliberate interventions by the
government and the service providers, improvement in services would not have taken place.
But the key question is - what made them act? A whole complex of factors seems to have
been at work. The new Chief Minister of the State who took over in 1999 was very much
concerned about the public dissatisfaction with the city’s services. He set in motion new
mechanisms such as the “Bangalore Agenda Task Force,” a forum for public-private
partnership that helped energize the agencies and assist in the upgrading of services. Civil
society groups and the media supported and monitored these efforts. What is significant is
that the initial trigger for these actions came largely from the civil society initiative called
“citizen report cards.”
What are the pre-conditions for such civil society initiatives to work? It is obvious that
these initiatives are more likely to succeed in a democratic and open society. Without
46
adequate space for participation, CRCs are unlikely to make an impact. A tradition of activism
within the civil society can also help. People should be willing to organize themselves to
engage in advocacy and seek reforms supported by credible information. Political and
bureaucratic leaders must have the will and resources to respond to such information and the
call for improved governance by the people. Last, but not least, the credibility of those who
craft CRCs is equally important. The initiators of the exercise should be seen as non-partisan
and independent. They need to maintain high professional standards. The conduct of the
survey and the interpretation of the findings should be done with utmost professional
integrity.
When service providers and governments on their own improve their services and
accountability, initiatives such as CRCs may not be necessary. Even under these conditions, a
report card can be an effective means for civil society groups to monitor the performance of
government and its service providers. Public agencies can on their own initiate report cards on
their performance as indeed some in Bangalore have done. But when a government is
indifferent to these concerns, advocacy based on a CRC can act as an accountability tool to
challenge the government to perform better.
47
Not too long ago, public demands for accountability and transparency in governance were
given less priority. The end of the cold war era, rising democratization of countries and
emergence of strong civil societies and open media are creating new and more radical
demands of transparency and accountability in the public sector. These demands are centered
on stronger monitoring and evaluation and more rigorous audit of public expenditure. At the
same time, an increasingly active citizenry is championing the call for responsive government,
for policies that foster equity and development, for a budgetary planning process which is
open and subject to scrutiny, for eradication of graft and corruption, and for enhanced and
demonstrated results. However, despite these recent positive trends, studies show that many
developing countries perform poorly with respect to holding its government to account and in
efforts to control corruption, in the equitable distribution of services and in effective
decentralization. Therefore, the ability of the traditional accountability mechanisms to effect
change on the functioning, performance and transparency of governments are increasingly
being openly debated.
Over the last 10 years, the capacity of civil society organizations to understand, analyze,
and influence public budgeting has grown dramatically. In more than 60 developing countries
48
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, non-governmental organizations (NGO), think tanks
(research organizations), community and grassroots organizations have been involved in the
growing movement to make public budgeting more transparent and accountable.
Democratic governments derive their legitimacy from the constitutions that create them.
Furthermore, constitutions provide framework of checks and balances among the government
institutions that derive their mandates from the constitutions (e.g., the legislature, executive,
and judiciary).
In a democracy, the State is the servant of the people. It performs many functions
essential for the welfare and development of its citizens and provides an array of essential
services many of which are “public goods.” The State collects taxes from the people to
discharge its functions and is accountable to society for proper use of the resources entrusted
to it. Periodic elections are seen as the ultimate lever that citizens can use to hold those
wielding power in the name of the state accountable for their performance. But the dilemma is
that while much happens between elections in terms of transactions between the state and its
citizens, there is little an individual citizen can do in the short run if things go wrong in the
discharge of functions or services by the state’s agencies. Waiting for the next election is of
little help to a citizen who needs immediate corrective action. The problem arises because the
citizens have no “exit” unlike in the market place where they can exit from one supplier of a
good or service to another. When citizens have no exit option, they can only vent their feelings
through “voice.” Voice may take the form of protest, non-cooperation or the rejection of
political representatives through the ballot process.2 Collective action in any of these forms
50
can act as an instrument of accountability, signaling the authorities that they must listen to
the people’s voice and take remedial action. Of these different forms of voice, the ballot
process is the most difficult to access because of the long time gap between elections. Other
forms of collective action (a form of voice) are more easily resorted to when people face
problems continually with the functioning of governments, especially with the delivery of
services.
India is a large democratic country of a billion people. It has a federal government at the
center, 27 state governments, and over 200,000 (urban and rural) local governments. Most of
the traditional mechanisms of accountability, both vertical and horizontal, are present in India.
As a parliamentary democracy, it has elected legislatures that have oversight functions over
the Executive and an independent judiciary that can hold both the legislative and executive
arms of the state accountable. It has a variety of independent authorities and commissions
that perform accountability function vis-à-vis different parts of the government. The electoral
process, the ultimate accountability mechanism in a democratic country, has performed well
over 50 years. Nevertheless, all is not well with public accountability in India. Formal
accountability systems are put in place for the most part, but they are not necessarily made to
work (Paul, 2003).
51
One of the dominant features of rural development strategies in India is the adoption of
“democratic decentralization” as the key approach. An initiative in this direction was taken in
the form of community development programme (CDP), which has ultimately resulted into the
establishment of a three-tier system of Panchayati Raj (local self government). One of the
challenges facing decentralized governance in India today is how to make panchayat
leadership accountable to the public through transparency in its operations. In rural areas,
poor people do not have the power, knowledge, and incentives to demand better services and
public accountability. The problem is compounded by the fact that the measurement and
quantification of the benefits and adequacy of services are often difficult. All these are reasons
why the performance and accountability of the panchayats remain weak in rural India.
It has been recognized that formal democracy (regular elections, multi-party system,
independent judiciary, etc.) in developed and developing countries does not necessarily
address the needs and aspirations of all citizens. These institutions get “captured” by
organized vested interests and the practice of “majority opinion”, let alone those of large
sections of citizens who no longer care to vote. The elected representatives – parliamentarians
and legislators – have become increasingly “irrelevant” in this system of formal democracy.
For example in countries like Britain, India, Australia, the executive function, led by the head
of the state and operated by a large entrenched bureaucracy, is in ‘supreme” control of all
52
power and authority (Tandon, 2003). There is a need for dynamic and constant issue-based
dialogue between citizens (not just as voters) and their elected representatives, which can
considerably improve the governance of democracy.
It is in this context that experiments in local governance being carried out in India after
passage of the Constitution (73rd Amendment) is creating new possibilities. Local bodies –
Panchayats and Municipalities – as institutions of local governance are arenas where new
practices in governance are being attempted. These local bodies are being promoted as locally
rooted institutions of governance. As newly elected representatives, women, dalits and other
marginalized castes are showing the way in India and are performing their public roles for the
first time in history. These local experiments in governance perhaps can present interesting
principles, approaches, methods and tools for effective governance of democracy at national
and global levels. The challenge today is to reform formal institutions of democracy in such a
manner that the governance function becomes the joint responsibility of citizens and their
representatives (Tandon, 2003).
1.8 Transparency:
people, they are not being transparent. This promotes mistrust, apathy, and marginalisation. .
Laws, such as the "Freedom of Information Act," or similar laws, which ensure that details of
government spending must be of public record, available to the people, are intended to
promote governmental transparency, although some officials will attempt to subvert the spirit
of such laws. People have a right and a responsibility to know what is going on. If you hide a
problem, cover it up or deny that it is there; you surely hinder its solution. If, instead, you
uncover it, admit it, and honestly examine it, you are well on the way to solving the problem.
Transparency strengthens.
information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information is
provided to understand and monitor them.
On the general level, transparency of the local public institutions fits the definition
accepted earlier: “the set of instruments through which citizens hold accountable the public
administration for the activities realized in their service”. Still, it needs further elaboration. The
general transparency of the local public institutions refers to three key elements:
The first element, openness, means here openness towards the public at large about a
public institution’s structure and functions, fiscal policy intentions, involving ready access to
reliable, comprehensive information on the institution’s activities. Anca Daniela Giurgiu et all
argue that the public authorities, according to their competencies, are obliged to ensure the
58
correct information of citizens upon public matters, but also in personal problems. The
problem is of higher importance in the context of local governments and local representatives
because very idea of their mandate is the concern with matters of local community or society2.
This we could consider as a first component of transparency. As a second element we
could talk about is decisional transparency towards citizens - a democratic government
must offer to citizens the opportunity to understand its operations and participate in making
decisions on local public issues (Soós, 2001, pp. 15)3. A third component of transparency could
be the mechanisms of accountability and responsibility: people holding representatives
accountable for their actions through control institutions and holding them responsible by
means of not re-election (referring to the legal framework of the role of the local counselors
and the mayor). Indicators of transparency at this level are numerous. Here are just some
of them: (1) information brochures (publicly accessible ones) about the structure, composition
and functions of the public administration, published by the institution or by NGO’s; (2)
existence of a separate public relations office for public at large besides the one that is meant
to keep relations with media and other institutions/organizations); (3) meetings with the mass
media and the existence of a newspaper published by the local government about decisions;
2
For example the Romanian local administration law stipulates the mandatory public character of the local council meetings, except the few cases provided by law or in the case that the council
decides with majority of votes upon the secrecy of the discussion.
3
In Romanian case this can also refer to the functioning of the departments that are dealing with the implementation of the Law on Access to Information and the Law on Decisional Transparency.
59
(4) systematic appearance in newspapers of local decisions; (5) public meetings with citizens4;
(6) efficiency, transparency and responsibility in the preparation, execution and control of the
budget; (7) usage of public funds through the process of public acquisitions5.
If one accepts that one of the pillars of democracy is public participation, it follows then
that access to information becomes an important factor in enriching the process of public
participation in policy matters. Only an informed citizenry can effectively take part in policy
formulation exercises on issues that will affect their lives. In a way access to information
creates political space for the governed and enables them to engage in the governance and
democratic process in ways that are far beyond the confines of casting a vote once every five
years. The by-products of a free flow of information are an open society and the possibility to
maintain accountability of those who exercise public power.
4
Also, the law on local public administration obliges councilors to periodically organize meetings with citizens and to have audiences. Each councilor and vice mayor are obliged to present a yearly
activity report, which has to be made public by the secretary.
5
The focus here rests in strengthening the national legislation, that refers to acquisitions and procedures, for promoting an efficient, opened and transparent process of acquisitions.
60
CHAPTER – II
“The people have a right to know, a right to question, a collective Constitutional right to
receive an answer.”
2. Introduction
accountability at community, district, provincial and national levels. Social audits are just
such an effort to insure both accountability and results by systematic building of
the community voice into the evaluation process. The social audit process is
intended as a means for social engagement, transparency and communication of
information, leading to greater accountability of decision-makers: representatives,
managers and officials.
The etymology dictionary explains that the term audit originates from the Latin word
audire, which means “to hear.” Audire in ancient Rome referred to the “hearing of accounts,”
a process in which one official compared his records with those of another official. As many of
the parties interested in the audit findings were illiterate, audits were presented orally. In
ancient times, emperors used to recruit persons designated as auditors to get feedback about
the activities undertaken by the kings in their kingdoms. These auditors used to go to
common places to listen to citizens’ opinions about various matters, namely, behaviour of
63
palace employees, incidence to tax, image of local officials, etc. But in the modern day, audit
is an independent evaluation of the activities and programmes being implemented by an
organization, on the basis of accepted principles of accounting based on certain norms. Thus,
audit is a comparison between the performance of a certain activity and reasonable norms.
The phrase "social audit" was first used in the 1950s. Much early work took the form of
external investigations to assess the impact of large corporations on their work-force,
consumers and the community. This continued, examining the impact of plant closures and of
investment or relocation decisions and, increasingly, uncovering the ethical behaviour and
environmental impact of business corporations. Increasing numbers of corporations now
accept the notion of "corporate social responsibility" and have developed substantial
community support programmes.
More recently companies have been required to report on their environmental impact and
few developments can now go ahead without an environmental impact audit. New standards
for environmental reporting have been introduced (e.g. BS7750 and ISO 14001) and more and
more organizations are adopting the voluntary verification system Eco-Management and
Auditing Scheme (EMAS).
64
Social auditing is a method of participatory impact assessment that can be used by (local)
government, businesses and organizations in almost any sector, including finance, housing,
agriculture and development cooperation. Social audit is a process that enables an
organisation to assess and demonstrate its social, economic, and environmental benefits and
limitations. Characterizing an audit, as "social" does not mean that costs and finance are not
examined - the central concern of a social audit is how resources are used for social
objectives, including how resources can be better mobilised to meet those objectives
(www.ciet.org/2003). A thoroughly competent and honest financial audit may reveal very little
about the results of the programme being audited. Only reliable evidence that links a
programme's impact and coverage to its costs can serve the needs of managers who seek to
manage on the basis of results. Nor can social accountability be achieved by looking only at
internal records of performance, however well and honestly these are kept. A social audit must
include the experience of the people the organization is intended to serve.
Social Audit is a systematic, regular and objective accounting procedure that enables
organisations to establish social values and criteria against which they can measure external
and internal performance and their social plans. The Social Audit methodology provides a
65
framework in which organisations can establish their own priorities, strategic plans and
performance measurement criteria, and then monitor and make decisions about how to
maintain or improve their operations. Organisations, which undertake Social Audit, should view
the process as one by which they can learn more about their own organisation and manage
change, if required. This clearly distinguishes the Social Audit from other types of
measurement evaluations and surveys.
Social Audit aims to build a new definition of viability around a broader set of values that
represent the growing concern for wider responsibility in organisations. Finance accounting is
an essential part of management, but it does not include areas of responsibility that many
community organisations have to consider as part of their normal operations; the costs and
benefits associated with the activities of an organisation are much broader than those
described in financial terms. The profit and loss account only tells half the story; Social Audit
tells the other half.
The Social Audit methodology comprises four elements; these are:
1. The Statement of Purpose and Planning,
2. The External View,
3. The Internal View and
4. The Monitoring and Evaluating.
66
Each of the four elements is made up of number of practical exercises. The Social Audit is
built up by undertaking the practical exercises and then bringing together the results, within
the four elements, into measurable performance areas. It is not necessary to use all the
exercises and where organisations already practice similar processes they are encouraged to
stick with them rather than change to the Social Audit exercises. The sequence is the essential
process; the exercises are there to provide the methodology in order to execute the process.
Each of the four elements and the exercises are linked and together provide an integrated
Social Audit methodology that further links to the Project Cycle Management (PCM)
methodology within the overall Community Enterprise structure.
67
It is vital that the process is participative and inclusive. Social Audit must involve those
stakeholders closely associated with the organisation. Involvement means actively
participating in the design and realisation of the Social Audit processes; including the views of
all the stakeholders; and reporting the results of the audit to all stakeholders. A Social Audit is
usually undertaken by an Audit Team from within the organisation, working to a Terms of
Reference. The Audit Team is composed of representatives from different stakeholder groups:
this includes users of the services/facilities, members, management board members,
volunteers, funders and paid staff. An independent observer might also be seconded onto the
Audit Team.
4. Review and Planning – the learning loop: learning lessons from the previous years
planned and actual results, making changes and planning the next years strategy and
criteria
The Social Audit cycle starts with the Statement of Purpose and Planning, this reviews the
results of last year's purpose and plans and establishes this year's purpose and plans.
The External View engages a wide range of stakeholders and forms a view of the
organisation's position within the wider context.
69
The Internal View engages with the board of directors, staff and volunteers in assessing
and designing satisfactory ways of working and reward, and makes sure the organisation
management and systems are able to achieve the purpose and plans.
The Monitoring and Evaluation element is where the Social Audit Team manages the Social
Audit and measures performance.
For each stage a number of practical exercises have been designed to fit within the overall
methodology of Social Audit. The progressive accumulation of understanding that can be
gained from measuring and managing social performance enables organisations to manage
effectively.
Social Auditing enables organizations to understand, measure, report and
improve on their social performance. The method brings together stakeholder views
and existing systems of social information about the organization in a manner that
enhances understanding and decision-making. It helps organizations to understand
their relationships with the stakeholders and to report openly to them.
similar, but focuses on monitoring the work the community organisation aims to achieve with
its clients or users. Participatory Audit is different from Social Audit in that it refers to audit
processes where stakeholders are directly or indirectly involved through a variety of audit and
monitoring methods and public hearings.
Social audit is similar, in some respects, to financial audit but focuses on social rather than
financial performance. According to Geddes, an early author on social audit,
Social audit consists of a distinct sequence of procedures or tasks that begins with clear
identification of the organization’s social responsibilities, establishment of performance
standards, application of measurement tools to assess the consequence of corporate decisions
and actions, and reporting on the organization’s performance over a specified period.10
George Clark, “Social Auditing – Feedback Control for Organizations”, p. 2. (An internet-generated
article.)
Social Audit is a systematic and objective procedure, which enables an organization to fully
engage its members in identifying needs solutions, plan activities, monitor progress and
measure its social performance in a comprehensive and participative way (Singh, 2003). The
underlying ideas are directly linked to concerns of democracy and participation. Its
application at the village level holds tremendous potential for contributing to good local
governance and increased transparency and accountability in rural development in India.
By social audit we mean a view of the administrative system from the perspective of the
vast majority of the people in the society in whose name and for whose cause the very
institutional/ administrative system is promoted and legitimized. Social audit of administration
means understanding the administrative system and its internal dynamics from the angle of
what they mean for the vast majority of the ordinary people (common man), that is those who
72
are not essentially a part of the state or its machinery or the ruling class of the day (Mathew,
1999).
Sensitizing the target groups about benefits of any programme and identifying gaps in the
implementation of the programmes; scrutiny of the implication of technological choice for
people; scrutiny of the organizational structure and policy evolution for the people keeping in
view, their interests, priorities and perceptions; and making the system open and accountable
to the people, are necessary to make social audit effective.
Social audit is a process by which organizations can account for, report on, and improve
their social performance. It indicates, and where possible quantifies, the social impact and
ethical behaviour of an organization in relation to its aims and those of its stakeholders. It is a
process that enables organizations to systematically assess and demonstrate their
performance in relation to key objectives and factors not covered by financial auditing.
Social auditing process enables an organisation (or business) to assess and demonstrate
its social, community and/or environmental benefits and limitations. The emphases generally
are on the organisation rather than projects or programmes within it, and the desire to
establish a systematic and accountable approach which recognises all stakeholders (NICDA,
1997). When well embedded into an organisation, a social audit can provide an annual
overview about how well an organisation has addressed its objectives and core values, as well
as its effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Thus it is more than an assessment of the
mechanics of an organisation.
One form of social auditing is "citizen monitoring", which is used to monitor the quality of
local governance or service provision, in order either to "stamp" out corruption or promote
effective governance directly by improving citizen access to essential goods and services. The
things monitored are, first, whose priorities are reflected in the supply of services or local
74
Social audit is the generic term referring to the full range of activities of the entire
procedure. In effect, it encompasses the following activities:
The audit process can be broken down into a number of different stages:
• Social book-keeping – defined as the ongoing process by which information is routinely
collected about the organisation’s performance in relation to social objectives.
• Social accounting – the year-end process of analyzing and interpreting the information
which has been collected in order to produce an account of social impact and performance.
• Social auditing – the process of reviewing and verifying the social accounts at the end of
each social audit period.
However, social audit is often the generic term used for the whole accounting
process, covering collection, analysis and verification.
Social Audit is a tool with which government departments can plan, manage and measure
non-financial activities and monitor both internal and external consequences of the
department/organisation’s social and commercial operations. It is an instrument of social
accountability for an organisation. In other words, Social Audit may be defined as an in-depth
76
scrutiny and analysis of the working of any public utility vis-à-vis its social relevance. Social
Audit gained significance especially after the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution relating to
Panchayat Raj Institutions (Kurien-http://www.sasanet.org/documents/Tools/Social
%20Audit.pdf ).
impact and ethical behaviour of an organisation in relation to its aims and those
of its stakeholders." NEF
Source: http://www.mpen.org.uk/briefing/briefing8a.html
d) Social Auditing enables organizations to understand, measure, report and
improve on their social performance. The method brings together stakeholder
views and existing systems of social information about the organization in a
manner that enhances understanding and decision-making. It helps organizations
to understand their relationships with the stakeholders and to report openly to
them.
g) Through Social Audit, an organization can understand and evaluate its influence
on the community and be accountable to its stakeholders.
Social audits are designed to track public expenditure and at the same time to invest in
the development of social capital and 'voice' for public planning and monitoring. In this way
79
they create an impact upon governance by shaping the way in which decisions are made,
resources allocated and actions taken in particular settings. Social auditing is especially taken
up for the purpose of enhancing local governance, particularly for strengthening accountability
and transparency in local bodies. It is based on the principle that democratic local governance
should be carried out, as far as possible, with the consent and understanding of all concerned.
It is thus a process and not an event. It is a cyclical process that sets targets and
benchmarks that become embedded in the planning process. According to Singh (2007), a
social audit is a process by which the people, the final beneficiaries of any scheme,
programme, policy or law, are empowered to audit such schemes, programmes, policies and
laws. Singh further elaborates that a social audit is an ongoing process by which the potential
beneficiaries and other stakeholders of an activity or project are involved from the planning to
the monitoring and evaluation of that activity or project. It thereby tries to ensure that the
activity or project is designed and implemented in a manner that is most suited for the
prevailing (local) conditions, appropriately reflects the priorities and preferences of those
affected by it, and most effectively serves public interest.
80
This tool is designed to be a handy, easy to use reference that not only answers basic
questions about Social Audit, reasons for conducting Social Audit, and most importantly gives
easy-to-follow steps for all those interested in using Social Audit. The purpose of conducting
Social Audit is not to find fault with the individual functionaries but to assess the performance
in terms of social, environmental and community goals of the organisation. It is a way of
measuring the extent to which an organisation lives up to the shared values and objectives it
has committed itself to. It provides an assessment of the impact of an organisation's non-
financial objectives through systematic and regular monitoring, based on the views of its
stakeholders (Kurien-http://www.sasanet.org/documents/Tools/Social%20Audit.pdf ).
The Social Audit process is intended as a means for social engagement, transparency and
communication of information, leading to greater accountability of decision-makers,
representatives, managers and officials. The underlying ideas are directly linked to concepts of
democracy and participation. The application of Social Audit at the village level holds
81
tremendous potential for contributing to good local governance and increased transparency
and accountability of the local bodies.
Social accounting establishes a framework for ongoing monitoring, evaluation and
accountability to stakeholders both internal and external to the organisation. The process of
social accounting can help an organisation to investigate its performance against social,
environmental and economic objectives, and ensure that it is working in accordance with its
values. In the private sector, social accounting is aligned with corporate social
responsibility.
2.6 Objectives of Social Audit
Social audits are conducted not only on schemes and programmes but also on policies and
laws and, indeed, on the functioning of a public agency. The task of auditing is relevant right
from the stage when an issue or an approach is identified, through planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation, and audits are done not just of the decisions taken or the actions
done (or not done), but also of the processes followed.
Public utilities are an indispensable part of human life. Although investment in these
utilities has been increasing, their demand has always been more than supply due to pressure
of population. These public utilities have largely been neglected in rural sector due to scarcity
83
of funds with the Panchayats and insult to injury has been added due to their
mismanagement. Since a large amount of money is invested in these utilities, SA is a sine qua
non for attaining underlying objectives of these services.
Lack of these utilities is causing hardships to the common man. Villagers have been
compelled to travel miles to have access to such facilities. Villagers are forced to migrate to
urban areas. Social amenities are less than the bare minimum. People sacrifice a lot to get
these facilities. In other words, opportunity cost for availing of such facilities is very high,
which have to be evaluated. Hospitals breed infectious diseases. Non-supply of medicine in
time, supply of sub-standard medicines, inadequate arrangement of meeting emergency
cases, lack of ambulance facilities, etc. create enormous problems for the common man. But
such evaluations do not find place in financial audit.
• It permits the stakeholders in the organization to affect its behaviour and to influence future
policy.
• It allows the organization to report on its achievements in a way that is based upon verified
evidence rather that unsubstantiated claims.
• It permits those who invest in or fund the organization, and all its stakeholders including the
wider community, to judge if the organization is achieving the social, cultural, community
and/or environmental added-value which it set out to achieve.
• Finally, all of the above enable the organization to improve its social performance year on
year, in way that is inclusive, participatory, transparent and measurable.
Potential benefits
• As social accounting examines the social, environmental and
85
• There is flexibility in the time scale for completing the process and
in building up to a comprehensive set of accounts. The full process
can be done in stages over two or more years if the organisation
focuses on different aspects of its activities or objectives in each
year. This is only recommended if the whole picture will be
complete within a reasonable timeframe.
• The external validation process can be an important reality check
on the information the organisation has gathered.
• Having a verified and comprehensive statement of the
organisation’s impact and performance can help in reporting to
funders/investors, reporting to stakeholders and in compiling annual
reports.
Potential limitations
One can view Social Audit at two levels. One is at the organisation level (government,
private and NGOs) and another at the civil society level (private, NGO, CBO, universities,
schools, consumer organisations, SHGs, an individual etc.). At the organisational level, it is
internal as well as external. The internal component corresponds to social accounting and
social bookkeeping, whereas the external component involves verification of social account by
an independent Social Auditor or an audit panel.
89
Community/societal level audit is carried out to gather data on community values, social
benefits, social capital and quality of department/programme interface with people. This is
matched with outcomes of Social Audit carried out at the organisation/department level.
Based on the analysis, the programme or its activities are oriented towards
community/society’s expectations. Social Audit at community level also contributes to the
empowerment of civil society, equity, networking and advocacy.
Social Audit consists of book-keeping and discussion with stakeholders and community in
their settings. Methods include social accounting, stakeholder consultation, interviewing of
staff, NGO functionaries, beneficiaries, or anyone directly or indirectly affected by the
programmes and department activities. All these are simple-to-use tools and any department
should be able to undertake Social Audit by going through this toolkit.
The objectives of the organisation are the starting point from where the indicators of
impact are determined, the stakeholders are identified and the tools for data collection are
designed in detail. Social book-keeping records, stakeholder consultation, as well as, data from
the community are collected and maintained by the organisation or the department
concerned. Ideally, a panel of eminent citizens of unimpeachable integrity and social
commitment should review this social book-keeping annually. This aspect of Social Audit
sometimes includes an independent audit through an intensive interface with a variety of
90
stakeholders and the community. The Social Audit report can be placed in the public domain
for wider dissemination. These reports could be further used by a variety of stakeholders,
including policy makers, to bring about appropriate changes, if required, to maximise social
benefits.
In the past years, there have been substantial efforts to define common themes in social
audit. From the experience of all those involved, a good social audit carries all these
characteristics:
1. Improved social performance. This is the overarching principle, and this refers to the
continuous improvement in performance by the organization relative to the chosen social
objectives as the result of social audit;
2. Multi-perspective. It is important for all groups affected or who affect the organization to
be included in the process;
3. Comparative. The process should allow for comparison with other organizations, over
time and between stakeholder groups.
91
4. Comprehensive. The process should be designed to collect all relevant materials and
areas of concern should not be left out simply because the organization would not like the
result.
5. Regular. To facilitate comparability and to demonstrate a commitment to the process, it
should be regular, with a frequency of once every two years.
6. Verified. Verification by independent auditors gives the process credibility.
7. Published. The result (or a synopsis) of the audit should be published so that the
stakeholders can see the results and to encourage openness.
8. Improvement. It is important to receive feedback about the process itself and the report,
and to improve the system over time.
9. Embeddedness. The social audit process should be integrated with other business
information. gathering systems.
Euro Coop General Assembly, Op. cit., May 1999, pp. 4-5. (Note: Principles 1 to 7 are common to all
social audit models.)
It has to be recognized that not all organizations, especially from the community sector,
have the resources necessary to carry out and be able to fulfill all these principles in a given
year. Social audit can be done incrementally: one way is by foregoing verification and
disclosure during the first year; and another way is by reducing the comprehensiveness of the
92
social audit framework by limiting it to few areas of decisions and actions. In this way the
organization moves slowly within the limits of its own resources, while inching towards the
completion of the full requirements of a social audit in all its eight principles and address in full
the first principle which is continuous improvement in the social performance of the
organization (John Pearce, Peter Reynard and Simon Zadek, Social Auditing for Small Organizations, NEF,
London, p.4.)
• Multi-perspective: the social audit should reflect the views of all those involved with or
affected by the organization (the "stakeholders")
• Comprehensive: the social audit should aim ultimately to embrace all aspects of an
organizations' social, environmental, cultural and community benefit performance
• Comparative: the social audit should offer a means whereby the organization can compare
its own performance over time, make comparisons with other organizations engaged in
similar work and relate performance to appropriate benchmarks.
• Regular: the social audit should take place regularly and not just be an occasional or one-
off exercise.
93
• Verification: the social accounts should be verified (audited) annually by one or more
person who has no vested interest in the results.
• Disclosure: the findings of the social audit should be made available to all those people
involved in the organization and to the wider community
• Improved social performance: The main message of social auditing, for any organization
(big or small), is the principle of improving social performance.
• A right based entitlement for all the affected persons (and not just their representatives) to
participate in the process of decision making and validation;
• In those rare cases where options are pre-determined out of necessity, the right of the
affected persons to give informed consent, as a group or as individuals, as appropriate.
• Immediate and public answerability of elected representatives and government
functionaries, to all the concerned and affected people, on relevant actions or inactions.
Broadly speaking, there are at least three types of audits. There are
Government or institutional audits are those that are conducted in-house or through
external, professional, auditing institutions, and are ordinarily conducted without the
significant involvement of the affected people and/or the intended beneficiaries.
95
Social audits are those that are conducted jointly by the government and the people,
especially by those people who are affected by, or are the intended beneficiaries of, the
activity being audited.
People’s audits are those that are conducted by the people themselves, including those who
are directly affected or are the intended beneficiaries, sometimes with the assistance of
movements and NGOs, but invariably with the sincere effort to involve the concerned
department or institution.
The methodology envisages a regular cycle of auditing, comprising a series of steps. These
include a scoping study, review of records, stakeholder consultation on issues, indicators and
appropriate targets, measurement of indicators selected, analysis of program costs and
results, and presentation back to stakeholders on the findings.
Social Audit is often misinterpreted as another form of audit to determine the accuracy of
financial or statistical statements or reports and the fairness of the facts they present. A
conventional financial audit focuses on financial records and their scrutiny by an external
auditor following financial accountancy principles, whereas the concept of Social Audit is more
comprehensive, having a greater scope than that of traditional audit. In general, Social Audit
refers to a process for measuring, understanding and improving the social performance of an
activity of an organisation. Social Auditing is again distinct from evaluation in that it is an
internally generated process whereby the organisation itself shapes the Social Audit process
97
according to its stated objectives. In particular, it aims to involve all stakeholders in the
process. It measures social performance in order to achieve improvement as well as to report
accurately on what has been done. Financial audit is geared towards verification of reliability
and integrity of financial information. Similarly, operation audit looks at compliance with
policies, plan procedures, laws, regulations, established objectives and efficient use of
resources. On the contrary, Social Audit examines performance of a department/programme
vis-à-vis its stated core values in the light of community values and the distribution of benefits
among different social groups reached through good governance principles. Social Audit adds
another dimension of key performance measurements in creating social wealth in the form of
useful networks and administration/ accountable and transparent to the stakeholders. Creating
social wealth is one of the key contributions of Social Audit. Thus, Social Audit strengthens the
legitimacy of the state, as well as trust between the state and the civil society.
society. Social Audit is an ongoing process, often done in 12-month cycles that result in the
preparation of annual Social Audit document or report of an organisation.
Public audits do not have these problems, because they are usually conducted by the
affected persons and/or the intended beneficiaries. However, the bfindings of a public audit
might not be easily acceptable to the government and other implementing institutions as they
are not intrinsically involved in the process of audit and, despite best efforts, might not
participate. Besides, without the participation of the implementing departments/institutions,
their side of the story does not get told.
On the other hand, social audits do not have a uniform approach and methodology and
many local factors affect their efficacy. To conduct social audits a huge amount of public
mobilisation is necessary and, in the absence of that, social audits might not be effective.
100
Ideally, government or institutional audit would remain the basic auditing practice, but
would become far more transparent and inclusive of affected persons and intended
beneficiaries, incorporating and integrating some of the practices of social audits.
For a sample of activities, especially for those that involve distribution of disaggregated
benefits at grassroots level, or very large investments, social audits would be conducted in
addition to government or institutional audits. The findings of such social audits would be
publicly compared to those of the government or institutional audits and correctives identified
and incorporated in both. There would also be a public rendering of action taken.
Only where there was dissatisfaction among the public with one or both of these auditing
processes would the public take the initiative of conducting a public audit. When this
happens, the government or other implementing institutions would fully participate in the
public audit, thereby making it comprehensive, and take on board the findings. The concerned
institution would also come back to the public and report on the action taken on the findings.
101
• Social audit is generated by the organization and those most directly involved in it, unlike
many evaluations which are imposed from outside on terms of reference determined by
whoever is commissioning the evaluation.
The key to successful Social Auditing is in knowing which techniques to use and in what
sequence. The Social Auditor can choose different methods so as to capture both quantitative
and qualitative information from the respondent. It is equally important to ensure the follow-
up action taken on the Social Audit report and the receptiveness of the
departments/organisations to adopt the recommendations in the Social Audit report. The
social auditors should suggest modalities for improving its performance based on the feedback
received from different stakeholders. The detailed work plan needs to be identified by the
social auditors and the same should be implemented at the earliest stakeholders (Kurien-
http://www.sasanet.org/documents/Tools/Social%20Audit.pdf ).
Social Audit is a comparatively new subject, particularly in the development sector in India.
Although the Government of India has recognized the importance of Social Audit and even
made it mandatory, there has been very little of it on ground, in practice. Indeed, the concept
of Social Audit is still at a nascent stage in the country. Its theory is still evolving, and its role
as an empowering tool is as yet little understood and hindered by practical and executive
problems. However, some encouraging experiences in the last few years, and now particularly
with the ‘Right to Information Law’ having got legislated, the civil society, specially those
working on rights based issues, are beginning to realize the increasing value of Social Audit as
a tool to empower the people and demand accountability in their development and related
works.
()()()()()
CHAPTER - III
104
A social audit begins by defining the scope and focus of the entire procedure. This is its
first and its most important consideration. The scope and focus includes the areas of decisions
and actions, the objectives of the whole exercise and the objectives of each area of concern,
the measurement methodologies and the names of the specific documents needed for the
study. The scope and focus limits the entire procedure for that one engagement being
undertaken, and is agreed upon by the organization and the auditor. It likewise provides an
approximation of the level of inquiry that is necessary in order to get the information needed
to understand and appreciate the cooperative’s social performance.
The scope and focus may incorporate all the areas of decisions and actions that are of
concern to the whole organization, or it may only cover few areas that the cooperative feels to
be of pressing need at the earliest time for deeper study. Certainly, that resolve is entirely that
of the organization, since taking such a comprehensive review tabs in on resources
particularly if it is just starting to undertake the social audit process. It is good, of course, to
look at how the organization performs in the most comprehensive way, but for practical
105
reasons the social audit can be done piecemeal, as mentioned earlier in gradual and
incremental manner, limiting to few areas of decisions and actions at the start, and later
expanding to other decisions and actions, until the social audit can encompass the full range
of issues and stakeholder interests that fall within the organization’s operational sphere and
influence.
The first step of almost any social accountability initiative is the identification of an entry
point and the development of a strategy whereby a priority problem can be addressed. The
problem may be of a specific or general nature and may be identified at a local, regional or
national level. For example, in the case of poor health service delivery, potential entry points
might include national health budget allocations, corruption/inefficiencies within the national
distribution system or the performance of local service providers or village health
management committees. Each of these could be a serious bottleneck to delivery of health
services. Potential strategies for addressing these issues could include, for example, budget
analysis/advocacy activities, tracking of health inputs and/or expenditures, participatory
evaluation of local health services, etc.
Accessing or generating relevant information and building a credible evidence base that
will serve to hold public officials accountable is a critical aspect of social accountability. Social
accountability initiatives often involve obtaining: (i) “supply-side” data/information (from
107
government and service providers) and (ii) “demand-side” data/information (from users of
government services, communities and citizens). In accessing “supply-side” information (e.g.,
policy statements, budget commitments and accounts, records of inputs, outputs and
expenditures, audit findings , etc.), the transparency of government and its capacity to
produce and provide data and accounts are crucial.22 With regard to “demand-side”
information, a wide variety of participatory methods and tools (e.g., community scorecards,
citizen report cards, participatory monitoring and evaluation techniques) have been developed
to generate data, while simultaneously serving to raise awareness and promote local-level
mobilization and organization.
• Going public
Bringing information and findings into the public sphere and generating public debate
around them are a key element of most social accountability initiatives. Be it budget details,
the findings of public expenditure reviews, audits or project evaluation results, this information
takes on new significance and impact when made accessible to the public at large, serving
both to inform and to create an impetus for action. Effective communication strategies and
mechanisms are, therefore, essential aspects of social accountability. These may include the
organization of public meetings and events as well the strategic use of both modern and
traditional forms of media. Transmitting relevant information to government officials who are
in a position to act on it (and, ideally, interacting directly with those decision-makers on an on-
going basis) is also an essential aspect of social accountability.
Informing citizens of their rights and responsibilities, engaging their interest and mobilizing
them to build coalitions and partnerships with different stakeholders (like bureaucrats, media,
109
parliamentarians, etc.) is a core aspect of social accountability. Ideally, every step of a social
accountability initiative contributes to informing/engaging citizens and mobilizing support. The
ability of citizens to organize for collective action and the capacity of CSOs to facilitate and
support such mobilization are crucial to the success of social accountability initiatives. Again,
reaching out to poor and marginalized segments of the population requires specific effort and
remains a principal challenge.
The most crucial and challenging element of a social accountability strategy is to be able
to elicit a response from public officials and effect real change. The most effective strategies
usually involve direct interaction and negotiation with the concerned government counterparts
and, in some cases, the institutionalization of mechanisms for ongoing consultation and
dialogue. As discussed above, in negotiating change, citizens’ groups employ a range of both
informal and formal means of persuasion, pressure, reward and sanction. These include, for
example, creating public pressure (e.g., through media campaigns and public meetings) or
when necessary, resorting to formal means of enforcement (e.g., through legal and judicial
processes). The space and opportunity for negotiation as well as the possibility of appeal to
formal means of sanction obviously vary greatly from one country context to another. In many
110
developing country contexts, citizen’s groups have found that legal and/or institutional
reforms are necessary to facilitate meaningful negotiation.
The evolution of most social accountability initiatives has been far from systematic. For the
most part, measures by citizen groups to promote accountability have been opportunistic
responses to particular situations. Their success has therefore also been heavily dependent on
several factors. Some of these are discussed below.
The parameters for social accountability are largely determined by the existing political
context and culture. For example, the feasibility and likelihood of success of social
accountability initiatives are highly dependent upon whether the political regime is
democratic, a multi-party system is in place, basic political and civil rights are guaranteed
(including access to information and freedoms of expression, association and assembly) and
whether there is a culture of political transparency and probity. The existence of these
underlying factors, and the potential risks that their absence may pose, must be taken into
111
account when planning social accountability initiatives. Legal, institutional and socio-cultural
factors will also have an important influence on the success of social accountability activities.
An unfavorable context does not mean that social accountability activities should not be
pursued. In such circumstances, however, an analysis of the key factors influencing the
environment for social accountability (and the risks they entail) must be undertaken and
appropriate strategies for addressing potential barriers developed.
• Access to information
As described above the availability and reliability of public documents and data is essential
to building social accountability. Such information is the basis for social accountability
activities, and thus its quality and accessibility28 is a key determinant of the success of social
accountability mechanisms. In many cases, initial social accountability efforts may need to
focus on securing freedom of information legislation, addressing a lack of political will to
disclose or strengthen the technical capacity of public institutions to record, manage and
make available relevant data.
The media plays a critical role in promoting social accountability. In many countries,
independent media is a leading force in informing/educating citizens, monitoring government
performance and exposing misdeeds. Local-level media (in particular, private and community
radio) provide an important means whereby ordinary citizens can voice their opinions and
discuss public issues. The extent to which media is independent and ownership is pluralistic
(versus concentrated in a few hands) are important factors that can contribute to the
accountability of the political system. A common element of almost all successful social
accountability initiatives is the strategic use of both traditional and modern forms of media to
raise awareness around public issues, disseminate findings and create a platform for public
debate.
The capacity of civil society actors is another key factor of successful social accountability.
The level of organization of CSOs, the breadth of their membership, their technical and
advocacy skills, their capacity to mobilize and effectively use media, their legitimacy and
representativity and their level of responsiveness and accountability to their own members are
all central to the success of social accountability activities. In many contexts, efforts to
113
promote an enabling environment for civil society and to build the capacity (both
organizational and technical) of CSOs are required.
• State capacity
The success of social accountability initiatives also depends upon the capacity and
effectiveness of the state. Social accountability initiatives make little sense, for example,
where the state machinery has collapsed or is entirely ineffectual. A functioning public
administration that has some capacity to respond
to citizen demands is, therefore, a prerequisite. Other aspects of state capacity that influence
the success of social accountability initiatives (and that may require capacity development
investments) include: the ability to produce records and accounts; the existence of
conventional (“horizontal”) accountability mechanisms; the effective devolution of authority
and resources; the willingness and capacity to build partnerships/coalitions; and, a political or
administrative culture that values notions of public sector probity, accountability and equity.
• Institutionalization
While ad hoc or one-off social accountability initiatives can make a difference, experience
shows that impact is greatest and most sustainable when social accountability mechanisms
are “institutionalized” – in other words, embedded within and systematically implemented by a
civil society, state or “hybrid” institution. As discussed earlier, “external” mechanisms of social
accountability can be particularly effective when combined with accountability mechanisms
“internal” to the state. According to Fox (2000, p. 1), “civil society demands for state
115
accountability matter most when they empower the state’s own checks and balances.” As a
result, beyond seeking specific operational outcomes, social accountability initiatives should
also pay attention to institutional factors and seek opportunities for influencing longer-term
institutional development and/or reform. Social accountability initiatives often identify the
need for institutional changes in government agencies and public services (e.g., changes in
the behavior and attitudes of frontline staff, of the incentives and sanctions of a partic ular
organization, its management style or decision making processes, etc.). They can go further
and also play a catalytic role in bringing these changes about (e.g., by engaging with staff of
health centers to regularly seek and embrace client feedback systems, setting up citizen
transparency committees for local government decision-making or introducing social
monitoring groups to evaluate performance of national programs or policies on an ongoing
basis). Where possible, the legal institutionalization of participatory mechanisms from the level
of individual programs and agencies through to the overall system level should be considered
as a means to enhance long-term effectiveness and sustainability.
The toolkit can be used to create a research design that suits the particular needs of a
community. With the suggested measures given in the toolkit, the Social Auditor(s) will be in a
position to conduct a more in-depth analysis as to how the new welfare policies/programmes
are affecting the lives and livelihoods of the target groups. The Social Audit introduces new
ways of researching communities and comes out with richer and wider information than
conventional forms of research.
The tools suggested in the toolkit can be used by the Social Auditor(s) to find areas of real
concern in the community and for looking at the connections and relationships which create or
undermine social capital.
The Social Audit report is intended for government departments, community activists and
other stakeholders who want to analyse the 'real' benefits of government programmes and to
use the same for lobbying and other forms of social action. The users of toolkit can go through
the entire framework and use the tools that suit their purpose.
The data collection should align with the time, resources and the needs of the community.
If the data collectors haven't done any data collection exercise earlier they will need some
exposure to the methods of data collection. It is necessary that the data should reflect the
views of the respondents rather than the views of the researcher. Survey research is an
important method in identifying the real benefits delivered to the citizens. There are a number
of ways for conducting surveys and it is hard to compare the advantages and disadvantages
across different types of surveys. The key to a successful Social Audit is in knowing which
techniques to use and in what sequence. The Social Auditor can choose different methods so
as to capture both quantitative and qualitative information from the respondent.
Household drop-off: In this approach, the Social Auditor goes to the respondent's house.
This method is expected to increase the percentage of respondents. However, the applicability
of this method is geographically limited, slow and expensive.
119
Personal interview: Interviews are a far more personal form of research than questionnaires
and is very useful in finding qualitative remarks. This method helps to learn more about the
situation in detail, to discuss issues that would be difficult to address in group situations and to
reveal their personal perspectives on a particular topic. Unlike mail surveys, the interviewer
has the opportunity to probe or ask follow-up questions. However, this method is very time
consuming and resource intensive.
Key informants: The information collection should be at random, covering people who can
represent a particular group or view point with special knowledge so as to gain insights into
particular subjects.
Telephonic interview: Telephone interviews enable the Social Auditor to gather information
rapidly. Like personal interviews, they help to develop some personal contact between the
interviewer and the respondent and this method offers the possibility of probing into details.
But some of the disadvantages of this method are, many people in villages don't have access
to telephones and most of the telephone numbers are not listed publicly.
Semi-structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews are conducted with a fairly open framework, which allows for
focused, conversational, two-way communication. They can be used to both give and receive
information. Semistructured interviews conducted by experienced interviewers will help to
overcome the limits of the questionnaire technique by letting respondents answer and discuss
in ways which allow them freedom to raise other issues. The strategy of a semi-structured
interview is to prepare in advance a minimum number of questions, say 10 to 15. This small
121
number should be enough to convey the focus of interviews, which allows for conversational
flexibility and enables interviewers to become familiar with the subject or problem. It is critical
that the interviewers are familiar with the interview guide, so that the interview can be
conducted in a conversational, informal way.
• The interview team should consist of two to four people of different disciplines
• Begin with traditional greeting and state that you are here to learn
• Begin questioning by referring to someone or something visible
• Conduct the interview informally
• Be open-minded and objective
• Let each team member finish his/her line of questioning (do not interrupt)
• Carefully lead up to sensitive questions
122
Source: J. Theis and H. M Gardy, 1991, Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development: A
training manual based on experiences in the Middle East and North Africa, Save the Children Federation
and the International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Not all questions are designed and phrased ahead of time. The majority of questions are
created during the interview, allowing both the interviewer and the person being interviewed
with the flexibility to probe for details or discuss issues based on the following :
a) Issues of power and control: who's in charge? - Greater vulnerability than with fixed
script
b) Structural issues of gender ethnicity, class, age, occupation
c) Pitfalls of interviewing those assumed to be more powerful, less powerful, similar
position
d) Standardisation, replicability, objectivity
e) Objectivity/Conformability
124
In-depth Interviews
In-depth interviewing involves asking questions, listening to the answers, and then posing
additional questions to clarify or expand on a particular issue. To start with, the Social Auditor
should define the sample size and method which determines who will be interviewed, and the
number of interviews required to collect the required information. As the second stage is to
undertake in-depth interviews, the researcher should design an interview guide, which can be
used as a checklist so that the interviewers can be sure that they cover each topic thoroughly.
In-depth discussion with the community members and other stakeholders on areas under
study will provide an understanding of the beneficiaries' view of a programme and their
judgement. A multi-pronged approach is needed for data collection and it should include a
mixture of techniques such as desk research, field data collection, personal interviews,
telephonic interviews, structured surveys and so on. A detailed guide to undertake citizens'
survey is given as Appendix V.
1. Survey of stakeholders: A survey of stakeholders should try to cover the attitudes and
behaviour and make sure that adequate number of different stakeholder groups are covered
to arrive at a reliable conclusion.
126
2. Checking the media: Before setting out, the survey reports that have come out in the
media during the recent past pertaining to the area under study, need to be looked into
carefully.
Group Exercise
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) has contributed a series of methods which the local
people, including the illiterate, could use effectively to monitor and evaluate programmes. PRA
emphasises local knowledge and enables the local people to make their own appraisal,
analysis and plans. The participatory techniques such as resource mapping, mobility mapping,
social mapping etc, can also be used as possible tools for conducting Social Audit. These tools,
used at regular intervals, will enable the availability of time series data for evaluating the
benefits of the programme and this exercise facilitates information sharing, analysis and
action among stakeholders.
127
Focus group interviews: Focus group research is a relatively unstructured form of data
collection where small groups of community members are identified to evaluate the benefits/
costs shared among different stakeholder groups.
Key people interviews: Officials and policy makers are to be contacted for capturing their
perception about the programme implementation and during interviews the Social Auditor
should keep a running record of all relevant material mentioned and he/she should collect
them at the end of the interview.
The survey must also collect basic statistical data on people who are being interviewed. The
Social Auditor, therefore, should collect information regarding age, sex, income, employment
details, education, full postal address and language spoken. This will help in comparing the
findings with similar groups elsewhere.
Audit, it is always desirable to look at statistics and reports already available. Much of the
information can be collected from different official data sources, including university research
reports, reports in journals etc.
Social indicators give measurable changes in human population, communities and social
relationships. Through these social indicators, the Social Auditor will be able to gather figures,
statistics and findings, which could provide macro-perspectives needed for Social Audit.
Following is a list of social impact indicators developed by UNEP as a sample:
Population Characteristics
• Population change
• Ethnic and racial distribution
• Relocated populations
• Seasonal residents
129
• Voluntary associations
• Interest group activity
• Size and structure of local government
• Historical experience with change
• Employment/income characteristics
• Employment equity of minority groups
• Local/regional/national linkages
• Industrial/commercial diversity
• Presence of planning and zoning activity
Community Resources
These variables are suggestive and illustrative and are only intended to provide a
beginning for the Social Auditor(s). Though the traditional social indicators provide the broad
perspective, these figures, findings and statistics alone are not enough to give a true picture
131
of the issues concerning the people. In reality, the priorities of the community are often
different from those designed and implemented by the policy makers and professionals. One
of the major challenges of Social Audit is to enable the communities to express and
communicate their realities and priorities to the policy-makers. Social Auditing tries to link
micro and macro indicators and the Social Audit report attempts to influence policy-makers on
how changes at macro levels can adversely affect the lives of people at large.
The purpose behind conducting Social Audit is not to find fault with the individuals but to
assess the performance in terms of social, environmental and community goals of the
organisation. The audit findings need to be owned up and internalised by the respective
departments/organisations. To ensure the follow-up for Social Audit, the departments should
develop an action plan with respect to the recommendations outlined in the report.
Subsequently, the departments should set up a separate task force to ensure timely execution
of the action plan based on guidelines given in the Social Audit report.
The success of Social Auditing depends on the follow-up action taken on the Social Audit
report and the receptiveness of the departments/organisations to adopt the recommendations
132
in the Social Audit report. The task force should suggest modalities for improving its
performance based on the feedback received from different stakeholders. The detailed work
plan needs to be identified by the task force and the same should be implemented at the
earliest.
()()()()()
133
CHAPTER - IV
The Social Audit Toolkit is developed to guide the government departments, community
organisations and civil society groups for using Social Audit as a practical tool to identify,
measure, assess and to report on their social performance. To undertake this audit, we need
to agree on how to proceed, how to collect data and what data is to be collected. We need to
standardise the methodologies for conducting Social Audit. The following sections of the toolkit
will describe the sequential process involved in conducting the Social Audit.
Social Audit Toolkit can be used by government departments, private enterprises as well
as the civil society. However, the scope in terms of audit boundaries would be specific to that
of a government department, private organisation, an NGO or a community. In case of private
organisations, the emphasis may be on balancing financial viability with its impact on the
community and environment. In case of NGOs, in addition to using them to maximise the
impact of their intervention programme, they could also be used as effective advocacy tools.
Depending on the resources available Social Audit could be comprehensive, state-wide, and
can also be localised to the community level.
135
Social Audit being a flexible tool could be used by anyone. Depending on the resources
available Social Audit could be comprehensive, state-wide, and can also be localised to the
community level.
Social Audit is a flexible tool. It has six steps. Before taking the first step, it is important
that key decision-makers have considered various aspects of Social Audit and have arrived at
a consensus at various levels on undertaking Social Audit. The decision to undertake Social
Audit should be internal and well considered. This would ensure that there is ownership and
commitment. Willingness to be democratic, open and provide space for stakeholders would be
critical for going through all the stages of Social Auditing.
136
It is important to note that all the six steps flow from or have to be visualised in the
backdrop of the social mission of the department/programme(s) that includes: mission, vision,
core values and core responsibilities. The organisation should identify Social Auditor(s) -
individual(s) and/or organisation(s). The characteristics/profile of the Social Auditor could be:
The social audit toolkit prepared by the Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad, has
suggested the following six steps of Social Auditing:
1. Preparatory Activities
List down social objectives the department is working towards or programmes it aims to
contribute.
Match activities with objectives.
List current practices and delivery systems.
Fix the responsibility for doing Social Audit in the department.
Budget for Social Audit.
Elaborate key issues for Social Auditing based on the social objectives.
Prepare a statement of purpose, objectives, key issues and activities for Social Auditing.
Identify key stakeholders for consultation (Government and Civil Society).
Forge consensus on audit boundaries; identify stakeholders and formalise
commitments.
Prepare social accounts using existing information, data collected and views of
stakeholders.
Identify key issues for action.
The outcome of the consultation would feed into the process of detailing out: the indicators
to be monitored; which existing records to be used; and how additional information would
be collected. The next key step is to fix responsibilities for various activities. The activities
include preparing the formats for social account-keeping, compilation of data and
reporting the same on a monthly basis (internal use). Managers of the
department/programmes can use this information for monitoring as well as providing
feedback for improving performance and overcoming bottlenecks.
Social Audit subscribes to good governance principles of participation, inclusiveness and
consensus. To translate these into activities, a department can start the preparatory
activities during any time in a financial year; form a small group, which would go through
relevant documents and lists down core values and social objectives. The group would
ideally spend about two days to complete this task. They would prepare a small note
142
and impact against its values and its objectives, encompassing both quantitative and
qualitative. The information is then brought together and analysed.
For a social audit to be meaningful it must study areas of decisions and actions and use
indicators that are relevant to the organization. The key is to choose variables on the basis of
reasoning and knowledge of their significance — not just because they can be measured – and
to choose indicators that can measure accurately these variables. Any projected impacts
should be identified, including potentially negative ones. These projections can guide decisions
about what to measure and how. The usefulness of variables and indicators is enhanced when
there is some way to set the information in context, such as clearness of the rationale about
why these are the ones to assess, or comparability of the information to past performance or
appropriateness of the information to become a baseline against which to compare future
results, or comparability to an appropriate external benchmark, or compatibility to goals or
targets set by the organization or to regulatory standards. Social audit literatures are only just
beginning to come to grip with the importance of methodology. But as it is at present, being
still an evolving field, it now integrates certain principles and practices of the social sciences.
This is especially the case when the auditor wants a representative sampling of the
perceptions and motivations of various stakeholders or wants to assess more deeply the social
consequences of organizational outputs.
144
Gram Sabha is, perhaps, the best social audit unit in our new democratic institutions
(Mathew, 1999). To day the Panchayats provide the best fora to implement social audit. On 4
July 1996 the Kerala Government constituted a Committee on Decentralisation with Dr.Satya
Brata Sen as its Chairman. For effective social audit, the Sen Committee had suggested
setting up of committees by Panchayats at various levels. First, Social Audit Committees are
compulsory at the Block Samiti and the District Panchayat levels, consisting of respected
citizens and professionals, to audit developmental programmes whenever they deem it
appropriate. Second, special women’s watchdog committees should be there at the level
Gram Panchayats and Municipalities. It should have two nominees of each Gram Sabha or
Wards Committee, one being a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. Such
committees would have the same rights as social audit committees and would scrutinize costs,
estimates, the quantity and quality of materials used in works, adherence to norms in
selection, etc. (Rasquinha, 1977).
The Satya Brata Sen Committee has also suggested several means to facilitate the social
audit: (a) Making all estimates, list of beneficiaries, assistance given in each scheme, muster
145
rolls, bills, vouchers, accounts, etc., open documents for scrutiny by any citizen and providing
photocopies of them on payment of actual cost. (b) Stipulating that all applications for various
licenses, permits, certificates given to Local Self Government Institutions are given a queue
number and this priority should not be violated. Registers indicating date of application and
date of clearance in each case should be available for reference by any applicant. If possible
copies should be published in the notice board. (c) Making public, assessment of tax, grant of
exemption, etc., to ensure that there are no complaints of undue preferential treatment to
some people (Rasquinha, 1977). If these guidelines are followed, then social audit will become
a powerful social institution (Mathew, 1999).
Social audit by its very nature deals mostly with reports on outputs - to document what the
organization is actually doing and how it is doing. Given such, at the most elementary level,
social audit may be made only to report on some data, or perhaps some statistics, and the
task may be quite simple and the data readily available, and even if at times the data are
difficult to find and calls for knowledge and skill with information sources, little is presented in
146
terms of inferences or conclusions. Or, at the second level, the social audit may call for
description to answer on questions of who, what, when, where, and sometimes how, and
involves only single variable frequency distribution or even multivariate relationships or
multiple variable cross-tabulations with little inferences or correlations gained, but still little is
given in terms of explanation or prediction.
So, after gaining a handle on these outputs, the natural flow of an inquiring mind goes and
begins to shift focus to “so what?” or why certain results happen the way they happen. In
other words, the concern is now shifted to the effects of these outputs to the individuals who
are direct beneficiaries of the output and to the communities of these individuals. This is
indeed a reality. Can the organization claim to be accomplishing what it has intended or what
was intended? This is one significant challenge. Here, it has to be established that the impact
that shows up is really the result of an input that the organization had made, and not a
consequence of some other factors.
In the study of outcomes, the auditor needs to build a theory, also called a hypothesis, of
the effects of organizational outputs on the community, given the various factors that co-exist
within it. The theory gives focus and accounts for all the forces that caused a certain
147
phenomenon to occur, as it guides the direction of the study, limits what shall be studied and
provides a framework for organizing the conclusions that will come out.
The study of outcomes is truly a difficult one. One possible way is to put comparatives for
each area of concern being measured, and comparatives of the organization’s targets. Another
is the use of multiple indicators of the same area of concern or variables and multiple
measures of each indicator. And still another is studying the convergence of all findings or
finding the causes of the findings. And above all, it is also necessary that the social audit begin
now to employ various methods of inquiry such as interviews, surveys, compilation of
statistics, case studies, and many others.
Singh (2007) argues that whereas the process of conducting a social audit for policies and
laws is not very different from that of conducting such an audit for specific schemes, as
described a little later, obviously some of the questions asked and the issues discussed differ.
148
Therefore, given below is a sample of generic questions that need to be raised, both about the
process of formulation, and the outcome, of a policy or law.
According to Singh (2007), a social audit is conducted over the life span of a scheme or
programme, and not just in one go or at one stage. The activities that constitute a social audit
include:
d. Making people aware of their rights, entitlements and obligations under the
scheme/programme.
e.Specifically, making them aware of their right to participate in the ongoing process of
social audit.
f. Making sure that all the forms and documents are in simple, easily understandable,
language and structure and available in local languages.
g. Also ensuring that all relevant information is publicly displayed on boards and
through posters and is also read out at appropriate times for the convenience of the
people, especially those who cannot read.
153
h. Ensuring that the decision making process, especially for those decisions that are
critical and/or vulnerable to distortions, is transparent and open and carried out, as far
as possible, in the presence of the affected persons.
i. Making certain that all decisions, along with reasons, as appropriate, are also
communicated as soon as they are made to the affected people, and in manner that
makes it easy for them to comprehend.
j. Where there is a need for measuring, inspection or certification, ensuring that
randomly selected individuals, from among the affected persons, are involved on a
rotational basis.
k.Also ensuring that members of the public and especially those directly affected, are
facilitated to inspect and verify records, inspect works and generally monitor planning
and implementation.
l. Where required, to have a formal public hearing (jan audit manch) where pertinent
information is put before the public and verified in consultation with the affected
persons.
m. Ensuring that the findings of the social audit process are acted upon as they
become available and that apart from addressing the specific issues, systemic changes
are also brought about.
154
Singh (2007) describes step by step the process of conducting a social audit for specific
schemes or programmes, to help those from among the government and people’s institutions
who want to organise a social audit. The specific examples taken are from the NREGA.
However, though the general structure will remain the same for all schemes and programmes,
specific changes will need to be incorporated for each scheme in order to accommodate the
unique characteristics of each scheme.
Step 1: Study the details of the scheme and familiarise oneself with all the provisions and
requirements of the scheme and of the Right to Information Act.
Step 2: Identify the various stages of the scheme, especially those where decisions have to
be made, beneficiaries identified, sites selected, strategies determined, details specified, etc.
Given below is an example from the NREGA of identification of stages.
For the NREGA, which provides employment as a right, the identification of stages can be
best done in terms of the entitlements provided under the act. These are:
Step 3: For each of these stages, identify the vulnerabilities, in terms of what can go wrong,
what can be corrupted, what distortions can occur or what biases can creep in. Given below is
an example of possible vulnerabilities from the NREGA. Detail methodology for conducting a
social audit for activities under the NREGA are given in chapter 3. Similarly, details of how to
156
integrate social auditing into the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) and the
Integrated Child Development Programme (ICDP) are given in chapter 6 and 7 respectively.
ENTITLEMENT VULNERABILITIES
The entitlement to register 1. Absence of the concerned functionary.
one’s family as Potential 2. Denial of registration to persons
Beneficiaries In The Rural applying to the scheme
Employment Guarantee 3. Incomplete list of adults in each
157
Scheme household
4. Registration of bogus
families/individuals
5. Rejection of “incomplete” registration
forms.
6. Asking for money for registering
names/ families.
The entitlement to a job 1. Delay in receiving job cards
card 2. Issuance of false cards
3. Issuance of cards to ineligible
persons
a.To non-residents
b. To minors
c.To those not members of the listed
family
4. Non-issuance of a job card
5. Asking for money for issuing job
card.
The entitlement to apply 1. Non-acceptance of work application by
158
person.
5. Payment of wages in the name of non-
existent (Ghost) workers.
6. Payment of wages for non-existent
projects.
The entitlement to receive 1. Denial of unemployment allowance by
unemployment allowance, wrongly accusing a person for not
if work is not allotted in reporting to work
the stipulated fifteen days 2. Late payment of unemployment
allowance
3. Payment of unemployment allowance
to the wrong person
4. Payment of unemployment allowance
to non-existent (ghost) persons.
5. Demand of bribe for paying allowance.
The entitlement to be 1. Taking and/or recording of improper
involved in the evaluation measurements
of the works undertaken 2. Not consolidating the information
under this act regarding the works in one place.
161
Step 4: Identify, for each stage, the appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that the
identified vulnerabilities are addressed through the relevant social audit mechanisms. These
162
could include one or more of the measures listed at point 6 above and essentially includes
making all relevant information available publicly, ensuring that critical decisions are made
jointly with the affected people and in their presence, and that the process of verification,
measurement and certification is done with the involvement of the affected people.
Step 5: Identify the functionaries and institutions that would be responsible for ensuring that
the social audit is conducted, and conducted properly (see chapter 5 for allocation of
responsibility in the NREGA).
Step 6: Call a meeting of the village/community and discuss the principles and method of
social auditing in detail with them.
Step 7: Ensure that the identified institution and functionary complies with all the
requirements of a social audit.
Step 8: Every six months, prepare for a public hearing or a Jan Audit Manch. In this manch,
the affected persons collectively review the process of social audit. Also reviewed is the
progress of the scheme. The reports and data related to the scheme are publicly verified and
people are given an opportunity to discuss their problems with the implementing institutions,
163
and understand their problems. A step by step guide to how a jan audit manch is to be carried
out is given below, with examples of how they can be applied to various schemes and
programmes in chapters 5, 6 and 7).
Apart from the ongoing process of social audit (described above), singh (2007) argues that
there should be a mandatory periodic review of all aspects of social audit in ward sabhas
(where they exist) and in the Gram Sabha, meetings to be held at least once every six months
for this purpose (to be called “Jan Audit Manch”). These will not only give people an
opportunity to review compliance with the ongoing requirements of transparency and social
audit for any scheme, programme or project, they will also serve as an institutional forum
where people can conduct a detailed public audit of all the decisions that have been made and
the work that has been carried out in their area in the preceding six months.
167
The importance of this platform is not only the independent value of publicly auditing a
particular scheme or work, but also that it provides an opportunity to review the functioning of
all the transparency provisions at various points in the implementation of the scheme or
activity, with beneficiaries and all the stakeholders residing in the area. The social audit
compliments the financial audit, and facilitates examination of various aspects of the
scheme/project/activity by the people. This is beyond the scope of the financial audit. It
provides an institutional platform for people to seek and obtain information, verify financial
expenditure, examine the provision of services, assets or entitlements, the reflection of
priorities through choices made, quality of work, and quality of services of the staff, etc. While
the social audit must be seen as an ongoing process, the ward/gram sabha Jan audit manch is
a crucial platform for ensuring peoples participation in all aspects of the audited entity..
Because of the requirement to read information out aloud, the manch facilitates the
participation of people who don’t have the literacy skills to understand documents. It is
therefore mandatory that such social audits be conducted on a bi-annual basis, and that the
concerned officers be made responsible for ensuring they take place.
The Jan Audit Manch has three phases: The preparatory phase, the organisational phase,
and the implementation phase.
The success of a social audit is dependent on the open and fearless participation of all the
people- particularly the potential beneficiaries of the programme. Effective public
participation is dependent on adequate publicity about the meeting as well as informed
public opinion, dependent on prior information provided to people in a demystified form.
Publicity
It must be ensured that sufficient publicity be given to the date, time, importance and
sanctity of the social audit, so that maximum participation is ensured. This must be
facilitated through at least the following measures:
• People should be aware of the months when the Jan Audit Manch is to be held so that it
becomes a regular event that people are aware of. The governments should issue
169
instructions about the time of year when it is convenient for people to attend such
meetings
• Announcement of the specific date, time and location of the Jan Audit Manch at least
one month in advance.
• Use of traditional modes of publicity like informing people through beating of drums,
and modern means like mike announcements.
• Notices on the notice board, in newspapers, and through pamphlets etc.
• Conducting these audits in a campaign mode so that the entire administration gears
up to meet the institutional requirements of the manch, and the campaign encourages
people to attend.
Preparation of Documents
The full and efficient participation of people in the social audit manch is dependent on full
information. This is not only facilitated through easy access to all documents and
information while the scheme/activity/works are in progress, but preparing for the social
audit by collating information and demystifying the information so that people can look at
summaries of information before the social audit, and these summaries can be read out
aloud during the Jan Audit Manch. In this connection it is essential that:
170
• All the relevant documents, including complete files of the works or copies of them be
made available for inspection at the gram panchayat office at least fifteen days in
advance of the jan audit. There should be free and easy access to all residents of the
panchayat to these documents during this period, and no fees should be charged for
inspection. During this period, if anyone wants copies of the documents, they should be
provided at cost price as soon as possible, but no later than five days of the request
being made.
• Summaries of muster rolls and of Bills, where relevant, must be prepared (in a specially
designed format) in advance for presentation in the Jan Audit. If possible, these
summaries should be put onto charts for public display on the day of the jan audit, and
to put up at the panchayat office during the fifteen day pre-audit phase
• The original files should be available on the day of the jan audit, so that any information
can be cross checked
• The activities/works to be taken up for audit should be listed in advance, and the list
should be put up on the notice boards, along with the other items on the agenda
The Jan Audit Manch is a platform where the independence and facilitating nature of the
institutional arrangements will contribute directly to its credibility. It is essential to ensure
that proceedings are conducted in a transparent and non-partisan manner, where the
poorest and most marginalized can participate and speak out in confidence and without
fear. Care has to be taken that the manch not be manipulated by vested interests.
Towards this end:
• The time of year for the manch meetings must be such that it is convenient for as many
residents to attend- in particular, those who are directly involved with the entity being
audited, and all marginalized communities.
• The timings must similarly be convenient so that women can also attend.
• The quorum of the manch must be the same as for all gram sabhas, and the quorum
must be maintained as per separate categories (in a specially designed format) Social
audit objections must however be recorded at all times, and lack of a quorum should not
be taken as a reason for not recording objections.
The social audit Manch must be chaired by an individual independent of the implementing
agencies in the panchayat. The ward panch/ panchayat president must not chair this
meeting.
• The secretary of the manch must also be an official from outside the panchayat.
172
• The person responsible for presenting the information should not be a person
responsible for implementing the work. The vigilance committee, or a school teacher for
instance could be considered for the purpose of reading aloud the information as per the
required format.
• All officials responsible for implementation must be required to be present at the jan
audit manch and be required to answer querries from members of the gram sabhaa.
• Decisions and resolutions must be made by vote, but dissenting opinion must be
recorded.
• Minutes must be recorded as per the format (in a specially designed format), by a person
from outside the implementing agencies, and the minute register must be signed by
people at the beginning and end of the meeting (after the minutes are written).
• The agenda (generic agenda given below) must be gone through including the
transparency checklist, and all objections recorded as per format (in a specially designed
format).
• The action taken report of the last social audit must be read out at the beginning of each
jan audit manch.
• In addition, every district should also have a team of technical people from outside the
district (with the appropriate expertise, for example in engineering, accountancy, etc.)
173
who will help in the preparation of information for dissemination, who will attend
selected jan audits, take detailed notes, and immediately after the jan audit, visit all the
sites and conduct detailed enquiries where people have testified that there is corruption.
• During the jan audits, right to information provisions and ward sabha social audit
manuals, should be publicized so that this serves as an ongoing training for the public
vigilance process.
The agenda for the social audit in the gram sabha must include a checklist to review
whether norms, provisions, rules and guidelines are being followed. The questions and
issues raised in the jan audit manch would include:
• Where potential beneficiaries have to apply for their benefits/entitlements, are their
applications being received and acknowledged?
• Are they getting their benefits appropriately and in time?
• Is the distribution of benefits/entitlements being done in a transparent manner, with
lists being put up on the panchayat notice board for public notice and display?
• Are there any pending complaints about the receipt of applications, the allotment of
benefits/entitlements, etc.?
• Was the final identification done in a transparent manner with the involvement of
local stake holders?
• Was there involvement of the local stake holders in the preparation of the
technical estimate?
• A list of all the works/activities sanctioned in the six month period must be read out
aloud, along with amount sanctioned, and amount spent on the works.
• Has the list of work/activities sanctioned been made public through notice boards etc.,
and kept updated?
• Was there a board on the work site giving details of sanctioned amount, work
dimensions, and other requisite details?
• Was an open transparency meeting held before commencement of the work to
explain the work requirements to the workers, including the labour and material
estimates as per the technical sanction?
• Were the muster rolls (where relevant) available for public scrutiny at all times at the
work site?
176
• Was there a work site material register maintained, along with verification by at least
five workers whenever material came to the site?
• Was a daily individual measurement of work conducted in a transparent manner where
piece rate norms were in force?
• Was the measurement of the work done by the junior engineer in the presence of a
group of workers?
• Were any complaints made? Were they addressed within prescribed/appropriate period
by the grievance redressal authority?
• Was an open transparency meeting held within seven days of the completion of
the work, where all those who worked on the site, and residents of the village where
the work took place are invited to look at the entire records. Compliance of the
requirement to hold this meeting must be made necessary before the completion
certificate is issued
• Were all payment details available for public scrutiny before the payments were made
(for example, by putting up muster roll copies on notice boards etc)?
• Were payment details read out aloud in public while making payments”
• Were payments made by an agency other than the one implementing the work
• Was compensation given as per the provision of the payment of wages act for late
payments?
• Are there any wage payments which are still due?
f)Post Facto auditing of the records and accounts of each work undertaken
• The measurement book summary (where relevant) must be read out aloud
• The photographs taken, before, during, and after the work must be available for public
display and scrutiny during the jan audit manch.
4.9 What resources are needed?
Leadership
One person or a group of people will lead on the social accounting work. The involvement
and commitment of the organisation’s senior management are essential. It is recommended
that staff at all levels be involved with consulting stakeholders and measuring progress,
performance and impact.
Proficiencies or skills
It is helpful for someone on staff to have experience with social research, e.g. surveys and
other methods of consultation. If the organisation doesn’t have this proficiency, it may be
helpful to bring in some outside assistance.
Staff time
179
Staff time is required throughout the social accounting cycle. Generally more time is needed
to set up the process at the beginning and to compile, analyse and write up the information at
the end.
Courses, support, and information
Nearly all organisations find introductory sessions to be very useful, and many require ongoing
support throughout the process, depending upon their skills and experience, and the internal
time they are able to dedicate to the process, especially in the first round of accounts.
Consultants may also help with consulting stakeholders – providing someone impartial to help
collect difficult or sensitive information – or to help compile and analyse information. The SAN
Social Accounting Manual and AA1000 Assurance Standard are available to assist
organisations in the process.
Indicators reflect the tangible outcomes of the values, which could be measured. They are
the key building blocks for understanding overall performance, social responsibility and social
benefits. These indicators are derived from the values of the department/programme,
stakeholders or society.
180
The following three tables list out the values, information areas and indicators, separately
for department/organisation, stakeholders and society/community/groups within. This is a
useful indicative list. A department/organisation has to undertake a consultative process to
identify and prioritise indicators, which are specific to its aims and activities. It is important
that the indicators are context-specific and address stakeholders' and society's concerns.
Consultative process is the only suggested means for identifying the indicators. As a first
step, a small group, consisting of say 3 to 5 individuals, who are drawn from the department
/organisation, should take the responsibility for listing down the values, objectives and
indicators of the department. A stakeholder consultation would be the larger forum, which
could discuss this further and add indicators relevant from stakeholders' point of view and
societal values. It depends on for whom we are developing the indicators.
Indicators could be direct or indirect (proxy). Indirect indicators are used if collecting data
on direct indicators is time-consuming, unreliable or expensive. For Social Auditing purposes, it
is important to select indicators that could reliably measure changes brought about by the
programme as well as social benefits.
Valid — measure what they are intended to measure and capture effects due to the
programme intervention rather than external factors;
Reliable — verifiable and objective so that if measured at different times or places or with
different people, the conclusions would be the same;
Relevant — directly linked to the objectives of the programme intervention;
Technically feasible — capable of being assessed and measured;
183
Usable — the indicator should be understandable and ideally provide useful information to
assess programme performance and for decision-making;
Sensitive — capable of demonstrating changes and capturing change in the outcome of
interest (national per capita income is unlikely to be sensitive to the effects of a single
intervention);
Timely — possible to collect relatively quickly;
Cost-effective — the information provided by the indicator is worth the cost to collect,
process and analyse;
Ethical—collection and use of the indicator is acceptable to those providing the
information.
whose interests are affected by the issue or those whose activities strongly affect the
issue;
who possess information, resources and expertise needed for strategy formulation and
implementation;
184
For any department, the stakeholders are the department staff at different levels, other line
departments and the beneficiaries in the project area.
Stakeholders are the extension of the department as they influence, execute or facilitate
department functioning. Social Audit thus needs to encompass their views on service delivery
as well of those seeking benefits from the department. The following are the principles for
identifying stakeholders.
Stakeholder Consultation
indicators and finally the consultation should result in a detailed report including an action
plan.
To identify stakeholders and their roles and to ensure their involvement, the department
needs to address the following:
The stakeholders of any organisation can be identified from different sectors who are
directly or indirectly involved in the programme or the organisation. These could be from both
the implementation sectors and the users/beneficiaries of the programme/organisation.
Generally, stakeholders can be identified based on immediate and long-term benefits in
relation to the objectives of the programmes. For example, if the programme selected is
'women empowerment through formation of self-help groups and micro credit societies', to
enlist stakeholders and collect information on how these processes have contributed to
empowerment, the stakeholders should include not only those who are current members of
micro credit societies or self help-groups, but also involve those who have benefited from the
process to truly assess the achievement of the women empowerment objective.
187
Further, in the context of understanding the outcome of the project activities contributing
towards generation of social capital and benefits at the societal level, the assessment through
an inclusive approach also needs to assess the perceptions and views of those who are not
benefited through programme activities. This approach, thus, ensures the involvement of
nonbeneficiaries as stakeholders in the process of Social Audit.
Some of the other questions that need to be answered in the process of identifying
stakeholders are:
How do we rate their awareness about the department programmes and functions?
On what aspects do we need information from the stakeholders?
Are we seeking qualitative, quantitative, or process information from the stakeholders?
188
Stakeholders’ involvement should not be an ad hoc get together or a meeting to seek their
feedback as a token involvement. This needs to be integrated into the Social Audit process
during the planning stage, and indicators on which information will be sought from the
stakeholders need to be detailed out. Not all stakeholders will have information on all aspects
of the department’s programme and functions. Social Audit tools of assessment such as public
meetings, stakeholders’ workshops, beneficiary survey and focus group discussions in
combination with other tools such as Venn diagram etc, can be used for obtaining information
sought from the stakeholders.
Given that Social Audits are always undertaken in the context of a project/programme the
result obtained must be of direct relevance to the activity. Thus, in addition to generating
189
descriptive information, Social Audits are designed to produce recommendations for changes
to the current or planned policies and programmes. The Social Audit report should fairly
represent the views of all the stakeholders involved in the process. The Social Audit report
needs to be done in ways which recognise the needs of the readers.
At this stage, the Social Auditor should think as to what he/she wants to put into the final
report. These are some of the suggestions:
The final Social Audit report should focus on mapping the core objectives of the
department/programme and the conclusions arrived;
Identify the needs of the readers and make the report relevant to them;
Be selective but do not leave out important findings, which may affect what people do with
the report;
Discuss the findings with others involved and put it together in various ways until it seems
to be good.
190
After collecting adequate information using some of the tools mentioned above, the Social
Auditor should collate the information and prepare the Social Audit report. The following
sections give a brief overview for processing the data and preparing the Social Audit report.
Processing the data: All the data collected from secondary sources on different parameters
covering socio-economic indicators as well as primary information collected from the field
need to be tested against the core values/objectives of the department/institution. For
analyzing the data collected, the Social Auditor should group all the data on particular items
together and tabulate them across different stakeholder groups.
Content analysis: Here the Social Auditor should analyse the value perceived by different
stakeholder groups as to the value delivered by the government department/institution
concerned.
Drafting the report: Drafting the report needs to be done in a way which recognises the
needs of the reader or audience; the conclusions put in the report should be linked to the
original purpose for which the Social Auditing was designed.
191
Harmonisation: The Social Auditor needs to recognise the fact that the concept of Social
Audit may not be familiar to the policy makers and the executive. So while furnishing the
findings of Social Audit report, the researcher may need to explain why they had chosen to
use that particular methodology and what is being highlighted in the final report as major
findings.
Presentation of final report: Many of the stakeholders may not read the whole report, but
will be interested in the summary and conclusions. So the Social Auditor should make these
points clear and comprehensive.
Sample Social Audit Report: A typical Social Audit report would have about six chapters:
Executive summary
Chapter I
_ Context
_ Objectives
_ Methodology
o Basic Approach
192
Reporting Sheets
()()()()()
194
CHAPTER - V
SOCIAL AUDITS AND THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
195
Section 4 (1)(b) of the RTI Act lists the information that public authorities need to make
public suo moto. This includes information relating to the norms set by it for the discharge of
its functions (S. 4(1)(b)(iv)) ; the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by
it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions (S. 4(1)(b)(v)); the
196
particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the
members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof (S.
4(1)(b)(vii)); the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans,
proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made (S. 4(1)(b)(xi)); the manner of
execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of
beneficiaries of such programmes (S. 4(1)(b)(xii)); particulars of recipients of concessions,
permits or authorisations granted by it (S. 4(1)(b)(xiii));. Therefore, this information is required
to be publicly available for all programmes and schemes, without being asked for.
In addition, section 4 (1)(c) of the RTI Act requires that each public authority “ publish all
relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect
public” (emphasis added). This ensures that the public has an opportunity of evaluating draft
public policies while they are being developed. They also have the option to evaluate all
decisions in terms of the facts on which it was based.
Similarly, section 4(1)(d) requires all public authorities to “provide reasons for its
administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons”. Therefore, each public authority
is already required, under the RTI act to give reasons for all decisions made relating to the
197
implementation of any scheme or project, to all the affected people. This makes the conduct
of a social audit very much easier.
The RTI Act also allows any one to access information regarding the functioning of a
scheme or project even after it is completed, by filing a specific request. Therefore, people
incharge of implementing schemes and projects are conscious that their records can be
publicly scrutinised at any time, even years after the event. This is a great deterrence to those
who might be able to manipulate a clean official audit and think that once the formal audit is
over they are safe from public scrutiny.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of the RTI Act is that it has made people aware that they
have a right to access information, a right that is legally enforceable, and is not restricted to
just a few bits of information but covers almost all the information that they might be
interested in. The RTI act not only assures them of this but also, given the penalties that are
prescribed for illegitimate delay or refusal, ensures that they can exercise this right and
actually get this information.
The RTI Act guarantees to the people that they can always, on their own, conduct a social
audit of any scheme or programme that they think needs their scrutiny, even if the concerned
198
public authority has not organised a social audit. They can independently access this
information and ask explanations of the government. The fact that the RTI Act allows them to
do this is makes it futile for public authorities to avoid holding formal social audits or holding
them only on paper.
Coverage
The RTI Act 2005 covers all central, state and local government bodies and, in addition to
the executive, it also applies to the judiciary and the legislature. It covers all bodies owned,
controlled or substantially financed, either directly or indirectly by the government, and non-
governmental organisations and other private bodies substantially funded, directly or
indirectly, by the government. This would seem to include private schools, hospitals and other
commercial institutions that have got subsidies in the form of land at concessional rates or tax
concessions, among others.
199
Apart from these, the law, interestingly, also covers the private sector as it provides the
citizen access to all information that the government can itself access through any other law
currently in force.
Definitions
The Act gives a detailed definition of the term ‘information', and significantly includes
"opinions and advices" as subject to disclosure. This clearly means that file notings are also to
be disclosed, unless their content falls under one of the exemptions specified in section 8 of
the act. The definition of ‘information’ also includes the right to inspect work, documents and
records held by the government, and allows for the extraction of certified samples for
verification. Therefore, the act moves beyond the realm of files and documents and enables
the public to actually examine the field reality.
Process of Access
The Act has set out a relatively simple process for accessing information. Each public
authority must appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO), who accepts requisitions and
200
provides information. The PIO must ordinarily respond to a requisition within 30 days, but
extensions are allowed in some cases, for example when a third party is involved. Information
relating to the life or liberty of a person must, nevertheless, be provided in 48 hours.
Exemptions
The Act exempts certain categories of information from disclosure. Included are the
obvious exemptions of information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the
State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; or information which has
been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of
which may constitute contempt of court. It also exempts information, the disclosure of which
would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.
interest override that specifies that such information can be made public if the competent
authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
Also exempt is information that might violate copyright, except that of the state, or
personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However,
here also it can be disclosed if larger public interests so warrants.
202
There are some general clauses qualifying the exemptions. These include a clause that
specifies that any information that cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature
cannot be denied to any person. Also, where a part of a document is exempt the whole
document cannot be withheld. thus, the section that contains exempt information can be
removed, and the remaining part disclosed..
In another clause, it is stated that notwithstanding the exemptions specified in the law or
provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, “a public authority may allow access to
information, if public interests in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.” In
addition, most of the exempt information becomes accessible after twenty years.
The Act envisages the setting up of independent Information Commissions, one at the
centre and one at each state, comprising one Chief Information Commissioner and up to ten
Information Commissioners. Complaints against violations of provisions of this act can be
made to the Information Commission. The act also provides for two levels of appeals against
the PIO, the first to an officer senior to the PIO, and the second to the central or state
Information Commission, against delay in supplying, or refusal to supply, information by the
203
PIO. The section on appeals specifies that the onus of proof that the denial of a request was
justified would be on the PIO. This necessitates the appellate authorities treating all
information as “disclosable” unless proved otherwise. The act also specifies that appeals
should be disposed off within 30-45 days.
Penalties
The Act stipulates penalties for PIOs found to be in violation of the act. For unreasonable
delay, the Information Commission can impose penalties at Rs. 250 per day, and also penalise
for refusal to accept requests, for malafide destruction of information, knowingly giving false
information etc., with an upper limit of Rs. 25,000. However, PIOs are given immunity for
actions done in good faith.
Universal Access
The Act also has provisions to ensure that all categories of people, especially the rural and
urban poor, can access information,. Towards this end, the act specifies that fees would be
reasonable, and must be waived for persons below the poverty line. There is no need to give
reasons for requisitioning information, nor for providing information about yourself beyond
204
your contact details. The government is also obliged to assist all requisitioners to formulate
requests, especially in the case of sensorily challenged individuals.
Public authorities are obliged to publish a great deal of information suo moto, including
relevant facts while formulating policies and making policy decisions. They are also bound to
explain quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons and to raise awareness and educate the
public about the law.
In order to ensure that each individual has the opportunity to get all that he/she is entitled
to, the process of social audits has been integrated and institutionalised in the process of
implementing this act and certain measures have been provided for to ensure full
transparency and participation of all stakeholders. These measures, as they correspond to
each specific entitlement, are listed below. Also listed are the dangers that confront the
206
potential beneficiary, as they try and get what they are entitled to. What each individual needs
to do, in order to ensure that these measures are effective, has also been indicated.
7. The daily/individual
measurement records for each
work and worker must be
available for public inspection.
This will only be an effective
check if people regularly inspect
these records and ensure that
they are accurate.
8 The 1. Non-payment of 1. Payments will be made in a
entitlement wages Public place on fixed days
.
to receive full 2. Late payment of (like in the weekly Sunday
224
Though the main responsibility of ensuring that all these measures are properly and
faithfully implemented would be primarily of the panchayati raj institutions, with the gram
sabha being involved in all decision making and in planning, monitoring and evaluation, the
people will have to ensure that the PRIs do what is necessary. The sarpanch, the gram sewak,
and the gram panchayat secretary will be the critical functionaries. The junior engineer, the
project officer and the EG officer (as and when he/she is appointed), would also share some of
the responsibility.
As per the obligations under the NREGA, the over all responsibility for monitoring the
implementation of the NREGA rests with the Central and the State Governments. In order to
fulfil this obligation, the state and central governments will designate a sufficient number of
231
state and central observers who would, on a random sampling basis, attend the bi-annual
public hearings and determine the state of implementation. It would be important for the
people to ensure that these observers are made aware of the true nature of things and that all
problems and complaints are brought to their notice.
In addition, both the state and the central governments will also sponsor independent
surveys through reputed institutions that can, at a community and household level, collect
information about the functioning of the REGS. A related exercise can also assess, in
retrospect – say after two years, the durability, maintenance and public utility of the assets
created. Again, the people must assist in the carrying out of these surveys and ensure that all
critical facts are made available to the surveyors.
Capacity Development
If the process of social audit has to be effectively used, the capacities of the people and
people’s organisations will be developed and they would be familiarised with the method and
oriented towards the philosophy. For this, a network of institutions is being identified and a
cadre of trainers are being trained.
232
()()()()()
233
CHAPTER - VI
METHOD OF ORGANISING A PEOPLES
AUDIT MEETING (JAN AUDIT MANCH)
Apart from the ongoing process of social audit enumerated above, there will be a
mandatory periodic review of all aspects of social audit in ward sabhas (where they exist) and
in the Gram Sabha meetings to be held at least once every six months for this purpose (To be
called “Jan Audit Manch”). These will not only give people an opportunity to review compliance
with the ongoing requirements of transparency and social audit, they will also serve as an
institutional forum where people can conduct a detailed public audit of all NREGA work that
has been carried out in their area in the preceding six months. The importance of this platform
is not only the independent value of publicly auditing a particular work, but also that it
provides an opportunity to review the functioning of all the transparency provisions at various
points in the implementation of the act with beneficiaries and all the stakeholders residing in
234
the area. The social audit compliments the financial audit, and facilitates examination aspects
of the programme by the people. This is beyond the scope of the financial audit. It provides an
institutional platform for people to seek and obtain information, verify financial expenditure,
examine the provision of entitlements, the reflection of priorities through choices made,
quality of work, and quality of services of programme staff. While the social audit must be
seen as an ongoing process, the ward/gram sabha Jan audit manch is a crucial platform for
ensuring peoples participation in all aspects of the NREGA. Because of the requirement to
read information out aloud, the manch facilitates the participation of people who don’t
have the literacy skills to understand documents. It is therefore mandatory that such social
audits be conducted on a bi-annual basis, and that programme officers be made responsible
for ensuring they take place.
There are three essential aspects regarding the bi-annual Jan Audit manch: The Publicity
and preparation before the social audit takes place; Organisational and procedural aspects of
the social audit; and the mandatory agenda for all aspects of an EGA social audit.
235
The success of a social audit is dependent on the open and fearless participation of all the
people- particularly the potential beneficiaries of the programme. Effective public participation
is dependent on adequate publicity about the meeting as well as informed public opinion,
dependent on prior information provided to people in a demystified form.
Publicity
It must be ensured that sufficient publicity be given to the date, time, importance and
sanctity of the social audit, so that maximum participation is ensured. This must be facilitated
through:
• People should be aware of the months when the Jan Audit Manch is to be held so that it
becomes a regular event that people are aware of. State Governments should therefore
issue instructions about the time of year when it is convenient for people to attend such
meetings
• Announcement of the specific date, time and location of the Janta Audit Manch” atleast
one month in advance
236
• Use of traditional modes of publicity like informing people through beating of drums, and
modern means like mike announcements,
• Notices on the notice board, in newspapers, and through pamphlets etc
• Conducting these audits in a campaign mode so that the entire administration gears up to
meet the institutional requirements of the manch, and the campaign encourages people to
attend
Preparation of Documents
The full and efficient participation of people in the social audit manch is dependent on full
information. This is not only facilitated through easy access to all documents and information
while the works are in progress, but preparing for the social audit by collating information and
demystifying the information so that people can look at summaries, of information before the
social audit, and these summaries can be read out aloud during the Jan Audit Manch. In this
connection it is essential that:
• All the relevant documents, including complete files of the works or copies of them be
made available for inspection at the gram panchayat office atleast fifteen days in
advance of the jan audit. There should be free and easy access to all residents of the
237
panchayat to these documents during this period, and no fees should be charged for
inspection. During this period, if anyone wants copies of the documents, they should be
provided at cost price as soon as possible, but no later than five days of the request
being made.
• Summaries of muster rolls and of Bills must be prepared (see format) in advance for
presentation in the Jan Audit. If possible, these summaries should be put onto charts for
public display on the day of the jan audit, and to put up at the panchayat office during
the fifteen day pre-audit phase
• The original files should be available on the day of the jan audit, so that any information
can be cross checked
• The works to be taken up for audit, should be listed in advance, and the list should be
put up on the notice boards, along with the other items on the agenda
The Jan Audit Manch is a platform where the independence and facilitating nature of the
institutional arrangements will contribute directly to its credibility. It is essential to ensure that
proceedings are conducted in a transparent and non-partisan manner, where the poorest and
238
most marginalized can participate and speak out in confidence and without fear. Care has to
be taken that the manch not be manipulated by vested interests. Towards this end:
• The time of year for the manch meetings must be such that it is convenient for as many
residents to attend- in particular, those who are EGA workers, and all marginalized
communities
• The timings must similarly be convenient so that women can also attend
• The quorum of the manch must be the same as for all gram sabhas, and the quorum
must be maintained as per separate categories (see format) Social audit objections must
however be recorded at all times, and lack of a quorum should not be taken as a reason
for not recording objections
The social audit Manch must be chaired by an individual independent of the
implementing agencies in the panchayat. The ward panch/ panchayat president
must not chair this meeting
• The secretary of the manch must also be an official from outside the panchayat
• The person responsible for presenting the information should not be a person
responsible for implementing the work. The vigilance committee, or a school teacher for
instance could be considered for the purpose of reading aloud the information as per the
required format
239
• All officials responsible for implementation must be required to be present at the jan
audit manch and be required to answer querries from members of the gram sabhaa
• Decisions and resolutions must be made by vote, but dissenting opinion must be
recorded.
• Minutes must be recorded as per the format (see format), by a person from outside the
implementing agencies, and the minute register must be signed by people at the
beginning and end of the meeting (after the minutes are written)
• The agenda (given below) must be gone through including the transparency checklist,
and all objections recorded as per format (see format)
• The action taken report of the last social audit must be read out at the beginning of each
jan audit manch.
• In addition, every district should also have a team of technical people from outside the
district (engineers and accountants) who will help in the preparation of information for
dissemination, who will attend selected jan audits, take detailed notes, and immediately
after the jan audit, visit all the sites and conduct detailed enquiries where people have
testified that there is corruption.
240
• The report of these sample jan audits and the reports of the technical team should be
submitted to the district employment guarantee council in a specified time frame for
necessary action.
• During the jan audits, right to information provisions, ward sabha social audit manuals,
should be publicized so that this serves as an ongoing training for the public vigilance
process.
The Agenda for the social audit in the Gram sabha must include the following:
A checklist must be prepared to review whether norms and provisions in the Act, rules and
guidelines are being followed:
• Was a list prepared by the panchayat of all the possible households who might seek
registration.
241
• Was the first registration done in a special ward sabha/gram sabha conducted for the
purpose
• Was the list of registered persons read out for verification in the Gram sabha
• Is Registration Open in the panchayat on an ongoing basis
• Is the registration list regularly updated and put up on the Panchayat notice board
• Is there anyone remaining who wants to register, but who has not yet been registered
b) Whether Job cards were prepared, issued, and updated in a transparent manner
c) Whether the applications for work are being treated as per norms
242
• Are workers receiving dated receipts for their application for work
• Are people being given work on time
• Is the allotment of work being done in a transparent manner, with lists of work allotments
being put up on the panchayat notice board for public notice and display
• Are those who have not been given work on time, received unemployment allowance? How
many people have outstanding payments of unemployment allowance, and are they being
compensated for late payments as per the guidelines?
• There must be a reading aloud of a list of workers who have received unemployment
allowance (if any) in the last six months, along with the amounts disbursed, and the basis for
calculation of the amounts
• Are there any pending complaints about the receipt of work applications, the allotment of
work, and the payment of unemployment allowance
• Is the gender quota being satisfied in the allotment of work
• Is the roster based on date of application received being followed for the allocation of work
• Are those who are allocated work outside the five km radius being given extra payment
equal to 10 % of the minimum wage
243
• Was there a board on the work site giving details of sanctioned amount, work dimensions,
and other requisite details (see format)
244
• Was an open transparency meeting held before commencement of the work to explain
the work requirements to the workers, including the labour and material estimates as per
the technical sanction (see simplified format)
• Were the muster rolls available for public scrutiny at all times at the work site
• Was there a work site material register (see format) maintained, along with verification by
at least five workers whenever material came to the site
• Was a daily individual measurement of work conducted in a transparent manner where
piece rate norms were in force
• Was the measurement of the work done by the junior engineer in the presence of a group
of workers
• Did members of the vigilance committee make regular visits to the work site, and monitor
the implementation of various aspects of the work
• Were any complaints made? Were they addressed within seven days by the grievance
redressal authority as specified in the guidelines
• Was an open transparency meeting held within seven days of the completion of the
work, where all those who worked on the site, and residents of the village where the work
took place are invited to look at the entire records. Compliance of the requirement to hold
this meeting must be made necessary before the completion certificate is issued
245
g) Post Facto auditing of the records and accounts of each work undertaken
• Does the file have all the documents required (see file check list and format)
• Were all the documents available for scrutiny atleast 15 days before the social audit
meeting
246
• Were charts prepared of the summary sheets for public display and scrutiny before and
during the social audit
• The muster roll summary must be read out aloud to check for discrepancies(see format)
• The summary of the bills must be read out aloud to check for discrepancies (see format)
• The measurement book summary (see format) must be read out aloud
• The photographs taken, before, during, and after the work must be available for public
display and scrutiny during the social audit
• Was the vigilance committee formed as per norms
• Has the vigilance committee submitted its report (see format)
• The report of at least the following aspects of the vigilance committee and its findings
should be read out and form the basis of discussion in the ward/gram sabha- a) quality of
work b) work dimensions c) selection of location d) were minimum wages paid e) were
wages paid on time f) have all bill payments been made g) were there any complaints
made to them during the work h) what redressal took place for complaints or grievances. i)
were the work site facilities made available j) what are the maintenance requirements of
the project
• There must be an action taken report prepared by the programme office on the resolutions
and findings of the last social audit read out aloud at the beginning of each meeting
• Are there any general maintenance issues to be looked at related to development works in
the panchayat
• Has the last financial audit report been submitted? It should be made available to the
social audit manch, and audit objections if any should be read out aloud
• Any UCs or CCs issued since the last social audit should be read out aloud
• Are there any persons with outstanding wages or unemployment allowance to be paid?
These should be listed and reported to the programme office for necessary action
• Are all the boards in the panchayat updated as per requirements.
• The services of the EGA staff like the Panchayat Rozgar sevak, and the junior engineer, and
any other staff, need to be audited for quality of service.
• The timely flow of funds from the programme office to the gram panchayat needs to be
monitored
248
CHAPTER VII
SOCIAL AUDITING
249
A TRAINING MODULE
7.1 Objective:
7.2 Methodology:
This is a “hands-on” training module where theoretical knowledge and simulation is
supplemented by being involved in the actual process of social auditing. Consequently, only
those who are both trainers and practitioners of social auditing can impart the training
described in this module. The module complements the manual on social auditing that has
been prepared by the Centre for Equity Studies and MKSS, with the support of the NIRD. This
module is designed for a seven-day training programme.
Note: The details of the training module would have to be modified depending on the scheme being audited and the
details of the area and community involved in the social audit.
250
First day
Half day
Half day
Second day
Half day
Half day
a.Get acquainted, in detail, with the scheme to be audited and with the Right to
Information Act 2005.
b. Make sure that all the forms and documents are in simple, easily understandable,
language and structure and available in local languages.
c.Prepare/have prepared charts and boards with all the relevant information.
Third day
First half
13. Participate in a genuine social audit exercise – go out into the community and:
a.Make people aware of their rights, entitlements and obligations under the
scheme/programme being audited.
b. Specifically, make them aware of their right to participate in the ongoing process of
social audit.
Third and fourth days
253
14. Get involved in the conduct of a social audit (along with the PRI or the government
department responsible), specifically:
a.Ensure that all relevant information is publicly displayed on boards and through
posters and is also read out at appropriate times for the convenience of the people,
especially those who cannot read.
b. Ensure that the decision making process, especially for those decisions that are
critical and/or vulnerable to distortions, is transparent and open and carried out, as far
as possible, in the presence of the affected persons.
c.Make certain that all decisions, along with reasons, as appropriate, are also
communicated as soon as they are made to the affected people, and in manner that
makes it easy for them to comprehend.
254
15. Prepare for the conduct of a public hearing (a jan audit manch).
a.Compile all the relevant information and reduce it to easily understandable formats.
b. Inform all the community members about the time and location of the jan audit manch.
c. Prepare the posters and banners required for the jan audit manch.
255
Seventh day
17. Debriefing session. Revisit the theory of social audits and have a detailed discussion to
address the questions that the participants might have.
18. Valedictory and farewell
Annexure - I
Preparatory Check List for Mass Social Audit
256
1st Phase
In Dungarpur Commitment of People was taken in a Sammelan on the 3rd in Feb 06. That the
local organizations would mobilize 400 people to walk the whole district with the Padyatra.
Their commitment was to :
2nd Phase
Once Commitment on all the above were made by the administration: the Coordination team
was set up with members from different organizations. A Working group was also set up.
1. 1 day play meeting with core tam in Devdungri was held in late February. This
meeting was to facilitate requirements (Physical) budget, strategies, categories required
to be trained Drama training.
2. Training of Trainers
1. Specialist in oratory
2. Filling of social audit forms / questionnaires
3. Communication.
4. Local leaders.
5. Women’s Issues.
6 Familiarity with RTI and social audit
processes .
Collector Dungarpur was invited to attend this meeting and give the district perspective
so that the commitments were renewed by the District Administration . It also facilitated
the people to table genuine problems before the collector to start a dialogue to enable the
implementation of the NREGA.
3. The Budget that was approved was circulated with an appeal letter drafted for the
purpose and receipt books printed were distributed for collection .
259
4. Invitations asking for dates , and for numbers of days people were willing to commit
themselves.
5. Material Preparation list
10 videography
14. Vehicles required, people allowed use of vehicle, in some cases Campaign paid for the
diesel and in others the organization bore the expenses. There was one vehicle per block, one
for the coordinarion office and trucks were organiswed to drop people at their pad yatra
points from where the yatras were about to begin.
262
15 The Administration established its own Control Room s at the District, Block levels from
where they dealt with arrangements as well as attended to complaints and grievances and
addressed them on a priority basis.
3. One / two responsible for filing social audit forms ( fully conversant and prior trained )
4. communicators- with one coordinator
• oration
• plays
• slogans
• singing special songs
• talking to people
5. mike incharge
6. meeting co-ordinator with an easy facility with the mike
7. daily reporting for the document to be produced on the pad yatra- stories, factual data
other than those in the forms, problems people face, touching incidents, happenings et all.
8. Petitions and complaints to be written – 1 or 2 local people to take responsibility .
9. One person to sell materials
10. One to collect donation
11. One to maintain accounts
12. One to distribute pamphlets
13. organize wall painting of slogans
14. One to administer medical first aid from kit provided
265
1. Torch
2. Water Bottle
3. Lota
4. Sheet
5. Mosquito repellant ( if required)
NON NEGOTIABLES
5. The application for registration must be accepted at the Gram Panchayat. Photocopies
of the form shall also be accepted.
6. An individual may appear personally and make an oral request for registration. The
Gram Panchayat Secretary shall extend reasonable assistance to the applicant in filling out
the form.
7. A dated and signed receipt shall be provided to the applicant at the time of receiving
the application.
unemployment allowance, during the month, shall be read out and also publicly
displayed. (See Format- B-3)
b. The meetings shall also be used to explain the details of the scheme including the
entitlements and obligations, the norms and procedures.
c.The Rozgar Divas may also be used by any person to seek any information, or
scrutinize any documents, or raise any issue, or lodge any complaint, regarding any
aspect of the functioning of the NREGA in the Gram Panchayat.
Muster Rolls
1. The Programme Officer shall be responsible for issuing uniquely numbered muster rolls
(Format D-1) to the implementing agencies.
2. The names of all workers assigned to a worksite shall be recorded on the muster roll by
the worksite supervisor (mate) on the day the workers report for work.
3. Daily attendance of the workers will be recorded on the said muster rolls.
4. Once completed the muster rolls will be placed in the Work File and kept available for
public inspection at the office of the implementing agency.
5. All workers shall bring their Job Cards (format E-1) when they report for work. The worksite
supervisor (mate) shall make an entry in the Job Card on the first and last day of the work
period, indicating the dates of the first and last day of work respectively, and the total
number of days worked during that period.
6. At the end of the work period, the supervisor (mate) shall update the Consolidation Sheet
(format D-2).
271
20. Every Work Site Supervisor (Mate) shall maintain a Work Site File containing the
following:
a.Muster Roll (Format D1)
b. Muster Roll Consolidation Sheet (Format D2)
c.Stock Register (Format D3)
d. Summary of measurements taken while work is in progress (Format D4)
e.Copy of Technical Estimates (Format D5)
f. Copy of Work Sanctions (Technical, Financial and Administrative Sanctions) (Format
D6)
g. Copy of the Work Order
h. Vigilance Committee Inspection Reports (format D7)
21. Work Site File shall be open for inspection. Work Site File shall be kept at the work site
during working hours. The Gram Panchayat Secretary will be responsible for ensuring that
the Work Site File is properly maintained by the Work Site Supervisor (Mate).
272
22. Sample of materials can be taken from the worksite of an ongoing work or completed
work on submission of application. The applicant shall receive the sample at a pre-
designated time in her or his presence. It shall be sealed and certified by an official
designated by the Assistant Engineer of the concerned department.
25. Complaints relating to violations of the NREGA or associated Guidelines and Rules by
the Gram Panchayat shall be lodged in writing with the Programme Officer who shall be an
officer not below the rank of the block development officer holding independent charge. In
cases where complaints are related to any authority other than the Gram Panchayat, the
complaints shall be lodged with the District Programme Coordinator. Complaints received
by the Programme Officer or District Programme Coordinator shall be entered in the
Complaints Register (Format XYZ).
26. Irrespective of the authority with whom the complaints are lodged, the official
concerned (Programme Officer or District Programme Coordinator) shall dispose of the
matter in seven days as prescribed under section 23(6) of the Act.
27. Any reported contravention of Social Audit (Transparency and Accountability) Rules
shall be deemed to be a complaint in terms of section 23(6) and be disposed of within
seven days of receipt by the Programme Officer and/or District Programme Coordinator.
Appeals by the complainants against these orders will lie with the Divisional
Commissioner.
against such failure will be lodged with the Divisional Commissioner or the Employment
Guarantee Commissioner as decided by the State Government (Format XYZ).
29. In the event where a contravention of the Act, Guidelines or Rules comes to the
attention of the Programme Officer or District Programme Coordinator, based on a
complaint or otherwise, the Programme Officer or District Programme Coordinator shall
recommend a fine to be levied against the concerned official by the Divisional
Commissioner/State Employment Guarantee Commissioner under Section 25 of the
NREGA.
30. The Divisional Commissioner/State Employment Guarantee Commissioner shall be
responsible for disposing of appeals made by complainants and ‘references’ made by the
Programme Officers or District Programme Coordinators.
31. Based on a ‘reference’ the Divisional Commissioner/State Employment Guarantee
Commissioner shall issue a charge sheet and give an opportunity for a hearing to the
official concerned. All references shall be disposed off within one month.
32. While disposing off an appeal the the Divisional Commisioner/ State Employment
Guarantee Commisioner shall give an opportunity to be heard to both the complainant and
the official against whom the complaint is being made. All appeals shall be disposed off
within one month.
275
33. While disposing off any ‘references’ or appeals the Divisional Commisioner/ State
Employment Guarantee Commisioner shall convict any official found guilty of
contravention of the Act under section 25 of the NREGA, and impose a fine which may
extend to Rs. 1,000. All fines shall be deducted from the officials salary.
34. Every
Gram Panchayat shall organize a Social Audit Forum (hereinafter forum) at least
once every six months as prescribed under section 17 (2) of the Act.
35. This forum shall serve as a platform for members of the Gram Sabha to review and
verify financial expenditure, examine the provisions of entitlements, discuss the priorities
reflected in choices made and evaluate the quality of works and services, record social
audit objections, pass resolutions and take up any mater related to the implementation of
the NREGA.
276
36. The date, time, agenda of the Forum shall be widely publicized so as to ensure
maximum participation. . The Program Officer shall ensure that the Gram Panchayat:
a.Provide a month's advance notice of the date of the Forum, and maintain an annual
schedule in terms of the months in which these are to be held.
b. Use both traditional modes of publicity (such as informing people through the
beating of drums) as well as modern means of communication (such as
announcements on microphones) to publicize date and time of the Forum.
c.Circulate announcements of the date, time, and agenda of the forum through notices
on notice boards, through newspapers and pamphlets, etc.
Preparation of Documents
37. The Gram Panchayat Secretary shall be responsible for providing the consolidation of
Muster Rolls and Bills, which must be prepared in advance for presentation at the Social
277
Audit Forum. These consolidation sheets shall be displayed at the Gram Panchayat office
during the preceding 15 days and at the Forum.
38. The GP Secretary shall be responsible for preparing a 'checklist report' as per the
checklist contained in the NREGA guidelines (Social Audit Forum: Mandatory Agenda). The
report must address all the questions in this checklist as per the prescribed format. This
report shall be displayed in the Gram Panchayat office fifteen days in advance along with
other documents. (Format E-1)
39. All the relevant documents, including complete files of the works or copies of them, the
annual audit report, and any registers, inspection reports, orders, or correspondence shall
be made available for inspection at the Gram Panchayat office at least 15 days in advance
of the Forum.
40. There shall be free and easy access to these documents for all residents of the Gram
Panchayat during this period. Copies of the documents should be provided at cost price, on
demand, within one week of the request being made.
41. The files containing records in original shall be made available on the day of the Social
Audit for verification during the forum.
42. The works/programmes to be taken up for audit should be listed in advance, and the
list should be put up on the notice boards, along with the other items on the agenda.
278
Procedural Aspects
43. The timing of the Forum shall be convenient for people (both men and women) to
attend.
44. The quorum of the Forum must be the same as for all Gram Sabhas, with the quorum
being applied separately to all relevant categories (e.g. women, SC, ST and OBCs).
45. Lack of a quorum shall not be taken as a reason for not recording queries and
complaints; social audit objections shall be recorded at any time during the Forum.
46. The Social Audit forum shall be chaired by an official from outside the Panchayat; its
Secretary must also be an individual from outside the Gram Panchayat. The District
Program coordinator shall be responsible for designating such officials as chairpersons and
secretaries of the forum.
47. Works to be taken up for social audit shall be examined one at a time and the
consolidated sheet of the Muster Rolls and material shall be read aloud.
48. The person responsible for presenting the information shall not be a person involved in
implementing the work. The vigilance committee members, or a schoolteacher, or village
279
social audit volunteers for instance, could be considered for the purpose of reading aloud
the information as per the required format.
49. All officials responsible for implementation of the works/programmes being taken up
for social audit shall be required to be present at the Social Audit Forum to answer queries
from members of the Gram Sabha. The Gram Panchayat Secretary shall be responsible for
ensuring that the officials are informed at least seven days in advance of the forum.
50. Decisions and resolutions shall be made by vote, but dissenting opinions must be
recorded and treated as a social audit objection.
51. The secretary of the Forum shall record minutes as per the prescribed existing format,
and the minutes register must be signed by all participants at the beginning and at the
conclusion of the meeting (after the minutes have been written).
52. The 'checklist report' of the Gram Panchayat Secretary must be taken up for discussion
during the forum. All objections to the "check list report" must be recorded and shall be
treated as a complaint under section 23 of the act. (Format)
53. During the Social Audit Forum, the Right to Information Act and social audit manuals
should be publicized so that the Forum serves as an ongoing training ground for the public
vigilance process.
280
54. ‘Mandatory Agenda’ refers to the minimum agenda of every Social Audit conducted by
the Gram Sabha enumerated in the NREGA guidelines. The checklist will help in reviewing
whether the norms and provisions in the Act, Rules and Guidelines are being observed.
Action taken
55. The Gram Panchayat Secretary shall be responsible for preparing a Social Audit Report
after each Social Audit Forum and submitting it to the Programme Officer within one week.
This Report shall contain a record of minutes of the Forum, any resolutions passed by the
Forum (Social Audit Resolutions), and any objections raised (Social Audit Objections).
56. Any objection raised at the Social Audit Forum by an individual or a group of individuals
relating to failure to meet the requirements of the NREGA shall be called a 'social audit
objection'.
57. All social audit objections shall be treated as a complaint under section 23 of the
NREGA, and sent to the program officer for disposal within one week of receipt of the
Social Audit Report.
58. Any resolution passed by the Social Audit Forum shall be called a 'Social Audit
Resolution.' The quorum of the forum must be complete in order for there to be legitimate
Social Audit Resolution.
281
59. All social audit resolutions related to corruption shall be treated as a preliminary
enquiry, and the district programme coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring that a
detailed enquiry is held, and that first information reports are filed where necessary.
60. The Programme Officer shall be responsible for addressing all issues contained in the
resolutions and for preparing an 'action taken report' within 30 days of receipt of the
Social Audit Report.
61. The ‘action taken report’ relating to the previous Social Audit Forum shall be read out
at the beginning of each Social Audit Forum.
62. In addition, the State Government could designate people with technical expertise
(engineers and accountants) from outside the District as special observers, to help ensure
that information has been prepared for dissemination as per the required formats, see that
the social audit forums are being held, attend selected Social Audit Forums and send their
observation reports to the Employment Guarantee Commissioner of the State, and the
State Employment Guarantee Council.
63. Immediately after attending such Forums, they could visit the worksites and conduct
enquiries in cases where people have raised social audit objections or testified that there
is corruption.
282
64. The reports of the Social Audit Forum, and the reports of the technical team, shall be
submitted to the Programme Officer and the District Programme coordinator within a week
for necessary action.
65. The gram panchayat secretary shall be responsible for submitting both the preceeding
six monthly reports of the social audit forum, the related action taken reports, as well as
reports of the technical teams if any, to the auditor at the time of the annual audit of the
gram panchayat. The auditor shall examine these reports and take the reports into
consideration while conducting the annual audit.
D. NREGA: A SUMMARY
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 is a law whereby any adult who
is willing to do unskilled manual work at the minimum wage is entitled to being
employed on public works within 15 days of applying. If work is not provided within
15 days, he/she is entitled to an unemployment allowance. The key features of the
Act are spelt out below.
283
1. Eligibility: Any person who is above the age of 18 and resides in rural areas is entitled to
apply for work.
2. Entitlement: Any applicant is entitled to work within 15 days, for as many days as he/she
has applied, subject to a limit of 100 days per household per year.
3. Distance: Work is to be provided within a radius of 5 kilometres of the applicant’s
residence if possible, and in any case within the Block. If work is provided beyond 5
kilometres, travel allowances have to be paid.
4. Wages: Workers are entitled to the statutory minimum wage applicable to agricultural
labourers in the state, unless and until the Central Government “notifies” a different wage
rate. If the Central Government notifies, the wage rate is subject to a minimum of Rs
60/day.
5. Timely payment: Workers are to be paid weekly, or in any case not later than a fortnight.
Payment of wages is to be made directly to the person concerned in the presence of
independent persons of the community on pre-announced dates.
6. Unemployment allowance: If work is not provided within 15 days, applicants are entitled
to an unemployment allowance: one third of the wage rate for the first thirty days, and one
half thereafter.
284
7. Worksite facilities: Labourers are entitled to various facilities at the worksite such as
clean drinking water, shade for periods of rest, emergency health care, and child-minding.
Institutions, line departments such as the Public Works Department or Forest Department,
and NGOs.
5. Contractors: Private contractors are banned.
6. Decentralised planning: A shelf of projects is to be maintained by the Programme
Officer, based on proposals from the implementing agencies. Each Gram Panchayat is also
supposed to prepare a shelf of works based on the recommendations of the Gram Sabha.
7. Transparency and accountability: The Act includes various provisions for transparency
and accountability, such as regular social audits by the Gram Sabhas, mandatory disclosure
of muster rolls, public accessibility of all EGS documents, regular maintenance of job cards,
etc.
OTHER PROVISIONS
1. Participation of women: Priority is to be given to women in the allocation of work, “in
such a way that at least one-third of the beneficiaries shall be women”.
2. Penalties: The Act states that “whoever contravenes the provisions of this Act shall on
conviction be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees”.
3. State Council: The implementation of the Act is to be monitored by a “State Employment
Guarantee Council”.
286
4. Cost sharing: The Central Government has to pay for labour costs and 75% of the material
costs. State governments have to pay the unemployment allowance and 25% of the
material costs.
5. Time frame: The Act will come into force initially in 200 districts, and is to be extended to
the whole of rural India within five years.
Annexure - II
INTEGRATING SOCIAL AUDITING INTO THE
PRADHAN MANTRY GRAM SARAK YOJANA (PRIME MINISTER’S RURAL
ROADS PLAN)
A. INTRODUCTION
“The primary objective of the PMGSY is to provide Connectivity, by way of an All-weather Road
(with necessary culverts and cross-drainage structures, which is operable throughout the
287
year), to the eligible unconnected Habitations in the rural areas, in such a way that all
Unconnected Habitations with a population of 1000 persons and above are covered in three
years (2000-2003) and all Unconnected Habitations with a population of 500 persons and
above by the end of the Tenth Plan Period (2007). In respect of the Hill States (North-East,
Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal) and the Desert Areas (as identified
in the Desert Development Programme) as well as the Tribal (Schedule V) areas, the objective
would be to connect Habitations with a population of 250 persons and above.” (PMGSY
Schemes and Guidelines - Website ).
With the launching of the PMGSY, the Government of India has initiated an ambitious plan
to drastically increase rural connectivity across the country.
An analysis of the functioning of the PMGSY suggests that there are various vulnerabilities
which, if not adequately addressed, would not only significantly lessen the benefits of the
programme but, in some cases, might even result is there being more harm than good done. It
is almost impossible to effectively address these weaknesses without involving the various
stakeholders in a meaningful way right from the planning stage,.
288
In order to ensure that such a meaningful involvement of the potential beneficiaries and
other stakeholders gets institutionalised, this manual describes the various steps that need
to be taken by the people and their groups and organisations to ensure transparency and
accountability by the government, the Panchayati Raj institutions and other implementing
agencies. The focus is on integrating people’s participation in the planning and auditing
process of the PMGSY.
The PMGSY is planned and implemented in various stages. Some of the critical milestones
include:
a.implementing agencies.
b. employment of labour.
c.following of specifications.
d. quality control.
e.controlling of adverse environmental impacts.
f. controlling adverse social impacts.
g. keeping to time lines.
7. The Evaluation of the road.
8. Maintenance of the road.
In order to ensure that at each stage there is a proper involvement of stakeholders, the
process of social audits needs to be integrated and institutionalised in the process of planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the programme to ensure full transparency and
participation of all stakeholders. These measures, as they correspond to each specific aspect
and stage, are listed below. Also listed are the potential vulnerabilities and what needs to be
done in order to ensure stakeholder involvement and scrutiny.
290
6 The
. constructi
on of the 1. Sub-contracting by 1. The details of the authorised
road. the contractor to contractor and any authorised
i. Imple ineligible/inappropr sub-contractors must be
menting iate contractors. prominently displayed, in the
agencie 2. Non-payment of local language, at the work site
s. minimum and in the Gram Panchayat Office
wages/late of the concerned/affected
payment of villages. This should include
ii. Emplo wages/non- photographs along with the name
yment payment of wages. of the main functionaries (mate,
of 3. Non-provision of overseer, JE, foreman, machine
labour. required facilities operator, etc.). Whenevr there is
to the labour. any change in staff, this display
4. Employment of will be updated within the week.
child labour. 2. The muster rolls/salary accounts
5. Not following of the workers must be available
physical at the work site for inspection by
302
Introduction
Rural Road Connectivity is not only a key component of Rural Development by promoting
access to economic and social services and thereby generating increased agricultural incomes
and productive employment opportunities in India, it is also as a result, a key ingredient in
312
ensuring sustainable poverty reduction. Notwithstanding the efforts made, over the years, at
the State and Central levels, through different Programmes, about 40% of the Habitations in
the country are still not connected by All-weather roads. It is well known that even where
connectivity has been provided, the roads constructed are of such quality (due to poor
construction or maintenance) that they cannot always be categorised as All-weather roads.
With a view to redressing the situation, Government have launched the Pradhan Mantri
Gram Sadak Yojana on 25th December, 2000 to provide all-weather access to unconnected
habitations. The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) is a 100% Centrally Sponsored
Scheme. 50% of the Cess on High Speed Diesel (HSD) is earmarked for this Programme.
Programme Objectives
The primary objective of the PMGSY is to provide Connectivity, by way of an All-weather Road
(with necessary culverts and cross-drainage structures, which is operable throughout the
year), to the eligible unconnected Habitations in the rural areas, in such a way that all
Unconnected Habitations with a population of 1000 persons and above are covered in three
years (2000-2003) and all Unconnected Habitations with a population of 500 persons and
above by the end of the Tenth Plan Period (2007). In respect of the Hill States (North-East,
313
Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal) and the Desert Areas (as identified
in the Desert Development Programme) as well as the Tribal (Schedule V) areas, the objective
would be to connect Habitations with a population of 250 persons and above.
The PMGSY will permit the Upgradation (to prescribed standards) of the existing roads in
those Districts where all the eligible Habitations of the designated population size have been
provided all-weather road connectivity. However, it must be noted that Upgradation is not
central to the Programme and cannot exceed 20% of the State’s allocation as long as eligible
Unconnected Habitations in the State still exist. In Upgradation works, priority should be given
to Through Routes of the Rural Core Network, which carry more traffic.
The unit for this Programme is a Habitation and not a Revenue village or a Panchayat. A
Habitation is a cluster of population, living in an area, the location of which does not change
over time. Desam, Dhanis, Tolas, Majras, Hamlets etc. are commonly used terminology to
describe the Habitations.
A Core Network is that minimal Network of roads (routes) that is essential to provide
Basic access to essential social and economic services to all eligible habitations in the selected
areas through at least a single all-weather road connectivity.
A Core Network comprises of Through Routes and Link Routes. Through routes are the
ones which collect traffic from several link roads or a long chain of Habitations and lead it to
Marketing centres either directly or through the higher category roads i.e., the District Roads
or the State or National Highway. Link Routes are the roads connecting a single Habitation or
a group of Habitations to Through Routes or District Roads leading to Market Centres. Link
routes generally have dead ends terminating on a Habitation, while Through Routes arise from
the confluence of two or more Link Routes and emerge on to a major Road or to a Market
Centre.
It should be ensured that each road work that is taken up under the PMGSY is part of the
Core Network. While keeping the objective of Connectivity in view, preference should be given
to those roads which also incidentally serve other Habitations. In other words, without
compromising the basic objective (covering 1000+ Habitations first and 500+ Habitations next
and 250+ Habitations where eligible, last), preference should be given to those roads which
316
serve a larger population. For this purpose, while Habitations within a distance of 500 metres
from the road is considered as connected in case of plain areas, this distance should be 1.5 km
(of path length) in respect of Hills.
The PMGSY shall cover only the rural areas. Urban roads are excluded from the purview of
this Programme. Even in the rural areas, PMGSY covers only the Rural Roads i.e., Roads that
were formerly classified as ‘Other District Roads’ (ODR) and ‘Village Roads’ (VR). Other
District Roads (ODR) are roads serving rural areas of production and providing them with
outlet to market centres, taluka (tehsil) headquarters, Block headquarters or other main roads.
Village Roads (VR) are roads connecting villages / Habitation or groups of Habitation with
each other and to the nearest road of a higher category. Major District Roads, State Highways
and National Highways cannot be covered under the PMGSY, even if they happen to be in rural
areas. This applies to New Connectivity roads as well as Upgradation works.
Upgradation, when permitted would typically involve building the base and surface
courses of an existing road to desired technical specifications and / or improving the
geometrics of the road, as required in accordance with traffic condition.
The primary focus of the PMGSY is to provide All-weather road connectivity to the eligible
unconnected Habitations. An All-weather road is one which is negotiable in all seasons of the
year. This implies that the road-bed is drained effectively (by adequate cross-drainage
structures such as culverts, minor bridges and causeways), but this does not necessarily imply
that it should be paved or surfaced or black-topped. Interruptions to traffic as per permitted
frequency and duration may be allowed.
318
There may be roads which are Fair-weather roads. In other words, they are fordable only
during the dry season, because of lack of Cross Drainage (CD) works. Conversion of such roads
to All-weather roads through provision of CD works would be treated as upgradation. It must
be noted that on all the road works of the PMGSY, provision of necessary CD works is
considered an essential element.
PMGSY does not permit repairs to Black-topped or Cement Roads, even if the surface
condition is bad.
The Rural Roads constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana will be in
accordance with the provision of the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) as given in the Rural Roads
Manual (IRC:SP20:2002). In case of Hill Roads, for matters not covered by the Rural Roads
Manual, provisions of Hills Roads Manual (IRC:SP:48) may apply.
Core Network, shall be treated as part of the Guidelines and would stand amended to the
extent modified by the present Guidelines. The Manual lays down the various steps in the
planning process and the role of different Agencies including the Intermediate Panchayat, the
District Panchayat as well as the State Level Standing Committee. In the identification of the
Core Network, the priorities of elected representatives, including MPs and MLAs, are expected
to be duly taken into account and given full consideration. The Rural Roads Plan and the Core
Network would constitute the basis for all planning exercises under the PMGSY.
The District Rural Roads Plan would indicate the entire existing road network system in
the District and also clearly identify the proposed roads for providing connectivity to
Unconnected Habitations, in an economic and efficient manner in terms of cost and utility. The
Core Network will identify the roads required to assure each eligible Habitation with a Basic
Access (single all-weather road connectivity) to essential social and economic services.
Accordingly, the Core Network would consist of some of the existing roads as well as all the
roads proposed for new construction under the PMGSY.
In proposing the new links under the District Rural Roads Plan, it would be first necessary
to indicate the weightage for various services. The District Panchayat shall be the competent
authority to select the set of socio-economic / infrastructure variables best suited for the
320
District, categorise them and accord relative weightages to them. This would be
communicated to all concerned before commencing the preparation of the District Rural Roads
Plan.
The Plan would first be prepared at the Block level, in accordance with the directions
contained in the Manual and the priorities spelt out by the District Panchayat. In short, the
existing road network would be drawn up, unconnected Habitations identified and the roads
required to connect these unconnected Habitations prepared. This shall constitute the Block
Level Master Plan.
Once this exercise is completed, the Core Network for the Block is identified, by making
best use of the existing and proposed road facilities in such a manner that all the eligible
Habitations are assured of a Basic access. It must be ensured that every eligible Habitation is
within 500 metres (1.5 km of Path length in the Hills) of a connected Habitation or an All-
weather road (either existing or planned). In drawing up the proposed road links, the
requirements of the people must be taken into account, through the socio-
economic/infrastructure values (Road Index) suitably weighted and the alignment having the
higher Road Index ought to be considered for selection.
321
The Block level Master Plan and the Core Network are then placed before the Intermediate
Panchayat for consideration and approval of the Core Network. They are simultaneously sent,
along with the list of all unconnected Habitations to the Members of Parliament and MLAs, for
their comments, if any. After approval by the Intermediate Panchayat, the Plans would be
placed before the District Panchayat for its approval. It will be incumbent on the District
Panchayat to ensure that the suggestions given by the Members of Parliament are given full
consideration within the framework of these Guidelines. Once approved by the District
Panchayat, a copy of the Core Network would be sent to the State-level Agency as well as the
National Rural Roads Development Agency. No road work may be proposed under the PMGSY
for New Connectivity or Upgradation (where permitted) unless it forms part of the Core
Network.
requiring Upgradation under the PMGSY. The District-wise allocation of funds would also be
communicated to the Ministry / NRRDA / and STA every year by the State Government.
In making the District-wise allocation, the road lengths already taken up under the PMGSY
or any other Programme may be excluded (even if the road works are still under execution).
The figures of new construction length will thus keep on changing every year till such time as
all Unconnected Habitations (of the eligible population size) have been covered in the District.
In addition to the allocation to the States, a special allocation of upto 5% of the annual
allocation from the Rural Roads share of the Diesel Cess will be made for:
i. Districts sharing borders with Pakistan and China (in coordination with Ministry of Home
Affairs)
ii. Districts sharing borders with Myanmar, Bangladesh and Nepal (in coordination with
Ministry of Home Affairs)
iii. Left Wing Extremists areas in the Districts identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs
iv. Extremely backward Districts (as identified by the Planning Commission) which can be
categorised as Special Problem Areas
v. Research & Development Projects and innovations.
323
specifications. As the first tier, the PIU will supervise the site quality control laboratory to be
set up by the contractor. It shall also ensure that all the tests prescribed are carried out at the
specified time and place by the specified person/ authority.
As the Second tier of the Quality Control structure, periodic inspections of works will be
carried out by Quality Control Units, set up / engaged by the State Government, independent
of the Executive Engineers / PIUs. These officers / Agencies (who may be called State Quality
Monitors) would be expected to carry out regular inspections and also get samples of material
used tested in laboratories of the State Government as well as, in certain cases, independent
laboratories, say those of the State Technical Agencies. The State Governments will issue the
requisite guidelines in this regard.
Each State Government will appoint a senior Engineer (not below the rank of
Superintending Engineer) to function as State Quality Coordinator (SQC) at the State level. His
function will be to oversee the satisfactory functioning of the Quality control mechanism within
the State. This function would also involve overseeing the follow up action on the reports of
the National Quality Monitors. The Quality Coordinator should be part of the SRRDA.
325
As the third tier of the Quality Control Structure, the NRRDA will engage Independent
Monitors (Individuals / Agency) for inspection, at random, of the road works under the
Programme. These persons may be designated as National Quality Monitors (NQM). It will be
the responsibility of the PIU to facilitate the inspection of works by the NQM, who shall be
given free access to all administrative, technical and financial records.
The National Quality Monitors shall inspect the road works with particular reference to
Quality. They may take samples from the site and get them examined by any competent
Technical Agency / Institution. They shall also report on the general functioning of the Quality
Control mechanism in the District. The Monitors shall submit their report to the NRRDA. The
reports of the NQMs will be sent by NRRDA to the State Quality Coordinator for appropriate
action within a period to be specified. In case quality check by SQM or NQM reveals
‘unsatisfactory’ work, the PIU shall ensure that the contractor replaces the material or rectifies
the workmanship (as the case may be) within the time period stipulated. In respect of NQM
Reports, the SQC shall, each month, report on the action taken on each of the pending
Reports. All works rated ‘unsatisfactory’ shall be re-inspected by an SQM or NQM after a
rectification report has been received from the State Quality Coordinator.
326
Recurrent adverse reports about quality of road works in a given District / State might
entail suspension of the Programme in that area till the underlying causes of defective work
have been addressed.
Monitoring
Effective monitoring of the Programme being critical, the State Governments will ensure
that the officials are prompt in sending the requisite reports / information to the SRRDA as well
as the NRRDA. The On-line Management & Monitoring System (OMMS) will be the chief
mechanism for monitoring the Programme. To this end, the officials are required to furnish,
‘On-line’, all the data and information, as may be prescribed by the NRRDA from time to time,
in the relevant module of the On-line Management & Monitoring System. They shall be
responsible for uninterrupted maintenance of the Computer Hardware and Software as well as
the Internet connectivity. The Software for the OMMS shall be supplied by the NRRDA and it
shall not be modified at any level in the States; any requirement or suggestion for change
shall be intimated to the NRRDA.
327
The State Government should provide necessary manpower, space and facilities to set up
the Computer Hardware at the District and State Level. Since the data would reside on the
State Servers, the State level Agency must ensure that the State Server is functional all 24
hours.
It shall be the responsibility of the Executive Engineer / Head of the PIU to ensure effective
up-time and Internet connectivity of the computers at the PIU / District level. He shall be
responsible for ensuring placement of all Master data including the Rural Roads Plan in the
database and for the constant updating and accuracy of data relating to the progress of road
works, record of Quality control tests as well as the payments made. In case of continued
failure to update data on the OMMS, further releases to the State / District concerned could be
affected.
Each State Government would identify one officer of sufficient seniority and having
adequate knowledge of Information Technology to function as State IT Nodal Officer. His
function will be to oversee the regularity and accuracy of the data being furnished by the
Districts. The IT Nodal Officer, who shall form part of the SRRDA, shall also be responsible to
oversee the upkeep of the Hardware and Software as well as the computer training
requirements of the personnel dealing with the PMGSY.
328
The District Vigilance and Monitoring Committee set up by the Ministry will also monitor
the progress and exercise vigilance in respect of PMGSY.
Convergence
Rural connectivity is not an end in itself. It is a means. It is expected that the connectivity
will improve indicators of education, health, rural incomes etc., provided as a follow up, and in
consultation with the local Panchayati Raj Institutions, convergence is achieved with other
ongoing Programmes in these sectors. It is expected that the District Panchayat will focus on
these issues. Before the start of work on Rural Roads, the bench mark development indicators
may be measured and attached to the detailed project report.
The NRRDA will provide 100% assistance for independent Studies to establish the impact
of the new rural connectivity in a District from time to time.
329
330
Annexure - III
Introduction
The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme offers an integrated delivery
package of early childhood services so that their synergistic effect can be taken full advantage
of. The Scheme aims to improve the nutritional and health status of vulnerable groups
including pre-school children, pregnant women and nursing mothers through providing a
package of services including supplementary nutrition, pre-school education, immunization,
health check-up, referral services and nutrition & health education. In addition, the Scheme
envisages effective convergence of inter-sectoral services in the anganwadi centres.
With the enactment of the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005, the people of India have
finally got a facilitating law that can enable them to exercise their fundamental right to
information. Through the exercise of this right they can initiate a process that could go a long
331
way in ensuring that the various programmes and schemes of the government are properly
implemented and that the intended beneficiaries receive the benefits that were meant for
them.
An analysis of the ICDS reveals that there are various entitlements that the people have
under this scheme. Many or most of these entitlements are vulnerable to distortions, if the
stakeholders were not involved in a meaningful way right from the planning stage,.
In order to ensure that such a meaningful involvement of the potential beneficiaries and
other stakeholders gets institutionalised, this manual describes the various steps that need
to be taken by the people and their groups and organisations to ensure transparency and
accountability by the government, the Panchayati Raj institutions and other implementing
agencies. The focus is on integrating people’s participation in the planning and auditing
process of the ICDS.
Introduction
As per 1991 census, India has around 150 million children, constituting 17.5% of India's
population, who are below the age of 6 years. A large number of them live in economic and
social environ- ment which impede the child's physical and mental development. These
conditions include poverty, poor environmental sanitation, disease, infection, inadequate
access to primary health care, inappropriate child caring and feeding practices. Government of
India proclaimed a National Policy on Children in August 1974 declaring children as,
"supremely important asset". The policy provided the required framework for assigning priority
to different needs of the child. The programme of the Integrated Child Development
Services (ICDS) was launched in 1975 seeking to provide an integrated package of services
in a convergent manner for the holistic development of the child.
The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme was conceived in 1975 with an
integrated delivery package of early childhood services so that their synergistic effect can be
taken full advantage of. The Scheme aims to improve the nutritional and health status of
vulnerable groups including pre-school children, pregnant women and nursing mothers
through providing a package of services including supplementary nutrition, pre-school
education, immunization, health check-up, referral services and nutrition & health education.
347
Objectives
The objectives of the scheme are :-
• to improve the nutritional and health status of pre-school children in the age-group of 0-6
years;
• to lay the foundation of proper psychological development of the child;
• to reduce the incidence of mortality, morbidity, malnutrition and school drop-out;
• to achieve effective coordination of policy and implementation amongst the various
departments to promote child development; and
• to enhance the capability of the mother to look after the normal health and nutritional needs
of the child through proper nutrition and health education.
Package of Services:
To achieve the above objectives, the ICDS aims at providing a package of services, consisting
of
349
• Supplementary Nutrition;
• Immunization;
• Health Check-up;
• Referral Services;
• Non-formal Pre-school Education; and
• Nutrition & Health Education.
The programme provides an integrated approach for converging basic services through
community-based Anganwadi Workers and helpers, supportive community structures/women's
group -through the Anganwadi Centre, the health system and in the community. Besides this,
the AW is a meeting ground where women's/mother's group can come together, with other
frontline workers, to promote awareness and joint action for child development and women's
empowerment.
Expansion of ICDS
The ICDS Scheme was sanctioned during 1975-76 in just 33 blocks of the country. At present,
there are 4200 Operational ICDS Projects in the Country. Approval of the Cabinet has been
obtained for operationalisation of 461 new ICDS blocks under World Bank assisted ICDS III and
ICDS-APER projects during the next three years. In addition to this proposal for
350
operationalisation of 390 ICDS Projects in a phased manner during IXth Plan period under
General ICDS scheme has been submitted to CCEA for approval.
Expenditure on ICDS
Alongside gradual expansion of the Scheme, there has also been a significant increase in the
Central Government's spending on implementation of the Scheme. As against the expenditure
of only Rs. 1190.21 crores during 17 years,i.e. 1975-76 to 1991-92, the expenditure during the
five years of the 8th Plan period was Rs. 2271.28 crores representing 191% increase in during
just 5 years period as compared to 17 years period. The expenditure of Rs.2271.28 crores
during VIIIth Plan was against the approved VIIIth Plan outlay of Rs.1285.74 crores for ICDS.
During 1999-2000, against the budgetary allocation of Rs.855.76 crores , an amount of
approximately Rs. 772 crores has been released upto Sept. 1999.
Coverage
The number of beneficiaries under the ICDS Scheme have also significantly increased over the
period. As against 1.66 crores beneficiaries uptill March 1992, there are at present 2.77 crores
beneficiaries as on June 1999.
(Source: www.wcd.nic.in/childdet.htm)
351
Village:………………Panchayat:……………Panchayat Samiti……………
1. Approximate number of people in the meeting: …………………….
Registration
2. Have people in this village registered under the NREGA.………… Y/N
3. How many people have applied but not been registered ……………...
4. How many have complained about irregularities in the registration process…………..
352
Village Schedule 2
Application for work
11. How many people have applied but not got work yet………………..
12. How many have applied for work and got receipts?………………….
353
13. If people have not given written Applications, and not received receipts, what are the
reasons
a) Application forms not available
b) Cannot write
c)Panchayat did not accept the application
d) Panchayat did not give a receipt
14. How many people applied for work who
a) Got work in 15 days.
b) Who got work after 15 days.
c)Who have not yet got work.
15. Has anyone applied for unemployment allowance………………name & details.
Payment
16. In how many days was payment made……………………………
354
Panchayat Samiti……………
Sanctioned Amount……………………
Questions that should be asked during discussions with workers on the Work Site
14. Was the task measured and given before work started ………… Y / N
15. If there are groups of workers per task, what is the size of the group ?
17. Is the task measured daily and the worker informed about the quantum of measurement ?
18. Does the Junior Engineer measure the work at the end of each work period ( Pakhwada) in
front of the workers ?
19. Is there a fixed time for workers to be present at the work site ?
20. How many times is the attendance taken in a day ……… when is it taken ?
21. Is the lift and lead taken into consideration at the time of fixing the task ?
360
Work Site 3
22. Check the muster roll, read out muster roll, how many workers are entered
on the muster roll . How many workers are present at the work site ?
23. Is the muster roll available for checking by all workers at the work site ?
24. No of women / men workers at the work site
men…………………………….women ……………………….
25. Are there any complaints of workers regarding conditions at the work site ?
26. Is the work being done through a Contractor ?
27. Are machine/s being used at the work site or have they been used ? If yes Please
describe for what purpose.
361
1. Does the Panchayat Office have a Board displaying the details of work under the
NREGA ? ……………………………………
If yes, then is the following information entered
a) Name of the work b) Sanctioned amount – labour / materials
c) Expenditure –labour / materials d) State of work – completed / incomplete
2. Is there a shelf of projects for NREGA works prepared by the Gram Sabha, including a list
of works in order of priority, available in the Panchayat Office?
a) Has this list of works been displayed ?
b) How many of the on going works sanctioned have been taken from the shelf of Projects
approved by the Gram Sabha?
c) In how many of these works have work orders been issued?
d) Has the order of priorities in the Shelf of Projects been followed in the issuing of work
orders?
363
3. How many works have started and how many labour are working on each work site ?
4. Are copies of Muster rolls displayed at the Panchayat Bhavan for public scrutiny ?
…………………………….Y / N
5. Is there a Complaint Box or register available at the Panchayat Office ? …Y / N
……………..If yes then how many complaints have been received? What action has been
taken on them?
6. Is the list of Job Cards issued available for public scrutiny?
Y / N ………………………………..
7. What is the method for receiving applications from
Panchayat Office 2
8. Is the Panchayat Secretary available at the Panchayat Office time every day at a fixed
time every day ? …………………… Y / N
9. How many people are employed by the Panchayat Office to look after the NREGA ?
10. Is the process of registration and issue of Job Cards open at all time ….?
…………………………………….Y / N
364
11. Is the Perspective Plan or the sanctioned list of works approved by the Gram Sabha
,open for public scrutiny at the Gram Panchayat ?
12. What are the suggestions of the Sarpanch, Panchayat Secretary and the Ward Panchs
regarding the NREGA ?
Note: These formats were made for the mass social audit conducted in Dungarpur
(Rajasthan) by the Rozgaar Evam Suchana Adhikar Abhiyan from 15th to 26th April 2006.
They can be modified and used for a concurrent social audit- i.e. while works are going on.
These are not appropriate ‘post facto’ social audit formats, i.e. for works that have been
completed, or for verification of muster rolls relating to earlier periods.
There are three kinds of performas- one to be used in the village, one at the work site, and
one at the Gram Panchayat Office.
365
The attempt is primarily to find out which if any of the essential requirements of the NREGA
– in particular from the point of view of the workers entitlements is not being followed, so
that immediate corrective action can take place.
Most of the provisions referred to in the proforma can be found in the NREGA guidelines, or
in the Act. The guidelines can be accessed at the MORD website www.nrega.nic.in .
Many State Governments have also issued their own guidelines which should be looked at
while preparing social audit proformas for use in each state. For instance, some states have
much better use of IT provisions than others, but the efficacy of these provisions need to be
checked at the field level.
1- tkscdkMZ lacaf/kr
367
O;fDrxr laidZ ds nkSjku yksxksa }kjk fn, x, oDrO;ksa ds vk/kkj ij yksxksa us dHkh Hkh
iapk;r Hkou tkdj vkosnu ugha fd;k gSa A iapk;r }kjk dk;Z izkjEHk djus ij yksx pys tkrs
gSa ogka lkewfgd tks etnwjh djus yxrs gSa mudk lcdk lkewfgd izkFkZuk i= rS;kj dj
gLRkk{kj djok;s tkrs gSA
• lM+d ds dk;Z ls yksxksa ds vkus&tkus esa lqfo/kk Bhd gqbZ fdyksehVj ds vanj
dke FkkA yksxksa dks dk;Z 5 fdŒehŒ ds vanj gh fey jgk gSA
• lkekftd vads{k.k dh izfdz;k 'kq: gksus ls iwoZ gh cksM yxk;s x;s] ftl ij Lohd`r
jkf'k o etnwj la[;k vafdr ugha FkhA
• lkbV ij eLVjjksy miyC/k Fks] etnwjksa ds vuqlkj eLVjjksy igyh ckj gh dk;ZLFky ij
vk;s gSA
• lkekftd vads{k.k ds nkSjku lqfo/kkvksa dh O;oLFkk gqbZ blds igys dHkh
369
5- etnwj us dk;Z ugha fd;k] ijUrq Hkqxrku mBk;k x;k] etnwj dks iSlk ugha
feyk
buds }kjk ekSds ij dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k tks fd v/;;ujr gSa tcfd buds uke ls eLVjjksy ls mDr
jkf'k ls mBk;h x;h gSaA ftldk tkWc dkMZ esa Hkh bUnzkt gSa] rFkk ;g gLrk{kj djrs gSa
tcfd eLVjjksy esas vaxwBk yxk;k x;k bl ckr dks xzke lHkk esa cksyk x;k ftldk dksbZ
tokc ugha fn;k x;k A bl lanHkZ esa bldh tkap gksuh pkfg;saA
la[;k
135674& 1&15 71]280 yksxksa }
88 tqykbZ kjk dk;Z
06 ugha fd;k
x;kA
136702& 16&31 49]800 yksxksa }
11 tqykbZ kjk dk;Z
06 ugha fd;k
x;kA
137361& 1&15 23]920 yksxksa }
365 vxLr 06 kjk dk;Z
ugha fd;k
x;kA
eLVjjksy la[;k 137361 ls 365 esa dk;Z fnukad 1&5 vxLr 06 rd gh pyk tcfd eLVjjksy esa
15 vxLRk 06 rd mifLFkfr ntZ dj jkf'k mBk;h x;hA fnukad 6ls 15 vxLRk 06 rd 349 ekud
fnol ¼349X40½ dk dqy 13960 :- dk Hkqxrku QthZ mBk;k x;kA bl ckr dh iqf"V xzke
372
lHkk esa lfpo }kjk Hkh dh xbZ fd ;g dk;Z 5 vxLr 06 rd gh pyk A ftldh tkap gksuh
pkfg;sA
ykdj xzke lHkk 'kq: dh xbZA ljdkjh vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk yksxks ads lokyksa dks xzke
lHkk esa utjankt fd;k x;kA
8- lwpuk ,oa jkstxkj vf/kdkj vfHk;ku dh ekax@lq>ko
mDr rF;ksa dh rks tkap gksdj dk;Zokgh gks ysfdu bl tkap dks foLr`r djsa rkfd bl
izdkj dh vU; leL;kvksa vkSj vfu;ferrkvksa dks nwj fd;k tk ldsA
lkekftd vads{k.k ds nkSjku yksxks }kjk mBk;s xbZ
leL;k;sa ,oa
xzke lHkk esa mHkjh leL;k lacaf/kr rF;ksa dh fjiksVZ
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&*&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
xzke iapk;r& vejiqjk iapk;r lfefr & Hkh.M+j
374
• yksxksa ds vuqlkj dk;Z dk p;u fcuk fdlh dk;Z ;kstuk o izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij gqvk
gSA
• dk;Z 5 fdyks ehVj dh nwjh ds vUnj gh djok;s x;sA dke dh mi;ksfxrk dk /;ku ugha
j[kk x;kA iqjkuh lM+dksa ij gh dke djok;k x;kA
375
• lHkh dk;ZLFky ij cksMZ miyC/k FksA lHkh tkudkjh fy[kh FkhA O;;jkf’k dk bUnzkt
ugha fy[k j[kk FkkA
• lkbZV ij eLVªksy miyC/k FksA
• eLVªjksy ds vykok esV jftLVj ;k dkWih esa Hkh gktjh Hkj jgs FksA
• ihus dk ikuh miyC/k Fkk] nokbZ;ka miyC/k Fkh] tks gky gh esa forfjr dh xbZ FkhA
Nk;k gsrq O;oLFkk FkhsA
• eLVjjksy esa VkLd ds vuqlkj etnwjksa dks nh tkus okyh etnwjh jkf’k ds lekuA
• dk;ksZ esa tlhch e’khu dk mi;ksx fd;k x;kA
• essV dks uki dh tkudkjh ugha gSa u etnwjksa dks uki dj dke fn;k tk jgk gSA
• eki lkewfgd :i ls nh tk jgh gS vkSj leku jsV ls Hkqxrku gks jgk gSA
• tkWc dkMZ in ;k=k ls iwoZ forfjr fd;s x;s ljiap dss firk th }kjk in;k=k ds le; tkWc
dkMZ esVks dks fn;s x;sA tkWc dkMZ dh fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, dHkh Hkh etnwj
ds ikl tkWc dkMZ ugha jgsA QthZ tkWc dkMZ cukdj QthZ Hkqxrku mBk;k x;k]
etnwj dks iSls ugha feysA
• Jfedksa dks dke ds fy;s vkosnu dh tkudkjh ugha gSaA lfpo@esV }kjk dk;ZLFky ij
vkosnu Hkj dj gkLRkk{kj djok fy;s tkrs gSSA vkosnu i= dh dHkh Jfed dks jfln
ugha nh xbZA
4 vfHk;ku dh ekax
lHkh rF;ksa dh foLr`r tkap dh tkosA
5 lq>ko
• dk;Z dk p;u izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij xzke lHkk dh cSBd esa gksuk pkfg;sA
377
2- tkWcdkMZ lacaf/kr
• tkWc dkMZ esVksa ds ikl gh jgrs gSA tc etnwj dke ij gksrs gS vkSj rc Hkh tc etnwj
dke ij ugha gksrsA
• tkWc dkMZ esa bUVªh lgh ugh gS cgqr lh txg dkVk&ihVh gS lkFk gh bzUVªh ugha
gSA
• eLVjjksy vkSj tkWc dkMZ dh bUVªh feyku ugha djrh
mUgs
chp ls gh
dke ls
fudky
fn;k x;kA
3.3 dke ds vkosnu ls lacaf/kr lkekftd vads{k.k in;k=k Vksyh }kjk fVIi.kh &
• dgha Hkh yksx dke ds fy;s vkosnu ugha dj jgs gS] ftlls fd csjkstxkjh HkRrs dk loky
gh iSnk ugh gksrk gSA esVksa }kjk eu ethZ ls 15&15 fnu ds vkosnu Hkjs x;s ;g
dk;ZLFky ij gh ny }kjk ns[kk x;kA
• 5 fdŒehŒ ds vanj gh dk;Z py jgk Fkk] ugj in ;k=k nkSjku lw[kh ikbZ xbZA
• eLVjjksy dk;Z LFky ij Fks yksxksa ds vuqlkj igyh ckj gh eLVj jksy dk;ZLFky ij vk;s
gSA ysfdu 'kke 5 cts rd eLVjjksy [kkyh ns[ks x;sA esV ls dgus ij fd vki eLVjjksy
Hkjsa] irk pyk fd og fy[kuk gh ugh tkurkA vU; O;fDr ds }kjk dkWih ;k jftLVj esa
gktjh yh tkrh gSA
• in;k=k ds pyrs gh ikuh] LokLF;] Nk;k vkfn dh lqfo/kk;ss ns[kus dks feyh
• cPps dk ikyuk rks dk;ZLFky ij feyk ysfdu ,d Hkh cPpk ugha FkkA
• 12 ls 45 :Ik;s dh nj ls gh etnwjksa] esVks] ikuh okys dks fey jgk gSA
• yksxks ds vuqlkj dk;ksZ ij 1 ls vf/kd txg ij tslhch e’khuksa dk mi;ksx gqvk gSA
• esV dks eki dh fcYdqy Hkh tkudkjh ugha gSA etnwjksa dks eki ds vuqlkj dke
ugha fn;k tkrk gS iwjs fnu esa fdruk Hkh dke etnwj }kjk fd;k tkrk gS Hkqxrku
lHkh dk ,d tSlk vkrk gSA
• dk;Z LFky ij vf/kdrj efgyk;s gh ns[kh xbZA
• dk;Z ds nkSjku lM+d o ugj dh QksVksxzkQh dh xbZA
• dkxt ij rks fuxjkuh lfefr xfBr gS ysfdu lfefr ds lnL;ksa dks Lo;a irk ugha fd oks fdlh
lfefr esa gSA ftlls dk;Z dh u rks fuxjkuh dh xbZ vkSj u gh xq.koRrk dh tkap gks
ikbZA
383
dk;Z dk uke % tk[ke ifj;kstuk /kfj;kon psu 0 ls Vsy rd & xzke % xksVM+k]
iapk;r lfefr& /kfj;kon dksM& DH- 470
dk;Z dj pqds dkjhxjksa us crk;k fd iRFkj ckgj ls ugha exk, x;s gS rFkk iRFkj
dk;ZLFky ij gh miyC/k crk;s x;s gSA ;g c;ku dkjhxjksa us 19 Qjojh 2007 dh xzke lHkk
esa fn;sA bl dk;Z esa dke dj pqds dkfu;k@ uxth ] tkWc dkMZ la- 443 ds fyf[kr c;ku
layXu gSA
• yksxksa ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku ds le; yksxks dks Åij dh jkf’k ugha nh xbZA
• yksxks ads vuqlkj muls tkWc dkMZ cukus o eLVjjksy dk;ZLFky rd ykus gsrq esVks
okMZ esEcjksa o lfpoksa }kjk etnwjksa ls 50ls 100 :i;s rd fy;s x;sA o eksVj lkbfdy
ls eLVjjksy ykus gsrq IkzR;sd etnwj ls 2 ls 5 :i;s fy;s x;sA
ik;s x;s RkF;ksa dh foLr`r ¼mDr vfu;ferrkvksa ds vykok Hkh vfu;ferrk;sa gksus dh
laHkkouk gS bu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vkSj Hkh vfu;ferrk;sa½ tkap djsa
386
dkMZ fn[kk;k
ua-& 123
tsdM+k
2 larks"k@ 572 esa 500 :i;s gh
ukuk th ] etnwj dk izkIr
tkWc gq;sA
dkMZ
ua-& 04
vkscjk
fVIi.kh& laidZ nkSjku vU; yksxksa ds Hkh Hkqxrku
esa Åij ds iSlks dks dkVdj fn;k x;k gSA vr% foLr`r
tkap djsA
• lkewfgd vkosnu lfpo ,oa esV }kjk Hkj fy;s tkrs gSA
• dk;Z ij vkus ds ckn Jfedksa dk vkosnu Hkjk tkrk gSA
• vkosnu dh jlhn ugha nh tkrh gSA
• fuxjkuh lfefr cuh gS] ysfdu yksxksa dks bldh tkudkjh ugh gSA ftlls dk;Z dh ns[k js[k
Bhd rjhds ls ugha gks ikbZ gSA
4- ny dh fVIIk.kh
• laiw.kZ lkekftd vads{k.k esa fudys rF;ksa ij xzke lHkk esa ljiap us fdlh rjg dk dksbZ
tckc ;k Li"Vhdj.k ugh fn;kA
• etnwjksa }kjk fdlh rjg dk vkosnu ugh fn;k tkrk gSA esVksa }kjk eLVjjksy vkus ds
ckn vkosnu djok;s tkrs gS rFkk bldh jlhn ugha nh tkrhA
5- vfHk;ku dh ekax
mDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gh vU; yksxksa dh foLr`r tkap gksA
6 lq>ko
• xkao ds yksxksa dks bl ;kstuk ds ckjs esa tu izfrfuf/k;ksa dks crkuk pkfg;sA ftlls
yksxksa dks izfØ;k ds ckjs esa irk py lds vkSj fu;ec) rjhds ls ;kstuk fØ;kfUor gks
ldsA
• esV ds :Ik esa i<+h fy[kh efgykvksa dks Hkh yxkuk pkfg;sA
390
391
ekrk?kkVh ls gouh Qyk lM+d dk;Z ij mDr i[kokM+s esa lHkh etnwjksa ds eLVjjksy esa
480 :- ntZ gSA tcfd okLro esa mUgsa 400 :- dk gh Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA ftldh tkap dh
tk;sA
393
xkao ckxksrk esa esVksa }kjk vkosnu izi= ds nks :i;s izfr ¼100X2) ds fglkc ls 200 :-
fy;s x;sA
5- dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k ijUrq Hkqxrku mBk;k x;k] etnwjks dks iSlk ugha feyk
MZ fn
la[; ol
k
1 bUnzk 905 1&15 5 1
@/kekZ 25& tqykbZ2 3
3 06 0
2 Hkh[kyh 54 905 1&15
1 5
@ghjkyk 24& tqykbZ
3 2
y 06 0
3 lsnuk@u 852 1&15
9- 3
kfu;k 95& twu 06
5 2
0
4 g.kxaw 386 868 3 ls 15 1 4
@ckcw 47& twu 06 0 0
0
395
dkM
Z
la[;k
1 tekyk@/ 239 1&15 13 500
kekZ 80545 tqykb
@10 Z 06
2 tekyk@/ 239 90545 1&15 13 520
kekZ @10 tqykb
Z 06
uksV %& mDr O;fDRk dk nks dk;ksZa gM+er
ls xqtfu;k lM+d rFkk ihiyh ls xqtfu;k
lM+d dk;Z ij ,d gh fnukad esa n'kkZ dj
mDr jkf'k mBk;h x;hA
• vkosnu laca/kh o tkWc dkMZ laca/kh tkudkjh yksxksa dks ugha gS ftlls esVks }
kjk euethZ dk dke fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj vusd izdkj dh vfu;ferrk;s gks jgh gSA tSls
& tkWc dkMZ esa dkaV&NkaV] bUVªh eLVjjksy ls feyku u gksuk] vkSj tks
jkf’k ;k dk;Zfnol tkWc dkMZ esa ;k eLVjjksy esa ntZ gS mruh jkf’k etnwj dks u
feyuk vkfnA
• in;k=k ds nkSjku gh dkQh gn rd dk;ZLFky ij lqfo/kk;s] eLVjjksy vkfn phts ns[kus
dks feyh vU;Fkk etnwjksa ds vuqlkj bl izdkj ls dHkh ugha gqvkA
lq>ko
dk;Z ds iwoZ o ckn esa okMZ LRkj ;k xzke Lrj ij ,d cSBd vk;ksftr dh tkuh pkfg;s
ftlesa ikjnf’kZrk gsrq O;; jkf’k lfgr vU; ppkZ;sa gksuh pkfg;s rkfd vke vkneh Hkh iwjh
izfØ;k esa Hkkxhnkj gks ldsA
398
2- tkscdkMZ lacaf/kr
xsgjh yky@xesjk us nks ckj vkosnu fd;k ysfdu tkWc dkMZ vHkh rd ugha
feykA blh izdkj vU; yksx gS] tks dke djuk pkgrs gS ysfdu muds tkWc dkMZ
tkjh ugha fd;s tk jgs gSA
399
• dk;Z dk p;u xzke ;k okMZ Lrj ij cSBdj izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij ugh gqvk
gSA u gh xkao okyksa dks okf"kZd dk;Z;kstuk ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gSA
• dk;Z 5 fd-eh- ds vUnj gh py jgk FkkA xzsoy lM+d dk dk;Z py jgk Fkk dk;Z
,slh txg py jgk Fkk ftlls yksxksa dks ml jkLrsa ls Qk;nk ugha g]S D;ksa fd
ogka vkcknh ugh gS
400
• dk;ZLFky tgka ij dke py jgk Fkk ogka ij eLVjjksy miyC/k Fks ysfdu os Hkjs
ugh x;s Fks] etnwjksa ds vuqlkj igyh ckj gh eLVjjksy dk;ZLFky ij vk;s gS
ges’kk gh mudh gktjh fdlh jftLVj ;k dkxt ij yh tkrh gSA
• ihus dk ikuh@Nk;k ,oa LokLF; dh lqfo/kk miyC/k Fkh ¼ek:okl½ ysfdu
LokLF; dh lqfo/kk dk bartke jk; th xqM+k esa ugha FkkA
• jk; th dk xqMk lkbZM ij pkj cPpsa FksA dzs'k O;oLFkk Fkh
• ftl nj ls yscj dk Hkqxrku gks jgk gSa Amlh nj ls dzs'k O;oLFkk ds etnwjksa
dk Hkh Hkqxrku gks jgk gSa A etnwjksa dks 30 ls 50 ds chp Hkqxrku fd;k
x;kA
• esV dks eki dh tkudkjh ugha gSa A u gh etnwjksa dks ekidj dk;Z fn;k tkrk
gSaA estjeasV Hkh muds lkeus ugha fy;k tkrk gSaA
• i[kokM+k [kRe gksus ds ckn uirh dh tkrh FkhA nSfud eki dh tkudkjh
etnwjksa dks ugha nh tkrh FkhA
• dk;Z LFky ij dke ij efgyk;s T;knk ns[kh xbZA yxHkx efgyk % iq:"k ¾ 9%1
• fuxjkuh lfefr xfBr gSA ysfdu etnwjksa dsk bldh tkudkjh ugha gSaA
401
• dk;Z 'kq: gksus ds igys o ckn esa okMZ Lrj o xzke Lrj ij cSBds vk;ksftr
gksuh pkfg;sA
402
2 tkscdkMZ lacaf/kr
nyk @ghjk ] cnh@y{e.k] xkSre@Hkhek ¼Hksjok½ lfgr vU; yksxksa ds tkWc dkMZ
dk mi;ksx esV }kjk QthZ rjhds ls fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj QthZ bUVªh dj iSlk mBk;k tk jgk
gSA
404
fcuk vkosnu ds dk;Z gks jgs gSA etnwjksa dks dke ds fy;s vkosnu dh dksbZ
tkudkjh ugh gSA esV }kjk [kqn gh Hkj fy;s tkrs gSA lHkh vkosnu 15 fnu ds fy;s gh
gksrs gSA
4- Hkqxrku lacaf/kr
Hkqxrku fcuk eLVjjksy ds gh ljiap ;k lfpo ds ?kj esa gksrs gSA vaxwBk ;k nLr[kr
dkih dk jftLVj esa ysrs gSA
dk;Z ds iwoZ ;k nkSjku fdlh Hkh izdkj dh QksVksxzkQh ugh dh xbZ u gh fuxjkuh
lfefr dh dksbZ Hkwfedk ns[kjs[k esa jgh D;ksa fd lfefr rks xfBr gS ysfdu lnL;ksa dks
405
rks irk gh ugha fd oks bl lfefr ds lnL; gSA ftlls dk;Z dh xq.koRrk dh Hkh tkap ugh
gks ikbZA
xzke lHkk dk;Zokgh jftLVj easa izLrko ys j[kk gS] 6 ekgh ;k okf"kZd dk;Z vk;kstuk
lkoZtfud fuxjkuh ds fy, dgha Hkh pLik ugha gS] u gh vke yksxksa dks ekywe gSA
vf/kdre nwjh 3 fdyksehVj gSa]
dk;Z 1 o"kZ iwoZ ls py jgs gSa] cksMZ ,d ekg iwoZ yxk;s x;s gS
dk;ZLFky ij eLVjjksy miyC/k ik;s x;s ysfdu [kkyh Fks vkSj esVks dks Hkh eLVjjksy
Hkjuk ugha vkrk FkkA
dk;Z LFky ij LokLF; lqfo/kk gsrq nokbZ dk fdV] Nk;k] ikuh dh O;oLFkk] CkPpksa
gsrq >wyk vkfn O;oLFkk;s ns[kh xbZA
dk;Z tslhch e'khu }kjk gks jgs gS o Bsdsnkjh ls Hkh dke py jgs FksA
esV dks eki dh tkudkjh ugha gS o etnqjksa dks eki dj dk;Z ugha fn;k tk jgk gSaA
406
dk;Z LFky ij ftrus Hkh etnwj dk;Zjr Fks lHkh ,d gh lewg esa dk;Z dj jgs Fks u rks dke
eki ds vuqlkj Fkk u gh esV ;k etnwjksa dks eki ds ckjs esa tkudkjh FkhA
dk;Z LFky ij efgyk o iq:"k dh la[;k dk vuqikr yxHkx 40%60 dk FkkA
7 dke ugha fd;k x;k ijUrq Hkqxrku mBk;k x;k etnwj dks iSls ughs feys
buds }kjk ,d Hkh ckj dk;Z ugha fd;k rFkk budk tkWc dkMZ esV ds ikl gh Fkk tks fd
in;k=k ds nkSjku mUgsa fn;k x;k ftlesa 3075 :i;sa ntZ Fks] rFkk ;g jkf'k mDr eLVjjksy ls
mBk;h x;h gSa A ,d i[kokM+sa esa bUgsa dkjhxj ds :i easa fn[kk;k x;k gSa A
nyk@ghjk gLrk{kj djrs gSa tcfd eLVjjksy esa vaxwBk yxk;k gSaA
8 dke ls vf/kd dk;Zfnol dk Hkqxrku mBk;k x;k vkSj etnwj dks iSls ugh feys
@/kqyk 55554
@60358
2 / 33 3 6 37 1665 270492@47108
kqyh@Hkh @175657
ek
3 uoyh@xkSr 28 2 5 36 1584 270492
e
4 'kkafr@eka 34 5 7 26 1170 61743@63647
xhyky
5 fcUnq@fgjk 19 2 4 26 1170 55556@57951
yky
6 :Lre 132 1 3 26 1170 55552@60356
[kka@uwj'k ¼;g xkao ls ckgj
kg Fkk½
7 dkyw 77 1 3 21 945 177943@270496
@/kUuk th
8 dadw@ine 30 2 4 25 1100 60351@61746
409
k
9 yhyk@gdjk 173 2 5 40 1720 57954@60339
10 mnk@/kkoj 178 1 2 12 504 47097
k
11 :ih @ukuk 114 1 3 25 1064 57964
12 dpjk@vejk 192 2 4 24 1032 60338@61735
mDr lkbZM+ksa ij ts-lh-ch- }kjk dk;Z fd;k x;k yksxksa }kjk bl ckr dh xzkelHkk es
aiqf"V dh xbZ rFkk ljiap o lfpo }kjk bl ckr dh Lohdkjk x;k rFkk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh }kjk
dgk x;k fd geus ts-lh-ch- Vs.Mj fudky yxk;h A
10 ny dh fVIIk.k+h
410
tkWc dkMZ yksxksa ds ikl u gksdj esV ds ikl Fks] pkgs og etnwj dk;Zjr gks ;k ughA
ftu yksxksa us dk;Z ugha fd;k gS muds ukeksa ij Hkh jkf'k mBkbZ xbZ gS etnwj
dks iSls ugha feys gSA
dke ds fy;s vkosnu gsrq vf/kdrj yksxksa dks tkudkjh ugh gS] esVksa }kjk dke ds
fy;s vkosnu Hkj fn;s tkrs gS
ANNEXURE V
REPORT OF THE SOCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RANCHI
May, 2007
411
Panchayat: Tilma
Block: Khunti; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
• Confusion regarding
payment for cutting of
stone, according to the
‘choka’ system.
• Fake/Double entry on
MR 85233/85234
1.Bargi Mahli (s/o Mangra
Mahli, Job Card No. 63) has
worked for 9 days in a
Talab week, which is impossible.
Nirman on 2.Aetwari Devi (w/o Bargi
MR 85233
6. Birsa Tilma Mahli, Job Card No. 63) has
MR 85234
Munda’s worked for 8 days in a
land. week, which is impossible.
• Cheque of amount Rs.
23722 dated 30.03.07
reached on 17.05.07, just
a day before our visit to
the site.
7. Nahar Latarhatu • Double entry for 4 MR 1204
416
48 days of work).
General comments
Panchayat: Chatra
Block: Angada; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
MR No.
22252/22253
Worked for 1
day, MR entries
show 11 days,
Rs. 80 received
Worked for 5
420
days, received
Rs. 377, MR
entries show 12
days
JC No. 01, MR
No.
22260/22263
Worked for 1
week MR shows
entries shows
24 days
JC No. 225, MR
No.
22255/22257/2
2259/22262
Worked for 6
days MR entries
shows 18 days.
421
422
Group No: 5
Panchayat: Taati
Block: Angada , District : Ranchi, State- Jharkhand
Jaradih Durgachara 5 -A
1. Bhadro n Lohar’s
Bedi job card
Talab Has no date
Nirman of
registration
( Job Card
No- 003/68)
Bhadro Jaradih Wages – Results in 5-B
423
not entered
column is
blank
Jaradih Date and Suggests 5-J
10 Bhadro month not malafide
. Bedi reflected in
Talab MR No
Nirman 22675, of
Maneshwar
Bedia s/o
late
Jeevardhan
Bedia, nor in
the Job Card
( No 003/39)
11 Bhadro Jaradih Asharam 5-K
. Bedi Bedia s/o
Talab late Phool
Nirman chand Bedia
MR No:
428
22656 Job
Card 174,
entered
wrongly as
Job Card No
164
13 Mungad No 5-M
ih indication of
gender in
the muster
roll, no
authorized
signature of
the
concerned
authority
MR No
22543
14 Mungad Bhodana Irregularity 5-N
ih Bedia
MR No
225440
Job Card No
004/51
Entered as
430
00100
15 Kup Mungad Sohari Devi In all works 5-O
Nirman ih states she managed by
Adyaksh- worked for 6 Abhikartas,
Chaudhary days and the workers
Bedia, she was are hired by
Sachiv paid after the beneficiary
Bodhana 25 days. without going
Bedia She did not through the
apply for process of job
work under application
NREGA etc, denying
the worker the
possibilities of
rights and
redressal
under the Act
16 Kup Mungad Work Lack of 5-P
. Nirman ih suspended, awareness of
Adyaksh- reasons not the NREGA,
431
Oraon
Sachiv
Sachiv
work done
but only an
advance of
19,500/-
received.
Suspect
discrepancie
s
24 Kup Navadih Sushila Minimum 5-X
Nirman a Linda w/o wages not paid
Shanicharv Vrish Linda
a Oraon, Job Card
Adyaksh 005/28,
Sukhram worker for 5
Oraon days, no
Sachiv mention of
wages paid (
Rs 300)
436
NREGA
28 Jaradiha Pratap Action must be 5-AB
Lohara taken for
Job Card is systematic non
with Sachiv, payment of
has worked minimum
on talaab. wages. No
Late awareness of
payment the details on
after 1 NREGA
month
29 Jaradiha Adhanu No awareness 5-AC
Lohara s/o of NREGA and
jaharnath demand driven
Lohara nature of work
Job Card No
003/153
30 Jaradiha Rijni Devi No awareness 5-AD
Job Card of NREGA and
with the demand driven
439
wage release of
payments funds for
are made works on
after 1 private land
month
35 Kup Jaradiha The There should 5-AI
Nirman beneficiary be a system
Ramesh ahs no for regular
Bedia knowledge release of
about MRs funds for
and work works on
had stopped private land
because of
non release
of funds and
wage
payment
has
therefore
been
443
delayed
36 Kup Mungad Chothi Systems of 5-AJ
Nirman iha Kumari NEGA
Chaudhary Job Card implementatio
Bedia with her, n on private
non wells
payment of sanctioned
minimum needs to be
wages in reviewed.
time. Work
stopped
because of
non-release
of funds.
444
Bedia Bedia,
Baleshwar
Bedia
Work on
Wells
stopped
because of
lack of
funds, now
there is
water
collected in
the well, no
money to
lift the
water to
continue
work
Sanctioned
amount
446
1,19, 400/-
but received
only 15000.
40 Kup Navadih Raju Oraon, No awareness 5-AN
Nirman Job Card No of NREGA and
Seencharw 005/34 demand driven
a Oroan Non nature of work
payment of or payment
minimum norms.
wages and Work norms
delayed have to be
payments reviewed.
41 Kup Navadih Sushil Linda No awareness 5-AO
Nirman Job Card No of NREGA and
Seencharw 005/28 demand driven
a Oroan Worked 5 nature of work
days, has no or payment
information norms.
about his Work norms
card and have to be
447
norms for
hard rock
must be
revised.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. General awareness of NREGA very low, government needs to start special drives in this
area
2. Delayed payment of wages has led workers to stay away from work denying them their
right to work guaranteed by the NREGAS
3. Illegal Gratification for opening postal accounts
4. Discrepancies between MRs and Job Cards
5. Work norms need to be revised
6. Choka and Daily wages is an issue which needs to be addressed immediately and the
policy changed
7. Training on record maintenance imperative
450
Panchayat: Paenka
Block: Angada District: Ranchi State: Jharkand
Seema No-152 , MR
Oraon No-51153, 6
days
entered in
MR, 3 days
entered in
Job Card,
RS.230
pending
2. Kup Dibru Oraon Minimum 9-B
Nirman Job Card wages not paid
Seema No-111
Oraon MR No-
51152
Total 27
days
entered in
MR, 31 days
entered in
Job Card,
452
Paid
Rs.2033
3. Talab Jarga Meela Devi Wages 9-C
Nirman Job Card pending,
Domna No-192 suggests
Oraon MR No-5114 malafide
6 days
entered in
MR, 7 days
entered in
Job Card,
paid
omlyRs.400
out of
Rs.536.76
4. Talab Jarga Maniram • Payment 9-D
Nirman Mahato not given
Domna Job Card according
Oraon No-046 to
MR NO- measureme
453
51106 nt.
32 chowka • Rs.363 is
dug, due.
Worked for
23 days and
out of
Rs.1763
paid only
Rs.1400
entered in
Job Card,
out of
Rs.1150.20
paid only
Rs.900
6. Talab Jarga Budhni Devi • Payment is 9-F
Nirman Job Card due.
Domna No- 192
Oraon Worked for
7 days but
not paid at
all.
7. Talab Jarga Agastus • Rs.447 is 9-G
Nirman Sirki due.
Domna Job Card no
Oraon 150
MR No-
51107
28 days
455
entered in
MR and 34
days
entered in
Job Card,
paid only
Rs.1700
General Comments
1. Villagers are not being paid according to the prescribed scale of measurement.
2. Serious lapses in the implementation of spreading of awareness about the Act.
3. In village Jarga posters spreading awareness about NREGA and RTI were put up just 3
days before the social audit.
5. The abhikarta and the gram sevak are not trained and aware about the Act.
456
Panchayat: Sursu
Block:Angada District: Ranchi State: Jharkand
Yugal No-163
Rjvar MR No-505
Worked for
8 days,
attendance
entered in
the
attendance
register but
no entry on
the MR.
3. Talab Sarlu Babita • Case of 7-C
Nirman Kumari corruption.
Daroga MR No-
Rjvar 51890
6 days
entered in
the job card
but has
never gone
459
for work
and is
studying in
class 6th.
460
Job Card
and 4
Chowka in
MR
6. Talab Sarlu MR is not Could cause 7-F
Nirman present at false entries.
Daroga the
Rjvar worksite.
General Comments
1. Old job Cards where column of amount is not present is used extensively.
2. Lot of disparities between the MRs and the Job Cards.
3. Persistent problem of delayed payment and under payment.
4. Lack of sufficient staff.
462
roll
iii. Kunti Devi
had
supplied
water for 30
days in the
work-site
but never
been paid
i. Fake entries
3. Miti Banpu in muster 6-C
morem r roll
road from ii. Underpaym
Sarandipa ent of
to Banpur labour
i. Fake entries
4. Bansi Tanta in muster 6-D
Oraon Toli roll and job One of the
Kup card laborers
464
Panchayat: Murhi
Block: Khunti; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
127321)
from the
village
Due to delay
in release of
fund he has
mortgaged
his land to
pay the wage
Luila Munda Hesag Expenses
5. Irrigation increased due Group –
Well to finding of 11
stone
beneath the
surface
Panchayat: Siladon
Block: Khunti; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
468
sewak for 10
months.
Three works
sanctioned,
while there was
no demand for
work.
office has
received orders
for only 2 works
and this work is
to be carried
out first. Even
though this
work was
number 5 on
the list of works
decided by the
gram sabha.
472
The
Beneficiary
and workers
had to pay Rs.
300 to the
panchayat
sewak to
carry out
measurement
of work. Even
after paying a
bribe, the
junior
engineer (JE),
who is
supposed to
carry out
measurement
s did not do
so, the
474
panchayat
sewak did.
Remta Names of 10
8. woman
Talab workers were
Nirman struck off the
muster roll.
Workers have
to take care
of their own
drinking water
needs. The
block office
says that the
work
estimates
have no
provisions for
a worker on
the site to
provide
476
drinking
water.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
477
1. In all 13 villages in this panchayat wages have not been paid for works for more than a
month since the work began.
2. Workers have stopped going to the worksite.
3. As a result all works have stopped.
4. In 3-6 villages the beneficiary is also the pradhan of the village
5. Mates have not been appointed.
6. No muster rolls available on worksites, the beneficiary fills out the muster rolls at
home.
7. Lack of awareness about the NREGA
478
Panchayat: Karge
Block: Mandar; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
attached]
[Details of
proceedings of
the gram sabha
are also
attached]
iv. Discrepancies
in
measurement
of work.
i. Muster roll
4. Mahesh Hatma created and [Details of 14-D
Pahan filled out proceedings of
Kuan before work the gram sabha
Nirman started are also
ii. Muster rolls attached]
forged.
work. measurement
vi. Inflated book not being
entries in available at that
muster rolls. time. However, it
False was also clear at
signatures the gram sabha
put on the that the second
muster rolls. well had still not
vii. Inflated been cancelled
material bills and the
shown. existence of
double entries in
this manner
seems very
suspicious and
must be
thoroughly
investigated by
an independent
authority.
485
[Details of
proceedings of
the gram sabha
are also
attached]
[Details of
proceedings of
the gram sabha
are also
attached]
8.
Budhu Tangra i. Workers This was a visit 14-H
487
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. The gram sabha in this panchayat was attended in large numbers by villagers, several of
whom applied for work and said they were not aware that they had to apply for work.
488
2. A disabled person, a pregnant mother and a blind man were turned away from work. At
the gram sabha the block officials said that they would provide them with work.
3. The Secretary was not present at the gram sabha as he had been warned to stay away.
However, he did attend the block level meeting the next day.
Panchayat: Malti
Block: Mandar; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
between 1 to be openly
and a half to supporting the
10 days. beneficiary over
Only a leading the attempt
couple of to suppress the
workers testimonies. The
testified that complaint made by
they worked the beneficiary was
for the full read out aloud by a
period and block official, and
they were although there was
unable to no one wiling to
recall how come out and testify
many days in support of the
that was. complaint, seemed
ii. There was to indicate
an attempt complicity of the
to suppress block officials with
people and some of the wring
491
worked.
Secretary
even after
the work
was
completed.
v. The
Secretary
decided
which
labourers
were to be
employed
and for how
many days.
i. Fake job
Other issues cards for It is clear that 15- C
Rs. 50 were people are not [Minutes
also sold by familiar with the of Gram
495
with them,
got filled up
by people
on the day
of the social
audit, and
there were
no more
forms
available
either with
the
panchayat
secretary or
the block
officials.
497
Panchayat: Urugutu
Block: Kanke; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
Nirman about
procedures.
Not giving
work to
disabled.
Kuam enclosed.
Nirman
of records enclosed.
etc.
given.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Panchayat: Rahda
Block: Kanke; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
506
of women while
they were
working.
relationship
to the work.
2.There is
video
recording of
the
beneficiary’s
statement,
which can be
provided.
actually began.
relationship to
the work.
(Details
enclosed)
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. All the vigilance committees were clearly just on paper with no actual participation or
understanding of their role.
2. Money was demanded from workers for making job cards.
3. Several blank job cards with no entries made despite workers having gone to work and
received wages. [one copy enclosed]
515
4. In village Okhargada, the villagers and the social audit team were threatened from
testifying, prevented from attending the gram sabha and warned against continuing the
social audit process.
516
Panchayat: Paenka
Block: Angada District: Ranchi State: Jharkand
Job Card,
paid
omlyRs.400
out of
Rs.536.76
4. Talab Jarga Maniram • Payment 9-D
Nirman Mahato not given
Domna Job Card according
Oraon No-046 to
MR NO- measureme
51106 nt.
32 chowka • Rs.363 is
dug, due.
Worked for
23 days and
out of
Rs.1763
paid only
Rs.1400
519
General Comments
521
1. Villagers are not being paid according to the prescribed scale of measurement.
2. Serious lapses in the implementation of spreading of awareness about the Act.
3. In village Jarga posters spreading awareness about NREGA and RTI were put up just 3
days before the social audit.
4. Job Cards were mostly with the abhikarta/sevak.
5. The abhikarta and the gram sevak are not trained and aware about the Act.
Panchayat: Sursu
Block:Angada District: Ranchi State: Jharkand
522
themselves
on the
worksite
then the
process of
giving
medical aid
gets
complicated
.
2. Kup Sukhu Kari Devi Suggests 7-B
Nirmaan Job Card malafide
Yugal No-163
Rjvar MR No-505
Worked for
8 days,
attendance
entered in
the
attendance
524
register but
no entry on
the MR.
3. Talab Sarlu Babita • Case of 7-C
Nirman Kumari corruption.
Daroga MR No-
Rjvar 51890
6 days
entered in
the job card
but has
never gone
for work
and is
studying in
class 6th.
4. Talab Sarlu Radheshya • Underpaym 7-D
Nirman m Rajvar ent
Daroga MR No- • Disparity
Rjvar 51877 between
525
General Comments
1. Old job Cards where column of amount is not present is used extensively.
2. Lot of disparities between the MRs and the Job Cards.
3. Persistent problem of delayed payment and under payment.
4. Lack of sufficient and efficient staff.
527
Panchayat: Sataki
Block:Angada District: Ranchi State: Jharkand
the MR but
no entry
made in the
Job Card.
2. Talab Sataki Ram Rai Rs.126 is due. 8-B
nirmaan Munda
Chunni Job Card
Singh No-3/34
Munda MR NO-
51356
Worked for
16 days but
was paid
only
Rs.1100 out
of Rs.1236
3. Kup Kankat Balram Disparity 8-C
Nirmaan ta Oraon s/o between the
Sukhram Nando amount
Oraon Oraon entered in the
529
MR but the
worker is
able to
sign.
General Comments
1. Payment delayed due to which the work was suspended (Kup Nirmaan- Kanta
Toli).
2. MR not present at the work site (Talab Nirmaan- Kankatta).
3. Lack of awareness about the Act amongst the villagers and the staff.
4. Signatures of workers are taken on plain sheet (while giving payment) instead
of the MR.
5. Job Cards are not with the labourers.
6. 17 families in Kanta Tola and Kankatta do not have a Job Card (list attached).
531
Panchayat: Kokdoro
Block: Kanke; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
control of a
person who
has not
official
relationship
to the work.
4.There is
video
recording of
the
beneficiary’s
statement,
which can be
provided.
been shown
working on the
muster roll
before the work
actually began.
Jagannath
8. Pahan Okharga Inflated Workers were 3-H
Land da entries in under paid for
leveling muster rolls the work done,
(details as well as
536
GENERAL COMMENTS:
537
1. All the vigilance committees were clearly just on paper with no actual participation or
understanding of their role.
2. Money was demanded from workers for making job cards.
3. Several blank job cards with no entries made despite workers having gone to work and
received wages. [one copy enclosed]
4. In village Okhargada, the villagers and the social audit team were threatened from
testifying, prevented from attending the gram sabha and warned against continuing the
social audit process.
538
Panchayat: Urugutu
Block: Kanke; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
Under
payment of Joint written
wages. testimony of 6
workers
enclosed.
541
Nirman
done.
Nirman t of wages.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Panchayat: Rahda
Block: Kanke; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
on this
worksite.
[Details of
proceedings of
the gram sabha
are also
attached]
555
measuremen
t book There was an
entries attempt by block
showing 2 officials to
wells exist, explain away the
whereas double entries
there is only for one well,
1 well. including the 2
xii. Duplicate measurement
muster rolls book entries as
available for being a result of
the same one
work. measurement
xiii. Inflated book not being
entries in available at that
muster rolls. time. However, it
False was also clear at
signatures the gram sabha
put on the that the second
muster rolls. well had still not
558
[Details of
proceedings of
the gram sabha
are also
attached]
559
[Details of
proceedings of
the gram sabha
are also
attached]
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. The gram sabha in this panchayat was attended in large numbers by villagers, several of
whom applied for work and said they were not aware that they had to apply for work.
2. A disabled person, a pregnant mother and a blind man were turned away from work. At
the gram sabha the block officials said that they would provide them with work.
3. The Secretary was not present at the gram sabha as he had been warned to stay away.
However, he did attend the block level meeting the next day.
562
Panchayat: Malti
Block: Mandar; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
rolls.
viii. Workers
only
received
wages
according
to the
number of
days they
actually
worked.
prior
consent of
the gram
sabha.
viii. False
entries in
muster
rolls and
job cards.
ix. Job cards
were with
the
Secretary
even after
the work
was
complete
d.
x. The
Secretary
569
decided
which
labourers
were to
be
employed
and for
how many
days.
570
when all
the
applicatio
ns for
work that
the social
audit
team
carried
with
them, got
filled up
by people
on the
day of the
social
audit, and
there
were no
more
572
forms
available
either
with the
panchaya
t
secretary
or the
block
officials.
573
Panchayat: Chatra
Block: Angada; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
2.
574
muster roll
iii. Fake
3. Miti Banpu entries in 6-C
morem r muster roll
road from iv. Underpaym
Sarandipa ent of
to Banpur labour
iii. Fake
4. Dansi Tanta entries in 6-D
Oraon Toli muster roll One of the
Kup and job laborers
Nirman card received
iv. Non payment in the
payment of gram sabha
wages. organized on 20
May 2007
576
Panchayat: Siladon
Block: Khunti; District: Ranchi; State: Jharkhand
without job
cards
GENERAL COMMENTS:
579
1. In all 13 villages in this panchayat wages have not been paid for works for more than a
month since the work began.
2. Workers have stopped going to the worksite.
3. As a result all works have stopped.
4. In 3-6 villages the beneficiary is also the pradhan of the village
580
Annexure - VI
ACTIONAID, INDIA
SAMAJIK SAMIKHYA
The Social Audit of Jharnipalli Gram Panchayat
on October 30th, 2001
Introduction:
Jharnipalli is a gram panchayat consisting of nine villages, located amidst a green and
picturesque setting in the Agalpur block of Bolangir district in Orissa. Bolangir is one of the
undivided “KBK” (Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput) districts, infamous for their recurring drought
and starvation situation, for several decades now. In addition to starvation, high levels of
distress migration are witnessed year after year. The situation confounds most analysts, given
the fact that the macro-data from these districts indicates everything against a drought –
whether these are agriculture productivity/production figures, rainfall trends, forest cover in
the area. Travelling by train or road in various parts of Bolangir accentuates this sense of
bafflement, since one is confronted with greenery all around – lush forests or fields. As soon
as one enters the villages and looks out for the poor, one is again struck at the abject poverty
581
manifested in many ways: the physical condition of the poor, their housing, clothing, the
infrastructure available for them, the many forms of discrimination against them.
Jharnipalli is no different. All these apparent contradictions are visible here too. Local media
persons vouch that it is the most corrupt panchayat in the block. Several villagers claim that
they have been raising their voice against corruption in the village panchayat for many years
now, but the officials concerned have never acted on these complaints. Two sarpanches have
been dismissed/suspended in the past – incidentally, both were suspended on the grounds
that they had more than two children, and not on the complaints of corruption filed against
them !!! . However, the people of this GP were not aware of the reasons of suspension.
The gram sabhas have been statutorily empowered in many states to take up development
planning as well as monitoring in the form of social audit. The power of social audit is seen as
a necessary corollary to the power of development planning and implementation. In addition
to the statutory back up provided by some states, there are Government of India instructions
which prescribe a mandatory and statutory social audit of all rural development works by the
gram sabha in each panchayat. The completion certificate for all village level public works
should be awarded by the gram sabha, after conducting a social audit, based on which the
next tranche of funds is released to the panchayat. These social audits are to be conducted in
special gram sabhas, which are convened specially for this purpose, and must be conducted
separately for each ward. Most people working on the issue of better participatory local
governance would like to see these available spaces better utilized.
583
On June 15th, 2001, a meeting was organised in the National Institute of Rural Development
[NIRD], Hyderabad, to discuss ways and means of strengthening gram sabhas in the country.
Senior government officials and eminent activists attended this. There were a number of
suggestions that this meeting came up with, to realise the potential of greater democratisation
at the village level, as envisaged in the 73rd amendment. The need for greater transparency
and accountability was emphasised yet again, in this meeting, through empowered gram
sabhas.
One important initiative that the meeting discussed, was to organise some “Learning By Doing
TOT workshops”, of institutionalising a system of social audit in a few pilot locations, wherein
the participants are expected to carry forward the same processes in their own respective
constituencies.
The task of doing this was assigned to NIRD, assisted by ActionAid India, with the help of
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan, which has gained invaluable experience of organising such
social audits (Jan Sunwais) over the years. After several other rounds of discussions on this
project, an action plan was drawn up collectively by MKSS, AAI, the Ministry of Rural
Development, NIRD and other individuals and agencies involved. It was decided that the first
584
such social audit would take place in Jharnipalli gram panchayat of Agalpur block in the
drought-prone district of Bolangir in Orissa.
Why Jharnipalli ?
The announcement of holding the first pilot social audit at Jharnipalli only buttressed the effort
that was already on in the villages of Jharnipalli Gram Panchayat.
It was 10th April 2001. A residential Training of Trainers (TOT) on panchayatiraj was nearing its
completion in Bolangir, when Daniel of ActionAid came back from Rajasthan after attending
the Janawad Jun Sunwai. After he shared his experience among the participants, it was
participants like Jairam Bariha (who incidentally is also the President of the district level
people’s forum, Central Drought Action Committee (CDAC) who showed interest to conduct the
first pilot social audit in Jharnipalli.
A couple of preliminary rounds of discussion by the CADMB representatives with the villagers
in Jharnipalli GP revealed that people would like to have this social audit conducted primarily
because they wanted to know the exact reasons for which two sarpanches were dismissed. To
their zeal came the unflinching support of the local CBO – Gayatri Club that was working with
the poor people in that panchayat for a number of years now. Behind their desire stood firmly
the CBO-NGO network of CADMB. And to top it all, there was a willing and supportive
administration at the district level. For all these factors, Jharnipalli fit well into the [ideal]
criteria that ActionAid and MORD were looking for. The people’s organisation in this GP was
found capable enough to organise this social audit.
As a first step in the process, a street play [geeti natya] was created by the villagers [of
Adendungri and Kudopalli] and the local organisation, informing them about their right to
information through social audit and the fact that such an audit is going to be taken up soon in
their gram panchayat. Songs were composed for this purpose and performances arranged in
all the nine villages of the gram panchayat. The environment building process which started in
the month of May continued in phases till 29th October – the day before the actual social audit
day on 30th October. Two rounds of awareness programme (street plays) were held in each of
the nine villages under Jharnipalli GP to convince the people on social audit. Apart from that
periodic visits by small teams from CADMB also helped in further sensitising and mobilising
586
the villagers. At the district level, every month in its review meeting CADMB partners reviewed
the progress and preparedness in terms of people’s interest and information collection. About
a month before the social audit day, a district level coordination team consisting of two
members from each of the 18 partner organisation partner organisations was formed. This
team was given the responsibility to help the people’s organisation in collection and analysis
of information and management of logistics.
At the GP level, four-member Committees were set up in each of the villages for the purpose
of the social audit [two members from the women’s SHGs, and two from the Village Drought
Action Committee].
Exposure to Devdungri :
A three member team consisting of representatives from local people’s organisation, the local
CBO and ActionAid Bolangir field office, went for a one week exposure to the process of right
to information campaign spearheaded by the Mazdoor Kishan Sakti Sangha (MKSS) based at
Devdungri village in Rajasthan.
One of the vital components in a social audit is the cooperation of the local administration.
Fortunately, the district had a supportive collector, PD, DRDA and the president, Zilla Parishad.
The local administration and the president, Zilla Parishad were appraised about the plans. The
District Collector expressed his full support and cooperation to the effort. The local MLA, who
wanted similar processes to be taken up in as many gram panchayats as possible in the
constituency, reflected the same feelings. At a later date, the local police officials were also
informed about the plans for the social audit. The last four weeks preceding the social audit
saw the efforts on many fronts intensifying as a run up to the audit.
Information Collection
Soon after the decision taken on social audit, an introduction letter with request for information was
circulated to all offices and NGOs working in the GP by the CLC six months before the actual audit.
But there was reluctance to provide the information. With the help of the district collector’s
introduction letter and instructions, a team of people started collecting information related to
various works in the panchayat for the past three years [1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001].
Information that was collected included various development works that had been taken up by
the block office in Agalpur, and works taken up directly by the Panchayat. Collection of
588
various records and getting copies of the same began in earnest in August, it picked up from
the first week of October and continued till the very day of the audit-October 30th! Information
was collected regarding the following:
• JGSY
• EAS
• CRF
• IAY
• PMGY
• MLA/MPLAD
• ICDS
• PDS (only 2001)
• Rural Connectivity Programme
• Palli Sabha and Gram Sabha resolutions
• GP accounts
• FFW implemented by NGOs
• Watershed projects implemented by NGOs
• Veterinary services
589
Information related to PDS, Kendu Leaf, Social Forestry and DPEP was not available because it
was refused. Within the records made available, there were gaps – measurement books were
not available for engineering works, and utilisation certificates were missing for all the works.
Two days before the social audit, a few of these, at the Gram Panchayat level, became
available.
All the information and records collected had to be sorted out, and filed, as per the scheme,
and finally, village-wise. Each work had a separate file [case record] created, with all papers
related to the work put together, and the file cover containing a top sheet with all details.
Documents inside usually included sanction letters, resolutions and recommendations of the
panchayat, work orders to contractors, forms of undertaking by the contractor, muster rolls in
some cases, running account bills in some cases, bills and vouchers in some cases, estimates
of the works etc.
The next step in the process was to try and analyse the information available in various ways.
For instance, muster rolls which come as records of a week’s work, or a fortnight’s work, had
to be converted into worker-wise records so that verification with individual workers was
possible easily. Similarly, records were studied for violation of norms and guidelines….of
minimum and equal wages, of the execution of works by contractors (whereas it is banned by
the Ministry’s policy), of breaching of the estimates based on which the sanction was made in
the first instance and so on. Another example is trying to convert technical data into
information that could be easily triangulated with the villagers [cubic meters of measurement
of morram, converted into equivalent number of tractor trips, for instance].
Both the sorting and analysis stages were possible in a short period of time because of the
presence of a large number of volunteers and trainees (from CADMB, MKSS and ActionAid) for
this social audit – numbering around 40 literate persons on an average, on any given day !!!
The next stage was to share the collected/analysed information with the villagers. This stage
included holding initial large meetings to explain the purpose of the visits, followed by visiting
591
various sites where the works are supposed to have taken place, and meeting with individual
beneficiaries. There were many instances when large meetings were used to verify muster
rolls of various works, and cross-check the bills and vouchers. This was a very sensitive
phase, and based on the situation, the visiting teams would either just share the information
and allow it to sink in or actually look for validation of the records with reality, in case the
villagers were forthcoming and cooperating.
To begin with, there was a pilot exercise held in village Adendungri led by the MKSS activist
Nikhil Dey. By this time, the volunteers from various organisations and the villages had been
grouped into teams, with team leaders. These teams were expected to stay in the villages,
and share, verify and obtain information. All these teams attended the pilot exercise in
Adendungri, so that they could learn from the process and take up the same in their
respective villages.
After this, starting from the 25th October, the teams went into their respective villages. A
‘roving team’ of three members was formed to oversee and coordinate the village level
exercise. The Village stays by the teams meant that some last minute surveys and data
collection could be taken up, in addition to triangulating the records with the villagers. Most
592
importantly, the teams tried to focus on the poorest in each of these villages, and assess state
support available to them in any form, against what they are supposed to get. In that sense,
the purpose of the 4-day stay in the villages by the teams was three-fold:
• Assess the extent and instances of corruption, by sharing information with the villagers and
by physical verification of works
• Instill confidence in people to participate actively in the audit process, and to activate the
village level committees set up for the purpose
• Focus on the poorest in the villages, and assess the support reaching them or not reaching
them [social security, PDS, employment and livelihood security etc.]
Confidence-building
593
Both the teams staying in the villages and a “roving team” which went from village to village
began an intense effort to instill confidence about the process in the gram sabha members.
Incidentally, the opportunity was used to dialogue with many panchayat ward members too.
There were usually some very pertinent questions asked by the villagers: “what if no action is
taken after the social audit – after we gather enough courage and confidence to point out
discrepancies in the social audit meeting and nothing happens afterwards, wouldn’t the
culprits of corruption become stronger than ever?”, they would question the teams. Similarly,
the villagers would want to know why there is no information or records from the Kendu Leaf
Department, when it is such an important source of livelihood for the poor in these villages.
When we were un-prepared with re-tabulated muster rolls in the case of earthworks taken up
by Gayatri Club in one instance, some of the villagers pointed out that we were being “partial”
in our work.
village representatives who had gathered to hear from him, that action would definitely follow
the audit, and anyone found guilty will be punished. This helped in instilling a good deal of
confidence in all the skeptics.
The collector after sitting with the people for couple of hours went to the panchayat office
where he made available all relevant available panchayat records (to the social audit team) –
information that was so far unavailable and inaccessible. After himself going through the
panchayat records such as the cashbook, the collector found many irregularities on the basis
of which he issued a warning to the panchayat secretary and sealed the GP office. This news
spread to all the villages and gave further confidence to people who wanted to point out
irregularities.
The last three days were hectic….one more round of publicity in the villages was taken up. A
jeep equipped with a public address system went into all the villages and invited people to
take part in the audit process actively. On the 29th, Jharnipalli village had its regular weekly
market. This was used as an opportunity to stage a play, and distribute pamphlets about the
audit. Finally, together with the local people’s organisation’s representatives, the MKSS team
went into the three most “difficult” villages [these were Chungidadar and Jharnipalli, where the
Secretary of the Panchayat hails from, and has many relatives and, Kendumundi, where the
595
present Sarpanch resides] and performed their muppet shows. They also encouraged people
for greater participation and involvement and discussed the need for the same.
Another team was meanwhile going around the district, and contacting other parts of Orissa,
to invite people to the audit. The invitees included the elected representatives of the district
and the panchayat, various officials in the district and the state, media representatives,
activists and NGOs. By this time, “trainees” from other states had also arrived, and they
joined various teams in their efforts.
During this period, an engineer-volunteer also went around to check the physical works that
have been claimed in the past three years, and gave his own assessment of the expenditure
incurred, and the deviations from plans. A Chartered Accountant went through the accounts
of the GP that were available with the team to check the entries as well as to re-arrange the
data in a more relevant fashion.
On the 29th, there was a preparatory meeting with all the teams, and the “presenters” from
the villages [each team had identified from amongst their villagers, those persons who can
present each work, followed by ones who will testify for or against it], and to finalise the
schedule for the actual social audit day on the 30th.
596
The day before the audit was also spent in preparing charts in the local language Oriya,
presenting the audit findings. The visual presentations consisted of separate charts on : Gram
Panchayat accounts, an overview of all the development works in the GP in the past three
years, separate village-wise charts, a chart on all the contractors who got work orders in the
past three years, a chart on all the roads claimed to have been laid, a chart on all the “ghost
works” discovered in the audit, a chart on the employment generated for the BPL families as
per the records, on the Indira Awas Yojana housing in three years, on the Food For Work
project taken up by a local NGO Palli Niketan with support from CARE-ORISSA, on the
watershed work taken up by Sabuja Biplav in two villages, on Gayatri Club’s work in all the
villages of the panchayat, on ActionAid India’s work in Bolangir district, and some photographs
displaying the status of works claimed in the records. Efforts were made to present
information in a simplified and intelligible manner.
All these processes, including the actual day of the audit, were captured both on video and
through photographs.
597
Fortunately, the opportunity of taking up the social audit as per the desire of the local
organisations and under the aegis of the action-trainings of the MORD worked out well and a
social audit was conducted by the gram sabha members of Jharnipalli panchayat on October
30th, 2001, for developmental works undertaken in the past three years.
This audit took place with the active participation of many individuals and agencies : gram
sabha members, the gram panchayat members and officials, the block officials of Agalpur and
district administration of Bolangir, respectively, the CADMB members, CDAC, the village
drought action committees (VDAC), MKSS (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan) & NCPRI
(National Campaign for People’s Right to Information), NGOs working in other pats of the state
and ActionAid India.
The audit process meant intense efforts not just to collect, analyse, and verify data for any
corruption, but to get affected people to speak up and testify against the powerful in the
villages, engaging in this corruption. Trust and confidence had to be built with these poor
people, mostly dalits and women, to come out into the open, and state the facts as they are in
reality, and not as claimed in the records. A momentum had to be built up to this effect,
especially in the last one-month or so, of the process.
598
The social audit formally began at around 10.00 am on the 30th October 2001. Around 2500
people mostly belonging to the villages under Jharnipalli GP and other parts of Bolangir had
gathered to witness and participate in the first opportunity of making people on power
accountable to their actions. With initial tempo-building group songs by CLC (local people’s
organisation) and MKSS members, the stage was set for the unfolding of the audit process. As
per the plan, people were first allowed to read all the visual presentations put out. Many
people [other than the media] could be seen walking around taking down notes of the
information. Some of the villagers asked for clarifications on information pertaining to their
village, and the records were checked again.
The day began by a formal welcome to all the panelists and the participants by the Convenor
of CADMB, and the Vice President of Gayatri Club. The Country Director of AAI gave an
introduction to the social audit, and the powers vested with the gram sabha for the same.
599
This was followed by the President of CDAC running everyone through the months of
preparation for the Jharnipalli social audit including the germination of the idea, and by laying
down the ground rules for the day.
From then onwards, a team of four “programme controllers” [nomenclature given by the
villagers on the earlier day!] took over the role of facilitating the proceedings. As the day
progressed, it became clearer that these anchors had an important role to play and that in this
case, the selection of the facilitators was very good. They were able to draw people out and
attempted to engage many people in the process.
The team leaders from all the villages coordinated with their village presenters and made
presentations about each work as per the records. This was followed by testimonies from
other villagers. The panelists spoke and raised questions now and then. There were questions
posed by the media section also.
It was decided the earlier day that village-wise presentations may be unwise – while one
village’s audit findings are presented, the others might not be interested, and it is also unfair
to the last village that gets discussed during the day, to wait for hours for their turn! Instead,
work-wise/issue-wise presentations were preferred.
600
Many other works that were supposed to be shared had to be dropped from the programme
because of the paucity of time.
The questioning, and the issues raised were very pertinent: insights into the ineffectual and
non-functioning of the panchayat, the gram sabha and the palli sabha were highlighted. Does
this panchayat have meetings at all, people were left wondering. The opaque fashion of
functioning was obvious.
The failure of the local bureaucracy to monitor and check the possibilities of corruption was
also brought out. There were many instances when they were in collusion [the junior engineer
had certified many ghost works through his measurement books, for example, with the BDO
certifying them too].
The Secretary of the GP was called to the mike in some cases to elaborate on a particular
∗
issue. For instance, it was discovered that all the ghost works had something in common –
they had all claimed to have used the same tractor [and its driver] for transporting materials
into various villages….the same vehicle number, the same village, the same driver who signed
All those works which are claimed on record, but which are not executed at all!
602
on receipts. One of the gram sabha members demanded that it be revealed who this person
was – and went ahead to inform everyone that this is the Secretary’s own tractor !
Subsequently, it was also revealed that the tractor did not exist with the Secretary for all the
three years, though it appears consistently on the records! There were many muster rolls
read out where false names were recorded of people who have migrated out of the village
years back ! Of people who feel insulted to find their names‘ on lowly works like road-laying’,
and have never taken part in the work ! Of elderly people who are incapable of working
anymore ! There were muster rolls where the amounts recorded were higher than the
amounts actually paid to the labourers!
There were also instances when the panelists and facilitators drew a blank response from the
villagers – this happened especially in the case of Jharnipalli works. The presence of some
powerful people from the village silenced many others. There were some stalemates too – an
entire village got split vertically into two groups, which presented contradictory testimonies
with regard to a road work [Jharnipalli]. There were instances when the local organisation
Gayatri Club was targeted by the villagers, both by the ones who genuinely wanted to raise
issues related to its functioning, and also by people who saw it as the weakest link in the
entire process. On the positive side, it meant that the villagers get into the habit of
603
questioning critically all development works in their village – whether taken up by government
agencies or non-governmental agencies.
It was heartening to see many dalits in the villages coming forward to speak, and better yet,
women willing to testify. In one instance, when an entire village kept quiet out of fear [of the
Secretary and a couple of powerful contractors in the village], it was two dalit women from the
village, who came out with the truth very boldly. Here, it has to be pointed out that women
were not actively drawn out to participate during the first quarter of the audit – the reason was
simple – they were invisible, and seated far from the “dias”. Until somebody pointed out that
the facilitators need to address the women too, they were ignored ! Once they were
encouraged to start speaking, they were bolder than the men in pointing out various
problems.
Towards the end, both the Zilla Parishad Chairperson and the District Collector promised the
gram sabha members that action would be taken against everyone found guilty of corruption
and criminal offences in the panchayat.
• Ghost works – 36 ghost works were discovered from amongst the records available for the
social audit, worth a sanction of Rs 111,000/- mostly for road works and ‘cross bund’.
These works did not happen at all, but money sanctioned and claimed on the records.
• Contractors – In spite of the GOI ban on the use of contractors for execution of works, there
were 31 contractors discovered in the social audit, including contractors for Indira Awas
Yojana, who claimed expenditure worth 15 lakhs of rupees. These contractors are
engaged as “Community Leaders” in the records!
• Fake Muster rolls – In many cases where the work order has been given to a contractor,
muster rolls were not available with the case records. Where they were available and
605
verified, it was found that there were many ways of tampering with muster rolls…wage
rates were recorded higher than the rates actually paid; false names were
registered; false signatures and thumb impressions were made up in the records;
more days of work were claimed than the actual employment generated….
• Underpaid workers - The labourers worked in different activities were paid less than
the amount mentioned in the muster rolls, which is even less than their minimum
wages.
• False bill – False bills on purchase of materials and transports were found from most of the
records. A bill was found in the name of a particular tractor driver with a tractor number who
has taken around one lakh rupees apparently for dumping road materials. It was later
known that the tractor did not exist in the GP. The Secretary, however, tried to clarify it that
the tractor was there and has since been sold.
• Purchase over billing – For instance pay for and use 50 bags of cement and get a bill of
100 bags from the supplier and claim the same. Such a bill was found in Adendunguri where
the bill contains 300 bags of cement used in the school building but people have kept the
records of 225 bags actually used; an apparent corruption of Rs11000.
606
• Employment – Though the government has a policy of creating atleast 100 days of
employment through its employment generation programmes (EAS) for all BPL families in
the drought areas, the analysis of records available [of all the works for which muster rolls
were available] showed 12 ½ days of employment on an average for each BPL family
in the panchayat for a period of three years.
• PDS issues – Though the overall picture on PDS in the panchayat could not be arrived at,
due to paucity of information as well as time, the social audit presented three distinct
dimensions in relation to this service: [I] many deserving families do not have BPL cards and
cannot avail of this facility; [ii] those who do have BPL cards often do not have the
purchasing capacity to buy materials due to them on their card and this stock either goes
back to the godowns or is diverted into the black market [unfortunately, one could not get a
picture of what happens at the GP level, since the data related to allotments, incoming
stocks and distribution was not available for comparison]; [iii] corruption detected in
cases where there were wrong recordings on the PDS cards/distribution books,
whereas the quantities actually sold were different. Villagers, especially BPL card-
holders pointed out (during the village analysis process) that the secretary had about 150
607
BPL cards mortgaged to him. This, however, could not be proved as no BPL card was found
either from the panchayat office or the house of the secretary.
• Anganwadi – In the case of Anganwadi programme too, overall picture was not available
with regard to the stocks coming in, to be compared with the distribution records or actual
receipts by people. One important issue did emerge though: while the stock comes
measured in weights, it is distributed in volumes [special measures in the local area called
adas], which are lesser in quantity [one kilo is converted into a volume of just 800-
900 gms during distribution]. The actual extent of corruption could not be established
though. The other issue with regard to anganwadis is the arbitrary selection of
‘beneficiaries’ by the AWC worker, to fulfill the target number of people. It was found that
the poorest got excluded due to the worker’s favour for the well off.
• Incomplete Indira Awas Yojana – The Indira Awas in every village were found either
incomplete or not paid the total amount to the beneficiary even after the
completion.
• NGOs and their works - In a state like Orissa, where NGOs are a common entity in the
lives of poor people, this social audit covered the works of three organisations in detail: Palli
608
Niketan, Sabuja Biplav and Gayatri Club. Unfortunately, records were obtained not from the
NGOs, but from the people’s committees in the villages in two cases. Some discrepancies
were also discovered. This is a good beginning in making the NGOs accountable to the
people, for their development works.
A set of demands were put forward by the gram sabha members of Jharnipalli panchayat, after
the social audit. These were:
• the District Collector to set up an enquiry committee, which should give its report in the
shortest period possible
• Recoveries to be made from the guilty, and criminal proceedings initiated against them
• From now on, all records should be kept open for the people
• Records of all departments, including the forestry departments should be made available to
the people
• Information boards should be put up outside the concerned offices
• A similar audit to be taken up each year
609
• A permanent solution to be evolved for tackling hunger and starvation issues in the village
• Social Audit process should be applicable to all GPs in the district including the NGOs
working in the area
• An empowered people’s organisation: The Cluster Level Committee (CLC) of the people,
facilitated by Gayatri Club in the GP was empowered enough to take up this audit. The
members have put lots of effort in making it successful.
• The District Administration: Where it has taken years for information to be collected for a
social audit in other places, thanks to a supportive district administration in Bolangir,
information collection was easier. Various district and block level officials cooperated with
us, and provided us with records. The Collector also stepped in at a crucial stage just before
the audit, to instill confidence in the people about the audit process.
610
• MKSS experience: Years of invaluable experience gained by MKSS in their struggle for the
right to information proved to be very helpful in this social audit. MKSS volunteers spent
nearly two weeks prior to the audit, providing quality time and guidance for the audit, in the
field.
• The support of a large network: The presence of 19 NGOs/CBOs in the form of CADMB and
their people’s organizations from all over the district of Bolangir lent a great deal of support
to the villagers of Jharnipalli.
• ActionAid’s field presence : Field presence of ActionAid in Bolangir also contributed in adding
strength to the people who took up this challenge.
• The ongoing fight against corruption: One could come across the presence of a large number
of ‘volunteers’ from the villages of Jharnipalli, who were raising issues of corruption in the GP
for several years now. They took part in this process very actively, and found it a good
opportunity to raise issues that concerned them.
• The location of the village: By virtue of being located in one of the “KBK” districts of Orissa,
this panchayat and its social audit also provided an opportunity to link up the process to
611
larger advocacy agendas centred around food and livelihood security. The fact that there is
inadequate resource allocation for development works in the area, and that even the
meager sums that come in end up in the hands of contractors, was apparent to see after the
social audit. Failure of the government on many fronts like employment generation, social
security, food security came to the fore.
• The panchayat’s decision to formally notify the gram sabha for a social audit strengthened
the process.
• A large team of volunteers working in a camp mode within the GP limits, and being
accessible at all points of time to the villagers was also an advantage. So was the presence
of the volunteers’ teams in the villages during the last five days of the process. The villagers
were free to come and check the records anytime during this period, and would also drop by
to inform us about the latest dynamics unfolding the village…
612
• Women participation : Large number of women from all villages have participated in this
audit actively despite of the pressure from many sides. The women from Jharnipalli could
able to prove the corruption on the audit day which no male person dare to speak the truth.
Including the ghost work of Rs. 1,11,000/, Rs. 1,00,000/ of reportedly false tractor use and Rs.
11,000/ of extra cement use, the village analysis of all the records have estimated in monetary
terms misappropriation of about Rs. 11,00,000/ (not confirmed) out of a total investment of
27.75 lakhs in the panchayat in last three years.
Just one day after the “camp” started in Podhpalli on the 16th of October, Mr Jayaram Bariha
accused the panchayat secretary and peon of attempting to poison him, whereas the
secretary retorted back by saying that Jayaram was drunk at that time and was making false
allegations. The truth of the matter is not known to anyone since conflicting reports were
613
received by the others in the camp, but this incident definitely turned out to be an unwanted
one – there were demands in the villages that the secretary’s name be cleared from this
accusation first. The entire team of volunteers and others [including the district
administration] were anxious about the whereabouts and safety of Jayaram on the night of the
incident and this slowed down the process for a few days.
The episode involving Jairam and the panchayat secretary was as much speculative as it was
mysterious. Constant threats were pouring in from the secretary and his relatives to the
members of the local people’s organisation (CLC) throughout the social audit process. When
things were becoming clear that there was discrepancy in the works implemented, threats to
life were also issued from time to time. On insistence of the people to make panchayat records
available, the secretary once reportedly issued a statement saying “ since many of the works
have actually not been implemented how can I give records; let there be a murder, but I will
614
not provide the records. Secretary’s dithering on making records available until the collector
issued him instructions speaks a lot in this connection. On the morning of the ‘fateful’ day
when Jairam was to accompany the secretary for photocopying of the panchayat records, the
brother-in-law of the secretary was reported to have said to Bariha ‘I shall remove your entire
denture if you keep on insisting on the records and do anything silly against my brother-in-
law’.
In the course of a dharna organised by a political party a couple of weeks before the social
audit, the block office was set on fire by a violent mob and several records, relating mainly to
education and agriculture, burnt down. As a consequence, many records could not be
obtained by the social audit team – whether the information was available or not, this became
the stated justification for the block authorities to deny additional information.
About a week before the audit, the secretary of the panchayat went missing! Nobody knew his
whereabouts, nor were forthcoming with any information if they knew about it. His presence
615
and cooperation were crucial for the team to obtain some more information at the GP level.
The records were inside the GP Office and the secretary had the key of the locked office with
him, and was untraceable! Precious time was lost due to this and the remaining information
reached too late because of this. It was only the visit of the Collector to the Camp on the 27 th,
which made him re-surface.
There were reports from two villages that warnings were issued to the villagers against
testifying on the day of the audit, and in one village, a penalty of rupees hundred on anyone
speaking in the meeting was announced. The real truth is not known, but some village(rs)
were visibly silent than others in their participation.
For many of the people opposing the social audit [the panchayat officials, the local contractors
and others] Gayatri Club [the CBO which works in the panchayat], was a strategic point to hit.
There were many questions raised about GC’s own style of functioning, about its functionaries,
about its funding, and about its failed promises and so on. Villagers went into the history of
the organisation and pointed out several discrepancies from the past and questioned the
legitimacy of the organisation in holding a social audit.
All of this reinforces the belief that such social audits are best taken up by organisations
willing to be transparent and participatory in their functioning, and willing to face up to the
legitimate questioning by the community. Gayatri Club was bold enough to face it.
One major disadvantage in this social audit was the fact that the date for the audit was fixed
before records from all the agencies and on all the implemented works were available. This
put tremendous pressure on the pace of work and also meant that the audit day dawned on
time even though all required information was not available. Strategically, it would have
617
made sense to complete information collection and analysis first and based on this
groundwork, to fix the date at a convenient time.
The timing of the audit was also important. It happened during a festival period and this
posed problems both with the volunteers and the community members as a number of
government officials and institutions went on holidaying too.
One other gap in the Jharnipalli audit was that the set of people collecting the information and
getting copies of the same, did not always know what they were collecting and why? This
meant that they could not identify during the information collection phase what else was
missing. It was only around the 17th of October that with the help of MKSS activists that the
data collected was sorted and gaps identified. As a capacity building process, this has
618
definitely equipped many people now in trying to understand the records and decipher the
information in a commonly understood form.
Information on certain crucial issues and departments not available:
This audit being in Bolangir, issues like PDS, Kendu Leaf etc., become very important, but
unfortunately, information about these was either incomplete, or completely unavailable.
8. The follow - up :
Situation became slightly tense after the audit. Threats were issued again to the local
organisation and to the local people’s organisation. The members of CADMB including field
office staff of ActionAid kept visiting the villages after the social audit to assess the
social/political tension around.
The district collector instructed a special audit of the Jharnipalli panchayat by the district
panchayat auditor.
The secretary of the panchayat has been issued suspension notice with a recovery from him
of Rs. 68,000.
FIR and criminal proceedings against the secretary are being processed by the district
administration.
619
Exposures of people’s organisations and NGO representatives from different parts of the
state took place.
The Epilogue :
As it is, the Jharnipalli case was a social audit ‘on test’, a pilot. Thus the main aim was learning
from the experience. With the questions that this pilot has thrown up, the meeting showed
how powerful a tool this social audit can be. The process is fairly simple, but political will a
major precondition: essentially it is about opening the records of projects to the intended
beneficiaries, unearthing corruption. As some MKSS people commented, as Orissa is a state
that does have resources, this is even more necessary than in Rajasthan.
Right to information and the instruments to realise this, is an essential element of well-
functioning local democracy. But the pilot also indicated the challenges that come with this,
regarding local capacity to carry this labour-intensive process and possibilities of backlash.
The relative lack of participation in the meeting of people from the poor and marginalised
sections was only to be speculated; in any case, lack of political awareness and
marginalisation of specific groups are issues that need to be addressed to make such
620
processes successful – where it is most needed, most commitment and investments may be
needed.
621
ANNEXURE VII
This annexure discusses the basic features of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005,
hereafter NREGA 2005 or “Employment Guarantee Act” for short. The relevant sections of the Act are
mentioned in square brackets.
A. GENERAL QUESTIONS
The idea is to give a legal guarantee of employment to anyone who is willing to do casual manual labour at
the statutory minimum wage. Any adult who applies for work under the Act is entitled to being employed on
public works without delay. Thus, an Employment Guarantee Act provides a universal and enforceable
legal right to the most basic form of employment. It is a step towards legal enforcement of the right to work,
as an aspect of the fundamental right to live with dignity.
There are many. To start with, an effective Employment Guarantee Act (EGA) would help to protect rural
households from poverty and hunger. In fact, a “full-fledged” EGA (with an unlimited individual guarantee of
work, not restricted to “100 days per households per year”) would enable most poor households in rural
623
India to cross the poverty line. Secondly, it would lead to a dramatic reduction of rural-urban migration: if
work is available in the village, many families will stay in place instead of heading for the cities. Thirdly,
guaranteed employment can be a major source of empowerment for women. Based on past experience,
women are likely to account for a large proportion of labourers employed under the Act, and guaranteed
employment will give them some economic independence. Fourthly, the Employment Guarantee Act is an
opportunity to create useful assets in rural areas. Fifthly, guaranteed employment is likely to change power
equations in the rural society, and to foster a more equitable social order.
Last but not least, the Employment Guarantee Act is a means of strengthening the bargaining power of
unorganized workers. This, in turn, could help them to struggle for other important entitlements, such as
minimum wages and social security. The process of mobilising for effective implementation of the Act also
has much value in itself. It is a unique opportunity for “unorganised workers” to organise, which could give a
new lease a life to the labour movement in large parts of India.
The work guarantee is a “universal” entitlement - any adult is entitled to apply. The Act is based on the
principle of self-selection: anyone who is willing to do unskilled manual labour at the minimum wage is
presumed to be in need of public support, and must be provided employment on demand. If anyone tells
you that the work guarantee is only for households with a “BPL card”, do not believe it!
4 Is there a limit on the number of days of guaranteed employment over the year?
Yes. As mentioned earlier, the employment guarantee is restricted to "100 days per household per year".
Note that “year” here refers to the financial year, which starts on 1 April. In other words, on 1 April each
household gets a new “quota” of 100 days for the next twelve months. Note that the quota of 100 days can
be “shared” between adult members of the household: different persons can work on different days, or even
on the same day, as long as their combined days of employment do not exceed 100 days in the financial
year.
5 What kinds of work can be taken up under the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
Schedule I of the Act lists eight categories of works that are supposed to be “the focus of the Scheme”.
Briefly, these include (1) “water conservation and water harvesting”; (2) “drought proofing” (including
afforestation); (3) “irrigation canals including micro and minor irrigation works”; (4) “provision of irrigation
facility” to land owned by households belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
beneficiaries of land reforms, or beneficiaries of Indira Awas Yojana; (5) “renovation of traditional water
bodies” including desilting of tanks; (6) “land development”; (7) “flood control and protection works” including
drainage in water logged areas; and (8) “rural connectivity to provide all-weather access”. In addition, there
is a residual ninth category: “any other work which may be notified by the Central Government in
consultation with the State Government”.
This list is quite restrictive, and in this respect NREGA 2005 contrasts sharply with the “citizens’ draft”,
where permissible works were broadly defined as works that contribute (directly or indirectly) to “the
increase of production, the creation of durable assets, the preservation of the environment, or the
improvement of the quality of life”. Short of modifying Schedule I, the only way of expanding the list of
permissible works within the framework of the Act is to add further works under the residual category.
626
The Act also states that a list of “preferred works”, to be taken up on a priority basis, is to be drawn by the
State Employment Guarantee Council. The preferred works are to be identified “based on their ability to
create durable assets”, and may differ between different areas.
In principle, no. The Act states that “the works taken up under the Scheme shall be in rural areas”
[Schedule I, Para 3].
“New works” can be initiated only if (1) at least fifty labourers become available for such work, and (2) the
labourers cannot be absorbed in the ongoing works. However, this restriction can be waived by the State
Government “in hilly areas and in respect of afforestation”. [Schedule II, Para 13]
The Employment Guarantee Scheme will be implemented by the State Government, with funding from the
Central Government. According to Section 13, the “principal authorities” for planning and implementation of
627
the Scheme are the Panchayats at the District, Intermediate and village levels. However, the division of
responsibilities between different authorities is actually quite complex, as we shall see further on.
The basic unit of implementation is the Block. In each Block, a “Programme Officer” will be in charge. The
Programme Officer is supposed to be an officer of rank no less than the Block Development Officer (BDO),
paid by the Central Government, and with the implementation of EGS as his or her sole responsibility. The
Programme Officer is accountable to the “Intermediate Panchayat” as well as to the District Coordinator.
We shall return to this in Section E, after discussing the entitlements of the labourers under EGS.
C. WORKERS' ENTITLEMENTS
9 How are labourers expected to apply for work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
It is basically a “two-step” procedure. The first step is to “register” with the Gram Panchayat. The second
step is to apply for work. Registration is required only once every five years, but applications for work have
to be submitted each time work is required.
The main purpose of the registration process is to facilitate advance planning of works. If a household
applies for registration, it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to register it and issue a "job card". The job
628
card will ensure that labourers are in possession of a written record of the number of days they have
worked, wages paid, unemployment allowances received, and so on, instead of depending on government
officials for this purpose. A job card is supposed to be valid for five years at least.
Applications for work may be submitted at any time, either through the Gram Panchayat or directly to the
Programme Officer. Both have a duty to accept valid applications and to issue a dated receipt to the
applicant [Schedule II, Para 10]. Applications must be for at least 14 days of continuous work [Schedule II,
Para 7]. The Act provides for group applications, advance applications, and multiple applications over time
[Schedule II, Paras 10, 18 and 19]. Applicants are supposed to be told where and when to report for work
within 15 days, by means of a letter as well as of a public notice displayed on the notice board of the Gram
Panchayat and at the office of the Programme Officer [Schedule II, Paras 11 and 22].
Note that the unit of registration is the “household”, while applications for work are individual applications.
The Act defines a household as “the members of a family related to each other by blood, marriage or
adoption and normally residing together and sharing meals or holding a common ration card” [Section 2(f)].
The problem with this definition is that members of a “joint family” who live together and share a ration card
may be treated as a single household, even if the household is quite large. This will be unfair to large
households, because they will be entitled to the same 100 days of work per year as small households, even
if their needs are much larger. Ideally, every nuclear family should be considered as a separate household.
11 How much are labourers going to be paid under the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
Labourers are entitled to the statutory minimum wage applicable to agricultural workers in the State, unless
the Central Government “overrides” this by notifying a different wage rate. If the Central Government
notifies a wage rate, it is subject to a minimum of Rs 60 per day. [Section 6]
Both are permitted under the Act. In both cases, the minimum wage defined in Section 6 applies. If wages
are paid on a piece-rate basis, the schedule of rates has to be such that a person working for seven hours
would normally earn the minimum wage. [Schedule I, Paras 6 to 8]
630
Wages may be paid in cash or in kind or both. Payment in kind would usually mean part payment in
foodgrain. The cash component has to account for at least 25 per cent of the total wage. [Schedule II, Para
31]
Wages are to be paid every week, or in any case “not later than a fortnight after the date on which such
work was done” [Section 3(3)]. Further the State Government “may prescribe” that a proportion of the
wages in cash should be paid on a daily basis [Schedule II, Para 32].
In such cases, labourers are entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act
1936 [Schedule II, Para 30].
Certainly not. Men and women are entitled to the same wages. In fact, any form of gender discrimination is
prohibited. [Schedule II, Para 34]
Yes. The following facilities are supposed to be available at the worksite: “safe drinking water, shade for
children and periods of rest, first-aid box with adequate material for emergency treatment for minor injuries
and other health hazards connected with the work” [Schedule II, Para 27]. This is not very much, but even
these basic facilities are often missing at the worksites – it is important to insist that they should be in place.
The Act states that “in case the number of children below the age of six years accompanying the women
working at any site are five or more, provisions shall be made to depute one of such women workers to look
after such children” [Schedule II, Para 28]. Further, the person who is deputed to look after young children
is entitled to the same minimum wage as other labourers [Schedule II, Para 28].
“As far as possible”, work must be provided within 5 km of the applicant’s residence. If it is provided beyond
that radius, work must be provided within the Block, and workers must be paid daily transport and living
allowances equivalent to 10 per cent of the wage rate. [Schedule II, Paras 12 and 14]
20 Is there any provision in the Act for the employment of persons with disabilities?
No. The “citizens’ draft” included a special clause on this, but it was removed in the final version of the Act.
However, it may be possible to reinstate special provisions for disabled persons under the “Rules” of the
Employment Guarantee Scheme, to be framed by the State Government. Such provisions might include,
for instance: (1) recording of any disabilities at the time of registration; (2) provision of special work
opportunities to persons with disabilities; (3) mandatory provision of special employment facilities to
households where no-one is able to take up ordinary employment opportunities due to disability or related
reasons (e.g. need to take care of a disabled person); and (4) ear-marking of 3% of the EGS funds for
employing persons with disabilities. Note that the last suggestion is based on the Persons with Disabilities
Act 1995, which states that “the appropriate Governments and local authorities shall reserve not less than
three per cent in all poverty alleviation schemes for the benefit of persons with disabilities.”
633
If a labourer is injured “by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” under the
Employment Guarantee Scheme, he or she is entitled to “such medical treatment as is admissible under the
Scheme”, free of charge. If hospitalisation is required, he or she is entitled to accommodation, treatment,
medicines and a daily allowance “not less than half the wage rate”. There are similar provisions for children
who may be accompanying labourers employed under the Scheme. In case of death or permanent
disability, an ex gratia payment of Rs 25,000 (“or such amount as may be specified by the Central
Government”) is to be paid to the victim or his or her family. [Schedule II, Paras 24, 25, 26 and 33]
22 Can labourers exercise any choice regarding the type of work that is given to them?
No. They have to accept whatever employment is given to them by the Gram Panchayat or Programme
Officer [Schedule I, Para 10]. At best, they have some indirect say in the matter in so far as they participate
in the process of planning the works, through Gram Sabhas and other means (see Section E below).
23 What happens if someone applies for work but does not report for work when employment is provided?
634
If an applicant fails to report for work within 15 days of being informed that work is available, he or she
stands debarred from receiving the unemployment allowance for a period of three months.
C. UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOWANCE
Anyone who has not been provided with work within 15 days of applying (or within 15 days of the date for
which employment is sought, in the case of "advance applications"). [Section 7(1)]
25 In such circumstances, is the State Government obliged to pay the unemployment allowance?
This is certainly the intention. In the “citizens’ draft”, the payment of the unemployment allowance was
mandatory. However, NREGA 2005 is a little ambiguous on this. Section 7(1) suggests that labourers who
have not been provided with work have an unconditional right to the unemployment allowance. However,
Section 7(2) suggests that the payment of the allowance is “subject to such terms and conditions of
eligibility as may be prescribed by the State Government and subject to the provisions of this Act and the
Schemes and the economic capacity of the State Government”. It is important to insist on the payment of
the unemployment allowance in all cases where labourers have not been provided with work.
635
The unemployment allowance has several roles. First, it provides a limited form of unemployment
assistance to those who are waiting for work. Second, it provides a clear “signal” that the responsible
authorities are failing to provide employment to all applicants. Third, it acts as a “penalty” on the State
Government for this failure, since the payment of unemployment allowances is the responsibility of the State
Government.
This penalty creates a strong incentive for the State Government to provide work. This is because
employment costs are borne overwhelmingly by the Central Government, while the unemployment
allowance is paid by the State Government. Therefore, State Governments can “save money” by providing
employment instead of paying the allowance. However, for this incentive to work, the unemployment
allowance must be actually paid, and not remain “on paper” as has happened in Maharashtra (where the
unemployment allowance has never been paid). This is why the actual payment of the unemployment
allowance is so important.
The unemployment allowance is to be fixed by the State Government. However, it must be “no less than
one-fourth of the wage rate” for the first thirty days, and “not less than one-half of the wage rate” after that.
[Section 7(2)]
28 What is the time frame for the payment of the unemployment allowance?
The unemployment allowance is to be paid “not later than fifteen days from the date on which it became due
for payment” [Section 7(5)].
29 When does someone who is receiving the unemployment allowance cease to be eligible for it?
The payment of the unemployment allowance can be discontinued in the following circumstances: (1) the
recipient has been directed to report for work by the Gram Panchayat or the Programme Officer; (2) the
period for which employment is sought has come to an end; (3) the recipient’s household has exhausted its
“quota” of 100 days of work (within the financial year); (4) the household has earned as much as the wages
of one hundred days of work, from the unemployment allowance and wage employment combined, within
the financial year. [Section 7(3)]
637
Note: The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 is a complex plot with many actors. The main
actors are: the State Council, the District Coordinator, the Programme Officer, the Intermediate Panchayat,
the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabha, aside from “implementing agencies” other than the Panchayats.
There is an elaborate division of responsibilities between these different authorities, and the details are not
always clear from the Act. An attempt is made below to present a simplified account of the facts.
30 What are the responsibilities of the "Programme Officer" in the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
The Programme Officer essentially acts as a “coordinator” for the Employment Guarantee Scheme at the
Block level. Remember, the Block is the basic unit of implementation. Within the Block, two separate
processes take place simultaneously. On one side, people are applying for work through the Gram
Panchayat, or directly to the Programme Officer – in both cases the applications eventually reach his or her
office. On the other side, proposals for works to be taken up under EGS (“projects” for short) are being
prepared by the “implementing agencies”: the Intermediate Panchayat, the Gram Panchayats, line
departments, NGOs, and so on. The Programme Officer stands at the intersection of these two processes:
he or she receives the applications for work as well as the project proposals, and is supposed to “match” the
638
two. This involves sanctioning projects in such a way that all those who have applied for work can be
employed within 15 days.
Aside from this “planning” role, the Programme Officer has a “monitoring” role. He or she is supposed to
monitor the implementation of the works sanctioned, ensure that wages are paid on time, deal with any
complaints that may arise, enforce all the transparency provisions, and so on. The list of responsibilities is
quite long and hard to summarise – the main duties of the Programme Officer are listed in Box 1.
Ultimately, the chief responsibility of the Programme Officer is to ensure that anyone who applies for work
gets employment within 15 days, or in other words, to safeguard the basic entitlement of labourers under
the Act. When this is not possible, he or she has to sanction and disburse the unemployment allowance,
and explain in his or her annual report why employment could not be provided. The Programme Officer is
accountable to the Intermediate Panchayat and the District Coordinator.
Implementing agencies include any agency that is “authorized by the Central Government or the State
Government to undertake the implementation of any work” taken up under EGS [Section 2(g)]. The main
implementing agencies are the Gram Panchayats: at least 50 per cent of the works (in terms of share of the
639
EGS funds) have to be implemented through the Gram Panchayats [Section 16(5)]. Other implementing
agencies include the Intermediate Panchayats, the District Panchayats, and “line departments” such as the
Public Works Department, the Forest Department, the Irrigation Department, and so on. The Employment
Guarantee Act also allows NGOs to act as implementing agencies.
No. The Act clearly states: “The [Employment Guarantee] Scheme shall not permit engaging any
contractor for implementation of the projects under it” [Schedule I, Para 11]. In short, contractors
are banned.
640
33 What is the role of the Gram Panchayat in the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
To start with, the Gram Panchayat has to process applications for “registration” and employment. This
involves registering potential workers, issuing job cards to them, receiving their applications for work,
645
forwarding these to the Programme Officer, and informing the applicants as and when work is available.
Applications for registration and employment can also be submitted directly to the Programme Officer, but
normally they are expected to be submitted at the Gram Panchayat level.
As we saw, the Gram Panchayat is also the main “implementing agency”. It is expected to prepare a
“development plan” for the village and maintain a shelf of projects to be taken up under EGS, based on the
recommendations of the Gram Sabha. The Gram Panchayat also executes these projects, as and when
they are sanctioned by the Programme Officer. All the relevant documents, including the muster rolls, are to
be made available to the Gram Sabha for the purpose of “social audits”. Monitoring of EGS works
implemented by the Gram Panchayat is the responsibility of the Gram Sabha and the Programme Officer.
34 What is the role of the Gram Sabha in the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
The Gram Sabha is expected to monitor the work of the Gram Panchayat, and also to participate in the
planning process. In particular, the Gram Sabha will discuss and prioritise the works to be taken up,
conduct regular social audits of all works carried out in the Panchayat, and verify that all the relevant norms
are being observed. Resolutions of the Gram Sabha will be given priority in the planning of EGS works by
the Gram Panchayat and the Programme Officer.
646
35 What happens above the Block level, say at the District and State levels?
At the District level, the supervision of the Employment Guarantee Scheme is the responsibility of the
“District Coordinator”. The District Coordinator is expected to “coordinate” the work of the Programme
Officers, for instance by consolidating their respective “plans” into a District-level shelf of projects [Section
14(3)(b)]. The District Coordinator is also expected to prepare a “labour budget” every year during the
month of December, for the next financial year. Other responsibilities of the District Coordinator include
conducting regular inspections of the works in the District, sanctioning works that are not within the
jurisdiction of Programme Officers, assisting the District Panchayats, and preparing an annual report to the
State Council.
At the State level, the Employment Guarantee Scheme is to be monitored by a State Employment
Guarantee Council (or “State Council” for short). The State Council is essentially an advisory body for the
State Government. For instance, the State Council is expected to advise the State Government on the
“schedule of rates” (payment rates for piece-rate work), the level of the unemployment allowance, and
monitoring arrangements. Other key responsibilities of the State Council include preparing a list of
“preferred works” to be taken up on a priority basis, conducting evaluations of EGS, and preparing an
annual report to be laid before the State Legislature.
647
Finally, the Act calls for the creation of a National Employment Guarantee Council (or “National Council” for
short). The functions of the National Council are similar to those of the State Council, at the national level.
The National Council monitors the implementation of the Act country-wide, advises the Central Government,
and prepares an annual report to be laid before Parliament.
36 Have any safeguards against corruption been included in the Employment Guarantee Act?
Yes, the Act includes various provisions for transparency and accountability. For instance, job cards are to
be issued to all labourers; wages are to be paid “directly to the person concerned and in presence of
independent persons of the community on pre-announced dates”; muster rolls and other relevant
documents are to be made available for public scrutiny; regular social audits of all EGS works are to be
conducted by the Gram Sabhas; and so on. Further, the Employment Guarantee Act goes hand in hand
with the Right to Information Act (also enacted in mid-2005). The right to information is an important tool for
fighting corruption and is essential for the success of the Employment Guarantee Act. The NREGA 2005
includes an “anti-corruption clause”.
This clause essentially states that in the event where the Central Government receives any complaint of
“improper utilization of funds” and is “prima facie satisfied” that there is a case, it can “order stoppage of
release of funds to the Scheme” [Section 27(2)].
38 What does the Act say regarding the accessibility of EGS accounts and records to the public?
There are three basic provisions for this. First, the Act clearly states that “all accounts and records relating
to the Scheme shall be made available for public scrutiny”, and that anyone is entitled to a copy of these
documents after paying “such fee as may be specified in the Scheme” [Schedule I, Para 16]. Second, a
copy of the muster rolls is to be made available for inspection at the offices of the Gram Panchayat and
Programme Officer, against payment of “such fee as may be specified in the Scheme” [Schedule I, Para
17]. Third, the Gram Panchayat is supposed to provide all relevant documents (including “the muster rolls,
bills, vouchers, measurement books, copies of the sanction orders and other connected books of accounts
and papers”) to the Gram Sabha for the purpose of conducting social audits [Section 17(3)].
649
Access to all these documents can also be sought under the Right to Information Act 2005. The provisions
of this Act are very strong, and go much beyond the transparency provisions of the NREGA 2005 in many
respects. For instance, there is a cap on the fees that can be charged for supplying photocopies of public
documents. The Right to Information Act also has extensive provisions for “mandatory disclosure” of public
documents (i.e. making these documents available in convenient form for public scrutiny without waiting for
anyone to ask for them). Last but not least, the Right to Information Act provides for stiff “penalties” against
officers who fail to supply information as prescribed. Thus, the Right to Information Act powerfully
supplements the transparency provisions of the NREGA 2005. Skilful use of the Right to Information Act is
an essential tool of effective implementation of the Employment Guarantee Act.
G. OTHER QUESTIONS
39 Are women likely to get a fair share of employment under the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
The Act states that “priority” should be given to women in the allocation of work, “in such a way
that at least one-third of the beneficiaries shall be women” [Schedule II, Para 6]. What is not very
clear is how this “quota” is to be implemented in the event where the proportion of women among
all applicants is less than one third. The best thing to do is to encourage women to apply, and
facilitate their applications, to ensure that this situation does not arise. In areas with a strong
650
tradition of women’s employment outside the household, it is likely that women will account for
more than one third of all applicants. In other areas, however, this may require pro-active steps to
facilitate their participation in the Employment Guarantee Scheme.
40 What happens if the responsible officers (e.g. the Programme Officer) fail to perform their duty under the
Act?
Ideally, there should be explicit penalties against responsible officers in the event where they fail to perform
their duty under the Act. And there should be stiff penalties for gross violations of the Act, such as refusal to
register someone’s application for work, of failure to pay the unemployment allowance. Unfortunately, the
Act is quite weak in this respect. All it says is that “whoever contravenes the provisions of this Act shall on
conviction be liable to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees”. It may be possible to ensure that
the Rules to be framed by State Governments include stronger penalties.
()()()()()
651
References
Mahipal (1998), MAINSTREAM, October 31, 1998, Mathew, George (1999), Gram Sabha and
Social Audit, KURUKSHETRA,
October 1999
Paul, Samuel(1996), Strengthening Public Accountability through Participation, in ‘Participation
in Practice: The Experience of the World Bank and Other Stakeholders, the World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
- - (2003) New Mechanisms for Public Accountability: The Indian Experience
http://www.undp.org/governance/account.htm (accessed on 4 July 2003).
Pearce, John et al (1996), Social Auditing for Small Organizations: The Workbook for Trainers
and Practioners, New Economic Foundation, London.
Singh, Kultar (2003), Social Audit: An Overview of Approach and Application, Kurukshetra,
February (2003):36-40
Tandon, Rajesh (2003), Democracy and Governance, PRIA News, Vol.3, Issue 4, Jan-March
2003:1-2
Tiwari,R.S (2002) Good Governance: Populist Democracy to Quality Democracy, The Indian
Journal of Public Administration, October-
December, 2002.
UNDP (2003), Accountability, Transparency, and Anti-Corruption (online),
http://www.undp.org/governance/account.htm (accessed on 4 July 2003)
653