20 th Quarterly Review Meeting of Financial Controllers at Hyderabad on 1 st & 2 nd Feb. 2009

1. 20th Quarterly Review Meeting of Financial Controllers at Hyderabad on 1st & 2nd Feb. 2009 Presentation on Monitoring Institutions / Independent Field Monitoring through Social Science Institutions activities under SSA & MDM and Key Observations of MIs reports with particular reference to Financial Aspects State/UT wise 2nd Feb, 2009 By K. Girija Shankar Senior Consultant (Mon) SSA, Technical Support Group, Ed.CIL, 10-B, IP Estate, New Delhi-02

2. Monitoring Institutions / Independent Field Monitoring through Social Science Institutions activities BACK GROUND In 2003-2004, Ministry had identified 42 national level academic/ professional institutions for undertaking monitoring activities across the country. Out of 42 Monitoring Institutions (MIs), 41 MIs had undertaken monitoring activities for a period of 3 years i.e. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Ministry has received 134 quarterly monitoring reports during the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Revised TOR 2006-08 SSA Framework envisages independent monitoring apart from programme systems of monitoring. Objective for engaging MIs: To assess the progress of implementation of approved plans at District and State level. To sample check progress in achievement of some key outcome indicators. To verify process and procedures undertaken for implementation of SSA. 2

3. Revised TOR (2006-2008) Scope of work: SSA, MDM, KGBV and NPEGEL. Scale of work: 5% of the elementary schools/ EGS/ AIE centers. At least 1% of the schools should be visited within 1 month of the start of the academic year. All allotted districts to be visited in 2 years. Time frame: 2 years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Reporting every six months for 25 % of Districts allotted to them. Process: SPO & DPO must share latest physical, financial progress reports with MI as per TOR. MI would submit their reports to SPO at the draft level and after discussion, finalize their reports. SPO on receipt of the draft report would give their comments immediately. If the MI receives no comments within a month, the MI can finalize the report. Amount Allocated: Rs. 75,000/- per District, Further providing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for Report writing of six months reports for all the districts ) MOUs 41 MIs have signed MOU for undertaking Monitoring activities as per the TOR 2006-2008 2005-06 engaged on revised TOR’s with clarity on scope of work, 17 clear items to be monitored. 3

4. Key Items to be Monitored Opening of Schools Civil Works Textbooks School Grants Teachers and Teachers Training Teacher Learning Material (TLM) grants EGS & AIE/NRBC/RBC Children with Special Needs (CWSN) Functioning of the VEC Staffing at State and district level DISE Research and Evaluation NPEGEL KGBV Additional items during the school visit Any other issues relevant to SSA implementation Mid day meal scheme (MDM) 4

5. Progress of Monitoring Institutions (MI) reports for 2 years (2006-07 & 2007-08) Available number of Reports : 155 (94 %) out of a total of 165 reports Districts covered : 563 (96 %) out of total 589 district allotted Utilization of MI feedback At National Level MIs participated in the Regional Review meetings of SSA and shared their field observations on the implementation of SSA. Representatives of MIs have participated in the Appraisal AWP&B 2008-09. Key observation of MI reports were shared during PAB and factored into PAB decisions on AWP&B’s of States/UTs. MIs participate in the Joint Review Mission (JRM). MI reports in public domain on website & widely shared. At States/UTs Level MI reports are acted upon. States further engaged MIs for research, capacity building & more district reviews. 5 5

6. Revised TOR (2008-2010) • Scope of work: • SSA, KGBV,NPEGEL & MDM. • Scale of work: • 5% of the elementary schools/ EGS/ AIE centers. • At least 1% of the schools should be visited within 1 month of the start of the academic year. • All allotted districts to be visited in 2 years. • Time frame: • 2 years i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. w. e. f. 1.08.2008 • Reporting every six months for 25 % of Districts allotted to them. • Period: 1st Six months of 2008-09: 1.8.2008 to 31.01.2009, 2nd six months of 2008-09: 1.2.2009 to 31.07.2009. • 1st Six months of 2009-10 1.8.2009 to 31.01.2010, 2nd six months of 2009-10: 1.02.2010 to 31.07.2010 • Districts should not be duplicated during the two year period 2008-2010. • Process: • SPO & DPO must share latest physical, financial progress reports with MI as per TOR. • MI would submit their reports to SPO at the draft level and after discussion, finalize their reports. • SPO on receipt of the draft report would give their comments immediately. • If the MI receives no comments within a month, the MI can finalize the report. • Amount Allocated: • Rs.75,000/- per District, • Further providing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for Report writing of six months reports for all the districts ) • Priority of Monitoring: • The MI should give emphasis on close monitoring of Special focus Districts notified under the SSA. • Status of the MOUs (2008-2010): • Received 39 MOU’s for undertaking monitoring work for 34 States/UTs. This include 2 New MIs (XISS, Ranchi, Jharkhand and IIT Madras, Tamil Nadu) • 1 MOUs are awaited from Guwahati University, Assam 6

7. Status of Release of funds to MIsduring the year 2006-08, 2008-2010 1st six months of 2006-07 (1.04.2006 to 30.09.2006) released funds to 40 MIs amounting to Rs. 105.15 lakhs 2nd Six months of 2006-07 ( 1.10.2006 to 31.03.2007) released funds to 34 MIs amounting to Rs. 89.33 lakhs. 1st six month of 2007-08 (1.04.2006 to 30.09.2006) released funds to 32 MIs amounting to Rs. 98.20 lakhs 2nd Six months of 2007-08 ( 1.10.2007 to 31.03.2008) Released funds to 24 MIs amounting to Rs. 78.45 lakhs. Out of 40 MIs, 39 MIs have signed MoU for 2008-10. Release for the First Year (2008-09) 1st six month (1.08.2008 to 31.01.2009) released funds to 38 MIs amounting to Rs. 122.99 lakhs. Carry forward permission being sent to Nagaland University. Release of funds to Manipur University, Imphal is under process. 7

8. MI feedback(Report for the period of 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2008 for 24 States and 2 UTs from 37 MIs) No Information Not on time Received School Grants in time 8

9. Key observations of MIs report for the period 1.10.2007 to 31.03.2008 1. Andaman & Nicobar Name of the MI: Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata District Covered: Andaman & Nicobar • Schools visited in Wimberlygunj is quite meticulous in keeping record of its facts and figures. • Though substantial portion of the infrastructure has already put in place, many of the relocated schools visited in Car Nicobar are still being operated from temporary locations. • Government Primary School at Lorozig is being run from a temporary shade hoisted with the help of bamboo poles and dry leaves. The school is located in forest land and it appears that no construction of permanent/semi-permanent structure is being allowed by the Forest department. As a result, the school is in bad shape. • The school has an enrollment of 15 boys and 10 girls, out of which 12 boys and 8 girls were present on the day of the visit. Both the teachers were also present. 9

10. 2. Andhra Pradesh Name of the MI: National Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad Districts Covered: Anantapur, Chittoor, Guntur, Hyderabad, Kadapa, Medak, Nizamabad, Nellore and Ranga Reddy • School grants in all the sampled districts delayed in this academic year. • It is observed by the MI from the field visit, the delay in release of school grants is affecting the implementation of SSA interventions not up to the desired expectations. • It is also observed during the field visits that vidya volunteer’s honorarium is not being paid regularly since reopening they have not been paid. • Most of the research studies taken up were not completed due to lack of monitoring, delay in approval and sanctions. Even for sanctioned project there is huge delay of release of grants to the institutions hampered the timely submission of research reports. 10

11. 3. Arunachal Pradesh Name of the MI: Rajiv Gandhi University, Itanagar Districts Covered: Upper Subansiri, Kurung Kumey and Dibang valley • 100% funds utilized under Civil Works • 91% civil works have been completed by 31.03.08. • Teacher grants of Rs. 500/- has also been disbursed to all the teachers to prepare the teaching learning materials by using the locally available materials. 11

12. 4. Assam Name of the MI: Gauhati University, Guwahati Districts Covered: Jorhat, Sibsagar, Dibrugarh, Tinsukia & Kokrajhar • TLM grant has been released to all the sample schools but it was observed that the school teachers were not serious enough in utilizing the TLM grant. • No provision of Research & Evaluation at district level in all the 5 districts visited by the MI Team. • Infrastructural and maintenance grant was utilized by the schools but schools were not prompt in sending the utilization certificate to the concerned authority. • All the centres received maintenance grant and sent utilization certificate to the concerned authority. • All the sample schools in five districts have received school grant amounting Rs. 2000 + 5000/ - in the current financial year 2007-08 • In EGS centres the record keeping system was found to be systematic. • Further the record keeping system of head teacher in the schools needs correction to make it transparent and readily available for verification. 12

13. 5. Bihar (a) Name of the MI: Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi Districts Covered: Banka, Kaimur, Madhubani, Nalanda and Nawada • VSSs or BNSs are not maintaining a separate account of funds and material for construction. • School grant was released to the DPOs much after the lapse of the prescribed period of two months from the start of the academic session. For almost all the targeted schools in the State this grant was released by SPO. • In most of the schools TLE grant was spent on purchasing benches and desks for students. • Delayed release of this grant further postponed its availability to the V.S.S. • expenditure accounts are generally being maintained casually, not in proper system of accounting. • In some schools no accounting record or even passbook was shown by the VSS and school HM. • Almost 60 per cent VSSs are maintaining proper records of funds received and expenditure made out of these funds. It is true that records of funds and expenditure are being maintained by VSS but generally this responsibility is substantially shouldered by the school HM who keeps this record in his/her safe custody. • School grant received by VSS was generally utilized within the given financial year as per guidelines. • 86.84% schools utilized the entire school-grant. • VSS bank accounts was verified from bank records available with these Samitis. (b) Name of the MI: A. N. Sinha Institute of Social ScienceDistricts Covered: Muzaffarpur, Patna, Saran, Siwan and Vaishali • All the sampled districts, the school grant was not released within two months of opening of schools. • In all the sampled districts, there is no research studies have been targeted to be undertaken in 2006-07 and 2007-08. Therefore, no research grant has been sanctioned for the above said period. 13

14. 6. Chandigarh Name of the MI: Punjab University District Covered: Chandigarh • Volunteer teachers are paid an honorarium of Rs. 1000/- per month mostly through a Cheque. Some of the cluster heads distribute honorarium in cash. Sometimes there is delay in payment as reported by many VT’s. They even feel that this amount is not a respectable honorarium for the kind of challenging work they are taking up. 14

15. 7. Chhattisgarh Name of the MI: Regional Institute of Education, Bhopal Districts Covered: Bastar, Dhamtari, Dantewada and Kanker • Dhamtari • The schools grants were released to all the schools in time but in many cases the passbooks were not updated. • It is found that nearly 30% of the amount earmarked for civil works was not utilized • Kanker • Amount earmarked for research purpose is not utilized. • Though the guidelines are supplied to schools, in some schools teachers and VEC members are ignorant of the purpose of this school grant. • It is also observed that some schools have not yet spent the TLE grant. • There is no ECCE Center operational under Innovative Head Funds. • Most of the schools received school grant and have also spent the fund. 15

16. 8. Dadra & Nagar Haveli Name of the MI: Indian Institute of Education, Pune Districts Covered: Dadra & Nagar Haveli • School grant, TLM grant have been sent to the cluster very late in February 2008. From the schools visited it was found that the schools did not have a properly maintained cash book. It was observed that there was no separate Bank account of each school. Cluster head has given the grant in cash. However, the teacher did not remember when this grant was received . In most of the schools visited, it was found that the TLM grant was not properly used. • No Innovative activities like ECCE, Girls Education and Computer aided learning included in the AWP & Budget 2007-08 • Due to lack of human resources, implementation of the AWP & B activities lag behind. Programmes such as EGS-AIE, CWSN, Girls Education, Computer Aided Learning have not taken off as yet. Apart from this, grant to the schools have been disbursed at the end of the financial year, i.e. in February 2008. This may be the result of an entirely different administration of the U.T. or little importance given to primary education. • The U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli has not appointed any person for Research and Evaluation intervention. Hence, no research study has been undertaken since the SSA has been started. 16

17. 9. Daman & Diu Name of the MI: MS University of BarodaDistricts Covered: Daman & Diu • Daman • School grants were released to schools during August and guidelines were issued for the utilization of the grants. • Schools received TLM grants and records of the utilization of grants were not available with high schools. • Diu • School development funds were used to procure stationary, calculator, tape recorder, cupboard, dustbin, glass, TV and garden equipment. Repairing grant was used for painting, electrical works, black board and slogan writing etc. jobs. • VEC members were taking interest in the matters like regularity of teachers and students,, teaching in the school, availability of grants. 17

18. 10. Delhi Name of the MI: Centre for the Study of Developing Societies District Covered: South West Delhi, West Delhi and North West Delhi • No TLE funds were received by the school till March 2008. • funds were received almost at the end of the financial year. Due to recurring delay in the release of funds schools were unable to make effective use of funds. • most of sampled school has not used school grant and repair and maintenance grant in the current academic year. 18

19. 11. Goa Name of the MI: S.N.D.T. College Of Education (IASE), PuneDistrict Covered: North Goa and South Goa Period: 1st October 2006 to 31st March 2007 • South Goa • Guidelines were provided regarding utilization of school grant. • Almost all the schools have utilized 100% of the last year and almost 60% grant of the current financial year. • North Goa • Almost all the schools have utilized 100% of the last year and almost 70% grant of the current financial year. 19

20. 12. Gujarat (a) Name of the MI: MS University of Baroda, VadodaraDistricts Covered: Bharuch, Dahod, Panchmahals and Vadodara • No entry in the pass books and no vouchers are some of the matter to be looked into. There were cases of funds not required also. (b) Name of the MI: Sardar Patel Institute of Economic and Social Research, AhmedabadDistricts Covered: Banaskantha and Jamnagar • School repairing grant is provided to the schools according to the requirement. Every CRC is given a monthly grant of Rs. 2000 as contingency grant. • The teachers are guided by the officers from district level, BRCCs, CRCCs on the effective use of TLM grant. • Instruction has been issued for utilization of TLM grant to every school. • There is no delay in receiving TLM grants. 20

21. 13. Haryana Name of the MI: Kurukshetra University, KurukshetraDistricts Covered: Gurgaon , Kaithal, Mahindergarh, Panipat and Sonipat • VECs did not bring their accounts books on the day of MI’s visit to their respective schools, for its verification. • MI team found that in some schools records was not at all maintained. • Release of Funds for schools Grant: As per the information, the funds for school grant for 2007-08 were released in August to December, 2007 to the VECs in all the five districts. The grants have been received in the schools by cheques and it takes a month or so to get the cheques cleared. • Reason, as specified by the schools, was that the disbursing agencies have accounts in different banks and the schools have their accounts in still different banks. • Grants are released quite late; therefore it takes a lot of time to utilize the grants. • In most of the schools of the district's the grants have still not been utilized. • Many teachers/head teachers complained that there were no specified guidelines to utilize the grants. The said grant is released for the beautification (Rs. 2000/-) and maintenance (Rs. 5000/-) of the school campus, however the teachers have been utilizing the same for other purposes. • Date of Receiving TLM Grant: All the sample schools of the five districts had received the TLM grant. The sample schools reported that they received the said grant in the month of September 2007/ January 2008. They opined that the grant should have been disbursed within one or two months of the commencement of academic session. Since the grant has been received quite late, these were lying unutilized in the records of their bank passbooks. 21

22. 14. Himachal Pradesh Name of the MI: Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla Districts Covered: Sirmour , Lahaul Spiti and Shimla • The VECs are not maintaining separate account of funds because technical personnel is appointed to look into these processes of SSA programme itself and all funds are maintained in the school and utilized through VECs in Sirmour District. • It was verified in the sampled schools in the district that school grant, teachers grant, maintenance grant and VEC grant have been distributed to them in the month of August/ Sept. 2007. • Schools have complete freedom in the utilization of the said grants. • EVs are given an honorarium of Rs. 1000/- p.m. which is not being paid monthly. • The MI during its visit found that VECs are not maintaining proper records of funds. Record is maintained by the schools but funds cannot be utilized without the consent of VECs. 22

23. 15. Jammu & Kashmir (b) Name of the MI: University of JammuPeriod: 1st October 2006 to 31st March 2007Districts Covered: Udhampur • Schools were not utilizing it according to the guidelines of SSA as observed by the Monitoring institute and the teachers revealed it was due to the lack of proper information at their disposal. • School grant released during the month of August in 1660 schools in Udhampur district. (b) Name of the MI: University of Kashmir Districts Covered: Anantnag, Pulwama and Baramulla Period: 1st April 2007 to 30th September 2007 • The school children have been found reading in the open air. Another building of BRC constructed near Boys Middle School Lardkipora Zone Doru by the Self Help Group of Engineers. The building is complete but has not been taken over by the Block authorities yet due to some unknown reasons. Some outstanding balance amount lying with the Education authorities and therefore the building has not been taken over and is nonfunctional. • All the visited schools have received and utilized the school grant. However, in some of the zones viz; Achabal, Shangus and Doru, the grants have not been released by ZEO’s in time. In some of the visited schools in educational Zone Bidder the school grant has not been released since 2007. • The MI team observed that in Doru, Shangus, Achabal and Bidder Zones. In Bidder and Shangus Zones TLM grant has not released by the Zonal Officers for the last two years. 23

24. 16. Jharkhand Name of the MI: XLRI, Jamshedpur Districts Covered: Garhwa, Gumla, Lohardaga, Chatra, Koderma and Palamu • School are receiving funds regularly so there is no problem faced as yet. • All the teachers in the schools have received TLM grant. Also grant was not received in time. 24

25. 17. Karnataka (a) Name of the MI: Institute for Social & Economic Change, BangaloreDistricts Covered: Bellary, Bagalkote, Koppala and Gulbarga • All schools had received TLM grant. While large majority of them have received the same either in June or July. • Previous year record shows full utilization. • As seen from the AWP&B the district has allocated Rs. 29.274 lakh towards Research, Evaluation and Supervision. The physical target set for the same is 2091. But sadly not a single pie has been utilized under this. The district needs to immediately attend to this. (b) Name of the MI: Regional Institute of Education, Mysore Districts Covered: Hassan, Davangere, Raichur and Bidar • Hassan • SDMC is maintaining separate accounts of funds and construction materials it was found to be yes in all the schools. • 89% of the schools used it for repairs and maintenance, stationary and essential items, paying electricity bill etc. • Aided school teachers have not received the grants. While, the state indicates that all the government and aided school teachers have been given the grants. • 92% school maintenance a proper records for the funds received by the SDMC 25

26. 18. Kerala Name of the MI: Centre for Development Studies TrivandrumDistricts Covered: Palakkad, Malappuram and Wayanad • There was no discrepancy. All eligible teachers reported that they had received the TLM grants. • It is clear from the records that all schools received the TLM grant by the beginning of July. • School grants approved in last financial year. These funds were released to the district by the middle of July and the schools received the grants by the end of July. • The teacher grant was given to the teachers in the month of June. Most of the school teachers reported that the school resource group collectively purchased the teaching learning materials as suggested by individual teachers. The grant was well used. • The schools received the maintenance grants in the month of August. The grant was well used. • SMC kept a separate account of funds and materials for construction. 26

27. 19. Lakshadweep Name of the MI: Centre for Development Studies Trivandrumperiod: 1st October 2006 to 31st March 2007Districts Covered: Lakshadweep • All teachers have reported to have received the TLM grant. The SPO has issued specific guidelines for utilization of TLM grants by teachers/schools. It is clear from the records that all schools receive the TLM grant in the first week of July. More than 90 per cent of the schools have used the grants by the end of August. • School grants are distributed to schools by the end of July. Guidelines have been issued to the schools on how to utilize this grant. Most of the grant is used before the end of December. • Schools receive the teacher grants by the beginning of July. The grant is well used. • There is no delay in receipt of grants. But there is delay in getting the works done. • In islands, it is difficult to get things done. 27

28. 20. Madhya Pradesh (a) Name of the MI: Madhya Pradesh Institute of Social Science Research, UjjainDistricts Covered: Dindori, Sidhi, Bhind, Seoni, Panna and Chhatarpur • The school funds were released in July in Bhind, Chhatarpur, Dindori, and Seoni districts wheres in Panna and Sidhi districts the funds were released in the month of August. • Guidelines have been issued to the schools by the Zila Shiksha Kendra explaining the process of utilization of this grant in all the districts. • TLM grant was released in the months of July, August and September. RSK and ZSKs have issued instructions with respect to utilization of this grant to all the schools. (b) Name of the MI: Tata Institute of Social Science, MumbaiDistricts Covered: Balaghat, Chhindwara, Jabalpur, Katni, Khargone and Narsinghpur • The school grant is used for almost all-purposes. Not only is it used for buying stationeries and TLM but it is used for whitewashing, ramps, repair, radio, I-card chair and table and gift item etc. this shows that it is put to a wide variety of use. • As many as 17(23%) schools from Katni have reported that they have not received TLM grant by March 2008 28

29. 21. Maharashtra (a). Name of the MI: SNDT College of Education (IASE), Pune Districts Covered: Raigad, Jalgaon and Pune • Almost all schools have utilized 100% funds in all sampled districts. (b). Name of the MI: Indian Institute of Education, PuneDistricts Covered: Chandrapur, Buldana, Akola and Amravati • Chandrapur • School grants reached schools at the end of September 2007. from the schools visited it was found that in most of schools this grant was not yet used. • Buldhana • The TLM grant was distributed to all the 10876 eligible teachers. The amount of Rs. 54.24 lakh was released by the district on 30 June 2007. but as this grant is sent through the sub districts to each school, it takes about 4 to 5 months to receive these grants. In most of the schools visited, it was found that TLM grant was not used up to Dec. 07. • Out of the provision made, about 31.39% ( Rs. 981.65 lakh) is for Civil work, and more than 50% of this has been spent and reflects in the expenditure incurred up to 31 January 2008, • However, against the provision made for, intervention for out of school children, Remedial teaching, Children With Special Needs, Innovative activities and Research and Evaluation etc. it is seen that the amount that should have been used is not spent up to 31 January 2008. 29

30. 22. Manipur Name of the MI: Manipur University, Manipur Districts Covered: Churachandpur and Chandel • Reports from the field visit to the schools shows that there are discrepancies in matters relating to school grants, no accurate informations are available as to how many schools actually received this grants. • It was found during visit that the respective schools has not received the one time grant. The Headmasters/headmistress also do not have any idea about this programme. • The targeted number of newly recruited teachers during 2007-08 is 227 for orientation for 30 days which is kept in abeyance as fund for the purpose is not sanctioned so far since the inception of training. • The VEC are formed but hardly functioning. There is no regular meeting . There is no separate record that are maintained properly. 30

31. 23. Meghalaya Name of the MI: North Eastern Hills University, ShillongDistrict Covered: South Garo Hills • Regarding the release of funds, it was reported that the funds released by the State Project Office took long and till date the release of fund for 07-08 is yet to take place due to late approval of the plan. • It was found that the district was one year late in releasing the fund and the schools are yet to receive the funds for 07-08 in April 2008. It was reported that the fund have been released late from the State Project Office by the SPD and as such there is delay in releasing the fund to the schools. 31

32. 24. Mizoram Name of the MI: Mizoram UniversityDistricts Covered: Saiha and Lawngtlai • All the schools have received the said school grant for the year 2008-09 within March or April. • All the sample schools from both districts utilise the school grant for the maintenance of school buildings, play-ground, purchase of utensils for MDM, furniture, etc. However, maintenance of records for utilization of this grant is not upto the mark in many schools in both districts. • Received TLM grant within three months from the commencement of the academic session. It may be noted that new academic session for schools in Mizoram begins on 16th January. • As per the information received from the DPCs Saiha and Lawngtlai, they have not sanctioned any research project during 2006-07 and 2007-08. • However, the funds released under the head research evauation for the TA/DA of BRCCs and CRCCs etc with regard to their visits to the schools under their jurisdictions in relation to monitoring and evaluation of various SSA activities. 32

33. 25. Nagaland Name of the MI: Nagaland UniversityPeriod: 1st April 2006 to 31st September 2006District Covered: Dimapur and Phek • The funds are released during the month of March and April and guidelines are circulated. • EVs for EGS are paid in cash Rs. 1000/- p.m. by DMA as EVs have no bank account. • Research facility for evaluation is not extended. 33

34. 26(a). Orissa Name of the MI: NKC Centre for Development Studies, Bhubaneswar Districts Covered: Gajapati, Rayagada, Keonjhar and Mayurbhanj • MIs have crosschecked that this grant has been released to school within this time during 2007-08. The release has been delayed as late as September 2007 in Gajapati District. This has been crosschecked and found correct by the MIs. • Each VEC is expected to submit an UC after fully utilizing the school grant within end of every financial year. But only a few VECs of the sample Districts (ranging from 4.7% in Rayagada to 44.1% in Bargarh District) have submitted the UC. • Many schools in the sample Districts (ranging from 91.8% in Sambalpur to 55.9% in Bargarh District) have not correctly mentioned the receipt and expenditure of school grant in the cash book. This has occurred because the VECs have not been trained in accounts keeping by the DPOs. • In Keonjhar District and Mayurbhanj District, the school grant has not been withdrawn and hence the receipt and expenditure has not been mentioned in the Cash Book till 30-9-07. • In 2007-08, only a few schools of Rayagada (2.4%) and Bargarh (4.3%) Districts have utilized the school grant in activities not prescribed in the school grant guidelines. • The EVs are paid Rs. 1750 /- as monthly honorarium. They are paid through bank account of VECs. The EVs of Rayagada District have received their honorarium for September 07 in October 07 whereas in other Districts the EVs have not received it till the October 2007. The MIs have crosschecked the DPO data in this regard and have found them to be correct. 34

35. 26(b). Orissa Name of the MI: Dr. PM Institute of Advanced Study in Education, SambalpurDistricts Covered: Bolangir, Bargarh and Sambalpur • TLM grant was released from the district office in June, 2007. The District Project Office has also supplied the TLM guideline to teachers regarding the utilization of the grants. • TLM grants have been received by the schools, it was not disbursed to teachers for utilization. • Even the TLM grants of previous year also was not fully utilized by the schools by the dates of visit. 35

36. 27. Puducherry Name of the MI: Pondicherry University District Covered: Yanam • As per the SSA direction Rs. 2000/0 as school grant and Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance grant per school was sanctioned and released to all the 20 government schools visited. The monitoring team found that all 20 schools that are provided with these grants were used to purchase the school needs and maintaining the school. • Regarding the utilization of this grant almost all schools had used this amount properly for the benefit of the students in time. • The TLM grant was used in procuring teaching aids • With regard to the civil works the funds was not used by the schools for construction of additional class room and toilet, it is noticed by the team that many schools are in need of new class rooms and compound walls to many schools. • The bill and vouchers are not submitted by the teachers in time. This has to be monitored by a Junior Account Officer periodically. • Few schools VEC have not even opened the registers, but the authorities themselves had spent the money without passing resolution in VEC. The cash books were also not maintained properly. The team fund that many records were not updated. • In few schools the Headmasters are not able to produce their Cash Book and VEC register because at the time of visit the registers are not in the office. So, it should be insisted no official records should be taken out of the school premises and it should be kept for inspection at any time. • The fund allocated to the schools for maintenance/school grants were not used in time, i.e, during the particular academic year for which the amount is sanctioned. In many schools account balance was too high. • The teachers were not submitted their accounts for the TLM amount received to the concerned Headmasters. The team found that the school administration didn’t care for it. 36

37. 28. Punjab Name of the MI: Punjab University, Chandigarh District Covered: Amritsar, Bathinda, Gurdaspur, Nawanshahr and Sangrur • Many schools of district Amritsar reported to have received maintenance grant in October 2007. • Most of the schools reported to have received maintenance grant in September 2007. • School repair and building repair were stereotyped responses regarding utilization of this grant. • TLM in district Bathinda was distributed in September, 2007. • Most of the schools of all the blocks in District Nawanshahr reported to have received TLM in November, 2007. • Volunteer teachers get a salary of Rs. 1000/- each. Volunteer teachers are paid their honorarium of Rs. 1000/- mostly by cheque through the head teacher • VEC keeps separate account of funds and materials for construction. A few sample cheeks of passbooks were done. 37

38. 29. Rajasthan (a) Name of the MI: Institute of Development Studies, JaipurDistrict Covered: Chittorgarh, Dungarpur, Jaisalmer and Pali • 90% of the sample schools had received school facility grants. All the sample schools have utilized the schools facility grant. • Majority of the schools use the money to purchase mid day meal pots, educational material, library books, library equipment, furniture, diaries and cleaning, plantation and decoration of schools building. • Majority of the sample schools had received TLM grant at the time of field visit. • All the teacher who were eligible to receive TLM grant are receiving. (b) Name of the MI: National Instititue of Administrative Research, MussoorieDistrict Covered: Tonk, Sikar, Alwar, SawaiMadhopur and Jaipur • School grant was released to all the sampled schools. The school grants in about 80 percent sampled schools has been utilized for purchasing the utensils of Mid Day Meal in district Tonk. • In Tonk district 2025 teachers of upper primary school are eligible for the grant whereas the grant has been released to 3093 teachers of upper primary schools. 38

39. 30. Sikkim Name of the MI: University of North Bengal, DarjeelingDistrict Covered: East Sikkim • Whenever, grant is available, the district transfers such grant directly to the Chairpersons of the SMCs. The schools normally gets grants only after the submission of utilization certificate of the previous year. • The schools visited by the M1 observed that every HM keeps sound records with proper documentation of every kind of grant received by the schools. • There has been deviation in providing the information relating to number of teachers eligible to receive TLM grants in the reports given by the State and the District. 39

40. 31. Tamil Nadu (a) Name of the MI: Alagappa UniversityDistrict Covered: Thoothukkudi, Tirunelveli and Virudhu nagar • 160 schools have received school grant within two months of opening of the school and in 20 schools it was delayed. • 106 schools have received school grant within two months of opening of the school and in 6 schools it was delayed in Thirunelvrli district. • 89 schools have received school grant within two months of opening of the school and in 22 schools it was delayed in Virudh Nagar district. • Release of funds to VECs is more prompt in Thoothukudi District followed by Virudhunagar District. Theni District is the most backward district as far as of funds is concerned. • Release of school grant in all the districts is also prompt. These components make SSA a grand success in Tamil Nadu. (b) Name of the MI: IIM, BangaloreDistricts Covered: Thiruvannamalai, Villupuram, Kanchipuram, Thiruvallurm Vellore and Chennai • SSA provides school grants to eligible schools of the district for their overall development. schools have received school grant by June 2006. • Information regarding the utilization of grants has also been given to respective VECs. • Only 62% of the schools utilize school grants after the approval of the VEC. The team observed that most of the schools do not get approval from VECs to spend the grants 40

41. 32. Tripura Name of the MI: Tripura UniversityDistrict Covered: West Tripura • No guideline has been issued to the schools on utilization of this grant. • DPO has not provideBlock wise distribution of school grantsaccording to approved grants, released grants and receipt grants in primary and upper primary schools for the current financial year. • The actual date of receiving school grants was not available in DPO Office. • Up to 31st March 2008 i.e. when MI team visited the schools, there were 100.00% schools that have received school grants, In utilization of TLM Grants, 57.23% schools are found to be very good. 41

42. 33(a). Uttar Pradesh Name of the MI: Giri Institute of Social Science Institute, LucknowDistrict Covered: Gonda, Ambedkar Nagar , Basti and Balrampur • The approved grant has been duly released in the VEC account for both primary and upper primary schools on October 25, 2007. • There had been the full utilization of grants in the heads like construction of boundary walls, rams construction and construction of toilets in the schools. • The utilization of grants was reported only 71% in primary schools and 60% in upper primary schools. Though it was reported fully utilized in the heads of rams construction. Rams and toilets in upper primary schools. • Over half of the VEC’s of both the categories of schools did not have accounts for school related construction work/ items. • The SSA Office should take initiatives to check the maintenance of various account records of VEC’s frequently. (b) Name of the MI: GB Pant Social Science Institute AllahabadDistrict Covered: Maharajganj, Kushinagar, Jaunpur, Azamgarh and Deoria • School grant has been approved and funds have been released. Guidelines for the utilization of funds have been issued to the schools time to time but the grants have been received very late. • Major proportion of the teachers have not received the TLM grant. • Funds are released for a host of inter school related activities like school building construction, improvement of the school facilities, toilets etc. • None of the sample schools had received full quota of grant, however, none has even fully utilized it. 42

43. 33(c). Uttar Pradesh Name of the MI: Centre of Advanced Development Research, LucknowDistrict Covered: Agra, Lalitpur, Mainpuri, Firozabad and Mathura • The funds for construction of KGBV building have been received but the construction of building was not started in Agra district. • The teaching learning material grant was received by only 85.7 percent primary schools and 81.8 percent upper primary schools. (d) Name of the MI: University of Lucknow, LucknowDistrict Covered: Baghpat, Gautama Budh Nagar, Ghaziabad and JP Nagar • There is delayed payment of honorarium to para-teachers despite timely receipt of the grant. • Money has been withdrawn from account in some cases but construction work has not been started. 43

44. 34. Uttarakhand Name of the MI: National Institute of Administrative Research, Mussoorie District Covered: Tehri, Dehradun and Rudraparyag • The school grants have been released to all the eligible schools. • Teaching learning material grants have been released to all the above mentioned teachers posted in primary and upper primary schools respectively. • Beautification and better upkeep of the school building has been taken as a strategy under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme so that more children can be attract for enrollment. For this purpose, the policy of providing Rs. 2000/- each school every year has been adopted. • The power as well as responsibility to receive and utilize various grants under SSA for school management and development along with detailed guidelines has been given to the village education committees. 44

45. 35. West Bengal (a) Name of the MI: Indian Institute of Management, KolkataDistrict Covered: Maldah, D. Dinajpur and Darjiling • The school grants cannot be utilized until the schools received the circular from the DPO for its utilization. • Schools received the TLM grant after a delay of more than three months. • VEC/WEC was maintaining proper records of funds in 65% of total and 87% of responded schools. So, the VEC/WEC in most schools was maintaining proper records of funds. (b) Name of the MI: Visva-Bharati UniversityDistrict Covered: East Medinipur, West Medinipur, Nadia and South 24 Pargana • Released grants in the month of August 2007. There is no such guidelines issued by the SPO, the funds for school grants uses by the school. • Fund released by the DPO gets delayed by a couple of months for payments. • Out of 74 sample schools 14.00% schools have reported for non receipt of the grant. • The minimum educational qualifications of the EVs are class-X pass and they used to get very irregular payment of Rs. 1500/- p.m. from local Bank. • The financial provision of training of VEC personnel is inadequate in compared to the training of others. • Maintenance of accounts in the schools is very poor and not serious about submission of U/Cs. 45