Report of the Sub-Committee on Capacity Building and Convergence

1. Report of the Sub-Committee on Capacity Building and Convergence PRESENTED BY: BK Sinha DR MN Roy, Dr RK Singh, Phani Kumar

2. Background of the Report • Sub Committee constituted in the second meeting of the Committee( 31st October 09); • Terms of Reference of the Sub Committee: • Access the resource envelope made available for capacity building through various schemes; • Determine the extent of use of IEC/ICT and the handicaps thereto; • Assess the extent of convergence in these programs at various levels; • Prepare a concept and national framework for capacity building. The frame work should include the definition of capacity building, principles of capacity building and the structures at national, state, district and sub-district level needed for capacity building.

3. Present Status of National Capacity Building Framework (NCBF) • NCBF – First comprehensive guide to planning and implementing capacity development investments for local governments. • NCBF supported some of the critical gaps other than training that are necessary for the capacity development of local governments • complete cycle of training • provision to access technical support • provision for availing services to cover the functional gaps at the PRI level • provision training using the cascading model • Most states have started using a combination of e-based learning approaches • satellite training centers • video conferencing facilities • telephone help lines • Limitations • far too focused on individual training and may not entirely address organisational or institutional capacity gaps. • does not require the States to conduct a capacity needs assessment for each district • omits pre-electoral training • limited to BRGF districts • no integration of line and sectors in capacity building • un-realistic costing of capacity building training programme

4. Current Issues • Underutilisation of resources available under the flagship programs of rural development. • A substantial amount of resources committed for the capacity development under BRGF has not been utilised. • A manifestation of the weak capacity of SIRDs, the “lynchpin service providers”, and other nodal agencies. • No social audit of capacity building • Non-existent sub district training infrastructure

5. Institution Building • Sine qua non to make SIRDs self sufficient and self renewing. • to set up institution to capacity building at the district level • to encourage learning from the people process • to create a network of institution for capacity building • Key role of civil society organisationsand private sector actors in developing capacities for local governance. • NIRD as national level ‘lynchpin service provider’ with the mandate to coordinate national level activities and facilitate collaboration among capacity development service providers dispersed across the country.

6. Why a new framework? • NCBF not complete, mostly confined to training • NCBF provides limited flexibility to States • Provision for institutionalisation of Best Practices • Lack of a common framework that could be used for the need assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of capacity development projects • The report of the first independent review mission for BRGF recommends developing format/template and guidelines for Capacity Needs Assessment for capacity development planning while allowing flexibility and innovation at State level

7. New Framework New Capacity Development Programme -NCDP- Direct Democratic Process PRIs/ ULBs Institutions Participatory process Electoral Gram Sabha Monitoring & Evaluation Delivering Structure Community/ CBos/ SHGs/ other Groups Individual Legal/ Policy/ Guidelines/ Framework State Constitution

8. Objectives • Institution capacity in planning, implementation and self evolution • Self Reliance and self support • Create pressure on other institution for assertion of their share • Capacities of Dalits, Tribals, OBCs, Minorities & Women should be brought at par with other • LSG Should be able to assert vis-à-vis. Bureaucracy, State and National Government • Different tiers of PRIs institution should be able to develop ownership and template for planning & action • Should be able to create & function in a network

9. Features • Common to the entire country • Provided the broad framework with provision for local level variation • Common feature include • monitoring & evolution • funding • accounting procedure • MIS based reporting • Electronics transfer, tracking and accounting • Integration with capacity building of all other programmes • Composite mode of training • 8 Sectoral Modules for training • Common content delivery in core areas

10. Proposed Structure Cascading Mode Distance Mode ToT NIRD e-learning Mobile Device Private Radio Partner Self Learning Mode Master Trainers State SIRD ETCs/DTC Ground Truthing MTs MTs MTs Block Panchayat Training Peoples Training Institute

11. Areas of Concern • Inadequate in funding personal & infrastructure • Highly segmented & Sectoral • No TNA & preparation of Training Profile • Inadequate reporting • No Social Audit of Training Delivery • Not demand driven • People’s initiatives not captured

12. Training Delivery Structure

13. Course objective Expected Learning out Come Subject Course Evaluations Sub-Subject CD Institutions Topic Course Content & Self Thought Mode Learning out Come Sub-Topic Games Case Studies Audio Visuals Module Mapping

14. Role of PRIs • Largest component (44L) • Centrality of the PRIs • Integrated training concept • Monitoring & Evaluation • MIS • Social Audits • TNA

15. Infrastructure • Creation of National Vision • Disaggregated vision at different level • Clear delineation of personal • Flexibility in personal policies • MIS • Use of ICT

16. Funding • National common funding pattern for CD • Fund allocation for training programme to be computed at per capita basis • 3 levels of funding to be clearly demarcated • Market & other linkages • Clear cut ear marking & integration of CD funds of all CSS into NCD funds • Audit

17. Legislative Framework • National Capacity development programme should be mandatory • Pooling of Capacity Building Training funds of all scheme into NCDP to be made mandatory • According to the Activity Mapping devolving of 3fs to be made mandatory by states • Implementation of the recommendations of 7th round table conferences

18. Capacity Building Matrix

19. Thank You