30 april 2014.doc

7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

1/31

Re-visioning Indias urban development programmes:An initiative to assess impacts of the JnNURM and frame alternativestrategies

1 IntroductionIndias urban centres, distributed across the country in the form of small,medium and large cities, accommodate 31.16% of the total population 1 .Between 2 1 and 2 11 Indias urban population rose from 2!6 million to3"" million 2 at a rate of 31.!% and by 2 31, it is e#pected to rise to 6million. 3 $conomic reforms ha e triggered in estments in cities whichha e increased growth and employment opportunities. &imultaneously,the population li ing in slums increased from '2.( million in 2 1 to 6'million in 2 11. In 2 ', when the )*I pro+ected that Indias urban

population would increase from 2!% to ( % by the year 2 21, it e#pectedthat cities would contribute about 6'% to the ) -. or cities to sustainincreased economic acti ities, it was imperati e that infrastructurefacilities such as power, telecom, roads, water supply and masstransportation, coupled with ci ic infrastructure, such as sanitation andsolid waste management be impro ed. or creating these infrastructureassets annual funding to the tune of /s.1",210 rores was estimated ( .

he need for a national le el initiati e that would enable 4Bs to cataly5ein estment ows in the urban infrastructure sector, coupled with reforminitiati es to strengthen go ernance mechanisms was recogni5ed. Inresponse to this, the )o ernment launched the 7n8 /9 in esting /s.66, !(.6' crores for renewal of 6' cities o er a period of se en years:2 ';2 12uality of life of urban areas.

The JnNURM framework ?s a agship pro+ect and the nations largest urban infrastructure andreforms mission, the 7n8 /9 outlines two focus areas in its 9issionstatement@ a< e=ciency in urban infrastructure and ser ice deli erymechanismsA and b< community participation, and accountability of urban

1 ensus of India 2 112 his is attributed to natural growth, rural population migrating in search of urban employment, andgraduation of illages into census towns. ensus 2 11 shows that the number of towns rose from'161 in 2 1 to "03' in 2 11.3 12 th i e ear -lan, -lanning ommission report4 http@CC+nnurm.nic.inCwp;contentCuploadsC2 11C 1C/ -D9* ;1;1.pdf

Draft funding proposal INHAF Version 2 Page 1 of 3130 April 2014

7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

2/31

local bodies : 4Bs< or parastatal agencies towards citi5ens. ' It was to setthe stage for public pri ate partnerships that would contribute in maEingthe cities Fin estor friendly 6 .G he 9ission consisted of two components@i< rban Infrastructure and )o ernance : I)< administered by the 9inistry

of rban e elopment , with a focus on pro+ects relating to water supplyand sanitation, sewerage, solid waste management, road networE, urbantransport, and rede elopment of old city areas A and ii< Basic &er ices forrban -oor administered by the 9inistry of Housing and rban -o erty?lle iation, focusing on pro+ects for pro iding shelter, basic ser ices, andother related ci ic amenities. ?iming for fast tracE planned de elopment,it encouraged reforms to impro e urban go ernance and maEe 4Bsnancially sound with sustained capacities for undertaEing new

programmes.

he e#pected outcome of the 7n8 /9 was speci ed as ha ing@ a< amodern and transparent budgeting, accounting, nancial managementsystem for all urban ser ice and go ernance functionsA b< an operationalcity;wide frameworE for planning and go ernanceA c< ensured access to abasic le el of ser ices for all urban residentsA d< nancially self;sustainingagencies for urban go ernance and ser ice deli ery, through reforms toma+or re enue instrumentsA e< local ser ices and go ernance in a mannerthat is transparent and accountable to citi5ensA and f< e;go ernanceapplications in core functions of 4BsC-arastatal resulting in reduced costand time of ser ice deli ery processes " .

o monitor and e aluate the 9ission, the )*I documented the status of pro+ects and -s and prepared sectoral checE lists. he concerned9inistries and irectorates set up a web;enabled programme and ascoring system to e aluate reforms at 4B and &tate le elsA appointedreform appraisal agenciesA conducted credit ratings of the 4Bs. ?nnualawards of e#cellence for infrastructure pro+ects, municipal reforms, andser ice deli ery impro ement were introduced. he -eer $#perience and/e ecti e 4earning :-$?/4< initiati e was instituted through the 8ationalInstitute of rban ?Jairs to e aluate pro+ects and reforms and record bestpractices. )*I stated that e aluation of the e#perience of implementationof the 9ission would be undertaEen before the commencement of

5 7n8 /9 9ission statement from the o=cial website@ http@CC+nnurm.nic.inC6 &hi aramaErishnan, 2 17 http@CCwww.+nnurm.co.inCoutcomes;of;+nnurm.htm


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

3/31

$le enth i e ear -lan, and if necessary, the program calibratedsuitably ! .

? Eey feature of the 9ission, which linEed a reforms based agenda to the

funds for nancing infrastructure pro+ects and ser ice deli ery, was basedon a re>uirement of the ? B which was the seed nancing agency. *f the23 reforms to be implemented at &tate and 4B le els, 13 weremandatory and the rest optional. &ome reforms aimed at whileinstitutionali5ing processes for citi5ens participation, while others aimedat impro ing urban go ernance and maEing 4Bs nancially sound withsustained capacities for undertaEing new programmes 0 . he e#pectedoutcomes were to be achie ed through implementation of these reforms,which would facilitate release of funds to implement pro+ects. * erall, theimplementation of pro+ects and reforms were intended to bring abouttransformations in the >uality of go ernance and ser ice deli ery, and inthe >uality of life in urban areas.

Role of ULBs under the JnNURMnder 9unicipal legislation, 4Bs or municipal corporations are typicallyresponsible for core functions concerning public health, welfare,regulatory functions, public safety, public infrastructure worEs, andde elopment acti ities. e elopment acti ities include planning foreconomic de elopment and social +ustice, implementing urban po ertyalle iation programs, and promoting cultural and educational programs,among others. Kith the launch of the 7n8 /9, most 4Bs of the chosencities began to re;orient their tasEs and priorities to a ail funds forimplementing de elopment pro+ects through reform acti ities. he rststep was to engage in planning acti ities to prepare a< ity e elopment-lans : -s< with a 2 ;2' years perspecti e and sector;wise identi cationof pro+ectsA and b< etailed -ro+ect /eports : -/s< that would meet theoperation and maintenance :*L9< costs o er the life;cycle of the pro+ect.or this the entre was prepared to gi e '% of their allotted funds as anincenti e. hen the 4Bs were e#pected to sign a 9emorandum of ?greement :9o?< with the &tate and the entre to forge a time boundagreement to implement the &tate and 4B le el mandatory and optionalreforms. *nce the -s and -/s were submitted and appro ed by the&tate and entre, and the 9o? was signed, the entre was e#pected to

8 http@CCwww.+nnurm.co.inCstructure;of;the;+nnurm;programCmission;ob+ecti es.htm9 &ee able 1 in ?ppendi# 1


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

4/31

release the 1 st installment of funds, termed as ?dditional entral?ssistance :? ?

7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

5/31

the state le el, reforms to rationali5e stamp duty and introduce rentcontrol were meant to increase re enue for 4Bs.

hus, the 788 /9 was designed to enhance the 4Bs with additional

nancial resources and technical help, pro iding them with a greater rolein city management. It brought about e#pectations of transformationswithin the 4B aimed to impro e e=ciency. By linEing a reforms basedagenda to the funds for nancing infrastructure pro+ects and ser icedeli ery the 7n8 /9 pro ided the 4Bs with a new frameworE forimplementing infrastructure pro+ects and reforming state and municipalurban policy. Kithin this frameworE, successful achie ement of thee#pected outcomes largely depended on the performance of the 4Bs,along with state and parastatal agencies, in implementing the reforms.

Citizen involvement under the JnNURM he 7n8 /9 frameworE emphasi5ed transparency and accountabilitycalling for participation of citi5ens. ? national echnical ?d isory )roup: ?)

7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

6/31

the state le el was intended to institutionali5e a participatory process forimplementation of 7n8 /9. It was to empower citi5ens and forge aciti5en; 4B interface for in ol ement and build ownership into decisions.*ther reforms such as internal earmarEing of funds for ser ices to rban

-oor, pro ision of basic ser ices and earmarEing 2'% de eloped land inall housing pro+ects for $K&C4I) were focused on issues concerning theurban poor and maEing the 9ission more inclusi e and responsi e to theirneeds. *nce again, eJecti e participation and inclusi eness depended onthe performance of the 4Bs and the state in implementing thesereforms.

Need for impact assessment of JnNURM?t the end of the se en year period of 7n8 /9, most cities had not beenable to complete the reforms and the appro ed pro+ects. his compelledthe go ernment of India to e#tend the scheme by two years :up to 2 1(uacies and problems,and causes for ineJecti e on;ground impacts and help identify gaps andshortcomings in the 9issions frameworE. 4essons drawn from theassessments, that identify achie ements as well as shortcomings of

7n8 /9, can pro ide the ne#t go ernment :post the 4oE &abha electionsuirement for bene ciary contribution for housing pro+ectsA andinade>uate monitoring guidelines. It was noted that these factors led

to neglect of the urban poors needs and also pro ed a disincenti e toinstituting an agenda for decentrali5ed go ernance and inclusi ede elopment.

urther, academic writing and public consultations and discussionsheld by community Cci il society groups note that the 7n8 /9 processhas not been transparent and participatory in the preparation of itye elopment -lans : -s< and etailed -ro+ect /eports : -/s

7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

16/31

these assessments of on;ground impacts, point to the fact that thesecond focus area of the 9ission statement has been neglected.

# "roblem and rationale for the initiative

* erall, the go ernments e aluations and public re iews of the 7n8 /9highlight that, in eJect, the e#pected outcomes of the 9ission were notmet. Khile these e aluations and re iews recommend changes to the

7n8 /9 frameworE, they are limited in their approach to the assessment.)o ernment commissioned e aluations highlight problems faced by 4Bsand recommend changes at the local body le el, but they do not re ectthe ground reality. hey largely relied on go ernment generated datamaEing little use of community or citi5en feedbacE. 2 hey recommendreforms that largely focus on increasing in estment to bolster capabilitiesAintroducing additional re;calibrated reforms to suit the city si5eA andincreasing nancial and managerial capacities of local bodies. Nariousacademic writings, state C city le el analytical reports, and case studiesre eal only selected problems. iti5en dri en eJorts focus on gaps andproblems with the 7n8 /9 frameworE and identify public priorities thatneed to be addressed by the local bodies. hey highlight that the 9issionhas problems with its design and call for participatory mechanisms toaddress public needs eJecti ely.

he following ndings of the e aluations and re iews are of importance@i< he se en year time period for the 4Bs to achie e all the 23

mandatory and optional reforms, without diJerentiating the aryingcapacities of the 4B had been too ambitious :9o , )*IuippedG to monitor apro+ect of this magnitude 21 : ?)

7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

17/31

< ransformations in municipal administration and >uality of urbango ernance at the 4B le el and on;ground impacts of reforms arenot re ealed by the current e aluationsA

i< )aps e#ist in peoples perception of the 9ission and what the )o t.

hopes to achie eAii< here is intensifying une enness in inter;urban and intra;urbande elopment, and a di ide in the le el of de elopment across largecities and small towns, post 7n8 /9, which highlights that Sone si5edoes not t all and in estment in large cities leads to neglect of small towns, raising >uestions of economic de elopment s. e>uityA

iii< ocus on linEing reforms to fund disbursement has limited theprogress of the 9ission and raised concerns on the nancial andoperational capacities of the go ernment bodies, thereby impactingability to achie e urban transformation that impro es ser ice deli eryand >uality of lifeA and

i#< ocus on pri ate sector in ol ement has in uenced the dynamics of pursuing an inclusi e and pro;poor agenda and addressing otherpublic priorities.

hus, all the e aluations recogni5e that there are se eral gaps in theframeworE of the 7n8 /9 that need to be clearly identi ed andaddressed. 8ow that the 9ission has completed its course, there is also aneed to measure the outcomes and assess impact of the reforms in termsof inclusi eness, accountability and transparency, which will address theperformance of the implementing agencies with respect to the secondfocus area of the 9ission statement.

3.1 hallenges for 4BsIn the current scenario of urbani5ation, the need to re;e aluate

7n8 /9 becomes imperati e. he rapid increase in urban populationplaces enormous stress on the urban infrastructure systems posingmany challenges. *ur cities continue to face issues concerninghousing for the urban poor, de cient ser ices, employment for poorand other pressures on infrastructure and the en ironmentalresources that may accelerate deterioration in >uality of life if notaddressed. -ost 7n8 /9 it was noted that the pattern of selection of cities for funds utili5ation and the linEing of funds to reformscompletion under 7n8 /9 led to increased regional disparities in the


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

18/31

degree of urbani5ation. oday our urban centres are under ariousstages of de elopment and are reeling from the impact of un nishedworE of 7n8 /9. Kith population li ing in slums showing an increase,a focus on pro;poor and inclusi e de elopment policy assumes

importance. *ur 4Bs are under immense pressure to perform anddeli er ser ices e=ciently and in a transparent and accountablemanner. o manage these challenges, eJorts need to be made in theareas of inclusi e cities, urban go ernance, funding, planning,capacity building and low income housing, as noted in the 12 th i e

ear -lan document. 22 In this conte#t, a re; isioning of future urbande elopment in estments to address these areas is necessary. Itmust be based on the assessments of 4Bs, the Eey staEeholder inimplementing the 7n8 /9. -articularly the 4Bs role in implementingreforms to achie e transparency, accountability and inclusi enessmust be e#amined.

3.2 he argument he go ernments recommendation of introducing capacity buildingreforms, both nancial and managerial, addresses the problems posedby 7n8 /9 partially. ?s noted by the H-$ , focus of future urbanin estments must shift from infrastructure de elopment to ser icedeli ery. 8o matter how much additional capital in estment is madein urban infrastructure, it will not result in impro ements in ser icedeli ery, and bring about e#pected impacts or bene ts, unless theprocesses of@ a< funds disbursementA b< planning, includingde elopment plan and pro+ect report preparation and appro alA cuestions to be answered are@

1. Khat are some gaps in the 7n8 /9 frameworE that ha e impactedthe 4Bs functions and ability to deli er ser ices to citi5ensQ

2. How ha e the 7n8 /9 reforms transformed municipaladministration and >uality of urban go ernance at the 4B le el,and how ha e they in uenced the ground and impacted the urbanciti5enQ Khat are the indicators of these transformations andimpactsQ

3. Khy has the 7n8 /9 not been eJecti e in achie ing democraticgo ernance and bringing about pro;poor and inclusi e urbande elopmentQ Khat role do 4Bs play in thisQ

(. Khy ha e 4Bs not performed well particularly with respect toreforms meant to achie e transparency, accountability andinclusi enessQ Khat impediments ha e they facedQ

'. Khat lessons can an assessment of the 7n8 /9, particularly fromthe 4B perspecti e, and with respect to implementing reformsmeant to achie e transparency, accountability and inclusi eness,oJer for future urban de elopment policyQ

his research acti ity calls for empirical studies to assess the performanceof the 4Bs. iti5en groups will be in ol ed in assessing 4Bsperformance in terms of impacts of the go ernance reforms implemented.?s a non;pro t organi5ation that focuses on ad ocacy in the areas of housing policy and inclusi e de elopment, Habitat orum :I8H?

7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

21/31

pro+ects, in estments, and institutional arrangements that shape urbanand rural settlements, within the frameworE of inclusi ity, e>uity, disasterresilience, and sustainability. I8H? s e#perience lies in ad ocacy andcapacity building acti ities in the areas of housing, policy, and inclusi e

de elopment focusing on issues of >uality of life, li elihoods and po erty.

?s an instrument of collaborati e thought and action, I8H? s strength isin its ability to networE and bring concerned parties with di erse oices onto a single platform to deliberate on ideas and acti ities. It includesmultiple staEeholders such as go ernment bodies, 8)*s, B*s, acti ists,academics, researchers, students, concerned professionals, responsibleentrepreneurs, and pro;acti e citi5ens.

In taEing this initiati e forward, I8H? seeEs to collaborate with se eralinstitutions and indi iduals ha ing similar concerns regarding 788 /9. Itwill worE in collaboration with academics, practitioners, acti ists, 8)*sand professionals to constitute a oalition. he oalition will be chargedwith the responsibility of assisting with the impact e aluation in chosencities and ad ocating for policy change at the central go ernment le el.I8H? s attempts to build partnerships and form a oalition ha e includeddiscussions and conversations with or!anizations such as *chool of .colo!%/ (nfrastructure and ,uman *ettlement Mana!ement/ ((.*T0*hi$pur/ ,owrah1 2dministrative *ta3 Colle!e of (ndia '2*C()/ ,%dera$ad1*chool of ,a$itat *tudies at T(**/ Mum$ai1 ,azards Centre/ +elhi1MarnataEa Molageri 8i asigala &amyutha &anghatane :MM8&&< / Ban!alore1M2*,2L/ une1 and C(4(C/ Ban!alore5 *ince this initiative is desi!ned towork incrementall%/ the e3ort to $uild partnerships is on0!oin!5 Newmem$ers are e6pected to $e included at di3erent stages and le els of acti ities. *nce the partners are on the pro+ect, the oalition will beformali5ed.

' Aim and ob(ectives his pro+ect assesses the 7n8 /9, using principles of good go ernance, toidentify gaps in its design and practice. It will e#amine the frameworEused to concei e, design, implement, e aluate and monitor the 9ission,to identify inade>uacies that ha e led to problems in the areas of democratic go ernance, inclusi e de elopment, and social and economice>uity. he problems concern the performance of local bodies in


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

22/31

implementing go ernance reforms and their outcomes and impacts onciti5ens. *utcomes include poor funds utilisation and pro+ect completion,lacE of public participation, failure to direct funds to address publicpriorities, and lacE of transparency and accountability in planning and

implementation. Impacts are in terms of increasing debt liabilities of localbodies, marginali5ation of urban poor, and lacE of focus on li elihoodissues. &peci cally, the pro+ect re iews the performance of local bodies inimplementing reforms meant to achie e transparency, accountability andinclusi eness, and seeEs citi5en feedbacE on their impact. he intent is tohighlight impediments faced by the 4Bs in addressing public prioritiesand to recommend policy mechanisms to ser e citi5ens better. he o erallob+ecti e is to ad ocate an alternati e frameworE for decentrali5edgo ernance, and pro;poor inclusi e urban de elopment.

'.1 *b+ecti esKith the aim of maEing policy recommendations for an alternati eframeworE for urban de elopment programmes, using principles of good go ernance, the ob+ecti es are@i< o de ne a set of criteria, and to design a methodology for

assessing performance of selected 4Bs in implementing reformsmeant to achie e transparency, accountability and inclusi enessA

ii< o determine outcomes of implementation of the reforms andimpediments faced by 4Bs in implementing themA

iii< o determine on;ground transformations and impacts of thereforms by soliciting citi5en feedbacEA

i < o identify gaps in the design and practice of 7n8 /9, bye#amining the intent of the reforms, outcomes at 4B le el andimpact in terms of on;ground bene ts to citi5ens, as Eey lessonsfor future urban de elopment policyA

< o de elop a set of recommendations for future urbande elopment policy with a focus on decentrali5ed go ernance, andpro;poor inclusi e urban de elopment, based on feedbacE from4Bs and citi5ensA and

i< o de elop ad ocacy material for an alternati e C new frameworEfor future urban de elopment policy and public in estmentprogrammes.


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

23/31

Khile the criteria will ser e as a benchmarE to measure performance,the outcomes and impacts of the good go ernance oriented reformsand citi5en feedbacE will ser e as a brief that underscores ma+orpitfalls to a oid and good practices to be followed. ogether, they will

pro ide a larger perspecti e on urban de elopment policy in thecountry.

) Methodolog**f the 23 reforms introduced under 7n8 /9 at the state and 4B le el, 13are mandatory and the others are optional. *n e#amining the intent ande#pected outcomes of the 23 reforms, 0 of them are e#pected to meetgoals of accountability, transparencyA 3 are pro;poor aiming towardsinclusi enessA " are address impro ement of 4B e=ciency P operationaland nancialA and ( are geared towards addressing planning processesand achie ing urban de elopment goals e=ciently. 2' he 12 reforms thataddress accountability, transparency and inclusi eness will be e#aminedand 4B performance in these reforms will be indicati e of theeJecti eness of the 9ission in meeting the good go ernance goals.

he intent of the initiati e is to maEe rational and practical suggestions tocontribute to future urban de elopment policy based on empirical studiesand feedbacE from the eld, speci cally the 4B and state o=cialsin ol ed in implementing the 7n8 /9, and from plannersCimplementers,citi5ens, urban poor groups, and e#perts. ? large component of theinitiati e will be geared toward going beyond criti>ue to build alternati edesign strategies through critical case studies and focused citi5en input,and by ad ocating for the incorporation of the strategies into future urbanpolicies and programmes. he oalition will be charged with the agendaof deliberating on policy issues, culti ating a support constituency of 9-s,94?s, municipal councilors, and carrying forward policy recommendationsto the go ernment of India.

6.1. -rocess diagram and time line@

25 &ee ?ppendi# 2@ ?B4$ 1 ; /$ */9& 4?&&I I ? I*8 B?&$ *8 I8 $8 ?8 $U-$ $ * *9$&


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

24/31

6.2. &teps in the process@i< hrough initial re iew of 7n8 /9 data and e aluation documents

the performance of states and 4Bs will be assessed for the 12chosen reforms.

ii< &peci c cases will be selected for further study from the 6' cities.In selecting the cases, four factors assume importance. Besides

7n8 /9 data, secondary sources such as media reports, academicwritings and case studies will pro ide data for these factors. hefactors include, in the order of importance, the following@1. sing reforms achie ement scores as published in the 7n8 /9

website, thea< * erall state performance in implementing reforms in allareasA andb< &tate and 4B performance in implementing the set of 12reforms, measured as a percent of the total 12 reforms, will beassessed. rom this analysis cities with high and lowperformance will be listed.

2. Best practices recognition and awards recei ed by 4Bs for anyof the 12 reforms.

3. unds utili5ation :measured as a percent of funds utili5ed to otal? ? released< to assess relation between reforms performance

and percent of funds utili5ed among those cities selected fromfactor 1.

(. -ro+ect completion :measured as a percent of pro+ects completedto pro+ects appro ed< to assess relation between reformsperformance and pro+ect completion rates for shortlisted cities.


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

25/31

'. *n;ground impacts of pro+ects and le el of participation asrecorded in media reports and case study analysis by otheragencies, and public consultations.

iii< o assess the outcomes and impact of reforms in transforming the

4Bs and the ground and in uencing citi5ens, empirical studiesin ol ing implementing agencies and citi5en groups will beconducted. he oalition of partners will worE with 4Bs andciti5ens to ad ocate for this initiati e.a< &taEeholder sur eys and inter iews will be conducted to assess

in ol ement and e#perience of implementing agencies includingo=cials of the 4B, state nodal agency, and centralgo ernment. he focus will be to understand the impact of theselected reforms on performance of 4B. he sur eys andinter iews will ascertain how reforms and pro+ects implementedby the 4Bs ha e contributed towards citi5en priorities, whatimpediments 4Bs faced in implementing the reforms and whatgaps do they percei e in the 7n8 /9 frameworE. It would alsoassess role of 4BsA whether 4Bs are empowered enough toimplement the reforms and whether the 7n8 /9 has enabledthem to perform and meet the e#pected outcomes.

b< ? participatory approach will be used to gather citi5ensperspecti es on 4B performance. eedbacE from citi5ens on4Bs response to their needs and on;ground impacts of reformsin terms of eJecti e go ernance, ser ice deli ery, access toser ices and li elihood opportunities, and pro;poor inclusi ede elopment will be gathered. iti5ens priorities will besolicited and established through micro;le el tools such as cityworEshops C public hearings, sur eys and inter iews.

i < he Eey ndings on outcomes, impacts and public priorities willhelp identify gaps in the 7n8 /9 frameworE. his will feed intorecommendations for an alternati e frameworE for future urbande elopment policy.

< he coalition of partners will worE with the 4Bs and citi5ens toad ocate the alternati e frameworE to the decision maEers at thenational, state and city le els.


7/23/2019 30 april 2014.doc

26/31

+ ,udget otal R /s. 1 '.12 laEhs '2ppro6imatel% U*+ 789/:::)

Items Amount

in.a/hs

1. "ersonnel /esearch ?ssociates P 2 :part time< ield sur eyors P ! interns :part time< /esearchers;2, ad ocacy ad isors;3, pro+ect coordinator;1 $ ents coordinator P 1 :part time< ?dministrati e staJ :part timecienc*

? nancial@

"lanning anddevelopment

e>cienc*9andatory oroptional9?8 ? */ ;4B

1. e;)o ernance

'. Internal$armarEingof unds for&er ices torban -oor

2. &hift to?ccrualbasedouble $ntry?ccounting

3. -roperty a# :!'%co erage L0 %collectione=ciency

30 april 2014.doc

Documents

Transcript of 30 april 2014.doc