ENDLINE STUDY OF THE

ENDLINE STUDY OF THE

KERALA LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

Submitted to

Kerala Local Government Service Delivery Project

Government of Kerala

November 2017

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies

Khadi Federation Building, NH By-Pass, Padivattom, Kochi - 682 024, Kerala, India

Tel: +91-484-2805107, 2805108; email: [email protected]; Url: www.csesindia.org

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) i

STUDY TEAM

DR. D. RADHA DEVI

DR. K. K. GEORGE

DR. N. AJITH KUMAR

K. K. KRISHNAKUMAR

PARVATHY SUNAINA

JAYAN K. M.

BIBIN THAMBI

RAMSHAD M

BEN ROIS JOSE

AANCHAL NAIR

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Study Team expresses its gratitude to the Kerala Local Government Service Delivery Project (KLGSDP) of the Government of Kerala for granting us this study. We are grateful to Shri.T.K.Jose IAS (Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government of Kerala) and Dr. V.K.Baby IAS (Secretary, Local Self Government Department), Shri.P.Balakiran IAS (Project Director, KLGSDP) for their unstinted support during the course of the study.

We are also grateful to Mr. Uri Raich (World Bank Task Team Leader), Mr.Anand Mathew (Consultant, World Bank) for their support. We take this opportunity to thank Dr.V.P.Sukumaran (Deputy Project Director), Dr.Motilal M R (Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist), Shri. Aji Divakar.D (Finance Management Specialist), Shri. K.Vijayakumaran (Procurement Specialist), Dr.M.S.Bindu (Environment & Social Safeguard Specialist) and Dr.K.Krishnakumar (Capacity Building Specialist) of the KLGSDP for their cooperation and continuous support.

We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. P.G.Sankaran (Professor and Head, Department of Statistics, Cochin University of Science & Technology) for his guidance in sampling design and estimation. This Report is the output of a collaborative effort involving the Research Team members and many people outside the Research Team. We are thankful to all the investigators and supervisors for their untiring and dedicated efforts during the field survey. Some of our colleagues who were not in the core team also supported us during different stages of the study. They include Dr.Baishali Goswamy, Ms.Jancy Joy, Ms. Remya Jacob and Ms.Deepika P.S. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

Finally, we are deeply indebted to the citizens of Kerala who spent their valuable time for completing the interviews.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) iii

CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables iv

List of Figures viii

Abbreviations ix

Executive Summary xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER II CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE COMMUNITIES AND HOUSEHOLDS

14

CHAPTER III FEEDBACK ON CIVIC SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

20

CHAPTER IV FEEDBACK ON INSTITUTIONS TRANSFERRED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

43

CHAPTER V FEEDBACK ON SERVICES DELIVERED BY GP AND MUNICIPAL OFFICES

64

CHAPTER VI ASSESSMENT OF SAMPLE PROJECTS 76

CHAPTER VII PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE 96

CHAPTER VIII SERVICE DELIVERY: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS AND SAFEGUARDS

104

CHAPTER IX SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 115

APPENDIX I DETAILS OF METHODOLOGY WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN CHAPTER I

A 1

APPENDIX II DETAILS OF SAMPLE GRAMA PANCHAYATS/MUNICIPALITIES, WARDS, BOOTHS AND WEIGHTS ASSIGNED

A7

APPENDIX III STANDARD ERRORS OF SELECTED INDICATORS A10

APPENDIX IV ASSESSMENT OF SAMPLE PROJECTS A11

APPENDIX V QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSEHOLD SURVEY A88

APPENDIX VI QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNITY SURVEY A124

APPENDIX VII CHECKLIST FOR COLLECTING DATA ON SAMPLE PROJECT A130

APPENDIX VIII QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SURVEY OF BENEFICIARIES OF SAMPLE PROJECTS

A134

APPENDIX IX LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED FOR THE ENDLINE STUDY A137

APPENDIX X ITINERARY OF STUDY TEAM A138

APPENDIX XI LIST OF MEETINGS ATTENDED AS PART OF THE ENDLINE STUDY A138

APPENDIX XII SUMMARY OF FIELD VISITS A139

APPENDIX XIII LIST OF DOCUMENTS, REPORTS, BOOKS AND ARTICLES REVIEWED

A140

APPENDIX XIV TERMS OF REFERENCE A143

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Snapshot of findings on access and citizens’ satisfaction with services xiv

Table 1.1 Share of different sectors in KLGSDP performance grant and share of KLGSDP in total development funds allotted to the sector by the LGs during the period 2012-13 to 2016-17

3

Table 1.2 Details of LG Projects included in Project Assessment 11

Table 2.1 Distribution of the sample LGs according to total population, percent of SC/ST population and the number of wards

14

Table 2.2 Availability of public infrastructure in the sample wards 15

Table 2.3 Availability of basic amenities in the sample wards 16

Table 2.4 Distribution of the sample wards according to the distance from the ward to the office of the GP/Municipality

16

Table 2.5 Distribution of the sample wards according to the profile of the elected representative

17

Table 2.6 Distribution of the sample households according to household profile 18

Table 2.7 Percent of Elected Representatives according to whom KLGSDP helped to improve the service delivery of LGs

19

Table 3.1 Percent of households with streetlights in their neighbourhood, across categories of LGs

21

Table 3.2 Percent of households reporting that street lights were lit on most days 21

Table 3.3 Grievance with street lights and grievance redressal 22

Table 3.4 Percent of households fully satisfied with street lighting in their neighbourhood across different categories of LGs

23

Table 3.5 Percent of households having roads in front of their house across different categories of LGs

25

Table 3.6 Percentage distribution of households as per ratings on condition of roads in the LGs at the time of survey and during rain

26

Table 3.7 Percent of households reporting the condition of road at the time of the survey as good across different categories of LGs

27

Table 3.8 Percent of households by grievance and grievance redressal relating to road in the last one year

28

Table 3.9 Percent of households fully satisfied with roads in the LG across different categories of LGs

29

Table 3.10 Main source of drinking water 30

Table 3.11 Percent of households depending on public water supply across different categories of GPs and Municipalities

31

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) v

Page

Table 3.12 Percent of households which rated the water is of good quality across LG categories

32

Table 3.13 Feedback on shortage of water and effectiveness of LG intervention 33

Table 3.14 Grievance with public water supply and grievance redressal in the past one year

34

Table 3.15 Percent of households fully satisfied with the public water supply system including piped water at home across different categories of LGs

35

Table 3.16 Citizens’ rating on cleanliness of public places and availability of waste bins

36

Table 3.17 Percent of households having drainage facilities in the neighbourhood 37

Table 3.18 Solid waste management techniques adopted by the sample households 38

Table 3.19 Waste collection by LG/Agency across LG categories 38

Table 3.20 Grievance with waste management and grievance redressal

in the last one year

39

Table 3.21 Percent of households fully satisfied with waste management across different categories of GPs

40

Table 4.1 Percent of households with children studying in government schools 44

Table 4.2 Feedback on facilities in government schools in GPs 44

Table 4.3 Feedback on facilities in government schools in Municipalities 45

Table 4.4 Percent of households fully satisfied with schooling from the government schools

46

Table 4.5 Feedback by the citizens on the public health activities undertaken by the LGs

47

Table 4.6 Percent of households in LGs with a member who had visited a government health facility for treatment in the last one year

48

Table 4.7 Feedback on facilities in the government health care institutions for outpatients

49

Table 4.8 Feedback on outpatient consultation experience 50

Table 4.9 Feedback on availability of medicines and diagnostic services from the hospital

51

Table 4.10 Percent of respondents reporting availability of facilities for inpatient care 51

Table 4.11 Feedback on cleanliness and satisfaction with the behaviour of the staff and overall functioning of the government health facility

54

Table 4.12 Percent of households that are beneficiaries of anganwadi services 55

Table 4.13 Feedback on facilities in the anganwadis in GPs 56

Table 4.14 Feedback on facilities in the anganwadis in Municipalities 56

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) vi

Page

Table 4.15 Feedback on regularity of services in anganwadis 57

Table 4.16 Feedback on growth and immunisation monitoring in anganwadis 57

Table 4.17 Feedback on health awareness classes in anganwadis 58

Table 4.18 Percent of households fully satisfied with the services of anganwadis 60

Table 5.1 Service for which a member of the household visited the LG Office 64

Table 5.2 Percentage distribution of applicants by number of visits to LG Office 65

Table 5.3 Percent of applicants who could receive the service only after making three or more visits

66

Table 5.4 Percent of applicants by number of officials met at the LG Office to get the service done

66

Table 5.5 Percent of applicants who could receive the service only after meeting three or more officials

67

Table 5.6 Percent of applicants who received the service in the stipulated time 67

Table 5.7 Percent of applicants which received the service in the stipulated time 68

Table 5.8 Procedure followed by LG offices in dealing with applications 69

Table 5.9 Percent of Citizens reporting access to different facilities in the LG Office 70

Table 5.10 Percent of Citizens who faced a problem with service delivery of LG Office 71

Table 5.11 Percent of citizens fully satisfied with the behaviour of staff in LG Office 72

Table 5.12 Percent of citizens fully satisfied with the overall service delivery from LG Office across different categories of GPs

73

Table 6.1 Details about the total number of KLGSDP projects in the LGs where the household survey was undertaken and the number of sample projects assessed

77

Table 6.2 Details of the sample projects in GPs and Municipalities 77

Table 6.3 Distribution of the sample projects according to the status of completion 83

Table 6.4 Average number of months taken to complete important milestones of the project

85

Table 6.5 Efficiency of LGs in completing the work as per the timelines proposed in the Agreement

86

Table 7.1 Percent of Households participating in GS/WS meetings across LG categories

97

Table 7.2 Percent of Households attending GS/WS meetings across Social and Economic Classification

98

Table 7.3 Percentage distribution of households by the gender of the person who usually attend GS/WS meetings

98

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) vii

Page

Table 7.4 Percent of Respondents who voiced their opinion in the last attended GS/WS meetings across LG categories

99

Table 7.5 Percent of respondents who had voiced their opinions in the last attended GS/WS meeting according to economic and social classification

99

Table 7.6 Perception of respondents about the proceedings of GS/WS meetings across LG categories

100

Table 7.7 Perception of respondents about the proceedings of GS/WS meetings according to social and economic classification of households

101

Table 7.8 Interaction of citizens with the elected representatives across LG categories

101

Table 7.9 Interaction of citizens with the elected representatives according to social and economic classification of households

102

Table 8.1 Feedback on the responsiveness of the LG towards environment 105

Table 8.2 Experience of problems relating to environment in the past one year and problem resolution

106

Table 8.3 Percent of households with access to civic services across social and economic groups

110

Table 8.4 Dependence on transferred institutions managed by LGs and LG Offices across social and economic classification of households

111

Table 8.5 Feedback on welfare pensions and welfare programmes for elderly 113

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3.1 Percent of households having streetlights in their neighbourhood 20

Figure 3.2 Percentage distribution of households by level of satisfaction with street lighting

23

Figure 3.3 Percent of households with roads in front of their house in GPs and Municipalities

25

Figure 3.4 Percentage distribution of households by satisfaction levels about roads 29

Figure 3.5 Percentage distribution of households by their ratings on quality of water from public sources in LGs

32

Figure 3.6 Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction levels with the public water supply system

35

Figure 3.7 Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction levels with waste management

40

Figure 4.1 Percentage distribution of households by the satisfaction of parents with the education in government school where the child is studying

46

Figure 4.2 Percentage distribution of respondents by their ratings on the cleanliness of the government health facility

52

Figure 4.3 Percentage distribution of respondents by their level of satisfaction with the behaviour of staff in government health care institutions

53

Figure 4.4 Percentage distribution of respondents by their level of satisfaction with the overall functioning of the government health care institutions

53

Figure 4.5 Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with the pre-school services of the anganwadi

59

Figure 4.6 Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with the supplementary feeding in the anganwadi

59

Figure 4.7 Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with overall services of anganwadis

60

Figure 5.1 Percentage distribution of citizens by their level of satisfaction with overall service from LG Office

73

Figure 7.1 Percent of Households participating in GS/WS meetings 97

Figure 8.1 Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with the responsiveness of the LG towards safeguarding the environment

106

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) ix

ABBREVIATIONS

APL Above Poverty Line

AMC Annual Maintenance Contract

ASHA Accredited Social Health Activist

BP(s) Block Panchayats

BPL Below Poverty Line

CHC(s) Community Health Centres

CSES Centre for Socio-economic and Environmental Studies

DAC Decentralisation Analysis Cell

DLHS District Level Household Survey

DP(s) District Panchayats

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

GIS Geographic Information System

GP(s) Grama Panchayats

GS Grama Sabha

HDC Hospital Development Committee

ICDS Integrated Child Development Services

ICMR Indian Council of Medical Research

IKM Information Kerala Mission

IP Inpatient

ITDP Integrated Tribal Development Programme

KILA Kerala Institute of Local Administration

KLGSDP Kerala Local Government Service Delivery Project

KSEB Kerala State Electricity Board

LG(s) Local Governments

LP Lower Primary

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

MGP Modernising Government Programme

NGP Nirmal Gram Puraskar

NH(s) National Highways

NHG(s) Neighbourhood Groups

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) x

NSSO National Sample Survey Organisation

OBC Other Backward Castes

OP Outpatient

OSR Own Source Revenue

PHC(s) Primary Health Centres

PMU Project Management Unit

PSU(s) Primary Sampling Units

PTA Parent Teacher Association

RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete

RCH Reproductive and Child Health

RR Random Rubble

SC Scheduled Caste

SCP Special Component Plan

SFC State Finance Commission

SH(s) State Highways

SHG(s) Self Help Groups

SIRD State Institute of Rural Development

ST Scheduled Tribe

SSU(s) Secondary Stage Units

TSC Total Sanitation Campaign

TSP Tribal Sub Plan

UP Upper Primary

VEC Village Education Committee

VGDF Vulnerable Group Development Framework

WS Ward Sabha

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Background

The Government of Kerala has initiated the Kerala Local Government Service Delivery Project

(KLGSDP) in 2011-12 to improve and augment the institutional capacity of the local government

(LG) system so that it can deliver services more efficiently and undertake basic administrative

and governance functions in a sustainable and effective manner. The project, which supports

the Grama Panchayats and Municipalities in the State, is being implemented with the financial

assistance of the World Bank. Currently the project is in the final stages of its implementation.

A baseline survey was conducted in February-March 2013. The present report contains the

findings of the endline study of the project and makes an assessment, to the extent possible, of

the changes in service delivery that might have taken place between the two said surveys.

The decentralisation process in Kerala not only transferred administrative power from the state

government to the local governments (LGs), but also brought in participatory planning into the

process. It also devolved a much larger quantum of funds to LGs through statutory and formula

based transfer. At present, the LGs in the state have several functions and are responsible for

delivering services by institutions which have been transferred to them. The state has been

undertaking several initiatives in the past to improve the capacity of LGs. However,

institutionalization of systems and good practices is a continuous challenge. KLGSDP was

conceived on the realisation that there is a need to further improve the quality of services

provided by the LGs and the institutions transferred to them. The estimated cost of the project

of Rs.1195.8 crores was meant to provide Untied Performance Grant to LGs to create and

maintain capital assets used in service delivery; to provide capacity building inputs to LGs for

institutionalizing the existing systems and human resources; to enhance monitoring of the local

Government system and to effect Project Management and Implementation. In addition to the

performance grant, the project also introduced a new method of funding in the final year of the

project (2016-17) to provide financial assistance to backward and tribal LGs.

2. Objectives of the Endline Study

The specific objectives of the endline study as per the Terms of Reference are to assess:

a) Whether the project activities were implemented in an efficient and timely manner.

b) Whether the project activities implemented are sustainable

c) The perceptions of citizens about different services delivered by the LGs and about local

governance.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xii

d) The extent of satisfaction and participation of citizens in plan formulation and budgeting of

LGs.

e) The extent of accessibility and quality of service delivery.

f) The level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries with the service delivery of the project, in terms

of accessibility, quality, timeliness and variations across different categories of LGs.

g) Identify the challenges faced by the beneficiaries in demanding and accessing services.

h) To what extent has gender and safeguard practices been mainstreamed at process and

results level and

i) To provide recommendations for improving service delivery.

Thus, in a nutshell, the main aspects covered in this study are:

1. Access to and quality of services and level of satisfaction of citizens with the services

2. Efficiency, affordability and sustainability of project interventions

3. Participation in plan formulation and budgeting

4. Gender and safeguard practices

3. Approach and Methodology

The assessment has been done based on a household survey (conducted in a manner similar

to that of the baseline survey), a community survey and an assessment of sample projects funded

by KLGSDP. As in the case of baseline study, the endline study covered road infrastructure;

street lighting; water supply; sanitation; health care institutions; schools; anganwadis and offices

of LGs. Access, quality, grievance redressal and citizens’ satisfaction have been assessed on

the basis of the household survey. Citizens’ satisfaction with services was measured on a three

point scale i.e. fully satisfied, partially satisfied and not satisfied. The objectives of assessing

efficiency, sustainability and affordability of KLGSDP interventions was accomplished by

undertaking an assessment of a sample of 36 projects implemented by LGs and funded by

KLGSDP. A project was considered efficient if it was successfully completed on time as agreed

upon and was within the projected budget expenditure. Sustainability is understood from its ability

to continue after the completion of the project implementation. Affordability was examined in the

case of projects like water supply schemes, crematorium or park in which a user fee is charged.

Citizens’ participation in planning and budgeting was examined on the basis of information from

household survey as well as sample project assessment. The safeguard practices were

examined in the case of sample projects by exploring whether the Environment and Social

Framework (ESMF) had been followed and whether mitigation measures had been adopted.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xiii

3.1 Household Survey

A multi-stage stratified systematic sampling design adopted for the selection of the sample

households at the baseline survey was followed in the endline survey as well. In both the surveys,

the GPs were stratified into three groups, viz., Vulnerable, Other Backward and Advanced while

Municipalities were classified into Backward and Advanced. A sample of 16 GPs was selected

from each of the three strata (total 48 GPs). From the selected GPs, two wards were randomly

selected of which one was a backward one. Finally, from each selected ward, one voting booth

was randomly selected. The sampling was done in a similar manner for municipalities. In the

first stage, 16 Municipalities were selected, eight from each group. In the second stage, three

wards were selected of which one was from among the backward ones. From each ward, one

voting booth was randomly selected. The sample households were selected usingsystematic

sampling procedure and the voters’ list of the previous LG elections served as the sampling

frame. The number of respondents per booth was 17 for GPs and 34 for Municipalities. Thus the

sample size was 1632 for both GPs and Municipalities.

3.2 Community Survey

A community is defined in this study as ward of the LG. Necessary information was collected

from the office of the LG and key informants such as government officials and elected

representatives.

3.3 Assessment of Sample LG Projects

The assessment of sample projects was done in a sample of 24 projects in GPs and 12 projects

in Municipalities. Only projects funded by KLGSDP in the years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 was

included in the sample.

3.4 Field Work

The field work of the endline study was conducted in the months of February, March and April

2017.

3.5 Limitations of the Study

A direct comparison of the findings of baseline and endline was difficult as the respondents were

not the same in the two surveys considered. In the absence of a control group, it was not possible

to attribute the observed changes between baseline and endline to KLGSDP. The endline

household survey was conducted at a time when the LG projects commissioned in the year 2016-

17 were in the implementation stage. Therefore, the changes in service delivery as a result of

these interventions are unlikely to be captured in the citizens’ feedback in the endline survey.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xiv

4. Access, Quality and Citizens’ Satisfaction with Services

A snapshot of the findings related to access and citizens’ satisfaction with the quality of services

is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Snapshot of Findings on Access and Citizens’ Satisfaction with services

Indicator Percent of households

GPs Municipalities

Baseline Endline Baseline Endline

Access/Usage of Services by households

Streetlights in the neighbourhood 48.6 58.4 81.3 85.5

Roads in front of the house 57.3 83.8 62.6 85.0

Piped water supply at home 9.7 11.8 21.0 18.0

Depending on waste collection by LG/other agencies 0.0 4.7 5.5 22.0

Depending on a government school 12.3 22.8 12.6 18.4

Depends on government health facility 45.7 61.7 43.7 39.5

Depends on Anganwadi 14.6 17.3 12.0 14.1

Citizens’ Satisfaction with services: Percent of Fully Satisfied Citizens

Street lighting 48.8 59.5 64.4 73.7

Roads 45.9 51.5 59.1 69.0

Drinking water from Public Water Supply System 37.8 44.1 60.4 68.5

Waste management system 70.2 46.7 48.9 51.1

Government Schools 90.8 92.1 87.7 92.9

Government Health Care Institutions 82.8 83.8 82.6 85.1

Anganwadi 84.2 83.3 80.4 86.6

Office of the Local Government 77.2 77.6 81.2 83.0

4.1 Civic Services

The civic services covered by the study are streetlights, roads, water supply and sanitation. At

endline, more than 80 per cent of the households in GPs as well as Municipalities have roads in

front of their house. The access to roads has improved significantly since baseline both in GPs

and Municipalities. But the quality of roads needs much improvement as only one-third of the

citizens in GPs and half of them in Municipalities rated the condition of roads to be good in rainy

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xv

season. It is also found that road access is lower in Vulnerable GPs with only 74 per cent houses

having road in front of their house as against the average of 84 per cent for GPs as a whole.

The GPs and Municipalities are expected to ensure that all public streets in its area are lighted.

In spite of significant improvements since baseline, only 58 per cent of the households in GPs

have streetlights in their neighbourhood at endline. The situation is worse in Vulnerable GPs

with 49 per cent having streetlights in their neighbourhood. The corresponding proportion for

Municipalities is 86 per cent.

The dependence on public water supply as the main source of drinking water is very low, with

only around one-fifth of the households depending mainly on this source. Majority of the

households depends on private wells. Nearly half of the households in GPs faced water shortage

especially in summer. In Municipalities, only one-fourth of the households faced water shortage.

Only about one-third of the citizens from households which faced water shortage said that the

LG helped them to overcome it. Among the different categories of LGs, such interventions seem

to be less effective in Vulnerable GPs.

The cleanliness of an area is a major determinant of the health of the people residing in the area.

Access to waste collection system managed by LGs or other agencies is available only to just 5

per cent of the GP households. The corresponding proportion in Advanced Municipalities is 29

per cent. But access to waste collection system in Backward Municipalities is only half that of

Advanced Municipalities. The situation remains to be unsatisfactory even though it has improved

between baseline and endline. The citizens, in general, are not satisfied with the cleanliness of

the public places in their locality. Only 23 per cent of the respondents in GPs rated the

cleanliness of public places as good. The cleanliness in Backward Municipalities is also similar

to that in GPs. But the rating is much lower for Advanced Municipalities with just 13 per cent of

citizens considering the cleanliness as good.

Among the civic services, the grievances were more for street lighting. About half of the

respondents have noticed some problem with the service and half of them in GPs and nearly

two-thirds in Municipalities brought it to the notice of the concerned authorities. Grievance

redressal mechanism is also relatively better for street lighting service than other civic services.

It was much better in Municipalities compared to GPs. The incidence of problems related to roads

was the same as that of street lighting in GPs but was lesser in Municipalities. However, large

majority of the grievances were not addressed properly. In the case of water and sanitation

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xvi

services also, grievances were not addressed to the satisfaction in majority of the complaints.

The major problems experienced by the citizens relating to civic services are irregularity of street

lighting, low voltage of street lights, lack of proper and timely maintenance of roads, lack of proper

drainage, drinking water shortage, irregularity of water supply, low pressure of water flow, poor

quality of water, irregularity of cleaning public places, low coverage of public waste collection

system, dumping of waste in open spaces and absence of waste treatment facilities. Between

baseline and endline, there has been a decline in the incidence of problems related to street

lighting, roads and water supply in GPs while the problems related to waste management showed

an increase. In Municipalities, it declined in the case of road and water supply while it remained

at the baseline level in the case of street lighting and waste management. Overall, in spite of the

improvements made since baseline, the grievance redressal mechanism is weak for all civic

services except street lighting.

Among the civic services, street lighting received the highest level of satisfaction in both GPs and

Municipalities. Still only three in five citizens in GPs were fully satisfied with street lighting. In

Municipalities, three in four citizens were fully satisfied. The proportion of citizens fully satisfied

with other services ranged between 44 per cent and 52 per cent in GPs. For both these services,

69 per cent of the citizens in Municipalities were fully satisfied. Citizens were least satisfied with

the waste management in Municipalities while water supply was the service which came last in

GPs. Citizens’ level of satisfaction with civic services other than waste management improved

by 6 to 11 percentage points in GPs as well as in Municipalities. The citizens’ satisfaction with

waste management declined substantially in GPs between baseline and endline. In

Municipalities it did not change since baseline.

Overall, there has been an improvement in the provision as well as citizens’ satisfaction with the

quality of civic services, except sanitation. But dependence on public water supply has come

down in the case of Municipalities while it remained more or less the same in GPs. Among the

civic services, improvement in access was the highest in the case of roads. It may be noted that

more than one-third of the KLGSDP funds was spent in the transport sector of which large

majority of the projects were meant for development of road infrastructure. Also, about one-fifth

of the LG funds spent on transport sector was from KLGSDP. Hence, it is evident that KLGSDP

has played a significant role in improving road infrastructure. Only one-tenth of the KLGSDP

funds was spent on the other three civic services together. It may also be noted that projects

related to waste management were rarely undertaken using KLGSDP funds, despite it being a

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xvii

service which requires much improvement. The study also finds that the improvement in access

to civic services is relatively lower in Vulnerable GPs compared to other categories of GPs. The

initiative by KLGSDP, in 2016-17 to provide additional financial support to backward GPs and

Municipalities, tries to address the issue to a great extent. Since the projects implemented under

this initiative was in the implementation stage at the time of the endline study, the impact of the

same will be visible only in the coming years.

4.2 Transferred Institutions

There has been significant increase, since baseline, in the dependence on all the three

transferred institutions viz., government health care institutions, government schools and

anganwadis in GPs since baseline. However, in Municipalities, it increased only in the case of

government schools. A large majority of the interviewed parents were mostly of the opinion that

the Government schools in GPs and Municipalities has the required infrastructure and facilities

such as class room space and furniture, learning materials, library books, drinking water,

urinal/toilet and facilities for arts, sports and games, etc. Similarly, beneficiaries of anganwadi

services were of the opinion that the anganwadi had the necessary facilities for providing various

services such as playing-learning materials, kitchen, toilet, etc. It is only the availability of space

outside the building that is reported to be insufficient. Conduct of health awareness classes is

low, as against regularity of the provision of other services. Most of the facilities have improved

since baseline in GPs and Municipalities.

Necessary facilities are available for outpatient care in large majority of the health care

institutions. At endline, more than four-fifths of the respondents in GPs and Municipalities

reported that facilities such as sufficient seating, drinking water and toilets were available in the

health institutions. Availability of doctor had been low at baseline. But at endline, more than eight

in ten of the citizens could see the doctor and the waiting time was also within acceptable limits

for most of them. But non-availability of medicine and laboratory facilities continues to be a major

problem at endline. While 50 percent of the citizens in Municipalities and 57 percent in GPs had

to buy the medicines from outside, one-fifth of the citizens in GPs and one-tenth in Municipalities

had to get their diagnostic tests done from outside the health facility. Necessary facilities for IP

care was also available in majority of the health care institutions where such services are offered.

The citizens also felt that they are getting proper nursing care and attention from doctors.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xviii

The incidence of complaints was very low in the transferred institutions. Very few citizens had

any complaints regarding the Government institution they had approached. The major problems

in health care institutions were the non-availability of doctors during OP time, long waiting time

and non-availability of medicines. The grievance against government schools relate to teacher

absenteeism, lack of or ill maintained facilities in some schools and inadequate personal attention

given to students. In anganwadis, the problems mentioned by a few beneficiaries are related to

irregularity in the provision of supplementary nutrition, ill maintained facilities, and poor quality of

pre-school education and poor cleanliness of anganwadi. Despite the low incidence of

grievances in transferred institutions, the redressal mechanism is seen to be weak as only few

of the citizens received satisfactory response on their complaint.

The satisfaction ratings for the services of transferred institutions were much higher than the

satisfaction ratings for civic services. Large majority of the parents (92 % in GPs and 93 % in

Municipalities) are fully satisfied with the government schools where their child is studying. While

83 percent of the beneficiaries in GPs reported full satisfaction with the anganwadi services, the

proportion was slightly higher in Municipalities (87%). Unlike in civic services, in the case of

services delivered through transferred institutions, the citizens have a choice to opt for

alternatives if they want to and are affordable. Therefore, it is likely that those who got dissatisfied

with the services of these government institutions are no longer depending on them.

Not much difference is seen in the dependence on and the quality of service delivery by the

transferred institutions across LG categories, except in the case of Government health care

institutions in Advanced Municipalities. The Advanced Municipalities were rated better in terms

of the availability of facilities, doctors, medicine as well as laboratory facilities. The level of

satisfaction of the citizens is also slightly higher. The most noticeable change from the baseline

situation was also observed in Advanced Municipalities. However, the proportion depending on

government health care institutions in Advanced Municipalities is only half of that in other LG

categories and has also declined from the baseline levels.

In general, there has been an improvement in the infrastructure and facilities in these transferred

institutions though not attributable to KLGSDP alone. As per the guidelines of KLGSDP,

interventions are to be restricted to infrastructure improvement and not to address the grievances

in the transferred institutions such as improvement of supplementary nutrition in anganwadis or

provision of medicines in hospitals or maintenance of existing facilities in schools. Given the fact

that the transferred institutions have built up satisfactory infrastructure and facilities over a period

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xix

of time, there is a need to focus more in future on proper maintenance of the assets created as

well as in capacity building of staff of the transferred institutions.

4.3 GP and Municipal Offices

Citizens approach the GP and Municipal Office for different services. The quality of service

delivery was assessed based on whether the time norms for delivering the service has been

followed, number of visits made to the LG Office and the number of officials met for getting the

service. Time norms, which are important for monitoring (both by citizens and higher authorities)

whether services are delivered on time, have been fixed only for certain services of the LG

Offices. At the endline study it had been found that in the case of services for which time norms

are available, more than three-fourths of the applicants could get the service within the stipulated

time. But more important is the remaining citizens who had to wait beyond the stipulated time. In

fact, the situation worsened since baseline in GP Office in this respect while it remained more or

less the same in Municipal Office. At endline, more than 80 percent of the applicants could get

the service in one or two visits. However, the situation did not show any improvement since

baseline. Besides, it should be noted that not too small a proportion of the applicants had to visit

at least three times to get their work done pointing to further scope for improvement. It is obvious

that more the number of visits, more will be the inconvenience to the citizens which will lead to

loss of man days and increase in transaction costs.

At endline, only about one-tenth of the citizens reported facing any problem related to service

delivery of GP and Municipal offices. However, it is found that the grievance redressal

mechanism in GP is weak in spite of some improvement made since baseline. On the other hand,

the situation worsened further in Municipalities from the low levels at baseline. At endline, three-

fourths of the respondents who approached the GP Office for some service and four-in-five

respondents in municipalities were fully satisfied with the service delivery from the GP and

Municipal Offices. However, there was no improvement from the baseline levels.

Overall, the feedback from the citizens indicates that there has not been a perceptible change

since baseline in the quality of service delivery of GP/Municipal Offices. An examination of

KLGSDP funded LG projects in the sample LGs showed that a large number of interventions

were taken up to improve the infrastructure and facilities in GP and Municipal Offices. It was also

seen that improving office infrastructure and computerisation of LG offices have received a

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xx

substantial portion of the KLGSDP funds. But it appears that such investments have not resulted

in an improvement in the quality of services of LG Offices in a significant way.

5. Efficiency, Sustainability and Affordability of KLGSDP funded Projects of LGs

The assessment of a sample of 36 LG projects (24 in GPs and 12 in Municipalities) funded by

KLGSDP funds was undertaken to understand the efficiency, sustainability and affordability of

the projects. Efficiency was examined at first by trying to understand whether the project is

functional. It is found that 29 projects have become functional as per the original plan at the time

of assessment. One project was discontinued due to differences among political parties at the

local level. Three other projects which were categorised as completed projects were only partially

completed. In three other projects, the infrastructure built is being used for purposes other than

what it was originally meant for. Efficiency was further assessed by understanding whether the

project was completed within the time mentioned in the agreement for implementation of the

work. This crucial information required for monitoring was missing in the agreementin the case

of 15 out of the 36 sample projects. Only 12 out of the 21 remaining projects were completed on

time. The delay was more than six months in the case of two projects. In about half of the

projects, the agreement was signed in the last quarter of the financial year. In some cases the

timelines for completion of the project is fixed arbitrarily without proper assessment. The delay

was not only in the implementation phase but also in the planning stage. For instance, on an

average, it took more than four months to initiate the tendering process from the date of approval.

It was also examined whether the project was completed without exceeding the budget. A

significant achievement of KLGSDP is that almost all the projects initiated and completed were

done so within the budget approved for the project. This was apparently achieved mainly on

account of the norm in the KLGSDP procedures to call for tenders for projects. Out of the 36

projects, works related to 23 projects were awarded through tendering process. In a few cases,

retendering had to be adopted due to inadequate number of valid tenders, leading to delay in

implementation. Seven projects were implemented by Beneficiary Committees and remaining

five projects were entrusted to accredited agencies. Works related to roads, construction of

buildings and crematorium were awarded through tendering process while computerization of

offices, installation of solar panels, online asset mapping, street lighting and e-toilet were

implemented by accredited agencies without tendering.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xxi

Some other issues that affected the efficiency of implementation were also observed. In Phase

II of KLGSDP, the LGs did not have prior knowledge about the quantum of funds available from

KLGSDP for the financial year, thereby affecting the planning. It also led to opting for smaller

projects. Another factor which affected the project efficiency is the absence of a support system

to provide necessary technical expertise to LGs. This is applicable mainly when the LGs take up

innovative/unconventional projects. Because of the lack of clarity on technical aspects, the

project design was flawed and/or led to undesirable outcomes. In such cases, the LGs also face

difficulty in monitoring the implementation of the project activities. Overall it was found that the

quality of the assets created was good except in the case of six projects. Of the six projects, four

projects required technical expertise which is normally not available with the LG or at the Block

level. Two drinking water supply projects, asset mapping project and the e-toilet project belonged

to this category.

Regarding sustainability of the projects, there is no separate provision for maintenance of assets

created. But, the LGs can make use of the funds for the maintenance of roads and non-road

infrastructure provided by the state government. However, these funds can be utilized by the

LGs only if it is included as an LG project in the Annual Plan. This has acted as a major barrier

in the timely maintenance of LG assets. Only projects for street lighting, solar panel installation

and computerisation have an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) in place. The maintenance

of infrastructure such as crematorium, bus stand and water supply schemes can be carried out

expending user fee. The interactions with different stakeholders indicated that the present asset

maintenance management system in the LGs does not ensure timely maintenance of assets.

This is one area which requires to be revamped so that the assets created by the LGs are

properly maintained.

Affordability is applicable only when user fee is charged and six projects in the sample belonged

to this category. Only in the case of one drinking water project, the beneficiaries felt that the user

fee is unaffordable as it is not based on actual usage. Instead, total charges are divided equally

between the beneficiary households.

Overall, the sample projects funded by KLGSDP were not much different from other projects of

LGs as far as planning and implementation aspects are concerned. However, there was

difference in the monitoring of project planning and implementation. According to the LG officials,

the monitoring at the district and state level by KLGSDP has led to some improvement in meeting

the timelines. However, since LG projects undertaken using other sources of funds did not come

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xxii

under the purview of the present study, the study team could not make an objective assessment

of the efficiency gains. It was also found that KLGSDP introduced some better systems in its

final year (2016-17) in the utilisation of Financial Support for Backward LGs. The LGs took up

projects of larger size and detailed project reports were prepared. Improvements were also

observed in the method of project identification and in ensuring that a complete project is

implemented rather than going for piece meal solutions to felt needs.

6. Citizens’ Participation

The most important mechanism for direct participation of people in decentralized planning and

governance is the Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha constituted at the ward level. In more than 60 per

cent of the households, a member of the household attended Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha

meetings. Attendance of women was found to be higher than that of men. Mere attendance

does not ensure active participation. The participants have to get involved in the discussions

and contribute to the planning and decision making at the local level. But only half of the

participants voiced their opinions in the meetings and felt that their opinions are considered in

local governance and that the selection of beneficiaries of different schemes is done in a

transparent and democratic manner. However, at least half of the citizens had approached the

elected representative with some issue and in three-fourths of such cases, the issue was

resolved to their satisfaction. The attendance of economically backward groups was much higher

than that of the better off groups. But the active participation is much lower for BPL compared

to APL group though there is not much difference between SC/ST and non-SC/ST groups in this

respect. More among the economically and socially backward also approach the elected

representatives to resolve their issues.

The study examined the participation of citizens in different stages of project such as identification

of the project, planning, implementation and monitoring. The assessment of a sample of

KLGSDP funded LG projects indicated that majority of the projects are identified in the Grama

Sabha/Ward Sabha indicating some involvement of citizens in project identification. The

participation in implementation was possible only in projects which were entrusted to Beneficiary

Committees. They were also not involved in monitoring the project implementation in any

significant way. It appears that there is a need to give importance to improving the involvement

of beneficiaries in monitoring the implementation of the LG projects. However, effective

involvement of citizens in monitoring of project implementation can be done only if the necessary

details are made available to them.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xxiii

7. Environmental and Social Aspects and Safeguards

The development of the ESMF and VGDF under the KLGSDP to guide LGs in the integration of

environmental and social aspects into the projects to be implemented are welcome initiatives.

The inclusion of compliance to these frameworks in the assessment of the LGs for the award of

performance grants ensures that the same is adhered at least to some extent by the LGs. But

the implementation of ESMF has not happened as envisaged, VGDF has not been that effective

to help the LGs to meet the objective of mainstreaming the vulnerable groups. Due to the

absence of stipulated norms for fund allocation for the vulnerable groups as in the case of other

schemes such as SCP, TSP, WCP, etc. the share of funds and projects relating to these groups

was low under KLGSDP. The LG functionaries were also reportedly lacking in the expertise

required to implement the frameworks effectively. The decision by the KLGSDP to award

additional funds to select backward LGs and tribal areas is welcome as this would help them

address such issues more effectively. While appreciating the success stories and models of

projects implemented under KLGSDP specifically addressing the needs of the vulnerable groups,

it is also found to be few. It is only when such models are emulated across LGs that the objective

of mainstreaming the vulnerable groups can be met. Similarly, with respect to the environmental

safeguards, the framework and the associated practices should be adopted at least for all large

projects implemented by the LGs irrespective of the funding source. For this, the capacity of the

LG functionaries need to be developed further.

8. Recommendations

· KLGSDP had given priority to building infrastructure and facilities for service delivery by

LGs. Vulnerable GPs and socially and economically backward groups are particularly

disadvantaged when civic services are considered. The LGs should give priority to bringing

about improvements in civic services like street lighting and road infrastructure in

Vulnerable GPs and in neighbourhoods where SC/ST and BPL houses are clustered. The

remote and backward areas should be identified which are bereft of roads and street

lighting with the help of GIS mapping of the LG.

· In the case of transferred institutions the problems reported include lack of medicines,

absence of doctor, inadequate personal attention to children in schools, irregularity in the

provision of supplementary nutrition and poor quality of pre-school education in

anganwadis. It appears that before focussing their attention on creating new infrastructure

and facilities, the LGs should solve the existing problems. Also any project to improve

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xxiv

service delivery in local governments should cover such aspects which are not covered by

KLGSDP. There is also a need for improving systems and procedure.

· Develop a strong state level monitoring system to track the implementation of projects as

well as efficiency of service delivery on the basis of benchmarks. The benchmarks

developed under the Modernising Government Programme implemented by the

Government of Kerala in the past may be useful in this regard. At the local level, a

monitoring committee of beneficiaries, elected representatives and technical experts

should be constituted to monitor the project implementation.

· It should be made mandatory to enter the proposed date of completion in the Sulekha

(Plan monitoring software developed by Information Kerala Mission for LSGD) and all

details pertaining to the project should be made accessible to the public so that they will

be vigilant at all stages of project implementation.

· A citizens’ charter covering the civic services as well as the services of LG Offices and

transferred institutions may be developed in which the benchmarks for service delivery are

included. Making it available in every household will help to improve transparency in

service delivery.

· The grievance redressal mechanism in the LGs and the transferred institutions should be

strengthened as it is found to be weak at present.

· The training programmes for LG Office staff and elected representatives should cover

aspects related to service delivery of LGs including that of the transferred institutions.

· The endline survey found that the coverage of the waste collection system is very low even

in Municipalities. In view of this, there is an urgent need to improve the waste

management system. LGs may also take up activities to educate the citizens about

scienticfic methods of waste management such as separating biodegradable and non-

biodegradable waste, management of electronic waste and hazardous waste, reduction of

plastic use, etc. There is also a need for improving the management of waste in public

places.

· The details of all funds for LGs, irrespective of the source, routed through the state

government should be included in Appendix IV of the State Budget (released in

February/March of the previous year) so that LGs are aware of the quantum of funds they

are likely to get before preparing the plans. If performance based grant is provided to LGs,

a combination of indicators pertaining to the previous year and up to January 31 of the

current year can be used for fixing the grant for the next year. Service delivery related

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xxv

indicators should also be included in Performance Assessment of LGs, which can be done

only after benchmarking of different services. However, backwardness of the LGs should

continue to be a criterion for fund allocation.

· There is a need to develop a systematic approach to maintenance of LG assets based on

sound asset management principles. This has to be developed through wider consultations

among different stakeholders. To ensure timely maintenance of assets, the LGs should be

allowed to use at least a part of the maintenance funds without making it as separate

projects.

· The LGs in Kerala are bound to earmark 15 per cent of the Plan grants to projects directly

benefitting women and other vulnerable groups. Under KLGSDP which had a Vulnerable

Group Development Framework, not many projects targeting such groups were

implemented. Such projects also should earmark a fixed proportion of funds for vulnerable

groups.

· A state level support system should be developed to provide technical support to LGs in

planning, implementing and monitoring projects that require a higher level of technical

knowledge. Empanelling technical experts/institutions having expertise in specific areas

for such purposes is a feasible option. Before preparing the plans for innovative projects,

wider consultations on technical and other aspects should be undertaken.

· Asset mapping is an important step towards scientific management of local resources and

as a tool for resource mobilisation. It is recommended that the design for asset mapping

has to be developed at the state level taking into account the needs of different

agencies/sectors not only at the local level but also at block, district and state level as

mapping assets by different LGs in different formats may make them unusable.

· The guidelines prepared by KLGSDP for spending the additional financial assistance

given to a group of backward GPs and Municipalities in 2016-17 tried to promote the

planning of a complete project rather than piece meal solutions by local governments.

Such an approach may be adopted in the case of large projects undertaken using other

sources of funds also. A portion of the plan grants from the state government may be

earmarked for such projects.

· The guidelines for the implementation of the road projects under the Prime Minister’s

Grameen Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) have provisions for maintenance contract for five years

with the agency. New guidelines for implementing projects in this sector, which attracts

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) xxvi

the largest share of LG funds, may be issued by LSGD for which the guidelines mentioned

above may be useful.

· The Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) of KLGSDP was a new

concept to the LGs. At present the LGs do not have necessary capability to effectively

implement ESMF. The concept of ESMF may be extended to at least all large projects of

LGs after providing necessary training to LG staff.

· The present study depended solely on the feedback of the citizens to assess the access

to institutions and facilities and to understand the quality of service delivery. While it is

very important to get the citizens’ perspective, the points of view of the institutions should

also be considered in reaching a more objective conclusion. Future service delivery

surveys to track changes in service delivery of local governments in the state may include

such an additional component.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Government of Kerala has introduced in 2011-12 the Kerala Local Government Service Delivery

Project (KLGSDP) with an objective to ”enhance and strengthen the institutional capacity of the local

government system in Kerala to deliver services and undertake basic administrative and governance

functions more effectively and in a sustainable manner”. The project, which supports all the Grama

Panchayats and Municipalities in the State, is being implemented by the state government with the

financial assistance of the World Bank. Currently this project is in the final stages of its

implementation. A baseline study was conducted in February-March 2013. The present report

contains the findings of the endline study of the project and makes an assessment of the changes

that took place between the baseline and endline surveys in service delivery to the extent possible.

1.2 The Context of Decentralization

The passage of the 73rd and 74th of the Constitutional Amendments (73rd on rural decentralisation

and 74th on urban decentralisation) in 1993 provided an opportunity for democratic decentralization

of administration and planning as well as for enhancing the autonomy of LGs in India. In 1994, Kerala

passed an Act to provide the necessary legal framework to initiate decentralisation process. The

enactment paved the way for the formation of a three tier structure of LGs in rural areas (District,

Block and GP) and one tier system in urban areas. Participatory local level planning was considered

as a crucial element of decentralised governance. Initially, it was undertaken in Kerala in a campaign

mode known as the 'People's Plan Campaign'. The decentralisation process in the state has now

moved on from the campaign mode to institutionalisation mode.

A major feature of Kerala’s decentralisation is the transfer of Plan Grants to LGs. Kerala earmarks

a substantial share of the Plan resources for rural and urban LGs. Under the People’s Planning

Programme, the state government allocated about 40 percent of the Plan funds to rural and urban

LGs during the Ninth-Five-Year Plan (1997-2002). It continues to be substantial even though the

share has come down over the years. A major advantage of the Plan Grant is the relatively high

freedom given to LGs in using the funds for their own development programmes and interventions.

The allocation to LGs is done on the basis of specific criteria fixed by the State Finance Commission

(SFC). This reduces the arbitrariness in allocation. Resources devolved from the state government


can be supplemented with resources mobilised by local bodies from their own tax and non-tax heads,

loans, donations and voluntary labour.

Functions related to several sectors have been transferred to LGs. The LGs are now responsible for

civic services such as construction and maintenance of LG roads, street lighting, sanitation including

waste management and running minor drinking water projects. Pre-primary, Lower Primary (LP) and

Upper Primary (UP) education in rural areas comes under the jurisdiction of GPs. In urban areas, all

schools up to the higher secondary level were transferred to Municipalities and Municipal

Corporations. In rural areas, Primary Health Centres (PHCs) were transferred to GPs while higher

levels of hospitals were transferred to Block Panchayats and District Panchayats. In urban areas,

Community Health Centres (CHCs), government hospitals and Taluk Headquarters hospitals are

under Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. The anganwadis, which are the grass root level

institutions of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, comes under the LGs both

in rural and urban areas. While some of the financial, administrative and developmental functions of

these institutions are with the LGs, the state government continues to meet the salary of the staff.

There is also administrative control on these institutions by the government departments.

1.3 Project Background

KLGSDP aimed to improve the quality of lives of the people of Kerala by raising the level of service

delivery of GPs and Municipalities in the state. The project was conceived on the realisation that

there is a need to improve the quality of services provided by the LGs and the institutions transferred

to them like schools, health care institutions and anganwadis. Kerala has been undertaking several

initiatives in the past to improve the capacity of LGs. However, institutionalization of systems and

good practices is a continuous challenge. The World Bank funded KLGSDP was expected to address

some of these challenges and issues related to governance at the local level. The estimated cost of

the project is Rs.1195.8 Crores. KLGSDP has the following broad components:

Component I: Performance Grant: The Performance grant (PG) will be spent on creation and

maintenance of capital assets used in service delivery by LGs. It provides GPs and Municipalities

with additional discretionary, untied funds for expanded local investment. The overall goal of the grant

is to improve GP and municipal performance in local governance and public service delivery. The

performance grant is in addition to the State Finance Commission (SFC) allocation for which the LGs

are otherwise eligible. This component constituted 92 per cent (Rs. 1097.56 Crore) of the total project

cost. In the first two years, all GPs and Municipalities received grant funding. From the third year


onwards, eligibility for Performance Grant was based on an annual performance assessment of LGs

based on certain approved criteria.

Based on the data available in the database of Information Kerala Mission (IKM), the share of

performance grants from KLGSDP in the total development funds received by the LGs from various

sources during the period 2012-13 to 2016-171 has been found out. KLGSDP constituted around 10

per cent of the total development fund received by the LGs (Not shown in the table). The share of

different sectors (as classified by IKM) in the total KLGSDP funds received by LGs is also worked

out. The details are presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Share of different sectors in KLGSDP performance grant and share of KLGSDP in total development funds allotted to the sector by the LGs during the period 2012-13 to 2016-17

Sector

Share of the sector in KLGSDP performance grant received by the

LGs

Share of KLGSDP in development funds

allotted to the sector by the LGs

Transport* 34.5 19.3

Public building which are not included in productive & Service sector

28.0 46.0

Street light, office electrification 6.9 18.0

Computerisation 4.8 13.3

Health 4.2 9.7

Sanitation 4.1 3.5

Education 3.8 1.8

Anganwadi 2.6 18.9

Drinking Water 2.5 6.2

Youth welfare 1.8 16.3

Fisheries 1.0 15.8

Other sectors** 5.8 --

Total 100.0 --

* In transport sector, most of the projects are for the development of road infrastructure. ** In other sectors the share of KLGSDP in the LG development fund is less than one per cent.

Transport sector constituted little more than one-third of the total funds received by the LGs from

KLGSDP. Most of the projects in this sector are for developing road infrastructure. KLGSDP funds

formed nearly one-fifth of the development funds to the sector. More than quarter of the KLGSDP

funds goes for Public building which are not included in productive and service sectors. Bulk of the

projects included in this sector are for the development of infrastructure of LG offices. KLGSDP

contributed nearly half of the development funds to the sector. Streetlights and office electrification

is combined as a sector in the IKM data base. It constitutes seven per cent of the KLGSDP funds.

1 Data fro 2011-12, the first year of the project is not available in the IKM database.


Computerisation, health, sanitation, education, anganwadi and drinking water constituted two to five

per cent of KLGSDP funds each.

Component II: Capacity Building for LGs: This component is to provide capacity building inputs to

institutionalize the existing systems and human resources of Kerala Institute of Local Administration

(KILA), State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD) and Information Kerala Mission (IKM) for

providing training to LGs. The activities envisaged under this component included preparation of

different manuals, development of training modules and tool kits, Training of Trainers and

strengthening of help desk for supporting the implementation of new procurement procedures and

inclusion of new areas like ESMF. KLGSDP also supported for engaging an engineer and an

accountant-cum-IT specialist in each Block. The project also supported the expansion of capabilities

of IKM to provide technical support to LGs for the implementation of e-governance systems and

accounting systems. The estimated cost of this component was Rs.51.52 crores.

Component III- Enhancing Monitoring of the Local Government system: This component aimed

to strengthen the system of performance monitoring of LGs in Kerala. The estimated cost of this

component was Rs.15.44 crore. It has four sub-components:

1. Development of Database of GPs and Municipalities: Under this sub-component, a web-

based database available to general public should be developed which includes basic

information regarding LGs like population, vital statistics, livelihoods, employment,

education, water and sanitation, budget expenditures and physical assets. The data

collected from existing data sets, administrative records, state audits and line departments

are to be made use of. Decentralization Analysis Cell (DAC) established at Gulati Institute of

Finance and Taxation (GIFT) was made responsible for operating and updating the system.

2. LSG Service Delivery Survey to gauge the basic services provided by LGs and the level of

satisfaction of the citizens with service delivery.

3. Project Evaluations: This includes a study to evaluate the quality of the capacity building

efforts (Component 2) and a service delivery technical evaluation for the Performance Grant

investments (Component 1). The latter includes an assessment of improved access to

services as a result of the block grant investments; coverage/distribution of service provision;

technical quality, operations and maintenance arrangements, cost effectiveness and

safeguards issues.

4. DAC: The DAC has the following functions: (i) collect, store, compile and report

GP/Municipality level information and service delivery data; (ii) carry out a policy advisory


function providing independent analysis on the performance of the State’s intergovernmental

fiscal system and service delivery system and provide ongoing policy advice to Government

of Kerala and the SFC on local and intergovernmental fiscal and institutional issues.

Component IV- Project Management and Implementation: This component, with an estimated

cost of Rs.31.28 crores, is to provide support to Project Management Unit (PMU) responsible for the

day-to-day management, co-ordination and implementation of the project.

In the final year of the project (2016-17), KLGSDP introduced a new method of funding based on the

backwardness of the LGs. This assistance, provided to Backward and Tribal LGs, was in addition to

the performance grant. Backward LGs were identified based on indicators of backwardness and own

revenue of the LGs. Additional financial assistance of Rs 2 crores was provided to 40 Backward GPs,

10 GPs with tribal clusters and 10 Revenue Deficient Municipalities. The funds were to be used for

the creation of physical infrastructure assets. The implementation of LG projects under this initiative

was different from that of other projects. The identification of projects under this initiative was done

based on a study to ascertain the infrastructure development and service delivery needs of the LG.

After identifying and prioritising the needs through a participatory and consultative process, Detailed

Project report (DPR) was prepared for each project. The DPR prepared under this component had

much more details than is usually included in the documents of projects funded earlier by KLGSDP

and the Plan Grants. NGOs with relevant experience were engaged to conduct infrastructure need

assessment of the LG and the preparation of DPR.

1.4 Objectives of the Endline Study

Specific objectives of the endline study as per the Terms of Reference are to assess:

a) Whether the project activities were implemented in an efficient and timely manner.

b) Whether the project activities implemented are sustainable, i.e., ability to continue after the

project is completed.

c) The perceptions of citizens about different services delivered by the LGs and about local

governance.

d) The extent of satisfaction and participation of citizens in plan formulation and budgeting of

LGs.

e) The extent of accessibility and quality of service delivery.

f) The level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries with the service delivery of the project, in terms

of accessibility, quality, timeliness and variations across different categories of LGs.


g) Identify the challenges faced by the beneficiaries in demanding and accessing services.

h) To what extent has gender and safeguard practices been mainstreamed at process and

results level.

i) Provide recommendations for improving service delivery.

1.5 Approach and Methodology

As per the ToR, the assessment has to be done based on a household survey conducted in manner

similar to that of the baseline survey, a community survey and an assessment of sample

interventions. Quantitative and qualitative data collected through these three methods formed the

basis for the analysis. As mentioned in the ToR, the endline study should help to “understand the

changes and improvements, if any, with regards to the baseline situation”. As in the case of baseline

assessment, the endline study focused on:

a) Road infrastructure

b) Street lighting

c) Water supply

d) Sanitation

e) Health Care Institutions

f) Schools

g) Anganwadis

h) Offices of LGs

The main aspects emerging from the objectives that needs to be explored are:

1. Access to services, quality of services, level of satisfaction of citizens with the services

2. Efficiency, affordability and sustainability of project interventions

3. Participation in plan formulation and budgeting

4. Gender and safeguard practices

1.5.1 Access to services, quality of services, and level of satisfaction of citizens with LG services

Data from the household survey was used to make an assessment of the project on the above

aspects of service delivery. The endline study covered the same sectors and activities covered by

the baseline study. The services/institutions covered include roads, street lighting, sanitation, water

supply, health, education, anganwadis and LG offices. While access to services has been examined

in the case of civic services such as roads, street lighting, sanitation and water supply, data on usage


has been made use of in the case of services of institutions such as schools, hospitals, anganwadis

and LG offices. The quality of service was assessed on the basis of indicators developed at the

baseline stage. The ability of the LG to solve citizen’s problems with respect to service delivery and

the level of satisfaction were also assessed. The level of satisfaction of the citizens with different

services was measured on a three point scale (fully satisfied, partially satisfied and not satisfied).

For comparison across different categories of LGs and across social and economic groupings of

households, the ‘percent of fully satisfied citizens’ is the indicator of satisfaction of the service.

The endline service levels were compared with that at the baseline to understand the changes over

the period of time. Apart from making a comparison at the aggregate level, the study also examined

the differences, if any, between LG categories.

1.5.2 Efficiency, affordability and sustainability of project activities

The objectives of the study included assessing the efficiency, sustainability and affordability of

KLGSDP interventions. This was accomplished by assessing a sample of LG projects funded by

KLGSDP. As pointed out in the World Bank Project Performance Assessment Report of the Uganda

Second Local Government Development Project (2014), it is difficult to quantify the benefits in a

project like this though the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data generated by the sample

project intervention assessment will contribute to an overall assessment of efficiency of individual

projects. To assess efficiency, the present study examined whether the LG project was completed

as per the agreed timelines and whether actual expenditures exceeded earlier budget projections.

Whether KLGSDP has been able to introduce any mechanisms to improve the efficiency of project

planning and implementation was also examined.

Sustainability, as per the ToR, is the ability of the sample projects to continue even after the

completion of the implementation phase. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially

sustainable. Some of the questions that need to be answered are:

· Are the involved parties willing and able to continue the project activities on their own

(wherever applicable)?

· Whether processes and systems are available to ensure the sustainability of the project.

· Whether there are any social or political factors that positively or negatively influence the

sustainability of the project.

· Whether the intervention poses any threats to environment.


Affordability is applicable only when user fee is charged for usage. Examples include water supply

schemes, crematoriums and parks. This aspect is examined while assessing the sample projects

where a user fee is charged. The objective was to understand whether the poor are able to afford

the user charges.

1.5.3 Participation in Planning and Budgeting

Participation in Planning and Budgeting was examined by understanding their participation (active

and passive) in Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha which was obtained from the household survey. The

participation of beneficiaries at various stages of project planning and implementation was assessed

in projects covered by sample project assessment.

1.5.4 Gender and Safeguard practices

The gender and safeguard practices followed was examined in the case of sample projects. Whether

the ESMF framework has been followed and whether mitigation measures had been adopted was

examined. How the service delivery of LGs is distributed across categories of citizens is a question

that is important from this point of view. Differences in selected aspects of service delivery across

gender and socio-economic groups were also examined. The analysis also examined whether the

women are participating in decision making.

1.5.5 Household Survey

As mentioned earlier, the end line survey was designed in such a way that it facilitates comparison

with the findings of the baseline survey. A multi-stage stratified systematic sampling design was

adopted for the selection of the sample households in the case of both GPs and Municipalities during

the baseline survey. The same methodology is followed in endline household survey. In the baseline

survey, the GPs2 were stratified into three groups and Municipalities into two groups based on the

data used by the Fourth State Finance Commission. The GPs were classified into three groups as

follows:

Group I- Vulnerable GPs (74 GPs): These are the GPs classified as ‘Vulnerable” by the Fourth SFC.

The SFC identified the GPs on the basis of a deprivation index calculated using a set of indicators

such as housing status, availability of drinking water, sanitation, electricity and land holding.

2 Change in the number of GPs and Municipalities due to the conversion of some GPs into Municipalities and formation of new Municipal Corporations after the baseline study has not been considered. There was no change in the sample GPs and Municipalities after the baseline study.


Group II- Other Backward GPs (Fiscally Disadvantaged GPs): These are GPs which are not able to

meet their establishment costs and obligatory expenses (for which Maintenance or Development

Funds from the state government cannot be used) with their own revenues and General Purpose

Fund. These GPs were identified on the basis of GP level data for the year 2008-09 used by the

Fourth SFC. However, fiscally disadvantaged GPs that fall in Group I was excluded from Group II.

There are 303 GPs in this group after removing duplication with the Vulnerable GPs.

Group III- Advanced GPs: GPs other than the ones categorised as belonging to Group I and Group

II were included in this category. There are 601 GPs in this category.

The 60 Municipalities were classified into two groups (with equal number), viz. Backward and

Advanced using the per capita Own Source Revenue (OSR) for the financial year 2008-09.

For the selection of sample households in GPs, in the first stage, they were stratified as Vulnerable,

Other Backward and Advanced. The GPs in each stratum were arranged geographically from north

to south and the required number of GPs was selected using systematic sampling procedure. A

sample of 16 GPs was selected from each of the three strata (total 48 GPs). In the second stage,

two wards were selected randomly from each selected GP of which one was a backward ward. From

each selected ward, one voting booth was selected randomly. The sampling was done in a similar

manner for Municipalities. In the first stage, eight Municipalities were selected from each group (total

16 Municipalities). In the second stage, three wards were selected and one voting booth was

selected from each ward in the next stage. Of the three wards selected, one is from among the

backward wards. From each selected ward, one booth was selected. In the next stage, households

were selected from the list of households prepared on the basis of voters’ list for the LG elections.

The required number of households was selected from the list using systematic sampling procedure.

As in the case of baseline survey, the number of respondents per booth for the endline survey is 17

for GPs and 34 for Municipalities. The sample size for household survey in GPs is 1632 (17

householdsx2boothsx48GPs). The sample size for household survey in Municipalities is 1632 (34

householdsx3wardsx16 Municipalities).

The Endline Survey was conducted in the same GPs and Municipalities, wards and booths where

the baseline survey was conducted. But the households in the endline survey are not the same as

in baseline survey as the household identification information of the baseline survey was not

available. The respondents were interviewed in the households and repeat visits (at least 3 visits in

case of non-availability of the respondents) were undertaken to minimize non-response. The


household survey was administered using a questionnaire (Appendix IV). The draft household

questionnaire was pilot tested among 30 respondents (15 in GPs and 15 in Municipalities) to improve

the flow of questions, wording of questions, length of the questionnaire, instructions to the investigator

etc. Based on the inputs from pilot testing, the draft questionnaire was modified before starting the

field work. The questionnaire was initially prepared in English which was later translated to the local

language (Malayalam). In order to ensure the correctness of the translation, back translation to

English was also undertaken and was compared with the original one in English.

As the study employs a multi-stage stratified design in the household survey, different households

have different probabilities of being selected into the sample. The sample weights were constructed

in a way to make the weighted sample representative of households in GPs (or Municipalities) in

Kerala. The greater the probability of inclusion of a household in the sample, smaller should be the

weight of that household. In the present sampling procedure with LG categories, wards, booths and

households, the probability of household selection is the product of the probability of selection of a

particular LG in a category, the ward selection within the LG, booth selection within the ward and the

household selection within the booth. The weights are calculated separately for GPs and

Municipalities. The estimation procedure adopted for Panchayats and Municipalities is presented in

Appendix I. Significance tests based on the differences in two proportions were performed to

compare baseline and endline indicators. A p-value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

1.5.6 Community survey

A community survey was undertaken as part of the end line study with the objective of making an

assessment of the socio-economic status of the area, availability and access to infrastructure in the

community and community participation in decision making. A community is defined in this study as

ward of the LG. Necessary information was collected from the office of the LG and key informants

such as government officials and elected representatives.

1.5.7 Assessment of Sample LG Projects

In addition to the two components mentioned above which were part of the baseline study, the endline

study has a third component to assess the performance of a sample of LG projects funded by

KLGSDP. The purpose is to assess the efficiency and timeliness of interventions and the

sustainability of the LG projects after the completion of KLGSDP. Representation of projects in the

services/areas covered by household survey, projects for the vulnerable and projects in other sectors

which were undertaken in a good number of LGs was ensured in sample selection. The details

regarding the selection of sample projects are given in Appendix I. The sample projects were


selected from the list of KLGSDP projects implemented in the years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 by LGs

where the household survey was conducted. The assessment of 24 GP projects and 12 Municipal

projects was undertaken under this component of the endline study. The details are presented in

Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Details of LG Projects included in Project Assessment

Category No. of projects

GPs Municipalities

Roads 7 3

Infrastructure improvement 5 1

Computerisation 2 1

Drinking Water 2 1

Street lights 2 -

Park 1 -

Crematorium 1 1

Education 1 -

Front office of LG improvement 1 1

Bus stand/ Bus shelter 1 1

Vayojana Visrama Kendram - 1

Sanitation - 2

Others 1 -

Total 24 12

For each selected project, the details relating to efficiency and sustainability were collected from the

LG Office and the key informants such as LG secretary, LG Engineer and elected representatives

using a checklist. Besides, a small survey was also conducted among the beneficiaries to get their

feedback on usefulness of the project, perception about its sustainability, opinion on quality of assets

created and the level of satisfaction with the implementation of the project. A sample of 15

beneficiaries were interviewed from each sample project. If the total number of beneficiaries of the

project is less than 15, all the beneficiaries were interviewed. But, a list of beneficiary households

was not available for all sample projects. Wherever a list of beneficiary households was available,

beneficiaries were selected using systematic sampling procedure. When such a list was not

available, respondents were selected from the project area systematically with a random start and

following the right hand rule. The beneficiary survey was administered using a questionnaire. The

base questionnaire was modified according to the type/sector of the project without changing the

overall content/orientation.


1.6 Field Work

The field work of the endline study was conducted in the months of February, March and April 2017.

Prior to the fieldwork, three-day intensive training programme was conducted for the investigators

and supervisors on the issues relating to KLGSDP, service delivery aspects and anticipated problems

in data collection. The training programme included one-day field-testing of the research instruments

in real life setting by the investigators.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

As per the terms of reference, the present study aimed to understand the service delivery of LGs at

the endline situation and compare it with the baseline service delivery levels. However, no control

group was available in the study. In the absence of a control group, it was not possible to attribute

the observed changes between baseline and endline in service delivery levels to KLGSDP.

Moreover, in the sectors/services covered by baseline and endline studies, KLGSDP funds

constituted only a small portion of the funds spent by the LGs. KLGSDP funds can be used for any

type of project except the ones mentioned in the negative list. This, in effect, is equivalent to an

additional allocation of state government funds (about 10 per cent). In some of the sectors covered

by the endline study, the additional allocation was to the tune of 1-2 per cent. As noted earlier, even

in the case of road infrastructure development, which is the sector in which the LGs spent the largest

amounts from KLGSDP, the share of KLGSDP allocation was only around one fifth of the total

expenditure in the sector by the LGs. It may also be noted that the endline household survey was

conducted at a time when the LG projects commissioned in the year 2016-17 was in the final stages

of completion. Therefore, the changes in service delivery as a result of these interventions are

unlikely to be captured in the citizens’ feedback in the endline survey.

Another limitation of the study is related to the statistical power to understand the changes between

baseline and endline levels in the case of service delivery of transferred institutions. While all the

households which participated in the endline survey responded to questions related to civic services

and participation in local governance, only a subset of the households could respond to questions

related to transferred institutions and LG offices as others were not using the services of these

institutions. Therefore, the study faced constraints in the sample sizes in the case of service delivery

from transferred institutions and LG offices.

The sample project assessment was conducted in the form of case studies of 36 project interventions

in LGs making generalisation hardly possible. However, the design made sure that different sectors


are covered in this assessment. As per the ToR, there was provision for only assessing only those

LG projects funded by KLGSDP alone. Projects using other funding sources were not examined in

detail. Therefore, any difference in the planning and implementation of KLGSDP interventions with

those using other sources of funds was based on the opinion of the stakeholders at the local level

and not based on a comparison of the two types of projects. Including LG projects which made use

of other sources of funds in the study design would have provided more insights. Another limitation

of the project assessment was that the officials and elected representatives involved in planning and

implementation of LG projects of the first three years were no longer available in the LG at the time

of the assessment in many projects and the study team, therefore, had to depend on the limited

institutional memory.

1.8 Structure of the Report

This report is divided into nine chapters. This introductory chapter provides a description of the

objectives, methodology and limitations of the Study. Details of the methodology that are not

presented in the chapter is given as Appendix I. Chapter II presents the characteristics of the sample

communities and households. The aspects such as access to or usage of services, quality of

services, responsiveness of LG towards grievances and level of satisfaction with service delivered,

examined on the basis of the household survey are presented in Chapters III to V. In Chapter III, the

delivery of civic services, namely, street lighting, roads, water supply and sanitation including waste

management are discussed. Chapter IV discusses the service delivery in transferred institutions

such as government schools, government health care institutions and anganwadis. Chapter V

presents the feedback of the citizens on the delivery of services from GP and Municipal offices.

Chapter VI presents the findings on efficiency, timeliness and sustainability of a sample of LG projects

funded by KLGSDP. Detailed case study of each project assessed is presented as Appendix III.

Chapter VII examines the participation of the citizens in the planning and budgeting process of the

LG, which is based on both household survey and beneficiary survey conducted along with project

assessment. Aspects related to environmental and social safeguards adopted by the LGs, examined

on the basis of both household survey and sample project assessment are presented in Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX presents the summary of findings and the recommendations emerging from the study.


CHAPTER II

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE COMMUNITIES AND HOUSEHOLDS

2.1 Introduction

This chapter, a prelude to the ensuing chapters, profiles the communities where the endline

household survey was conducted and presents the socio-economic and demographic characteristics

of the sample households. A community is defined in this study as a ward of the LG. The endline

study was conducted in 48 GPs and 16 Municipalities selected using the methodology detailed in

Chapter I. A total of 96 GP wards (2 from each sample GP) and 48 Municipal wards (3 from each

sample Municipality) were selected. The wards were the same for baseline and endline surveys. The

number of sample households for endline household survey was originally fixed at 1632 each for

GPs and Municipalities. However, responses could be obtained only from 1618 households each in

GPs and the Municipalities even after repeated visits.

2.2 Characteristics of Sample LGs

The GPs in Kerala have much larger population than those in other parts of the country. The average

population of a GP in the

sample is 26895 and that of

Municipality is 39939. Wide

variation in the size of

population is noted in both

GPs and Municipalities, the

former ranging from 9607 to

45951 and the latter from

21186 to 75847. Some

relevant characteristics of

GPs and Municipalities are

given in Table 2.1. Of the 48

GPs included in the sample,

four have a population more

than 40000. Seven out of the

16 Municipalities in the

sample have a population

Table 2.1: Distribution of the sample LGs according to total population, percent of SC/ST population and the number of wards

Particulars Number

GPs Municipalities

Population

20000 or less 10 0

20001- 30000 20 6

30001-40000 14 3

40001-50000 4 4

50001-60000 0 1

More than 60000 0 2

Percent of SC/ST in the Population of the LG

5 % or less 7 7

5.01 - 10.00 % 13 3

10.01 - 15.00 % 15 5

Above 15 % 13 1

Number of wards in the LG

15 or less 18 0

16-20 19 0

21-25 11 0

26-30 0 5

31-40 0 7

Above 40 0 4

Number of sample LGs 48 16


above 40000. Proportion of SC/ST population is five percent or less in seven GPs and seven

Municipalities. But in 13 GPs and one Municipality, SC/ST forms more than 15 percent of the total

population. There is no GP with more than 25 wards. About one-third of the GPs have 15 wards or

less while nearly one-fourth have 21-25 wards. All the sample Municipalities have at least 25 wards

with four of them having more than 40 wards. The average number of wards in GPs is 17 and that in

Municipalities is 34 (not reported in the table).

2.3 Characteristics of the Sample LG Wards

Table 2.2 presents the details of the public infrastructure available in the sample wards. Anganwadi

is available in most of the wards, both in rural and urban areas. A government LP school is located

in mainly two-thirds of the sample GP wards and slightly more than half of the municipal wards. A

government UP school is located in nearly one-third of the wards in both Municipalities and GPs.

Sub-centre of the PHC is available in more than one-third of the GP wards and more than one-fourth

of the municipal wards. Table 2.2 reveals that there is not much difference between GPs and

Municipalities in the availability of public infrastructure at the ward level except higher secondary

schools.

Table 2.2: Availability of public infrastructure in the sample wards

Infrastructure Percent

GP wards Municipal wards

Government LP School 63.5 54.2

Government UP School 31.3 29.2

Government High School 16.7 20.8

Government Higher Secondary School 8.3 18.8

Sub Centre 36.5 27.1

Anganwadi 96.9 95.8

Number of sample wards 96.0 48.0

Table 2.3 presents the details about the civic amenities available in the sample wards. Tarred roads

and street lights are available in almost all GP and municipal wards. Public water taps are available

in about 70 percent of GP and Municipal wards. Public wells are also available in three-fourths of

the wards in GPs and Municipalities. The Municipalities are slightly better placed than GPs in the

provision of civic amenities.


Table 2.3: Availability of basic amenities in the sample wards

Amenities available Percent


Tarred Road 100.0 100.0

Street light 91.7 100.0

Public water taps 68.8 70.8

Public well 79.2 72.9

The distance between the GP and Municipal office and the respective wards is also examined in this

survey. One-fourth of the GP wards and eight per cent of the Municipal wards are more than 5

kilomtres away from the LG office (Table 2.4). The average distance from a ward in the GP sample

to the GP office is 4.2 kilometres (not reported in table) and this fairly high distance is because of the

large size of the GPs in Kerala noted earlier. The average distance between the sample ward and

Municipal office works out to be 3.4 kilometres (not reported in table).

Table 2.4: Distribution of the sample wards according to the distance from the ward to the office of the GP/Municipality

Distance Percent


1 km or less 19.8 22.9

1.1 - 2 km 18.8 22.9

2.1 - 3 km 14.6 25.0

3.1 - 5 km 22.8 20.8

More than 5 km 24.0 8.4

Number of sample wards 96 48

We have also examined the profile of the elected representative of the LG representing the ward

(Table 2.5). Majority of representatives have at least high school education in both GP and

Municipality sample. Those with graduation or higher levels of education formed about one-fourth of

in both GPs and Municipalities. Nearly one-fifth of the elected representatives belong to the

Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST) in GPs while in Municipalities, it is less than 5

percent.


Table 2.5: Distribution of the sample wards according to the profile of the elected representative

Profile of the elected representative Percent


Gender Male 41.7 60.4

Female 58.3 39.6

Education

Up to 9th standard 5.2 10.4

High school completed 41.7 43.8

Higher secondary completed 25.0 22.9

Graduation or above 28.1 22.9

Community

SC 13.5 2.1

ST 5.2 2.1

Other Backward Castes (OBC) 39.6 43.8

Others 41.7 52.0


2.4 Characteristics of Sample Households

The household survey elicited response from 1618 households each in GPs and Municipalities. The

socio-economic and demographic profile of the sample households is presented in Table 2.6. Most

of the houses are owned by the family which responded to the present survey. Only about 5 percent

are living in the houses owned by others on rental or rent-free basis. About half of the households

in GPs and one-third in Municipalities are living below the poverty line as per the ration card the family

holds now. The main source of income for the GP households is reported to be daily wage labour

(52%), agriculture/livestock (12%), business (8%), permanent job either in private or government

office (11%) and pension (7%). In Municipalities, daily wage labour (38%), business/trade (18%),

permanent job either in private or government office (16%), pension (12%), remittances of a family

member from abroad (8 %) and agriculture (5%) were major sources of family income.

The SC households formed about one-tenth of the total number of sample households, which is

almost at par with the proportion of this group in the state’s population. ST households formed 5.6

percent of the sample households in GPs and 0.4 percent in the Municipalities. The religious

composition of the sample is not much different from that of the state’s population. Almost all

households in both rural and urban areas have electricity connection. Wood is the main source of

fuel for cooking in nearly three-fourths of the households in the GP sample and two-in-five in the

sample households in the Municipalities. The average household size is 4.5, both in GPs and in


Municipalities (not shown in the table) and the distribution by number of members is more or less the

same in both areas.

Table 2.6: Distribution of the sample households according to household profile

2.5 Change due to KLGSDP

During the community survey, the elected representatives of the sample wards were interviewed.

They were asked to give their perception about the changes in service delivery due to KLGSDP

Characteristics Percent of households in

GPs Municipalities

Ownership of house

Owned 94.4 94.8

Rented 2.3 3.9

Rent free 3.3 1.3

Income class (as per ration card)

Below Poverty Line (BPL) 48.4 32.4

Above Poverty Line (APL) 51.6 67.6

Main source of income

Agriculture/livestock 11.8 4.6

Daily wage labour 52.0 38.3

Contract labour 2.8 2.0

Permanent job government 5.6 7.1

Permanent job private 5.0 9.4

Business/Trade/Self employed 7.8 17.6

Remittance of a family member 7.5 8.3

Pension 6.8 12.2

Others 0.7 0.5

Religion

Hindu 51.8 60.3

Muslim 21.8 23.9

Christian 26.3 15.7

No religion 0.1 0.1

Community

SC 11.4 9.9

ST 5.6 0.4

OBC 50.8 60.0

Others 32.2 29.7

Households with electric connection

Yes 98.1 99.4

No 1.9 0.6

Main fuel for cooking

LPG 27.9 56.3

Wood 71.8 43.4

Others 0.3 0.3

Number of Household members

Three or less 30.0 30.7

Four 26.5 25.0

Five 20.8 20.3

More than Five 22.7 24.0

Number of sample households 1618 1618


interventions in different sectors/institutions under the control of LGs. Results are presented in Table

2.7.

Table 2.7: Percent of Elected Representatives according to whom KLGSDP helped to improve the service delivery of LGs

Service

Percent of

GP Ward Members

Municipal ward Councilors

Roads 61.5 41.7

LG Office 57.3 39.6

Anganwadis 39.6 18.8

Water supply 36.5 20.8

Health Care 32.3 25.0

Education 27.1 20.8

Vulnerable groups 24.0 20.8

Conservation of natural resources 24.0 10.4

Sanitation 19.8 18.8

Women 14.6 16.7

Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy 11.5 6.3


According to the elected representatives, improvement has happened due to the projects

implemented in the LG using KLGSDP funds. Largest proportion of elected representatives reported

improvement in road infrastructure and services of LGs as a result of KLGSDP interventions. About

two-thirds of the GP ward members and two-fifths of the Municipal councilors said that there was

improvement in road infrastructure due to KLGSDP. Some of them said that without the KLGSDP

funds, this kind of projects could not have been taken up as the priorities were always for the projects

to be implemented in their wards due to the pressure from the citizens.


CHAPTER III

FEEDBACK ON CIVIC SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

This chapter presents the feedback given by the citizens on the civic services provided by the LGs;

namely street lights, roads, water supply and sanitation. The chapter discusses the access to these

services, quality of services, grievance redressal and the satisfaction with the services. In addition,

analysis is also done to find out whether the changes in service delivery in Vulnerable/Backward

GPs/Municipalities are similar than that in Advanced GPs/Municipalities. The results of the endline

survey are also compared with those of the baseline survey to assess the extent of changes from the

baseline scenario.

SECTION I: STREETLIGHTING

Provision of streetlights is a mandatory service of LGs. As per Section 176 B of the Kerala Panchayat

Act, 1994, “a village panchayat shall cause all public streets in its area to be lighted and for that

purpose shall provide such lamps and works as may be necessary”. Section 316 of the Kerala

Municipalities Act, 1994 vests the responsibility of providing street lights in urban areas with the

respective Municipalities. This section presents the status with respect to the availability and

effectiveness of street lighting in the LGs. The situation is also discussed in comparison to the

baseline scenario.

3.1.1 Access to Street Lights

At endline, 58 percent of the households in GPs have streetlights in their neighbourhood (Figure 3.1)

as against 86 per cent in Municipalities. Compared to the baseline scenario, the access to streetlights

improved significantly in both GPs and Municipalities.

Figure 3.1: Percent of households having streetlights in their neighbourhood

* = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

48.6

81.3

58.4*

85.5*

0

20

40

60

80

100

GPs MunicipalitiesBaseline Endline


When the street light access was compared between GP categories (Table 3.1), the access was the

lowest in Vulnerable GPs followed by advanced ones. Between the two categories of Municipalities,

a similar pattern was observed with the Backward ones reporting comparatively lesser access.

Significant improvement was noted only in Other Backward and Advanced GPs as well as in

Advanced Municipalities. As a result, the gap between the Vulnerable GPs and the better off GPs

has widened further from the baseline levels.

Table 3.1: Percent of households with streetlights in their neighbourhood, across categories of LGs

Category of LG Percent of Households

Baseline Endline

GPs

Vulnerable 48.4 48.8

Other Backward 53.4 62.1*

Advanced 46.6 58.1*

All GPs 48.6 58.4*

Municipalities

Backward 80.8 82.9

Advanced 81.6 87.6*

All Municipalities 81.3 85.5*


3.1.2 Quality of Street lighting

The quality of service delivery was assessed by asking whether the street lights were lit on most

days. The citizens were asked to reflect upon their experience with street lighting in the year

preceding the survey. At endline, seven in ten households in GPs and eight in ten households in

Municipalities reported that streetlights in their neighbourhood are lit on most days (Table 3.2).

Compared to the baseline, a significantly larger proportion of citizens in GPs reported that street

lights are lit on most days. Between Advanced and Backward Municipalities, the change was

significant only in the former.

Table 3.2: Percent of households reporting that street lights were lit on most days

Category of LG Percent of households

Baseline Endline

GPs

Vulnerable 54.1 70.4*


Advanced 52.4 68.5*

All GPs 54.2 71.1*

Municipalities

Backward 79.1 75.5

Advanced 71.4 84.5*

All Municipalities 74.8 80.6* Base: Households with streetlights in their neighourhood * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline


3.1.3 Grievance Redressal

The citizens were asked whether they had faced any problem with the provision of street lighting in

the one year preceding the survey. Those who had faced a problem were further asked whether they

had reported the problem and had received satisfactory response from the LGs. The reported

problems related mainly to irregularity of street lighting, low voltage and incidents of vandalism by

anti-social elements.

At endline, nearly half of the households in GPs (49%) experienced some problem with respect to

streetlights (Table 3.3). Only half of them reported the problem to the authorities. Half of those who

reported the complaints were satisfied with the action taken. In Municipalities, the incidence of

problems was almost at the same level as in GPs (47%) but reporting of complaints (62%) and

satisfactory redressal of complaints (69%) was higher. Table 3.3 also indicates that the incidence of

problems was more in Vulnerable GPs and Other Backward GPs compared to Advanced GPs.

However, problem incidence, at endline, was lower in Backward Municipalities compared to

Advanced ones.

Table 3.3 also indicates that since baseline, there has been a significant decline in the incidence of

problems in all categories of GPs, while there is not much difference in both categories of

Municipalities. There has also been an increase in the proportion of households that reported the

problem to the authorities and experienced satisfactory redressal of complaints. It may be observed

that there still remains a large section of the households who did not complain in spite of having

problems in service delivery and also who did not get satisfactory action on their complaint.

Table 3.3: Grievance with street lights and grievance redressal

Category of LG

Percent of Households

Faced a problem Reported the

problema

Reported satisfactory actionb

Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline

GPs

Vulnerable 63.0 50.8* 48.9 53.8 39.7 53.9

Other Backward 60.8 48.5* 46.3 61.2** 34.0 60.8*

Advanced 59.0 48.6** 40.0 45.6 42.0 48.8

All GPs 59.9 48.7* 42.7 50.7** 39.2 53.3*

Municipalities

Backward 41.1 43.1 52.0 62.9** 45.7 59.7**

Advanced 48.2 49.2 50.4 61.7* 50.1 75.9*

All Municipalities 45.0 46.6 51.1 62.2* 48.3 69.3* Note: Two-sample test of proportions, significance levels denoted by * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline a Among households that had faced a problem with respect to street lighting b Among households that complained about the problem


3.1.4 Level of Satisfaction

At endline, three in five of the households in GPs (60%) and about three-fourths of the households

in Municipalities (74%) are fully satisfied with the street lighting service. The level of satisfaction has

increased significantly between baseline and endline both in GPs and Municipalities (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Percentage distribution of households by level of satisfaction with street lighting


Among the GP categories, proportion of citizens fully satisfied with street lighting was highest in Other

Backward GPs (69%) and lowest in Advanced GPs (55%). Between the two categories, 76 percent

of the households in Advanced Municipalities reported full satisfaction compared to 70 percent in

backward ones. Among the GPs, the Vulnerable and other Backward GPs could make significant

gains since baseline, in satisfaction ratings compared to that in Advanced GPs. But in the case of

Municipalities, the improvement over the baseline scenario is more pronounced in Advanced

Municipalities compared to Backward Municipalities.

Table 3.4: Percent of households fully satisfied with street lighting in their neighbourhood across different categories of LGs


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 49.6 55.2

All GPs 48.8 59.5*

Municipalities

Backward 67.2 70.3

Advanced 62.0 76.3*

All Municipalities 64.4 73.7* * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline Base: Households which have street lighting in their neighbourhood.

73.7*

64.4

59.5*

48.8

8.2

9.2

12.8

9.2

18.1

26.4

27.7

42.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL

Fully satisfied Partially satisfied Not satisfied


3.1.5 Citizens’ Suggestions for Improving Street lighting in the Area

With a view to strengthen the prevailing situation of the street lighting service, the citizens were asked

to give their suggestions and the suggestions thus obtained are given below:

Ø Ensure timely replacement of damaged or fused bulbs

Ø Ensure provision of more street lights in junctions.

Ø Make a person responsible to ensure that the street lights are lit every day

Ø Streetlights must be located and positioned in a way that the lighting covers more area

Ø Change to more energy efficient alternatives

Ø Better coordination between LG and Kerala State Electricity Board for identification of needs

and problem resolution.

SECTION II: ROADS

The LGs are responsible for laying and maintaining all public roads other than those classified by the

government as National Highways (NH), State Highways (SH) or major district roads. This section

presents the situation with respect to the access, quality, grievances and redressal and satisfaction

with roads in the LGs. Further, these results will also be compared with the situation that prevailed at

the time of baseline survey.

3.2.1 Access to roads

The citizens were first asked whether there is a motorable road in front of their house. In the end-line

survey, among the households surveyed, 84 percent in the GPs and 85 percent in the Municipalities

have a motorable road in front of their house (Figure 3.3). More than 80 percent of all households in

all categories except the Vulnerable GPs (74 %) have this facility (Table 3.5). This is quite an

improvement from the baseline situation where in all GPs only less than 60 percent of the households

had this facility as against 66 percent in backward and 60 percent in advanced Municipalities.


Figure 3.3: Percent of households with roads in front of their house in GPs and Municipalities (%)


Table 3.5: Percent of households having roads in front of their house across different categories of LGs

LG Categories Percent of households

Baseline End-line

GPs



Advanced 58.2 85.1*

All GPs 57.3 83.8*

Municipalities

Backward 66.1 86.6*

Advanced 59.7 83.6*



Though there was significant increase in road accessibility in all categories of GPs, the quantum of

increase was smaller in Vulnerable GPs compared to that in the other two categories. As a result,

the gap between Vulnerable GPs and other GPs has increased after the baseline study.

The level of accessibility of road in Backward Municipalities was slightly better (87%) than that in the

Advanced Municipalities (84%). This is in agreement with the situation that prevailed at the time of

baseline as well. However, the difference between Backward and Advanced Municipalities has come

down between baseline and end-line.

3.2.2 Quality of Roads

To assess the quality of roads, the citizens were asked to give their opinion on the condition of the

road at the time of survey. As an indicator of timely maintenance of roads, they were further asked

to rate the condition of the roads during rains. Table 3.6 provides the required information.

57.362.6

83.8* 85.0*

GPs Municipalities

Baseline Endline


Table 3.6: Percentage distribution of households as per ratings on condition of roads in the LGs at the time of survey and during rain

Percent of households

GPs Municipalities

Good Average Bad Good Average Bad

At the time of Survey

Baseline 38.3 30.6 31.1 54.4 29.4 16.2

Endline 52.4* 25.7* 21.9* 68.8* 22.2 9.0*

During rain

Baseline 30.7 25.4 43.9 44.3 27.9 27.8

Endline 35.1* 28.1 36.8* 50.4* 30.5 19.1*


At the time of the end-line survey, 52 percent of the households in GPs rated the present condition

of roads as good. However, during rains, the percent share reduced to 35. Alongside, to be noted is

the corresponding change in the bad road category - an increase from 22 percent to 37 percent

during rainy season. In Municipalities also, a similar pattern was observed. The same pattern (a

decline in good roads and an increase in bad roads during rainy season) was observed during the

baseline survey as well in both GPs and Municipalities.

Another important point to note here is the significantly higher proportion of households that rate the

road as “good” during the reference period. That is, a comparison of the baseline data with that of

the end-line showed an increase from 38 percent to 52 percent in GPs and from 54 percent to 69

percent in Municipalities. Likewise, only around one-tenth of the households reported the roads to be

of bad condition as against 16 percent at baseline in Municipalities. Comparable decline was noted

among the GPs as well from 31 percent to 22 percent. In sum, it can be said that even good roads

turn into bad during rainy season which speaks volumes about the laxity in road maintenance.

Overall, the quality of roads has improved since baseline.

Table 3.7 shows that the proportion of households which reported the roads to be in good condition

was more or less the same in Vulnerable GPs (53%) and Advanced GPs (55 %). But in Other

Backward GPs the proportion was slightly less (47%). There has been significant improvement from

the baseline level in all categories of GPs except in Other Backward GPs. In the case of Other

Backward GPs, the difference between baseline and end-line was not statistically significant.

At the end-line survey, the proportion of citizens who rated the condition of the road as good was

lower in Advanced Municipalities compared to Backward Municipalities. The same pattern was


observed in the baseline survey as well though the condition of roads has shown significant

improvement from the baseline level in both categories of Municipalities.

Table 3.7: Percent of households reporting the condition of road at the time of the survey as good across different categories of LGs


Baseline End-line

GPs


Other Backward 41.4 47.1

Advanced 37.1 54.5*

All GPs 38.3 52.4*

Municipalities

Backward 56.1 71.5*

Advanced 53.0 66.6*



3.2.3 Grievance and grievance redressal

Information relating to whether the citizens have any grievance about the road condition was also

sought in this survey. If they have, it was probed to see whether the problem was reported to the

authorities and whether the authorities on their part redressed the grievance. The reported problems

mainly related to improper maintenance resulting in pot holes in the roads, lack of drainage and the

consequent difficulty in using the road particularly during rainy season.

Table 3.8 shows that about half of the households in the GPs faced a problem relating to the condition

of roads at the end-line survey. Among those who faced a problem, 48 percent reported that to the

authorities. Among them, only 24 percent had a satisfactory action taken to resolve the grievance. In

Municipalities, only one-third of the households faced a problem. Nearly half of them reported the

problem to the authorities. Bout only one-fifth of those who registered the complaint reported a

satisfactory outcome for their effort.


Table 3.8: Percent of households by grievance and grievance redressal relating to road in the last one year

Category of LG


Faced a problem Reported the

problema

Reported satisfactory actionb

Baseline End-line Baseline End-line Baseline End-line

GPs

Vulnerable 57.8 48.0* 44.8 42.5 7.1 14.7

Other Backward 53.8 49.5 31.3 41.8* 4.4 18.1*

Advanced 56.5 48.1* 42.4 51.3** 9.7 27.0*

All GPs 55.9 48.5* 39.7 47.9* 8.4 24.0*

Municipalities

Backward 38.2 31.4* 48.1 42.0 9.7 15.3

Advanced 41.0 37.5 35.8 49.4* 10.5 20.4**

All Municipalities

39.7 34.8* 41.1 46.4 10.2 18.5*

* = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline a Among households that had faced a problem with respect to roads b Among households that complained about the problem

Table 3.8 also indicates that there is not much difference between LG categories in the incidence of

problems at end-line and that there has been improvement from the baseline situation. Nevertheless,

statistically significant difference was observed only in the case of Vulnerable GPs, Advanced GPs

and Backward Municipalities. The reporting of problems has increased since baseline in Advanced

GPs and Other Backward GP while the difference is not significant in the case of Vulnerable GPs.

The proportion reporting satisfaction with the action taken increased in all GP categories but was

significant only in Advanced GPs and Other Backward GPs. Similarly, the change in these respects

from the baseline situation is significant in Advanced Municipalities while the difference was not

statistically significant in Backward Municipalities. It is clear that there is a decline in the problems

related to roads and that the grievance redressal mechanism is gaining confidence of the citizens

over the years. But still, there is much scope for improvement as more than half of the citizens are

not reporting the problems to the authorities and only a small proportion are satisfied with the action

taken on their complaints.

3.2.4 Satisfaction with Roads

At end-line, around half of the households in GPs (52%) and more than two-thirds of the households

in Municipalities (69%) are fully satisfied with the condition of the roads (Figure 3.4). The proportion

of fully satisfied households has increased significantly from the baseline levels.


Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of households by satisfaction levels about roads


At end-line, there is not much difference among different categories of GPs in the proportion of

citizens fully satisfied with roads (Table 3.9). Though the proportion has increased for all categories

of GPs since baseline, the improvement in satisfaction was significant only in Vulnerable GPs. Table

3.9 also indicates that the satisfaction level at end-line is more or less the same in Advanced

Municipalities and Backward Municipalities. However, the situation has improved significantly in both

categories.

Table 3.9: Percent of households fully satisfied with roads in the LG across different categories of LGs


Baseline End-line

GPs



Advanced GPs 47.2 52.9

All GPs 45.9 51.5*

Municipalities

Backward 60.1 68.2*

Advanced 58.2 69.6*



3.2.5 Citizens’ Suggestion for Improving Road Infrastructure

Citizens’ suggestions with respect to improving roads related mostly to ensure

tarring/concreting/laying of tiles and proper and timely maintenance. Citizens also suggested that

attention should be given in constructing drainages by placing the slabs properly and by timely

replacement of broken slabs.

69.0*

59.1

51.5*

45.9

14.2

13.6

17.1

9.9

16.8

27.3

31.4

44.2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL

Fully satisfied Partially satisfied Not Satisfied


SECTION III: DRINKING WATER

The LGs are primarily responsible for the provision and maintenance of public sources of water such

as public taps and public wells. The LGs are also envisaged to ensure the availability of water

through the piped water supply system and to take effective measures to overcome water shortage

as and when it arises. Kerala is a state where private wells are used as the primary source of drinking

water in majority of the households. However, many of these sources also get dried up during the

summer season. This section of the report assesses the utilization of public water sources by the

citizens and their perceptions about the efficiency of water supply through public sources, problems

encountered in accessing public sources and the level of satisfaction. A comparison of the situation

with the baseline scenario is also done to understand the changes.

3.3.1 Main Source of Drinking Water

Drinking water is sourced by households from public as well as private sources. In the case of public

wells, public taps and piped water supply at home, water is sourced from a public source. Public

source was the main

source of drinking

water for only 17

percent of the

households in GPs and

23 percent of

households in

Municipalities in the

endline survey (Table

3.10). In GPs, 12

percent of the

households depend

mainly on piped water

supply, while in

Municipalities, the

corresponding proportion is 18 percent. The main source of drinking water for majority of the

households is well in their own compound (70% in both GPs and Municipalities). Dependence on

the wells has significantly increased in the Municipalities. This will adversely affect the ground water

level also. In many cases, the well may not be located at a safe distance from latrine pits as the urban

Table 3.10: Main source of drinking water

Source of Drinking Water


GPs Municipalities


Public Sources

Piped water (tap at home) from public water supply scheme

9.7 11.8 21.0 18.0**

Public tap 2.8 3.4 4.6 3.4

Public well 1.3 1.7 1.0 1.1

Tanker (public) 1.0 0.0* 0.0 0.0

Sub-Total 14.8 16.9 26.6 22.5*

Private sources

Well in the compound 71.0 70.3 65.9 70.1*

Well in the neighbourhood 10.0 9.8 7.2 6.5

Buying water 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.9**

Others# 3.5 2.3** 0.0 0.0

Sub-Total 85.2 83.1 73.4 77.5*

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 # Others include sources such as natural spring, pond, river etc.



residents live in small plots of land. In GPs, there is not much difference from the baseline situation,

while in Municipalities, there is a significant decline in the dependence on public water supply,

especially piped water.

Table 3.11 shows that as per the endline survey, dependence on shared public water sources is high

in Vulnerable GPs than in the other two GP categories while there is not much difference between

Backward and Advanced Municipalities. A slightly higher proportion of households in Vulnerable

GPs depend more on piped water at home compared to the other two categories. As against this,

the dependence on piped water at home is more in Advanced Municipalities compared to Backward

Municipalities.

There is not much difference from the baseline scenario across categories of LGs in the dependence

on public water sources, while there has been significant increase in the dependence on piped water

at home in vulnerable and Other Backward GPs. At the same time, there is a significant decline in

the dependence on piped water in Advanced Municipalities.

Table 3.11: Percent of households depending on public water supply across different categories of GPs and Municipalities

Category of LG

Households depending on shared public sources (%)

Households having piped water connection (%)


GPs

Vulnerable 10.1 11.5 9.9 15.0**

Other Backward 5.8 4.9 8.7 13.6**

Advanced 4.1 4.3 10 10.6

All GPs 5.0 5.1 9.7 11.8

Municipalities

Backward 5.9 5.5 13.7 15.4

Advanced 5.3 3.8 27.0 20.2*

All Municipalities 5.6 4.6 21.0 18.0**

* = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline Note: Shared public sources include public wells, public taps and public water supply at home.

3.3.2 Quality of Water from Public Sources

The citizens depending on public sources of water, including those having piped water at home, were

asked to rate the quality of water. At endline, large majority of the citizens in both GPs (77%) and

Municipalities (87%) rated the quality of water to be good (Figure 3.5). Quality ratings were better in

Vulnerable GPs compared to the other two GP categories (Table 3.12). Similarly, Backward

Municipalities fared better in water quality ratings compared to Advanced Municipalities. Between


baseline and endline, the perception of citizens about the quality of water has improved considerably,

both in GPs and Municipalities.

Figure 3.5: Percentage distribution of households by their ratings on quality of water from

public sources in LGs


Table 3.12: Percent of households which rated the water is of good quality across LG categories


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 62.7 76.7

All GPs 65.2 76.6*

Municipalities

Backward 63.2 89.8*

Advanced 64.9 84.9*



3.3.3 Shortage of Water

As mentioned earlier, LGs are expected to take effective measures to overcome water shortage in

the locality. About 90 per cent of the households in both GPs and Municipalities which faced water

shortage experienced the same only during summer (not reported in Table). At endline, half of the

households in GPs faced water shortage (Table 3.13). In Municipalities, only one-fourth of the

87.0*

64.3

76.6*

65.2

9.7

27.4

17.0

25.4

3.3

7.5

6.2

6.4

0.0

0.8

0.2

3.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL

Good Average Bad No Opinion


households experienced water shortage. Respondents in about one-third of the households which

experienced a water shortage felt that the LG was effective in overcoming water shortage. Incidence

of water shortage and effective intervention from GPs was lower in Vulnerable GPs compared to the

other two GP categories. While water shortage was more in Backward Municipalities, the response

of Backward and Advanced Municipalities to address the water shortage issue was more or less the

same. There is a significant increase in the proportion of households which are experiencing water

shortage, from the baseline levels both in GPs and Municipalities. Nevertheless, an improvement in

the interventions by LGs to address water shortage in the locality was evident from the data. Despite

this improvement, it may be noted that more than two-thirds of the citizens who faced water shortage

during the endline survey felt that LGs are not intervening effectively.

Table 3.13: Feedback on shortage of water and effectiveness of LG intervention

Category of LG

Percent of households reporting

Shortage of water Effective intervention by

LGa


GPs

Vulnerable 39.3 43.5 9.1 23.9*

Other Backward 38.2 46.0* 15.6 30.5*

Advanced 44.4 56.2* 18.1 31.5*

All GPs 42.3 52.4* 16.8 30.8

Municipalities*

Backward 28.6 31.3 18.0 34.7*

Advanced 20.4 24.0 14.3 33.5*

All Municipalities

24.1 27.3** 16.2 34.1*

a. Households that had faced shortage of water * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline


The respondents were asked about the problems in public water supply system that they faced in the

one year preceding the survey. More than four in ten GP households (44%) and one-fourth of

Municipal households (25%) faced some problem related to water supply. Irregularity of water supply

was the most frequently experienced problem. Other reported problems were muddy water and water

smelling bad. The incidence of problems was lesser in Vulnerable and Other Backward GPs

compared to Advanced GPs. However, the problem incidence is more or less the same in Backward

and Advanced Municipalities. They were further asked whether they had reported the problem to the

authorities and whether it was satisfactorily resolved. Only around four in ten of the households, each


in GPs and Municipalities, that faced a problem complained about the same and among the

complainants, only 28 percent of GP households and 36 percent of the Municipal households

received a satisfactory action.

The proportion of households which faced a problem has come down significantly since the baseline,

in all categories of GPs and Municipalities. But, between baseline and endline, percentage of citizens

who report problems to authorities and get satisfactory response to their complaints have also come

down. This implies a weakening of the grievance redressal mechanism.

Table 3.14: Grievance with public water supply and grievance redressal in the past one year

Category of LG

Percent of Households that

Faced a problem with the public water supply

systema

Complained about the problemb

Expressed satisfaction with the action takenc


GPs

Vulnerable 46.1 40.7 58.6 37.3* 33.6 14.2**

Other Backward 54.1 37.6* 42.1 37.6 52.2 28.4**

Advanced 79.6 46.6* 59.3 41.3** 39.4 29.2

All GPs 69.1 43.8* 55.7 40.2* 41.0 28.1**

Municipalities

Backward 47.2 25.2* 63.4 43.0* 41.9 41.3

Advanced 37.6 24.9* 48.3 41.5 35.5 31.6

All Municipalities 40.8 25.0* 54.1 42.2** 38.4 36.2 a Among households depending on public water supply including piped water at home b Among households that had faced a problem with public water supply c Among households that complained about the problem * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline


Households depending on public water supply system, including piped water at home were asked to

rate their satisfaction with the public water supply system. At endline, less than half of GP households

(44%) and about seven in ten Municipal households (69%) were fully satisfied with the water supply

system. Between baseline and endline, the level of satisfaction has increased significantly in GPs

and Municipalities.


Figure 3.6: Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction levels with the public water supply system


Among GP categories, more households in the Vulnerable GPs reported full satisfaction in the public

water supply system (63%) compared to those in the Other Backward (52%) and the Advanced GPs

(36%) which is given in Table 3.15. Between Backward and Advanced Municipalities, the latter

showed a high level of satisfaction (71%) compared to the former (66%).

Table 3.15: Percent of households fully satisfied with the public water supply system including piped water at home across different categories of LGs


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 27.3 35.6

All GPs 37.8 44.1**

Municipalities

Backward 66.1 65.8

Advanced 57.5 70.5*



3.3.6 Citizens’ Suggestions for Improving Public Water Supply

On asking, the citizens who participated in the endline survey gave the following suggestions for

improving the public water supply system.

Ø Ensure adequate and uninterrupted supply of water

68.5*

60.4

44.1**

37.8

15.2

12.5

26.8

18.6

16.3

27.1

29.1

43.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-

EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL

Fully Satisfied Partially Satisfied Not Satisfied


Ø Install more public taps

Ø LGs should provide more drinking water during summer.

Ø Provide more public taps/wells.

Ø Water bodies under the LG should be cleaned and made usable.

Ø Regular testing of water quality and display of results for the public.

Ø Replace old pipes with new ones.

Ø Increase the coverage of Jalanidhi scheme.

SECTION IV: SANITATION

Sanitation is a broad concept encompassing ways of disposing waste in a scientific manner so as to

ensure healthy and hygienic living. The cleanliness of an area is a major determinant of the health of

the people residing in the area. Waste management is a major function of the LGs as they are

entrusted with proper disposal of waste from the households as well as from public places. This

section discusses the feedback of the citizens on the waste management activities undertaken by

the LGs and looks at the changes from the baseline situation.

3.4.1 Feedback of Citizens on Waste Management by the LGs

Feedback of the citizens was gathered on cleanliness of public places and provision of waste bins,

provision of drains and

also the collection of

waste from the

households. At endline,

only 23 per cent of the

citizens in GPs and 17

per cent in Municipalities

rated the cleanliness of

the public places as good

(Table 3.16). It is also

found that waste bins are

not placed in public

places in 86 percent of

GPs and 80 percent of

Municipalities. The management of waste in public places of Vulnerable GPs is inferior to that in

Table 3.16: Citizens’ rating on cleanliness of public places and

availability of waste bins

Category of LG

Percent of Households reporting

Cleanliness of public places as

good

Waste bins are provided in public

places


GPs

Vulnerable 9.3 18.2* 0.9 8.1*

Other Backward 12.3 21.8* 1.2 13.8*

Advanced 19.7 23.9 4.7 15.5*

All GPs 16.9 22.9* 3.5 14.4*

Municipalities

Backward 6.6 21.6* 6.0 16.0*

Advanced 6.1 13.4* 5.3 21.8*

All Municipalities

6.3 17.1* 5.6 19.2*



the other two categories. Even in Municipalities, the availability of waste bins was low. Nonetheless,

between Backward and Advanced Municipalities, a higher proportion from the latter category

reported having bins in public places. Improvement in this situation was noted since baseline survey

in all categories of GPs and Municipalities but there is still a lot to be done in waste management.

Availability of drainage facilities in the neighbourhood is important for liquid waste management. At

endline, only one-tenth households in GPs and one-fourth of the households in Municipalities

reported the availability of drains in their locality (Table 3.17). While there is not much differences

among different GP categories in this respect, Advanced Municipalities fared better than Backward

Municipalities. There is significant improvement in the availability of drains between baseline and

endline in Advanced GPs, while the situation did not change much in the Vulnerable and Other

Backward GPs. Between baseline and endline, the situation improved significantly in Advanced

Municipalities while it deteriorated in Backward Municipalities.

Table 3.17: Percent of households having drainage facilities in the neighbourhood


Baseline Endline

GPs

Vulnerable 8.0 10.4


Advanced 4.9 9.9*

All GPs 7.1 10.7*

Municipalities

Backward 18.8 13.2*

Advanced 25.8 33.5*

All Municipalities 22.7 24.3

Base- Households having drainage nearby * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

Disposal of household waste is a major issue faced by the households and the LGs. It is a point of

contention as to whether the waste should be disposed at source or should be collected and

disposed. At endline, large majority of households resort to burning the waste both in GPs and

Municipalities (Table 3.18). While the practice of burning waste has declined since baseline, dumping

of waste in the compound or outside increased. However, only five percent of the households in GPs

and around one-fifth of the households in Municipalities reported that the waste is collected by

LG/Agency.


Table 3.18: Solid waste management techniques adopted by the sample households

Solid Waste Management Technique Adopted

Percent of households in

GPs Municipalities


Waste collection by LG/other agency 0.0 4.7 5.5 22.0

Composting 9.3 9.2 9.6 10.5

Bio digester 2.1 2.0 3.9 3.6

Burn 87.2 78.4 80.5 74.6

Dumped in the compound 18.7 33.3 14.9 31.1

Dumped outside 3.7 3.0 5.9 5.2

Note: Multiple responses, total may exceed 100 percent.

At endline, the Advanced Municipalities fared better than Backward Municipalities in waste collection.

Table 3.19 indicates that there has been a significant increase in the collection of solid waste from

the households from the baseline, across two categories of GPs and Municipalities.

Table 3.19: Waste collection by LG/Agency across LG categories

Category of LG

Percent of Households from which waste was being collected by

LG/Agency

Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 0.0 5.8*

All GPs 0.0 4.7*

Municipalities

Backward 6.1 14.0*

Advanced 5.1 28.6*



3.4.2 Grievance Redressal related to Waste Management

The citizens were asked to report whether they had faced any problem with respect to waste

management in the one year preceding the survey. The citizens face many problems relating to this

and the reported ones are: dumping of waste in open spaces, lack of any waste treatment facilities,

the choking of drains with plastic waste and irregular collection of waste. Further, it was asked

whether they had complained about the problem to the authorities and whether it was satisfactorily

resolved. Around one-fourth of the GP households and one-third of the Municipal households had

experienced a problem related to waste management. However, of these households, only 32


percent in GPs and 38 percent in Municipalities reported their problem, and only around one-fifth of

the citizens who complained, each in GPs and Municipalities, received a satisfactory action (Table

3.20). Among different categories of GPs, the Vulnerable GPs reported more problems.

While there is a significant increase in problem incidence in GPs from the baseline level, there is no

change in Municipalities. There is also no improvement with respect to reporting of complaints in GPs

and Municipalities. There is also slight decline in the satisfactory resolution of problems in GPs. In

Municipalities, the situation improved. In spite of higher incidence of problems, grievance redressal

mechanism is more effective in Advanced Municipalities compared to Backward Municipalities.

Between baseline and endline, there is a significant increase in problem incidence across all

categories of GPs, the highest being in Vulnerable GPs. However, there is not much change from

the baseline levels in both categories of Municipalities.

Table 3.20: Grievance with waste management and grievance redressal in the last one year

Category of LG


Faced a problem with waste management

Complained about the problema

Expressed satisfaction with the

action takenb


GPs

Vulnerable 17.4 35.9* 28.6 26.8 3.9 9.5

Other Backward 15.6 24.0* 14.9 26.5** 33.4 7.2

Advanced 13.1 25.4* 42.4 35.3 22.5 21.7

All GPs 14.1 25.9* 32.9 32.1 22.3 17.5

Municipalities

Backward 25.9 26.5 31.0 33.7 10.9 18.5

Advanced 42.3 41.2 39.0 40.0 9.5 23.0*

All Municipalities 34.9 34.5 36.3 37.8 9.9 21.6*

a Households that faced a problem with the waste management in the LG b Households that complained about the problem



Only around half of the households, 47 percent in GPs and 51 percent in Municipalities, are fully

satisfied with waste management in the LGs (Figure 3.7). Satisfaction rating was the lowest in

Vulnerable GPs (Table 3.21). It was seen earlier that the cleanliness of public places and the

availability of waste bins was lower in Vulnerable GPs compared to all other LG categories. The

Vulnerable GPs also reported more problems related to waste management and weaker grievance

redressal mechanism.


There has been a significant decline in the satisfaction ratings of all categories of GPs from the

baseline level. This situation may be because of the worsening of waste management and/or

increase in awareness about the need for proper waste management system. The findings point out

the need for special focus on the waste management in Vulnerable GPs as often waste management

of urban areas and better off GPs gets a priority. The change from the baseline level is not significant

for both categories of Municipalities.

Figure 3.7: Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction levels with waste management


Table 3.21: Percent of households fully satisfied with waste management across different

categories of GPs

Category of LG

Percent of Households Fully Satisfied with Waste Management

Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 69.8 47.0*

All GPs 70.2 46.7*

Municipalities

Backward 53.3 53.7

Advanced 45.4 49.0



51.1

48.9

46.7*

70.2

11.6

12

11.7

6.1

37.3

39.1

41.6

23.7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL



3.4.4 Suggestions made by citizens for Improving Waste Management

The major suggestions for improving waste management made by the citizens who responded in the

endline survey are:

Ø Provision of waste bins in public places and clearing them regularly

Ø Increase the coverage of household waste collection system

Ø LGs should take action against people who dump waste in public places

Ø Install waste management plants

Ø Take measures to reduce the usage of non-reusable plastic materials.

3.5 Summing up

This chapter discussed the status of delivery of civic services, namely streetlights, roads, water

supply and sanitation. It was seen that the majority of the households have roads in front of their

house and streetlights in their neighbourhood and the access to roads and streetlights has increased

significantly since baseline across all categories of GPs and Municipalities. With respect to water

supply, the dependence on the public water supply as the main source of drinking water is very low,

with only around one-fifth of the households depending mainly on public water supply. Majority

depended on private wells for this purpose. There has been a significant decline in the dependence

on public sources of water in Municipalities. The citizens also reported improvement in the quality of

roads, effectiveness of street lighting and in the quality of water as well as water supply. There was

also reduction in the incidence of problems relating to roads, street lighting and water supply. Citizens’

satisfaction with the services has also significantly improved from the baseline levels. But there still

remains a lacuna with respect to grievance redressal of citizens’ complaints.

However, among the different types of civic services, citizens are least satisfied with sanitation

services. There is a significant decline in citizens’ satisfaction in GPs as there is a rise in problem

incidence related to sanitation such as waste dumping with no improvement in the LGs’ efforts to

redress the grievances. Though there has been an increase in collection of waste from households,

which was non-existent in GPs during baseline, the coverage is grossly inadequate leading to a

decline in the satisfaction level of citizens.

It was seen earlier that the largest proportion of expenditure of KLGSDP funds was in transport sector

(35% in LGs). However, KLGSDP funds in the transport sector constituted 19 percent of the total

development funds of the LGs. It seems, though there has been substantial increase in the

development of road infrastructure, the same cannot be attributed only to KLGSDP funds. The share


of other civic services examined by the endline study, in the total funds of KLGSDP, is low (around

10%). At the same time, the availability of an additional fund has helped the LGs in improving the

services or in making use of funds from other sources for these purposes. It may also be noted that

project related to waste management were rarely undertaken using KLGSDP funds, despite it being

a service which requires much improvement. This indicates that the need assessment and

prioritization by LGs, not only with respect to LG projects funded by KLGSDP, but also other funds,

needs to be improved/revised.

It was seen that the improvement in access to civic services is relatively lower in Vulnerable GPs and

Backward Municipalities compared to other categories of GPs and Municipalities. However, it is to

the credit of KLGSDP that, in 2016-17, it brought in an initiative to provide additional financial support

to backward GPs and Municipalities to address the issue of lower access to services and to narrow

the gap in service delivery between backward and advanced LGs. Since the projects implemented

under this initiative is in the final stage of completion, the impact of the same will be visible only in

the coming years.


CHAPTER IV

FEEDBACK ON INSTITUTIONS TRANSFERRED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

This chapter presents the feedback of citizens on the functioning of government schools, government

health care institutions and anganwadis. As stated elsewhere in this report, following the 73rd and

74thConstitutional Amendments, the management of these institutions has been transferred to the

GPs and Municipalities. The service delivery aspects discussed here are usage, quality, grievance

redressal and satisfaction level.

SECTION I – GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

The management of Lower Primary (LP) and Upper Primary (UP) schools functioning in rural areas

is vested with the respective GP3. Municipalities manage all government schools in the respective

area across all sections from LP to Higher Secondary. For the purpose of this study, the feedback

was collected from father/mother of children studying in government LP or UP school in the GP, and

in Municipalities, children studying in any section in a government school located within the

Municipality. Hence, all aspects are analyzed in the context of primary schools (LP + UP) in GPs,

while no distinction is made between primary and higher sections of schooling in the case of

Municipalities. The reader is cautioned to keep in mind this difference in the sample composition of

GPs and Municipalities. In households with more than one child studying in a government school,

feedback on the experience of the eldest child is considered.

4.1.1 Dependence on Government Schools

As per endline survey in GP sample, nearly one-fourth (23%) of households have children studying

in LP or UP schools located within the GP (Table 4.1). The corresponding proportion at the baseline

was only12 per cent. In Municipality sample, the proportion of children studying in a government

school (from LP to higher secondary) within the Municipality increased from 13 per cent at baseline

to 18 per cent at endline. . The enrollment in government schools has significantly increased across

all categories of LGs.

3 The management of the Primary sections attached to High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools in GP area is vested with the District Panchayat.


Table 4.1: Percent of households with children studying in government schools


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 12.3 24.1*

All GPs 12.3 22.8*

Municipalities

Backward 15.8 21.8*

Advanced 9.9 15.5*



4.1.2 Feedback on Infrastructure and Facilities in the School

The infrastructure and facilities examined are class room space and furniture, learning materials,

computer lab, library books, drinking water, urinal/toilet and facilities for arts, sports and games. The

feedback of parents indicates that, at endline, there is sufficient infrastructure and facilities in the

government schools in both GPs and Municipalities (Table 4.2 and Table 4.3). The availability of

these facilities improved since baseline both in GPs and Municipalities. Table 4.2 and 4.3 indicates

that there is not much difference between different LG categories in the availability of school facilities.

Table 4.2: Feedback on facilities in government schools in GPs

Facility


Vulnerable Other Backward Advanced All GPs

Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline

Sufficient classroom space 97.9 98.1 96.6 96.8 100.0 98.3 98.9 97.9

Sufficient furniture 98.0 98.5 88.9 98.0** 89.7 97.1 90.0 97.5*

Computer lab 86.9 86.8 80.9 90.3 73.4 85.6 76.3 87.0*

Sufficient learning materials 97.5 98.1 96.4 100.0 89.8 98.0** 92.1 98.6*

Sufficient books in the library 72.5 90.4* 72.5 89.3** 65.4 83.9* 67.8 85.9*

Facilities for arts, sports and games

81.2 94.4** 78.5 89.2 81.0 86.2 80.3 87.7**

Sufficient urinals/toilets 100.0 94.4 98.7 95.7 97.0 99.0 97.6 97.8

Safe drinking water 87.0 94.6 83.8 93.2 91.5 94.1 89.1 93.8



Table 4.3: Feedback on facilities in government schools in Municipalities

Facility


Backward Advanced All


Sufficient classroom space 93.9 97.2 98.3 94.8 95.8 96.1

Sufficient furniture 90.1 96.7** 94.8 94.8 92.1 95.8

Computer lab 90.3 92.5 74.7 97.4* 83.5 94.8*

Sufficient learning materials 96.6 97.4 98.1 96.0 97.2 96.7

Sufficient books in the library 84.0 90.2 72.1 90.2* 78.8 90.2*

Facilities for arts, sports and games

88.8 94.2 84.8 91.1 87.0 92.8**

Sufficient urinals/toilets 92.0 98.5* 98.3 97.7 94.7 98.1**

Safe drinking water 83.0 90.2 95.6 91.6 88.5 90.8



The grievances that the parents had relates to teacher absenteeism, lack of facilities, no

transportation facility arranged by the school, inadequate personal attention given to students and

improper maintenance of school buildings. At endline, parents of only five children out of 236 (2.1%)

studying in government schoolsin the sample GPs experienced some problem with their child’s

education. Of them only two reported it to the authorities and both the complaints were satisfactorily

resolved. At baseline parents of 7 children out of 182 (3.7%) had experienced some problem, among

whomonly one had reported it to the authorities and that resulted in satisfactory action.

In Municipalities, 13 parents out of 297 (4.3%) faced some problem and 10 of them registered their

complaints at endline. Four complaints resulted in satisfactory action. Fewer parents (5 parents out

of 204; 2.2%) faced some problem at baseline. Of them, two parents registered their complaints but

none of them resulted in satisfactory action.

4.1.4 Satisfaction about schooling

Large majority of the parents (92 per cent in GPs and 93 per cent in Municipalities) are fully satisfied

with the government school where their child is studying (Figure 4.1). The proportion of fully satisfied

parents was more than 90 per cent in all LG categories except Other Backward GPs (Table 4.4). The

satisfaction ratings did not change much from the baseline levels.


Figure 4.1: Percentage distribution of households by the satisfaction of parents with the education in government school where the child is studying

Table 4.4: Percent of households fully satisfied with schooling from the government schools


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 95.5 96.5

All GPs 90.8 92.1

Municipalities

Backward 83.6 90.5

Advanced 93.1 95.5


Note: The difference between baseline and endline is not statistically significant for any category.

4.1.5 Parents’ Suggestions for Improving Schools under the LGs

The parents of children studying in government schools were asked to give their suggestions for

improving the functioning of the schools. The major suggestions are given below:

Ø LGs should monitor the functioning of the schools on a regular basis in order to improve the

quality of education being provided in government schools.

Ø Upgrade primary schools to secondary schools.

Ø Give more importance to co-curricular activities.

Ø LG should not only be interested in developing school infrastructure and facilities but also on

the timely maintenance of available facilities.

Ø Improve basic facilities, such as toilets and drinking water, in the school wherever these are

inadequate at present.

92.9

87.7

92.1

90.9

5.8

10.1

5.8

5.3

1.3

2.2

2.1

3.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-

EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL



SECTION II: GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS

The government health care institutions have been transferred to various tiers of the local

government system, following the 73rd and 74thConstitutional Amendments. The management of

PHC, along with the sub-centres attached to it in the rural areas is entrusted with GPs. The

management of CHC and Taluk Hospital in the municipal area is entrusted with the Municipality. The

LGs are also expected to focus on preventive aspects of health care, particularly prevention of

epidemics. This section presents the feedback of the citizens on the public health activities

undertaken by the LGs as well as the service experience of the citizens from the public health

institution.

4.2.1 Opinion of Citizens on Public Health Activities of LGs

At endline, more than two-thirds of the citizens in GPs and Municipalities, felt that the LG takes

measures to eradicate communicable disease (Table 4.5). Majority of the citizens also felt that LG

tries to control spread of mosquitoes. This is very important in the wake of the outbreak of

communicable diseases such as dengue, leptospirosis etc, in the state. Table 4.5 also shows that

such measures are reported less frequently in Vulnerable GPs as compared to the other two GP

categories. But Backward Municipalities fared better than Advanced Municipalities in these public

health activities. The situation has improved since baseline in both GPs and Municipalities.

However, there is still scope for further improvement in public health activities in both GPs and

Municipalities.

Table 4.5: Feedback by the citizens on the public health activities undertaken by the LGs

Category of LG

Percent of Households reporting that LG take measures to

Eradicate communicable diseases Control spread of mosquitoes


GPs

Vulnerable 45.4 60.3* 29.7 50.1*

Other Backward 71.3 67.0 44.7 53.0*

Advanced 71.6 73.7 56.6 57.3

All GPs 69.4 70.8 51.2 55.6**

Municipalities

Backward 63.7 71.1* 56.0 63.4*

Advanced 52.1 65.8* 43.5 55.9*

All Municipalities 57.3 68.2* 49.1 59.3*



4.2.2 Dependence on Government Health Care Facilities

The respondents were asked whether any of the household members had visited the government

health facility in the LG; i.e. PHCs (in GPs) and CHCs/Taluk hospitals (in Municipalities) for treatment

in the one year preceding the survey. At endline, while a member of three in five households in GPs

had gone to the PHC for treatment, in Municipalities, two in five households depended on the

CHC/Taluk hospital for treatment (Table 4.6). There is not much difference in the dependence on

PHCs among different categories of GP. In the case of Municipalities, while more than half of the

households in Backward Municipalities reported that they depended on government health facilities,

only around one-fourth of the households in Advanced Municipalities did so. There has been a

significant increase in the dependence on government health care institutions in all LG categories

except Advanced Municipalities where there was a significant decline. .

Table 4.6: Percent of households in LGs with a member who had visited a government health facility for treatment in the last one year


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 45.2 62.3*

All GPs 45.7 61.7*

Municipalities

Backward 48.6 53.6**

Advanced 39.7 27.9*

All Municipalities 43.7 39.5** * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

4.2.3 Feedback on Services

The feedback from the citizens about their experiences while utilizing the services of government

health care institutions was collected on various aspects such as facilities available, the consultation

experience, the availability of medicines and diagnostic services, etc. Citizens who had sought

treatment as inpatients were further asked about the available facilities for inpatient care.

The respondents in households in which any member sought outpatient services of government

institutions were asked about the facilities available such as seating facilities, drinking water and

toilets. At endline, more than four-fifths of the respondents in GPs and Municipalities reported that

these facilities were available in the health institution. Table 4.7 shows that there has been significant


improvement, since baseline, in the availability of facilities for outpatients. The most noticeable

improvement was in the availability of toilet facilities.

Table 4.7: Feedback on facilities in the government health care institutions for outpatients

Category of LG

Percent of households reporting:

Sufficient seating facilities

Provision for drinking water

Toilet facility


GPs

Vulnerable 93.9 98.2* 71.9 87.2* 67.0 86.0*

Other Backward 97.4 97.9 87.1 90.4 62.5 86.7*

Advanced 93.5 95.0 72.8 87.5* 54.4 82.8*

All GPs 94.6 96.0 76.6 88.3* 57.6 84.1*

Municipalities

Backward 95.0 95.9 80.7 88.5* 77.6 90.3*

Advanced 89.8 98.8* 79.1 92.5* 75.6 80.5

All Municipalities 92.4 97.0* 79.9 90.1* 76.6 86.5*


A large majority of the citizens reported that the doctor was present at the health facility when they

went for treatment, vis-à-vis very poor levels in the baseline study (Table 4.8). A significant

improvement in doctor availability was seen across all categories of GPs and Municipalities. More

than seven in ten respondents, in GPs and Municipalities, said that the waiting time for seeing the

doctor was within acceptable limits. While the proportion has declined in GPs, there is an increase

in Municipalities. The citizens were further asked whether they got adequate time with the doctor to

discuss their medical condition and also whether the level of privacy accorded to them while

consulting was sufficient. Large majority of respondents across all categories of GPs and

Municipalities replied in the affirmative to these queries. There is not much difference between

baseline and endline in this respect.


Table 4.8: Feedback on outpatient consultation experience

Category of LG


Doctor was available on all

visits

Waiting time for consultation was

within acceptable limits

Got adequate time to explain

health problems to the doctor

Sufficient Level of privacy in consultation


GPs

Vulnerable 49.2 80.7* 67.2 58.5** 94.5 90.9 94.5 90.9

Other Backward 34.5 79.5* 77.8 70.1** 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6

Advanced 36.4 85.2* 79.8 75.9 95.9 93.8 95.9 93.8

All GPs 36.9 83.4* 78.2 72.9** 95.2 93.5 95.2 93.5

Municipalities

Backward 38.2 83.3* 65.6 65.3 91.1 89.2 91.1 89.2

Advanced 38.6 95.9* 76.3 88.1* 86.6 98.8* 86.6 98.8

All Municipalities

38.4 88.2* 70.8 74.1 88.9 92.9** 88.9 92.9


The respondents were asked about the availability of medicines, disposables such as syringes,

bandages, plasters and diagnostic services in the health care institution. At endline, 57 per cent of

the patients in GPs and 50 per cent in Municipalities had to buy prescribed medicines from outside

(Table 4.9) indicating the poor availability of medicines in PHCs, CHCs and Taluk hospitals. But only

about one-tenth of the respondents had to buy disposables from outside. Diagnostic test had to be

conducted from outside by 21 per cent of the patients in PHCs and 13 per cent in CHCs/Taluk

hospitals. The health care institutions in the Advanced Municipalities are better than all other LG

categories in the availability of medicines, disposables and facility for conducting diagnostic test.

Table 4.9 also indicates that the availability of medicines in government health care institutions

declined further from the baseline levels in all LG categories except Advanced Municipalities. It is

also seen that while the proportion of citizens who had their laboratory and diagnostic tests conducted

from outside the hospital increased in GPs, there is a significant decline in the same in Municipalities.

The provision of such essentials in government health care institutions in Advanced Municipalities is

markedly different from that in all other LG categories.


Table 4.9: Feedback on availability of medicines and diagnostic services from the hospital

Category of LG


Bought medicine from outside

Bought disposables from outside

Conducted diagnostic test outside the health facility


GPs

Vulnerable 49.6 67.5* 9.6 10.1 28.4 16.1*

Other Backward 30.4 61.2* 9.1 6.3 23.2 15.0*

Advanced 41.4 54.4* 6.2 8.0 11.6 24.6*

All GPs 39.1 57.3* 7.3 7.7 16.2 21.4*

Municipalities

Backward 54.5 63.4* 13.9 11.8 29.6 17.1*

Advanced 51.0 29.5* 16.4 3.0* 21.9 7.6*

All Municipalities 52.8 50.2 15.1 8.4* 25.8 13.4*


The citizens were asked about the facilities available in the government health care institutions for

inpatients (IP). As per the endline survey, except for food provided by the hospital, more than 80

percent of the citizens received the expected facilities and care (Table 4.10). Even food was provided

to at least 75 percent of the patients in both GPs and Municipalities. In general, in GPs, between

baseline and endline for most of the facilities considered, the proportion remained either the same

level or slightly declined. One significant change noted in GPs is the 30 percentage point increase in

the provision of food to inpatients. In Municipalities such drastic changes were not noted and any

change that took place indicated only a slight increase.

Table 4.10: Percent of respondents reporting availability of facilities for inpatient care

Facility

Percent of Respondents

GPs Municipalities


Cot 100.0 98.0 97.5 100.0

Mattress 100.0 97.5 96.2 100.0

Bed sheet 94.0 94.7 90.6 95.4

Pillow 100.0 91.0 87.4 88.0

Pillow cover 92.6 87.5 80.1 81.7

Stool/chair for bystander 78.7 91.2 85.0 94.2

Food 48.5 78.0* 73.3 76.8

Proper and timely nursing care 94.9 95.7 93.0 91.2

Proper attention from the doctors 94.9 94.3 95.3 95.2 Base: Households with members who have availed IP facility. Category-wise analysis was not done due to insufficient

sample size.




Respondents were asked about the problems, if any, that the family members had to face during the

last one year in accessing health care from the government health care facility. One out of every ten

citizens who had visited the government health facility in GPs had experienced a problem, both at

baseline (9.9%) and endline (10.2%). At endline, 13 respondents reported the problem and none of

them received a satisfactory response from the authorities. Only two respondents in GPs reported

the problem to the authorities at baseline of which only one was satisfactorily addressed. In

Municipalities, at endline, 37 out of 639 (5.8%) beneficiaries facedproblems. Out of them, only six

beneficiaries registered a complaint and none of their complaints led to satisfactory action from

authorities. At baseline, 94 out of the 711 beneficiaries (13.3%) had faced some problem with service

delivery and just seven of them complained about it. Only one of the grievances was addressed to

the satisfaction of the complainant. It appears that the grievance redressal mechanism has not

improved between baseline and endline.

In spite of the significant improvements made in the availability of doctors, a major grievance relates

to non-availability of doctors during OP time. Further, even when doctors are available, many of them

had to wait for a long time to see the doctor. Non-availability of medicines and absence of lab facilities

are other problems reported by the respondents of the endline survey.

4.2.5 Citizens’ Feedback on Cleanliness and Satisfaction with the Health Care Facility

The citizens’ feedback was sought on the cleanliness of the health care facility and also their

satisfaction with the behaviour of the staff and its overall functioning. Large majority of the citizens

considered the hospitals to be “good” with respect to cleanliness (Figure 4.2). The opinion about the

cleanliness of hospitals improved significantly since baseline in both GPs and Municipalities.

Figure 4.2: Percentage distribution of respondents by their ratings on the cleanliness of the government health facility


90.1*

65.9

87.9*

76.3

9.1

32.6

11.7

23.2

0.8

1.5

0.4

0.5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-

EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL

Good Average Bad


At endline, around 90 percent of the citizens were fully satisfied with the behaviour of the staff in

government health facilities at baseline and endline (Figure 4.3). While GPs succeeded in

maintaining the high ratings given by the citizens, Municipalities were successful in bringing about a

significant increase in the ratings from 82 percent to 91 percent during the same period.

Figure 4.3: Percentage distribution of respondents by their level of satisfaction with the behaviour of staff in government health care institutions


Figure 4.4 indicates that more than four-fifths of the respondents in GPs and Municipalities are fully

satisfied with the government health facility they had approached for treatment. However, the rating

levels remained more or less the same in GPs and Municipalities during baseline and endline.

Figure 4.4: Percentage distribution of respondents by their level of satisfaction with the overall functioning of the government health care institutions

Note: Change is not statistically significant in any category

A comparison of the feedback of the respondents of the endline survey on cleanliness of the

hospitals, behaviour of staff and satisfaction with the services of the health care institutions indicates

90.5*

81.8

89.7

91.5

5.5

10.9

6.7

6.6

4.0

7.3

3.6

1.9

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL


85.1

82.6

83.8

82.8

11.3

9.5

9.9

8.6

3.6

7.9

6.3

8.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-

EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL



that the Advanced Municipalities were slightly better than other LG categories in these respects

(Table 4.11). There is not much difference among other LG categories. While rating on cleanliness

improved significantly since baseline in all categories, the improvement in satisfaction about

behaviour of staff and overall functioning of the health care institution was significant only in

Vulnerable GPs and Advanced Municipalities.

Table 4.11: Feedback on cleanliness and satisfaction with the behaviour of the staff and overall functioning of the government health facility

Category of LG


Rating the cleanliness of the facility as “good”

Fully satisfied with the behaviour of staff

Fully satisfied with the services


GPs

Vulnerable 67.7 88.3* 85.2 90.9** 69.6 81.4*

Other Backward 76.3 90.9* 91.1 90.2 86.2 81.9

Advanced 77.4 86.7* 92.5 89.3 83.1 84.9

All GPs 76.3 87.9* 91.5 89.7 82.8 83.8

Municipalities

Backward 68.9 89.0* 85.1 86.2 87.4 83.4

Advanced 62.9 91.9* 78.6 97.3* 77.8 87.7*

All Municipalities 65.9 90.1* 81.8 90.5* 82.6 85.1


4.2.6 Citizens’ Suggestions for Improving the Health Care Institutions

The suggestions given by citizens to improve the Government health care institutions are listed

below:

Ø Ensure regularity in attendance of doctor/more doctors should be available

Ø Improve availability of diagnostic and support services

Ø Inpatient facility should be provided in PHCs and the bed strength should be increased in

CHC and Taluk hospitals.

Ø Ensure provision of medicines from the hospital

Ø The staff should be friendly and approachable

Ø Ensure free provision of lab facilities


SECTION III: ANGANWADIS

Anganwadis are the delivery points of the services provided under the Integrated Child Development

Scheme (ICDS), a Government of India sponsored social welfare scheme. The anganwadi provides

services such as supplementary nutrition, non-formal pre-school education, growth and immunisation

monitoring, health and nutrition classes, etc. Among the different services, largest numbers of

beneficiaries were for supplementary nutrition and pre-school education. The beneficiaries of the

programme are - children below six years of age, adolescent girls, pregnant women and lactating

mothers. Following the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, the management of the

anganwadis was transferred to LGs. The LGs are expected to manage the regular functioning of the

anganwadis while the overall control and supervision of the anganwadis is vested with the Social

Justice Department and the ICDS machinery in the state.

4.3.1 Dependence on Anganwadi

Among the sample households of the endline survey, 280 households in GPs (17%) and 228

households in Municipalities (14%) were beneficiaries of various services of anganwadis (Table

4.12). There is a significant increase in Anganwadi enrollment in GPs since baseline. But there was

hardly any change in Municipalities. Majority of the beneficiaries were aged between three and six

years of age; i.e. those accessing non-formal pre-school education from the anganwadis. The

proportion of households seeking services of anganwadis was assessed across the three categories

of GPs and two categories of Municipalities. While there is no difference between the two categories

of Municipalities, the proportion is slightly higher in Vulnerable GPs (Table 4.12). Since baseline, the

enrollment of beneficiaries increased significantly only in Vulnerable GPs.

Table 4.12: Percent of households that are beneficiaries of anganwadi services

Category of LG

Percent of Households with Anganwadi beneficiaries

Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 13.6 17.3

All GPs 14.6 17.3**

Municipalities

Backward 13.1 14.3

Advanced 11.0 14.0




4.3.2 Feedback on Facilities in Anganwadis

The feedback of the beneficiary households was sought on the facilities in anganwadi. At endline,

more than 85 per cent of respondents in GPs and Municipalities reported that Anganwadi has

necessary facilities such as drinking water, kitchen and toilets (Table 4.13 and Table 4.14). More

than 80 per cent of the respondents felt that sufficient space is available in the anganwadi building.

They also felt that anganwadi has sufficient facilities for learning and playing. However, there is a

need to improve the availability of outdoor play space in all categories, more so in Advanced GPs

and Advanced Municipalities. The Backward Municipalities fared better than Advanced Municipalities

in the availability of all the above facilities. No such pattern is observed in the case of GPs. Significant

improvement was noticed in the availability of almost all facilities in Municipalities and in the

availability of drinking water, kitchen and toilets in the anganwadis in GPs from the baseline.

Table 4.13: Feedback on facilities in the anganwadis in GPs

Facility


Vulnerable Other Backward Advanced All GPs


Has sufficient space inside the building 81.8 97.6** 89.1 85.9 82.9 84.6 84.4 86.3

Has sufficient space outside the building 62.3 74.3 68.5 77.6 63.2 48.8 64.4 58.3

Has sufficient facilities for learning 82.5 94.9 87.4 87.7 92.8 90.6 90.7 90.3

Has sufficient facilities for playing 66.8 81.2 87.1 83.6 77.8 82.9 79.3 82.9

Has a kitchen 86.5 93.5 86.7 92.1 86.2 94.0 86.4 93.4**

Has sufficient facilities for cooking 84.4 91.7 84.5 79.5 90.1 85.7 88.0 84.5

Provides safe drinking water to the children 90.9 89.3 85.3 96.0 87.2 96.5 87.0 95.6**

Has toilet facility for the children 71.9 84.9 78.5 81.7 79.3 96.5** 78.6 91.8*


Table 4.14: Feedback on facilities in the anganwadis in Municipalities

Facility


Backward Advanced All Municipalities


Has sufficient space inside the building 71.1 96.6* 66.8 81.9 68.8 89.3*

Has sufficient space outside the building 63.5 79.9 46.0 57.5 54.0 68.8**

Has sufficient facilities for learning 83.4 96.7** 84.5 94.4 84.0 95.5*

Has sufficient facilities for playing 71.8 92.0* 69.1 85.4 70.4 88.8*

Has a kitchen 82.5 95.3* 63.1 86.1* 72.4 90.5*

Has sufficient facilities for cooking 79.8 93.2* 70.8 85.3** 75.1 89.1*

Provides safe drinking water to the children 92.4 100.0** 94.5 90.8 93.5 95.4

Has toilet facility for the children 75.1 91.8** 53.8 85.1* 63.6 88.5*


At endline, most of the respondents said that anganwadi is functioning regularly and that the teacher

is regular in attendance (Table 4.15). But a comparatively lesser proportion of respondents said that

the supplementary feeding is provided on almost all working days.


Table 4.15: Feedback on regularity of services in anganwadis

Category of LG


Functions on all days

Teacher regular in attendance

Supplementary nutrition received on

almost all days


GPs

Vulnerable 97.7 100.0 94.8 97.6 92.5 82.9

Other Backward 97.1 95.0 97.1 93.6 76.3 67.6

Advanced 100 96.6 97.8 87.4 83.7 84.7

All GPs 99.1 96.5 97.4 89.9** 82.1 79.8

Municipalities

Backward 98.6 96.5 96.6 98.0 74.6 81.1

Advanced 100 96.3 100.0 100.0 84.1 72.6

All Municipalities 99.4 96.4 98.4 99.0 79.6 76.7


4.3.3 Growth and Immunisation Monitoring in Anganwadis

The anganwadis are expected to maintain growth and immunization records of all children aged

below six years. They are expected to monitor the weight and height of children regularly and to make

necessary changes in the quantity of food given to children who do not have proper weight and height

as per age requirements. The anganwadi also has to maintain an immunization record of all children

so as to ensure that the child does not miss any immunization and the parents are regularly reminded

of the immunization schedule. Most of the parents are of the opinion that anganwadi undertakes

growth and immunization monitoring regularly. On both these aspects, the situation has improved

from the baseline levels in Municipalities while in GPs, it remained more or less the same (Table

4.16).

Table 4.16: Feedback on growth and immunisation monitoring in anganwadis

Percent of respondents reporting


GPs Municipalities


Regular growth monitoring of the children 85.0 87.2 82.7 88.1

Regular immunisation monitoring of the children 96.5 96.3 90.4 96.0**


4.3.4 Awareness Classes

The anganwadis are expected to organize awareness classes for adolescent girls, pregnant women

and lactating mothers. At endline, two-thirds of the beneficiaries in GPs and three-fifths in

Municipalities reported that such classes are organized by anganwadis (Table 4.17). The proportion


was much higher at baseline for both GPs and Municipalities. The proportion of beneficiaries

mentioning that such classes are held frequently has also decreased both in GPs and Municipalities.

The satisfaction level of the beneficiaries with regard to these classes decreased slightly in GPs while

all the respondents in Municipalities are satisfied.

Table 4.17: Feedback on health awareness classes in anganwadis

Households reporting


GPs Municipalities


That health awareness classes are held in the anganwadia

91.3 65.6* 83.6 60.7**

That classes are held oftenb 47.8 40.7* 37.9 30.6*

That they are satisfied with the classes when they are heldb

95.8 90.2 91.8 100.0**

a Households with beneficiaries of health awareness classes; i.e. adolescent girls, pregnant women and lactating mothers b Households reporting that classes are held in the Anganwadi



The beneficiaries/parents were asked whether they had experienced any problem with the provision

of services from the anganwadi in the one year preceding the survey. The problems related to

irregularity in the provision of supplementary nutrition, ill maintained facilities, poor quality of pre-

school education and cleanliness of angawadi environment. At endline, 35 out of 280 beneficiaries

in GPs (12%) had experienced some problem of whom 19 reported the same to the authorities. But

only three received a satisfactory response. In Municipalities, only 13 out of 228 beneficiaries (6%)

faced some problem. Seven of them reported the complaint and three received satisfactory response.

Between baseline and endline, incidence of problem experienced a decline in Municipalities and an

increase in GPs. The problem resolution mechanism continues to remain weak.

4.3.6 Satisfaction with Service Delivery in Anganwadis

The parents of children availing pre-school education from anganwadis were asked about their level

of satisfaction with important functions such as pre-school education and provision of supplementary

nutrition and overall satisfaction with anganwadi services. At endline, at least 85 percent or more of

the households are fully satisfied with the pre-school education from the anganwadis (Figure 4.5).

The already high levels of satisfaction reported in the baseline have increased significantly only in

Municipalities.


Figure 4.5: Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with the pre-school

services of the anganwadi


At endline, more than 90 per cent of beneficiaries, in GPs and Municipalities, reported full satisfaction

with the supplementary feeding provided by the anganwadis (Figure 4.6). A similar scenario was

observed at baseline as well.

Figure 4.6: Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with the supplementary feeding in the anganwadi


The respondents were asked to give their ratings on satisfaction with the overall services of the

anganwadis. Figure 4.7 shows that there exist high levels of satisfaction among the beneficiaries.

89.9*

83.4

84.6

83.0

2.4

7.7

11.7

11.2

7.7

8.9

3.7

5.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL


96.7

92.7

93.8

95.3

3.3

3.2

3.3

3.9

0.0

4.1

2.9

0.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-

EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL



More than 80 per cent of the beneficiaries in both GPs Municipalities are fully satisfied. However,

there is no significant change from the baseline levels.

Figure 4.7: Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with overall services of anganwadis

Note: Change is not statistically significant in any category:

The following analysis discusses the proportion of beneficiaries in GPs and Municipalities who are

fully satisfied with the

services of the

anganwadi across

different categories of

LGs (Table 4.18). High

level of satisfaction with

the services of

anganwadi was

reported across all GP

and Municipality

categories. Satisfaction

ratings were the highest

in Vulnerable GPs and Backward Municipalities. The change from the baseline level was also

significant only in these two categories.

86.6

80.4

83.3

84.2

8.4

8

13.5

7.4

5.0

11.6

3.2

8.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-

EL

Municipalities-

BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL


Table 4.18: Percent of households fully satisfied with the services of anganwadis

LG Category Per cent of households

Baseline Endline

GPs

Vulnerable 81.7 92.4**


Advanced 81.8 80.9

All GPs 84.2 83.3

Municipalities

Backward 80.6 90.7**

Advanced 80.3 83.2




4.3.7 Citizens’ suggestions for improving the services of anganwadi

The major suggestions given by beneficiaries who participated in the endline survey to improve

Anganwadi services are:

Ø Ensure regular provisioning of supplementary food and improve its nutrition content.

Ø Anganwadi should function in its own building.

Ø Ensure that the available infrastructure is properly maintained.

Ø Improve quality for pre-school education.

Ø Provide electricity connection to anganwadi.

Ø Ensure that the anganwadi has a clean environment.

4.4 Summing up

Among the transferred institutions studied, citizens depended more on government health care

institutions than government schools and Anganwadis. About three in five households in GPs and

two in five households in Municipalities depended on government health care institutions. Necessary

facilities are available for outpatient care in large majority of the institutions. Availability of doctor has

improved considerably since baseline. But non-availability of medicine and laboratory facilities

continues to be a major problem at endline. Necessary facilities for IP care was also available in

majority of the health care institutions where such services are offered. The citizens also felt that

they are getting proper nursing care and attention from doctors. But most of the PHCs in the state do

not offer inpatient care. More than four-fifths of the citizens also are fully satisfied with the health care

from PHCs/CHCs/Taluk hospitals. Among the different categories of LGs, the Advanced

Municipalities stands apart in availability of facilities, doctors, medicine as well as laboratory facilities.

The level of satisfaction of the citizens is also slightly higher. The most noticeable change from the

baseline situation was also observed in Advanced Municipalities. However, the proportion depending

on government health care institutions in Advanced Municipalities is only half of that in other LG

categories. It implies that, in spite of the better service delivery, the citizens in Advanced

Municipalities do not depend on government health care facilities.

At endline, nearly one-fourth of the households in GPs have a child enrolled in a government LP or

UP school which are managed by the GPs. One-fifth of the households in Municipalities send their

child to a government school (Class I-XII) managed by the Municipalities. Parents of children studying

in government schools felt that necessary facilities for learning, playing and other co-curricular

activities are available in the school. There is not much difference across LG categories. At end


line, more than 90 per cent of the parents were satisfied with the education in the government school

where their child studies.

At endline, only 17 per cent of the households in GPs and 14 per cent in Municipalities had a

beneficiary of anganwadi. More than 85 per cent of the beneficiaries reported that necessary facilities

for learning and playing are available in anganwadis. But one problem that anganwadis face is the

non-availability of outdoor play space. However, more than 80 per cent of the parents/beneficiaries

were satisfied with the services of anganwadi. The level of satisfaction with the services was better

in Vulnerable GPs and Backward Municipalities. Noticeable improvement in satisfaction rating was

also observed only in these two LG categories.

Overall, the grievance redressal mechanism in all the three transferred institutions covered by the

study was weak at endline. However, only a small proportion of the beneficiaries have complaints

about the services of these institutions. The major problems in health care institutions were the non-

availability of doctors during OP time, long waiting time and non-availability of medicines. The

grievances about government school relates to teacher absenteeism, lack of or ill maintained facilities

in some schools and inadequate personal attention given to students. In anganwadis, the problems

mentioned by a few beneficiaries are related to irregularity in the provision of supplementary nutrition,

ill maintained facilities, poor quality of pre-school education and cleanliness of angawadi

environment. As per the guidelines of KLGSDP, in the case of transferred institutions, interventions

for the development of infrastructure/facilities only can be taken up. As per the IKM data, while the

share of KLGSDP funds in the total development funds spent by the LGs on education was low (2%),

it was nearly one-fifth in the case of Anganwadis and one-tenth in the case of health care institutions.

This has been reflected in the improvement of facilities in these institutions. However, interventions

to address the grievances mentioned above such as improvement of supplementary nutrition in

anganwadis or provision of medicines in hospitals or maintenance of existing facilities in schools are

not permitted.

It may be noted that the satisfaction levels are relatively higher and grievances are much lesser in

transferred institutions compared to civic services discussed in Chapter III. Unlike in civic services,

in the case of services delivered through transferred institutions, the citizens have a choice and opt

for alternatives if they are affordable. Therefore, it is likely that those who got dissatisfied with the

services of these government institutions are no longer depending on them. However, it is important

to note that there has been significant increase in the dependence on all the three transferred

institutions in GPs since baseline. In Municipalities, it increased only in the case of schools while


there is a slight decline in the case of hospitals. The situation remain unchanged between baseline

and endline in the case of Anganwadis in Municipalities.

In general, there has been an improvement in the infrastructure and facilities in these transferred

institutions, though not attributable to KLGSDP alone. Given the fact that the transferred institutions

have built up satisfactory infrastructure and facilities over a period of time, there is a need to focus

more in future on proper maintenance of the assets created as well as in capacity building of staff of

the transferred institutions. There is also a need for improving the capacity of the elected

representatives and staff of the LG Offices in managing the transferred institutions.


CHAPTER V

FEEDBACK ON SERVICES DELIVERED BY GP AND MUNICIPAL OFFICES

5.1 Introduction

Various services are provided to the citizens by GP and Municipal Offices and this chapter presents

the citizens’ feedback on such services. Issuance of assorted certificates like certificate of ownership

of building, residential certificate, birth certificate, death certificate, marriage registration certificate

etc. forms a key service provided by the said offices. Other major services include collection of

various taxes, approval of building plans and redressal of public grievances. Licences and permits

are also issued from the LG Office which involve license for dangerous and offensive trades and

factories, license for business establishments, advertisement permit, permit for installation of

machinery etc. Many of the social security schemes are also routed through the GPs.

5.2 Purpose of Visit to the LG Office

A large proportion of

citizens approached the

LG offices for payment

of taxes, 31 percent

each in GP Office and

Municipal Office (Table

5.1). Following by this

in GPs, certificate of

ownership of building

(9.5 percent) and BPL

certificate (9 percent)

assumes importance in

that order. Similarly, 9.5

percent of citizens

approached Municipal

offices for certificate of

ownership of building.

Residential certificate is

another certificate for which a considerable number citizens approach the LG office (6% in GP Offices

Table 5.1: Service for which a member of the household visited the LG Office

Type of Service sought Percent of applicants

GPs Municipalities

Payment of tax 31.0 31.1

Certificate of ownership of building 9.5 9.5

BPL certificate 9.0 5.1

Benefit under non pension welfare scheme 6.4 7.5

Residential certificate 5.7 6.7

Receipt of welfare pension 4.9 7.2

Marriage registration certificate 5.5 3.8

Birth certificate 3.3 6.5

Death certificate 4.4 3.8

Financial assistance for house maintenance 3.4 4.0

Pension 3.4 1.0

License 0.9 2.6

MGNREGA 1.3 0.0

No objection certificate 1.2 0.7

Other services 10.1 10.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0

Base: Only households that went to LG Office for a service in the last one year


and 7% in Municipal Offices). The citizens also visited LG Offices for receiving marriage registration

certificate, death certificate, birth certificate and getting pension and benefits under non-pension

welfare schemes. As part of the e-governance initiative of the state, birth, death and marriage

certificates can be accessed online and therefore the citizens do not have to visit the LG office for

such certificates. But still, many are visiting the LG Office for this purpose.

5.3 Number of Visits by the Citizens to the LG Office

Number of times the citizen has to visit the LG Office for receiving a service is an indicator of the

effectiveness of service delivery of the institution. The higher the number of visits, the higher will be

the transaction cost and it is likely that lesser will be the citizen satisfaction. Table 5.2 presents the

percentage distribution of respondents by the number of visits made by them till the receipt of the

service. The details pertain only to those citizens who have received the service for which they had

approached the LG Office.

Table 5.2: Percentage distribution of applicants by number of visits to LG Office

Type of LG

Baseline/Endline

Percent of applicants

Number of Visits

One Two Three or

more Total

GPs Baseline 59.0 22.2 18.8 100.0

Endline 54.6 28.4* 17.0 100.0

Municipalities Baseline 62.8 23.4 13.8 100.0

Endline 55.6** 28.8** 15.6 100.0


At endline, more than half of the citizens (55 per cent in GPs and 56 per cent in Municipalities)

received the service in one visit. However, there is a slight decline in this proportion since baseline

both in GPs and Municipalities. It is also important to note that a noticeable proportion of the citizens

could get the services only after three or more visits both at baseline and endline. Those who had to

make more than two visits to get the service they want were further classified by the LG category and

the result is shown in Table 5.3. The proportion is not much different across LG categories and it

has not undergone any major change since the baseline.


Table 5.3: Percent of applicants who could receive the service only after making three or more visits

Category of LG Percent of applicants

Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 18.6 16.4

All GPs 18.8 17.0

Municipalities

Backward 13.8 16.1

Advanced 13.8 15.1



5.4 Number of Officials Met

Public services could be considered more effective if the citizen seeking service can get it done by

just contacting the right person. Having to go from person to person to receive a service is very

disheartening. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the official first contacted is a person who can

help the citizen so that additional contacts can be minimised.

Table 5.4: Percentage distribution of applicants by number of officials met at the LG Office to get the service done

Type of LG

Baseline/Endline


Number of officers met

One Two Three or

more Total

GPs Baseline 52.1 29.0 18.9 100.0

Endline 52.2 24.8 23.0 100.0

Municipalities Baseline 50.5 30.8 18.7 100.0

Endline 48.5 29.3 22.2 100.0


At endline, only about half of the applicants in both GPs and Municipalities could get the service after

meeting just one official. The proportion remained more or less the same at the baseline. Table 5.4

also indicates that more than one-fifth of the applicants could get the service only after meeting three

or more officials. It is disheartening to note that the proportion has increased since baseline. Those

who had to meet more than two officials to get the service were further classified by the LG category

and the result is shown in Table 5.5.


Table 5.5: Percent of applicants who could receive the service only after meeting three or more officials


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 19.5 23.1

All GPs 18.9 23.0

Municipalities

Backward 20.1 25.6

Advanced 17.4 18.8



There is not much difference between different categories of GPs while a large proportion of the

citizens in Backward Municipalities had to meet more officials than those in Advanced Municipalities.

5.5 Time Taken for Service Delivery

For delivering the services by the LG offices time norms are fixed only for some selected ones. Table

5.6 shows whether the LG Offices were able to deliver the services within the fixed time frame.

Table 5.6: Percent of applicants who received the service in the stipulated time

Note 1: Only those applicants who have received the service have been considered * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

Service Stipulated

Time as per Norms


GPs Municipalities


Residential certificate 7 days 78.9 77.3 90.1 75.0

Birth certificate 7 days 79.0 27.3* 65.0 84.0

Death certificate 7 days 57.0 71.1 62.9 65.5

Certificate of ownership of building

3 days 68.1 28.3* 42.7 33.0

Marriage registration certificate

7 days 55.2 69.1 81.4 87.0

Payment of tax Same day 92.7 94.3 78.4 92.4*


At endline, tax could be paid on the day of the visit in most cases. Marriage registration certificate,

death certificate and residential certificate are issued as per time norms in large majority of the cases

both in GPs and Municipalities. Delay was noticed mainly in the issue of certificate of ownership of

building from GP and Municipal Offices. In GPs, there was much delay at endline in the issue of birth

certificate. Both in GPs and Municipalities, there has been increase, between baseline and endline,

in the proportion of citizens who could pay the tax on the same day of visit and who could receive

death certificate and marriage certificate within the timeframe fixed for the same. But in the issue of

ownership certificate, the situation has worsened since the baseline both in GPs and Municipalities.

The proportion of citizens who could get the residential certificate within the stipulated time has come

down in Municipalities while no change was observed in GPs. Thus the efficiency of services delivery

has improved since the baseline for certain services but it worsened in the case of others.

In order to understand to what extent the GP and Municipal Offices are able to provide the services

within the time norms fixed by the Local Self Government Department, we have pooled the responses

relating to different services for which time norms are available. The pooling was also necessary to

make a comparison between different LG categories due to inadequate number of responses if

analysed separately. The results are presented in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7: Percent of applicants which received the service in the stipulated time


Baseline Endline

GPs


Other Backward 84.9 71.5**

Advanced 88.5 77.5**

All GPs 86.9 76.8*

Municipalities

Backward 75.9 78.3

Advanced 82.7 81.2



At endline, more than three-fourths of the applicants received the services of GP and Municipal

Offices within the stipulated time. But the fact that some of the applicants are not receiving the

services within the time fixed for service delivery indicates the scope for further improvement in this

respect. Table 5.6 also indicates that Vulnerable GPs are better in following the time norms than

other LG categories. The situation remained more or less the same as at baseline in the case of


Vulnerable GPs while it declined in the other two categories. There is not much change between

baseline and endline in the case of both categories of Municipalities.

5.6 Procedural Aspects of Service Delivery

The process of service delivery involves three different stages (i) receiving the application from the

citizen, (ii) issuing acknowledgement receipt with date specified for service delivery and (iii) delivering

the service. The way the system performs in each of these stages can have an impact on the

efficiency of service delivery and the overall satisfaction of the people seeking these services. At

endline, the application was acknowledged in three-fourths of the cases in GPs and four-in-five

applications in Municipalities (Table 5.8). The LGs are expected to provide the date on which the

service is delivered so as to reduce the hardships of the applicants by avoiding unnecessary visits.

But it is found that, at endline, majority of the applicants are not informed about the date of service

delivery. However, when such information is provided, the applicants receive the service on the said

date in large majority of the cases. While there is an improvement in the practice of acknowledging

the receipt of the application, date of service delivery is informed only in fewer cases compared to

baseline.

Table 5.8: Procedure followed by LG offices in dealing with applications

Applicants who:

Percent of Applicants

GPs Municipalities


Received an acknowledgement on submission of

the applicationa 66.5 74.5* 79.4 80.8

Was given a time frame for receiving the servicea 64.5 44.5* 78.0 47.1*

Received the service on the specified date or

beforeb 67.7 80.4* 79.4 82.4

a Includes only those applicants who have submitted an application for the service and received the service. b only those who have received a specific date for service delivery. * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

5.7 Access to Facilities in the LG Offices

The citizens who visit the offices of the GPs and Municipalities are to be provided with some basic

facilities. While some of the facilities may be available in the office, it may not be accessible to

citizens. For instance, even if a toilet is available in the LG Office, it may not be accessible to citizens.

In some other cases, the citizens did not have a necessity to access it and therefore may not be

aware of its availability. The facilities we have examined are enquiry counter, seating facilities,


drinking water and toilet. At endline, enquiry counter and sufficient seating facilities were available

in the GP and Municipal Offices visited by large majority of the sample respondents (Table 5.9). But

access to toilets and drinking water was relatively low. One-third of those who visited GP office and

nearly one-fourth of those who visited Municipal Office reported that toilets and drinking water were

not accessible to them. Vulnerable GPs and Backward Municipalities were better in access to the

facilities in the office compared to other LG categories. Table 5.9 also indicates that access to

facilities have improved between baseline and endline, both in GP and Municipal offices.

Table 5.9: Percent of citizens reporting access to different facilities in the LG Office

Category of LG

Percent of citizens reporting access to:

Enquiry counter Sufficient seating

facilities Drinking water Access to toilets


GPs

Vulnerable 77.5 87.3* 81.7 96.4* 61.9 68.2 49.1 71.8*

Other Backward 74.2 87.4* 90.2 89.0 59.5 66.3 39.3 57.8*

Advanced 81.6 89.6** 84.4 86.7 59.2 65.5 47.4 67.1*

All GPs 79.3 88.9* 85.7 88.1 59.5 66.0** 45.3 65.1*

Municipalities

Backward 83.3 91.0* 84.5 91.2* 59.9 78.1* 45.4 76.1*

Advanced 78.9 92.1* 82.4 86.8 51.2 70.2* 33.8 65.5*

All Municipalities 81.0 91.5* 83.4 89.0* 55.4 74.2* 39.3 70.8*


5.8 Grievances and Grievance Redressal

At endline, 81 out of the 648 citizens (12.5%) who had approached GP Office and 51 out of the 501

citizens (10.1%) who had approached Municipal Office faced some problem with service delivery.

Among GP categories, the incidence of problems was slightly higher in Vulnerable GPs at endline

while it was more in Advanced Municipalities compared to Backward Municipalities. The problem

incidence did not change much between baseline and endline.


Table 5.10: Percent of Citizens who faced a problem with service delivery of LG Office


Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 13.1 13.6

All GPs 11.8 12.5

Municipalities

Backward 8.2 6.4

Advanced 10.5 13.9


Note: Change was not statistically significant in any category

At endline, 32 citizens in GPs raised complaints with authorities and in ten such cases satisfactory

action was taken. At baseline, only 15 citizens registered their complaints but satisfactory action was

taken only in the case of one complaint. It is clear that the grievance redressal mechanism in GP

Offices has improved considerably since the baseline. In Municipalities, only 21 citizens complained

about the problem at endline but none of them resulted in satisfactory action. At baseline, 3 out of

the 19 complaints regarding the service delivery of Municipal Office resulted in satisfactory action.

The grievance redressal mechanism in Municipal Offices has worsened further from the low levels at

baseline. In spite of the improvement made, the grievance redressal mechanism even in GPs is

weak.

The most important problems reported by the citizens during the endline survey was the delay in

getting the service followed by having to travel long distance to reach the LG Office. When one has

to travel long distances, any additional visit to LG Office is likely to cause much more dissatisfaction

than in cases where the distance to the LG Office is not a problem. It may be noted that Kerala’s LGs

are large in size. Therefore, the citizens have to travel a long distance from far off wards to reach

the LG Office. The possibility of relocating some of the LG offices to places near the centre of the

area of jurisdiction of LG may be examined. The third problem is that there is no option other than

visiting the office for service delivery in the case of some services. At present, the birth certificate,

death certificate and marriage registration certificate can be accessed online. If more services of LG

Offices are made available online, this will reduce the number of visits to LG office. For instance, it

was found earlier that nearly one-third of the visits to the LG office was payment of tax. If this service

is available online, the number of citizens visiting the office can be brought down considerably. The


citizens can either make the payment online or can approach the Akshaya Centres located in different

parts of the GP/Municipality.

5.9 Citizens’ Satisfaction with the Behaviour of Staff

The behaviour of staff of the local government will have lasting impressions on the citizens. More

than four-fifths of the citizens who approached the office were fully satisfied with their behaviour.

(Table 5.11). However, there is still scope for improvement. The rating on the behaviour of staff

remained more or less the same at the endline and baseline.

Table 5.11: Percent of citizens fully satisfied with the behaviour of staff in LG Office

Category of LG Percent of citizens

Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 84.2 87.4

All GPs 84.8 87.5

Municipalities

Backward 86.5 90.1

Advanced 86.0 86.4


Note: Change is not statistically significant in any category.

5.10 Citizens’ Overall Satisfaction with the Service Delivery

The rating of the citizens on the overall satisfaction with the service delivery process in the LG Office

can be dependent on the behaviour of staff, timeliness of service, procedural difficulties that they

have encountered and the availability of basic amenities. The level of overall satisfaction with the

service delivery process was assessed for different groups of GPs and Municipalities. More than

three-fourths of the citizens in GPs and more than four-fifths in Municipalities are fully satisfied with

the service from the LG office (Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1 also indicates that the overall satisfaction with

service delivery in GP and Municipal Offices at the endline remained more or less the same as that

at the baseline.


Figure 5.1: Percentage distribution of citizens by their level of satisfaction with overall

service from LG Office

The citizens in Vulnerable GPs who were less satisfied with the service delivery of GP Offices at the

time of baseline survey increased their satisfaction rating considerably (Table 5.12). As a result, the

Vulnerable GPs were able to catch up with the better off GPs in the satisfaction ratings of the citizens.

The change from the baseline levels was not significant in other categories of GPs and both

categories of Municipalities.

Table 5.12: Percent of citizens fully satisfied with the overall service delivery from LG Office across different categories of GPs

Category of LG Percent of citizens

Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 76.1 77.0

All GPs 77.2 77.6

Municipalities

Backward 81.6 84.9

Advanced 80.9 81.1


Note: Change is not statistically significant in any category. * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline.

83.0

81.2

77.6

77.2

6.2

7.0

7.8

7.6

10.8

11.8

14.6

15.2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL

Fully satisfied Partially satisfied Not satisfied


5.11 Citizens’ Suggestions for Improving Service Delivery from LG Offices

Citizens have given suggestions for improving the service delivery from LG Offices. They are as

follows:

Ø Develop a mechanism to ensure the delivery of services within the stipulated time

Ø Preference/priority should be given to elderly and economically/ socially vulnerable

sections in the delivery of services

Ø Provide basic facilities/amenities to the citizens where it is not available

Ø LG employees should be made responsible for their actions and delay in service delivery

Ø Ensure punctuality of staff

5.12 Summing Up

This chapter examined the services for which the citizens approach the LG office and the quality of

services delivered. It was found that payment of tax is the one service for which almost a third of the

respondents went to the LG office in both GPs and Municipalities. The remaining two-thirds were

distributed among several other types of services like certificate of ownership of building, BPL

certificate etc. The quality of service delivery was assessed based on the number of visits made to

the LG Office, number of officials met and the time taken for getting the service. It is assumed that

more the number of visits more will be the inconvenience to the citizens which will lead to loss of man

days and increase in transaction costs. Multiple visits also have adverse implications on the workload

of the staff.

More than 80 percent of the applicants could get the service in one (54.5 percent in GP and 55.6

percent in Municipalities) or two (28.3 percent and 28.8 percent in GPs and municipalities

respectively) visits. But between baseline and endline the one visit class declined in both types of

LGs while the share of the two visit class has increased. Besides, it should also be noted that a not

too small a proportion of the applicants had to visit at least three times to get their work done pointing

to further scope for improvement.

Though about half of the applicants could get the service by meeting one official, about one-fifth of

the applicants had to meet three or more officials to complete the service both in GPs and

Municipalities. Time norms have been fixed only for certain services of the LG Offices while it is not

available for others. The study found that in case of services for which time norms are available, at

endline, 77 and 80 percent respectively for GPs and Municipalities could get the service within the

stipulated time. But more important is the remaining citizens who had to wait beyond the stipulated


time. In fact, the situation worsened since baseline in GP Office in this respect while it remained more

or less the same in Municipal Office. Citizens usually get an acknowledgement receipt when an

application is submitted in the GP or Municipal Office. But it was found that at endline, more than

half of the applicants are not informed in advance about the date on which the service will be

delivered. In this respect, the situation deteriorated from the baseline levels both in GP and Municipal

Offices. But when a date is given, it is followed in large majority of the cases.

At endline, three-fourths of the respondents who approached the LG Office for some service in the

rural areas and four-in-five respondents in municipalities were fully satisfied with the service delivery

from the GP and Municipal Offices. The endline satisfaction rating is almost at the same level as that

at the baseline. The major problems reported by the citizens with respect to service delivery from

LG Offices are delay in service delivery, long distance to reach the LG Office and multiple visits

necessitated by procedural problems. At endline, only about one-tenth of the citizens reported facing

any problem related to service delivery both in GPs and Municipalities. The incidence of problems

did not change much since baseline. The grievance redressal mechanism in GP Offices has

improved considerably since the baseline while that in Municipalities has worsened further from the

low levels at baseline. In spite of the improvement made, the grievance redressal mechanism even

in GPs is weak. Overall, it may be said that the feedback from the citizens indicate that there has

not been any perceptible change since baseline in the quality of service delivery of GP/Municipal

Offices. An examination of KLGSDP funded LG projects in the sample LGs showed that a large

number of interventions were taken up to improve the infrastructure and facilities in the LG Offices.

It was also seen in Chapter I that improving LG office infrastructure and computerisation of LG offices

have received a substantial portion of the KLGSDP funds. But it appears that such investments have

not resulted in an improvement in the quality of services of LG Offices in a significant way.


CHAPTER VI

ASSESSMENT OF SAMPLE PROJECTS

6.1. Introduction

The previous chapters discussed the feedback of the citizens on delivery of services by GPs and

Municipalities and by the institutions which are managed by them. The aspects examined in these

chapters included access to or usage of services, efficiency of service delivery, grievance redressal

mechanism and citizens’ level of satisfaction with service delivery. The findings presented in these

chapters were based on household surveys conducted at baseline and endline. The present chapter

aims to examine the planning and implementation of a sample of projects implemented by LGs using

KLGSDP funds. The three major aspects that are examined in this project assessment are efficiency,

sustainability and affordability of the KLGSDP interventions. Besides, the process of identification of

the project and the quality of assets created are examined.

6.2 Details of the Sample Projects

As per the Terms of Reference of the endline study, project assessment of a sample of 24 projects

in GPs and eight projects in Municipalities has to be undertaken. To give representation to different

categories of projects in the sample, four additional projects were taken for assessment in

Municipalities, thereby increasing the number of sample projects to 12. Projects implemented by the

LGs using KLGSDP funds in the years 2012-13 to 2015-16 have been considered for assessment.

As suggested by DAC, the monitoring agency for the endline study, the projects implemented in

2016-17 were excluded as most of them were not commissioned at the time of endline survey.

However, discussions with stakeholders at the local level provided an understanding of the changes

in the planning and implementation of projects in 2016-17, which are also discussed wherever

relevant to give additional insights.

The sample projects were selected as per the methodology given in Chapter I. The projects were

selected from the LGs where the household survey was conducted. Only one project was selected

from an LG. A total of 1153 projects were implemented using KLGSDP funds in the 48 sample GPs

where the household survey was conducted. The corresponding number of projects in the 16

municipalities was 376.

Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 present the details about the sample projects assessed as part of the endline study.

The detailed discussion on each of the individual sample project is presented in Appendix III


Table 6.1: Details about the total number of KLGSDP projects in the LGs where the

household survey was undertaken and the number of sample projects assessed

Table 6.2 Details of the sample projects in GPs and Municipalities

Sl. No.

Name of LG Category Project Project Cost

(Rs. Lakhs)

GPs

1 Athirapally Roads Road formation, metal laying (420 metres) 9.99

2 Cheruvathur Roads Construction of culvert 9.71

3 Koovappady Roads Road concreting (191metres) 6.0

4 Mavelikara Thekkekara

Roads Metalling road (400 metres) and culvert construction

5.39

5 Meloor Roads Road formation and tarring (275 metres) and side protection

30.54

6 Meppadi Roads Re-tarring of road (415 metres) 5.00

7 Nedumkunnam Roads Concreting of Footpath (166 metres) 3.75

8 Anchuthengu Infrastructure Construction of Anganwadi 9.77

9 Kandanassery Infrastructure Construction of a part of Panchayat Office Complex

13.34

10 Mangalapuram Infrastructure Construction of indoor stadium 19.41

11 Meenja Infrastructure Installation of Solar Power Plant in the GP office 6.98

12 Mullassery Infrastructure Construction of Panchayat office building 43.08

(Contd…)

Type of project

Number of projects

GPs Municipalities

Total KLGSDP projects in the

sample LGs

Projects assessed

Total KLGSDP projects in the

sample LGs

Projects assessed

Road development 767 7 176 3

Infrastructure improvement 253 5 111 1

Computerisation of LG Office (Rs 2 lakhs or above)

24 2 22 1

Drinking Water 25 2 5 1

Street lights 27 2 8 -

Park 3 1 - -

Crematorium 8 1 5 1

Education 99 1 9 -

Front office of LG improvement 10 1 16 1

Bus stand/ Bus shelter 17 1 7 1

Vayojana Visrama Kendram (Day Centre for the elderly)

- - 1 1

Sanitation - - 13 2

Others 10 1 3 -

Total 1153 24 376 12


Table 6.2 Contd…

13 Irikkur Computerisation Purchase of Computer and other Peripherals for GP Office

3.37

14 Thillankery Computerisation Computerisation of GP office 3.43

15 Manjeshwar Drinking Water Drinking water supply scheme 2.75

16 Vandiperiyar Drinking Water Drinking water supply scheme for SC colony 6.66

17 Alangad Street lights Provision of street lights 21.98

18 Veliyannoor Street lights Purchase of CFL Fittings for Street Lighting 1.41

19 Kumbalanghi Bus stand Renovation of panchayat bus stand 17.40

20 Pudusseri Crematorium Gas crematorium 99.32

21 Chokkad Education Class room for Upper primary school 3.13

22 Thalavoor LG Front office Renovation of Front Office of the GP Office 5.87

23 Punnayur Others Improvements of beaches in the GP 18.54

24 Chakkupallam Others Side protection of water body 4.75

Municipality

1 Adoor Roads Re-tarring of Road (760 metres) 7.82

2 Kasargodu Roads Concreting of road (195 metres) 14.85

3 Nileswar Roads Road tarring and provision of drainage 7.49

4 Mavelikkara Sanitation E-toilet for the public 6.74

5 Varkala Sanitation Construction of Public Toilet Block in Municipal Office 2.94

6 Guruvayur Infrastructure Installation of solar panel in the Municipal office 28.76

7 Vadakara Computerisation Online asset mapping 4.16

8 Irinjalakkuda Drinking Water Water Supply Scheme 2.80

9 Kalamasseri Crematorium Construction of Crematorium 117.0

10 Chittoor LG office Construction of Common Facility Centre 7.99

11 Thodupuzha Bus stand Improvements to Bus stand 4.98

12 Koothuparamba Vayojana Visrama Kendram

Construction of Day Care Centre for Elderly 5.57

Table 6.1 indicates that the largest number of

sample projects was meant for development of road

infrastructure. Of the 10 sample projects in this

sector, one was to construct a culvert and another

for footpath development. All other projects in the

sector involved tarring/ concreting/metalling of

roads. The sample projects covered the road length

within a ward and the length of road covered by all

the sample projects was less than one kilometre.

The expenditure on the project in the road sector

ranged between Rs. 3.76 lakhs to Rs.15.45 lakhs. Other infrastructure projects included construction

of LG office, construction of anganwadi, construction of Indoor stadium and installation of solar panel

in the LG offices. Two sample projects in GPs were for improving the computer facilities while one

Road Constructed in Kasaragod Municipality


project in the Municipality related to asset

mapping. Two projects in GP sample and

one project in Municipality sample were

drinking water supply schemes. Two

crematoriums were included in the sample,

one in Pudussery GP (Sample Project No

GP-20) and another in the Kalamassery

Municipality (Sample Project No M-09). The

project cost was the highest for these two

projects- Rs.99.32 lakhs and Rs.117 lakhs, respectively. Two projects in the Municipality sample

were in the sanitation sector- one for installation of e-toilet in a public place and another for public

toilet complex in the Municipal office premises. The project cost was the lowest for a street lighting

project in Veliyannur GP (Sample Project No GP-18-Rs. 1.41 lakhs) and the highest for crematorium

project in Kalamasserry Municipality (Rs. 117 lakhs).

In each sample project, the details related to

timeliness, efficiency and sustainability were

collected using a checklist from the LG and key

informants viz., LG Secretary, LG Engineer,

project implementing officers, elected

representatives and targeted

beneficiaries/potential users. As mentioned in

Chapter I, in many cases, the officials involved

in planning and implementation of the sample

projects got transferred to other LGs or they were not in service at the time of the present assessment.

Hence, the study team relied on the records of the LG in such cases. A sample of 15 beneficiaries

was interviewed in each project using a questionnaire. Wherever a list of beneficiary households was

available, the respondents were selected using systematic sampling procedure. However, in majority

of the projects, no such list was available. In such cases, the households which usually use the

facility created by the project were contacted for feedback. The households were selected

systematically with a random starting point and following the right hand rule. Wherever the number

of beneficiaries was less than 15, all the beneficiaries were interviewed. In the case of projects such

as online asset mapping (Sample Project No M-09), the potential users were interviewed. This was

supplemented by a physical verification of the assets created by the project, by the study team.

Crematorium in Pudusseri GP

Inside the Anganwadi Building constructed using

KLGSDP funds in Anchuthengu GP


Discussions with the elected representatives indicated that they face tremendous pressure to include

small projects beneficial to their electoral constituency viz. the ward. It was pointed out that, often,

there is an informal understanding among the elected representatives on ward-wise allocation of

funds. As a result, the projects which cater to the entire population of the LG such as crematorium

or park or even transferred institutions seldom gets priority. Another deterrent in giving priority to

such projects is the requirement of larger quantum of funds. This, in turn, reduces the funds available

for ward-wise allocation. According to some of the local functionaries, they were able to include

projects like construction of crematorium and development of parks/beach requiring large amounts

of funds and innovative projects like installation of solar panels in public places only because of

KLGSDP. This was considered to be a major positive aspect of KLGSDP.

6.3 Process of Identification, Relevance and Usefulness of the Project

The LGs are expected to follow standard procedures in project planning. These procedures are

provided in the Guidelines for Project Planning developed by the Local Self Government Department.

These guidelines are applicable to KLGSDP funded projects also. In addition, the KLGSDP funded

projects have to comply with the Environment and Social Safeguard Framework (ESMF) developed

by KLGSDP.

The LG projects using the Plan grants from the state government are usually based on the needs

identified in the Grama/Ward Sabha. Prioritisation of projects for inclusion in the Annual Plan of the

LG is also based on the suggestions from the Grama/Ward Sabhas. The same pattern was found to

be followed in the case of KLGSDP funded LG projects as revealed during the interactions with LG

officials, elected representatives and beneficiaries. The demand for all projects related to civic

services such as road betterment, streetlights, water supply was raised in the Grama /Ward Sabha

meetings. In the case of projects related to infrastructure improvements in transferred institutions

such as schools and public infrastructure such as bus stand or beach development, the need was

usually identified by the community while in a few cases, the demand came from the concerned

institutions. But in the case of improvement of LG Office through computerisation, solar power unit

installation, etc., the need was identified by the GP/Municipal Committee. Discussions with

functionaries of the LGs revealed that in some cases, the projects undertaken under KLGSDP were

initially included by the LGs in the Annual Plan of the LG as projects to be implemented using own

funds. Such a practice was observed mostly after the introduction of performance based fund

allocation by KLGSDP. According to the functionaries, the LGs were forced to adopt such a practice

because of the uncertainty with respect to the quantum and timing of funds provided by KLGSDP.


As noted in Chapter I, in the first two years, all GPs and Municipalities received grant funding. From

the third year onwards, eligibility for Performance Grant was based on an annual performance

assessment of LGs based on a certain approved criteria. There has been a delay in the release of

funds from KLGSDP to the LGs in third and fourth years of the project. When the KLGSDP funds

were made available, projects that were originally planned as ‘own fund project’ were later converted

to KLGSDP funded project.

In 2016-17, additional financial assistance was given to a group of backward Grama Panchayats and

revenue deficit Municipalities. LGs were directed to select large projects at that time. It was also

directed that, projects for roads linking different wards of LGs can only be taken up using this fund.

The LGs were also directed to ensure that such projects should cover the full length of the road. The

LGs usually takes up work for small stretches of different

roads in a financial year rather than completing the full

stretch of a road. As noted earlier, there is an informal

understanding among the elected representatives in the

allocation of funds for road development among different

wards. There has been an attempt to change this usual

practice in the case of KLGSDP projects implemented in

2016-17.

All the sample projects were found to be relevant in the local context. As noted earlier, large majority

of the projects were identified on the basis of the needs of the

people expressed in the Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha. These

projects, if implemented properly, will be very much useful for

service delivery. The project on computerisation of LG Office

is helpful to improve service delivery from these offices. In the

case of solar panel installation, the LGs are benefitting by way

of saving the electricity charges. For instance, in Meenja GP

and Guruvayur Municipality, the implementation of the project

has brought down their electricity charges by more than 50 per

cent. The amount saved through reduction in electricity charges could be used for other purposes.

The beneficiaries/potential users of the project who were interviewed as part of the project

assessment were asked to give their opinion on the usefulness of the project. In half of the projects

(18 out of 36), all the interviewed beneficiaries/potential users felt that the project is useful to the

e-toilet in Mavelikkara Municipality

which is not being used now

Solar Panel in Meenja GP Office


community. Projects for road development and street lighting, bus stand which were the result of the

demand from the citizens were rated to be useful by all the beneficiaries. In the case of most of the

other LG projects also, majority of the respondents were of the opinion that project is useful, if

properly implemented. However, in the case of the e-toilet in Mavelikkara Municipality, most of the

potential users of the facility felt that the project was not useful due to difficulties in accessing the

facility, recurrent technical problems and unclean environment. Projects such as improvement of LG

office did not generate such high rating on usefulness.

6.4 Efficiency of Project Implementation of the Sample Projects

There are different ways of measuring efficiency of projects. As pointed out in the World Bank Project

Performance Assessment Report of the Uganda Second Local Government Development Project4,

the efficiency assessment based on benefits will be a problem because of the difficulty in quantifying

the benefits. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance published by UNDP Oslo Governance

Centre5 suggests that efficiency can be measured in two ways viz., efficiency of completion of a

project within agreed timelines and efficiency of authorities to solve citizens’ problems. Another

World Bank study6 suggested assessing efficiency by doing a comparison of actual expenditures

with earlier budget projections. The DAC Principles for the Evaluation of Development Assistance7

suggests the assessment of efficiency, which signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources

possible to achieve the desired results, by comparing alternative approaches to achieve the same

outputs. The objective is to understand whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

The efficiency of the sample projects is assessed in the present report mainly by trying to answer two

questions: (1) whether the project intervention was able to meet the initially fixed timelines and (2)

whether actual expenditures have exceeded the budget projections. As noted earlier, the sample

projects were implemented using funds from KLGSDP in the years 2012-13 to 2015-16. Since the

endline survey was conducted towards the end of 2016-17, all the projects were expected to be

completed and fully functional. Hence it is essential to check on the functional status of the projects

and if a project is not functional much after the expected date of completion, the implementation of

4 The World Bank (2014). Project Performance Assessment Report: The Republic Of Uganda Second Local Government

Development Project, Washington D.C. 5 Shipra Narang, Marie Laberge Luisa Moretto (2009) A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance, UNDP Oslo

Governance Centre. 6 Valadez, Joseph; Bamberger, Michael. 1994. Monitoring and evaluating social programs in developing countries: a handbook for

policymakers, managers, and researchers. World Bank Institute (WBI) development study*EDI development studies. Washington, DC: World Bank.

7 OECD (1991) “Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance”, OECD, Paris.


the project can be safely considered as inefficient. Of the projects which are functional at the time of

assessment, data on timelines at various stages of project implementation and the approved budget

and actual cost were collected from the project documents available in the LG office.

Table 6.3 indicates that one of the projects is yet to be completed as per LG records. Of the remaining

35 projects, three are not functional at the time of the assessment and three are being put to uses

other than the ones originally planned.

Table 6.3: Distribution of the sample projects according to the status of completion

Completion/Functional Status No. of Projects

GPs Municipalities Total

Completed as per LG records and functions as originally planned 23 6 29

Completed as per LG records but used for a purpose not originally envisaged

1 2 3

Completed as per records, but not functional at the time of assessment 0 3 3

Not completed 0 1 1

Total 24 12 36

In GPs, all the 24 sample projects undertaken have been completed and all except one project are

functioning as envisaged in the GP Plan. The

only exception is the project to construct an

indoor stadium in Mangalapuram GP. The

project (Sample Project No.GP-10) was to

construct an indoor stadium with roofing,

cemented side walls and concrete flooring at a

cost estimate of Rs.20 lakh. Though as per

records, this project is completed and Rs.19.41

lakh was spent, the asset created is just a shed-

like structure without flooring or walls. In effect, it cannot be used as an indoor stadium. The structure

is now used for holding local functions. As per LG records, the project is “completed and functional”.

The entire amount had been utilized by the GP, but some of the works included in the project proposal

are not yet in place.

The implementation of the Municipal projects appears to be not as good as that in GP projects.

Among the 12 sample projects in Municipalities, one is yet to be completed as per records available

at the Municipal Office. The construction of a Common Toilet Block (Sample Project No M-05) in

the premises of Varkala Municipal Office was terminated midway due to difference of opinion among

Indoor Stadium Project in Mangalapuram GP


political parties. Of the total project cost of Rs 23.94 lakhs, only Rs 2.94 lakhs was spent. The project,

if made functional, would have been very useful for the municipal employees as well as the general

public who visits the office. Even though the Municipality tried to complete the construction by

tendering the remaining work, no tenders were received as the local contractors were not willing to

associate with the project in view of the previous experience.

Three other Municipal projects are not functional at the time of assessment. Moreover, the

infrastructure built in two other projects is presently used for a purpose other than what was originally

planned. The Drinking Water Supply Scheme in Irinjalakuda Municipality (Sample Project No.M-8) is

not in operation due to improper planning and political issues. The original project plan included a

bore well, motor pump and distribution network. But later the Municipality decided to make use of the

distribution network of an old water supply scheme and therefore it was excluded from the project.

However, the project could not get electricity connection avowedly due to some local political

conflicts. A section of the community is also doubtful about the feasibility of using the available

distribution network. As a result of these conflicts, the project is not yet functional. It is also reported

that the original cost estimate of the distribution network was insufficient. The approved cost of the

project meant to provide drinking water to 40 households in the Municipality was Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs

2.8 lakhs was spent. The second project which is not functional at the time of assessment though

the work was completed is the e-toilet in a public place in Mavelikkara Municipality. The e-toilet,

installed at a cost of Rs. 6.74 lakhs, did not get the acceptance of the potential users because of the

technological barriers in using it. Some of the e-toilets installed in other places in the state under

different schemes also had the same fate. The third project which was not functional is Crematorium

in Kalamassery Municipality which was constructed at a cost of Rs 117 lakh. The crematorium started

functioning as soon as the construction was completed but had to stop working later because of its

proximity to a dumping yard in the Municipality. It is said that during the piling work for Kochi Metro,

the buried waste was dug out and the foul smell in the area deterred the citizens from using the

crematorium. At the time of assessment, the contractor has withdrawn and the crematorium is not

functioning.

Two municipal projects which are being used for a purpose different from what was originally

envisaged are the project for Daycare Centre for the Elderly (Vayojana Visrama Kendram) (Sample

Project No M-12) in Koothuparamba Municipality and the Common Facility centre (Sample Project

No M-10) in Chittur Municipality. The former is currently being used as the office of the Vayomitram

project of the Kerala Social Security Mission. The original objective of the project which was to build


a day care centre for the elderly did not materialize. The Common Facility Centre in Chittoor

Municipality (Sample Project No.M-10) was envisaged to have a hall for public meetings, a centre for

social and cultural activities as well as a provision shop. But at the time of assessment, only a

provision store run by the Civil Supplies Corporation is functioning in the building.

The discussion above indicates that 29 out of the 36 sample projects have satisfactory results while

the remaining projects did not achieve the project objectives due to some major issues in project

planning and implementation. It is possible that some of the projects which have resulted in

satisfactory outcomes also faced some issues at the planning and implementation stages. This is

examined further in the subsequent sections. The major milestones in planning and implementation

of LG projects are approval by LG committee, starting of the tendering process, entering into an

agreement with a contractor/agency/beneficiary committee and the completion of the project. The

time taken for completing each milestone was collected from the records of LGs. Table 6.4 gives the

average time taken during different stages of the project implementation among different categories.

Table 6.4: Average number of months taken to complete important milestones of the project

Category

Average number of months

LG approval to date of inviting

tender*#

LG Agreement date to

completion date*

LG Approval date to completion

date* GP Municipality GP Municipality GP Municipality

Roads 3.2 5.7 3.6 2.4 6.8 10.4

Infrastructure improvement 6.2 -- 6.1 10.3 14.3 18.3

Computerisation/Online asset mapping -- -- 0.3 11.0 4.7 12.7

Bus stand/ Bus shelter 5.3 3.9 5.7 -- 12.1 6.3

Crematorium 3.3 1.9 6.8 17.0 12.5 27.4

Drinking Water 3.3 -- 7.5 -- 13.8 --

Front office of LG improvement -- 1.5 5.2 18.6 9.6 19.5

Education 1.0 -- 15.5 -- 19.3 --

Park 9.4 -- 20.3 30.5 -- --

Street lights 7.5 -- 8.4 17.2 -- --

Vayojana visrama kendram -- 4.3 -- -- 13.5 --

Protection of water body -- -- -- -- 8.3 --

Note: Taken only for projects that are completed, and where the timelines are available from the LG Offices

# Only projects in which tendering was done.

The time taken for a project to get completed once it gets the approval from the LG Committee for

implementation may differ according to the category of the projects. In the case of sample projects

for which the data on timelines are available, this has ranged from 5 months in the case of

computerization to almost three years in the case of beach renovation in Punnayur GP. In the case

of projects which involved tendering process, it took an average of more than four months till the


tendering stage. Depending upon the nature of projects and extent of work involved, implementation

time can vary from project to project. But significant difference in the time taken to initiate the

tendering process from the date of LG approval is not justifiable. As per the guidelines, the maximum

time which can be taken for finalising the tender is two months if retendering was not required. But,

there are projects in the sample in which retendering had to be done because the stipulated minimum

number of competitive tenders were not received. The time taken for completing the project from the

date of agreement depends mainly on the type of project being implemented. For example, the project

for improvement of beaches in Punnayur GP (Sample Project no.GP-23) took nearly two years for

completion, while the computerisation projects in Irikkur GP (Sample Project no.GP-13) and

Thillankery GP (Sample Project no.GP-14) were completed within one week from the date of

agreement. As a measure of efficiency of implementation, it was examined whether the project was

completed on or before the completion date agreed upon. Table 6.5 presents the data on whether

the projects have been completed within the time fixed as per the agreement with the

contractor/agency/beneficiary committee.

Table 6.5: Efficiency of LGs in completing the work as per the timelines proposed in the Agreement

Particulars Number of projects

GPs Municipalities Total

Projects completed within the proposed date of completion as per Agreement

8 4 12

Projects not completed within the proposed date of completion as per Agreement

6 3 9

Projects which did not have the proposed date of completion in the agreement

10 5 15

Total number of projects 24 12 36

Of the 36 projects assessed, the date of completion was not mentioned in the agreement of 15

projects. This, however, does not mean that there was undue delay in the implementation of such

projects. Most of them took only the same time or less compared to other projects where dates were

available. The fact that such necessary information is not available in the signed agreement between

the LG and the contractor is likely to affect the monitoring of the project implementation. The

implementation time of the Beach Renovation project in Punnayur GP (actual cost of Rs.18.54 lakhs)

is worth mentioning in this context. The agreement of the project executed with the contractor did

not specify the date of completion. The project took nearly two years for completion. Of the remaining

21 projects which have the relevant data, 12 were completed before the date of completion as per

agreement (Table 6.5). Among the 9 remaining projects, the delay was less than three months in

four projects, between 3 months and six months in the case of 3 projects and a delay of more than

six months in the remaining two projects. Among the projects which specified the expected date of


completion, the longest delay at the implementation stage was observed in the case of the project

on Asset Mapping of the Vadakara Municipality (7 months).

In nearly one-third of the above-mentioned projects (11 projects), the agreement was made only in

the last month of the financial year. It was also found that in the case of more than half of the projects

(21 projects), the agreement was made in the last quarter of the financial year. An examination of

the timeline fixed for project completion in the agreement seems to suggest that often the timelines

are fixed arbitrarily without making a proper estimate of the time required for completion. In some

projects, the proposed date of completion is seen to be practically unattainable. For example, the

proposed time, as mentioned in the agreement, to construct a wall for separating the classrooms in

Maliyekkal GUPS in Chokkad GP, is only three days. The project was completed after 465 days from

the date of agreement, which on the other hand, is much more than required. In the case of the

Drinking Water project in Vandiperiyar GP, the time provided for completion was just 17 days, while

it took 62 days for completion. Renovation of front office in Thalavoor GP had taken more than five

months while it had to be completed in just 10 days as per the tender agreement. At times, the

timelines for implementation of projects of similar nature are fixed differently by different LGs. We

have earlier noticed that the time taken at the planning stage also varies considerably. It appears

that there is a need for fixing specific time norms for different stages of planning and implementation

of projects, depending on the nature of projects. While some norms are available for the planning

stage, the project implementation stage also requires time norms, at least in the case of projects

commonly implemented by the LGs. Whether such norms, fixed at the state level by the Local Self

Government Department, are followed by the LGs should be included as an indicator in the

performance assessment of LGs.

Some of the LG functionaries interviewed said that the monitoring from the KLGSDP helped in timely

completion of the projects. Some others mentioned that the delay in implementation of KLGSDP

funded projects could be slightly lower than that of other LG projects because of the additional

monitoring by KLGSDP. However, in the absence of data on LG projects funded by other sources,

the study team could not make an objective assessment of the comparative position of the KLGSDP

project vis a vis other projects. However, the fact that, in spite of such monitoring by KLGSDP, the

proposed date of completion was not available for many projects points to the need for the

strengthening of the project monitoring system. It must be ensured that the Agreement has entry on

the proposed date of completion.


The delay in planning and implementation of LG projects was not fully due to the inefficiencies of the

LGs. Delay in different stages such as initiation of annual plan preparation at the state level, DPC

approval, technical sanction, release of funds, etc. have caused the delay in various stages of project

planning and implementation . In the first two years (2011-12 and 2012-13), KLGSDP funds were

released along with other development funds. The LGs were aware of the quantum of funds available

as this has been mentioned in the Appendix IV of the State Budget in these years. But from 2013-

14 onwards, the quantum of funds to be allotted from KLGSDP was unknown to the LGs in the

beginning of the financial year. The LG-wise allotment was based on the Performance Assessment

done by KLGSDP. The delay in the process of Performance Assessment and the delay in taking

decisions on the appeals of the LGs on the results of the assessment resulted in delay in the release

of funds. The quantum of funds allotted was also not known to LGs as the amount earmarked under

the KLGSDP was to be divided among the LGs which were eligible according to the PA. This has

affected the preparation of annual plans of the LGs and the projects to be included in the Annual Plan

of the LGs using KLGSDP funds. There is a need to ensure that the details of the performance based

allocation are made available before the start of the financial year so as to enable the LGs to plan

early.

A significant achievement of KLGSDP is that almost all the projects initiated and completed were

done so within the budget approved for the project. This was apparently achieved mainly on account

of the norm in the KLGSDP procedures to call for tenders for projects. The works of KLGSDP funded

projects were awarded through tendering process in two-thirds of the cases (15 out of 24 sample

projects in GPs and 8 out 12 sample projects in Municipalities). Works related to most of the projects

such as roads, construction of buildings and crematorium were awarded following tendering process

while the projects such as computerization of offices, installation of solar panels, online asset

mapping, street lighting and e-toilets were implemented by accredited agencies. No sample project

in Municipalities was implemented through the beneficiary committees while seven projects in GPs

were implemented by them. The projects implemented by the Beneficiary Committee (which is not

based on tendering process) included two projects for road development, construction of building for

one Anganwadi, front office development of one GP office, side wall construction of canal and two

drinking water supply projects. It is also pertinent to examine whether projects for concreting/tarring

roads, construction of Anganwadi building and Front Office development should be awarded to

Beneficiary Committees as such projects require some degree of technical expertise. As per the

Guidelines for Procurements issued by the LSGD, only projects with a budget estimate up to Rs.5


lakh can be awarded to Beneficiary Committee. But it was found that the project cost of only two out

of the seven projects implemented by beneficiary Committees was below Rs 5 lakh.

In projects implemented through the Beneficiary Committees or approved agencies also, cost

escalation was not reported. Though the tendering process helped in lowering the costs, the

budgeting under KLGSDP was not without flaws. According to many LG functionaries met during the

assessment, a major problem with the funding under KLGSDP was that though they knew they were

being awarded the funds, the exact amount was not told beforehand during last years of the project

in which the funds were released based on the performance assessment, as discussed earlier. This

affected their planning process as they may not be able to give a proper project proposal or may

settle for smaller projects instead of bigger more relevant projects. GPs such as Irikkur, settled for a

much smaller project component for computerisation of the LG office, as they were not aware as to

how much money they would get. In some cases, the funds were released only in December-

February, while the project would need to be initiated before March 31st to avoid spill over into the

next financial year. This affects both cost and time lines. While the tendering process brought in

accountability and transparency to the system, in some cases, it also led to delays in the entire

process. In some LGs, the projects could not attract any tenders despite multiple invitations and such

projects were completed by beneficiary

committee/approved agencies.

In eight out of the 36 sample projects, LGs depended

on other funding sources also along with KLGSDP

funds. While KLGSDP funds constituted more than

80 per cent of the project cost in five of them, its share

in the remaining three projects was less than 40 per

cent. It is also found that in few other projects, small

projects were financed under KLGSDP to fill small gaps in

fund availability from other sources. For instance, a hall

with space for two classrooms was built in Maliyekkal

Government Upper Primary School using funds from

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The GP took up a project using

KLGSDP funds for partitioning the hall to convert it as two

classrooms as well as for flooring and painting the

classrooms. Kandanasserry GP has been constructing an

Partition, Flooring and Painting of School building

using KLGSDP fund

Wall Constructed using KLGSDP fund in

Kandanasserry GP Office


office complex building to house its office and the offices of some transferred institutions using funds

from different sources. In 2014-15, the GP took up a project under KLGSDP to complete some small

gaps in the works already completed. However, for completing the remaining works of the office

complex GP needs more funds. While designing projects using externally funded projects like

KLGSDP, the completeness of the work should be ensured rather than conceiving projects as add-

ons to already existing projects. Introduction of such practices in projects for service delivery will be

helpful in curtailing the piece meal approaches in project planning. The monitoring system at the

PMU should ensure that such projects are not funded in future. ,

Some of the sample projects required technical assistance during planning as well as

implementation. Installation of Solar Panel in the Guruvayur Municipal office is such a project. In

this project, absence of technical support affected efficiency of implementation. The Implementing

Officer was initially not willing to take up the project as he was not clear about the technical problems

in implementing this innovative project. This resulted in delay in implementation. Even after the

erection of solar panels, connection to the KSEB grid took another six months due to the delay from

the side of KSEB. Considering the reduction in monthly electricity charges of about Rs.16000, LG

could have saved about Rs.1 lakh if there was no delay from the side of KSEB. If proper support and

guidance was available in the initial stage itself, the loss could have been minimised. If a support

wing under LSGD or KILA at the state level, for providing technical support for planning and

implementing innovative/unconventional projects is available, some of these problems can be solved.

6.5 Quality of Assets Created in the Sample Projects

The quality of assets created under the project was assessed from the feedback of the

beneficiaries/potential users of the project and physical verification of the assets by the study team.

The physical verification indicated that most of the assets created in the sample projects were of

good quality. Only the assets created in the Indoor Stadium Project in Mangalapuram GP, Drinking

Water Supply project Irinjalakuda Municipality, Beach renovation project in Punnayur GP, Drinking

water supply project in Vandiperiyar, Asset Mapping project in Vadakara Municipality, and the e-toilet

in Mavelikkara Municipality were rated to be unsatisfactory based on physical verification. The first

two projects did not meet the project objectives as only part of the project was implemented. The

Beach renovation project was rated to be unsatisfactory as some of the assets created under the

project have become unusable. In the case of drinking water supply project, there have been several

major breakdowns in the first year of operation itself. Distribution network often fails to withstand the

water pressure resulting in pipe breakage. Absence of technical support in the planning and


implementation stage is a major reason for the current state of affairs. The Asset mapping exercise

was an innovative project. But due to inadequacy of planning, the project did not result in a digital

database which can be used by different departments/agencies for local planning, as was envisaged.

The output of the project did not find acceptability among the potential users such as officials of the

government departments and institutions. The e-toilet faced recurrent technical problems before it

was shut down. The beneficiaries/potential users were also asked to give their feedback on the

quality of assets created in the projects which are functional. All the beneficiaries who were

interviewed were satisfied with the quality in the case of seven projects while more than half of the

beneficiaries were satisfied with the quality of the assets in the case of other projects.

6.6 Affordability of Services Provided by the Sample Projects

Affordability is whether the services meet pro-poor requirements regarding tariffs and payment

methods8. Affordability is applicable only when a user fee is charged. The assessment was done

based on the feedback from the beneficiaries, particularly the poor. User charges are applicable

only in six projects (3 each in GP and Municipal samples). They are the two water supply schemes,

two crematoriums, the e-toilet and the Municipal Bus stand. Only in the water supply project

implemented in Manjeswaram GP (Sample Project No.GP-15), more than half of the beneficiaries

found the user charges to be high. This was so because the user charge is not based on actual

usage. Instead, total charges is divided equally between the beneficiary households. In the other

water supply scheme in the sample (Vandiperiyar GP), a monthly user fee of Rs 150 is charged per

beneficiary household, which was reported to be affordable by them. The fees for cremation in the

crematorium in Pudussery GP is Rs 1500 for the citizens of the GP while for residents of other LGs

it is Rs 2000. The citizens, however, find the fees affordable as prior to the functioning of the gas

crematorium, they were spending about Rs.5000 towards cremation expenses. In the case of

Kalamassery Municipal crematorium, which is now defunct, the cremation charge was at the rate of

Rs 2000 for BPL families and Rs. 2500 for APL families, when it was functioning. The user fee in the

e-toilet was Re 1 per usage which also was affordable to the users. The private bus operators who

were charged for using the Thodupuzha bus stand also did not find the user charge high.

8 Shipra Narang, Marie Laberge Luisa Moretto (2009) “A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance”, UNDP Oslo

Governance Centre.


6.7 Sustainability of the Sample Projects

Sustainability in the present assessment is defined as the ability of the sample projects to continue

even after the completion of the implementation phase. It was assessed on the basis of the feedback

from the beneficiaries and an assessment by the study team on the basis of site visits and interactions

with key stakeholders. The qualitative data from these two methods forms the basis for a descriptive

assessment of the sustainability presented in this section.

The sustainability of a project depends on various factors such as the public demand to sustain it,

the effort from the LG to do so, availability of mechanism, in-built or otherwise, to carry on with the

functioning, etc. In large majority of the projects, majority of the citizens are of the opinion that the

project is sustainable. According to them, these projects were implemented in response to the

demand from the community and the public pressure will compel the LGs to spend money for the

maintenance of the assets created. However, in most of the projects, there is no provision for

maintenance of assets in the project. Only the street lighting project in Alangad has an Annual

Maintenance Contract (AMC) in place. The maintenance contract of the other sample project for

street lighting in Veliyanoor, which was implemented in 2012-13, has already expired and since then

no maintenance is done. As a result, many of the lights are not working now. Such instances show

that the sustainability of a project will depend not only on public demand but also on measures by

the LGs to sustain the project. Projects such as the crematorium has maintenance provisions built

into the system as they have user charges from which the maintenance can be carried out. Other

projects which have provision for maintenance is the solar panel installation in Guruvayur Municipality

which is under an AMC and also the Bus stand project in Thodupuzha, the maintenance of which is

carried out by the fee collected by the Municipality from the bus owners. The water supply schemes

are likely to sustain as the maintenance of assets can be undertaken using the user fees collected

from the beneficiary households. The LGs which have undertaken computerisation projects are

planning to enter into an Annual Maintenance Contract with the supplier. For the remaining projects,

the LGs can undertake the maintenance of the projects using own funds and maintenance funds

received from the state government. There are two types of maintenance funds they receive from

the state government viz., funds for maintenance of road assets and non-road assets. However,

these funds can be utilized by the LG only if it is included as an LG project in the Annual Plan. This

has acted as a major barrier in the timely maintenance of LG assets. It goes without saying that

these projects will have to compete with other works for maintenance and therefore will result in delay

in maintenance of assets in some cases. The study team felt that the sustainability of the projects

such as the crematorium in Kalamassery, e-toilet in Mavelikkara and the water supply scheme in


Irinjalakuda, which are not yet functional or have not received acceptance from the public, is doubtful.

Two other projects (Vayojana Visrama Kendram in Koothuparamaba Municipality and Provision store

in Chittur Municipality) will sustain as entities which are different from what they were originally

envisaged.

The interaction with different stakeholders indicated that the present asset maintenance management

system in the LGs does not ensure timely maintenance of assets. This is one area which requires to

be revamped at the earliest so that the assets created by the LGs are properly maintained. Regular

maintenance is required for roads, for which a major share of development funds is being used. The

Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY-II) programme implemented by the Government of

India for constructing all-weather roads in the villages has provision for timely maintenance of roads.

All PMGSY roads are covered by 5-year maintenance contracts. There is also provision for renewal

of the maintenance contract for the balance lifecycle of the road. Such guidelines may be followed

in the case of road projects of the LGs in the state also. It should be mandatory that the projects

should be implemented through approved contractors and the work should be given through proper

tendering process. LGs should also have the freedom to use a certain portion of maintenance funds

for roads at their discretion without putting specific annual projects for the same. This may increase

the quality of roads through regular maintenance. It is also important to make sure that the LGs plan

the maintenance works of roads in such a way that it is completed before the onset of monsoon.

6.8 Summing Up

This chapter discussed the efficiency, sustainability and affordability of a sample of 36 LG projects

undertaken using KLGSDP funds. Efficiency was examined at first by trying to understand whether

the project is functional. It is found that 29 projects have become functional as per the original plan

at the time of assessment. Only one project is incomplete as per LG records. The project activities

were halted in this project due to differences among political parties at the local level. Three other

projects were categorised as completed projects by the concerned LGs, but it was observed during

the field visits that the activities originally planned was only partially completed. In three other

projects, the infrastructure built using KLGSDP funds is being used for purposes other than originally

meant for. In one of them (Indoor stadium project), the originally planned components were not

completed and therefore the asset created was not fit for the purpose it was meant for. The other

two projects were to build infrastructure for a Day Care Centre for the Elderly and to construct a

building for Common Facility Centre for citizens. Both the facilities are currently being used for other

purposes.


The second indicator of efficiency examined in the study is whether the project implementation was

completed within the time fixed for completion of the project activities. This was examined by

scrutinizing whether the project was completed within the time mentioned in the agreement. It was

found that such a crucial information required for monitoring was missing in the agreement signed

between the LG and the contractor/implementing agency in the case of 15 out of the 36 sample

projects. Only 12 out of the 21 remaining projects were completed in time. The delay was more than

six months in the case of two projects. It is also found that in about half of the projects, the

agreement was signed in the last quarter of the financial year. It also needs to be noted that the

timelines are fixed arbitrarily in some cases by the LGs without proper assessment of the time

required for project completion. The delay in the receipt of funds has contributed to such situations.

The delay was not only in the implementation phase but also in the planning stage. For instance, on

average, it took more than four months to initiate the tendering process from the date of approval.

The third indicator of efficiency is whether the project was completed without exceeding the budget.

A significant achievement of KLGSDP is that almost all the projects initiated and completed were

done so within the budget approved for the project. This was apparently achieved mainly on account

of the norm in the KLGSDP procedures to call for tenders for projects. Out of the 36 projects, in 23

projects the works were awarded through tendering process. Seven projects were implemented by

Beneficiary Committees and remaining five projects were entrusted to accredited agencies. Works

related to most of the projects such as roads, construction of buildings and crematorium were

awarded following tendering process while the projects such as computerization of offices, installation

of solar panels, online asset mapping, street lighting and e-toilets were implemented by accredited

agencies.

Some of the issues that affected the efficiency of project implementation were also examined. From

third year onwards, the LGs did not have prior knowledge of the quantum of funds available from

KLGSDP for the financial year at the time of planning. It was also not clear when the funds will reach

the LGs. This has affected proper planning of the projects and also in taking up small projects to fill

the gaps in infrastructure developed by using other sources of funds. In a few cases, the tendering

process led to delay as adequate number of valid tenders was not received and the LGs had to go

for re-tendering. Another factor which affected the project efficiency is the absence of a support

system to provide necessary technical expertise to the LGs. This is applicable mainly when the LGs

take up innovative/unconventional projects. Because of the lack of clarity on technical aspects, the

project design was flawed and/or led to undesirable outcomes. In such cases, the LGs also face


difficulty in monitoring the implementation of the project activities. Overall it was found that the quality

of the assets created was good except in the case of six projects. Of the six projects, four projects

required technical expertise which is normally not available with the LG or at the block level. Two

drinking water supply projects, asset mapping project and the e-toilet project belonged to this

category.

Regarding sustainability of the projects, in most of the projects, there is no separate provision for

maintenance of assets created. But, the LGs can make use of the funds for the maintenance of

roads and non-road infrastructure provided by the state government. However, these funds can be

utilized by the LGs only if it is included as an LG project in the Annual Plan. This has acted as a

major barrier in the timely maintenance of LG assets. Only projects for street lighting and solar panel

installation have an Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) in place. AMC is also planned in the

computerisation projects. The maintenance of infrastructure such as crematorium, bus stand, and

water supply schemes can be carried out expending user fee. The interactions with different

stakeholders indicated that the present asset maintenance /management system in the LGs do not

ensure timely maintenance of assets. This is one area which requires to be revamped at the earliest

so that the assets created by the LGs are properly maintained.

Affordability is applicable only when user fee is charged for the use of a particular facility and among

the projects studied there are only six such projects. Only in the case of one drinking water project,

the users felt that the user fee is unaffordable as it is not based on actual usage. Instead, total

charges are divided equally between the beneficiary households.

Overall, the sample projects funded by KLGSDP were not much different from other projects of LGs

as far as planning and implementation aspects are concerned. However, there was difference in the

monitoring of project planning and implementation. According to the LG officials, the monitoring at

the district and state level by KLGSDP has led to some improvement in meeting the timelines.

However, since LG projects undertaken using other sources of funds did not come under the purview

of the present study, the study team could not make an objective assessment of the efficiency gains.

It was also found that KLGSDP introduced some better systems in its final year (2016-17) in the

utilization of Financial Support for Backward LGs. The LGs took up projects of larger size and detailed

project reports were prepared. Improvements were also observed in the method of project

identification and ensuring that a complete project is implemented rather than going for piece meal

solutions to felt needs.


CHAPTER VII

PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE

7.1 Introduction

Citizen participation in planning and budgeting process helps to ensure that the needs and concerns

of the citizens are incorporated in the plans of Local Governments. It can also lead to better

transparency, responsiveness and accountability in local governance and can improve the

relationship between citizens and the LG. It also helps to inculcate a feeling of partnership among

citizens about LG’s development interventions. The decentralized governance system in the state

has developed some mechanisms to involve the citizens in local planning and budgeting process.

Participation of citizens in local governance was assessed through the household survey. Further,

the involvement of the beneficiaries in identification, planning, monitoring and implementation of

projects implemented under KLGSDP is also discussed on the basis of the information collected from

a sample of 36 LG projects implemented using KLGSDP funds, the details of which are provided in

Chapter VI.

7.2 Participation in Grama Sabha/ Ward Sabha

The primary unit for people’s participation in the decentralized governance system in the state is

Grama Sabha (GS) in GPs and Ward Sabha (WS) in urban local governments. Both GS and WS are

constituted at the ward level. The GS/WS is chaired by the elected representative of the ward. These

meetings are to be convened regularly by the elected representatives and the quorum of the GS/WS

is 10 percent of the voters in the ward. The GS/WS has the right to formulate project proposals and

fix the priority of schemes and development programmes to be implemented in the locality. Selection

of beneficiaries of schemes implemented by GPs and Municipalities are also to be done in GS/WS.

The involvement in as well as perception about the GS/WS among citizens was assessed at various

levels. It was enquired whether any member of the household attend such meetings and whether the

respondent had attended a GS/WS meeting in the last one year. The perceptions of the respondents

on the usefulness of these meetings as well as transparency in selection of beneficiaries were also

enquired. All these dimensions are analysed across LG categories, socio-economic classification of

households and gender of respondents.

In seven in ten households in GPs and six in ten households in Municipalities, a member attends the

GS/WS meetings. Figure 7.1 indicates that there has been an increase, between baseline and


endline, in the participation of households in GS meetings in GPs while it remained more or less the

same in Municipalities.

Figure 7.1: Percent of Households participating in GS/WS meetings


At endline, there is not much difference among the households from various GP categories and

categories of Municipalities in the reported attendance of GS/WS meetings (Table 7.1). The

attendance is slightly higher in Vulnerable GPs, and Backward Municipalities compared to other

respective categories. The increase in attendance from baseline level is significant in all the GP

categories

Table 7.1: Percent of Households participating in GS/WS meetings across LG categories


Baseline Endline

GPs

Vulnerable 68.4 74.4**


Advanced 62.2 71.5*

All GPs 62.6 71.4*

Municipalities

Backward 60.0 61.1

Advanced 54.5 57.5



62.656.9

71.4*

59.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

GPs Municipalities

Baseline Endline


Table 7.2 indicates that the participation of socially and economically backward groups in GS/WS is

higher than the better off section both at baseline and endline. However, between baseline and

endline, the participation of all social and economic groups improved in GPs while no significant

change was noted in Municipalities.

Table 7.2: Percent of Households attending GS/WS meetings across Social and Economic Classification

Classification of Households


GPs Municipalities


BPL 73.5 80.8* 76.5 76.0

APL 56.0 63.2* 47.9 50.7

SC/ST 73.7 86.6* 74.6 80.2

Non-SC/ST 60.8 68.9* 54.6 56.6

All households 62.6 71.4* 56.9 59.2


To get an insight into the gender aspect of the attendance of GS/WS, it was further asked about who

(Male/female/both) in the family usually attends the meeting. Only in around one-tenth of the

households both male and female members are reportedly attending GS/WS meetings (Table 7.3).

In majority of the households, it is the female member who usually attends the meetings and a

significant increase in the female attendance is noted from the baseline levels.

Table 7.3: Percentage distribution of households by the gender of the person who usually attend GS/WS meetings

Gender


GPs Municipalities


Male 38.7 32.9 38.6 37.5

Female 48.0 58.2* 46.5 53.1**

Both 13.3 8.9 14.9 9.4

Base: Households which reported that at least one member attends GS/WS meeting . * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

Mere attendance in GS/WS is not sufficient to ensure active participation in decentralized

governance. Active participation requires involvement in discussions in the meetings and in decision-

making, prioritisation, beneficiary selection etc. To examine this aspect, the respondents who had

attended at least one GS/WS meeting in the one year preceding the survey was asked whether they

actively participated in the discussions in the GS/WS. In GPs, 46 per cent of respondents had voiced

their opinion on the topics in the GS/WS meeting at endline (Table 7.4). The active participation in


Municipalities was at almost the same level (45%) as that in GPs. It can also be seen that while

active participation in GPs did not change since baseline, in Municipalities it has gone down. At

endline among the different categories of LGs, slightly higher attendance was reported in Vulnerable

GPs compared to all other LG categories. Active participation has however decreased significantly

in Vulnerable GPs and Backward Municipalities

Table 7.4: Percent of Respondents who voiced their opinion in the last attended GS/WS meetings across LG categories

Category of LG Percent of Respondents

Baseline Endline

GPs



Advanced 47.2 47.3

All GPs 46.3 45.7

Municipalities

Backward 53.9 42.8*

Advanced 48.8 46.7

All Municipalities 51.2 44.9**

Base: Respondents who had attended a GS/WS meeting in the last one year. * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

The study also examined the active participation of respondents in GS/WS across social and

economic groups. The active participation of citizens from BPL households in GS/WS meetings was

lower than that of the APL households, both in GPs and Municipalities (Table 7.5). A similar situation

existed at baseline also. But the difference between SC/ST and non-SC/ST population is negligible.

Table 7.5: Percent of respondents who had voiced their opinions in the last attended GS/WS meeting according to economic and social classification


Percent of respondents

GPs Municipalities


BPL 40.1 41.7 47.3 40.9

APL 51.1 50.1 54.4 48.1

SC/ST 48.8 48.1 47.3 44.4

Non-SC/ST 45.8 45.1 51.9 44.9**

All households 46.3 45.7 51.2 44.9**

# Base: Respondents who attended a GS/WS meeting in the one year preceding the survey . * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline


7.3 Perception about Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha Meetings

The respondents, irrespective of whether they attend GS/WS or not, were asked to give their

perception about whether the opinions expressed in GS/WS are considered in local governance and

whether they feel that the selection of beneficiaries is transparent and democratic. Only around half

of the citizens feel that the opinions expressed in GS/WS are considered in governance (Table 7.6).

At endline, only 48 per cent of the respondents in GPs and 42 per cent in Municipalities feels that the

selection of beneficiaries in GS/WS is transparent and democratic. Citizens in Vulnerable GPs

expressed more negative opinion than other GP categories while no such difference is noticed

between the two categories of Municipalities. The perception on the utility of GS/WS meetings as

well as transparency in the process have improved in all LG categories except Vulnerable GPs.

Table 7.6: Perception of respondents about the proceedings of GS/WS meetings across LG categories

Category of LG

Percent of Respondents who felt that

opinions expressed in GS/WS are considered in local governance

selection of beneficiaries is transparent and democratic


GPs

Vulnerable 43.9 43.4 36.2 41.5

Other Backward 46.0 52.5** 33.4 44.6*

Advanced 45.7 53.5** 39.0 50.4*

All GPs 45.6 52.4* 37.3 48.1*

Municipalities

Backward 40.2 47.7* 34.6 42.9*

Advanced 36.5 45.3* 34.8 40.7**

All Municipalities

38.2 46.4* 34.7 41.7*


Table 7.7 indicates that citizens from economically and socially backward groups have a more

positive opinion about the utility of discussions in GS/WS meetings as well as the transparency in the

selection of beneficiaries for different schemes/programmes. There is improvement in the perception

about both these aspects for all social groups.


Table 7.7: Perception of respondents about the proceedings of GS/WS meetings according to social and economic classification of households


Percent of Respondents who felt that

GPs Municipalities

opinions expressed in GS/WS are

considered in local governance

selection of beneficiaries is transparent and

democratic

opinions expressed in GS/WS are

considered in local governance

selection of beneficiaries is transparent and

democratic


BPL 51.7 55.7 50.1 57.2** 42.9 51.6* 43.1 53.1*

APL 42.0 49.5* 32.7 41.0* 33.9 45.0* 30.9 36.0**

SC/ST 52.5 52.0 44.5 57.5** 44.7 50.3 42.8 53.6**

Non-SC/ST 44.5 52.5* 37.4 45.1* 36.1 47.7* 33.6 40.2*

All households 45.6 52.4* 38.2 46.4* 37.3 48.1* 34.7 41.7*


7.4 Interaction with Elected Representatives

Before asking about their interaction with the elected representatives the respondents were asked

whether they know their name. At endline, slightly more than 90 per cent of the respondents in GPs

and Municipalities know the name of their elected representative (Table 7.8) and at least half of the

respondents had approached them with some issue which got satisfactorily resolved in the case of

72 percent in GPs and 79 percent in Municipalities. There is also a substantial increase in the

proportion of citizens who have approached the elected representative with some issue and got the

same satisfactorily resolved across most categories of LGs.

Table 7.8: Interaction of citizens with the elected representatives across LG categories

Category of LG


Know the name of the elected

representative of the ward

Approached elected

representative on some issue

Reported that the issue was solved

satisfactorily


GPs

Vulnerable 94.4 90.6** 47.5 54.9** 50.0 75.6*

Other Backward 94.2 89.1* 41.7 54.4* 64.1 71.5

Advanced 95.6 92.0** 42.6 55.5* 52.6 72.0*

All GPs 95.1 91.1* 42.8 55.2* 55.3 72.2*

Municipalities

Backward 95.2 91.9* 43.4 61.6* 62.3 78.9*

Advanced 93.0 92.8 38.0 57.0* 53.3 79.7*

All Municipalities 94.0 92.4 40.5 59.1* 57.7 79.3*



Awareness about the name of the elected representative was higher among the BPL group compared

to others in both GPs and Municipalities (Table 7.9). Further, in all LG categories, a higher proportion

among the economically and socially backward groups approached the representative with some

problem though there is not much difference among the different categories in getting the problem

solved.

Table 7.9: Interaction of citizens with the elected representatives according to social and economic classification of households

Classification of

Households


Know the name of the elected representative

of the ward

Approached elected representative on some

issue

Reported that the issue was solved

satisfactorily


GPs

BPL 95.5 93.0 47.9 64.1* 49.9 73.4*

APL 94.9 89.4* 39.7 47.0* 59.3 70.6*

SC/ST 94.7 91.3 50.9 64.5* 50.2 72.2*

Non-SC/ST 95.2 91.0* 41.5 53.6* 56.3 72.2*

All households 95.1 91.1* 42.8 55.2* 55.3 72.2*

Municipalities

BPL 94.1 95.4 46.2 67.5* 56.6 80.1*

APL 93.9 90.9* 37.8 54.7* 58.3 78.8*

SC/ST 92.9 96.2 40.5 68.1* 59.1 84.5*

Non-SC/ST 94.1 91.9** 40.4 58.0* 57.5 78.5*

All households 94.0 92.4 40.5 59.1* 57.7 79.3*


7.5 Citizens’ Participation in Planning, Implementation and Monitoring of Projects

under KLGSDP

As mentioned earlier, an assessment of a sample of projects was undertaken to know the

implementation of projects under KLGSDP. It was seen that many of the projects were decided or

prioritized by the LG as per the demand raised by the citizens particularly in the Grama Sabha in

GPs. This was especially true in the case of projects relating to services that are directly of use to

the citizens, such as roads, streetlights, water supply, etc. Another aspect examined through an

interaction with a sample of project beneficiaries relates to their participation in the project

identification, planning and monitoring. Though, around one-tenth of the respondents had

participated in project identification, their participation in project planning and monitoring is found to

be minimal. Participation in implementation (seldom in planning or monitoring) was noted only in

projects implemented through Beneficiary Committees. From the opinion expressed by LG

functionaries regarding the monitoring mechanism under KLGSDP, it is gathered that inclusion of

citizens in monitoring can improve the efficiency of the project. However, it is felt that the citizens will


have to be informed about features of the projects (such as proposed date of completion, details of

the contractor to whom the work was awarded, the budget as well as utilisation of the same) to enable

them to take active participation in monitoring project activities.

7.6 Summing Up

The most important mechanism for direct participation of people in decentralised governance is the

Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha constituted at the ward level. In more than 60 per cent of the households,

a member of the household attends GS/WS meetings. Attendance of women is higher than that of

men. However, mere attendance does not ensure active participation. The participants have to get

involved in the discussions and contribute to the planning and decision making at the local level. But

about half of those who have attended GS/WS have not voiced their opinions in the meetings.

Citizens are likely to participate in GS/WS only if they feel that their inputs will be made use of in local

governance and the decisions are taken in a transparent manner. But half of the citizens in do not

feel that their opinions are considered in local governance and that the selection of beneficiaries is

transparent and democratic. However, at least half of the citizens have approached the elected

representative with some issue and in three-fourths of such cases, the issue was resolved to their

satisfaction. The study finds that the attendance of economically backward groups in GS/WS was

much higher than that of better of groups. But the active participation is much lower for BPL

compared to APL group. However, there is not much difference between SC/ST and non-SC/ST

groups in this respect. More among the economically and socially backward also approach the

elected representatives to resolve their issues.

The study examined the participation of citizens in different project stages such as identification of

the project, planning, implementation and monitoring. The assessment of a sample of LG projects

undertaken with KLGSDP support indicated that majority of the projects are identified in the GS/WS

indicating some involvement of citizens in project identification. But the results of the survey of

beneficiaries of sample projects indicated that large majority have not been involved in the project

identification process. The participation in implementation was possible only in projects which were

entrusted to Beneficiary Committees. The beneficiaries seldom participated in planning project

activities. They were also not involved in monitoring the project implementation in any significant

way. It appears that there is a need to give importance to improving the involvement of beneficiaries

in monitoring the implementation of the LG projects. However, effective involvement of citizens in

monitoring of project implementation can be done only if the necessary details are made available to

them through proper display of the same.


CHAPTER VIII

SERVICE DELIVERY: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS AND

SAFEGUARDS

8.1 Introduction

The previous chapters presented the status of delivery of services provided by the LGs; namely, civic

services, services from the transferred institutions and the LG Offices, as also the status of citizens’

participation in local governance. The implementation of a sample of projects under KLGSDP was

also discussed. The development projects implemented by the LGs may have adverse environmental

impacts. There can also be differentials in access to services across social and economic

dimensions. This chapter looks at the environmental and social safeguards put in place by the LGs

while implementing the projects under KLGSDP, as reflected in the assessed sample projects.

Besides it also discusses on the basis of the findings of the household survey, the feedback of the

citizens on environmental protection activities undertaken by the LGs. The social aspects of service

delivery are discussed based on the differentials in access to services across social and economic

groups. Such a discussion becomes important in the context of the envisaged adoption of the

Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and the Vulnerable Group Development

Framework (VGDF), two integral components of KLGSDP. While the ESMF looks at how the projects

implemented by the LGs under KLGSDP adhere to the safeguards policies and regulations pertaining

to Environmental and Social (E&S) aspects, the VGDF envisages development of the vulnerable

groups in the LGs by integration of the framework into the development plans through the projects

under KLGSDP.

8.2 Environmental Safeguards

As per the Environment and Social Assessment Report of the KLGSDP “…lot of powers and functions

are vested with the Local Self Governments for the protection and conservation of the environment.”

The survey, thus, sought feedback from citizens on (i) the measures taken by LGs in safeguarding

the environment while undertaking development projects; (ii) their satisfaction with the same and (iii)

problems related to degradation, if any, of the environment that they may have noticed. More than

half of the respondents in GPs (57%) and Municipalities (51%) gave the opinion that LG tries to

minimize environmental impacts while taking up development projects (Table 8.1).


Regarding the other aspects of environment, half of the respondents in GPs and one-third of those

in Municipalities were of the opinion that effective measures are taken to protect water bodies. With

respect to preservation of greenery and protection of other natural resources, only around 50 percent

of GP respondents and around 40 percent of Municipal respondents felt so. Only three in ten

respondents in GPs and Municipalities felt that the LG makes an effort to control pollution. Though

there is an improvement in the perception of the citizens between baseline and endline with respect

to LG’s interventions towards environmental protection, it is seen that majority of the citizens still do

not feel that the LGs are intervening effectively enough in matters related to environment. This is

true for both GPs and Municipalities.

Table 8.1: Feedback on the responsiveness of the LG towards environment

Respondents who feel that the LG

takes measures to


GPs Municipalities


Minimize the negative impacts on

environment while taking up

developmental projects

39.8 56.7* 32.4 51.2*

Protect water bodies in the LG# 41.7 50.6* 20.4 33.7*

Preserve the greenery in the LG 35.5 46.5* 20.5 36.8*

Protect other natural resources in the LG 33.8 45.8* 19.4 37.4*

To control pollution 32.4 28.0* 24.4 30.6* #Base: Households from LGs with water bodies. * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

The citizens were also asked whether they had faced any problem related to environmental

degradation in the LG in the one year preceding the survey. One-tenth of the households in GPs had

experienced some such problems, as against 13 percent in Municipalities (Table 8.2). The major

environment related problems reported in GPs were rock mining, dumping of waste in public places,

improper maintenance of water bodies and filling up of agricultural land. Few of the citizens in GPs

also reported excessive sand mining and diseases caused due to pollution. In Municipalities, the

most frequently reported problem was dumping of waste in public places. Urban citizens were also

worried about the poor maintenance of water bodies. However, there has been a significant decline

since baseline in problem incidence in Municipalities.

Among those who faced a problem, 40 percent of the citizens in GPs and 35 percent in Municipalities

reported the same to the concerned authorities and among those who reported, only 30percent and

21 percent respectively in GPs and Municipalities felt that the issue they reported was satisfactorily

addressed.


Table 8.2: Experience of problems relating to environment in the past one year and problem resolution

Households


GPs Municipalities


Faced a problem relating to environment 11.2 10.4 16.3 12.8*

Complained about the problem# 34.5 40.3 41.6 34.9

Satisfied with the action taken## 11.0 29.8* 16.3 20.6 # Base: Households that had faced a problem relating to environment ##Base: Households that complained about the problem * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

The respondents were further asked about their satisfaction with the responsiveness of the LG

towards safeguarding the environment. Only around four in ten respondents were fully satisfied with

the efforts of the LG, both in Municipalities and GPs (Figure 8.1). Figure 8.1 also shows a significant

decline in the share of fully satisfied citizens between baseline and endline surveys. The situation

may be arising out of the increase in environmental issues as well as awareness among the citizens

about the same in the state. Also to be noted is the conspicuous increase in the proportion of those

with no opinion.

Figure 8.1: Percentage distribution of households by their satisfaction with the responsiveness of the LG towards safeguarding the environment


The ESMF under KLGSDP mandates a screening of projects to be implemented using the

“performance grants” to identify adverse environmental and social impacts, intensity (low or medium)

of the impacts, and to undertake mitigation measures. The process is to be undertaken at the

planning stage by the concerned working group with technical assistance from the LG engineer or

the Block engineer. The project is denied approval if the activity is in the regulatory list that is not to

be taken up as per local regulations and World Bank policies. Activities that involve involuntary land

41.3**

45.3

44.3*

61.7

6.3

12.3

9.9

6.7

20.9

31.5

15.0

22.5

31.5

10.9

30.8

9.1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Municipalities-EL

Municipalities-BL

GPs-EL

GPs-BL

Fully Satisfied Partially Satisfied Not Satisfied No Opinion


acquisition, child labour, CRZ violation, damaging natural habitats, physical and cultural resources,

air, land and water resources beyond permissible limits, etc. are prohibited. This is a major positive

intervention by the KLGSDP which ensures that activities that are hazardous to the environmental

and social structure are not taken up as the screening is done at various levels of the KLGSDP

machinery, from the LG to the state level. If the envisaged impacts are of low intensity, the project

would be approved if the suggested mitigation measures are taken and for projects with medium

impact, approval will depend on further assessment by experts and incorporation of mitigation

measures suggested by them.

As discussed earlier, 36 sample projects implemented by the LGs under KLGSDP were selected for

assessment. With respect to the projects taken for assessment, the fact that they were implemented

shows that there was either no denial of approval due to adverse E&S impacts or necessary

mitigation measures were adopted. The LGs are required to first fill the E & S Clearance and

Compliance Format Proforma C for GPs and Proforma D for Municipalities and if any activity in the

project involves level-2 (medium impact) activities, the LGs are required to further assess the project

using the Format for Conduction of Limited Environmental and Social Assessment (LESA) i.e.

Proforma F, in which adverse impacts on air, water, land, health, biodiversity, community etc. need

to be assessed. The largest number of projects was in the “roads” category, which mainly included

re-tarring/concreting/metaling of roads and also construction of culvert and footpath. As per the

control list or Proforma B of the ESMF, roads/bridges/culverts are classified under level-2 or medium

impact activities. However, while the Proforma C/D was filled, LESA was not undertaken in most

cases. It may be because in the projects related to re-tarring/concreting/repair of existing roads, there

were no major impacts such as loss of land, tree felling, etc. However, it was seen in some cases

that the roads did not have drainages along the sides which led to water logging at the slanting end

of the road, thus flooding the low-lying areas as reported in the road project in Athirapally GP. In

another instance, the re-construction of culvert at Cheruvathur, caused an intrusion of saline water,

due to the widening of the stream, as reported by the citizens. The people have demanded that a

shutter should be built to protect against this. It appears that the environmental impact assessment

has not been done properly in such cases as otherwise the necessary mitigation measures should

have been incorporated into the project design.

The sample projects undertaken also had a significant proportion of projects which involved

construction of buildings such as anganwadi, Vayojana Visrama Kendram, Common Facility Centre,

etc. Construction and repair of buildings has been regarded as level-1 or low impact activities for


which suggested mitigation measures are to be taken if adverse impacts such as loss of open space,

natural resource depletion, tree felling, waste generation etc. are expected. However, mitigation

measures such as minimizing the use of wood, use of eco-friendly construction material, re-use of

relevant waste material, etc. were not observed or reported in any of the projects in which buildings

were constructed. In most of these cases as well the requisite proforma was seen to be filled without

the requisite mitigation being accounted for.

It appears that the environmental safeguard practices under ESMF have not been effectively

implemented. What needs to be ascertained is whether the LG functionaries have the technical

expertise as well as awareness about all the legal provisions to undertake such activities. KLGSDP

envisaged assigning of roles and responsibilities to functionaries involved at various levels of

implementation and developing capacities and capabilities in them. But, discussion with LG

functionaries revealed that the capacity building programmes were not as effective as expected.

It was discussed in the introductory chapter that the projects under KLGSDP comprise only around

one-tenth of the projects undertaken using development funds and the ESMF applies only to the

activities undertaken under KLGSDP. Similar projects that were executed using other funds were

implemented without such procedures. It was also seen in the assessment of sample projects in

Chapter VI that many of the projects were executed as a component of another project implemented

using funds from other sources. For example, in the case of road tarring, the project under KLGSDP

related to a section of the road rather than the entire stretch. Similarly, the KLGSDP component was

used for building a wall to separate a hall that was built using funds from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, into

two classrooms in Maliyekkal Government Upper Primary School. Under such circumstances, the

objective of safeguarding the environment can be met only when such practices are adopted for the

project as a whole or for all projects being implemented in the LG. However, it is also not feasible to

conduct such exercises for all kinds of activities given the number of projects (mostly small-scale

works) which were carried out by the LGs. So, it is advisable that such practices may be adopted at

least for large development projects, irrespective of the type of funds used. The LG functionaries also

opined that they lack the required human resources to carry out such exercises, which needs to be

put in place before such frameworks are adopted.

As per IKM data, the share of funds spent by KLGSDP in the total development funds spent by LGs

for projects related to conservation of natural resources was less than one percent during 2012-13

to 2016-17. It was also seen that despite the increasing threats to environment due to sanitation

related issues, sanitation related projects were very few and the funds spent for the sector comprised


only four percent of the total KLGSDP funds. KLGSDP funds also constituted only 3.5 percent of the

total development funds spent by LGs in the state on sanitation projects. This also points to the need

of not only having a framework for protection of environment but also to have more projects for the

same.

8.4 Social Safeguards

Local development along with social justice envisages the inclusion of the vulnerable groups in the

development process. Integration of measures such as the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP), Special

Component plan (SCP), Women Component Plan (WCP), etc. into the development plans of the LGs

are expected to address the issues of disadvantaged groups. Measures such as Grama Sabha/Ward

Sabha, reservation of seats etc. are also expected to give venues for the poor and marginalised

groups to voice their opinions. The VGDF of the KLGSDP aims at the socio-economic development

of the vulnerable groups in general and Scheduled Tribes (STs), Scheduled Castes (SCs) and

Women in particular. This section looks at whether there are differences in access to services

provided by the LGs across socio-economic groups and how the KLGSDP has addressed the needs

of vulnerable groups through the assessment of the sample projects.

8.4.1 SC/ST and BPL

The socially and economically better off households are seen to have better access to civic services,

especially in GPs (Table 8.3). With respect to availability of streetlights in their neighbourhood, in

GPs, while around six in ten APL and non-SC-ST households have streetlights in their

neighbourhood, around five in ten BPL and SC-ST households have this facility.APL households in

Municipalities also had better access to streetlights. The gap between social and economic groups

is wider in the case of road access, with more than 85 percent of the APL and Non-SC/ST households

having roads in front of their house vis-à-vis a lesser proportion of BPL and SC/ST households. The

dependence on shared public sources of water such as public taps and public wells is more among

the socially and economically backward households in GPs and Municipalities, though there is not

much difference between different groups of households that have piped water as the main source

of drinking water. Most of the socially and economically better off households have well/bore well in

their own compound (not shown in the table). As can be inferred, despite schemes such as TSP,

SCP, etc. the backward sections continue to lag behind the better-off socio-economic groups in

access to civic services. It was also seen that while significant improvements in availability of roads

was seen across all socio-economic groups in all LGs, in the case of streetlights, there was no


significant change for BPL and SC/ST households in Municipalities. It seems that the increase in

access is mostly on account of improvement in access in the LGs rather than targeted improvement

in provision of civic services.

Table 8.3: Percent of households with access to civic services across social and economic groups

Social and Economic Classification of

Households


With streetlights in their neighbourhood

With road in front of their house

Depending mainly on shared public sources of water

Depending mainly on piped water at

home


GPs

BPL 41.6 53.4* 47.2 77.4* 8.6 8.5 10.7 12.7

APL 52.8 62.8* 63.3 89.4* 2.9 2.1 9.0 11.0

SC/ST 40.8 51.0** 40.9 73.8* 15.9 15.0 8.1 11.5

Non SC/ST 49.8 59.7* 59.9 85.4* 3.3 3.4 9.9 11.8

All households 48.6 58.4* 57.3 83.8* 5.0 5.1 9.7 11.8

Municipalities

BPL 77.0 79.8 54.5 77.0* 11.3 9.3 18.5 18.9

APL 83.2 88.3* 66.3 89.0* 2.9 2.2 22.2 17.6*

SC/ST 80.2 86.1 56.0 77.9* 17.6 18.2 21.4 20.6

Non SC/ST 81.4 85.4* 63.5 85.8* 4.0 2.9 21.0 17.7**

All households 81.3 85.5* 62.6 85.0* 5.6 4.6 21.0 18.0**


The dependence on or the utilization of services delivered by transferred institutions is relatively

higher among the socially and economically backward sections than their better off counterparts (see

Table 8.4). Nearly three in ten of BPL households send their children to government schools, while

the proportion is much lower in APL households. More than half of the BPL households in

Municipalities and seven in ten BPL households in GPs depended on government health facilities for

treatment. Around six in ten SC/ST households also depend on government health facilities for

treatment. While the difference between APL and BPL households in dependence on government

schools is wider in GPs, in the case of health facilities, the gap between BPL and APL and between

SC/ST and Non-SC/ST is wider in Municipalities. There is not much difference between socio-

economic groups in the dependence on anganwadis or in accessing services from the LG Office.


Table 8.4: Dependence on transferred institutions managed by LGs and LG Offices across social and economic classification of households

Social and Economic Classification of

Households

Percent of Households with

A child studying in Govt. School

A member who had sought treatment

from a Govt. Health Facility in the last

one year

A beneficiary of Anganwadi services

A member who had approached the

LGO for a service in the last year


GPs

BPL 16.6 27.7* 57.3 70.1* 18.5 18.3 46.0 39.8**

APL 9.8 18.5* 38.8 54.3* 12.2 16.4** 50.7 40.2*

SC/ST 14.5 24.8* 59.8 67.1 24.7 18.2 48.7 36.8*

Non SC/ST 12.0 22.5* 43.4 60.8* 12.9 17.1* 49.0 40.6*

All households 12.3 22.8* 45.7 61.7* 14.6 17.3** 49.0 40.0*

Municipalities

BPL 19.9 27.1* 64.7 55.7* 18.2 18.9 43.3 32.0*

APL 9.2 14.0* 34.1 31.4 9.1 11.7** 44.7 30.4*

SC/ST 10.6 21.8* 57.2 61.9 13.5 14.3 46.2 29.7*

Non SC/ST 12.8 17.9* 41.9 36.7* 11.8 14.1 44.0 31.1*

All households 12.6 18.4* 43.7 39.5** 12.0 14.1 44.3 30.9*


It needs to be understood that in the case of services delivered by transferred institutions there are

alternatives available which the citizens can choose, if they want to. It is highly likely that citizens

from socially and economically better off households would have opted for other institutions for

education and health care. It was seen earlier that transferred institutions elicited higher satisfaction

ratings and lesser grievances compared to civic services. But this could also be due to the lower

expectations of the citizens using these facilities. Efforts to improve the quality of the services of

transferred institutions will be more beneficial to the BPL and SC/ST households as they are the

major beneficiaries. It was seen earlier that there has been significant improvement in the

infrastructure in the transferred institutions, though not attributable to KLGSDP alone.

With respect to the integration of VGDF into KLGSDP projects, as per the data given in the latest

Report of the VGDF of the KLGSDP an average of around 700-800 projects were annually

implemented in the LGs, which integrated VGDF. However, the proportion of such projects was seen

to be very low in the total number of projects. For example, in 2013-14, less than one-tenth of the

total projects (8 percent; 838 out of 10728 projects) were implemented under the VGDF. This was

the case not only with the number of projects but also budgetary allocation. The pattern was similar

in all districts, even in backward districts such as Wayanad and Idukki which have a concentration of

vulnerable groups. Hence it can be inferred that as a whole, the number of projects meant for


vulnerable groups is relatively lesser. This is so because unlike the development funds wherein a

definite proportion of funds needs to be set apart under schemes such as SCP, TSP, WCP etc. for

the concerned vulnerable groups, in KLGSDP it has not been specified as to how much of the funds

should be dedicated to projects for vulnerable groups or the kind of projects that should be designed

for them. At the same time, as discussed earlier, KLGSDP has made considerable impact in the

service delivery from institutions such as Anganwadis, which comprise a sizeable section of the

projects integrating VGDF.

With respect to the sample projects assessed, most of the projects were meant for all the people in

the LG, but also included projects such as anganwadi and construction of classroom in government

school which would benefit the vulnerable sections more. There were only a few projects such as the

Harijan Colony drinking water scheme in Vandiperiyar and Road tarring in Meppadi GP which were

meant to specifically benefit the vulnerable sections in the LG. Though the ESMF envisages that the

project design should ensure that maximum number of vulnerable groups should benefit (STs, SCs,

Women, BPL families etc.), the number of beneficiaries across social and economic categories was

not available in the project documents.

8.4.2 Women

Women have been recognized as a vulnerable group. The Women Component Plan (WCP)

mandates earmarking 10% of plan funds to meet specific needs of women. However, under

KLGSDP, there is no such mandate. Projects that cater to women specifically are less in number. It

is mostly projects which are more of a general nature such as anganwadi, drinking water schemes,

etc. that are said to have integrated VGDF into the design. While it is accepted that such projects will

help women as they comprise a major section of its users, it is disappointing that not many innovative

projects have been taken up under KLGSDP. It was even seen that road projects were included in

the VGDF as it ensures “frequent and safe travel for women and children”. The sample projects

assessed in the study also included roads, anganwadi and drinking water schemes. But there was

no break up of beneficiaries available to see as to what is the share of women beneficiaries in the

total beneficiaries of these projects. It was also seen in the household survey that the proportion of

women respondents who voiced their opinions and actively participated in the proceedings of the

Grama Sabha/ Ward Sabha was much lesser than the male respondents. Hence, it is likely that

projects which cater to women may have been overlooked in GS/WS.


8.4.3 Elderly

Kerala is the fastest ageing state in the country. In 2011, 12.6 per cent of the state’s population was

in the age group of 60 years and above. This means that the state has to be well prepared to face a

situation where a large chunk of the population will have needs much different from that of the other

age groups, particularly in terms of health care and economic support. The population composition

of the state is also rapidly changing such that the number of children who are expected to take care

of the elderly is decreasing. This is increasingly necessitating the availability of institutionalized old

age care from the government.

Majority of the households in Kerala have an elderly member. While nearly two-thirds of the elderly

members in the GP households are getting welfare pension, more than half of the elderly members

in the Municipalities are receiving the same (Table 8.5). Around eight in ten of the elderly members

in GPs as well as Municipalities are receiving their pension regularly. However there is a significant

decline between the baseline and endline in the share of elderly in GPs who regularly received their

pension.

Table 8.5: Feedback on welfare pensions and welfare programmes for elderly

Households Reporting

Percent of Households in

GPs Municipalities


Having an elderly member 56.1 54.4 59.8 57.5

That the elderly member receives welfare pensiona

41.8 65.3* 35.8 54.6*

That the welfare pension is received regularlyb

86.6 77.1* 82.3 82.9

That a member of the household had attended a programme for the elderly organized by the LGa

7.0 4.0* 7.5 3.9*

That a member of the household had attended a programme organized by the LG for care giversa

2.2 1.8 1.4 1.3

a- Base: Households in which there is an elderly member b- Base: Households in which an elderly member receives welfare pension * = p < .01; ** = p < .05; Comparison between baseline and endline

The participation of citizens in the programmes for elderly was seen to be very low and declined

further from the already low levels at baseline. There have been programmes under KLGSDP such

as setting up of palliative care units in some LGs, however, the coverage as well as participation of

the elderly in the same seems to be low. This indicates the poor dissemination of information as well

as the perception of the citizens about the effectiveness of such programmes by the LG. The

approach of the LGs towards the elderly does not appear to be very friendly/well thought out. It is


also seen that some LG offices are located on the first floor of a building, thus making it difficult for

the elderly to climb up and access services. What is required is an elderly-friendly policy to be in

place with respect to location of LG offices and also giving preference to elderly while accessing

services.

The one project catering to the elderly in the sample projects was the construction of the Vayojana

Visrama Kendram in Koothuparamaba. But this building was converted into the project office of the

“Vayomitram” project of the Municipality. Though not functioning as envisaged, indirectly it is

benefitting the target group for which it was initially designed. Under this project, a rest room meant

for the elderly which was situated on the first floor of the municipal bus stand building was relocated

by constructing a new building attached to the Ayurveda Government Dispensary. But as the current

location is a little away from the town, the elderly are now demanding a new facility in an easily

accessible location. In other words, it appears that all aspects are not taken into consideration when

a project is designed for the benefit of the elderly.

8.5 Summing Up

The development of the ESMF and VGDF under the KLGSDP to guide LGs in the integration of

environmental and social aspects into the projects to be implemented, are welcome initiatives. The

inclusion of compliance to these frameworks in the assessment of the LGs for the award of

performance grants ensures that the same is adhered to at least to some extent by the LGs. However,

as discussed above, while the implementation of ESMF has not happened as envisaged, VGDF has

been effective only in a limited manner to help the LGs to meet the objective of mainstreaming the

vulnerable groups. Due to the absence of stipulated norms for fund allocation for the vulnerable

groups as in the case of other schemes such as SCP, TSP, WCP, etc. the overall share of funds and

projects relating to these groups was quite low under KLGSDP. The LG functionaries were also

reportedly lacking in the expertise required to implement the frameworks effectively. The decision by

the KLGSDP to award additional funds to select backward LGs and tribal areas is welcomed as this

would help them address such issues more effectively. While appreciating the success stories and

models of projects implemented under KLGSDP specifically addressing the needs of the vulnerable

groups, it is also seen to be few. It is only when such models are emulated across LGs that the

objective of mainstreaming the vulnerable groups can be met. Similarly, with respect to the

environmental safeguards, the framework and the associated practices should be adopted at least

for all large projects, if not all projects being implemented by the LGs. For this, the human resources

and infrastructure of the LGs as well as capacity of the LG functionaries need to be developed.


CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The endline study of KLGSDP examined access to or usage of services, quality of delivery, problems

in accessing services and level of citizens’ satisfaction. The civic services covered are street lighting,

roads, water and sanitation. The services of transferred institutions viz., government health care

institutions, government schools, anganwadis and offices of the local governments were also

assessed. The endline study also examined the efficiency of implementation, quality of assets

created, affordability of projects and the sustainability of a sample of 36 projects funded by KLGSDP.

Other aspects covered in the endline study are participation of people in planning and budgeting of

LGs and the social and environmental safeguard measures adopted.

Overall, the access to roads and street lighting has improved significantly since baseline both in GPs

and Municipalities. But dependence on public water supply has come down in the case of

Municipalities while it remained more or less the same in GPs. Citizens’ satisfaction with these three

civic services has witnessed significant improvement from the baseline levels. However, the

situation is different in the case of sanitation/waste management service. There is a significant

decline in citizens’ satisfaction in GPs about this service while there was no change from the baseline

level in the case of Municipalities. The citizens are least satisfied with sanitation services. Among the

civic services, improvement in access was the highest in the case of roads. It may be noted that

more than one-third of the KLGSDP funds was spent in the transport sector of which large majority

of the projects were meant for development of road infrastructure. Also, about one-fifth of the LG

funds spent on transport sector was from KLGSDP. Hence, it is evident that KLGSDP has played a

significant role in improving road infrastructure. Only one-tenth of the KLGSDP funds was spent on

the other three civic services together. It may also be noted that projects related to waste

management were rarely undertaken using KLGSDP funds, despite it being a service which requires

much improvement. The study also finds that the improvement in access to civic services is relatively

lower in Vulnerable GPs and Backward Municipalities compared to other categories of GPs and

Municipalities. However, it is to the credit of KLGSDP that, in 2016-17, it brought in an initiative to

provide additional financial support to backward GPs and Municipalities to address the issue of lower

access to services and to narrow the gap in service delivery between backward and advanced LGs.

Since the projects implemented under this initiative was in the implementation stage at the time of

the endline study, the impact of the same will be visible only in the coming years.


There has been significant increase, since baseline, in the dependence on all the three transferred

institutions viz., government health care institutions, government schools and anganwadis in GPs.

However, in Municipalities, it increased only in the case of government schools. There has also been

an improvement in the infrastructure and facilities in these institutions, though not attributable to

KLGSDP alone. At endline, more than 90 per cent of the parents, in both GPs and Municipalities,

were satisfied with the school where their child studies. The situation is not much different from the

baseline. More than 80 per cent of the beneficiaries/parents were fully satisfied with the services of

government health care institutions and anganwadis, both in GPs and Municipalities. The citizens’

satisfaction with the services of all the three transferred institutions was higher than that of civic

services. Unlike in civic services, in the case of services delivered through transferred institutions,

the citizens have other choices to access services. Therefore, it is likely that those who got

dissatisfied with the services of these government institutions are no longer depending on them.

Citizens approach the GP and Municipal Office for different services. Overall, it is found that there

has not been any perceptible change since baseline in the quality of service delivery of GP/Municipal

Offices. An examination of KLGSDP funded LG projects in the sample LGs showed that a large

number of interventions were taken up to improve the infrastructure and facilities in GP and Municipal

Offices. It was also seen that improving office infrastructure and computerisation of LG offices have

received a substantial portion of the KLGSDP funds. But it appears that such investments have not

resulted in an improvement in the quality of services of LG Offices in a significant way.

Overall, the sample projects funded by KLGSDP were not much different from other projects of LGs

as far as planning and implementation aspects are concerned. However, there was difference in the

monitoring of project planning and implementation. The monitoring at the district and state level by

KLGSDP has led to some improvement in meeting the timelines. It was also found that KLGSDP

introduced some better systems in its final year (2016-17) under the additional component to provide

financial support for backward GPs and Municipalities. The LGs took up projects of larger size and

detailed project reports were prepared. Improvements were also observed in the method of project

identification and in ensuring that a complete project is implemented rather than going for piece meal

solutions to felt needs.

The study examined the participation of citizens in different project stages such as identification of

the project, planning, implementation and monitoring. The assessment of a sample of LG projects

undertaken with KLGSDP support indicated that majority of the projects are identified in the GS/WS

indicating some involvement of citizens in project identification. The participation in implementation


was possible only in projects which were entrusted to Beneficiary Committees. The beneficiaries

seldom participated in planning project activities. They were also not involved in monitoring the

project implementation in any significant way. It appears that there is a need to give importance to

improving the involvement of beneficiaries in monitoring the implementation of the LG projects.

However, effective involvement of citizens in monitoring of project implementation can be done only

if the necessary details are made available to them through proper display of the same.

Recommendations

The recommendations based on the findings of the endline study are presented below:

· KLGSDP had given priority to building infrastructure and facilities for service delivery by LGs. In

the case of civic services, the major problems experienced by citizens include irregularity of street

lighting, lack of proper and timely maintenance of roads, drinking water shortage, irregularity of

water supply, poor quality of water, unclean public places and dumping of waste in open spaces.

Vulnerable GPs and socially and economically backward groups are particularly disadvantaged

when civic services are considered. The LGs should give priority to bringing about improvements

in civic services like street lighting and road infrastructure in Vulnerable GPs and in

neighbourhoods where SC/ST and BPL houses are clustered. The remote and backward areas

should be identified which are bereft of roads and street lighting with the help of GIS mapping of

the LG.

· Similarly, in the case of transferred institutions the problems reported include lack of medicines,

absence of doctor, inadequate personal attention to children in schools, irregularity in the

provision of supplementary nutrition and poor quality of pre-school education in anganwadis. It

appears that before focussing their attention on creating new infrastructure and facilities, the LGs

should solve the existing problems. Also any project to improve service delivery in local

governments should cover such aspects which are not covered by KLGSDP. The maintenance

of existing assets and facilities is also important.

· The grievance redressal mechanism in the LGs, which include that of the transferred institutions,

needs considerable improvement as it was found to be weak for most of the services. Citizens

should be made aware of the mechanisms as well as be given confidence to approach the LG

and its functionaries if they have a problem. This can happen only through increase in instances

of successful and timely redressal of grievances.


· In spite of substantial investments made by KLGSDP for improving the infrastructure and facilities

in the offices of local governments, the level of satisfaction of citizens did not improve from the

baseline level. The time taken for receiving different services and the number of visits required

for the same has not changed much. It appears that simplification of systems and procedures

along with a better grievance redressal mechanism put in place should serve the purpose. Further,

the importance given for capacity building appears to be insufficient. Along with the programmes

related to planning, monitoring and implementation of projects, LG staff should be given proper

training to deliver services to the citizens in a satisfactory manner. Only then, a project to enhance

the level of service delivery can fully achieve its objectives.

· The study found that the coverage of piped water supply is limited and the same has not changed

much since the baseline. More and more people are depending on private wells which have many

shortcomings like excessive exploitation of ground water resources. Moreover, as houses are

constructed in small plots even in rural areas, the wells may not be located at a safe distance from

toilet pits. This highlights the need to increase the coverage of piped water supply. The GPs may

take the initiative to implement small water supply schemes with the support of Jalanidhi.

Furthermore, at endline, one-fourth of the households in rural areas using water from public

sources were not satisfied with its quality. It is suggested that the LGs should regularly test the

quality of water not only in public sources but also in private wells to ensure the potability and

safety of the water.

· The endline survey found that the coverage of the waste collection system is very low even in

Municipalities. In view of this, there is an urgent need to improve the waste management system.

The LGs may also take up activities to educate the citizens about scienticfic methods of waste

management such as separating biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste, management of

electronic waste and hazardous waste, reduction of plastic use, etc. There is also a need for

improving the management of waste in public places.

· A major strength of KLGSDP, according to the elected representatives, is that the LG can take up

large and innovative projects using KLGSDP funds which will be of use to more than one ward.

The current practice is to divide the available total funds among different wards which leads to

planning for smaller projects with a view to address the demands of all elected representatives.

The project planning and implementation adopted by KLGSDP in the additional component for

financial support to backward local governments in 2016-17 was better than the methods adopted

earlier. The guidelines for project planning and implementation of such projects provided for much

wider consultations going beyond the boundaries of LG wards. The guidelines also promoted


the planning of a complete project rather than piece meal solutions by local governments. Such

an approach may be adopted in the case of large projects undertaken using other sources of

funds also. A portion of the plan grants from the state government may also be earmarked for

such projects.

· Regular monitoring by the KLGSDP has helped the LGs, to some extent, in meeting the timelines

in the implementation of projects funded by KLGSDP opined some of the LG functionaries. So a

strong monitoring system should be available in the Local Self Government Department to assess

the progress made in project implementation. Citizens’ participation in monitoring the

implementation of LG projects can improve efficiency and transparency.

· Monitoring at the state level should not be restricted to planning and implementation of projects

but also the delivery of different services by the LG and the transferred institutions for which

specific benchmarks/norms are required. Besides, the LGs may develop a single citizen charter

for all the services and institutions managed by them after effecting a comprehensive

benchmarking of LG services. The service level benchmarks developed as part of the Modernising

Government Programme (a five year project of the Government of Kerala initiated in 2002 and

funded by Asian Development Bank) implemented for different government institutions including

LG Offices and transferred institutions may be useful in this regard.

· The finding that proposed completion date is missing from the contract of many projects is a

serious shortcoming. So it should be made mandatory to enter the proposed date of completion

in the Sulekha (Plan monitoring software developed by Information Kerala Mission for LSGD) and

all details pertaining to the project should be made accessible to the public so that they will be

vigilant at all stages of project implementation.

· Tendering process has helped in reducing the actual cost of implementation from the estimated

cost. However, it is found that even in KLGSDP funded projects where it was mandatory to follow

tendering process when the estimated cost is above Rs 5 lakh, it was not strictly followed. It is

important to ensure the compliance of such norms which are essential for transparency in financial

transactions of LGs.

· Lack of knowledge of the quantum of funds that an LG will get and a delay in the release of funds

was noted in the case of many projects. This is a problem which needs to be addressed urgently.

· LGs are getting funds annually from the state government for maintenance of road and non-road

assets. At present, the maintenance of any asset can be undertaken only after including it as a

project in Annual Plan except in the case of emergencies. To ensure timely maintenance of


assets, the LGs should have the freedom to use at least a part of the maintenance funds.

Guidelines for earmarking the maintenance expenses should be evolved by LSGD.

· The assessment of sample projects funded by KLGSDP indicated that in a few cases, the project

did not benefit the community as originally planned because the completeness of the project was

not ensured at the planning stage. In the absence of complementary infrastructure, the project

could not be made functional. There are also projects which remains incomplete after a long time.

The feasibility of the project should be considered at the planning stage itself.

· The experience of planning and implementation of the project for asset mapping shows that when

innovative projects are undertaken, wider consultations and more inputs are required during the

planning stage. Moreover, taking up of asset mapping by different local governments with different

formats may adversely affect its application for planning at the higher levels. It is therefore,

recommended that the project design for asset mapping (an important step towards scientific

management of local resources and a tool for resource mobilisation) has to be developed at the

state level taking into account the needs of different agencies/sectors not only at the local level

but also at block, district and state level.

· The LG officials particularly the LG Engineers whom we interviewed shared their difficulty in

implementation of certain innovative projects or projects requiring special expertise. A state level

support system should be developed to provide technical support to LGs in implementing projects

that require a higher level of technical knowledge than what is normally available with the LG

engineer or at the block level. Empanelling technical experts /institutions having expertise in

specific areas for such purposes is a feasible option. Some of the LG engineers with whom the

study team interacted expressed their difficulty in monitoring certain kinds of works. The support

is required not only for planning such projects but also in monitoring the implementation of such

projects.

· Largest amount of KLGSDP funds as well as development grants from the state government are

spent by LGs in the road sector. But absence of regular maintenance and poor quality road

construction is indicated by deteriorating road condition during rainy season. Thus, it should be

ensured that the quality of road is good and the construction is completed before monsoon. A

maintenance component should also be included in the planning time itself so that the roads will

remain good all the time.

· Civic participation in project identification, planning and monitoring was low, despite the fact that

majority of the projects are based on demands from the Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha. It was also


seen that even when the attendance in Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha has improved, actual

participation in the discussion in Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha is low. So the citizens must be

encouraged to participate by heeding to their demands for projects as far as possible.

· From a study of the sample projects it was found that the implementation of Environmental and

Social Management Framework (ESMF) was not done as envisaged in many of them due to lack

of required human resources and infrastructure in the LGs, lack of technical expertise of the LG

functionaries and lack of time, given the volume of projects being undertaken at the LG level.

Some of the officials shared the view that they need more clarity on ESMF. These factors should

be addressed in future while devising new projects. The objective of environmental protection can

also be attained only if such endeavours are undertaken for all LG projects, irrespective of the

funding source. It is imperative that before implementing such innovative measures, the capacity

building and infrastructure must be in place.

· The Vulnerable Group Development Framework (VGDF) by the KLGSDP was developed with

the intention to include the vulnerable groups viz. Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST),

poor, elderly and the women in the development projects undertaken by the LGs. Projects

specifically targeting these groups were relatively less in the KLGSDP funded projects in sample

LGs in comparison to their shares envisaged under other schemes such as WCP, TSP, etc. A

sizeable share of KLGSDP’s interventions for the vulnerable groups related to construction of

Anganwadis. It is also found that some of the general purpose projects have been classified as

woman friendly (like construction of a foot path). If the objective of mainstreaming the vulnerable

groups is to be met more projects formulated specifically for these groups need to be

implemented.

· Kerala is the fastest ageing state in the country. The LGs can play a major role in educating the

elderly as to how to cope with the increasing old age problems. The LGs can also orient the care

givers in developing empathy towards the elderly. But it is found that the participation in the

programmes for the elderly and care givers has come down at endline from the low level at

baseline. It is suggested that LGs should focus more on elderly.

The present study depended solely on the feedback of the citizens to assess the access to institutions

and facilities and to understand the quality of service delivery. While it is very important to get the

citizens’ perspective, it is felt that the quality of facilities available in the institutions, systems and

procedures followed and bottlenecks in service delivery have to be understood from the point of view

of the institutions. Such an understanding can be obtained through a sample survey covering


different institutions involved in delivering LG services. Future service delivery surveys to track

changes in service delivery of local governments in the state may include such an additional

component.

Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES) A 1

APPENDIX I

DETAILS OF METHODOLOGY WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN CHAPTER I

A: Sample Weights for Household Survey

As the study employs a multi-stage stratified design in the household survey, different households have

different probabilities of being selected into the sample. The sample weights were constructed in a way

to make the weighted sample representative of households in GPs (or Municipalities) in Kerala. The

greater the probability of inclusion of a household in the sample, smaller should be the weight of that

household. In the present sampling procedure with LG categories, wards, booths and households, the

probability of household selection is the product of the probability of selection of a particular LG in a

category, the ward selection within the LG, booth selection within the ward and the household selection

within the booth. The weights are calculated separately for GPs and Municipalities. The estimation

procedure adopted for Panchayats is presented below:

The following are the notations used:

h = subscript for hth stratum, h =1 to 3

i = subscript for ith Panchayat i = 1 to 16

j = subscript for jth ward j = 1 to 2

k = subscript for kth booth k =1

l = subscript for lth household l= 1 to 17

Nh = Total number of panchayats in hth stratum

nh = Number of panchayats selected in hth stratum (16 numbers)

Mhi = Total number of wards in the ith Panchayat of hth stratum

mhi= Number of wards selected in the ith Panchayat of hth stratum (2 numbers)

Bhij = Total number of booths in the jth ward of ithpanchayat of hth stratum

bhij= Number of booths selected in the jth ward of ithpanchayat of hthstratum (one number)

Chijk = Total number of households in the kth booth of jth ward of ithpanchayat of hthstratum

chijk = Number of households selected in the kth booth of jth ward of ithpanchayat of hthstratum

yhijkl =Observed value of y characteristic of lth household in kth booth of jth ward of ithpanchayat of

hthstratum

Y= Population total of characteristic y

Estimation Formula is:

Y = ∑∑∑∑ (Chijk/ chijk ) (Bhij) (Mhi/ mhi) (Nh / nh ) yhijkl


Estimation procedure for Municipalities is given below:

The following are the notations used:

h = subscript for hth stratum, h =1 to 2

i = subscript for ith Municipality i = 1 to 8

j = subscript for jth ward j = 1 to 3

k = subscript for kth booth k =1

l = subscript for lth household l= 1 to 34

Nh = Total number of Municipalities in hth stratum

nh = Number of Municipalities selected in hth stratum (8 numbers)

Mhi = Total number of wards in the ith Municipality of hth stratum

mhi= Number of wards selected in the ith Municipality of hth stratum (3 numbers)

Bhij = Total number of booths in the jth ward of ith Municipality of hth stratum

bhij= Number of booths selected in the jth ward of ith Municipality of hthstratum (one number)

Chijk = Total number of households in the kth booth of jth ward of ith Municipality of hthstratum

chijk = Number of households selected in the kth booth of jth ward of ith Municipality of hthstratum

yhijkl =Observed value of y characteristic of lth household in kth booth of jth ward of ith Municipality of

hthstratum

Y= Population total of characteristic y

The estimation formula for municipalities is:

Y = ∑∑∑∑ (Chijk/ chijk ) (Bhij) (Mhi/ mhi) (Nh / nh ) yhijkl


B: SAMPLE SELECTION: PROJECT ASSESSMENT

There were three considerations in deciding the inclusion of interventions belonging to a particular

category. 1. Whether the project intervention was in one of the services/areas expected to be covered

by the Endline Study 2) Whether it belongs to the category of projects (elderly, vulnerable/differently

abled which have been specifically suggested by the Expert Committee to be included the sample as

such interventions could not be adequately covered in the household survey. 3) Projects which do not

belong to the above two categories but have been undertaken in a good number of LGs (at least in five

LGs where the household survey was conducted).

As per the ToR, the total number of interventions to be covered under this component is 24 in GPs and

8 municipalities). The sampling frame for the selection of projects for detailed assessment is the list of

projects in the sample LGs during the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. We were advised to get the list of

projects from IKM and the list of KLGSDP interventions of the sample LGs were sourced from IKM

website. There were 1205 KLGSDP interventions listed for the 48 GPs where the household survey is

being carried out. In the case of municipalities, 394 KLGSDP interventions were listed in the 16 sample

municipalities covered by the household survey. The IKM database has classified LG projects in to

different categories.

The details of the projects as per the classification of the IKM is given in Table A1.

Table A1: IKM Classification of projects in the LGs where the household survey is being undertaken

Category Number of KLGSDP Interventions

GP Municipalities

Transport 790 182

Public buildings 175 97

Computerisation 67 42

Anganwadies 40 13

Street light , office electrification 38 9

Drinking water 25 4

Health 18 4

Education 12 9

Sanitation ,waste processing 8 9

Reading rooms libraries grama sabha centre 5 5

Arts culture sports development youth welfare 4 5

Animal husbandry 4 4

Agriculture 5 1

Energy protection 2 4

Social welfare, social security 1 3

Irrigation 3 0


Tourism 3 0

Other constructions 1 1

Soil water conservation environment afforestation 0 1

Electric line,transformer 1 0

Energy generation 0 1

Financial contribution as per govt.(service sect.) 1 0

Housing, house electrification 1 0

Industry, self employment, inter promotion 1 0

Total 1205 394

The IKM database is a general purpose database of LG projects and not specific to KLGSDP. Therefore,

the classification given in the IKM database may not be appropriate for the sample selection in the

present study. Based on the nature of interventions, we have reclassified the projects into different

groups. DAC suggested that in the case of Computerisation category, only those projects implemented

as part of e-governance and incurring an expenditure of at least Rs.2.0 lakh only need to be considered.

When this condition is introduced, the number of projects in the 48GPs covered by the household survey

comes down to 1153 and that for the 16 municipalities becomes 376. The projects have been distributed

across the basic strata of GPs and Municipalities. The details of reclassified projects based on these are

presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table A2: Proposed Classification of Projects-GPs

Category

Group

Total Vulnerable Fiscally

disadvantaged Advanced

Park 2 1 3

Crematorium 7 1 8

Education 2 7 9

Front office of LG improvement 4 5 1 10

Bus stand/Bus shelter 12 4 1 17

Computerisation (Rs.2 lakh or above) 9 10 5 24

Drinking Water 10 5 10 25

Street lights 5 12 10 27


Roads 250 197 320 767

Others 5 4 1 10

Total 426 317 410 1153


Table A3: Proposed Classification of Projects-Municipalities

Category

Group

Total Backward Forward

Vayojana visrama kendram 1 1

Crematorium 5 5

Drinking Water 3 2 5

Bus stand/Bus shelter 2 5 7

Street lights 6 2 8

Education 4 5 9

Sanitation 8 5 13

Front office of LG improvement 12 4 16

Computerisation (Rs.2 lakh or above) 10 12 22

Infrastructure improvement 53 58 111

Roads 108 68 176

Others 3 3

Total 210 166 376

The above classification has been used for selecting the sample for detailed assessment of LG

interventions. Based on the opinion of the Expert Committee, we have made sure that interventions of

different types are represented in the sample. In order to make the sample representative of the different

relevant groups, the number of interventions in the sample for municipalities was increased to 12 instead

of 8 mandated by ToR. The number of interventions in the case of GPs is 24, the same as required by

the ToR. The method used for selecting the sample projects is given below.

1. Listed the categories in ascending order (category with least number of projects first)

2. Number of projects in each category has been decided based on the total number of projects in

that category. At least one project has been selected from all categories at random even if the

number of projects in that category is less, say only one.

3. If a project is selected from a GP/ Municipality, that LG is removed from the list for further

selection (without replacement)

4. Included innovative/special projects such as Parks and Crematorium.

5. If the total number of projects in GPs and municipalities together in a category is very small (less

than 5), one project is selected either in the GP sample or Municipality sample.

6. As in the case of household survey, each group of LG has equal representation in the total

number of sample projects selected.

The composition of the sample is given in Tables A4 and A5.


Table A4: Classification of the Sample of Interventions selection Project Intervention Assessment in GPs

Category

Group

Total Vulnerable Fiscally

disadvantaged Advanced

Park 1 1

Crematorium 1 1

Education 1 1


Bus stand/Bus shelter 1 1

Computerisation (Rs.2 lakh or above) 2 2

Drinking Water 1 1 2

Street lights 1 1 2


Roads 2 2 3 7

Others 1 1

Total 8 8 8 24

Table 5: Classification of the Sample of Interventions selection Project Intervention Assessment

in Muncipalities

Category

Group

Total Backward Forward

Vayojana visrama kendram 1 1

Others 0

Crematorium 1 1

Drinking Water 1 1

Bus stand/Bus shelter 1 1

Street lights 0

Education 0

Sanitation 1 1 2


Computerisation (Rs.2 lakh or above) 1 1

Infrastructure improvement 1 1

Roads 2 1 3

Total 6 6 12

The list of sample projects selected giving representation to different categories of interventions is given

in Table 6.2 in Chapter VI.

Ce

ntr

e f

or

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

& E

nvir

on

me

nta

l S

tud

ies

(CS

ES)

A

7

AP

PE

ND

IX II

DE

TA

ILS

OF

SA

MP

LE

GR

AM

A P

AN

CH

AY

AT

S/M

UN

ICIP

AL

ITIE

S, W

AR

DS

, B

OO

TH

S A

ND

WE

IGH

TS

AS

SIG

NE

D

A.

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

ats

Sl.

No

: D

istr

ict

N

ame

of

the

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

Nu

mb

er o

f w

ard

s in

th

e G

P

Det

ails

of

Sel

ecte

d W

ard

/Bo

oth

- 1

D

etai

ls o

f S

elec

ted

War

d/B

oo

th -

2

Sel

ecte

d

War

d

Nu

mb

er

of

Bo

oth

s in

W

ard

Sel

ecte

d

Bo

oth

No

. of

Ho

use

ho

lds

in t

he

Bo

oth

Ad

just

ed

wei

gh

t S

elec

ted

War

d

Nu

mb

er

of

Bo

oth

s in

W

ard

Sel

ecte

d B

oo

th

No

. of

Ho

use

ho

lds

in t

he

Bo

oth

Ad

just

ed

wei

gh

t

1 E

rnak

ulam

A

ikar

anad

14

5

2 1

330

2.53

7

2 2

156

1.2

2 E

rnak

ulam

A

lang

ad

21

3 2

1 16

3 0.

95

14

2 2

228

1.32

3 T

hiru

vana

ntha

pura

m

Anc

huth

engu

14

2

2 2

260

0.25

11

2

1 11

9 0.

11

4 T

hris

sur

Ath

irapp

illy

13

8 1

1 11

5 0.

05

11

1 1

161

0.07

5 K

annu

r A

zhik

ode

23

1 2

1 11

0 0.

17

4 2

2 23

0 0.

36

6 K

asar

godu

B

alal

16

1

3 2

128

0.21

5

3 1

121

0.2

7 Id

ukki

C

hakk

upal

lam

15

13

2

1 19

4 0.

8 14

2

1 14

1 0.

58

8 A

lapp

uzha

C

heriy

anad

15

7

2 1

225

0.93

8

2 1

211

0.87

9 K

asar

godu

C

heru

vath

ur

17

1 2

1 19

1 1.

78

5 2

1 14

4 1.

34

10

Mal

appu

ram

C

hokk

ad

18

6 2

2 13

1 1.

29

10

2 1

211

2.08

11

Pat

hana

mth

itta

Ena

dim

anga

lam

15

9

2 2

209

1.72

14

2

1 18

2 1.

5

12

Kan

nur

Irik

kur

13

6 2

1 22

5 0.

81

12

2 1

178

0.64

13

Thi

ruva

nant

hapu

ram

K

alla

ra

17

4 2

1 22

2 1.

04

10

1 1

199

0.47

14

Thr

issu

r K

anda

nass

ery

16

6 2

1 31

6 2.

77

8 2

1 22

4 1.

96

15

Koz

hikk

ode

Kod

anch

ery

21

1 1

1 14

6 0.

1 17

3

1 17

5 0.

37

16

Koz

hikk

ode

Koo

thal

i 13

11

2

1 30

0 1.

08

13

2 1

163

0.59

17

Ern

akul

am

Koo

vapp

ady

20

5 2

1 15

0 1.

64

10

2 2

142

1.56

18

Ern

akul

am

Kum

bala

nghi

17

5

2 2

181

0.21

9

2 1

177

0.2

19

Ala

ppuz

ha

Kut

hiya

thod

16

2

2 2

141

0.15

11

2

2 26

9 0.

29

20

Thi

ruva

nant

hapu

ram

M

anga

lapu

ram

20

2

2 1

176

1.93

12

2

2 18

8 2.

06

21

Kas

argo

du

Man

jesh

war

21

1

2 2

199

0.28

5

2 1

333

0.47

22

Iduk

ki

Man

kula

m

13

3 1

1 30

3 0.

54

8 1

1 17

0 0.

31

23

Ala

ppuz

ha

Mav

elik

ara

The

kkek

ara

19

6 2

2 24

8 2.

58

9 2

2 19

7 2.

05

Ce

ntr

e f

or

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

& E

nvir

on

me

nta

l S

tud

ies

(CS

ES)

A

8

24

Kas

argo

du

Mee

nja

15

9 2

2 14

5 0.

6 11

2

2 15

5 0.

64

25

Thr

issu

r M

eloo

r 17

3

2 1

232

1.09

12

2

1 22

4 1.

05

26

Way

anad

M

eppa

di

22

1 2

1 23

5 0.

35

5 2

1 15

3 0.

23

27

Thr

issu

r M

ulla

sser

y 15

6

2 1

191

0.79

14

2

2 18

3 0.

76

28

Mal

appu

ram

M

uthu

vallo

or

15

4 2

2 16

7 1.

37

6 2

2 15

8 1.

3

29

Pat

hana

mth

itta

Nar

anam

moo

zhy

13

1 2

2 33

0 0.

29

10

2 1

326

0.29

30

Kot

taya

m

Ned

umku

nnam

15

3

2 1

188

0.78

11

2

1 13

4 0.

56

31

Pat

hana

mth

itta

Nira

nam

13

6

1 1

268

0.48

12

1

1 20

6 0.

37

32

Kot

taya

m

Pan

achi

kkad

23

10

2

2 20

6 2.

59

13

2 1

202

2.55

33

Pal

akka

d P

attit

hara

18

8

2 1

106

0.53

9

2 1

209

1.04

34

Mal

appu

ram

P

onm

unda

m

16

3 2

1 29

7 1.

31

6 2

2 17

5 0.

77

35

Pal

akka

d P

uduc

ode

15

8 2

1 14

3 0.

59

12

2 2

243

1.01

36

Koz

hikk

ode

Pud

uppa

dy

21

17

2 1

219

2.52

18

2

1 28

7 3.

3

37

Pal

akka

d P

udus

seri

23

3 1

1 30

6 0.

24

7 2

1 17

4 0.

27

38

Thr

issu

r P

unna

yur

20

1 2

1 14

3 0.

19

14

2 2

218

0.29

39

Kol

lam

T

hala

voor

20

12

2

1 25

1 1.

39

18

2 2

255

1.41

40

Kan

nur

Thi

llank

ery

13

1 2

1 12

0 0.

85

8 2

1 25

9 1.

84

41

Kas

argo

du

Udu

ma

21

7 2

2 25

7 0.

36

12

2 1

153

0.22

42

Kol

lam

U

mm

anno

or

20

7 2

1 23

6 0.

32

15

2 1

187

0.25

43

Mal

appu

ram

U

rang

attir

i 21

1

2 1

127

0.18

4

2 2

226

0.32

44

Pal

akka

d V

alla

puzh

a 16

1

2 2

170

1.49

12

2

2 29

0 2.

54

45

Iduk

ki

Van

dipe

riyar

23

11

2

1 25

7 0.

4 15

2

1 16

8 0.

26

46

Koz

hikk

ode

Van

imal

16

4

2 1

290

2.54

9

2 2

165

1.45

47

Kot

taya

m

Vel

iyan

noor

13

7

2 1

214

1.52

9

2 1

237

1.69

48

Kol

lam

V

ilakk

udy

20

11

2 1

165

1.81

13

2

2 23

8 2.

61

Ce

ntr

e f

or

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

& E

nvir

on

me

nta

l S

tud

ies

(CS

ES)

A

9

B.

Mu

nic

ipal

itie

s

Sl.

No

: D

istr

ict

M

un

icip

alit

y

No

: o

f w

ar ds in

the

Mu

nic

ipal

ity

Det

ails

of

Sel

ecte

d W

ard

/Bo

oth

- 1

D

etai

ls o

f S

elec

ted

War

d/B

oo

th -

2

Det

ails

of

Sel

ecte

d W

ard

/Bo

oth

- 3

Se le ct ed

W ar d

Nu

mb

er

of

Bo

oth

s in

W

ard

Sel

ect

ed

Bo

oth

No

. o

f H

ou

seh

ol

ds

in

the

Bo

ot

h

Ad

just

ed

wei

gh

t

Sel

ect

ed

War

d

Nu

mb

er

of

Bo

ot

hs

in

War

d

Sel

ect

ed

Bo

ot

h

No

. o

f H

ou

seh

ol

ds

in

the

Bo

ot

h

Ad

just

ed

wei

gh

t

Sel

ect

ed

War

d

Nu

mb

er

of

Bo

ot

hs

in

War

d

Sel

ect

ed

Bo

ot

h

No

. o

f H

ou

seh

ol

ds

in

the

Bo

ot

h

Ad

just

ed

wei

gh

t

1 P

atha

nam

thitt

a A

door

28

2

1 1

367

0.97

14

1

1 34

8 0.

92

28

1 1

367

0.97

2 E

rnak

ulam

A

luva

26

8

1 1

200

0.49

12

1

1 18

1 0.

45

17

1 1

227

0.56

3 A

lapp

uzha

C

hert

hala

35

7

1 1

293

0.97

13

1

1 22

2 0.

74

28

1 1

292

0.97

4 P

alak

kad

Chi

ttoor

29

2

1 1

233

0.64

12

1

1 24

2 0.

67

26

1 1

193

0.53

5 T

hris

sur

Gur

uvay

ur

43

6 1

1 38

2 1.

56

28

1 1

251

1.02

42

1

1 47

9 1.

95

6 T

hris

sur

Irin

jala

kkud

a 41

12

1

1 34

5 1.

34

21

1 1

327

1.27

41

1

1 38

2 1.

49

7 E

rnak

ulam

K

alam

asse

ri 42

1

1 1

377

1.5

7 1

1 32

9 1.

31

22

1 1

289

1.15

8 K

asar

godu

K

asar

godu

38

7

1 1

321

1.16

19

2

1 18

8 1.

35

33

2 1

278

2

9 K

annu

r K

ooth

upar

amb

28

8 1

1 25

2 0.

67

14

1 1

246

0.65

23

1

1 22

4 0.

6

10

Mal

appu

ram

K

otta

kkal

32

4

2 1

183

1.11

12

2

1 25

7 1.

56

32

1 1

251

0.76

11

Ala

ppuz

ha

Mav

elik

kara

28

4

1 1

216

0.57

15

1

1 23

3 0.

62

27

1 1

260

0.69

12

Kas

argo

du

Nile

swar

32

10

1

1 30

7 0.

93

20

1 1

274

0.83

23

1

1 26

2 0.

79

13

Mal

appu

ram

P

erin

thal

man

na

34

5 1

1 21

5 0.

69

11

1 1

266

0.86

33

1

1 20

0 0.

64

14

Iduk

ki

Tho

dupu

zha

35

5 1

1 31

5 1.

04

12

1 1

340

1.13

35

1

1 29

5 0.

98

15

Koz

hikk

ode

Vad

akar

a 47

10

1

1 22

7 1.

01

20

1 1

368

1.64

40

2

1 21

4 1.

91

16

Thi

ruva

nath

apur

am

Var

kala

33

4

1 1

186

0.58

20

1

1 27

3 0.

85

29

1 1

283

0.88

Ce

ntr

e f

or

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

& E

nvir

on

me

nta

l S

tud

ies

(CS

ES)

A

10

AP

PE

ND

IX II

I

ST

AN

DA

RD

ER

RO

RS

OF

SE

LE

CT

ED

IND

ICA

TO

RS

Ind

icat

or

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at/

Mu

nic

ipal

ity

Bas

elin

e E

nd

line

Val

ue

Sta

nd

ard

E

rro

r

Co

nfi

den

ce L

imit

s

Val

ue

Sta

nd

ard

E

rro

r

Co

nfi

den

ce

Lim

its

Lo

wer

L

imit

U

pp

er

Lim

it

Lo

wer

L

imit

U

pp

er

Lim

it

Per

cen

t of c

itize

ns fu

lly s

atis

fied

with

:

Str

eet L

ight

ing

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

48.8

3.

1 42

.7

55.0

59

.5

2.9

53.4

65

.2

Mun

icip

ality

64

.4

3.6

56.3

71

.7

73.7

2.

5 68

.0

78.7

Roa

ds

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

45.9

4.

0 37

.9

54.1

51

.5

2.8

45.8

57

.2

Mun

icip

ality

59

.1

4.4

49.5

68

.0

69.0

3.

5 60

.9

76.0

Wat

er S

uppl

y

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

37.8

6.

2 26

.4

50.8

44

.1

5.0

34.4

54

.4

Mun

icip

ality

60

.4

7.7

43.3

75

.2

68.5

5.

8 54

.9

79.6

San

itatio

n

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

70.2

3.

5 62

.8

76.7

46

.7

4.8

37.3

56

.3

Mun

icip

ality

48

.9

3.9

40.7

57

.2

51.1

5.

7 39

.0

63.1

Gov

ernm

ent S

choo

ls

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

90.8

3.

0 82

.9

95.5

92

.1

2.2

86.5

95

.5

Mun

icip

ality

87

.7

2.9

80.2

92

.7

92.9

2.

1 86

.7

96.3

Gov

ernm

ent H

ealth

Car

e In

stitu

tions

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

82.8

3.

8 73

.8

89.2

83

.8

2.2

78.7

87

.8

Mun

icip

ality

82

.6

2.6

76.3

87

.5

85.1

3.

5 76

.0

91.1

Ang

anw

adis

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

84.2

3.

4 76

.0

89.9

83

.3

3.7

74.4

89

.5

Mun

icip

ality

80

.4

4.5

69.0

88

.4

86.6

4.

6 73

.4

93.8

Offi

ces

of th

e Lo

cal G

over

nmen

ts

Gra

ma

Pan

chay

at

77.2

3.

7 68

.9

83.9

77

.6

2.6

71.9

82

.4

Mun

icip

ality

81

.2

3.1

73.7

87

.0

83.0

2.

7 76

.4

88.1


APPENDIX IV

ASSESSMENT OF SAMPLE PROJECTS

List of Projects

Project Number

GP/Municipality Project Page No.

GP-01 Athirapally Grama Panchayat Thottyan road formation , metaling A12

GP-02 Cheruvathur Grama Panchayat Reconstruction of culvert at Anakkarantemettaku( Ch 0/250 )on kari-Pallikandam Road

A14

GP-03 Koovappady Grama Panchayat Valavumpady colony road concretting (general)

A16

GP-04 Mavelikara Thekkekara Grama Panchayat Metalling and Culvert Construction of the Road from Idakkadavil Transformer mukku Vattapparambil mukku

A18

GP-05 Meloor Grama Panchayat Moozhikkakadavu panthalpadam road - formation & side protection

A20

GP-06 Meppadi Grama Panchayat Vellithode -mundupara road re-tarring A22

GP-07 Nedumkunnam Grama Panchayat Concreting of Chelacombu Milmapady - Vellakkallunkal Footpath

A24

GP-08 Anchuthengu Grama Panchayat Construction of Anganwadi at Ward 5 A26

GP-09 Kandanassery Grama Panchayat Construction of New Panchayt office Complex -phase 3

A28

GP-10 Mangalapuram Grama Panchayat Thonnakkal indoor stadium construction A30

GP-11 Meenja Grama Panchayat Installation of Solar Power Plant to panchayat office

A32

GP-12 Mullassery Grama Panchayat Panjayath office building A34

GP-13 Irikkur Grama Panchayat Purchase of Computer and other Peripherals for Panchayath Office

A36

GP-14 Thillankery Grama Panchayat Panchayat office computerisation A38

GP-15 Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat Drinking water scheme panchayath colony gerukatte

A40

GP-16 Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat 15th ward Parunthumpara Harijan colony drinking water scheme

A43

GP-17 Alangad Grama Panchayat Development of street light A45

GP-18 Veliyannoor Grama Panchayat Purchase of CFL Fittings for Street Light A47


Project Number

GP/Municipality Project Page No.

GP-19 Kumbalanghi Grama Panchayat Renovation of panchayath bus stand A49

GP-20 Pudusseri Grama Panchayat Gas crematorium A51

GP-21 Chokkad Grama Panchayat Maliyekkal gups s s a class room A53

GP-22 Thalavoor Grama Panchayat Renovation of Front Office A55

GP-23 Punnayur Grama Panchayat Improvements to various beaches A57

GP-24 Chakkupallam Grama Panchayat 7th mile Varikkamakkalpadi thodu sidekettu concreting

A60

M-01 Adoor Municipality Retarring of Marthassamuni Kurissadi Municipal Boundary Road

A62

M-02 Kasargodu Municipality Improvements of Kottakkanni road 2nd reach A64

M-03 Nileswar Municipality Karuvacheri kannamkai koyampuram kuttikadavu road taring & drainage

A66

M-04 Mavelikkara Municipality E-toilet A68

M-05 Varkala Municipality Construction of Common Toilet Block in Varkala Municipality

A70

M-06 Guruvayur Municipality Fixing solar panel in municipal office A72

M-07 Vadakara Municipality Online asset mapping A74

M-08 Irinjalakkuda Municipality Borewell and drinking water distribution at parappuram area

A77

M-09 Kalamassery Municipality Construction of Crematorium A79

M-10 Chittoor Municipality Anicode common facility centre completion A82

M-11 Thodupuzha Municipality Improvements to Kothaikkunnu Bus stand A84

M-12 Koothuparamba Municipality Vayojana visrama kendram A86


Sample Project Number: GP-1

Title/Name of the Project Thottiyan Road Formation and Metaling

Name of the LG Athirapalli Grama Panchayat

Year of Project Approval 2013-2014

Category Roads

Approved Cost(Rs. lakh) 10.00 Actual Cost (Rs. lakh) 9.99

Description of the Project: The project, implemented under KLGSDP, refers to the laying and metaling of Thottiyan Road in the Vettikuzhi area (Ward 1). Earlier, due to improper maintenance, the road was in a poor condition and the people in the Pandavanpara area were travelling more than 2 kilometers to reach Vettikkuzhi. Moreover walking through the Thottiyan road during the rainy season was difficult due to water logging and pot holes. Demand for a proper road was raised as a major need in the Grama Sabha and the GP decided to improve the condition of Thottiyan road under KLGSDP. The 420 meter length road was metaled with 3 meter width and also provided side protection in 120 meters. End of the road is very steep and this portion (40 meter length) is concreted. Present condition of the road is very good and transportation facility has improved.

Assessment Parameters

Usefulness All (100%) of the beneficiaries felt that the road is an important project in the area.

Field observation: The project is very useful for the community as earlier transportation was very difficult due to the poor condition of the earlier road.

Efficiency

Milestone dates Requirement Date

Grama Panchayat (GP) Committee Approved Date: Not available

Approved By the DPC: 03/07/2013

Technical Sanction Date: 12/07/2013

Tender Inviting Date: Not applicable

Last date of Tender Submission: Not applicable

Approval of the Tender: Not applicable

The Date of Agreement with the Beneficiary Committee: 21/11/2013

The Completion date mentioned in the agreement: Not available

Actual Completion date of the Project: 20/03/2014

Time taken: No of days from the date of DPC approval to the date of completion of work:257 days

No of days from the date of DPC approval to the date of inviting tender: in this case, it is agreement with beneficiary committee – 141 days

No of days from the date of agreement to proposed date of completion in the agreement: same as above as no proposed date of completion

No of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project:120days

Whether the project was completed on or before the date specified in the agreement?

Agreement date was 21-11-2013 while the completion was on 20-03-2014, so the project was completed 4 months after the agreed date.

As some of the dates of crucial milestones are not available from the records, it is impossible to measure the timeliness of the implementation. It actually points to the inefficient system in the GP office with regard to the implementation of projects.


Whether actual expenditures have exceeded the budget estimate?

Actual cost was lesser than the approved cost.

Quality of asset created/ services

Eighty percent of the respondents felt that the road is of good quality.

Field observation: The present condition of the road is good. However, the road has no drainage system. This leads to heavy water logging in the houses by the side of the road in the lower end during monsoon.

Whether there is any system for maintenance of the asset created

There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this road. The LG may have to include maintenance of the road as a separate project.

Affordability Not Applicable

Sustainability All (100%) the respondents felt that the road will be maintained in the future.

Field observation: The road has been well-laid, while a section of the road is concreted so as to avoid being slippery during the monsoons. But the road does not have a drainage system, which could be a problem when it rains.

Environment safeguard No threat for environment.

Whether project is beneficial to women and/or vulnerable groups

Road is beneficial to all the households in this area

Does this project differ from other LG projects? If “yes”, how?

LG reportedly was only aware that they will be getting KLGSDP fund, but the amount was not known prior to the project which affected planning and budgeting. Compared to other LG projects, KLGSDP also has lots of norms which might affect the project and delay the completion. Otherwise the implementing patterns are same.

Participation Percent of respondents involved in

1. Project identification : 33 % 2. Planning : 20 % 3. Monitoring : 46 %

Satisfaction with the implementation of the project

All (100 %) the beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information There is no drainage facility and rainy days water will be flown into the private properties at the lower end of the road.



Title/Name of the Project

Reconstruction of Culvert at Anakkarantemettaku on Kari- Pallikkandam Road

Name of the LG Cheruvathur Grama Panchayat

Category Roads



Description of the Project: The project refers to the reconstruction of culvert at Anakkarantemettaku on the Kari- Pallikkandam road that passes through 2nd and 3rd ward of Cheruvathur Grama Panchayat. It is a shorter route for the people of Pallikkandam and Thatath to Cheruvathur. The road experiences heavy traffic. The culvert existing earlier was in a dismal condition. The abutments were formerly built as RR masonry and some portion of these abutments had fallen and there was seepage in the bottom portion. In almost every Ward Sabha it was raised as an important need by the people of the area. Now under KLGSDP, the culvert has been reconstructed with RCC as 5.80 x 3.50 meter. The culvert is crossing a stream. The earlier culvert was affecting the free flow of the water in the stream. Now since the new culvert has been widened, there is free flow in the stream. The newly constructed culvert has eased the transportation for the people of Pallikkandam, Thatath.


Usefulness Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful. Field observation: The project plays an important role in easing transportation for people of Pallikkandom and Thatath towards Cheruvathur. Earlier it was in a very precarious condition, now it is concreted with RCC. Overall, the project is found to be useful.

Efficiency

Milestone Dates Requirement Date

Grama Panchayat (GP) Committee Approved Date 17-12-2012

Approval By the DPC Not available

Technical Sanction Date 27-12-2012

Tender Inviting Date 21-12-2012

Last date of Tender Submission 02-01-2013

Approval of the Tender 07-01-2013

The Date of Agreement 22-01-2013

The Completion date mentioned in the agreement 31-03-2013

Actual Completion date of the Project 15-04-2013

Time taken

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 119 days

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting Tender: 4 days

No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 68 days

No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion: 83 days



No, as per the agreement, 2013 March 31st was the proposed completion date. Another 15 days more has been taken to complete the work. The officials said that the proposed date of completion was almost impossible and it was done to avoid the spilling over of the work to the next financial year.


No, as it was the lowest quoted Tender, the amount was less than that of estimate. Due to this the panchayat could save 11.7% of approved estimate.


Eighty seven percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the project is of good quality.

Field observation: Quality of asset created under KLGSDP project is found to be good.


There is no fund earmarked for the maintenance of this culvert.

Affordability There is no user cost

Sustainability Eighty seven percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Likely to Sustain as there is good public demand for the culvert. Overall, it is expected that the asset created will be sustained.

Environment safeguard Culvert is situated just 15 meters away from Kannamkai river, and the culvert is crossing one stream that flows in to the river. The broadening of the new culvert leads to saline water intrusion.

A protection wall along this portion of the stream was built along with the culvert. But people are also demanding a wall to prevent saline water to come into their homestead.


The project is not meant for any specific category and is beneficial for all the people in the area.


No differences were noted.

Participation of beneficiaries at any stage of the project.

Percent of respondents involved in

1. Project identification: 0 %, 2. Planning: 0 % 3. Monitoring: 0 %


All (100 %) beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information While, the culvert was widened and constructed local people had suggested constructing a shutter along with the culvert to control saline water intrusion. This problem exists as a big drawback.




Valavumpady Colony Road Concreting

Name of the LG Koovappady Grama Panchayat


Category Roads

Approved Cost(Rs.lakh) 6.0 Actual Cost (Rs.lakh) 6.0

Description of the Project: Under KLGSDP, a 191 m. length road was constructed from the Valavumpadi Junction to Kudimadam colony, which has benefitted about 50 households in the area. Prior to this, there was a mud road which was in poor condition and that was concreted under this project. The road which directly leads to the main road joining the Valavumpadi Junction has helped people to access it easily. The road was a community effort and there was a long-standing demand for it. They had demanded for this in successive Ward Sabhas and it became very strong when a particular case where an ambulance was not able to reach a house on time due to the bad state of the road was highlighted in the discussions.

. Thus the difficulty faced by the beneficiaries due to the bad condition of the road during the rainy season has come to an end with the construction of this road. The road currently laid is of good quality. The people in the area had actively participated in this project. The project was implemented through a beneficiary committee.


Usefulness All (100%) the beneficiaries feel that road is useful.

Field observation: It is also observed that the road gives the people in the locality easy access to the main road. Overall, the road is useful to the community.

Efficiency


Grama Panchayat (GP) Committee Approved Date: 25-10-2014

Approved By the DPC: 24-01-2015

Technical Sanction Date: 29-01-2015




The Date of Agreement: 06-03-2015


Actual Completion date of the Project: 27-07-2015

Time taken: No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work:272 days No of days from the date of agreement to proposed date of completion in agreement: Proposed date is not mentioned in the agreement. No of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 143 days



Proposed date of completion is not mentioned in the agreement.

According to the beneficiaries and GP functionaries, the work has been completed on time.


The expenditure has not exceeded the budget.


Eighty six percent beneficiaries felt that it was of good quality

Field observation: The road is of good quality and properly laid.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this road. The LG has to include maintenance of the road as a separate project.

Affordability Not applicable.

Sustainability Sixty four percent beneficiaries felt that the road will be maintained in the long run and will remain to be of good quality as the Panchayat has promised to maintain it in the future.

Field observation: The concrete road laid seems to be of good quality. As it was laid under the watchful eyes of the beneficiaries, every detail of the road has met the approval of the people in the area. It is likely to be sustainable.

Environment safeguard No threat to the environment as it is an improvement of the existing road.


Though it is a general project, it is very useful for the colony majorly consisting of the SC community.


They felt that as they were not informed about the exact amount of fund that would be available from KLGSDP, it affected the proper planning of the projects. The delayed release of the funds also affected the implementation of the projects under KLGSDP.

Participation Percent of respondents involved in 1. Project identification : 43 % 2. Planning : 14 % 3. Monitoring : 0 %



Other information Some of the beneficiaries felt a few additions to the project would have made it more sustainable, such as increase in width and height of the road, and construction of drainage.




Metaling of the road from Idakkadavil Transformer Mukku to Vattapparambil Mukku and Culvert Construction

Name of the LG Mavelikkara Thekkekkara Grama Panchayat


Category Roads


Description of the Project: Metaling of the road from Idakkadavil Transformer Mukku to Vattapparambil Mukku and Culvert Construction was completed under the KLGSDP in 2012-13. The people in the area were facing transportation issues due to water logging in the rainy season. The road was also not wide enough for heavy vehicles. The demand for renovation came from the Grama Sabha. To resolve the issue GP renovated this road by metaling a stretch of 400 meter length and constructed a new culvert, under KLGSDP. But after one week the metal was washed out in the rainy season. The GP recently tarred the road using own funds. The people still feel that due to the absence of drainage facility, the gravel will get washed away during rains, thus weakening the road again. However, they feel the road is very useful as the road has been tarred well.


Usefulness Ninety three percent of the people felt that it is useful.

Field observation: The project provides better transportation facility for peoples in this area and heavy vehicles are also passing through this road now. Earlier there were pot holes in the road that has now been resolved. In comparison to the earlier situation, the road is very useful for the community.

Efficiency

Milestones dates Requirement Date


Approved By the DPC: Not available


Tender Inviting Date: 23-01-2013

Last date of Tender Submission: 25-01-2013

Approval of the Tender: Not available




Time taken: No of days from the date of LG approval to date of completion of work: 126 days

No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender:64 days

No of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: Not available


No of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 46 days


Proposed date of completion of the project is not mentioned in the agreement.


Actual cost was lesser than the proposed cost.


Sixty percent of the beneficiaries opined that the road is of good quality.

Field observation: The people in the locality are very satisfied. The GP also took initiative and sanctioned the fund for tarring the road. With the completion of tarring work, the road is now of very good quality.




Sustainability Sixty percent of beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: It is likely to be sustained as the road is very useful for the community.



Road is beneficial for all the people in this area






Ninety three percent of beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information There is no drainage facility and no footpath along the road.




Moozhikkakadavu Panthalpaadam road – formation and side protection

Name of the LG Meloor Grama Panchayat


Category Roads


Description of the Project: The Moozhikadavu junction is situated on the Ezhatumugam-Chalakkudy route. Initially there was a walkway through a private land to reach Panthalpadam and no vehicles could pass through this way. People traveling by a vehicle, need to cover an extra 4 km on a longer roundabout route to reach the main road to Chalakkudy. The area would also remain severely water logged during the monsoons. The new road has been built under KLGSDP in Moozhikadavu which is the ward no 2. The beneficiaries (about 45 households) find it highly useful as they can now access the main road easily than before. Also it takes only about 1 km for them to reach the main road. The road was a major need of the people in the area to have easy access to the main road. The road has been built recently and hence is in good condition. The road formation and tarring has been done properly. The 275 metre stretch new road has provided people in the area with better connectivity. In addition to that, the Panchayat has about 87 cents of land in the area which they have plans to develop in future. This road also gives access to the said plot.


Usefulness Cent per cent of beneficiaries find the project is useful. Field observation: The road is a boon to school children in the area as they had to use a small mud path to reach the main road earlier, which was difficult at times of rain as the path would be water logged. It would also allow the Panchayat to develop the 87 cents of land in Panthalpadam which did not have a direct road before. In comparison to the mud path before, this road has helped the people as now a vehicle can reach Panthalpadam easily than before. It has also helped them to reach the main road as they had to travel an extra 4kms to reach the main road earlier, making the journey to Chalakkudy easier.

Efficiency

Milestones dates Requirement Date




Tender Inviting Date: Not Available

Last date of Tender Submission: Not Available

Approval of the Tender: Not Available


The Completion date mentioned in the agreement: Not Available


Time taken No of days from the date of LG approval to date of completion of work: 279 days

No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender: tender date not available


No of days from date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: Proposed date of completion is not available

No. of days from date of agreement to actual date of completion of the project: 170 days


Proposed date of completion is not mentioned in the agreement.


No.


All (100%) the beneficiaries met are satisfied with the road.

Field observation: They find the road as a blessing as they were not sure whether the private parties would be ready to give away land. Though they wanted the road to be 7 metres wide, it had to be short down to 4 metres after repeated negotiations. The only downside being that as the road is narrow, people felt that there was a need of a side protection wall. The road is of good quality and has no issues.




Sustainability Eighty seven percent of the respondents felt that the project is likely to be maintained in future. Field observation: The project is likely to sustain as it would be maintained by the LG using the maintenance fund. The GP itself is likely to make sure that the road’s quality as they have built this road to develop the Panchayat land in the area.

Environment safeguard No threat to the environment.


Not applicable.


They know that they would receive money but are not sure about how much will be received. They did not find any difference with respect to costing. They have also pointed out that they were not able to plan properly as they were not informed about how much funds were available.







Vellithode Mundupara road re-tarring

Name of the LG Meppadi Grama Panchayat

Category Roads


Approved Cost (Rs. lakh) 5.00 Actual Cost (Rs. lakh) 5.00

Description of the Project: The project implemented under KLGSDP was the repairing and re-tarring of the Vellithode- Mundupara road (415m long and 3m wide), situated in Ward 1 of the Meppadi GP. This road, between Nellimalam Junction and Vellithode, connects Mundupara ST colony to Meppadi town, which is the main utility hub of the region. The road was in a bad shape as there were potholes and water logging throughout the length. The need for a better road was raised in the Grama Sabha. The work was quoted for tender and was allotted to the lowest quoted tender received. In order to ensure the quality of the work, a monitoring committee was constituted with a selected group of beneficiaries under the ward member, from the planning stage onwards. Currently the road is in good condition.


Usefulness All (100%) of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful. Field observations: The road is very useful for the region as it provides better transportation for the needy to reach the main utility hub.

Efficiency



Approved By the DPC: Not Available




Approval of the Tender: 13-09-2013


The Completion date mentioned in the agreement: 31-03-2014


Time taken : No of days from the date of LG approval to date of completion of work: 221 days

No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender:144 days

No of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 182 days




The project was completed before the completion date specified in the agreement.


No.


Ninety three percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the road is of good quality.

Field observation: The quality of the work done is very good and the road is in excellent condition.



Affordability No user charges

Sustainability Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Likely to be Sustained

Environment safeguard NA


Yes, the project benefits the inhabitants of ‘Vellamunda ST colony’. The inhabitants of this colony use this road to reach their utility hub, Meppadi town.


Although the GP is aware about the development funding of KLGSDP, they were not aware of the exact amount allotted to the GP. Due to this, they were not able to plan for bigger projects although they were of the opinion that the KLGSDP is capable of funding big projects.








Concreting of Chelacombu Milmappady – Vellakkalunkal Footpath

Name of the LG Nedumkunnam Grama Panchayat

Category Roads


Approved Cost (Rs.lakh) 3.75 Actual Cost (Rs.lakh) 3.75

Description of the Project: The project was to Concrete Chelacombu Milmappady – Vellakkalunkal Footpath of 166m length and 2.8m width. The road was widened in 2007 (from 3ft to 3m) by the combined effort of 9 families residing in the area. It was only a mud road till 2015-16, though 15 metre at the beginning of the road was already concreted under another project. The road is situated between 11th and 13th wards of the Panchayat. Although it directly benefits only few families, indirectly it helps not less than hundred families. The road provides a short route to reach Karukachal that is the main utility centre of the entire area. In emergency situations during past years people had to be carried till the main road because of the difficulty for the vehicles to reach to houses. The travelling through the road during rainy season was also difficult. The common need of a quality road was raised by the public through Grama Sabha. The quality of the work done is commendable, although width of the road is not that adequate (2.8m). In the case of maintenance in the future, the GP officials were confident enough to carry out the work using the Road Maintenance fund.


Usefulness All (100%) the beneficiaries consider the project as useful.

Field observation: The road not only enhances the connectivity but also provides a shorter route to reach the main utility centre for many households.

Efficiency












Time taken : No of days from the date of LG approval to date of completion of work: 202days No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender: 30 days No of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 178 days No of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 132 days


The project was completed before the agreement date committed by the contractor in the agreement.


No.


All beneficiaries are of the opinion that the road is of good quality.

Field observation: The road is in good condition, and is of good quality.




Sustainability All beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: The road was constructed recently and the quality of the road good and it is sustainable.



The project is equally beneficial for all categories of people.


The monitoring from the KLGSDP on the project implementation is commented as unique compared to other projects. The projects under KLGSDP are required to be finished within a time limit. It is a good thing to implement as well as a difficult task in practical sense. Although the work can be extended to a period, the failure of the GP to finish large projects within the financial year will affect the next allotment. Such situation compels the GP to select small projects like road concreting/tarring or street light installing.


1. Project identification: 47 %, 2. Planning: 0 %, 3. Monitoring: 0 %


All (100%) beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information

By replicating the implementation style of KLGSDP the Nedumkunnam GP has started the system of E-Tendering. They are now including timelines also in their projects and pressurize the contractors to finish within the timelines. The GP has also started to take works of a road for its full length rather than splitting it and implementing as small projects in different years.




Construction of Anganwadi at Ward 5

Name of the LG Anchuthengu Grama Panchayat

Category Infrastructure Improvement



Description of the Project: The project implemented under KLGSDP is the construction of building for Anganwadi, that was working in a rented facility for 32 years, in ward 5 of the Anchthengu GP. The anganwadi is situated only 280m away from Chilakkur - Vallakkadavu road. Currently 16 children, 13 Pregnant women, 5 Adolescent Girls and 2 Lactating Mothers receive the services of this Anganwadi. The demand for an own building for the Anganwadi was raised in the Grama Sabha. The work of the project was carried out through Beneficiary Committee. The facility has sufficient space for the activities of the anganwadi and is maintained well. It has one large hall which is used for teaching, playing and other activities, one kitchen with sufficient space for storage and good toilet.

Anganwadi Building Anganwadi class room


Usefulness All (100%) the beneficiaries feel that the project is useful. Field observation: It is a very useful project as the said Anganwadi was functioning in rented premises for the last 32 years. The Anganwadi building is essential for proper provisioning of the Anganwadi services to the beneficiaries.

Efficiency

Milestone Dates: Requirement Date






The Date of Agreement with Beneficiary committee: 19-02-2015



Time taken : No of days from the date of LG approval to date of completion of work: 620 days

Anganwadi Building


No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of agreement to beneficiary committee: 406 days No of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 221 days No of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 214 days


The project work was completed before the agreement date. However, there has been inordinate delay in the entire process. The GP had to carry out two tendering processes, with no responses in both the occasions. Following this, the GP decided to hand over the project to the beneficiary committee.


No


Ninety three percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the Construction of Anganwadi is of good quality. Field observation: The quality of the anganwadi building constructed is of good quality. Spacious enough to meet the requirement of an anganwadi. Overall the quality of asset is good.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this project. The LG has to include maintenance of the Anganwadi as a separate project.


Sustainability Eighty percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future. Field observation: Project is sustainable in the future.

Environment safeguard No need


Yes, the project is exclusively meant for 0-6 aged children, pregnant women, lactating women and adolescent girls. It is also seen in the HH survey that the utilization of the services of anganwadi are more among the vulnerable sections of the community.


No

Participation Percent of respondents involved in 1. Project identification: 07 %, 2. Planning: 0 %, 3. Monitoring: 0 %


All (100%) the beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information The Anganwadi building was constructed in 3 cents of land which was donated by a private party in 2015. After the construction of the building an additional floor has been built as an extension work using other funds. Currently the Mudippura Sub centre under Anchuthengu Community Health Centre is functioning from the first floor. It needs to be ensured that the functioning of other institutions in the building does not hamper the functioning of the Anganwadi. An Anganwadi committee comprising of the ward member, retired teachers in the area etc. is entrusted with the monitoring of the functioning of the Anganwadi.




Construction of New Panchayat Office Complex- Phase 3

Name of the LG Kandanassery Grama Panchayat




Description of the Project: The GP Office in Kandanasseri was located at a plot higher from the level of the road, due to which it was difficult for elderly and differently abled people to reach the office for services. The building was also congested, with many limitations. The need for a spacious GP Office was raised as an urgent need by the GP Committee. It was also decided to provide space for the agriculture office, veterinary hospital and VEO office which were located at a distance of 1 km from the GPO, into the newly constructed office complex. The new office complex was built by the GP with funds from various sources at the plot where the agriculture and veterinary offices were located. The phase 3 of the new Panchayat Office complex was implemented in 2014-15, under the KLGSDP. In this project, works such as completion of first floor, construction of retaining wall and compound wall, stainless steel hand rail for the stair case and aluminum roofing in front of veterinary hospital were undertaken. However, for completing the remaining works of the office complex, GP needs more fund.

Compound Wall

Aluminum roofing Stainless steel hand rail


Usefulness All (100%) the beneficiaries met said that the project is useful. Field observation: The project is very useful as the citizens in the GP have to visit a single place for availing different services. Overall, the project is found to be useful.

Efficiency

Milestone Dates Requirements Dates








The Completion date mentioned in the agreement Not mentioned in the agreement



Time taken

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 405 days No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting Tender: 117 days No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 237 days


Completion date not mentioned in the agreement.


No, as it was the lowest quote Tender, the amount was less than that of the estimate. After completion of project the GP could save almost 4% of estimate.


Only Forty percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the project is of good quality. Field observation: Quality of assets created under KLGSDP project is satisfactory. A roof constructed in front of veterinary section is damaged. Overall, the quality of the work is average.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this road. The LG has to include maintenance of the office as a separate project.

Affordability There is no user cost.

Sustainability Ninety percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to sustain in the future. Field observation: Likely to sustain as there is good public demand and acceptance for the new panchayat office complex. Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.

Environment safeguard No environmental impact is expected.


The project is not meant for any specific category. After the functioning offices other than the GP office, became easy for the access to elderly and the disabled people.


No.


Percent of respondents involved in 1. Project identification : 07 % 2. Planning : 0 % 3. Monitoring : 0 %


Eighty seven percent of beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information In the first stage of project, hand rail, roofing and compound wall wasn’t included in the project. However, these components were added and built without revising the cost. Still the construction of office complex is incomplete, and GP needs more fund to complete the complex. GP office has not been shifted to new building yet.


Sample Project Number: GP-10 Title/Name of the Project

Thonnakkal Indoor Stadium Construction

Name of the LG Mangalapuram Grama Panchayat



Approved Cost (Rs. lakh) 20.00 (KLGSD:19.00) Actual Cost (Rs. lakh) 19.41 (KLGSDP: 16.96)

Description of the Project: The project was to construct an indoor stadium in Thonnikkal area of Mangalapuram GP to provide a public platform for conducting games and functions as well as an affordable venue for conducting private functions. The Thonnakkal indoor stadium is situated by the side of Ambalam Kalloor Thonnakkal road, in the 8th ward of Mangalapuram GP. The indoor stadium is nothing but a huge shed situated in the end of an open ground which belongs to the GP. The work is not finished yet and only the basic structure of the building has been constructed so far. Though concreted floor and cement solid walls are also part in the project, it is observed that these two components are missing. So this structure cannot be called an Indore stadium. The roof is the only saving grace. It is about 15 to 20 m high, and will protect people if it rains. The decision to build the indoor stadium was taken by the GP committee and was presented in Grama Sabha. At present the structure is used for conducting Grama Sabha meetings and local gatherings. The area is also used by the children from nearby homes to play. The people of the ward also find it useful to gather together.


Usefulness Cent per cent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful

Field observation: Somewhat useful, but not as envisaged.

Efficiency

Milestone Dates

Requirements Date










Time taken : No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 295 days No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender: 178 days No of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 152 days




Yes.


No.


Eighty seven percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the Indoor stadium constructed is of good quality. Field observation: The asset created is just a shed-like structure to avoid sun light and rain. It should not be called an Indoor Stadium.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this project.

Affordability There is no user fee for the time being. But there will be a fee once the work of the indoor stadium is completed.

Sustainability Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future. Field observation: Likely to be sustainable as the work which has been implemented already seems to be done with quality materials, which may help the project to sustain for some time.

Environment safeguard No measures were taken.


No direct benefits for different sections of the society. But the GP officials said there will be a fee reduction for the reserved category, once the facility starts functioning with user charges.


The GP is aware about the fund availability of the World Bank, but not sure about the amount. The main difference of KLGSDP is that they can implement larger projects under this. There are proper quality checks and monitoring visits.




Other information The facility is nothing comparable to an indoor stadium. It is just a shed-like structure. There was not any notable issue during the project implementation except the walkway of a church adjacent to the facility. The issue was handled by the ward member.




Installation of Solar Power Plant at the Panchayat Office

Name of the LG Meenja Grama Panchayat




Description of the Project: The project implemented under KLGSDP refers to the installation of Solar Power Plant at the office of the Meenja GP. Meenja is situated in a remote area of Kasargod district and the area is facing acute voltage issue. Meenja GP is also an economically poor LG with little own fund. Earlier, the GP was paying, on an average, a monthly electricity bill of around Rs.4000, which was a big amount for the GP. When KLGSDP was introduced, with the special interest of the Panchayat Vice President, a project for the Installation of Solar Power Plant was included in the GP proposal. The project components are SPV Modules, charge controller & MPPT, Inverter, Battery bank, Array support structure, earthing and surge protection, lightning protection for PV array, AC distribution panel board, manual change- over switches, connected load, cables, switches and general requirements and AC/DC wiring. From 2nd March 2016 onwards solar power plant is functioning well. Now GP’s electricity bill has decreased to a maximum of Rs.1500, and people are also getting services without hindrance as there is no interruption due to voltage problem.


Usefulness All (100%) the stakeholders consider the project as useful.

Field observation: By installing Solar power plant, GP solved issues of voltage

problem and now GP Office functions well throughout the day. The GP also saves

around Rs.2500 every month on electricity charge. So, this project is very useful

to GP. Overall, the project is found to be useful.

Efficiency

Milestone Dates Requirements Date


Approval By the DPC 07-05-2015

Technical Sanction Date Not Available








Time taken

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 288 days No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting Tender: 208 days No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 29 days No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 16 days


Yes, as per the agreement, GP had given one month time for completing the installation. It was completed within 16 days on 18-02-2016. The delay was seen between DPC approval and tender invitation; six months.


No.


All (100%) the stakeholders opined that the components installed are of good quality. Field observation: No one gave any negative response about the quality, and it is functioning well. Overall, the quality of the project is good.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this project. But, the GP plans to give an AMC for maintenance of this project.


Sustainability All (100%) the stakeholders said that the project is likely to be maintained in the future. Field observation: Definitely it will sustain as this project is playing a major role in solving the voltage problem of GP and in reducing electricity charges too. GP is planning to enter into an AMC for regular maintenance. Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.



The project is not meant for any specific category.


There are some norms about procurement and purchasing like tendering etc. The time of releasing the funds by KLGSDP was very late and the GP could not prepare any project before the receiving amount, because they were not aware about how much they would get. The positive side is that, they can plan big projects with such funds as well and focus on innovative ways for infrastructure development of GP.


Percent of respondents involved in 1. Project identification: 13 %, 2. Planning: 13 %, 3. Monitoring: 20 %


All (100%) beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information Participation in different stages of the project evolution and execution was by officials and elected representatives only. GP plans to extend the project with more capacity, if they get more funds.




Construction of Panchayat Office Building

Name of the LG Mullassery Grama Panchayat

Category Infrastructure improvement


Approved Cost(Rs.lakh) 50.00(KLGSDP : 18.34) Actual Cost (Rs.lakh) 43.08 (KLGSDP: 18.34)

Description of the Project: The old office building of the Mullasseri GP was very congested. In 2013 the GP committee decided to build a new Panchayat complex in Mullasseri Bus Stand. A double storied building was constructed with 290.46 square meter area. This building houses the GPO in the ground floor, the offices of the engineering section, MGNREGA and Kudumbasree in the first floor. One more building is planned alongside this building using MLA’s local development fund for other services of panchayat.


Usefulness Ninety three percent of the stakeholders met consider the project as useful. Field observation: Definitely the project is very useful to the community. Now different sections in the office have sufficient space in the office. The waiting area for the public is also very spacious. The location of panchayat office complex is easily accessible to the public. Overall the project is very useful to the community.

Efficiency


Grama Panchayat (GP) Committee Approved Date: 11.06.2013


Technical Sanction Date: 10.02.2014

Tender Inviting Date: 05.02.2014

Last date of Tender Submission: 14.02.2014

Approval of the Tender: 17.02.2014

The Date of Agreement: 04.03.2014

The Completion date mentioned in the agreement: 04.03.2015

Actual Completion date of the Project: 28.02.2015


Time taken No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 627 days.

No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender: 238 days


No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion in the agreement: 318 days


As per the agreement 365 days were allotted for the completion of this project, but the work was completed within 318 days.


No, actual expenditure is did not exceed the budget estimate.


Eighty percent of the beneficiaries are of the opinion that the quality of the office building constructed is good.

Field observation: The quality of building is good and is furnished well.


There is no separate system for maintenance of the asset created. They will use own fund or maintenance fund for the maintenance of GP office building.

Affordability No user charge is there in this project.

Sustainability Eighty seven of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Of course it will sustain.

Environment safeguard There are no environmental safeguard issues.




No differences were noted apart from the proper monitoring steps taken by KLGSDP during implementation of the project.




Eighty seven percent of beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information They were planning to shift Kudumbasree and MGNREGA offices to this building but they are still functioning in the old building. Now though there is sufficient area, a proper front office facility is not available.




Purchase of Computer and other Peripherals for Panchayat Office

Name of the LG Irikkur Grama Panchayat

Category Computerisation


Approved Cost(Rs.lakh) 6.83 (KLGSDP: 6.00) Actual Cost (Rs.lakh) 3.36 (KLGSDP:3.36)

Description of the Project: Irikkur Grama Panchayat implemented a project of Purchase of Computer and other Peripherals for Panchayat Office under KLGSDP in 2012-13. Before implementing this project, all the works in the GP office was done manually leading to heavy work load and delay in service delivery. Works such as file preparation, file processing, storing and retrieving etc. was taking more time.

Improvement of service delivery from the LG office was envisaged under the KLGSDP. Irikkur GP prepared a project proposal for purchasing ten computers, one server computer, four printers one Xerox machine and one scanner. The project estimate prepared by the GP was for Rs. 6.83 lakh, wherein Rs.6 lakh was the KLGSDP fund and remaining could be taken from the Finance Commission Grant. But, the GP could actually purchase only 10 computers under this project. GP called tender for purchasing the computers and other accessories but they got only a single tender. So the GP gave rate contract to the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India. Now, almost every staff has separate computer on their seat and it has eased their works.


Usefulness All (100%) of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful. Field observation: The project is very useful and very essential for all the citizens in the GP. Now they are getting services faster and easier than before. Services like availing the certificates of birth and death can be done from online. For officials, it has eased the file management system. It has helped them to do more work in less time as well as in reducing their work load. Overall, the project is found to be useful.

Efficiency




Technical Sanction Date Not applicable

Tender Inviting Date Not applicable

Last date of Tender Submission Not applicable

Approval of the Tender Not applicable




Time taken No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 132 days No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 27 days No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 8 days



Yes. Actually as per the agreement 31st March 2013 was the end line of the project completion, but DGSD completed their work within one week.


No, the amount was less than that of Estimate as the GP purchased only 10 computers only as part of this project. The accredited agency DGSD at that point only had 10 computers; hence only 49% of the estimate was utilized.


All (100%) the beneficiaries are of the opinion that the project is of good quality.

Field observation: Quality of asset procured under KLGSDP project is good.

Overall, the quality of the project is good.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this project. But GP is planning to give AMC for the maintenance in the future.

Affordability There are no user charges.


Field observation: Likely to sustain as it is an important factor for improving the efficiency of GP Office. Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.





No major differences were noted, but quality assurance and adhering to the timeline set are commendable.


Not applicable.


All (100%) of the beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information While preparing the project, there were 21 components proposed to be procured, but when it was completed there were only ten computers. The study team could not meet any responsible person, who could give correct details on what has happened. But as per the perception of the present planning clerk, it might have happened due to the unavailability of the proposed components under DGSD at the time of completion of the project. GP functionaries said that advanced software and other facilities are also required to ease the GPO functions.



Title/Name of the Project Panchayat Office Computerization

Name of the LG Thillankery Grama Panchayat

Category Computerization



Description of the Project: Before computerization of the GP office, there was only one computer and one printer for the entire staffs. Everybody had to wait for their turn to use these facilities. Since most of the works were done manually, the delivery of services from the GP Office was also slow. Thillankery GP conceived and executed a project for Panchayat office computerization under KLGSDP in 2012-13. Under this project, GP procured seven computers, one server and three printers. GP had invited tender for purchasing components but they received only one tender. So the GP gave the purchase order to Keltron as it is an accredited agency. Now, almost every staff has separate computer which has reportedly eased their work.


Usefulness Eighty seven percent of the stakeholders consider the project as useful.

Field observation: The project is very useful and very essential for the whole public. Now people are getting services faster and easier than before. For officials, it has eased file management. It helps them to do more work in less time and has reduced their work load.

Overall, the project is found to be useful.

Efficiency


Grama Panchayat Approved Date 31-10-2012


Technical Sanction Date Not applicable

Tender Inviting Date Not applicable


Approval of the Tender Not applicable




Time taken



No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: 7 days



Yes, as per agreement GP gave one week and Keltron implemented the project exactly within one week.


No, the amount was less than that of the estimate. After completion of project, GP could save 26% of estimate.


Eighty seven percent of stakeholders are of the opinion that the project is of good quality.

Field observation: Quality of asset that was created under KLGSDP project is good. Overall, the quality of the project is good.




Sustainability Eighty seven percent of the stakeholders consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Likely to Sustain as it has improved the service delivery from the LG office. Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.







Not applicable


Eighty seven percent of the beneficiaries are satisfied.




Drinking Water Scheme at Panchayat Colony Gerukatte

Name of the LG Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat

Category Drinking water



Description of the Project: Panchayat colony Gerukatte drinking water scheme is located at Ward 5 of Manjeshwar GP. People here used to experience acute shortage of drinking water as there was only one public well for the 16 families in the locality. This project was initially included in Plan project of 2011-12, but when the KLGSDP fund was allotted, the project was converted into a KLGSDP intervention in 2012-13. The proposed cost of the project was 3 lakhs which included only the construction of bore well and water tank. And according to the project proposal, fund for other components like pump set, distribution line, electrification etc. had to be from other sources.

The execution of the project was undertaken by beneficiary committee, and they gave it to a contractor. Under the project, one bore well of 112 meter depth, concrete water tank stand and a pump house was constructed along with the procurement of one PVC water tank of 5000 Liter capacity. According to the ward member, he used his own money for buying pump set (2 HP), electricity connection and separate water connection for each household. Now there are 22 families using this scheme as their primary drinking water source. They get water for 30 minutes twice a day, in the morning and evening.

Bore well

Water Tank


Usefulness All (100%) of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful.

Field observation: The project is very useful for the entire colony. Earlier they had used a public well for water. Now they have separate household connection and are getting water throughout the year.



Efficiency





Agreement with Beneficiary committee 06-03-2012

The Completion date mentioned in the agreement Nil


Time taken




No completion date was proposed.


No, actual cost was lesser than that of the estimate, and the Panchayat could save 8% of the estimate after the implementation of project.



Field observation: Some houses at the end of distribution line, complained about low water pressure. And voltage variations wee also was reported as a major problem for smooth functioning of scheme. No one gave any negative response about the quality, and no major repair works have happened yet.



There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this project. The ward member himself maintains the project in necessary situations.

Affordability Sixty percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the user charge is high. Field observation: The amounts vary every month according to the electricity bill and the amount is distributed equally among all the beneficiaries. The fact that there is no relation between actual usage and cost paid, is a cause of dissatisfaction as there are no water meters. Overall, the opinion on the user charge of the project is not satisfactory.

Sustainability Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to maintain in the future. Field observation: Definitely it will sustain as it is their primary source of drinking water. But the user charge and the water pressure problems are there. The fact that maintenance expenses are borne by the ward member personally also does not augur well for the sustainability. Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.




The project is not meant for any specific category. But, all beneficiaries come under BPL category.







Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information As a drinking water scheme, pump set, electricity connection and distribution line are very essential for its full fledge functioning. In an earlier project report, it was estimated as Rs. 3.33 lakhs for the scheme, and was later revised to Rs. 3 lakhs by two revisions. If they had prepared a complete and accurate project proposal, they might have been successful in implementing a complete drinking water scheme and beneficiary committee would not have lost their Rs.60000.

During the summer, the people who are residing at the end are experiencing low pressure, so they have demanded a new project for their locality.




15th Ward Parumthumpara Harijan Colony Drinking Water Scheme

Name of the LG Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat

Category Drinking Water


Approved Cost (Rs.lakh) 7.0 Actual Cost (Rs.Lakh) 6.66

Description of the Project: The project; ‘15th Ward Parumthumpara Harijan Colony Drinking Water Scheme’ was a felt need of a large number of people who live in and around the Parunthumpara Harijan Colony. Project components include laying of pipeline for distribution, installation of 10 HP vertical multistage centrifugal pump, construction of a storage tank with 12000 litres capacity, provision of 40 water connections and getting electricity connection. The source is a pond constructed in 1999 by the GP for drinking water purpose and later water from this pond was being used by the estate owners (then Gramby and now Pobson) to supply only to tea plantation labourers who are living in the line houses. Others in the area living on the hill top were fetching water from the same source by walking 500-1500metres.Project implementation is being done by beneficiary group and completed as per the estimate, though delayed by two months. Forty families were the beneficiaries during the time of implementation but due to increase in the number of households, the demand also is increasing.

Source and pump house


Usefulness Sixty percent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful. Field observation: This drinking water scheme is the only source to the entire families living in the two hillocks. During summer, water availability in the pond will decrease. But this is the only source to get drinking water and it is very useful.

Efficiency

Milestone dates Requirements Date

Grama Panchayat (GP) Committee Approved Date: 30.11.2012

Approved By the DPC: 07.03.2013


Tender Inviting Date: Not Applicable


The Date of Agreement with Beneficiary Committee 08.03.2013

The Completion date mentioned in the agreement 25.03.2013

Actual Completion date of the Project 10.05.2013

Time taken No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion work: 161 days.

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of agreement with the beneficiary committee : 98 days

No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 17 days.




No, as per the agreement only 17 days were provided for the completion of the project which was almost impossible for this kind of work. The work has been completed in 62 days to complete and this has not been considered as a delay.


No. Actual cost was less than the approved estimate.


Sixty percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the construction is of good quality

Field observation: Break down during water supply was reported by some beneficiaries. 13% reported it as bad. This has happened due proper technical support in designing and implementation. Overall, the quality was reported to be good.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this. Panchayat functionaries informed us that, the major break downs will be met by GP and minor break downs are to be solved by the Beneficiary groups.

Affordability Rs.150 per month is being collected as user charge. 80% of households opined that it is affordable.

Sustainability Eighty percent of beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future due to heavy demand for drinking water.

Field observation: It will be sustained by maintaining since the habitation does not have any other alternative for drinking water.

Environment safeguard A check dam is constructed near the drainage to ensure water availability in the pond. ( Not as a project component)


Project is very useful to all sections of the society especially to women since they are mainly responsible to fetch water. The scheme is specially meant for the houses in an SC/ST colony.


No differences were noted apart from the proper monitoring by KLGSDP during the implementation of the project (Compulsion for speedy implementation)

Participation of beneficiaries





Other information The Project was carried out in 2012-13. It is very much beneficial to the people living in this area. If the scheme fails to work, all these households have to walk considerable distance to come to the pond to fetch water. Water availability during summer is less due to insufficient water in the pond. Another scheme is also functioning by using the same pond which supplies water to about 100 families who are the labourers of Pobson Tea company. People are trying to identify another source to meet their requirement, but the entire area is with the Pobson tea company and they are not ready to provide land to dig well.




Provision of Street Lights

Name of the LG Alangad Grama Panchayat

Category Street Lights



Description of the Project: Last few years Alangad GP was facing two major issues, namely drinking water shortage and lack of street lights. Panchayat had given priority to solving the drinking water scarcity and through various schemes the GP has made drinking water available in almost all the 21 wards. However, the absence of street lights makes travel during nights difficult in the GP, especially for women and children. People were afraid to travel after 6.30 pm as it was dark and alcoholics and anti-social elements were creating problems. So a project for streetlights was the main need of Grama Sabhas. The project was undertaken with the KLGSDP funds and implemented by KSEB. Alangad GP comes under four KSEB division ie. Alangad, Varappuzha, Aluva and Edayar, so the estimates are prepared by these four divisions and the GP deposited the amount to these divisions.


Usefulness Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful.

Field observation: The project is very useful for the community because last few years travelling in the night was very difficult due to lack of street lights. Now the problem is solved.


Efficiency





The Completion date mentioned in the agreement Not available

Actual Completion date of the Project Not available

Time taken

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: Not available

No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: Not available


Actually there was not any proposed completion date.


No, actual cost was lesser than that of Estimate.




Field observation: Overall, the quality of the project is good.


GP has given Annual Maintenance Contract for maintaining streetlights in all the wards of the GP.



Field observation: The streetlight is sustainable because the maintenance is done by the GP properly. Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.











Other information Currently tube lights are being used for street lights in majority of the areas but in some places they do not provide enough lighting. So the beneficiaries said that it would be better if they were replaced by LED lamps.




Purchase of CFL fittings for Street light

Name of the LG Veliyannoor Grama Panchayat

Category Street Lights



Description of the Project: The project relates to the purchase and installation of CFL light fittings in Veliyannoor GP. The project was implemented throughout the GP, along the main roads, main junctions as well as the inner roads. Provision of street lights was a pressing requirement of the entire Panchayat, raised often in the Grama Sabhas. Public involvement was there in the planning process in order to identify the areas that needed streetlights. The lights were installed with 15 months of warranty from the installed date (08-10-2014).During the project visit it was seen that only some of the installed lights were functioning properly. It seems that proper repairing and maintenance were carried out till the end of warranty period; no further works have been done. But the GP authorities were confident enough to do the repairing works using their own funds or through tendering the entire work as a new project. In some areas people are trying to do the maintenance by themselves as the street lights play an important role in their lives.


Usefulness Eighty seven percent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful.

Field observation: Somewhat useful, only a handful of lights are still working.

Efficiency




Technical Sanction Date: No need



Retendering 27-01-2014

Last date of retendering 17-02-2014

Approval of Tender : 28-02-2014




Time taken : No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 516 days.




Whether the project was completed on or before

No. There was a lag in completing the whole work on the date which was mentioned with the agreement (188 days). The 12 street lights that needed to be installed in


the date specified in the agreement?

Ramapuram area needed to get approval from KSEB. As there was some issue with the documented asset list of the area, KSEB took time to approve the installation.


No, in fact the amount was brought down to Rs. 141232 from Rs. 200000.


Forty seven percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the street lights installed are of good quality.

Field observation: The entire project have only average quality as it is found that, about 65 to 75 percent of the lights are not in working condition during the visit. It was learned that during the warranty period proper maintenance was done, after that no maintenance has been done.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this project. Although proper maintenance were carried out till the end of warranty period (15 months after installation), no maintenance were undertaken so far. The LG officials mentioned including the maintenance work as a new project in the near future is under consideration.


Sustainability Forty seven percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Not Sustainable. Although the fittings are in good shape, no further maintenance has been carried out after the contractor’s warranty period.

Environment safeguard Not applicable.


No. project is of general in nature.


GP could not plan properly as they were not informed about the amount to be allotted to the GP.




Fifty three percent of the beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information Though the GP was confident enough to carry out the repairing as well as maintenance works after the warranty period, nothing has been done so far. The GP officials during the visit mentioned about initializing a tendering process for the maintenance work of every street light installed in the GP.




Renovation of Panchayat Bus Stand

Name of the LG Kumbalangi Grama Panchayat


Category Bus stand/Bus shelter


Description of the Project: The Kumbalangi Panchayat bus stand was situated at a dead end of the Kumbalangi ferry road before 2014. Now the road has been connected to Ezhupunna with a bridge. Because of the bad condition of the road and bus stand area, most of the buses were not going up to the end point to complete the trip. Only one KSRTC bus was completing the trip up to this point. People from Ezhupunna who wants to travel to Ernakulam also reach this place by ferry. People from south end of Kumblangi raised this issue in Grama Sabha and they demanded a new bus stand with basic amenities in this location. Following this, the GP committee decided to renovate the bus stand. A bridge was constructed between Ezhupunna and Kumbalangi in the same period. The bus stand has been constructed at the west side of the approach road of this bridge. Strengthening and finishing of floor by concreting, construction of retaining wall at the lake side and construction of shelter were the major components included in KLGSDP project. Own fund of GP has been used for the construction of sanitation facility in bus stand. The stand has sufficient area for parking more than 5 buses at a time. It is very useful for the buses to take reverse at the end of their service route. Now more buses are reaching up to this place for service. But, majority of the buses are using this area only for turning. Only few buses are halting inside the stand. Majority of buses are parking on the road side. Passengers board and disembark the buses from outside the stand. The bridge from Ezhupunna is also landing on the side of this stand and the buses coming from Alappuzha district enter Ernakulam through this road. But there is no provision for buses from Alappuzha side to enter the stand. The quality of construction under KLGSDP project is good. No seating facility is constructed in the bus shelter. A tea shop is running inside the stand. The toilet constructed inside the bus stand is not functioning now. According to the officials, GP allotted fund to construct seating facilities and renovate sanitation facility in current year project.

Bus stand Entrance

Waiting shed

Bus stand

Bus waiting in road side


Usefulness Sixty percent of the beneficiaries feel that the bus stand is useful.

Field observation: Presently the stand is not so useful to the community. It is useful to the bus service providers for parking and reversing so that they can start their services back to Kochi. The bus stand is well-maintained as the concrete laid is of good quality but due to the lack of seating arrangements people do not come inside and use it as a waiting area.

Efficiency



Approved By the DPC: Not available









Time taken: No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work:362 days No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender:159 days No of days from the date of agreement to proposed date of completion in the agreement:138 days No of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of project: 171 days


Yes, there was delay as the approach road to the bus stand was not finalized. There was a flyover project from Kumbalanghi to Ezhpunna built by the PWD, leaving little space for the approach road for the bus stand. Finally the approach road was built by PWD.


No, it has not exceeded the proposed budget.


Forty percent of the beneficiaries said that the quality of construction is good or average. Field observation: The concreting done in the bus stand is of good quality. There is space for a couple of shops and a toilet but is presently locked up. There is no seating arrangement for passengers in the area which is why people do not come into the stand. Overall the quality of the asset is good.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this project. The LG has to include maintenance of the bus stand as a separate project.


Sustainability Forty seven percent of the beneficiaries responded that it is sustainable. Field observation: The passengers need to board the buses from the stand. Provision of seating and toilet facilities will encourage passengers to do so. The sustainability of the project will depend on the provision of such facilities and actual utilization of the facility by the community.

Environment safeguard Not Applicable


Not Applicable


No differences were noted apart from that proper monitoring steps were taken by KLGSDP during the implementation of the project.

Participation Percent of respondents involved in 1. Project identification: 0 % 2. Planning: 07 % 3. Monitoring: 0 %


Eighty percent of the beneficiaries are satisfied.




Construction of Gas Crematorium

Name of the LG Pudusseri Grama Panchayat

Category Crematorium


Approved Cost(Rs.lakh) 100.00 (KLGSDP- 96.42) Actual Cost (Rs.lakh) 99.32 (KLGSDP: 96.42)

Description of the Project: A gas crematorium has been constructed in the burial ground in ward 16 of Pudusseri Grama Panchayat. 1.5 acres of burial ground was being used by 16 castes among the Hindu religion. The gas crematorium is constructed in 60 cents of land. Primary and Secondary chambers are installed in newly constructed building. Eight gas cylinders are being used simultaneously for one chamber. There is an average monthly consumption of 40 gas cylinders as of now. Presently three operators are working here. Daily remuneration to each operator is Rs.300 and cremation time is from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Though a bathroom is attached to the building, GP is planning to construct a bathing ghat at the nearby river. One underground water tank has also been constructed as part of the crematorium. Presently the project is running well and handling an average of 25 cremations in a month. The premises are very neat and clean. All instructions are displayed outside the building.

Crematorium

Cremation Chamber


Usefulness All (100%) the respondents met consider the project as very useful. Field observation: Public opinion was that the cremation expense has decreased by half due to the new gas crematorium. Earlier they used to spend about Rs.5000 for a cremation. In the gas crematorium, cremation process is very easy and quick in all seasons. According to the registers kept in the crematorium, observation and discussion with the stakeholders, it is felt that the project is very useful to the community. Overall, the project is found to be very useful.

Efficiency

Date of milestones (construction of the building)

Requirements Date




Tender Inviting Date: Not available

Last date of Tender Submission: 15-06-2013 (Building)


The Date of Agreement: 23-08-2013 (Building)


Actual Completion date of the project: 16-01-2014 (Building) 14-03-2014 (Project)


Cr at iu Cr atio Ch be


No. of days from the date of LG approval to the last date of tender submission: 100 days

No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: Not mentioned

No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the total project: 204 days


Proposed completion date is not mentioned in the agreement. There are three components in the project. Building, installation of Furnace and electrification. The building work has been completed within 5 months after the agreement. After construction of building within 2 months the installation of furnace and electrification were completed.


No, actual expenditure has not exceeded the budget estimate.


All (100%) the stakeholders met are of the opinion that the quality of the crematorium constructed is good.

Field observation: It is observed that the crematorium was well constructed and found to be well maintained.

Overall the quality of asset created and the services provided are very good.


GP has entered into an Annual maintenance contract with an agency and it is planning to renew it using plan fund every year.

Affordability User charge is Rs.1500 for the residents of Pudusserry GP and Rs.2000 for others. All the beneficiaries interviewed opined that the present user charge is affordable.

Sustainability Ninety three percent of the respondents met are confident that the project is likely to be sustained in the future. Field observation: Three operators are working in the crematorium. They are maintaining this crematorium very well. The panchayat has planned more activities for the improvement of this crematorium. Currently GP is receiving sufficient amount to meet the expenditure.

Environment safeguard No environmental threat has been noticed in this project.


This project is not meant for any specific category.


No differences were noted apart from the monitoring steps taken by KLGSDP during implementation of the project.

Participation Percent of respondents involved in 1. Project identification: 40 %, 2. Planning: 07 % 3. Monitoring: 0 %






Maliyekkal GUPS SSA Class Room

Name of the LG Chokkad Grama Panchayat

Category Education



Description of the Project: In 2013-14, the Chokkad Grama Panchayat undertook a project for constructing class rooms for Maliyekkal Government UP School under KLGSDP.

This school is a major educational institution that meets the educational needs of the locality and has classes from first to seventh standard. But the school has much limitation in their basic infrastructure, especially class rooms. While the student strength is 400, there were only 14 classrooms, including the stage which functions as a temporary class room. The school authorities had constructed a building with 2 classrooms using the SSA fund. But they couldn’t complete the work because of insufficient funds. Under KLGSDP, the works undertaken was separation of classrooms, flooring, painting etc. in the newly constructed building. Now, in the new building two classes are functioning.

Building constructed under SSA

Separation wall and flooring done under KLGSDP



Field observation: The project is very useful. As a well-functioning public educational institution it has many limitations, major one is lack of class rooms. KLGSDP has helped to improve class room facilities under this project. Overall, the project is found to be useful.

Efficiency












Time taken






No, as per the agreement only three days (15-03-2013) was the construction period, which was unrealistic. But the construction took a long twenty one months.

The GP completed all the process of LG approval to Tender calling within two months, but due to the lagging of DPC approval the whole project lagged.


No, as it was the lowest quoted Tender, the amount was less than that of Estimate. After completion of project, panchayat could save 5% of estimate.


Eighty seven percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the assets created are of good quality.

Field observation: Quality of the partition that created under KLGSDP project is good. But, the flooring is very bad; there are many cracks and holes in the floor. Overall, the quality of the asset is satisfactory.




Sustainability Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to sustain in the future.

Field observation: Likely to sustain as there is good public demand for the school building. Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.








1. Project identification: 20 % 2. Planning: 0 %, 3. Monitoring: 0 %

PTA members had participated in different stages of project.



Other information Newly constructed building does not have electricity connection. There is also urgent need to repair the damaged floor. Still, the school continues to lack basic facilities, and needs urgent attention.




Renovation of Front Office

Name of the LG Thalavoor Grama Panchayat


Category Front office of LG improvement


Description of the Project: Thalavoor GP Office is functioning from the second floor of a building located in ward number 15 which is near the Thalavoor junction. There is not enough space in the GP office for public and the corridor is very congested. Before the renovation of the front office, people were not aware of where to go for getting different services from the GP office, due to the non-availability of information counter. There was no seating facility available for the public who were visiting the GP. Following the discussions in the Grama Sabha, the GP decided to improve the front office facility under the KLGSDP project. Due to lack of space, the corner side room was renovated into the front office and was separated as a cabin. At present, the front office is functioning well.


Usefulness Sixty percent of the beneficiaries responded that it is useful to the community.

Field observation: Considering the old situation, the public approaching the GP office find all the front office facilities as very useful.

Efficiency





Tender Inviting Date: Not available

Last date of Tender Submission: Not available





Time taken

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 288 days.

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting tender: Data is not available


No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion: 156 days



No, The work spilled over to five months after the agreed date of completion.


No, Actual cost was lesser than the proposed cost.


Sixty seven percent of the respondents feel that the front office will be maintained well into the future. Some of them said that the quality is average because there is not enough space for seating and no drinking water facility.

Field observation: Newly constructed front office is good but the seating facility is less. Overall, the quality is good but there is further scope for improvement.


There is no system for maintaining these projects that will have to be done as a separate project.

Affordability Not applicable

Sustainability Forty seven percent of the respondents feel that the project is sustainable.

Field observation: The project will be sustained as it is an essential thing in an office.



Equally beneficial to all category peoples in GP.

Does it differ from other LG projects? If yes how?






Other information Considering the old situation, the new front office is very good for the public. There is not enough space in the 1st floor of the building, currently where the front office is situated. Because of this, people visiting the GP, especially the aged people find it very difficult to reach the office. Due to the absence of adequate room at the front office, currently people who come to GP Office use the ground floor to fill up the applications.




Renovation of various beaches of Punnayur GP

Name of the LG Punnayur Grama Panchayat

Category Park


Approved Cost(Rs.lakh) 20.00 (KLGSDP: 5.51) Actual Cost (Rs.lakh) 18.54 (KLGSDP: 5.076)

Description of the Project: The west boundary of Punnayur GP is the Arabian Sea. There are many beautiful small beaches in the GP. Plenty of Kattadi trees are planted in the beaches to provide shade. Beaches are mud/silt free and blessed with golden sand. The local community has been organizing beach festivals in these beaches every year. In this project under KLGSDP, amenities for the visiting public were built in three beaches, viz., Mandhalamkunnu, Ayinickal and Panchavadi. Under this project 13 cement benches and two resting places (Visrama Mandiram) were constructed in Madalamkunnnu beach. In Ayinickal beach, one entrance gate, one open stage, 30 cement benches and 3 single column umbrellas with fiber sheets were provided and in Panchavadi beach, one entrance gate, one open stage and 30 cement benches were provided. For over all development of the beaches, other funds from District Panchayat, MLA fund, funds from the Fisheries Department were also utilized.

None of the umbrellas erected exist in the beaches. Entrance gates constructed in the beaches are not painted and found to be maintained badly. Granite slabs in the benches in the resting places are damaged. The cement benches are useful for the beach visitors. The open stages are constructed well but the beach festival is not regular in these beaches. In Mandalamkunnu beach one toilet complex, boating facility for children, resting place etc. are also constructed using other funds but none of these amenities are working properly now. Over all, the maintenance and management of the structures is observed to be poor.

Cement benches and umbrella constructed in Ayinickal

Visrama Mandiram in Mandhalamkunnu


Usefulness Eighty percent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful.

Field observation: According to the beneficiaries the structures are useful except the umbrellas. If they are properly managed, the structures are useful. The authorities have not been successful in properly maintaining the structures constructed under this project.

Overall, the assets created are useful but to be maintained well for better usage in the future.


Efficiency









The Completion date mentioned in the agreement: Not mentioned in the agreement


Time taken

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 915days.

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of invitation of tender: 282days

No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: Proposed date is not mentioned in the agreement

No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion in the agreement: 609days


There is no specific date mentioned in the agreement. But the time taken to complete the activities is almost two years from the date of agreement which is considered to be very high.




Forty seven percent of the people told the quality of the assets created is bad or average.

Field observation: The quality of assets created is below average. None of the umbrellas provided are existing now.

Overall the quality is bad.


There is no fund earmarked for regular maintenance of the assets. The LG has to include maintenance of the assets as a separate project.

Affordability No user charges.

Sustainability Sixty seven percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: The structures like umbrellas are already damaged. Cement benches are also in threat. Entrance gates are not maintained well. The open stages are not being used regularly. Many other amenities constructed in this area are also poorly managed or not utilized. Hence the sustainability of the structures constructed under this project is doubtful.


Environment safeguard No threats were mentioned in the project document.


This project is not meant for any specific category of beneficiaries.


No major difference from other LG projects. The officials responded that there is follow-up and inspections from KLGSDP.





Other information In these three beaches Mandalamkunnu is the main beach. Various assets have been created in this beach under various funds but they have not been properly maintained or found to be utilized. On an average 400 people visit this beach daily. No facilities have been arranged for cleaning or managing plastic waste in the beach.




7th mile Varikkamakkalpati Thodu Side protection and Concreting

Name of the LG Chakkupallam Grama Panchayat

Category Others


Approved Cost (Rs.Lakh) 4.75 (KLGSDP:4.00) Actual Cost (Rs.Lakh) 4.75 (KLGSDP: 4.00)

Description of the Project: The project; ‘7th mile Varikkamakkalpati Thodu Side protection and Concreting’ was a felt need of a large number of people who reside on a hillock located south of the Munnar – Kumily Highway. Though it was named as a side wall construction of a drainage in the records, actually the projects was renovation of an existing road. Demand to renovate the existing tarred road in the 13th Ward of Chakkupallam GP, across a paddy field by clearing shrubs was raised in all the Grama Sabhas. Under this project; the undergrowth and thorny shrubs on both sides of the road was cleared and the side walls of the road and drainage were rebuilt wherever necessary. The shoulders of the road were damaged and it was dangerous when two vehicles came in opposite direction at the same time. Incidents of accidents while giving side to a vehicle coming from opposite direction were frequent before implementing the project. Walking along the side was also very difficult due to thorny bushes growing on both sides. Presently the destroyed side walls have been renovated and shoulders were concreted resulting in a 6 metre wide road that is both walkable and motorable.



Field observation: Concreting of the shoulders of the road and renovation of side walls are very useful for safe travel for about 100 families residing in the nearby area. If this road is not in condition, they have to travel 3-4 Kilometres to reach Panchayat centre. Accidents have also been reduced due to sufficient width of road. Overall the project is very useful to the community.

Efficiency






Last date of Tender Submission Not Applicable

The Date of Agreement with Beneficiary committee 20-09-2015

The Completion date mentioned in the agreement Date not mentioned

Actual Completion date of the Project Not Available

Time taken No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion work: Exact date of completion was not available with GP office. G.P Officials informed that the work was completed before march 31st, hence it will be about 250 days.


No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date agreement with beneficiary committee : 66 days

No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: Date of completion is not mentioned in the agreement.

No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion of the project: Not available


The proposed date of completion of work is not recorded in the agreement. But beneficiaries who stay near to the road opined that the work was completed before April 2016.


No.


Eighty percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the construction is of good quality

Field observation: Renovation of side walls and concreting is of good quality. Concreting over the sidewall is extended to road to get more width.

Overall quality is good.


There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this. The LG has to include maintenance of the road as a separate project.


Sustainability Only Twenty seven percent of beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: As the quality of construction is good the asset can be sustained with regular maintenance.

Overall, it is likely to be sustained.

Environment safeguard Not Applicable; renovation was one on existing infrastructure.


Project is very useful to all sections of the society.


No differences were noted apart from the monitoring by KLGSDP during the implementation of the project. There was compulsion for timely completion from the KLGSDP.

Participation of beneficiary





Other information The Project was carried out in 2015-16. It is very much beneficial to the people who travel to and fro from Anavilasam and Anakkara. Though the project was implemented by beneficiaries as per records, it was found that the actual implementation was done through a contractor.


Sample Project Number: M-1


Re-tarring of Marthassamuni Kurisadi Municipal Boundary Road

Name of the LG Adoor Municipality

Category Roads



Description of the Project: The Marthassamuni Kurisadi Municipal Boundary Road in Adoor municipality is a boundary road between Adoor Municipality and Pallikkal Grama Panchayat, located in the 26th ward of Adoor municipality. The project implemented under KLGSDP refers to the tarring work of the said road. Before the project was implemented, the old road was tarred around ten years ago. The demand for the improvement and re-tarring of the road was raised by the people in the Ward Sabha. With the implementation of the project, the people in the area have a 3m width, 760 m length tarred road, which has improved the connectivity of the locality. Although the road currently provides decent service to the community, due to the improper maintenance, there are potholes in some areas. The absence of a proper drainage system and side packing has also started eroding the quality of the road.



Field observation: This road is the easiest way to reach Peringanad without any traffic blocks. It also connects Payyanallur, Pallikkal, Anayadi areas to Adoor Municipality. The road also improves access to many of the religious institutions in the area.


Efficiency


Municipal Council Approved Date: 07-06-2011









Time taken :

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 342days

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting Tender : 200 days

No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement : 39 days




The project was completed after the agreement date.

There has also been delay before tendering. LG took 200 days for tender approval from the date of approval of the project by LG, which is very high.


No, as it was the lowest quoted Tender, the amount was less than that of estimate.


Forty seven percent of the beneficiaries are of the opinion that the road is of good quality.

Field observation: The sides of the road have started eroding and there is water logging in some parts. Still, the condition of the road is satisfactory as it is 5 years since the work was undertaken.

Overall, the quality of the road is satisfactory.



Affordability There is no user charge

Sustainability Twenty seven percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Likely to Sustain as there is good public demand for the road. Though no separate funds are available for the maintenance of the road, the LG can take up the maintenance work using the ‘maintenance fund-road assets’. However, it has to be undertaken as a project of the LG. Changing priorities of the LG may delay the maintenance.

Environment safeguard Since it is re-tarring of the road, no environmental impact is expected.




No differences were noted apart from the proper monitoring steps taken by KLGSDP during the implementation of the project.





Other information There is no proper drainage for the road. Some of the households themselves clean the old drainage channels but it has not solved the issue. There is a demand from the community for widening the road from the existing 3 metres to 5 metres.




Improvement of Kottakkanni road 2ndstretch

Name of the LG Kasargod Municipality

Category Roads



Description of the Project: The project refers to the improvement of Kottakkanni road second stretch in the 7th ward of Kasargodu municipality. This is an important road that connects Kasargodu Municipal bus stand and Madhoor road. This 500 meter long road was in a pathetic condition due to improper maintenance. Water logging and pot holes made it impossible to even walk on this road, during the monsoons. Improvement of this road was raised as a major need in the Ward Sabha. The municipality started concreting the road in four stretches, and has completed the concreting of three stretches. Each stretch was concreted using fund from various sources, depending on the availability. Among these, the second stretch of the road (that starts from United Hospital up to the play school; 195 meter length and 4.50 meter width) was completed as a KLGSDP project. Though one stretch remains incomplete, it is useful as the people can reach hospital without any issues.


Usefulness Ninety three percent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful.

Field observation: The project is very useful for the community. Earlier due to the poor condition of the road, it was difficult to even walk through it. Now there is easy access. It has also eased traffic from main road towards Madhoor and from Madhoor towards United Hospital. But it is still incomplete as the final stretch has not been done.


Efficiency


Municipal Council Approved Date 28-05-2014










Time taken






Yes, as per the agreement, GP gave about three months for completing the construction. It was completed within 41 days.


No, as it was the lowest quoted Tender, the amount was less than that of Estimate.


Seventy three percent of the beneficiaries are of the opinion that the road is of good quality.

Field observation: Quality of the road constructed is good.

Overall, the quality of the asset created is good.




Sustainability Fifty three percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Likely to Sustain as there is good public demand for the road.

Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.

Environment safeguard No threat for environment as it was an existing road.




Due to the late releasing of KLGSDP fund, the GP could not prepare any project before receiving the fund as they were not informed as how many funds were available from KLGSDP.






Other information Still one stretch is incomplete, which affects the overall utility of the road.

Drainage is needed along this road as otherwise there could be water logging and flooding in the area.



Title/Name of the Project Karuvacheri Kannamkai Koyampuram Kuttikadavu Road Tarring & Drainage

Name of the LG Nileswar Municipality

Category Roads



Description of the Project: The project was the tarring and construction of drainage of the Karuvacheri Kannamkai Koyampuram Kuttikadavu Road in the Ward 20 of Nileswar municipality. It is an important road that connects Karuvacheri Harijan Colony to NH. This road starts from Kottappuram-NH to Karuvacheri Harijan Colony and is almost 800 meter long. Earlier there was just a walk way to the colony. Commuting through the mud road, even walking was very difficult, especially during the rainy season. In almost every Ward Sabhas the demand for a road was raised as a main requirement. At last, Municipality started its tarring work as three stretches. Among this, the second stretch with 140 meter tarring and 123 meter drainage construction was done under KLGSDP. Now, the road gives better access to the colony people. Better accessibility through this road is expected to help the overall development of the socially vulnerable community residing in this area.



Field observation: The project is very useful for the community. Earlier it was mud road and was very difficult to travel in the rainy season. Now, the road gives better access to the residents of the Harijan Colony.


Efficiency











Time taken







Yes, as per the agreement, Municipality gave 150 days for completing work. But it was completed within 93 days on 18-02-2016.


No, as it was the lowest quoted tender, the amount was less than that of the estimate. After the completion of project, Municipality could save 25% of estimated amount.


Eighty seven percent of the beneficiaries are of the opinion that the project is of good quality.

Field observation: Quality of asset that was created under KLGSDP project is good.



There is no fund earmarked for maintenance of this road.


Sustainability Eighty seven percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Likely to Sustain as there is good public demand for the road.

Overall, the sustainability of the project is expected.



The project is not meant for any specific category. But the road connects Karuvacheri SC Colony to the main road and is beneficial to the residents of the colony.


Due to the late releasing of KLGSDP fund, the GP could not prepare any project before the receiving amount, because they were not informed beforehand as to how much they will get.









E-toilet

Name of the LG Mavelikkara Muncipality


Category Sanitation


Description of the Project: The court junction in Mavelikkara Municipality is a very busy junction as the court is located there and the place is frequented by people who work or have come to the court and also by the general public who visit the area as there are a number of shops there. But there were no public toilets in that area. The toilets within the court complex cater only to the needs of people who come to the complex. So the need for a public toilet arose in the ward sabha. The Municipality decided to go ahead and come up with the innovative concept of an e-toilet. To use this e-toilet, one has to insert a one rupee coin to open the door, after which you will have to push open the door and lock it from inside to use. One needs to make sure if the light above the toilet shows green which means it is ready to use while the red denotes that somebody is using it. The beneficiary community feels that the intention of building toilet in the location is good as the toilet in the court complex was not enough to cater to the needs of people in the area. But they feel that there is a lack of awareness among the people on its usage and hence they refrain from using it. Therefore, they want the working of the toilet to be simplified to make it useful for more people. They also felt that the toilet was not well maintained and from time to time it would not work properly. The study team found the door was left open and the toilet was badly maintained, despite the fact that one had to insert Re 1 coin to unlock the door.


Usefulness

Only thirteen percent of the respondents feel that the project is useful

Field observation: Beneficiaries felt that though the intention was good, the utility of the toilet was low as it was a new concept and people were shying away from using it. They felt that if proper awareness was given it would be used in a large scale.

Overall the project is not found to be that useful for the time being.

Efficiency


Municipal Council Approved Date: Not Available


Technical Sanction Date: Not available

Tender Inviting Date: Not applicable.






Time taken No of days from the date of DPC approval to the date of completion of work:144 days

No of days from the date of LG approval to date of inviting tender: a tender involved as the work has been given to an approved agency.


No of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: Not available



No completion date was mentioned in the agreement


The project has not overrun the budget.


Thirty three percent of them felt that the quality of asset created is good. Field observation: The facility is not functioning properly and is also not being maintained properly. Most beneficiaries observed that the machine did not accept the new Re 1 coin. There were also instances when the toilet door got stuck, and outsiders had to help to get it open. Though the quality of asset created is good, it is not working properly.


Keltron which had built the e-toilet had signed an AMC for the following year. Later a company named Eram Scientific signed an agreement with Keltron to take forward the maintenance works of the toilet.

Affordability The user charge is affordable as the charge is only Re 1.

Sustainability Only forty percent of the respondents feel that this will sustain in the future. Field observation: It can be made sustainable only if properly maintained.

Environment safeguard There are no environmental safeguards issues mentioned in the documents. The safeguard measures to be taken in the case of leakage or improper functioning of the treatment system are not found to be addressed.


There is only one toilet. This can be used by both men and women.


They did not find any difference with exception to the fact that there were certain norms and procedures that were to be followed.




Other information As there were not many projects like e-toilets in Kerala, proper functioning of this one can be taken as a model for the State. However, this project is yet to prove its sustainable usage.




Construction of Common toilet Block in Varkala Municipality

Name of the LG Varkala Municipality

Category Sanitation


Approved Cost (Rs. lakh) 23.14 Actual Cost incurred (Rs. lakh) 2.94

Description of the Project: The project undertaken was to construct a common toilet block in Varkala Municipality office premises. There were only two toilets available for the entire municipal block at that time. The toilet block was planned to be built in the back side of the Municipal office. The project would have been very useful for the municipal employees as well as the general public who comes to the office if completed. But, the current status of the project is pathetic. Due to some unfortunate events that happened during the construction work of the toilet block, the construction work was terminated. Later even though the Municipality tried to complete the construction by tendering the remaining work as Second Stage of work, no applications were received from contractors due to the issues with the Municipality.


Usefulness Uncompleted Work

Efficiency






Last date of Tender Submission: Not available

Retendering Not available

Last date of retendering Not available

Decision took to accept offer work : 13-12-2011

Submission date of Offer: 16-12-2011

Approval of the Offer: 31-01-2012



Actual Completion date of the Project: Not available

Time taken from the date of LC Committee agreement to the date of agreement with

The project hasn’t been completed yet.


Contractor/Beneficiary Committee






The project hasn’t been completed yet. Only the structure of the proposed work has been completed till the date.



Affordability The project hasn’t been completed yet.

Sustainability The project hasn’t been completed yet. Considering the situation that arose in the Varkala Municipal office, it’s highly unlikely that the project will be completed.

Environment safeguard NA




Proper Inspections are undertaken.

Other information As the project was progressing some unfortunate political issues formed. Due to some reasons the then Municipal chairman called further proceedings and asked for a detailed quality check of the construction. Although this gave positive results according to the functionaries, the Chairman decided to terminate the ongoing work and decided to complete the work with a revised estimate. KLGSDP did not allow the LG to continue the project. As the current municipal council found it is highly unlikely to finish the work with the spillover amount, they managed to divert the spillover amount to road works. Although tenders were invited to complete the project six times but none of the contractors came forward to take up the work. The tension formed between the previous contractor and municipal authorities is believed to have lead to such a situation. This project will be functional only if this bottle neck is solved.




Installation of Solar Panel in Municipal Office

Name of the LG Guruvayur Municipality




Description of the Project: In 2014-15, the Guruvayur Municipality undertook the project for installation of solar panel above the Municipality buildings. First it was planned to fix panels on the Municipal office building, then it was changed to the Municipal Library building situated nearby and Manjulal municipal shopping complex. The solar panel which was installed on the Manjulal shopping complex is directly connected to the KSEB grid. The panel which is fixed on the library building is off grid. Presently the library is using this solar power as their primary source of electricity. Both the panels are in working condition. Before the implementation of this scheme municipality used to spend about Rs. 28,000 per month on electricity. Average electricity bill after the installation of solar panel is around Rs. 12,000 per month. KELTRON has implemented this project.


Usefulness Field observation: The reduction in the electricity charges borne by the Municipality after the installation of solar panels clearly shows that it is very useful to the Municipality. Now they are saving around 60 percent in electricity charges.

Efficiency


Municipal Committee Approved Date: 04.02.2015


Technical Sanction Date: Not applicable.

Tender Inviting Date: Not applicable.

Last date of Tender Submission: Not applicable.

Approval of the Tender: Not applicable.




Time taken


No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of Agreement: 234 days





Project not completed on the date specified in the agreement. According to the officials the project fund was received only in February 2016. Because they were not able complete this project in the same year and it was treated as a spill over work of the next year.

The Municipality officials took more days to study about the technical side of the project. Implementing officer was not ready to implement the project in fear of the consequences if something happened wrongly. After the installation of the panel, more days were taken to connect the panel to the KSEB grid. Actually the installation of panel was completed in January 2016 but it was connected to the grid in August 2016 only.


No, there was no cost escalation.


Field observations: Quality of asset created is found to be good. According to the staff and the elected representatives also, the quality of Solar panels installed in the municipality is good.


They have signed an annual maintenance contract with a technical agency to maintain the panels. Municipality is providing the AMC charges.

Affordability No user charges in this project.

Sustainability Field observation: The sustainability of this project is very high. Through this scheme the municipality saves more than half of their electricity charge every month.

Environment safeguard No environmental threat in this project. It is an energy conservation project.


It is beneficial to the entire Municipality.


No major difference from other LG projects.


The general public and the majority of newly elected representatives are not aware about the details of this project.

Other information Most of the municipal staffs are not aware about the details and benefits of the solar power panels fixed in their Municipality. This can be show cased as one of the model energy conservation project.




Online Asset Mapping

Name of the LG Vadakara Municipality

Category Computerisation



Description of the Project: The idea of this project was put forward by the Uralungal Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd. to the Municipality. Under this project, an online map of Vadakara municipality was created. Various layers like Cadastral, Ward boundary, land use and land cover, Anganwadies, educational institutions, health facilities, road net works, elevation etc. are mapped in this project. All the Mapped layers are published in web based GIS system (Road Information System). Public can access the layers in the link http://www.vadakaramunicipality.com/ris. After completion of work the programme implementation agency provided training to the Municipality staff to make them aware about how to operate and utilize this application for their future planning

Now anybody can access the layers in online in the road information system web portal. No updation of the layers has been done by the municipality after this. The engineering and town planning wing has not utilized this facility in their regular activities of project planning and implementation. Some staffs of engineering wing have some idea on the availability of this information on website. The health wing head is not aware about this map. According to the heath wing head of municipality, more layers like water logged area, waste dumping area etc. are also to be added to this map system for the planning and implementation of health projects. The Municipal Vice Chairperson told that they proposed a new project for updating this mapping system this year.

Screenshot image of Road Information System published under this project



Usefulness Field observation: It is useful for planning, monitoring and implementation of projects in municipality. Unfortunately the officials and public are not using this resource effectively. Once these maps were used by the RTO department for the providing permits to the Auto Rickshaws. They are not satisfied with the information available in the maps. For example the names of all the roads are not mentioned, which is necessary for the RTO for their use. This calls for modification of the map prepared and a mechanism for regular updation.

As can be inferred, though this resource can be extremely useful, as of now it is not being used effectively.

Efficiency

Date of milestones Requirements Date

Municipal Council Approved Date: 20.11.2012


Technical Sanction Date: Not Applicable


Last date of Tender Submission: Not Applicable

Approval of the Tender: Not Applicable




Time taken


No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of agreement: 45 days.




According to the agreement the completion date of the project is 5th May 2013 but it was completed only in December 2013, ie. a delay of 7 months.

This project was implemented by an accredited agency, Uralungal Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd. Municipality approved this work on 20.11.2012 but two and half months were taken for the DPC approval. As this project was being done for the first time under KLGSDP, they had to get special sanction from KLGSDP.




Field observation: According to the officials they had verified the quality of data at the time of mapping. However, the end users though limited in number are not that satisfied as in the case of RTO officials.


No system is arranged for the regular updation of the map which is very important in this project.


Sustainability Field observation: In the present condition, the sustainability of the project is doubtful. Nobody is using this data for development/planning purpose.


Environment safeguard No environmental threat in this project. This can be effectively used for conservation of natural resources.


No, it is a general project.


No major difference from other LG projects except its innovativeness.

Participation General public has not participated in any of the stages of this project.


Only twenty five percent of the beneficiaries are satisfied.

Other information This project is very useful to the municipality. But they are not using this map properly.




Bore well and drinking water distribution at Parappuram area.

Name of the LG Irinjalakuda Muncipality


Category Drinking Water


Description of the Project: The Parapuram area of Irinjalakuda was identified as an area that has been facing water shortage for a long time. Initially, a drinking water scheme was implemented in the Thalenakunnu which is near Parapuram but that could not fully satisfy the needs of about 40 families in the Parapuram area. The former councilor then proposed a drinking water supply scheme under which water from a nearby well was pumped to an overhead tank which was then distributed to the houses in the area. After the water was found to be unfit for drinking, a new drinking water project funded by KLGSDP located opposite to the St Sebastian church, Porathyserry was implemented in ward number 34 in place of the other scheme. The project was aimed to benefit the 40 households in Parapuram area. Under the new drinking water project, a motor was installed and a bore well was dug by the groundwater department. The project was proposed by the Ward Sabhas an add-on to improve its distribution to the already existing facility. Only 10 out of 40 households in the Parappuram area possess a water authority connection while others either use the common municipal tap or they use high cost tanker water. This project would have enabled them to access water at an affordable price. But this project is not functioning at all. The motor has not been given an electricity connection till now and the existing distribution system has not been connected to the new scheme. As no further steps were taken, the project remains non-functional.

Pump and pump house constructed under KLGSDP


Usefulness Field observation: The project is not functioning. The project, if operationalized, will be very useful as the area is experiencing severe water shortage. The project now only has a motor with no electricity connection and a bore well. In the present state, the project is of no use to the community.

Efficiency



Approved By the DPC: Not available.

Technical Sanction Date: Not available.







Actual Completion date of the Project: Not completed

Time taken: Most of the dates have not been mentioned in the documents.


No, the project has not been commissioned yet.


No. The approved cost was Rs.4 lakh which was actually for the distribution system also but decided to use the existing one but that was also not done. The actual cost included the cost for the motor and the bore well only.


The project has not been commissioned.


As the project is not yet commissioned, there is no meaning about saying the system for maintenance.


Sustainability Field observation: As the project is not yet commissioned, there is no meaning about saying the sustainability.

Environment safeguard No issues have been reported.


The project has not been commissioned.


No difference.


Not applicable.

Other information No relevant details are available in the GP about this project.




Construction of Crematorium

Name of the LG Kalamassery Municipality


Category Crematorium


Description of the Project: A new gas crematorium was constructed in Kalamassery Municipality, under KLGSDP. For this, the old crematorium that existed was demolished and an entirely new building was built to accommodate a gas crematorium. The crematorium is situated in ward number 6 of the municipality and is the only one in the municipality. The construction of the 725 metre square building was done through the LSGD E-wing while the gas crematorium plant was outsourced to an accredited agency called COSTFORD. The area adjacent to the crematorium has been used as a dump yard for years. Though, it has been cordoned off to make the compound wall for the crematorium, the stench arising is nauseating. To make matters worse, when the area was dredged for the construction of pillars for Kochi metro, tons of waste was dug out and left near the entrance of the crematorium. Due to this the crematorium is not functioning as of now. The beneficiaries are not aware of the existence of the crematorium and have been using the Kakkanad or Elamakkara crematorium instead. The local people are also not comfortable about cremating their loved ones near a dumping ground and also due to the stench. The municipality has opened up another entrance for the crematorium, as they hope to restore the functioning.

Cremation chambers


Usefulness Field observation: The project if operationalized effectively and is very useful as there is no crematorium in the LG. Presently it is not functioning due to its location, as people are not comfortable to come and cremate their loved ones in the vicinity of a dumping ground. The nausea inducing stench from the dumping ground also discourages the people to come there.

Most of the people in the locality who were met during the survey were not even aware of the existence of this crematorium. They think the location is a dump yard, and said they will depend on crematoriums in the neighboring LGs when need comes.


Efficiency











Time taken No of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 822 days


No of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: 730 days



The project was completed before proposed completion date in the agreement.


It has not overrun the budget estimate.


Only seven percent of the beneficiaries are of the opinion that the quality of the building constructed is good.

Field observation: The quality of the asset created is good, but not being used.


The company namely Costford which had implemented the crematorium had the AMC for the following year which got over this year. Now, the municipality is planning to call a fresh tender for the AMC this year.

Affordability The user fee charged for APL families was Rs.2500 and that for BPL families was Rs.2000.

Sustainability Seventy three percent of the respondents met do not know about the existence of the crematorium.

Field observation: In the present location, the crematorium cannot be termed as sustainable. The close by dumping yard that contributes to the stench and the lack of staff in the crematorium is affecting the functioning of the crematorium. These issues need to be addressed, if the facility is to be functional and then sustained.

Environment safeguard There are no issues like that. However, the dumping ground is creating environmental issues.



This project was carried out to upgrade the existing crematorium. It is beneficial to the community in general.


There were no particular obstacles that the project had to face in its inception and implementation. The only difference they felt was that there was constant monitoring by the KLGSDP District Coordinator.




Seven percent beneficiaries are satisfied.




Completion of Anicode Common Facility Centre

Name of the LG Chittoor Municipality

Category Front office of LG improvement


Approved Cost (Rs. lakh) 8.00 (KLGSDP: 2.47) Actual Cost (Rs. lakh) 7.99 (KLGSDP:2.47)

Description of the Project: Anicode is one of the main centres of Chittoor Municipality. The project under KLGSDP refers to the building of a common facility centre envisaged as a space for public meeting, social and cultural activities centre and a provision store for availing essential commodities in lower prices. A building with 60.17 square metres in total area has been constructed for this purpose. This building is located at Anicode Junction on the Thekkegramam road side. It is a very easily accessible location for the public. The building has been rented out to Supplyco for running a Maveli store, since 14.11.2014.Initially the rent was ₹6470, now it has been raised to₹7441.


Usefulness All (100%) the beneficiaries met said that the project is very useful.

Field observation: The centre is very near to the Anicode Junction. The Maveli store working here is useful to the community. However, the other part of the building is not functioning as a place for public gathering or a cultural centre, as it was actually envisaged initially.

Efficiency


Municipal Council Approved Date: 12.11.2012



Tender Inviting Date: 27.12.2012

Last date of Tender Submission: 07.01.2013

Approval of the Tender: 23.01.2013





No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of invitation of tender submission: 45 days


No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement: Not mentioned

No. of days from the date of agreement to the actual date of completion: 557days


Proposed completion date is not mentioned in the agreement. The project was envisaged as a two years project. But they took three financial years for the completion of this work. According to officials, the delay of work is due to the revision of estimate.




Eighty seven percent of the beneficiaries are of the opinion that the quality of the building constructed is good.

Field observation: The quality of the building constructed under the project was found to be satisfactory on observation.



Affordability No user charge for public. The municipality receives rent from Supplyco. The rent is Rs.7441.


Field observation: Though the facility is functioning as a Supplyco store, it is yet to function as a public gathering place, as envisaged.

Environment safeguard There are no environmental safeguard issues.


It is beneficial as the location of the earlier Maveli store was not easily accessible. But now people belonging to all sections of society are also able to access it without any difficulty.


No differences were noted apart from the proper monitoring steps taken by KLGSDP during implementation of the project.









Improvement to Kothaikunnu Bus Stand

Name of the LG Thodupuzha Municipality


Category Bus Stand/Bus Shelter


Description of the Project: The Kothaikunnu bus stand which is known as the private stand is situated in ward number 28, which is a central location in Thodupuzha Municipality. The bus stand was built in the nineties and caters to about 500-600 buses a day. It is situated in the midst of shopping complexes and hotels and can be easily accessed by people as it has an auto stand and can be considered as a shopping centre also. The concrete floor of the bus stand had started to decay, so it was proposed that the flooring will be completely dug out and fresh concreting will be done. A proposal to revamp the flooring of the bus stand was decided primarily by the Council as a result of the numerous requests by the bus operators and the public. The present day condition of the bus stand is much better than what it used to be, according to the beneficiaries. The quality of concrete laid in the area is very good and would last for a long time. The people are satisfied with the concrete work.


Usefulness All (100%) the beneficiaries have responded positively with respect to the usefulness of the project. Field observation: All of them felt that it was useful and it made the stand better in terms of usability.

Efficiency











Time taken No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of completion of work: 189 days

No. of days from the date of LG approval to the date of inviting Tender : 117 days


No. of days from the date of agreement to the proposed date of completion in the agreement : Not mentioned in the agreement



Date of actual completion is not available.


No.


More than 93% of users are happy with the work done.



Affordability The private bus services pay fees, which will be used to maintain the bus stand in addition to the maintenance fund of the municipality with which they intend to maintain the stand.

Sustainability All (100%) the respondents stated that it would be in a good state for years to come.

Field observation: The LG is planning to maintain it using their maintenance fund. Hence this bus stand will be sustained in the future.

Environment safeguard There are no environment safeguard issues.


It is beneficial to the community as a whole.


There are no significant differences except for some of the norms that need to be followed.








Vayojana Visrama Kendram

Name of the LG Koothuparamb Municipality

Category Vayojana Visrama Kendram


Approved Cost(Rs.lakh) 6.00 (KLGSDP: 5.34) Actual Cost (Rs.lakh) 5.57 (KLGSDP: 5.34)

Description of the Project: The Vayojana Visrama Kendram was constructed by the Koothuparamb Municipality, under KLGSDP, in ward number 25. A rest room for the elderly was functioning on the first floor of municipal bus stand building at Koothuparamb town. However, it was not easy for the elderly to climb the stairs and access the services. So the Municipality decided to relocate the old age rest room to the Government Ayurveda Dispensary building, located a little away from town. The dispensary also did not have a facility for the elderly people coming to the dispensary to sit and wait for their turn. In these circumstances, Municipality planned to build a Vayojana Visrama Kendram near the Govt. Ayurveda Dispensary. Vayojana Visrama Kendram was constructed with one hall, verandah and toilet and shifted furniture from the old resting room.

The project could not achieve its major objective of functioning as a resting place for elderly people, because it is little away from the town and is built on a raised plot of land. This makes it difficult for the elderly to come there. The elderly are now demanding for a new building located in an easily accessible location.

On 15th August 2016 “Vayomitram” (Friend of the aged) Project started in Koothuparamba municipality. Now, this building is being used as the Project office of Vayomitram. In its current functioning, the asset is very useful, though not as a resting room for the aged and it is running well for the same beneficiary group.


Usefulness Twenty percent of the beneficiaries consider the project as useful. Field observation: The asset created under this project is not useful as envisaged. But now as project office of Vayomitram, it is useful. Overall, the project is found to be not that useful as envisaged.

Efficiency












Time taken






No, as per the agreement five months was the construction period but it took more than eight months for completing the project.


No, as it was the lowest quoted Tender, the amount was less than that of estimate. After completion of the project Municipality could save 7% of estimate.


Twenty percent of beneficiaries are of the opinion that the asset is of good quality.

Field observation: Quality of asset created under KLGSDP project is good. But beneficiaries are not satisfied with its functioning.

Overall, the quality of the asset is good, but service bad.



Affordability There is no user cost

Sustainability Thirteen percent of the beneficiaries consider that the project is likely to be maintained in the future.

Field observation: Definitely it will sustain. Even though the project could not succeed as envisaged, the asset will sustain as Vayomitram office.

Overall, the sustainability of the asset is expected.



The project is aimed at the welfare of elderly people.







Twenty seven percent of the beneficiaries are satisfied.


APPENDIX V QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

Quire Number: Serial No. of the Community Questionnaire:

( To be filled in the office)

ENDLINE SURVEY OF KERALA LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY PROJECT (KLGSDP)

A. IDENTIFICATION No. Particulars Code

A1 District and Code ………………………………………………….

A2 Whether Grama Panchayat or Municipality? Grama panchayat ……………………………

Municipality…………………………………...

1

2

A3 Name of the Grama Panchayat/Municipality and

Code.

A4 Ward Number

A5 Booth Number

A6 Name of the Head of the Household

A7 Address

A8 Serial No. of the Head of the Household in the Voters’ list ……………………..

A9 Name of the respondent ………………………………………………………………..

A10 Gender : Male- 1 Female- 2

A11. Age:

A12. Date of Interview D D M M Y Y Y Y

Name

Date

Spot Checked by ______________

______________

Field Edited by ______________

______________

Office Edited by ______________________

______________

Keyed by _________________

_________________

_____________________________________

Name & Signature of the Investigator

___________________________________

Name & Signature of the Supervisor

Salutation! (As considered apt), I am coming from CSES, a research institute based in Kochi. We are conducting a study for assessing

the delivery of services by the Grama Panchayats/Municipalities for the Kerala Local Government Service Delivery Project (KLGSDP).

The survey deals mainly with your opinions about the various services delivered by the Panchayat/ Municipality, your satisfaction with

the same and your suggestions for improving their delivery, etc. Could you please spare a few minutes to answer this questionnaire?

I assure you that the information you provide will be kept confidential and will only be used for research purposes.


B. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF THE HOUSEHOLD AND THE

RESPONDENT

Question and Filters Response Categories and Code SKIP

1. Number of usual residents in the household

Male

Female

Total

2. Main source of income of the household?

Agriculture/livestock……………………………

Daily wage labour ……………………………..

Contract labour ………………………………..

Permanent job-Government ………………....

Permanent job- Private ……………………….

Business/Trade/Self employed ……………...

Employment abroad/ Remittance of a family

member……….. ………………………………

Pension ………………………………….……..

Others (specify) ………………………..………

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3. (BY OBSERVATION ONLY)

Is the home kutcha, semi-pucca or pucca?

Kutcha …………………………………….……

Semi-pucca ………………………….…...…….

Pucca …………………………………………..

1

2

3

4. Does your house have electricity connection?

Yes…………………………………...………….

No………………………………………....……..

1

2

5. What is the main fuel used for cooking?

LPG………………………………..……………

Kerosene…………………………..…………..

Wood…………………………..……………….

Others (Specify)………….……………………

1

2

3

4


6. What is the ownership status of the house?

Owned .………………...………………..….….

Rented .…………………………………………

Rent free.........................................................

1

2

3

7. What is your religion?

Hindu ……………….….……...........................

Muslim ….……………..…………….. ..............

Christian ……………….….. ………................

No religion…………….….. .............................

Others. …………………………………............

1

2

3

4

5

8. What is your caste or tribe?

…………………………………………

Do you belong to a scheduled caste, scheduled

tribe or other backward caste?

Scheduled caste (SC)…….….........................

Scheduled tribe (ST) .……...……….…………

OBC………………………...............................

None of the above....…..…………..................

1

2

3

4

9. Which type of ration card your household has? BPL or APL?

BPL ……………………………...……...... APL..……..…......................................... No Card ………………………………….

1 2 3

C. STREET LIGHTING

10. Are street lights installed in your neighbourhood? Yes………………………………………

No…………………………………….....

1

2

Q.22

11. How do you best describe the regularity of street

lighting in the last one year?

Lit on all days.....................................

Lit on most days................................

Lit on some days.................................

Not lit...................................................

1

2

3

4

Q.16

12. Are the street lights usually switched on at the right

time?

Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

Don’t know…………………………...…

1

2

3


13. Are the street lights usually switched off at the right

time?

Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

Don’t know………………………..……

1

2

3

14. Have you noticed any problem with the street

lighting in the last one year?

Yes………………………….…….……..

No…………………………………..……

1

2

Q.18

15. What was the problem?

No lighting……………………….….…..

Irregular Lighting ………………...…….

Low voltage………………….…….……

Others (specify)……………….….…….

1

2

3

4

16. Had you complained about the problem to anyone?

Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

1

2

Q.18

17. Are you satisfied with the action taken on your

complaint? Yes………………………………………No

……………………. ………………...

No action taken………………………..

1

2

3

18. Are you satisfied with the street lighting in your

neighbourhood?

Yes………………………………………No

……………………. …………………

1

2

Q.20

19.

Are you fully satisfied or partially satisfied?

Fully satisfied……………………….….

Partially satisfied……………….……...

1

2

Q.21

20. Can you please specify the reasons for dissatisfaction (other than the ones mentioned earlier)

21. What are your suggestions for further improving the street lighting services?


D. ROADS

22. Do you have road reaching right upto your house

Yes……………………………………..

No.......................................................

1

2

23. What is the type of road in your neighbourhood?

Tarred.............................................

Concrete.........................................

Kutcha road.....................................

1

2

3

24. How would you rate the present condition of the

road in your neighbourhood?

Good………………………………….…

Average…………………………………

Bad………………………………….…..

1

2

3

25. How would you rate the condition of the road in your neighbourhood during rains?

Good……………………………….……

Average…………………………………

Bad……………………………….……..

1

2

3

26. Do you think that the roads in your neighbourhood

are properly maintained?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

1

2

27. Does the road have a proper side walk?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

1

2

Q.30

28. Do you face any problem in using the side walks?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

1

2

29. If Yes, what are the problems:

30. How effective do you feel has the Panchayat

/Municipality been in controlling pavement

encroachments?

Very effective…………………….…….

Somewhat effective……………….…..

Not effective………………………..

Don’t know………………………….

1

2

3

4


31. Have you noticed any problem with the roads in

your neighbourhood in the last one year? Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

1

2

Q.35

32. What was the problem that you encountered? Difficulty to use during rain………..….

Pot holes………………………………..

Open/partly covered man holes

Improper maintenance………………..

Deep cuttings on sides……………….

Drainage not cleared properly……….

Waste dumped in the drainage………

No draingage…………………………..

Others (specify)………………………..

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

33. Had you complained about the problem to anyone? Yes………………………………….…..

No………………………………….……

1

2

Q.35


complaint?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………. ………………...


1

2

3

35. Are you satisfied with the quality of roads in your

neighbourhood?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………. ………………...

1

2

Q.37

36. Are you fully satisfied or partially satisfied?

Fully satisfied…………………….……

Partially satisfied……………….……..

1

2 Q.38

37. Reasons for dissatisfaction? (other than the ones mentioned earlier)

38. What are your suggestions for further improving the road laying and maintenance services?


E. SANITATION

39. Does the household have own toilet?

Yes …….. ………………………………

No …………………………… …………

1

2

Q.41

40. How is the toilet waste drained?

Piped to sewer system………………..

To septic tank…………………………..

To pit…………………………………….

To water bodies ……………………….

Others (specify)……………………….

1

2

3

4

5

41. Is solid waste collected from your house by

Panchayat / Municipality or any other agency? Yes ……..………………………………

No …………………………… …………

1

2

Q.43

42. What is the method of solid waste disposal you

have adopted?

MULTIPLE RESPONSES POSSIBLE

Composting....................................

Bio-digester/Bio-gas Plant …………

Dumped in the compound..............

Dumped outside.............................

Burnt.............................................

Others (specify)..............................

1

2

3

4

5

6

Q. 45

ASK Q. 43-44 ONLY IF THE HOUSEHOLD WASTE IS COLLECTED BY THE LSGI/OTHERS

43. How often is the waste collected from your house?

Daily......................................

Once in two days..................

Less often.............................

1

2

3

44. Do you pay for waste collection?

Yes………………………………

No……………………………

1

2

45. Do you segregate waste into degradable and non-

degradable before disposing?

Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

1

2


46. How do you dispose your e-Waste ?

Collected Separatly………………….

Collected with other waste……………

Sells…………………………………….

Dumped in the compound…………..

Dumped outside the compound…..

Burnt …………………………………

No e-Waste……………………………

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

47. Where does the waste water from the kitchen go?

Soak pit.......................................

Drained to the drainage channel....

Drained to the backyard................

Drained to the water bodies...........

Drained outside the compound......

Re-used/recycled.........................

Others (specify)..............................

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

48. Where does the waste water from the bathroom go?

Soak pit.......................................

Drained to the drainage channel....

Drained to the backyard................

Drained to the water bodies...........

Drained outside the compound......

Re-used/recycled.........................

No bathroom..................................

Others (specify)..............................

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

49. Are there drainage channels near your house?

Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

1

2

Q.51

50. How often are the drainage channels cleared?

Frequently......................................

2-3 times a year ............................

Only before monsoon....................

Never cleaned...............................

Newly Constructed........................

1

2

3

4

5

51. Does your locality experience water logging? Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

1

2


52. How do you rate the overall cleanliness of your

neighbourhood?

Good…………………………………

Average…………………………………

Bad………………………………………

No opinion………………………………

1

2

3

4

53. Are the public places in the Panchayat/Municipality

regularly cleaned? Yes…………………………………..

No……………………………………

Don’t know………………. …………

1

2

3

54. Is there adequate number of waste bins in public places?

Yes…………………………………..

No……………………………………

No waste bins………………. ….

1

2

3

Q.56

55. Are they regularly cleared?

Yes…………………………………..

No……………………………………

Don’t Know…………………………

1

2

3

56. Do you observe waste dumped in your locality?

Yes…………………………………..

No……………………………………

1

2

57. How would you rate the cleanliness of the local

market in your panchayat/municipality? Good………………………………….

Average………………………………

Bad……………………………………

No opinion /No market……………

1

2

3

4

58. How would you rate the cleanliness of the public

places in your Panchayat/Municipality?

Good………………………………….

Average………………………………

Bad……………………………………

No opinion……………………………

1

2

3

4


59. Do you think that the Panchayat/Municipality has

sufficient public toilets?

Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

Don’t know ………………………….

1

2

3

60. How do you rate the cleanliness and maintenance

of the public toilets in your Panchayat/Municipality?

Good…………………………………

Average…………………………………

Bad………………………………………

Don’t know/No public toilet……………

1

2

3

4

61. Have you experienced/noticed any problem related to waste management in the last one year?

Yes…………………………………..

No…………………………………..

1

2

Q.65


Dumping of wastes in open spaces…

No/irregular collection from

households……………………………

No way to dispose waste…………….

Blocked drains…………………….

No waste treatment……………………

Others (specify)…………………….

1

2

3

4

5

6

63. Had you complained about the problem to anyone? Yes………………………………………

No………………………………………..

1

2

Q. 65



……………………. ………………...


1

2

3

65. Are you satisfied with the waste management in the

Panchayat/Municipality? Yes……..……………………………..

No…………..………………………….

1

2 Q.67



Fully satisfied……………………….

Partially satisfied…………………...

1

2

Q.68


68. Suggestions for further improving the waste management system in the Panchayat/Municipality

F. WATER SUPPLY

69.

What is your main source of drinking water?

Well/borewell in the compound...........

Tap/well/borewell at neighbouring

house………………………………

Buying water...................................

Public tap.......................................

Public well/borewell..........................

Piped water (tap at home)..............

Tanker (public)....................................

Others (specify)..............................

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Q. 82

Q.75

Q.82

70.

How far is the public tap/well/borewell from your

house? (in metres)

Distance

71.

Who usually collects water from public sources? Is

it a male member or female member?

Male member………………………….

Female Member……………………….

Both……………………………………

1

2

3


72. How much time you usually have to wait in queue to

collect water from public sources?

Do not have to wait/no queue.............

Wait less than 15 minutes..............

16-30 minutes................................

More than 30 minutes……………..

1

2

3

4

Skip to Q.75

if coded 4 in

Q.69

ASK Q.73-74 ONLY IF SOURCING WATER FROM PUBLIC WELL/BOREWELL, IF PUBLIC TAP GO TO Q.75

73. Is the public well covered?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

Not Applicable………………………….

1

2

3

74. Is it regularly chlorinated?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

Don’t know……………………………

Not Applicable………………………….

1

2

3

4

Q.82

ASK Q. 75-79 ONLY IF SOURCING WATER FROM PUBLIC TAPS/ TANKER/TAP WATER AT HOME

75. Do you get water on all days or on some specified

days of the week?

On all days..........................................

On some days in a week.....................

1

2

Q.77

76. On how many days a week?

Number of Days

77. Is water available throughout the day or only during

certain hours?

Certain hours....................................

Throughout the day...........................

Don’t Know…………………………….

1

2

3

Q. 79

78. How many hours do you get water supply usually?

Number of hours


79. How is the pressure of water flow? Adequate.....................................

Inadequate..................................

Not applicable..............................

1

2

3

Skip to Q.82

if coded 6 or

7 in Q.69

ASK Q. 80-81 ONLY IF SOURCING WATER FROM PUBLIC TAPS

80.

Number of breakdowns of public tap which you

usually use in the last one year?

Number of breakdowns

If 0 break

down Go to

Q.82

81.

Number of days taken to repair the same during the

last breakdown.

Number of Days

82. How would you rate the quality of water?

Good…………………………………

Average……………………………..

Bad……………………………………

No opinion/Don’t know………………

1

2

3

4

83. Do you face shortage of water?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

1

2

Q. 88

84. Is the shortage of water experienced throughout the

year or mainly during summer? Throughout the year…………………

During summer……………………….

1

2

85. Did the Panchayat/Muncipality intervene to solve the

drinking water shortage?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

Don’t Know ………………………….

1

2

3

Q. 88

86. What were the measures taken by the

Panchayat/Muncipality to solve the drinking water

shortage?


87. How effective do you think the Panchayat

/Municipality been in ensuring water supply during

the period of water scarcity?

Very effective……………………….

Somewhat effective………………..

Not effective………………………..

Don’t know………………………….

1

2

3

4

(Q.Nos.88-91 to be asked in all households except those coded 4, 5, 6 or 7 in Q.69. Else Go to Next

Section-Q. 92.

88. Have you faced any problem with respect to water in

the last one year?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………………………….

1

2

Q.96

89. What were the problems that you encountered?

(More than one response possible)

Shortage of water………………….

Irregular supply…………………….

Unclear water……………………….

Bad taste……………………………

Bad odour…………………………...

Others (Specify)……………………

1

2

3

4

5

6


Yes…………………………………..

No……………………………………

1

2

Q.92



……………………. ………………...


1

2

3

92. Are you satisfied with the overall quality of water

supply?

Yes……..……………………………..

No…………..………………………….

1

2

Q.94





1

2

Q.95


95. Suggestions for further improvement of the water supply system:

G. OTHER CIVIC AMENITIES

96. Have you noticed any change in

infrastructure/facilities available in your

panchayat/municipality since 2011-12?

Yes ……….….1

No …………...2

Don’t know…..3

Park…………………………………..

Play ground………………………….

Bus shelter/waiting shed/Bus stand.

Crematorium………………………..

Community hall…………………….

Market……………………………….

Public toilet ………………………….

Facilities for elderly…………………

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

H. HEALTH

Sl.No. Question and Filters Options Codes Skips

97. Do you feel that the Panchayat/Muncipality has

undertaken measures to eradicate communicable

diseases such as dengue, rat fever, etc in an effective

manner?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..…………………………

Don’t know……………………………..

1

2

3


98. Do you feel that the Panchayat/Muncipality has

undertaken measures to control spread of

mosquitoes?

Yes……..……………………………….

No…………..…………………………..

Don’t know……………………………..

1

2

3

99. Has any member of your household visited any Govt.

health facility for treatment during the last one year?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..………………………….

1

2

Q.128

100. Which type of health facility?

(If more than one health facility approached by the

household members, take the case of PHC in

Panchayat and of CHC/Taluk hospital in

Municipality)

PHC …………………………………….

CHC ……………………………………

Taluk Hospital …………………………

Govt.Ayurveda hospital……………….

Govt.Homoeopathic hospital…………

District Hospital/Govt. Medical College

Others…………………………………..

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Q.128

101. How far is the health facility from the house?

Distance in Meters.

102. Was the doctor not available any time of your visit in

the last one year?

Not available atlease once………….

Available always…………………….

1

2

103. Was there a token system in the health facility?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..…………………………..

1

2

104. How much time did you have to wait last time before

meeting the doctor for consultation?

Minutes

105. Was it acceptable to you?

Yes……..………………….……………

No…………..…………………………

Don’t know/No opinion………………..

1

2

3


106. Could you get adequate time to explain to the doctor

your health problem in detail?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..………………………

Don’t know/No opinion………………..

1

2

3

107. Was the level of privacy in consultation sufficient?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..………………………….

Don’t know/Not required ..…………..

1

2

3

108.

Did you have to source any of the following from

outside the health facility during the last one year? Yes

No/ Not

required Don’t know

A. Medicines

1 2 3

B. Disposables such as syringe/cotton/ bandage/

gloves, etc 1 2 3

B. Lab tests 1 2 3

D. Diagnostics such as X-ray, ECG, USS, MRI,etc 1 2 3

109. Did the health facility have sufficient seating facilities?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..………………………….

Don’t Know……………………………

1

2

3

110. Is the drinking water available in the health facility?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..…………………………

Don’t know………….. ………………..

1

2

3

111. Did the health facility have toilet facility for patients?

Yes……..……………………………

No…………..………………………….

Don’t know/………….. ……………….

1

2

3

112. During the last one year were you/family member

treated as an inpatient in a Govt.hospital in your

Panchayath/Muncipality?

Yes……….………………………….

No…….. …………………………….

1

2

Q.117

113. For what disease ?

( If morethan once, then get the details of last IP

treatment.)


114. Were these facilities given to you by the health facility? Yes No

a) Cot 1 2

b) Mattress 1 2

c) Bed sheet 1 2

d) Pillow 1 2

e) Pillow cover 1 2

f) Stool/chair for bystander 1 2

g) Food 1 2

115. Were you given timely and proper nursing care? Yes……..……………………………

No…………..…………………………

1

2

116. Did you receive proper attention from doctors?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..…………………………

1

2

117. How do you rate the cleanliness of the health facility?

Good……………………………………

Average………………………………

Bad……………………………………..

1

2

3

118. Are you satisfied with the behavior of staff in the health

facility? Yes……..……………………………..

No…………..…………………………

1

2

Q 120


Fully satisfied…………………...…..…

Partially satisfied……………….……..

1

2

120. Did you face any problem in the health facility during

last one year?

Yes…………..……………………….

No………..……………………………

1

2

Q.124


121. What were the problems that you encountered?


{

Yes…………..………………………

No…………..…………………………

1

2

Q.124


complaint? Yes……………………………….

No……………………. …………..

No action taken………………………

1

2

3

124. Are you satisfied with the overall services of the health

facility? Yes……..……………………………

No…………..………………………

1

2

Q.126




1

2

Q.127


127. What are your suggestions for further improving the services from the health facility?


I. SCHOOLS

Sl.No Question and Filters Options Codes Skips

128. Is there any child in the household who is studying in

the Government School in this

Panchayat/Municipality?

Yes……..………………………………

No…………..…………………………

1

2

Q. 143

129. Which class is he/she studying?

(If more than one child is studying, take the details of

the eldest child studying in the Government school in

the GP/Municipality)

Class

If Class VIII

or above

In Panchayat

go to Q. 143

130. Are classes held regularly in the school?

Yes..………..…………………………

No…………..…………………………

Don’t know…………………………..

1

2

3

131. Do you feel that the school has the following for the

children? Yes No Don’t know

a. Sufficient space inside classrooms 1 2 3

b. Sufficient furniture 1 2 3

c. Sufficient playground 1 2 3

d. Sufficient learning materials 1 2 3

e. Sufficient reading materials and books in the library 1 2 3

f. Sufficient urinals and toilets 1 2 3

g. Safe drinking water 1 2 3

h. Facilities for arts, sports and games 1 2 3

i. Computer lab 1 2 3

j. Well equipped laboratories 1 2 3

132. Does your child take noon meal given from the

school? Yes……..…………………………….. 1

No…………..………………………… 2

Q.134


133. Is it given regularly?

Yes..………..………………………… 1

No…………..………………………… 2

Don’t know………………………….. 3

134. How many times did you or anyone in your family

attend PTA/MPTA meetings in the school in this

academic year?

Number

135. Have you had any problem with the schooling of your

child in this academic year? Yes……..……………………………. 1

No…………..………………………… 2

Q.139

136. What was the problem that you encountered?


Yes……..…………………………….. 1

No…………..………………………… 2

Q.139


complaint?

Yes…………………………………

No……………………. ……………...

No action taken………………………

1

2

3

139. Are you satisfied with the overall quality of schooling

received by your child?

Yes……..…………………………….. 1

No…………..………………………… 2

Q.141




1

2

Q.142



142. What are your suggestions for improving the services?

J. ANGANWADIS

Sl.No.

Question and Filters Options Codes Skips

143. Is any member of the household a beneficiary of

the Anganwadi ?

Yes..………..…………………………

No…………..…………………………

1

2

Q. 179

144. How far is the Anganwadi from the house? (In

mtr)

Distance in mtrs

145. Do you feel that the Anganwadi is located in an

easily accessible location?

Yes..………..…………………………

No…………..…………………………

1

2

146. In which category are the beneficiaries?

(More than one beneficiary possible)

Aged 3-6 years ……………………...

Aged below 3 years…………………

Pregnant woman…………………….

Lactating mother (up to 6months)

Adolescent girl (11-18 years)………

1

2

3

4

5

J1,J2, J3, J5,

J2,J3, J5

J2, J4, J5

J2, J4, J5

J4, J5


SUB- SECTION J-1 PRE- SCHOOL FOR 3-6 YEARS

147. Does the Anganwadi function on all days?

On all days……………………………

On most days………………………...

On some days………………………..

1

2

3

148. Is the teacher in the Anganwadi regular in

attendance?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

Don’t know…………………………….

1

2

3

149. Do you feel that the Anganwadi has sufficient

space for the children inside the building?

Yes……………………………………. 1

No……………………………………… 2

Don’t know……………………………. 3


space for the children outside the building?

Yes……………………………………. 1

No……………………………………… 2

Don’t know……………………………. 3

151. Do you feel that your child is safe in the

Anganwadi?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

Don’t know…………………………….

1

2

3


facilities for learning?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

Don’t know…………………………….

1

2

3

153. Do you feel that the child gets individual attention

from the teacher?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

Don’t know…………………………….

1

2

3



facilities for playing?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

Don’t know…………………………….

1

2

3

155. Does the child regularly access the playing

materials?

Regularly……………………………..

Sometimes……………………………

Never………………………………….

Don’t Know……………………………

1

2

3

4

156. Does the Anganwadi provide safe drinking water

to the children?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

Don’t know…………………………….

1

2

3

157. Does the Anganwadi have a toilet for the children? Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

Don’t know…………………………….

1

2

3

158. Are you satisfied with the quality of pre-school

education in the Anganwadi?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

1

2

Q.160




1

2

SUB-SECTION J-2: SUPPLEMENTARY NUTRITION(ALL EXCEPT ADOLESCENT GIRLS)

160. Is the supplementary nutrition provided in the

Anganwadi on all working days?

On all days……………………………..

On most days………………………….

On some days…………………………

Don’t know……………………………..

1

2

3

4

161. Is there a kitchen in the Anganwadi?

Yes…………………………………….

No……………………………………..

Don’t know……………………………

1

2

3

Q. 163

162. How do you rate the cleanliness of the kitchen? Good …………………………………….

Average ………………………………..

Bad………..……………………………

Don’t know/No opinion………………

1

2

3

4



facilities for cooking?

Yes…………………………………….

No……………………………………..

Don’t know……………………………

1

2

3

164. Are you satisfied with the supplementary nutrition

programme in the Anganwadi?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

1

2

Next

relevant

section




1

2

Next

relevant

section

SUB-SECTION J-3: ASK 0-6 YEARS

166. Is there regular growth monitoring of the child by

the Anganwadi?

Yes..………..…………………………

No…………..…………………………

Don’t Know ………………………….

1

2

3

167. Is there regular immunization monitoring of the child

by the Anganwadi?

Yes..………..…………………………

No…………..…………………………

Don’t Know ………………………….

1

2

3

SUB-SECTION J-4: CLASSES FOR ADOLESCENT GIRLS, PREGNANT WOMEN AND LACTATING MOTHERS

168. Are classes held for you in the Anganwadi?

Yes, often………………………………

Yes, sometimes………………………..

No……………………………………….

Don’t know……………………………..

1

2

3

4

Q.171

169. Are you satisfied with the classes organized for you

in the Anganwadi?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

1

2

Q.171




1

2


SUB-SECTION J-5: GENERAL

171. Have you had any problem with the services of the

Anganwadi in the last one year?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

1

2

Q.175


173. Had you complained about the problem to anyone? Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

1

2

Q.175


complaint? Yes………………………………………

No……………………. ………………...


1

2

3

175. Are you satisfied with the overall functioning of the

Anganwadi?

Yes…………………………………….

No………………………………………

1

2

Q.177




1

2

Q. 178


178. What are your suggestions for further improving the services of Anganwadi?


K. SERVICE DELIVERY FROM PANCHAYAT/MUNICIPALITY

OFFICES

Sl.No. Question and Filters Options Codes Skips

179. Have you approached the

Panchayath/Municipality Office for any

service/certificate during the past one year?

Yes …………………………………..

No…………………………………….

1

2

Q.208

180. For which service/certificate had you approached

the Panchayat/Muncipality

(If applied for more than one service/certificate,

take the case of the last one)

No objection certificate ……………….

Residential certificate ………………..

Birth certificate ………………..………

Death certificate ………………………

Certificate of ownership of building …

BPL certificate …………………………

Marriage registration certificate ……..

Receipt of welfare pension…………..

For benefit under non-pension welfare

scheme ………………………

Unemployment certificate ……………

Payment of tax…………………………

Others (specify) ……………………….

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

181. Was there an enquiry counter (Front Office) when

you approached the first time for getting

information?

Yes …………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

Don’t know…………………………

1

2

3

182. Did the staff in the Panchayat/Muncipality provide

the information that you sought?

Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

No opinion/comments……………

1

2

3


183. Did you submit an application for receiving the

service?

Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

Not required…………………………

1

2

3

Q.185

184. Were you given any acknowledgement from the

office while receiving the application? Yes ……………………………….…..

No ………………………………..…..

Don’t Remember…………………….

1

2

3

185. Were you given any time frame for the service to

be delivered?

Yes …………………………………….

No ……………………………………….

1

2

Q.187

186. Was the service delivered in the said time frame? Yes …………………………….……..

No …………………………………….

1

2

Q.188

187. Have you received the service?

Yes ……………………………………

No ………………………………………

1

2

Q.189

188. In how many days was the service delivered? Number of days

189. How many times did you visit the office for the

same?

Number of Times

190. How many persons in the office have you

approached to get the service?

Number of Persons

191. Did you have to make any other payment (other

than fees)? Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

1

2

192. Did you face any problem during the last time

when you sought a service from the

Panchayat/Muncipality office?

Yes …………………………….……..

No…………………………….…..…..

1

2

Q.196



194. Had you complained about the problem to

anyone?

Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

1

2

Q.196


complaint?

Yes………………………………………

No……………………. ………………...


1

2

3

196. Are you satisfied with the behavior of the staff in

the Panchayat /Municipality office? Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

1

2

Q.198

197. Are you fully satisfied or partially satisfied? Fully satisfied……………………

Partially satisfied ……………….

1

2

Q.199

198. What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction?

199. Does the office have sufficient seating facilities in

the waiting area for the citizens?

Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

Don’t remember/know………………

1

2

3

200. Does the office provide access for citizens to

toilets?

Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

Don’t know…………………………

1

2

3

201. Does the office provide access for citizens to

drinking water?

Yes …………………………….……..

No …………………………….……..

Don’t know ……………………….

1

2

3


202. Have you seen the Panchayat /Municipality’s

citizen charter displayed in the office?

Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

1

2

203. Have you seen a complaint box/ book/ grievance

redressal cell in the office? Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

1

2

204. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the services

of the Panchayat /Municipality office? Yes…………………………….……..

No…………………………….……..

1

2

Q.206

205. Are you fully satisfied or partially satisfied? Fully satisfied………………………

Partially satisfied……………………

1

2

Q.207

206. What are the reasons for your dissatisfaction?

207. What are your suggestions for improving the service delivery of the Panchayat /Municipality office?


L. RESPONSIVENESS OF THE LSGI TOWARDS THE ENVIRONMENT

Sl.No Question and Filters Options Codes Skips

208. Do you think that the Panchayat / Municipality while

taking up development projects tries to minimise its

negative impact on environment?

Yes…………………………

No……………………………

Don’t know/No opinion……

1

2

3

209. Do you think that the Panchayat / Municipality takes

adequate measures to protect the water bodies in the

area?

Yes…………………………

No…………………………

No waterbodies…………….


1

2

3

4

210. Do you think that the Panchayat/Muncipality takes

adequate measures to protect other natural resources?

Yes…………………………

No……………………………


1

2

3


adequate measures to preserve the greenery in the

area?

Yes…………………………

No…………………………


1

2

3

212. Do you think that the panchayat / Municipality takes

measures for Energy conservation such as Solar panels,

energy saving devices etc.

Yes…………………………

No…………………………


1

2

3


adequate measures towards pollution control?

Yes…………………………

No…………………………


1

2

3

214. Was there any problem related to environment

degradation in the Panchayat / Municipality in the last

one year?

Yes…………………………

No…………………………

1

2

Q.218




Yes…………………………

No…………………………

1

2

Q.218

217. Are you satisfied with the action taken on your complaint? Yes………………………………

No……………………. …………

No action taken………………..

1

2

3

218. Are you satisfied with the responsiveness of the

Panchayat /Municipality towards safeguarding the

environment?

Yes……………………………

No……………………………..

Don’t Know/ No Opinion……

1

2

3

Q.220

Q.221


Fully satisfied…………………

Partially satisfied……………..

1

2

Q. 221

220. Reasons for dissatisfaction?

221. What do you think can be done by the Panchayat / Municipality to safeguard the environment?

M.RESPONSIVENESS TO THE NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY

222. Is any member of the household aged above 60

years?

Yes…………………………………………..

No……………………………………………

1

2

Q.234

223. Is any elderly member in the family a beneficiary of

the welfare pension schemes?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

Q.225


224. Does he/she get pension payments regularly? Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

225. Does the Panchayat / Municipality organise any

programme for the welfare of the elderly? Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

Don’t know………………...

1

2

3

Q.228

226. Has any member of the household attended any

such programme?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

Q.228

227. Can you please give details of the programme

228. Has the Panchayat / Municipality implemented any

programme to help the care givers in caring the

elderly?

Yes………….. ………………

No………………… ……………

Don’t know………………...

1

2

3

Q.233

229. Has any member of the household attended any

such programme?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

Q.233

230. Can you please give details of the programme

231. Is any elderly member of the household a

beneficiary of palliative care service of the

Panchayat / Municipality?

Not required …………………….

Yes ………………………………

No ……………………………….

1

2

3

232. Is any of the member of the houdehod a beneficiary

of the home based health care services extended by

the Panchayat/Municipality?

Not required …………………….

Yes ………………………………

No ……………………………….

1

2

3


233. What do you think can be done by the Panchayat/ Municipality for the welfare of elderly ?

N.PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS Awareness and participation in the LSG planning and budgeting and in the activities of Community Based Organisations

Question and Filters Code/Response Categories Skip To

234. Have you voted in the last

Panchayat/Muncipality election?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

235. Who is your ward member/councillor?

Yes ………………… ………………

Dont know ………………… ……………

1

2

Q. 238

236. Have you ever contacted/approached the ward

member/councillor on any issue?

Yes………….. …………………………

No………………… ……………………

1

2

Q.238

237. Was the need resolved satisfyingly?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

No comments……………………….

1

2

3

238. Who is your LSGI President/Chairperson?

Yes …………………………………

Dont know ……………………….……

1

2

239. Who from the family usually attends the

Gramasabha/Wardsabha meeting?

Female member ……………………..

Male member ………………………..

Both ………………………………….

None……………………….

1

2

3

4

Q 243

240. Have you attended Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha

meetings in the last one year?

Yes ………………………………...

No……………………….………………

Not convened ……………………….…

Not aware of grama Sabha/ward Sabha .

1

2

3

4

Q.243

241. What was the topic undertaken for discussion in the last gramasabha meeting?


242. Had you voiced your opinions on the topic at

the meeting?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

243. Do you feel that the opinions expressed by the

general public during the gramasabha meetings

are taken into regard?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

No comments/opinion ……………….

1

2

3

244. Do you feel the selection/identification of

beneficiaries for various LSGI welfare schemes

is transparent and democratic?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

No comments/opinion ………………

1

2

3

245. Do you face any challenges/problems in

demanding services from the local government?

Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

Q. 247

246. If yes, What all?

247. Is anyone from your household a member of

any Self Help Group? Yes………….. ……………………….

No………………… …………………..

1

2

Q. 249

248. Which Self Help Group

Kudumbashree …………………….

Others ………………………………

1

2

249. Is anyone in the household a member of any

farmers group?

Yes …….……………………………….

No …………… ……………………….

1

2

250. Is the household a member of Resident

Association ?

Yes …….……………………………….

No …………… ……………………….

1

2


251. Have you heard of KLGSDP/ Thaddesamithram

?

Yes …….……………………………….

No …………… ……………………….

1

2

End

252. In what context have you heard of it?

253. Has interventions under Thaddesamithram/

KLGSDP impacted your life in any way?

Very much …………………………..

Somewhat……………………………

Not at all…………………………….

1

2

3

254. Can you please elaborate your answer?

Thank you for your time and co-operation.


APPENDIX VI

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNITY SURVEY

Quire Number:

(To be filled in Office)


(TO BE FILLED BY INTERVIEWING APPROPRIATE STAKEHOLDERS AT THE LG AND WARD LEVEL)

No. Particulars Code

A1. Name of the Grama

Panchayat/municipality

A2. Grama Panchayath or Municipality Grama panchayat ……………………………


1

2

A3. District

A4. Address (Specifying direction to the office, indicating a nearest landmark/junction)

A5. Wards selected for household

survey:

A. B.

C.


Name

Date

Code

Spot Checked by

______________

______________

_______________

Field Edited by

________________

________________

________________

Office Edited by

________________

________________

________________

Keyed by

________________

________________

_________________

_____________________________________


___________________________________



ABOUT THE SELECTED WARD

No Question/Data to be captured Responses/ codes

1. Name of the ward member /councillor

2.

Tel. No Mobile:

Home:

3.

Gender of the member/councillor Male……………1

Female………..2

4. Number of years of schooling of the

member/councillor

5.

What is your caste or tribe?

…………………………………………

Do you belong to a scheduled caste, scheduled

tribe or other backward caste?

Scheduled caste (SC).......... 1

Scheduled tribe (ST) .……...2

OBC…………………………3

None of the above....…..……4

Data for Q. Nos 6-10, collect from the GP/Municipality office (supplemented by information from the ward member/councillor)

6. Total Population in the ward

7. SC Population (If not number, approximate share in the population)

8. ST population (If not number, approximate share in the population)

9. Number of households

10. Number of BPL households(If not number, approximate share in the total households)

11. Distance to LSG panchayat/municipal office (in kilometres)


12. Is the ward located in the sea coast? Yes………………1 No……………….2

a. Whether these facilities are available in the ward

Yes…1 No….2 b. If not available, distance to the nearest facility (in Km)

13. Government Lower Primary School 1 2

14. Government Upper Primary School 1 2

15. Government High School 1 2

16. Government Higher Secondary School 1 2

17. Government Vocational Higher Secondary School 1 2

18. Sub-Centre 1 2

19. Primary Health Centre (PHC) 1 2

20. Community Health Centre (CHC) 1 2

21. Taluk hospital 1 2

22. Private Hospital 1 2

23. Private doctor/clinic 1 2

24. Anganwadi 1 2

25. Tarred Road 1 2

26. Bus service 1 2

27. Boat service 1 2

28. Street lighting 1 2

29. Telephone Land line 1 2

30. Mobile phone connectivity (range) 1 2


31. Public taps 1 2 NA

32. Public Well 1 2

33. Facility used by majority of the households in the ward

for availing:

Government-1 Private -2

a) Pre-school education 1 2

b) School education 1 2

c) Health care 1 2

34. Does the Panchayat/Municipality face

shortage of drinking water?

Yes………………1

No……………….2

Details on changes happend in the ward due to KLGSDP

35 Name of the respondents other than the elected representatives, designation and their contact phone numbers

1.

2.

36 What do you think are the changes in the

Panchayat/municipality due to the implementation

of KLGSDP projects in terms of the following: Give

reasons for the responses.

a. Improving accountability

b. Improving transparency

c. People’s participation in project

planning

d. People’s participation in project

implementation

e. People’s participation in grama

Sabha/ward Sabha?

37 1. Has there been any noticeable improvement in the following sectors in the GP/municipality during the last four years? If yes, was it because of KLGSDP fully or partially?

2. In what ways did KLGSDP change the status of the panchayat/municipality in the sector?

1. KLGSDP Impact

Yes, fully..........1

Yes, partially....2

No ...................3

Don’t know......4

2. How KLGSDP changed the status?

a) Road infrastructure


b) Water supply

c) Sanitation/waste management (household composting, bio-gas, plastic recycling etc.)

d) Health Care

e) Education

f) Anganwadis

g) Services of the LG office

h) Vulnerable groups (Elderly, mentally and physically challenged, destitute)

i) Energy conservation and Renewable energy (use of energy efficient devices, solar power etc.)

j) Home services for bed ridden patients, palliative care etc.

k) Women

l) Conservation of natural resources

m) Any other sector

38 Has there been any improvement in the quality of

services delivered by the LG due to the

implementation of KLGSDP? If yes, how?

39 Can you please cite the examples of projects which

improved access to any service delivered by the

LG?

40 Can you please cite the examples of projects which

improved the quality of the existing service

delivered by the LG?

41 Has the implementation of KLGSDP projects

changed the way in which you plan other projects in

any way? If yes, in what all ways?

42 What do you think are the strengths and

weaknesses of the KLGSDP vis a vis other projects

of the panchayat/municipality in terms of planning

and implementation? Please elaborate

43 According to you, what changes in KLGSDP would

have improved its impact on the people in your

locality?


FOR STAKEHOLDERS AT THE WARD LEVEL

44 Was any KLGSDP project implemented in the

ward?

45 Which projects were implemented in the ward ?

Please get the list.

46 Which KLGSDP projects implemented outside the

ward were beneficial to the people of the ward?

47 What are the changes in the ward due to

implementation of the KLGSDP project?

48 Whether women in the ward participated in the

planning stage of identification of projects using

KLGSDP funds?

49 Number of Grama Sabha meetings held in your

ward in 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15?

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

50 Number of people who attended the last grama

sabha/ward Sabha meeting

51 Number of women attended in the last grama

sabha/ward Sabha meeting


APPENDIX VII

CHECKLIST FOR COLLECTING DATA ON SAMPLE PROJECT

Quire Number:

(To be filled in Office)


No. Particulars Code

A1. Name of the Grama Panchayat/municipality

A2. Grama Panchayath or Municipality Grama panchayat ……………………………


1

2

A3 Name of project

A4 Sector of project

A5 Type of project/intervention

A6 Description of the Project

A7. Location details (Specifying the ward, indicating a nearest landmark/junction)

A8 Date of Interview D D M M Y Y Y Y

A9. Name of the respondent/s, designation and contact phone nos.

Name Designation Contact Phone No.s


PROJECT INFORMATION

PART A: TO BE COLLECTED FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE LG/PLAN CLERK

1. How was the need for this project identified? (Ask whether the need came from

the Grama/Ward Sabha or the elected members etc.)? Was it through the

normal planning process or done separately?

2. Was the project part of annual action plan?

3. If not, Why it was included at a later stage?

4. Was there a mechanism to identify the priorities of the citizens? If yes, whether

this intervention was identified based on this?

5. Whether there was any mechanism to engage citizens in project design and

implementation? If yes, what were they?

6. 6Whether the project was discussed in the development seminar?

7. 7Who prepared the project/ DPR? (If more than one person is involved record the

details of all)

8. 6Whether the personnel involved received any special training to prepare

KLGSDP Project/DPR? (Please give details about the persons trained and the

training institution.)

9. Who gave technical sanction?

10. 7Details of timeliness in planning and implementing the project. Collect dates of completion of different key milestones in the planning and

implementation stages of the project. Proposed dates are to be collected from the DPR if available and the completion dates are to be collected

from the records available in the LG office.

Milestone Date of proposed completion

Actual date of completion

No. of days of delay

Reason for the delay

a. Approval by the LG committee

b. Approval by the DPC (Please Check whether the DPC asked for resubmission-Need with in 20 days after AS)

c. Technical Sanction (Need with in 15 days after DPC)

d. Invitation of Tender

e. Tender submission (last date)

f. Approval of tender

g. Agreement/ order

h. Completion/ supply (Proposed date can be taken from the agreement )

I Commisioning/ Inauguration

11 Whether tendered? If yes, number of tenders received.

12 If not tendered, how was the project implemented?

13 Whether the project has been completed as a spill over project? If yes, record the

details and the reasons for spill over. (Ask to Sec)

14 Were you aware of the fund availability during Annual plan preparation? (Ask to

Sec)


15 Has there been any difference in the procedures which affect the time taken for

completion of KLGSDP projects in comparison with other LG projects? (Ask to

Sec)

16 If yes, what were the differences? How it affected the overall timelines? If more

time was required, why? If less time was taken for KLGSDP projects, what were

the reasons? (Ask to Sec)

17 Approved cost of the project (Rs.) (If revised, take the revised cost)

18 Actual cost incurred (Rs.)

19 If there is cost escalation, collect the reasons for that and how the additional funds

were raised?

20 If the actual cost is less than the approved cost, collect the details on how they

could manage this?

21 Has there been any difference between the costing of KLGSDP projects and other

LG projects? (Ask to Sec)

22 If yes, what were the differences? How it affected the overall cost of the project?

If a higher cost was required, why? Did the increased cost lead to changes in the

quality of the intervention? Please give details. (Ask to Sec)

23 Has there been any change in the way LG undertakes non-KLGSDP projects

due to KLGSDP systems and procedures in project planning, cost effectiveness

and to bring in accountability in project management. If yes, give details. (Ask

to Sec)

24 Please specify whether the project faced any obstacles -financial,

administrative, and managerial. If yes, please give details. Specify to what

extent this has affected efficiency of project planning and implementation. (Ask

to Sec)

25 Whether there are any areas where possible efficiencies could be gained. (Ask

to Sec)

26 Target population/ number of beneficiaries/ households envisaged for the

project? Get the number of beneficiaries belonging to SC/ST and women and

BPL. (If not in record ask to any of the stakeholders)

Target population/ Beneficiaries/Target HHs

SC/ST Population

BPL Population

Women Population

27 How does the LG ensure continued financial support for the maintenance of the

assets built

28 Whether there is a mechanism in the LG to include the preferences of women

and vulnerable groups while selecting projects and designing projects? If yes,

please give details? (Ask to Member/Sec)

29 Is any fees charged to use/access the facility created by the project? If yes,

how much?

PART B: FEEDBACK FROM KEY STAKEHOLDERS SUCH AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE LG/ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WARD WHERE THE INTERVENTION IS IMPLEMENTED, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDERS

30 Please describe how the project is useful to the community?


31 Is the project useful to women/girls? If yes, how?

32 Is the project useful to poor, SC/ST and other vulnerable sections? If yes, how?

33 What are the benefits of the project to the community/LG?

34 Whether the expected benefits will exist even after the KLGSDP funding is not

available? Give reasons

35 Whether processes and systems are available to ensure the sustainability of

the project? If yes, please give details?

36 How does the LG ensure continued financial support for the maintenance of the

assets built?

37 Whether the community is willing to financially support the project (if

applicable)? Please give reasons for the answer? (Ask to Sec/Plan Clerk)

38 If user charges have to be paid for using the services, is it affordable to poor?

Please give reasons for the answer? (Ask to Sec/Plan Clerk)

PART C. ASK TO SECRETARY/CONVENER/PLAN CLERK/PRESIDENT

39 Issues faced in the implementation of this KLGSDP project which are normally

not applicable to other LG projects

40 What are the advantages and disadvantages of KLGSDP projects in

comparison with other development projects in planning and implementation?

41 Did the KLGSDP project impacted the implementation of projects

implemented using other funds in any way?

42 Is there any social or political factors that influence positively or negatively the

sustainability of the project? If yes, please give details

43 Whether any environmental safeguards taken in the case of the project ? If

yes, please give details

44 Does this project pose any threat to environment? If yes, please give details.

D. OBSERVATIONS OF THE STUDY TEAM

45 Usefulness of the project Very useful ..........................................1

Somewhat useful..................................2

Not useful.............................................3

46 Assessment of quality of asset created Good ....................................................1

Average................................................2

Bad.......................................................3

47 Opinion on sustainability of the project benefits Definitely sustainable...........................1

Likely to be sustainable........................2

Not sustainable.....................................3

48 Does the project causes any environmental problems? If yes, how?

49 Other observations of the study team

(Take photo copy/soft copy of the project description)


APPENDIX VIII QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SURVEY OF BENEFICIARIES OF SAMPLE PROJECTS

Quire Number: Serial No. of the Community Questionnaire:

(To be filled in the office)


B. IDENTIFICATION No. Particulars Code

A1 Name of the GP/Municipality and Code.

A2 Name of the Project

A3 Name of the Respondent

A4 Address

A5 Tel.No

A6 Gender Male ….1

Female 2

A7. Poverty status of the household BPL …….1

APL……..2

A8 Case/Tribe of the respondnet SC…………….1 ST………..…..2 Others……..…3


Name

Date

Spot Checked by ______________

______________

Field Edited by ______________

______________

Office Edited by _____________________

_______________

Keyed by _________________

_________________

_____________________________________


___________________________________


Question and Filters Response Categories and Code SKIP

1. Describe the sample project to the respondent.

Whether you are aware that the project was supported

by KLGSDP/WB?

Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

1

2


2. Do you feel that it addressed a major need of the community?

Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

No opnion ……………………………………..

1

2

3

3. Do you feel that project is useful to the community? Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

1

2

Q.5

4. If useful, is it very much useful or somewhat useful? Very much ………………………………………

Somewhat……………………………………….

1

2

Q.6

5. According to you, why is the project not useful? SKIP to

Q7

6. Can you please describe in what ways the project is

useful?

7. Were you or any member of the household involved at any stage of the project such as project identification,

planning or implementation?

a. Project identification Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

1

2

b. Planning Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

1

2

c. Implementation Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

1

2

d. Monitoring Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

1

2

8. If yes to any of the above, how?

9. What is your opinion on the quality of service/assets

created under the project?

Good ……………………………………………

Average …………………………………………

Bad……………………………………………….

No opinion/Don’t know…………………………

1

2

3

4


10. Are you satisfied with the implementation of the

project? Yes………………………………………

No……………………. …………………

1

2

Q.12

11. Are you fully satisfied or partially satisfied? Fully satisfied……………………….….

Partially satisfied……………….……...

1

2

Q.13

12. Can you please specify the reasons for dissatisfaction

(other than the ones mentioned earlier)

13. According to you, what changes should have been

made to improve the benefits of the projects to the

community.

14. Do you think that the project will benenfit the

community in the long run? Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

Don’t know/No opnion ………………………..

1

2

3

15. Can you please give reasons for your answer?

16. Do you think that the assets created under the project

are likely to be maintained in future?

Yes…………………………………………….

No……………………………………………..

Don’t know/No opnion ………………………..

1

2

3

17. ASK ONLY IF FEES IS CHARGED TO USE THE

FACILITY CREATED UNDER THE INTERVENTION

According to you, is the fee for using the facility is

affordable or not?

Affordable.........................................

High....................................................

Others (specify)

1

2

3


APPENDIX IX

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED FOR THE ENDLINE STUDY

A. Household Survey

Adult Member of the sample household

B. Community survey

1. Ward Member/ Councilor of the selected ward of the sample GP/ Municipality

2. Anganwadi workers

3. ASHA workers

4. Local political leaders/ opinion leaders

C. Sample Project Assessment

1. GP President / Municipal Chairperson

2. Ward Members /councilors

3. LG Secretaries

4. Implementing officers of the selected projects

5. Plan clerks in LGs

6. Care takers / managers of the sample projects if any

7. Sample of beneficiaries of each project.

8. LG Engineers


APPENDIX X

ITINERARY OF STUDY TEAM

Component Period of visit

Household and community surveys in sample LGs February 19 to March 27, 2017

Collection of details of sample projects of the LGs implemented under KLGSDP

April 17 to April 27, 2017

APPENDIX XI

LIST OF MEETINGS ATTENDED AS PART OF THE ENDLINE STUDY

Particulars Date of meeting held

Evaluation of Inception Report at DAC January 21, 2017

Expert Committee meeting on Revised Inception Report at DAC

March 21, 2017

Review of project activities at DAC June 6, 2017

Presentation of Draft Report at DAC June 22, 2017


APPENDIX XII SUMMARY OF FIELD VISITS

A. Household survey and the Community Survey

Prior to the fieldwork, a three-day residential training programme was organised from February 16 to 18,

2017 at the Renewal Centre, Kaloor, Kochi. The training programme was aimed at aiding the

investigators in completing the schedules with precision and reliability. The training programme included

one-day field-testing of the research instrument in real life setting by the investigators.

The field work was started immediately after the training on February 19, 2017. The field work related to

household survey and community survey was completed on March 27, 2017.

Table 1: Details of Data collected

Grama Panchayat Municipality

Households 1618 1618

Community(wards) 96 wards 48 wards

B. Collection of details of sample projects of the LGs implemented under KLGSDP

Projects have been selected based on the approved methodology by the DAC Expert Committee. A total

of 36 projects ( 24 from Grama Panchayats and 12 from the Municipalities) have been selected for the

assessment. List of selected projects is given in Chapter VI. Data collection was started on April 17,

2017 and completed on April 27, 2017.


APPENDIX XIII

LIST OF DOCUMENTS, REPORTS, BOOKS AND ARTICLES REVIEWED

A. Documents

1. Report of the Baseline Study of KLGSD Project, 2013

2. Environmental and social assessment report, KLGSDP

3. Procurement Guidelines, KLGSDP

4. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), KLGSDP

5. Vulnerable Group Development Framework (VGDF), KLGSDP

6. Report of the Fourth State Finance Commission, Government of Kerala

7. Guidelines for Project Planning by the Local Self Government Department, Government of

Kerala

8. Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana(PMGSY), Government of India

B. References

Aehyung Kim (2008). Decentralization and the Provision of Public Services: Framework and

Implementation, Policy Research Working Paper 4503 The World Bank Development Economics

Capacity Building, Partnership, and Outreach Team.

Ahmad, Junaid, Shantayanan Devarajan, Stuti Kehmai, and Shekhar Shah (2005). “Decentralization and

Service Delivery.” Policy Research Working Paper 3603, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Bank Support, 1990–2007. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Bardhan, Pranab, and Dilip Mookherjee. 2000. “Decentralizing Anti-Poverty Program Delivery in

Developing Countries.” University of California Center for International and Development Economics

Research (CIDER) Working Paper No. C98-104.1, Berkeley, CA.

Canadian Centre for Management Development (1998), Citizens First 1998, Canada.

Centre for Socio-economic and Environmental Studies (2006), Baseline Study of Institutions Selected under Service Delivery Project (Individual Reports on Anganwadis, Lower Primary Schools, Upper Primary Schools, High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools, Grama Panchayats and Municipalities), Kochi.

Charvak (2000). From decentralisation of Planning to People’s Planning: Experiences of the Indian States of West Bengal and Kerala, Discussion Paper No.16, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

Deichmann, Uwe and Somik V. Lall (2003), Are You Satisfied? Citizen Feedback and Delivery of Urban Services, Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington.


Gopinathan Nair N.D and Krishnakumar P (2004) Public Participation and sustainability of Community Assets created under the People’s Planning Porgramme in Kerala: Selected Case Studies, Discussion Paper No.60, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

Gopinathan Nair N.D. (2000). People’s Planning in Kerala: A Case Study of Two Village Panchayats, Discussion Paper No.16, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

Impact Evaluation Toolkit: Measuring the Impact of Results-Based Financing on Maternal and Child Health, www.worldbank.org/health/impactevaluationtoolkit.

Israel, Danilo C. (2009), An Assessment of the Local Service Delivery of Potable Water in Dumaguete City and Selected Areas of Agusan del Sur Province, Philippine Journal of Development, Number 67, Volume XXXVI, No. 2.

Jamie Boex and Serdar Yilmaz (2010). “An Analytical Framework for Assessing Decentralized. Local

Governance and the Local Public Sector”, IDG Working Paper No. 2010-06, Urban Institute Center on

International Development and Governance.

Jayan K.N (2004). An Assessment of productive sector projects under people's planning: Study in the grama panchayats of Vaikom block, Kottayam district, KRPLLD Research Report, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

Joseph, M. J (2001). “A Search into the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Participatory Approach, Methods and Tools on the Decentralised Development Process of the Panchayat Raj Institution”. Workshop on Decentralisation in Keralam, Kerala Research Programme on Local- level Development (KRPLLD) Center for Development Studies, Trivandrum..

Litvack, Jennie, and Jessica Seddon. 1999. “Decentralization Briefing Notes.” Working Paper, World

Bank Institute, Washington, DC.

McNeil, Mary, Andre Herzog, Sladjana Cosic and PRISM Research (2009), Citizen Review of Service

Delivery and Local Governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, The World Bank, Washington.

Ministry of Local Government (2007), Assessment of Beneficiary Participation and Accountability under the Second Local Government Development Programme (LGDP II) and Baseline for Local Government Management Service Delivery Program (LGMSDP), Uganda Bureau of Statistics,Kampala.

Nagaraj K (1999). Decentralisation in Kerala: A Note, Discussion Paper No.2, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

National Research Centre, Inc. (2003), The National Citizen Survey 2003: Report of the Results for the

Village of Homewood, IL, Boulder.

OECD (1991) “Principles for Evaluation ff Development Assistance, OECD, Paris.

PAC (2007), India’s Citizen’s Charters: A Decade of Experience, PAC, Bangalore.

PAC (2008), Public Services Provided by Gram Panchayats in Chhattisgarh: A Citizen Report Card,

Samarthan, Raipur and PAC, Bangalore.

PAC (2009), Citizen Monitoring and Audit of PMGSY Roads: Phase II, PAC, Bangalore.


PAC (2009), Services of Gram Panchayats in Koraput: A Citizen Report Card, Orissa, PAC, Bangalore.

PAC, The State of India’s Public Services: Benchmarks for the New Millennium, Bangalore.

Palenberg, M. (2011): Tools and Methods for Evaluating the Efficiency of Development Interventions. BMZ Evaluation Division – Evaluation Working Papers. Bonn.

Paul, Samuel (1995), Making Voice Work: The Report Card on Bangalore’s Public Services, PAC, Bangalore.

Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) (2009), Improving Local Service Delivery for the MDGs in Asia: The Philippines’ Case, PIDS, Manila.

Public Affairs Centre (PAC), Implementing Citizen Report Cards for Improving Public Service Delivery: A

Resource Kit, PAC, Bangalore.

Radha S. And Bulu Roy Chowdhury (2002). Women in Local Bodies, Discussion Paper No.40, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

Sekhar, Sita, Meena Nair and A.Venugopala Reddy (2008), Decentralised Service Delivery in

Panchayats, Public Affairs Centre (PAC), Bangalore.

Shah, Anwar (2006). Local Governance in Developing Countries: Public Sector Governance and

Accountability Services. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Shipra Narang, Marie Laberge Luisa Moretto (2009) A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance ,

UNDP Oslo Governance Centre.

Spears, George and Kasia Seydegart (2001), Citizens First 2000, The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Ontario.

Srikumar Chattopadhyaya, Krishnakumar P and Rajalekshmi K (1999). Panchayat Resource Mapping to Panchayat level Planning in Kerala: An Analytical Study, Discussion Paper No.14, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

The World Bank (2014). Project Performance Assessment Report: The Republic Of Uganda Second Local Government Development Project, Washington D.C.

Valadez; Bamberger (1994): Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in Developing Countries: a

Handbook for Policymakers, Managers, and Researchers. EDI Development Studies. Washington, D.C.:

World Bank

Vermeersch Christel, Elisa Rothenbühler, Jennifer Renee Sturdy (2012) Vivekananda, M, S. Sreedharan and Malavika Belavangala, Social Audit of Public Service Delivery in

Karnataka, PAC, Bangalore.

Wagner Dieter and Mohanlal Panda (2012). Strengthening the Leadership of Women in Local Democracy

- Gram Panchayats (Village Councils in India), The United Nations Democracy Fund.

World Bank (2004). World Development Report: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington,

DC: World Bank.

World Bank/IEG (2008). Decentralization in Client Countries: An Evaluation of World


APPENDIX XIV

TERMS OF REFERENCE

For the End-line Survey of Kerala Local Government Service Delivery Project

1. Background

In order to address the need of the institutionalization process, Kerala State has formulated the Kerala Local Government Service Delivery Project (KLGSDP). Kerala government has also entered into an agreement with the World Bank for providing financial assistance to implement the project. This project aims to raise the level of service deliveries by LSGs (Local Self Governments) using modern tools of planning, development, project implementation and transparency in administration to ensure increased revenues and enhanced utilization of finance resources, thereby improving the quality of lives of the people.

KLGSDP has four broad components, with the basic objective of strengthening local government finances and service delivery. These components are:

Component I: Untied funds in the form of Performance Grants to 978 Gram Panchayats and 60 Municipalities to allow increases in their development spending and discretion in choosing public services including maintenance of infrastructure.

Component II: Develop the Capacity of Gram Panchayats and Municipalities with the establishment of modern management systems to facilitate prudent management of resources and improve service deliveries to the people within their respective areas.

Component III: Enhancing the monitoring of local government systems by the State through establishment of a Decentralization Analysis Cell which will (a)develop a database of LSG information; (b) conduct a LSG service delivery survey; (c) arrange project evaluations, and (d) provide policy advisory functions with independent analysis of the fiscal system and service delivery to the relevant agencies of the State Government to support policy changes and increased allocation of financial resources.

Component IV: Support the project management and supervision costs for implementation of the above components.

The project now intends to select a consulting firm for carrying out the end-line survey over its implementation period. The selected firm will be responsible for carrying out an evidence based assessment which will provide information about the quality, quantity and accessibility of service delivery to measure the progress made by the project interventions. The end-line survey would also identify the challenges and sustainability of the project interventions and provide recommendations for improving the service delivery.

The primary audience of the end line study will be the officials of the Panchayats / Municipalities, Rural and Urban Development Department, Government of Kerala, KLGSD Project, World Bank, and Ministry of Panchayati Raj (GoI). The project also intends to disseminate the findings of the study to other states where projects of similar nature are on-going for peer learning.


2. Purpose

The basic objective of the KLGSD project is to enhance and strengthen the institutional capacity of the local government system in Kerala. This is with the purpose to deliver services and undertake basic administrative and governance functions more effectively and in a sustainable manner. The underlying theory behind the project is that service delivery institution at the lowest level (Gram Panchayat and Municipality) when strengthened by intensive capacity building inputs (formal training supplemented by mentoring support) and incentivized by a performance based block grant, works towards achieving the standards to qualify as a strengthened institution capable of effectively planning and efficiently executing activities required for the sustainable development of the area. This in turn would enable a more accountable, transparent, and participative governance process and create greater awareness amongst citizens about their rights and entitlements, the services and their nature to be provided by local governments.

The end line survey will entail carrying out household and community surveys in sample project LGs to assess satisfaction with the services delivered, in-depth interviews with the users, government officials and service providers to analyze the issues and challenges in delivering the services. It will also include assessing the performance of a sample of interventions under the KLGSD Project in terms of effectiveness and timeliness of implementation and sustainability.

3. Objective of the Study

The objective of the end line study is to assess the LSG service delivery performance and citizen satisfaction with the services delivered under the project. The survey will focus on how the projects implemented under KLGSDP have impacted the quality of service delivery – in terms of access, efficiency, affordability, and sustainability. Specific objective of the Service Delivery Survey (End-Line Survey) is to assess:

a) Whether the project activities were implemented in an efficient and timely manner. b) Whether the project activities implemented are sustainable, i.e., ability to continue after the

project is completed. c) The perceptions of the citizens about different services delivered by the LGs and about local

governance. d) The extent of satisfaction and participation of citizens in plan formulation and budgeting of LGs. e) The extent of accessibility and quality of service delivery imparted through this project. f) The level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries with the service delivery of the project, in terms of,

accessibility, quality, timeliness, etc and variations across different categories of LGs. g) Identify the challenges faced by the beneficiaries in demanding and accessing the services. h) To what extent has gender and safeguard practices been mainstreamed at process and results

level. i) Provide recommendations for improving service delivery.

4. Detailed Scope of Study: Approach and Methodology

The survey, to be contracted to an external survey firm/s, will examine delivery trends, explore citizen satisfaction in the usage of basic services as well as awareness of LSG planning and budget processes. The changes will be measured by using outcome indicators covering the range of economic, health, educational, social, environmental and institutional variables. The study will focus on a stratified sample of LSGs in the state i.e. Gram Panchayats and Municipalities, in consonance with the sampling used at


project start (baseline). More specifically, the same GPs and Municipalities selected for the baseline survey will be the sample LGs for the end line survey also. Moreover the same booths selected for the baseline survey shall be the sample booths for the selection of beneficiaries in the end line survey also. The Decentralization Analysis Cell (DAC) will monitor the survey and will disseminate the findings on the web and through the media. The end-line study will have the following components:

a) Household survey : The household survey is an important component of the end line survey, which will be conducted in a sample of LGs to obtain feedback on the services delivered by the LGs. The objective for a household survey is to assess the citizen satisfaction with the service delivery in terms of accessibility, quality, timeliness, affordability and efficiency

b) Community survey: A community survey will be undertaken as part of the end line survey with the objective of making an assessment of the socio-economic status of the area and the availability and access to infrastructure in the community. The community survey will also assess the level of community participation in the decision making of service delivery and the overall impact of the service delivery on the community. Details such as availability of infrastructure, distance to infrastructure, socio-economic and geographical characteristics, special problems faced by the ward will be collected from the LG records and through in depth qualitative interviews with key informants including elected representatives and service providers.

c) Collection of details of selected projects of the LGs implemented under KLGSDP: In addition to the two components mentioned above which were part of the baseline survey, the end line survey will have a third component to assess the performance of a sample of interventions undertaken by LGs as part of KLGSD Project. The purpose is to assess the efficiency and timeliness of interventions and the sustainability of the interventions after completion of the project. One project from at least 50% of the sample LGs where the household survey will be conducted should be assessed.

The end line survey will be conducted with the objective to understand the changes and improvements, if any, with regards to the baseline situation. A baseline service delivery survey comprising of a household sample survey and community survey was conducted during 2012-13 to assess the status of local service delivery throughout the state. The base line survey was conducted in 48 Gram Panchayats and 16 Municipalities in the state. The base line assessment focused on the following areas of activities –

n) Road infrastructure o) Street lighting p) Water supply q) Sanitation r) Health s) Education t) Anganwadis

The baseline survey focused to obtain feedback on the experience of the citizens on service delivery of LGs. The end line survey will be conducted on the same areas of activities covered in the base line study as mentioned above to assess the changes and improvement in service delivery and user-level satisfaction. However, if in any area of activity mentioned above, KLGSDP did not generate a sizable number of interventions, such areas may be excluded in the end line survey in consultation with PMU/DAC. The information collected from the service users and the study should focus on the following:


a) Availability of and access to services. b) Utilization of services. c) Satisfaction with the quality, quantity, timeliness, accessibility and affordability of the services-

this will highlight the issues of relevance to the service delivery and the extent to which the services are designed to meet the needs of the people.

d) Analysis of the changes in service delivery experienced by the community members and household members.

e) Factors limiting the access and utilization of services. f) Whether the service users participated in the decision making process of the services. g) Grievance Redressal processes in place, if any.

5. Summary of the Tasks of the Agency

a) Develop necessary analytical framework for conducting the end line survey and project evaluation.

b) Prepare survey instruments, in order to conduct the end line survey in selected (Stratified Sample) Gram Panchayats and Municipalities in the state and provide necessary information on demographic, socio-economic, infrastructure and services variables overtime.

c) Organize and undertake the field work, sampling and provide guidance in all stages of data collection including imparting training to enumerators to ensure reliability and quality.

d) Develop survey modules and project evaluation tools and methodology. e) Carry out the analysis of data and prepare draft and final reports.

6. Detailed Description of Tasks

a) Develop the analytical framework: The analytical framework of the study must be able to demonstrate whether and how the KLGSDP has improved service delivery and the quality of life of the rural/urban population in Kerala. The analytical framework will identify the level of citizen satisfaction / welfare indicators that are the potentially influenced by the program; specify the analytical linkages between expected upgrading of infrastructure and the identified welfare indicators; This will require excellent understanding of service delivery issues.

b) Design Survey Instruments: The consultants will design the survey instruments and questionnaire in the end line survey in consonance with those used in the baseline survey. The household questionnaire shall include the following modules on the demographic and household composition, access and use of Infrastructure, health, education and environment. Specifically, the household survey should capture information on the following areas:

1. Identification Details 2. Socio-economic and demographic details of the Respondent and the Household 3. Feedback on different services/area of activities finally decided upon 4. Service Delivery from GP/Municipality Offices 5. Awareness and participation in the planning and budgeting process of LG 6. Responsiveness of the LG towards environment

The environment module will respond to requirements laid out in the Environmental and Social Safeguards Management Framework (ESMF) prepared for KLGSDP and will be finalized with the approval of the Environmental Specialist posted in the PMU to oversee its implementation. The questionnaire for community survey will be administered on a group of stakeholders such as the elected representatives, community leaders, secretary of the LG, representatives of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and other key informants in the wards selected for survey. Necessary data/information will also be collected from the office of the LG.Since the upgrading packages


under the component of Performance Grant may vary between beneficiary communities, the community questionnaire will record community level information regarding the state of infrastructure in the community and the specific information regarding the types of up gradation implemented. Sampling: A multi-stage stratified systematic sampling, representative at booth, ward and GP/municipality levels, which have already been designed in the baseline survey will be adopted in the end-line survey as well. This will ensure that appropriate sampling frame for the LSGs is used and applied to the specific needs of this study The sampling will permit measurement of the impact of infrastructure upgrading and capture variations across different groups of LG’s. There is a possibility of low response rate due to non-response by the households in the survey because of reasons like their non-availability during the time the survey was conducted, migration etc. This can create a potential of non-response bias. There are different ways to minimize non-response bias. Firstly, it is crucial to fix an acceptable percentage of response rate. Secondly, the household sampling in the baseline survey had taken into account the non-response and increased the number of sampled households from 378 to 400 per service/sector at a ±5% confidence interval and a confidence level of 95%. In addition to the low response rate, the determination of the sample size should also account for the fact that while a majority of the households access street lighting and roads, only a limited section of the households would be utilizing the benefits of other institutions, such as government health care institutions, government schools or anganwadis. The sample size must hence be substantially increased in order to increase the probability of capturing different households availing different services such as PHCs, primary schools and anganwadis. For instance in the baseline survey, the sample size for each type of LG (GP and Municipality) was fixed at four times the desired sample size of 400 (if all the households were beneficiaries and for ±5% confidence interval and a confidence level of 95%). Subsequently, sample weights equal to the inverse of the household’s probability of selection was assigned to the randomly selected households in the baseline survey. In order to increase the low response rate, short data collection periods limited to a few days should be avoided as they can severely limit a potential respondent’s ability to answer. The time frame should be long and flexible and the interviewer should make sure to give repeated visits (at least three times) to the respondents’ place to complete the interview. The respondent’s convenience and work timings must also be taken into account while doing the survey. It is important to make the respondents aware of the follow up survey and send them reminders of the same to ensure their availability. Managing Field Team to carry out data collection work: The lead consultant will be responsible for appointing, training and supervising the work of the local research team responsible for data collection and compilation. The areas of responsibility of the lead consultant included in the ToR will cover the following activities

1. Pilot testing: The instruments will be pilot tested in the field meaning that questionnaire translation, pre-testing, revision, and translation back into English will be undertaken by experts with experience in survey design and administration.

2. Hiring and Training of Enumerators: The lead consultant will be responsible for the hiring and training of enumerators. Enumerators should be chosen on their abilities to relate socially to respondents and to comprehensively and carefully fill out the questionnaires according to what respondents tell them. Prior to hiring, candidates should be tested on their ability to perform the survey interview. Sub-performing candidates will be replaced accordingly. Formal training sessions will be conducted for enumerators. The aim of these sessions is to: prepare participants for data collection phases and refine the surveying instruments by incorporating local expertise.


Enumerators should be trained on: a) background of the project, b) KLGSDP and infrastructure indicators, c) outcome indicators, d) procedures and best practices for the administration of questionnaires, e) methods to ensure uniformity of response reporting, and f) enumerator responsibilities. Specific training will be delivered to supervisors.

3. Survey Data Collection: The household survey will be conducted in all sampled communities. The number of total households is to be determined as per sampling conventions. Sufficient number of enumerators will be hired to complete the data collection effort in a reasonable amount of time. Sufficient number of supervisors will be assigned to the field to ensure quality and comparability of data collection.

4. Data entry and cleaning: Database design and data entry protocol will be agreed with the lead consultant and the DAC team. Data entry and cleaning will proceed concurrently with and immediately after the administration of the household questionnaire. The lead consultant will examine data as they become available to carry out consistency checks. The lead consultant will submit a copy of the clean dataset to the DAC and the PMU timely (not more than one month after the completion of data collection). Delays will have to be appropriately documented.

c) Project Evaluation and Reporting: The lead consultant is expected to develop a work plan that would include: planned timeline, methodology/ approach, planned stakeholders to be consulted, sampling framework, data collection and analysis tools, qualitative and quantitative protocols for data collection and analysis. The lead consultant would conduct household and community surveys and the in-depth interviews. The surveys will examine and capture citizen’s feedback on the impact of the program intervention in terms of quality and coverage at the LG level. Apart from the evaluating the different services that the LG’s are already responsible for, the study will aim to examine the service delivery in a few select sectors which will be identified in consultation with the KLGSDP and the DAC. The DAC will also be responsible for monitoring the end line study. The end line study would also evaluate the services of the LG offices, responsiveness of the LGs towards the environmental aspects, and the participation of citizens in local level planning and budgeting process. The aspects of service delivery that will be evaluated for each service are: access to or the availability of the particular service, quality of service or effectiveness of service delivery, instances of grievance with the service and grievance redressal, satisfaction with the service and the citizens’ suggestions for improving the service. The consultant is expected to provide regular progress reports to the DAC and receive inputs regarding the direction and focus of the analysis. The consultant would submit a draft report in English that corresponds to the approach and methodology mentioned above. After incorporating the feedbacks from the relevant stakeholders like the World Bank, DAC, PMU etc, the consultant is finally expected to compile the analysis and findings of the quantitative and qualitative data and present it in a final evaluation report as well as provide key recommendations for improvement in policy.

d) Deliverables: 1. Inception report containing the work plan, approach and methodology of the study and tools

for filed work 2. One electronic file of the clean (final) qualitative and quantitative data collected. 3. Draft report written in English that meets the requirements outlined below. 4. Final report of the End line Survey.


The final report should be clear, simply written in English and of high enough quality to share with outside agencies, donors or interested third parties. It should provide substantive evaluation against indicators as outlined in the approach and methodology section. Analysis of project achievements should always be backed up with relevant data, with reference to the data source. Recommendations should be specific and include relevant details for how they might be implemented.

The structure of the report should cover the following:

· Executive summary (approximately 10% of the final report)

· Brief project background (approximately 5%)

· Main findings relating to the evaluation questions and including detail of any unintended outcomes that are resulting from project activities (About 75%).

· Recommendations for future action (About 5-10%)

In addition, the final report should contain at least the following annexes:

· Terms of Reference for final evaluation

· Itinerary

· List of meetings attended

· List of persons interviewed

· Details of evaluation methodology

· Summary of field visits

· List of documents reviewed

· Any other relevant material, including data collection tools 7. Description of Lead Consultant’s Team Composition and Qualification PMU will be responsible for the procurement of Lead Consultant Firm, to which the study is to be entrusted. The lead consultant will work under the supervision of DAC team. The assignment will be carried out in close cooperation with the Service Delivery Specialist in DAC who will have responsibility for overall contract administration of this consultancy. All stages of work will be executed in close consultation with the State Statistical Office / Directorate of Panchayats /Directorate of Urban Affairs and other relevant agencies.

Sl. No. Experts Qualifications

1. Governance Expert/ Institutional Strengthening Specialist/ M&E Specialist as the Team Leader

Masters degree in social science or related disciplines with minimum 10 years of demonstrated experience in conceptualizing and executing impact evaluation of projects of similar nature.

2. Social Development Specialist Masters degree in social science with minimum 8 years of experience in executing impact evaluation of projects of similar nature focusing on social development and gender equity.

3. Economist Masters degree in Economics with minimum 8 years of experience in executing impact evaluation of projects of similar nature focusing on econometric analysis and analyzing social welfare.

4. Statistical Expert Masters degree in Statistics with minimum 5 years experience in executing impact evaluation of projects of similar nature focusing on statistical


analysis using STATA/SAS/SPSS with expertise in sampling, research design and modeling.

5 Research Analyst/ Team coordinators/ field supervisors and surveyors

All team members should be experienced in executing projects of similar nature.

8.Output and schedule of output delivery Output Delivery

Sl. No

Output Time limit

1

Inception Report containing Methodology, Analytical Framework & Quantitative Survey Instruments

Within three weeks of award of work

2 Field work completion report Within Ten weeks of award of work.

3 End line Data Within Twelve weeks of award of work.

4 Draft report Within Eighteen weeks of award of work

5 Final report Within twenty weeks of award of work

Schedule of Payments

Sl.

No. Stage Expected date

Proportion of

total payment

1 Signing of contract November 03, 2016 10%

2

Submission and acceptance of Inception

Report containing analytical framework,

methodology and survey instruments.

November 20, 2016 20%

3 Submission and acceptance of Field

work completion report January 15, 2017

30%

5 Submission of Draft Report March 15,2017 15%

6 Submission and acceptance of final

report

March 30, 2017 25%

ENDLINE STUDY OF THE

Documents

Transcript of ENDLINE STUDY OF THE