Dr. Madhur VermaPG IInd Year

Deptt. of community medicine

Social audit

Table of contents1. Introduction 2. History 3. Principles of social audit 4. Need for social audit 5. When SA should be conducted?6. Components of social audit 7. Methodology & Steps for social

auditing8. Tools for SA9. Risk, uses & advantages10. Some audit stories11. Haryana scenario12. References

As per the Constitution,

The Government is Of the People, For the People and

By the People, Meaning thereby, the GOVERNMENT and the PEOPLE are ONE.

But in practice, the People still carry the Mindset of being RULED and

the Government carries the Mindset of RULER.HUGE GAP BETWEEN THE TWO

people have not got a chance and ability To hold the Government Accountable for Non-Performance/

ASK QUESTIONS.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction Audit: The word  'Audit' originated from the Latin

word 'audire' which means 'to hear‘.

It is an unbiased examination and evaluation of a person, organization, system, process, enterprise, project or product.

Can be done INTERNALLY (by employees of the organization) or EXTERNALLY (by an outside firm)

TYPES OF AUDITS

1. Government or institutional audit is one that is conducted in-house or through external, professional, auditing institutions, and is ordinarily conducted without the significant involvement of the affected people and/or the intended beneficiaries.

2. Social audit is one that is conducted jointly by the government and the people, especially by those people who are affected by, or are the intended beneficiaries of, the activity being audited.

3. People’s/Public audit is one that is conducted by the people themselves, including those who are directly affected or are the intended beneficiaries, sometimes with the assistance of movements and NGOs.

TTYDifferences in the various types of audits

Comptroller & Auditor General of IndiaSupreme Audit Institution Of India

POCKET-9, DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA MARG NEW DELHI-110 124

Shri Shashi Kant Sharma(IAS) is the current CAG http://cag.gov.in/

Over the last decades, CAG has been conducting performance audits of socio‐economic developmental programmes of the Central and State Governments, e.g.

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Mid‐day Meals Scheme, Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP),

CAG’s audit is an external audit on behalf of tax payers. In a broad theoretical sense, therefore, CAG’s audit itself is a social

audit.

Comptroller & Auditor General of India Yet, in commonly perceived sense, CAG audit remains a

Government process largely confined to Government officials and auditors.

Social audit, on the other hand, seeks to make the audit process more transparent and take audit findings to a wider public domain of stakeholders.

The demand for social audit has grown in recent years due to the steady shift in devolution of Central funds and functions relating to socio‐economic schemes to the local tiers of Government – Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and other special purpose agencies.

History of Social Audit The audit is traditional and age old practice; however, the

concept of social audit came in effect in mid 20th century.

Some of the pioneering work in this area has been done by Charles Medawar in the application of the idea in medicine policy, drug safety issues, and on the matters of corporate, governmental, and professional accountability.(5)

Medawar opined that in a democracy, the decision makers account for the use of their powers, which should be used with the consent and understanding of all concerned.(6)

In the last two decades, this concept has significantly been applied for social and health sector.(2–4,7)

History of Social Audit Emerged in the 1940’s when academic Theodore Kreps called on

companies to acknowledge their responsibilities to citizens.

In 1960-70’s , a fresh wave of interest in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting (SEAAR) & Concept of ‘stakeholders’ emerged.

In 1980s, the social audit concept travelled from the private to the public sector in response to new emerging democratic governance trends.

Lately, social media (facebook, twitter, wikileaks) are playing an important role to channel citizen’s initiatives to uncover corrupt practices and mismanagement, as well as to hold governments accountable.

The concept of “Social Audit” has been linked to “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR)

CSR is essentially a concept, whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis.

For Example, Microsoft has created a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for Research &

Development work on HIV / AIDS McDonald’s outlets take care of its surroundings by maintaining cleanliness and

hygiene. In India, Infosys has created an NGO to work for development of society

DEFINITION of social audit

Social audit is an on-going process by which the potential beneficiaries and other stakeholders of an activity or project are involved from the planning to the monitoring and evaluation of that activity or project.(1)

This concept has amply been used in social sector and that is why the term social audit has come up.

What globally is known as “People’s Audit or Public Audit”, in India we call it “Social Audit”.

Social auditing provides tools that companies can use to:

Identify and measure their impact on stakeholders.

Communicate this information internally and externally.

Apply this information to make continual improvements in areas that stakeholders see as important.

Broadly, this process of Social Audit involves, the following components, i.e.,

a) Availability of information / details of the resource, financial and non-financial, used by public agencies for development initiatives,

b) Organising the ultimate users / beneficiaries / people,c) Scrutiny of the information by the end users.

• Foundation of Social Audit is INFORMATION AVAILABILITY---- as people can ask questions only when they possess the requisite information regarding the subject

Our Fundamental Right Freedom of speech & expression is protected in Article 19 of the

Constitution of India: All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

In 1982, the Supreme Court of India ruled that access to government information was an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

SOCIAL AUDIT & RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

Allows any one to access information regarding the functioning of a scheme or project, by filing a specific request.

Made people aware that the right is legally enforceable Universal access Suo moto disclosures Guarantees the people that they can conduct a social audit of any

scheme or programme that they think needs their scrutiny, even if the concerned public authority has not organised a social audit.

(suo motu describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party )

SOCIAL AUDIT & RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

PROCESS OF ACCESS : Public authority must appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO), who accepts

requisitions and provides information. The PIO must ordinarily respond to a requisition within 30 days Information relating to the life or liberty of a person must, nevertheless, be provided in 48 hours.

PENALTIES are prescribed for illegitimate delay or refusal For unreasonable delay-- Rs. 250 per day For destruction of information, knowingly giving false information etc., with an upper limit of Rs. 25,000

There has been increasing interest about the use of this technique in health sector in the developed and developing world, in the last decade.(2) There are well-reported examples of beneficial effect of social audit in increasing program performance in health sector.(3,4)

NEED OF SOCIAL AUDIT The investment of thousands of crores of rupees made by the

Government of India and various national and international agencies, since independence in social development programmes, has not been justified by the impact it has made.

Huge gap between the desired impact and the actual impact takes anyone within the Govt. or otherwise to think deeply about the failures.

The dominant reason for the failure of Programme Delivery Systems lies in the WEAK DEMAND SIDE as compared to the

SUPPLY SIDE.DEMAND SIDE

(Problems) SUPPLY SIDE (Problems)

• Weak, unorganized Beneficiaries, unable to create DEMAND for QUALITY and EFFECTIVE programme Delivery.

• Gram Sabhas not being effective to the desired extent.

• groups with Vested interest want Beneficiaries to remain unorganized and Gram Sabhas in- effective.

• Programme design, not need based.• Even when need based, it is not

designed to be practical in implementation.

• Even when need based and well designed, it is not managed by competent managers with a result oriented approach.

• Failure to achieve results does not lead to any accountability being fixed, leading to poor programme performance.

• Failure in controlling the interference of vested interest groups.

THE MISSING LINKSPROGRAMME PLANNER &

IMPLEMENTERS

SOCIAL AUDITFor flow of information(THE MISSING LINK)

BENEFICIARIES

DEMAND

SUPPLY

Flow of information

(THE MISSING

LINK)

Supply of development

inputs

WEAK STRONG

SCOPE OF SOCIAL AUDITAssessing the physical and financial gaps between needs

and resources available for local development.

Creating awareness among beneficiaries and providers of local, social and productive services.

Increasing efficacy and effectiveness of local development programmes.

Scrutiny of various policy decisions, keeping in view stakeholder interests and priorities, particularly of rural poor.

Estimation of the opportunity cost for stakeholders

SCOPE OF SOCIAL AUDITAllow people to enforce transparency & accountability.

Promote dialogue and deliberation to promote public-private partnership.

Increase public participation at all stages of public policy & budget cycle.

Identify, control and report irregularities & prevent abuse of funds and power.

Measure the impact of policies/programs.

Enable citizens to exercise their rights.

PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL AUDIT & UNIVERSAL VALUES

PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL AUDIT & UNIVERSAL VALUES

Principles of social audit Social audit is an evolving area and there are a number of

basic principles outlined for social audit. Different groups of people outline different principles and

below is the summary of these principles. These help in the formation or actual planning of the social audit.(1,8,9)

These principles are described as following:

1. Multi perspective/Polyvocal: Aim to reflect the views (voices) of all those people (stakeholders) involved with or affected by the organization/department/program.

2. Comprehensive: Aims to (eventually) report on all aspects of the organizations, work and performance.

3. Participatory: Encourages participation of stakeholders and sharing of their values.

4. Transparency: Complete transparency in the process of administration and decision-making, with an obligation on the government to suo moto (voluntary disclosure of information) give the people full access to all relevant information.

5. Multidirectional: Stakeholders share and give feedback on multiple aspects.

6. Regular: Aims to produce social accounts on a regular basis so that the concept and the practice become embedded in the culture of the organization covering all the activities.

7. Comparative: Provides a means whereby the organization can compare its own performance each year and against appropriate external norms or benchmarks and provide for comparisons to be made between organizations doing similar work and reporting in similar fashion.

8. Verified: Ensures that the social accounts are audited by a suitably experienced person or agency with no vested interest in the organization.

9. Disclosed: Ensures that the audited accounts are disclosed to stakeholders and the wider community in the interests of accountability and transparency.

10.Accountability: Immediate and public answerability of elected representatives and government functionaries, to all the concerned and affected people, on relevant actions or inactions.

Components of social auditSocial auditing implies doing a few things and analysis of

selected components.(1,8,9)

I. Economic components: The social auditor may analyze economic indicators and should be able to describe the economic or material characteristics of the community.

II. Political components: Measures of political setting provide a better idea in tracking the problems and in finding some solutions.

III. Environmental components: The researcher can look into aspects like air quality, noise, visual pollution, water availability, and recreational facilities, which affect the quality of life in the area under study.

IV. Health and education components: Health and education indicators such as availability of health care, educational facilities, and educational attainment can provide useful measures in conducting social Audit. These indicators can also be correlated with better functioning of social systems and higher standards of health and education.

V. Social components: Social component measures the social relationships and provides an understanding of the general living conditions, including the availability of telephones, transport facilities, housing, sanitation, and opportunities available for individuals for self expression and empowerment.

METHODOLOGY

The public policy cycle can be described as having four related phases:

When can social audit be performed?

1) Design Phase where problems are defined and issues

are raised in order to set a policy agenda.

2) Deliberation Phase is the formulation stage where analysis and

politics determines how the agenda item is translated into a

decision: a law, rule or regulation, administrative

order or resolution.

3) Implementation Phase is the stage at which the

authorized policy is administered and enforced

by an agency of government

4. Follow-up is the stage where the impact of the

policy is assessed and the accordance to the used

resources is controlled. Are the goals met? The

feedback provided by evaluation is injected back into the agenda designing

phase

A social audit is conducted over the life span of a scheme or programme, and not just in one go or at one stage.

Audits planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

ILLUSTRATIVE STEP BY STEP PROCESS OF SOCIAL AUDITS

For instance, in the case of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), social audit was taken up at:

To ensure that quality of work is in tune with

quantity and estimated cost

After the completion of

workTo ensure that

wages are paid rightly, properly

and to right people

Implementation stage

To ensure that estimates are

proper and are in tune with the

approved quantum of

work

Preparation stage

To ensure that the Gram Panchayat

Plan is need-based covering

productive/investments and

drawn up in consultation with

community serving the poor

and the disadvantaged

Planning stage

Steps for Social Auditing in detail:

There are well defined and outlined six steps in social auditing, which have been summarized

as :(1,8,9)

Step 1: Defining boundaries of social audit

identify the institution or program or activity, which is to be audited and understand why it is selected.

understand the organization, the focus and context of social audit and then by framing the objectives for social audit.

The objectives of social audit should be relevant to the strategy, realistic about what can be achieved, and recognized by existing routine activity.

look into the process of implementing the project, assess the quality of the infrastructure created; assess the basic services provided;

and the satisfaction of the beneficiaries on the benefits provided.

Step 2: Stakeholder identification and consultation identify the stakeholders to be consulted in the audit and

determining how often these stakeholders could be included in the “dialogue” process.

The selection of representatives for consultation is to be unambiguous and transparent and should cover maximum stakeholder groups.

The consultation should be planned with the stakeholders to extract accurate and needed information. These consultations should be objective, unbiased with informal dialogue and help in building rapport trust and confidence in the community.

Step 3: Identifying key issues and data collection identify key issues that need to be cross checked in the social

audit as well as how information and data pertaining to the schemes will be collected.

Each issue should lead toward an answer on a particular piece of outputs or results.

When identifying the issues it is important to see clearly what is the use of information that is going to be collected.

Information is to be gathered which can be used to explain facts or certain issues, influence policy, reflect the tangible outcomes, and more importantly, they should be measurable.

Moreover, in social audit process, two types of data are crucial. - Secondary data collected from government documents and reports, - primary data collected from stakeholders and community members.

Gathering secondary information is very important in the process of social audit & it is inevitable for making social audit reports.

Information required for preparing social audit reports may not be available in single point but may be in different records in different forms.

Step 4: Social audit findings and verification

The information is useful when it is classified into clusters based on relevance & consolidated for dissemination

The physical verification of the work by a visit to the worksite to verify whether whatever mentioned in the social account has actually happened in the way mentioned.

care should be taken in recording the findings as a small mistake could leave the processes of the audit in disarray.

Step 5: Public meetings The main purpose of public meeting is to obtain public

testimony or comment.

The key findings of the audit will be discussed in the public meeting and the concerned government officials will respond

to the key issues raised in such a meeting.

A public meeting for social audit is a special meeting for a specific purpose, with no other matters addressed other than

a particular issue of focus.

Step 6: Institutionalization of social audit

Social audit is sure to instigate some backlash from the vested interest. Therefore, the effective mechanism to address the issue is to introduce continuous consultations with key stakeholders and by institutionalizing social audit through legal provisions.

impact is the greatest and most sustainable when social audit process is systematically implemented by a civil society, state or by any other organizations.

The social audit process is more effective when it is institutionalized. The replication of social audit on regular basis is one such process, which will force the state to incorporate this as an integral part of the government.

The second mechanism is by internalizing within the Government. The social audit brings in transparency and accountability only if it is internalized in the government system.(1)

The third step in this direction is the involvement of civil society organizations, which play a crucial role in institutionalizing the process of social audit.

These organizations help in creating the awareness and motivating the civil society viz. Action aid India is also playing a vital role in conducting the Jan Sunvais in Orissa and other parts of the country.(12)

The preparatory phase:PublicityPreparation of Documents

TOOLS OF SOCIAL AUDITJAN AUDIT MANCH

Periodic review (at least once every six months) of all aspects of social audit in ward sabhas and in the Gram Sabha is called “Jan Audit Manch”

Three phases:

The organisational phaseThe implementation phase:

Whether the process of identifying beneficiaries (where relevant) was conducted in a transparent manner Whether the applications for benefits/entitlements being dealt with appropriately?Transparency in the implementation of work

CITIZEN REPORT CARDS In 2000, the Public Affairs Centre (PAC) in Bangalore, India

pioneered it

Provided an assessment of citizens’ level of satisfaction with regard to the city’s public services and ranked public service agencies (water, power, municipal services, transport, housing, telephones, banks and hospitals) in terms of their service performance

Indicated low patient satisfaction, poorly maintained facilities, and wide-spread corruption in the form of bribes

Reported-- only 43% of patients had access to usable toilets less than 40% had access to free medicines

Evaluation in 2004 found that services had significantly improved

CITIZEN REPORT CARDSEntail a participatory survey that solicits users/clients feedback

on the performance of specific public services, combining qualitative and quantitative methods to collect useful demand-side data.

Two related elements:“scientific” element: requires defining the scope of the

problem, selecting a sample, designing a questionnaire, collecting the data, analyzing it and writing a report.

“socializing” element: designing a media campaign to disseminate the results of the study, building awareness, mobilizing broad social coalitions, advocating for reform, negotiating with government authorities and engaging in constructive discussions or public hearings

Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS)

1996, the World Bank introduced PETS in Uganda to examine leakages in the allocated education budget

Citizen groups track spending trends to identify how much of the allocated resources reach their targets and, in the process, identify whether there are leakages and/or bottlenecks on the way.

Involves triangulating of information received from disbursement records of finance ministries, accounts submitted by line agencies and information obtained from independent research to identify point of leakage.

While schools on average still did not receive the full amount, leakage was reduced from 87% in 1996 to 18% in 2001

Citizen Charters Instrument to close gaps between citizen’s demands and the

public institutions structures and processes in charge of fulfilling them

Defines what services will be rendered, how and when they will be provided and who is responsible for the project

Naga City’s Citizen’s Charter (Philipines): standardizing the service delivery times diverse commitments stipulated in the Charter are known as

Performance Pledges. For example, the time required to repair a street light was 24 hours

Charter available in two versions: a printed leaflet, sent to all households, and online through city website

OTHER TOOLS FOR SOCIAL AUDIT INITIATIVES

Integrity Pacts: an anticorruption tool developed by Transparency International to prevent corruption in public procurement.

The “pact” entails an agreement between government procurement officials and bidders to ensure that the bidding process abides by internationally recognized procurement standards of fairness, transparency, and efficiency.

Social Media Initiatives: Zabatak is a free website directed to Egyptians (http://www.zabatak.com/?l=en_US). The website is started and managed by a group of young civil Egyptians with the purpose of creating a “bribery-free and safe” Egypt.

OTHER TOOLS FOR SOCIAL AUDIT INITIATIVES

Service Delivery Surveys

Household Surveys for Social Audit

Community Based Monitoring

Risks of Social Auditing• May result in serious problems being uncovered that the

company would prefer not to disclose.

• May result in stakeholder criticism and dissatisfaction.

• Imposes a burden on recordkeeping and costs.

• Provides no guarantee that the firm will not face challenges related to its citizenship efforts.

• Is a relatively new process with few common standards.

USESMonitors the social and ethical impact and performance of the

organizationProvides a basis for shaping management strategy in a

socially responsible and accountable way Identify potential problems before they arise.Facilitates organizational learning on how to improve social

performance. Informs the community, public, and other organizations about

the allocation of their resources (time and money) Increases the organization’s accountability to the groups it

serves and on which it depends.

ADVANTAGESOrganization gains an improved understanding of community

needs, esp. marginalized groups, and the extent of satisfaction of those needs

Enables the organization to get a clearer idea of people’s ‘perceptions’ and levels of satisfaction on services

Trains the community on participatory planning of programmes with a development organization

Community / clients become closely involved in organizational planning and review processes leading to greater trust

Promotes collective decision making and sharing responsibilities

Develops human resources and social capitalEncourages local democracy

Creating a demand for maternal health services from the community

Increasing responsiveness to community needs in health providers and managers

SOCIAL AUDIT OF MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES IN UTTARANCHAL

SCOPE OF SOCIAL AUDIT

Area – 2 blocks in two districts of Uttaranchal stateWithin each block, - 10 villages - 2 Sub-Centres - 1 PHC

TEAM: Included Panchayat members, women’s group leaders and NGO staff

Steps of the Social Audit – Preparations (July 04)

Obtained accurate information about available maternal health services and facilities from the government

Capacity building of team through training programme, field visit and PHC visit

Developing Social Audit tools, field testingTaking permission from district CMOTaking permission of village Panchayats

Information gathering by teamConducting interviews and observations in 2 PHCs Conducting interviews and observations in 4 Sub-centresConducting group discussions in 20 villagesDocumenting 17 case studies of maternal deaths and

experiences of family planning services in RCH camps

Sharing

Collated findings and shared with audit team for internal checking

Shared with community in 20 villages for consent

Shared separately with CMOs, MO ICs and ANMs for consent

Printed the Audit Report in Hindi

Sharing of Audit findings

Shared with the community, media and Panchayat leaders in a Public Gathering (March 2005)

JAN AUDIT MANCH

Outcomes of the Social Audit: Gaps Emerging

No document defined what services women are entitled toLack of material or staff for health education and public

awareness Information given only regarding female sterilizationNo involvement of Panchayats in maternal health activitiesLack of women doctors in PHCs/CHCs – poor system of

referral in emergenciesVery limited range of services despite ‘RCH camps’Lack of essential equipment in Sub centres for ante-natal

check-ups, delivery and post-partum care; gaps in supply and maintenance/ repair

Success with service providersHealth department supported entire audit process – for the

first time ‘reminded of their responsibility by the community’The PHC has 3 doctors including a woman doctorANM:

community level work improved, gives more information about health programmes; comes when called home for deliveries and does not charge money for home deliveries

better relations with women’s group, keeps up contact, attends meetings

staying in the SCs with community support, women help her during immunization camps

provide improved ANC and cover remote villages now

Success with community

Panchayats at village and block level are actively involved in the issue of maternal health services

Women have created a pressure so that Panchayats are now taking up health issues as an agenda in meetings

Women are now clear about their entitlements when they seek health services

Women’s groups monitor the quality of care in RCH camps

FUTURE COMMUNITY ACTION

Formation of a group with Panchayat representatives, women leaders, government health managers to take the audit process forward

CHALLENGES FACED

Not easy for an NGO to facilitate an audit process while maintaining a relationship with the government

Not easy to create a relationship with the Panchayat leaders on a ‘women’s issue’

Informants were hesitant to provide accurate information about the actual state of maternal health services

Making the audit report was difficult – to maintain accuracy while not alienating the health providers - to ensure that the audit report was accepted by all stakeholders

Public sharing of audit report had to be fact-based, not fault-finding or accusation

CONCLUSION

The experience shows it is possible to ~

Impartially audit quality of maternal health services with the cooperation of the health department and the community

Make Panchayats actively involved in maternal health and make them a ‘voice’ that demands accountability from the health system

Change the client-provider relationship to empower even illiterate rural dalit women users to exercise their rights in health services

COSTS OF SOCIAL AUDIT For the NGO to facilitate the Social Audit in 2 districts in 2

blocks (1 PHC, 2 Sub-Centres and 10 villages) cost was Rs 2 lakhs.

This includes preparation, training, audit activities, sharings and publication of audit report

This does not cover the NGO’s costs of building rapport with the Panchayats and community women for the previous three years

SOME AUDIT STORIES

HAMARA PAISA, HAMARA HISAAB: RAJASTHAN:1994 Initiated by Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) People had difficulty getting paid the minimum wages MKSS brought people together and simply read out official

documents procured either through surreptitious means or from officials who had no idea of their import

Records... contained false information. E.g., transport bills of over 6 km when the real distance was only 1 km, or

people listed on the muster rolls who lived in other cities or were dead. Proved that corrupt officials and others were siphoning money and minimum

wages were being paid only on paper idea of a Jan Sunwai or ‘public hearing’ was introduced RESULTS: Brought people together

People found their own platform Change in panchayat ac

National movement led by Ms Aruna Roy… RTI Act 2005

SOCIAL AUDIT in Delhi by PARIVARTAN: 2000

Parivartan, a voluntary organisation, started as people’s movement in June 2000, to provide relief to taxpayers from corruption in the income tax department

The organisation began to use the Delhi Right to Information Act 2001 to resolve public grievances

RESULTS: Social audit conducted by Parivartan, along with local residents of Sundernagri

and New Seemapuri - for development works undertaken by the Engineering Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

Ration shopkeepers won't divulge their records, Food Department officials won’t file complaints, and the police won’t act on their own or accept complaints from the public. After the initiatives of Parivartan, a number of people from different parts of Delhi filed applications under the Delhi Right to Information Act and sought the records of their ration shopkeepers.

Social Audit of the Mid Day Meal Scheme in Andhra Pradesh: 2008

Initiated by the state government & facilitated by M.V.Foundation In Adilabad and Kurnool districts; in 111 schoolsRESULTS:

While about 70-80 children attend school everyday, attendance was marked for about 100 children and bills for mid day meal are presented accordingly

Only in 45 out of 111 schools the rice was stored in the school kitchen shed; 21 out of 111 schools the cooking was done in the kitchen shed

Cooking agency is with the Sarpanch’s family and the ration dealer is also related to them. The rice is stored with them and they cook in their own house

In some schools the quality of the meal was so poor that many children did not eat

Any kind of overt caste discrimination in the serving of mid day meals in less than 10% of the schools

HARYANA SCENARIO

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NREGS IN SIRSA: 2009

Two blocks, one better performing & one poor performing, were selected on the basis of performance indicators like, Job cards, person-days generation and utilization of funds

Two GPs selected from each blockRESULTS:

62.50 % Gram Panchayats formed a social audit committee About half of the selected Gram Panchayats were aware about RTI act Delay in receiving of funds (62.5 percent Gram Panchayats) Banks far away and bank staff not cooperative (50%) Supervision of work and lack of awareness (37.50%) Corruption (12.50%) Assessment of work delayed because one J.E in whole block (50%)

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NREGS IN SIRSA: 2009

RESULTS: Muster role was not available at any of the worksites, reason given

being- MR filled only after the completion of work Child care facility was not available at any of the worksites First aid kit was available at half worksites Drinking water facility was available at all the work site More then 82 percent of the workers reported considerable

increase in their income

TRUTH is the greatestnational possession. A state,

people and a system thatsuppresses truth or fears to

publish it, deserves toCOLLAPSE"

"Kurt Eisner“

1. National rural employment Guarantee Act. Social audit, document. [Last accessed on 2011 Jul 17].Available from: http://nrega.nic.in/circular/So_Audit_I.pdf .

2. Cockcroft A, Andersson N, Paredes-Solís S, Caldwell D, Mitchell S, Milne D, et al. An inter-country comparison of unofficial payment: Results of health sector social audit in Baltic states. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:15. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

3. Purohit BC. Private initiatives and policy options: Recent health system experiences in India. Helath Policy Plan. 2001;16:87–97. [PubMed]

4. Vora KS, Mavalankar DV, Ramani KV, Upadhyaya M, Sharma B, Iyengar S, et al. Maternal health situation in India: A case study. J Health Popul Nutr. 2009;27:184–201. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 5. Medawar C. The social audit: A political view. Account Organ Soc. 1976;1:389–94.6. Medawar C. Power and dependence of social audit on safety of medicines. London: Social Audit Ltd; 1992.p. 290. ISBN 0-946448-04-3.7. Nandan D, Mishra SK, Jain M, Singh D, Verma M, Sethi V. Social audit for community action: A tool to initiate community actions for reducing child mortality. Indian J Community Med. 2005;30:78–80.

References

8. Thomas K. Social audit. [Last accessed on 2011 Jul 17]. Available from http://www.idgnet.org/pdfs/Social%20Audit.pdf .9. Social Audit: A Tool for Performance Improvement and Outcome Measurement.

Hyderabad: Centre for Good Governance; 2005. Centre for Good Governance.10. Mishra N. Right to information discourse in India. [Last accessed on 2011 Jul

17]. Available from:http://www.mkssindia.org/writings/mkssandrti/therightto. information.discourse.in.india.%E2%80%93.neelabh.misra/11. NRHM Community. Jan Sunvai/Public hearing: Rajasthan experience. [Last

accessed on 2011 Jul 17]. Available from: http://www.nrhmcommunityaction.org/media/documents/RJ_JanSunwai.pdf .

12. Right to Food India. NAREGA in Orissa: 10 loop holes and the silver lining. [Last accessed on 2013 dec 17]. Available from: http://www.righttofoodindia.org/data/gbpant07orissa.social.audit.interim.report.pdf

THANK YOU