baseline study on e-district mission mode project

8/13/2019 Baseline study on e-District Mission Mode Project.

1/66


2/66

Baseline Study of e-District

Mission Mode Project2010

Assessment of Delivery of Key Services:The Citizens Perspective

Based onSurvey of Citizens in 17 Pilot Districts in Five States of India

Commissioned by

Department of Information TechnologyMinistry of Communications and Information Technology

Government of India


3/66

Copyright 2010 Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication and InformationTechnology

No part of this report may be reproduced in any publication or for any commercial purpose without priorpermission from the copyright holders.

Department of Information TechnologyMinistry of Communications and Information TechnologyElectronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi 110 003www.mit.gov.in

Indian Institute of ManagementVastrapur, Ahmedabad

Printed by:Nutech PhotolithographersOkhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-20


4/66

Project Team

Department of Information Technology

Mr. Abhishek Singh, Director, Department of Information Technology

Mr. Anurag Goyal, Director, Department of Information Technology

Ms. Vineeta Dixit, Principal Consultant, NeGP-Project Management Unit

Ms. Sulakshana Bha acharya, Consultant, NeGP-Project Management Unit

Ms. Shiffy Varkey, Assistant Manager, NeGP-Project Management Unit

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) Project Team

Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, Study Coordinator

Prof. T.P. Rama Rao

Prof. Ankur SarinMs. Nupur Singh

Ms. Anuradha Parekh

Mr. Anup Tripathi


5/66


6/66

PrefaceThe Government of India is keen to understand the nature and quantum of impact created

by e-Governance projects that have been implemented by state and national agencies underthe National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). The Department of Information Technology(DIT), Government of India as the nodal coordinating agency for the NeGP is directed tocarry out an impact assessment study of mature state and national projects that have beenimplemented in India.

The assessment is to focus on the nature and quantum of impact on users (citizensand businesses). Assessment of impact on other stakeholders such as the departmentimplementing the project was not taken up. As a part of the rst phase of assessmentstudies, three state-level e-Government projects- vehicle registration, property registrationand land records were selected for assessment in twelve states across India. Three national-level projects implemented by the Income Tax department, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs(MCA), and the issue of passport by Regional Passport Offi ces were also assessed in 2008.The report is available on the DIT website.

Impact assessment of municipalities under the JnNURM e-Governance Project, ImpactAssessment of the Commercial Taxes project in ve states and a Baseline Study of thee-District project were taken up in the current cycle of assessment studies. The Department

of Information Technology (DIT) empanelled market research (MR) agencies for carryingout the eld work. Each agency was assigned the task of assessing the impact of therespective projects and preparing an individual report for each project. The Indian Instituteof Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) served as the technical advisor for the proposed study.A team from IIMA worked closely with the team from DIT in the implementation of theassessment study and provided feedback to the MR agencies at key points in the study. Theeld survey of citizens in ve states was carried out by AC Nielsen ORG-MARG Pvt. Ltd.

The report was prepared by Center for Electronic Governance, Indian Institute ofManagement, Ahmedabad. The book is also available in the public domain on the DIT website.


7/66


8/66

Executive Summary

Assessment of Delivery of Key Services : The Citizen's Perspective

The report presents a baseline assessment for the e-district project i.e. analysis of theperformance of the current manual system of delivery of six services such as issue ofcerticates/ration cards on key elements of costs incurred by a citizen in availing these services.The base line assessment was carried out by administering a structured questionnaire tonearly 400 respondents in ve States of India - Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu,U ar Pradesh and West Bengal. Seventeen Pilot Districts were covered in all in the vestates.

The primary purpose of the base line study is to bench mark the performance of the manualdelivery of key services in the pilot states on indicators such as number of trips, waitingtime for each trip, proportion of users paying bribes and elapsed time which are the keycomponents of cost of accessing a government service for a citizen. Annexure VII of thisreport tabulates the performance of manual delivery of services on these cost elements bypresenting average value and standard error of the average based on an adequately largesample for 5 key services in every state. Once the e-District MMP has been implemented inthe pilot districts and becomes stable (overcomes teething problems) and has run for at leasta year, the impact of the program can be assessed by conducting a structured survey using

an instrument similar to the one used in the base line study. The sample size should e at leastas much as the one used in the base line study. The methodology of conducting the survey in16-20 preselected villages (which captures the variability on the basis of distance from servicecenter and population of catchment for a service center) by selecting respondents randomlyshould be followed. Indicators will need to computed using the survey data for servicedelivery under e-district and compared with the values in Annexure VII to understand themagnitude and direction of impact on the cost elements for each service.

The base line study has provided some useful insights on the current manual deliverysystem. A state wise analysis of delivery performance for six services indicates the need forachieving signicant improvement through the implementation of the e-district project onall the performance parameters assessed in the survey. Out of the six services, ration card,caste certicate and birth certicate represent bulk of the transactions across all states withnearly one-fourth of the respondents having obtained ration cards, while 17 to 20 percenthad obtained caste and birth certicates. Overall, it takes an average of three to ve tripsto obtain a particular service. Primarily absence of concerned functionary at the offi ce leadsto an increase in the number of trips. Since the bulk of the services are provided at theTehsil level offi ces, citizens have to incur signicant travel costs and time to access them. Theaverage waiting time for each trip is nearly an hour.

The average elapsed time for most services ranges from 5 to 20 days. However, there are large

variations across states with a few states like West Bengal taking extremely long to deliver


9/66

some of the services. In about two-thirds of the services across the ve states, a signicantproportion of users (10% or more) had to pay bribes. In most cases bribes are demandedto expedite the unduly long processes involving verication of documents at each step. Byimplementing a work ow with a rst-in rst-out discipline, discretion to delay a servicecan be taken away from the offi cers. Usage of intermediaries is high in some states like UP.Use of intermediaries can be minimized through simplication of procedures.

The report provides an analysis of a ributes that the citizens nd important. These are thea ributes where maximum improvement should be targeted through computerization. Forexample, a ributes relating to governance, such as accountability of offi cers and corruptionin the working of the system are seen to be important across all states and services. Location

of offi ces where services are delivered is seen to be important for most of the services. Thiscan be rectied by service delivery through CSC's. Many citizens have identied clarityand simplicity of rules and procedures as important which is an area which can be rectiedthrough process reform. Similarly, accuracy of issued documents has been identied as anarea of concern which can be taken care of through computerized and accurate databases.

A qualitative study of two recently computerized districts in UP indicated the need formaking CSCs the primary mode of service delivery. The quality of hardware installed needsto be improved and physical supervision needs to be strengthened to remove intermediariesand check malpractices such as sale of forms at arbitrary prices. Ten District Magistrateswere interviewed to get suggestions for improvement of manual services. Most District

Magistrates believed that e-delivery of services can reduce the hardship of citizens and werereasonably engaged with the e-district project. Financial viability of CSCs was expressed asthe major concern by the District Magistrates.

The e-district project should aim to provide all citizen services end-to-end through a portalor CSC a er simplifying procedures, and automating information ow and work ow toprocess a request for a service. Financial viability of CSCs will have to be ensured by creatinga large basket of services ready for e-delivery, mounting an aggressive awareness campaignin rural areas, and through support to nancially weak CSCs.


10/66

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CC Citizens Charter

CFC Citizen Facilitation Centre

CSCs Common Service Centers

DC District Collectorate

DIT Department of Information Technology

ER Electoral Register

FPS Fair Price ShopG2B Government to Business

G2C Government to Citizen

G2G Government to Government

GP Gram Panchayat

IIMA Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

MH Maharashtra

MMP Mission Mode ProjectMP Madhya Pradesh

MR Agencies Market Research Agencies

NeGP National e-Governance Plan

PDS Public Distribution System

RTI Right to Information

SC Scheduled Caste

TN Tamil NaduUP U ar Pradesh

VP Village Panchayat

WB West Bengal


11/66


12/66

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................4

Executive summary ..........................................................................................................................7

Abbreviations and Acronyms .........................................................................................................9

Preamble ...........................................................................................................................................13

Role of IIMA in the baseline study1. .......................................................................................15

Brief Description of the e-District Project2. ............................................................................ 16

Research Methodology3. ..........................................................................................................17

3.1 Measurement Framework .............................................................................................. 17

3.2 Sampling Methodology and Sample Size ....................................................................19

3.3 Field Work and Data Quality .........................................................................................21

3.4 Service Usage Pa ern ......................................................................................................22

Key Results from the Baseline Study4. ...................................................................................24

4.1 Prole of Respondents ....................................................................................................24Baseline Performance On Key Elements of Cost of Service5. .............................................. 25

5.1 Number of Trips ..............................................................................................................26

5.2 Waiting Time .................................................................................................................... 27

5.3 Elapsed Time .................................................................................................................... 28

5.4 Payment of Bribes and Usage of Agents ......................................................................28

5.5 Overall Satisfaction with Service Delivery ..................................................................30

Learning for further Implementation of E-district6. .............................................................30Limitations of the Study7. ........................................................................................................34

List of Tables

Table 1: Framework of the Study ............................................................................................... 18

Table 2: Sampling Units and Sample Sizes ............................................................................... 21Table 3: Prole of Respondents ..................................................................................................25


13/66

List of Figures

Figure 1: Services Used (by % of Respondents) ......................................................................23Figure 2: Location of Offi ce from which Service is Availed (by % of Respondents) ..........24Figure 3: Number of Trips .........................................................................................................27Figure 4: Total Waiting Time (in Minutes) ...............................................................................27Figure 5: Elapsed Time (in Days) ..............................................................................................28Figure 6: Proportion Paying Bribes (%) ....................................................................................29Figure 7: Proportion Using Intermediaries (%) .......................................................................30Figure 8: Overall Experience, Overall Quality of Service and Overall Quality of

Governance (on a 5-point Scale)................................................................................31

List of Annexure

Annexure I Survey Instrument (Template) ..........................................................................37Annexure II Factors to be Considered for Determining the Sample Size ........................45Annexure III Prole of Pilot Districts in the Five States .......................................................47

Annexure IV Service Usage across the Five States (by Number and % of Respondents)48Annexure V Type of Service Availed (by % of Respondents).............................................49Annexure VI Location of Offi ce from which Service is Availed (by % of Respondents) .50Annexure VII Detailed Analysis of Costs of Availing Services .............................................51Annexure VIII Reasons for Multiple Trips (by % of Respondents) .......................................52Annexure IX Reasons for Paying Bribes (by % of Respondents) ........................................54Annexure X Reasons for Using Intermediaries (by % of Respondents) ...........................56Annexure XI Detailed Analysis of Overall Experience, Overall Quality of Service and

Overall Quality of Governance (on a 5-point Scale) .....................................58Annexure XII Important A ributes Across States and Services (by % of Responses) ......59Annexure XIII Overall Experience on a 5 Point Scale in Availing the Payment

Related Services .................................................................................................61Annexure XIV Summary of The Responses of DM Interviews for 10 Districts ...................62


14/66

Preamble

In view of the proposed roll out of the ambitious National e-Governance Program (NeGP),the Government of India was keen to understand the nature and quantum of impactcreated by e-government projects that had already been implemented by state and nationalagencies. Therefore, in the last three years, the Department of Information Technology (DIT)has commissioned impact assessment studies of nearly y mature e-Governance projectsimplemented by state and central agencies.

Study results indicated an abysmal state of delivery of services in the manual system inall the three types of projects - issue of copies of land record, registration of property andissue of drivers license - that were assessed in the rst phase of the impact assessmentprogram. Users need to make three to four trips (and even up to seven trips in some cases)to government offi ces on an average, wait for two hours or more (and up to six hours insome cases) in each trip, and pay bribes frequently (20 to 50% of all transactions) to obtainservices. Computerization delivered concrete benets in most cases, reducing the number oftrips by at least one, reducing the time spent waiting by 20 to 40%, and reducing bribery bysignicant levels in the case of one service across many states. However, the study revealedthat there was a great deal of difference in the performance of the best and the worst statesin case of each of the three computerized applications. The study established performance

bench marks that could be targeted by future projects.

The study underscored the importance of conducting baseline surveys of users of theexisting system before conceptualizing a new system to replace it. Through the baselinesurveys, implementing agencies can understand a ributes of service delivery that areimportant to the client. This can enable sharper targeting of benets that can be delivered,and the required features or process reforms can then be incorporated in the design of thee-government project. It is also expected that the impact assessment (that is, an assessmentof the difference between the performance of computerized and manual systems) thatwould be done a er the e-District project a ains maturity would be more accurate. Thisis because the performance of manual delivery would have been established through the

baseline study and would not have to be assessed on the basis of user recall. Recognizing theimportance of baseline surveys, the DIT decided to conduct such a survey for the e-DistrictMission Mode Project, which is being implemented by the DIT itself.


15/66


16/66

15

Baseline Study of e-District Mission Mode Project 2010

1. Role of IIMA in the baseline study

The Indian Institute of Management,Ahmedabad (IIMA) was initially contractedas a Knowledge Partner to guide a MarketResearch agency chosen by DIT to carry outthe base line survey. Subsequently when thechosen Market Research agency reneged onits commitment to DIT, IIMA was requestedto take the additional responsibility of

selecting an agency (from the 5 agenciesempaneled by DIT) at a cost specied byDIT and to take the overall responsibilityof ge ing the base line done in less than5 months. In the spirit of partnership,IIMA agreed to accept the additionalresponsibility. The base line eld surveywas carried out by the selected MarketResearch (MR) agency in ve pilot states Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil

Nadu, U ar Pradesh and West Bengal. The budget specied for the study restricted thetotal number of respondents in the sampleto 2000. IIMA was responsible for dra ingan overall report on the e-District projectfor all states covered in the study, based onthe data collected by the MR agency. Therst dta report was submi ed by the endof March 2010.

IIMAs effort was directed at ensuring that:a consistent research methodology wasused across the ve states; the MR agencyunderstood the assessment framework;good quality data was collected; levels ofperformance for different types of servicescould be estimated accurately; resultscould be projected to the entire population;results could be compared across states;issues with the existing manual system and

possible reasons for these could be identied;and suggestions could be made for thefuture rollout of the e-District program.The following inputs were provided at keystages of the study:

IIMA had developed a frameworkfor assessment covering the key di-mensions on which impact on citi-zens (users of a service) would bemeasured. On the basis of this frame-work, a template of the survey in-strument for the e-District study wasdeveloped by IIMA and provided tothe MR agency.

IIMA designed the sampling plan insuch a way that:

Even small variations in per-oformance could be detected

The variability in demand,oeffi ciency of service deliverypoint and location of usercould be captured

Results could be projected toothe entire population

A member of the IIMA team partici-pated in the eld survey of the rstfew districts in order to check on thequality of work of eld investiga-tors.

IIMA analyzed the data collected bythe market research agency and com-piled this report to present a consoli-dated picture of the performance ofeach of the ve states.


17/66

16


2. Brief Description of thee-District Project

E-District is one of the 27 Mission ModeProjects (MMPs) being implemented underthe NeGP. The primary objective of thee-District project is to enable service delivery

by the district administration to citizens inan effi cient and transparent manner. Theproject aims to do this by integrating thefunctioning of the Collectorate, tehsil level

units and village level units of the districtadministration, automating the workow forprocessing of service applications, digitizingdata across participating departments, andeventually delivering the citizen centricservices of the district administrationthrough Citizen Service Centers (CSCs) thatare proposed to be set up in one out of everysix villages.

In the existing manual system, processingof an application for a certicate such as anincome or caste certicate typically involvesthe following steps:

Citizens need to visit the concerneddepartments offi ce at the sub districtor district headquarters in order to ap-ply for the service. The citizen submitsa hand wri en application or lls in anapplication form, if available, along withthe required supporting documents andfee.

The application is received by the Reg-istry section and forwarded to the teh-sildar for endorsement. The endorsedapplication is then sent to the VillageAccountant for eld verication.

A er verication, the Village Accoun-tant prepares a eld report and sendsit back to the Registry section. Based on

the approved report, the Registry sec-tion prepares the certicate, which issigned by the tehsildar and issued to theapplicant.

Under e-District, computerized citizenfacilitation centers with multiple counterswill be established at the village and subdistrict levels. Applicants will be able tosubmit application forms and supportingdocuments at these centers or apply forservices online. Detailed citizen charterswill be displayed, forms in the locallanguage that are simple to ll in will bemade available, and guidance would beprovided to applicants at each step by thestaff at the facilitation center. Once datadigitization and workow automation has

been completed, application forms will besubmi ed and forwarded electronically bythe counter operators to the concerned eldoffi cial or Registry section for processing. Apre-validated electronic document, basedon existing records, will be generated bythe eld offi cial/ Registry section. Thiswould be signed digitally by the tehsildarand issued to the applicant. It is expectedthat the entire process would be completedwithin one day.

The e-District project is being implementedin two phases - a pilot phase in selected

districts of 14 states, and the rollout phaseacross the remaining districts in these states.The core services that would be delivered

by the 14 states under the e-District projectare:

Issue, re-issue and modication of cer-ticates such as birth, death, residence,domicile, caste, handicap, income, em-ployment and character certicates


18/66

17


Application for pensions under varioussocial service schemes for the aged, wid-ows, handicapped, destitute, etc.

PDS related services such as issue, re-issue, renewal, modication and surren-der of ration card and FPS licences

Revenue court related services such asregistering cases, obtaining listing ofcases, and ling applications for caseadjournment, stay order, nal order andexecution of orderGovernment dues and recovery of landrevenue

Filing and tracking of RTI applicationsand grievances

Funding for the pilot phase has been provided by DIT, while funding for the second phasewould be contributed by the DIT and thestate in the ratio of 75:25 respectively. Thetotal amount approved for 35 pilot districtsacross 14 states is around Rs 1,100 million,of which Rs 510 million has already beensanctioned as part of the rst installment.1The targeted date for completion of pilotimplementation was February 2010 androllout to the remaining 600 districts wasexpected to start by March-April 2010. Theentire project was scheduled to be completed

by December 2011. However, accordingto the e-District project status report ofFebruary 28, 2010,2 the implementation ofpilot projects has been initiated in only vestates, two of which have completed thedata digitization process (U ar Pradesh

and Kerala). Of the remaining states, sevenhave completed the process of appointingagencies for application development ordata digitization while two are way behindschedule on these.

3. Research Methodology

For the purpose of the baseline study, theunit of analysis was the entire state coveringa sample of selected pilot districts. Theresearch methodology used for the study isdiscussed below.

3.1 Measurement Framework

A measurement framework identifyingkey areas of direct and indirect economicimpact on citizens, and indicators onwhich qualitative impact can be measured(see Table 1) was used. This frameworkis similar to that used in the rst phase ofassessment studies 3 , and has been tested inan earlier assessment study of eight projectsencompassing service delivery to citizens(G2C), businesses (G2B) and internal staff(G2G) in three states (Andhra Pradesh,Karnataka and Gujarat). The study wascarried out by a team from IIMA and wassponsored by the World Bank, DIT andIIMA.

A template of the survey instrument (seeAnnexure I) that incorporated the keydimensions in the measurement frameworkwas prepared. The instrument was designedso as to capture all elements that dene the

___________________

1 Source: Website of Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Government of India, http://www.mit.gov.in/download/e-district_pi-lot260509.pdf 2 Source: Website of Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Government of India, http://www.mit.gov.in/download/e-district_feb10.

pdf 3 Impact assessment of e-government projects in India, Department of Information Technology, Government of India, 2007. Available: http://www.mit.gov.in/download/impact-assessment-study-dit-31jan%20(2).pdf


19/66

18


Cost of Availing Service Measured DirectlyNumber of trips made for the serviceAverage travel cost of making each tripAverage waiting time in each tripEstimate of wage loss due to time spent in availing the serviceTotal time elapsed in availing serviceAmount paid as bribe to functionariesAmount paid to agents to facilitate service

Overall AssessmentPreference for manual versus computerized systemsComposite score: Measured on a 5-point scale factoring in the key a ributes of a delivery system thatare seen as being important by users

Quality of Service: Interaction with staff, complaint handling, privacy, accuracy measured on a 5-pointscale

Satisfaction with the location of the service delivery center/offi ceConvenience of working hours of the service delivery center/offi ceOverall a itude of the functionaries in terms of courteousness and friendlinessTimeliness of response to queries by clientsSatisfaction with the mechanism for complaint handling and problem resolutionPerception about the condentiality and security of dataSatisfaction with the overall quality of service

Quality of Governance: Transparency, participation, accountability, corruption measured on a 5-point scaleLevel of corruption in the current working systemAwareness about the citizen charterAdherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to that specied in citizens charterFinancial loss due to delay in availing the serviceType/kind of nancial loss incurred due to delay in availing the serviceExtent to which government offi cials can be held accountable for their actionsWhether the rules and procedures are simple and stated clearlyWhether the agency takes responsibility for the information sharedDoes the agency provide any feedback and what is the quality of response to queries?Perception about the overall quality of governance

Table 1: Framework of the Study

cost of accessing a complex service suchas obtaining a certicate or license, and tounderstand the reasons that explain highlevels for any of the cost elements suchas number of trips, waiting time, briberyand use of intermediaries. The instrumentincluded a few indicators on a servicewhere an application is led for inclusion insome list or for seeking information (such as

inclusion in the electoral register or ling ofan RTI application), and a payment relatedservice. The respondents rating of about 20a ributes of the service delivery system, andof these a ributes, the three most importantfor the respondent were also captured.

Prior to the eld survey, a pre-testingexercise was carried out by the MR agency


20/66

19


responsible for doing the eld survey, inone district of each state in order to verifythe relevance of the survey instrument andthe appropriateness of the language used.The survey instrument was then adaptedto the context of each state depending onthe services proposed to be provided inthat state, and translated into the locallanguage. Field investigators were trainedto understand and interpret the meaningof each data item. Data was collected

through structured interviews of users ofthe existing system between December 2009and February 2010.

3.2 Sampling Methodology and SampleSize

It was presumed that the sample districtschosen for the pilot implementation isrepresentative of all districts in the state.Given that a sample size of 400 per state

had been agreed upon, the samplingmethodology for the baseline assessmentwas designed in such a way as to provideaccurate estimates of cost of access and othervariables collectively for all the sampleddistricts of a state. Typically, a sample sizeof about 384 is considered adequate forthe results to be extrapolated to a largepopulation with a given level of accuracy(5% Condence Interval) and condence(95% Condence Level)4.In order to ensure that the sample wasrepresentative of actual users of variousservices, key services that are proposed to

be delivered through the e-District project

in the ve states were rst identied.Services related to ling for affi davits anda estation of certicates, though frequentlyused, were excluded from the purview ofthis study since they are simple, same-dayor instant delivery services that are notlikely to be impacted by computerization(since no reengineering of these processes isplanned under e-District).

For the purpose of this study, clusteringof the sample has been taken to be at thefollowing levels: pilot districts in a state,sub districts within each pilot district, andvillages within each sub district. Villagesfrom which respondents were surveyedwere selected to capture the variabilityin demand, effi ciency of service deliverypoint and distance of the user from servicedelivery points.

Analysis in Annexure II suggests that for agiven sample size, increasing the numberof districts provides the most power. Onthe other hand, increasing the number ofrespondents per sampling unit (in this case,a village) does not improve power. Usingthis as a guideline, it can be said that in orderto obtain sharper or more accurate estimatesof the impact of the e-District program, it isimportant to capture as much as possible ofthe variability in the factors that determineperformance.

Since there is likely to be more variabilityfrom one district to another, than from onesub district to another within the samedistrict, or from one village to another within

___________________

4 The computation for this is explained as: Sample size = Z 2 X (p) X (1-p) / c 2

Where:Z = Z value (1.96 for 95% condence level)

p = percentage picking a choice, expressed as a decimal (0.5 or 1/2)c = condence interval, expressed as decimal (0.05 = 5%). Source: Cochran, W. G. (1963). Sampling Techniques, 2nd Ed., New York: John Wileyand Sons, Inc.


21/66

20


the same sub district, the sampling framewas designed so that respondents werespread across as many districts as possiblerather than across several villages within asub district or several sub districts withina district. However, the costs involved ininterviewing respondents across severaldispersed locations had to be consideredwhen deciding on the number and locationof sampling units. Therefore, a maximumof four pilot districts was selected in eachstate. Since Maharashtra and West Bengalhave only three and two pilot districts each,all the pilot districts of these two states wereincluded in the sampling frame. In each ofthe remaining states, an a empt was madeto select districts that have a higher ruraland Scheduled Caste (SC) population, and atthe same time, are geographically dispersed(see Annexure III). 17 districts across theve states were selected in this manner.

Sub districts within the selected districtshave been taken as the next level ofclustering because currently, citizens needto travel to the sub district headquarter inorder to avail most of the services that areto be covered under the e-District program.Certain services, such as those related toration cards, can however be obtained fromthe village Panchayat offi ce itself. Withineach district, four to six sub districts thatwere geographically dispersed have beenselected. Care has also been taken to select amix of sub districts that are well-connectedthrough major roadways and those that areremote. In all, 81 sub districts were thusselected across the ve states.

In order to ensure that the sample reectedthe proportion of users that come fromdifferent types of locations, villages from

which respondents were to be surveyed wereselected on the basis of their sizes (in termsof population) and their distance from thesub district headquarters. Since it is likelythat CSCs, through which services wouldeventually be delivered, would be locatedin larger villages with bigger populationsand be er connectivity, the size of a villagewould generally determine its proximityand access to a CSC. Therefore, one villagewas selected from each sub district in such a

way as to ensure that the entire set of villageschosen in a state reected the proportion ofsmall, medium and large villages in thatstate. Further, the selection included a mixof villages that were far or near from theirrespective sub district headquarters.

Households in each of the 82 villages wereto be selected randomly from the list ofhouseholds usually available with the villagePanchayat offi ce. Since each of the chosenvillages had a population of at least 500,that is, an average of 80 to 100 households(assuming an average household size of 5to 6), this list would have been about vetimes the size of the actual number to beinterviewed. It was felt that this would

be suffi cient to satisfy the randomnesscriterion.

Since this is a baseline assessment,respondents were interviewed only ontheir experience of the currently existing,presumably manual systems. In U arPradesh, e-District facilitation centersestablished at district headquarters have

become operational in 2008. Therefore,the market research agency carrying outthe eld survey was asked to take care toexclude those households in U ar Pradeshthat may have availed services from thecomputerized facilitation centers.


22/66

21


Table 2: Sampling Units and Sample Sizes

State DistrictNumber of

TehsilsNumber of

VillagesNumber of

RespondentsMadhya Pradesh (MP) Guna 4 4 87

Gwalior 3 4 82Indore 4 4 119Shivpuri 4 4 119Total 15 16 407

Maharashtra (MH) Latur 6 7 150

Nagpur 6 7 150Pune 6 7 150Total 18 21 450

Tamil Nadu (TN) Coimbatore 4 4 101Krishnagiri 4 4 100Perambalur 3 4 100Thruvarur 4 4 99Total 15 16 400

U ar Pradesh (UP) Ghaziabad 4 4 76Gorakhpur 4 4 162Sitapur 4 4 36Sultanpur 4 4 134Total 16 16 408

West Bengal (WB) Bankura 8 9 200 Jalpaiguri 8 8 200Total 16 17 400

Total (across States) 17 80 86 2,065

3.3 Field Work and Data Quality

Table 2 lists the actual number of userssurveyed in each state and the numberof sampling units from which thesewere drawn. As per the sampling plan,respondents were to be selected randomlyfrom the list of households available withthe Gram Panchayat. However, during theeld work it was discovered that in most

cases, this list was not available with the

Gram Panchayat and if available, it was notupdated. Therefore, an estimate of the totalnumber of households in the village wasrst drawn and a sampling interval (sayn) calculated. Every nth household in thevillage was then selected and this processwas continued until the targeted sample sizeof 25 had been achieved.

At times, it was not possible to achieve the


23/66


24/66

23


Figure 1: Services Used (by % of Respondents)

kerosene from fair price shops, is used forobtaining other documents such as voter IDcards and for availing benets under variouswelfare schemes oated by the government.Employment certicates in Tamil Nadu andresidence certicates in Maharashtra areprimarily used for obtaining bank loans.On the other hand, in MP and UP, residencecerticates are obtained for the purposeof applying for government jobs. Overall,it can be concluded that across states,the basic purpose for obtaining various

kinds of certicates is either education oremployment or bank loans.

Bulk of the respondents had availed servicesfrom the tehsil level offi ce in all statesexcept Madhya Pradesh, where almost halfhad obtained services at the village levelitself (see Figure 2). By and large, rationcard is the one service that is available atthe village level across all sampled states(see Annexure VI). In MP, apart from rationcard, birth and death certicates were also


25/66


26/66

25


Dimensions MP MH TN UP WB

Number of Respondents 406 450 400 408 400

Age (in years) Less than 14 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.315-59 90.9 96.7 90.8 91.2 92.860 or more 8.9 3.1 8.8 8.3 7.0

Gender Male 94.8 82.7 41.0 87.5 62.0Female 5.2 17.3 59.0 12.5 38.0

Education Illiterate 17.2 6.9 25.5 22.8 20.0Schooled 73.2 78.2 68.8 66.7 59.0Graduate 9.6 14.9 5.8 10.5 21.0

Occupation Worker 62.1 45.1 46.3 32.8 47.5Business 16.5 8.0 7.3 9.8 9.3White collar jobs 8.4 5.3 37.0 30.6 24.8Unemployed 13.1 41.6 9.5 26.7 18.5

Type of House Residing

in

Permanent 37.4 23.3 77.5 27.7 94.5

Semi-permanent 37.2 74.7 12.5 49.8 3.0Temporary 25.4 2.0 10.0 22.5 2.5

Table 3: Prole of Respondents

all the states, some variations were observedin their prole. For instance, Tamil Naduhas more women than men accessing theseservices. In U ar Pradesh and Maharashtra,the user population comprises of a signicantproportion of unemployed people.

The respondents selected for the study areactual users of the services included in thesurvey. Their prole will not be the same asthe prole of the entire population. Further,in the absence of authenticated prole dataof users of these services from any analysisof large sample of users, it is diffi cult tovalidate if the respondent prole matches

that of past/current actual service users.

The purpose of collecting data fromrespondents to construct the prole islargely for control of quality of surveys bysupervisors.

5. Baseline Performance on KeyElements of Cost of Service

This section presents a comparative pictureof the performance of the ve states onvarious dimensions related to costs ofaccessing a service such as number of trips,waiting time, proportion of citizens paying

bribes and elapsed time. Performance ofeach of the 5 states for ve key services onthese dimensions is presented in Annexure


27/66

26


VII as the Mean Value and standard error ofthe mean computed for an adequately largesample of users. The size of the sample isalso presented. As discussed earlier, theseservices were used by a very high proportionof respondents in all states7. These servicesare a part of the basket of services that will

be delivered by the e-district MMP.

Once the e-district MMP has beenimplemented in the pilot districts and

becomes stable (overcomes teethingproblems) and has run for at least a year,the impact of the program can be assessed

by conducting a structured survey using aninstrument similar to the one used in the

base line study. The sample size should e atleast as much as the one used in the base linestudy. The methodology of conducting thesurvey in 16-20 preselected villages (whichcaptures the variability on the basis ofdistance from service center and populationof catchment for a service center) by selectingrespondents randomly should be followed.Average values of the Indicators presentedin Annexure VII will need to be computedusing the survey data for service deliveryunder e-district and compared with thevalues in Annexure VII to understand themagnitude and direction of impact on thecost elements for each service.

5.1 Number of TripsConsidering all the sampled states andservices, it can be seen that only in 25% ofthe cases is a service delivered in two orfewer trips(see Figure 3). In the remainingcases, it takes an average of three to vetrips to obtain the service. Given the fact

that bulk of these services are delivered atthe tehsil, citizens have to incur signicanttravel costs (at an average of rupees 18 to 20per trip) and time in order to access services.If e-District can target to reduce the numberof trips to two or less, and enable servicedelivery through CSCs, the cost to citizenscan be reduced considerably.

Respondents who felt that they had mademore trips than necessary were asked tostate the reasons for the multiple tripsmade by them. An analysis of the responsesreveals that the prime reason for this acrossstates was the absence or unavailability ofthe concerned functionary(see AnnexureVIII). As a result, applicants had to makerepeated trips to the offi ce to complete theprocess or collect the document appliedfor. Long queues of service applicants andnon functioning counters were the otherfrequently cited reasons.

Providing services through a CSC may resultin a longer window of time for transactionsand a higher availability of the operator atthe service delivery counter. However, ifaccess to a government offi cer is still need(for instance, for signatures), the problem ofunavailability will continue. Counters areo en not operational due to absenteeism inthe case of manual systems, and erratic powersupply or poor maintenance of hardwareand/or so ware in case of computerizedsystems, as was seen in projects that wereassessed earlier. The e-District projectneeds to be conceptualized in such a wayas to address the problems identied by theusers.

___________________

7 Most of the respondents indicated that they had used only one service in the previous year in response to the rst three questions inPART 2 ( multiple responses were possible). The average number of services used varies from 1.005 in Tamilnadu to 1.09 in West Bengal.


28/66

27


5.2 Waiting Time

Waiting time shown inFigure 4 representsthe total wait over all trips. Total waitingtime in Maharashtra and MP in certain

services is high (nearly two to ve hours)in comparison to other states. The averagewaiting time for each trip(see AnnexureVII) is less than an hour for most services

Figure 3: Number of Trips

in states other than Maharashtra wheresurprisingly, it is nearly two hours for threeof the services. In Maharashtra, targetingreduction in waiting time should therefore

be a high priority.

As in the case of multiple trips, long queues,too many service applicants and the absenceof the concerned functionary were the main

Figure 4: Total Waiting Time (in Minutes)


29/66


30/66

29


6). In some cases, as in income certicates inMP, this proportion is even as large as 65%.In response to a question on why respondentspaid bribe, expediting the process of servicedelivery was cited as the prime reason(see Annexure IX). If elapsed time can becontained to reasonable levels (say one weekas has been possible in other services) and a

Figure 6: Proportion Paying Bribes (%)

public commitment can be made to adhereto these service levels through a citizenscharter, some reduction in bribery may bepossible. By implementing a work owwith a rst-in rst-out discipline, discretionto delay a service can be taken away fromthe offi cers. If e-District can do this andimprove effi ciency in general, bribery canpossibly be removed.

In UP, where incidence of bribe paymentis the highest, additional convenience inobtaining service was stated as another major

be reduced.

As can be seen in the above gure, usage ofintermediaries is signicantly high in more

than 50 percent of the cases. Across states,one of the major reasons cited by users forthis is lack of awareness about the processof obtaining the service (see AnnexureX). In UP, another commonly cited reasonwas the belief that it was possible to obtainservice more quickly when availed throughintermediaries. E-district must thereforetarget simplication of procedures and atthe same time, create awareness about the

reason for paying bribes. Use of agents is alsothe highest in UP with about two-thirds ofusers using intermediaries to obtain caste,income and residence certicates(see Figure7). Perhaps, agents are used because theycan help citizens to circumvent rules suchas having to go to government offi ces for

being photographed. If access to servicescan be made more convenient, bribes could


31/66

30


reformed processes.

5.5 Overall Satisfaction with Service

Delivery

Respondents were asked to rate their overallexperience of obtaining services, the overallquality of governance and the overallquality of service on a ve-point scale,where a score of 2 represents a poor rating,a 3 represents an average rating, a score of 4represents a good rating, and 5 represents avery good rating. In earlier assessments, theoverall scores of governance and quality ofservice have ranged between 2.5 and 3.5 fordifferent services under the manual system.Detailed analysis of these dimensions ispresented in Annexure XI.

As seen inFigure 8, delivery of services bythe district administration in West Bengal,MP and UP are no be er or no worsethan many other services in other states. InMaharashtra and Tamil Nadu, more than 60

percent of the respondents have rated the

quality of service and overall governance as being between good to very good for almostall the key services and the average scoresare close to 4. Annexure XIII presents an analysis of theoverall experience rated on a 5 point scale(1-very poor; 3 average and 5-very good) forpayment related services. These services areused by a large proportion of respondentsin addition to the primary documentrelated services for which analysis waspresented above. Maharashtra has beenrated as good and other states are betweenaverage and good. The overall quality ofpayment services under e-district may be

benchmarked against the indicated values by including a similar question in the futureimpact surveys.

6. Learning for further Implemen-tation of E-district

In discussing the key results from the

baseline survey in the section above,

Figure 7: Proportion Using Intermediaries (%)


32/66


33/66


34/66

33


member of the IIMA team in Ghaziabad andSultanpur districts in UP during December2009 provided some pointers to how therecently introduced computerized systemwas working in these districts and thelessons that can be drawn for further rollout in other districts and states. The studycorroborated the ndings of the baselineassessment and also provided the followinginputs for further roll out:

The manual system needs to be replaced by a working computerized system assoon as possible. The coexistence of bothmanual and computerized modes ofservice delivery gives functionaries theopportunity to continue functioning asthey have always been. For instance, itwas observed that offi cials and agentstend to promote the manual system byciting power failure, poor connectivity,etc. as reasons for not using the comput-erized mode of service delivery.

Tighter monitoring of service levels isrequired so that standard proceduresare followed by those involved in theservice delivery process. Otherwise mal-practices such as tehsildars using others(o en agents) to affi x digital signatureson their behalf will continue.It is necessary to review the quality ofhardware and so ware that is to be sup-plied for further roll out of the e-District

project. For instance, the private opera-tors of Jan Suvidha Kendras (JSKs) com-plained of poor Internet connectivity,slow servers, and the poor quality VGAcameras provided at the JSKs to photo-graph applicants. Poor quality of cameraenables agents to process large numberof applications in bulk, substituting aprinted photo for personal presence asthe VGA camera photo on the certicateis barely recognizable.

Steps must be taken to ensure that agentsdo not operate within the precinct of the JSK, either for selling application formsor for facilitating services on behalf oftheir clients i.e. the rural citizens.

In some districts the computerized counterswere not allowed to function by vestedinterests. Many of the CSCs have not beencreated or have not functioned a er theywere set up. Computerized systems are notfunctioning as per the rule book. These are

all manifestations of strong vested interest inthe status quo. An effective implementationstrategy would be needed to handle changemanagement.

The results of the assessment study wereshared with the District Magistrates (DMs)of 10 districts in which the study wascarried out. A semi structured interviewwas conducted with the DMs to solicit theirviews on how the service delivery could befurther improved to respond to some of theproblems reported by the citizens duringthe assessment. A summary of responsesprovided by the DMs to substantive questionsis a ached in Annexure XIV. Concerns andsuggestions made by a majority of the tenrespondents are documented below.

The DMs were reasonably well engagedwith the e-district project. Most districts

hold monthly meetings to discuss thee-district project. In response to the mainrecommendation of this report that deliveryof services be made through CSCs at an earlydate, the DMs indicated a major concernabout the nancial viability of the CSCs. Theyfelt that services should be delivered onlythrough the CSCs and no other channels toensure nancial sustainability of the CSCs.Involvement of the local NGOs or localpeople in managing the operations of CSCs


35/66

34


would help in increasing the popularity

of CSCs among the local people and theywould feel encouraged to use servicesthrough CSCs rather than the intermediary.Many DMs emphasized the need for greateremphasis on awareness generation amongsmall entrepreneurs to set up CSCs at villagelevel.

To cut down on the time elapsed to delivercerticates, it was suggested that a commondatabase needs to be created to facilitate the

availability of the information across thedistrict and villages. Some procedures areredundant and should be removed to makethe process simple and the frequent changesin the process should be avoided.

There should be strong Feedback andComplaint handling mechanism to increasethe accountability of the offi cers and systemof award and punishment. The applicationsshould be designed to provide information

on a web site on the current status ofprocessing of a service request, so thattransparency in the system can be furtherenhanced and citizens can avoid multipletrips to enquire about the status. Greaterclarity is needed on identifying functionariesthat can sign different types of certicates.

Intermediaries should be removed from thesurroundings of the offi ces with the help ofthe police.

District collector should be the accountable

and owner of the computerized system andIT department or NIC should coordinatethe overall effort of the computerization.Concerns were expressed about the usercentricity of staff and the need for extensivetraining. Some DMs wanted additionalstaff that could be dedicated to delivery ofdifferent computerized services.

7. Limitations of the Study

The survey gathered data from more than2,000 respondents spread over nearly 82villages in 17 districts from ve states fromthe north, south, east and west of India.Though the sample size of 400 was adequatefor estimating values for different indicatorsof performance for the entire pool of sampledistricts in a state, when the sample was

broken down by services, for some servicesthe numbers of sampled respondents were

less than adequate. In the case of UP wheree-district had already been implemented,nding adequate number of users ofmanually delivered services had posed aproblem.

Because of the sensitivity of certainquestions, it was diffi cult to elicit data on

bribery from all the respondents in somestates, particularly if agents were used.


36/66

Annexures


37/66


38/66

37


Annexure-I

Survey Instrument (Template)

PART 1: IDENTIFICATION DETAILS

Name of Respondent ___________________________________ Address of Respondent _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ 1. Family ID ______________________________________________________

2. Village Code 3. Tehsil Code

4. District Code 5. State Code

6. Date of Interview ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ (DD-MM-YY)

Name of Interviewer __________________________________ Signature of Interviewer ___________________________________

PART 2: COST OF AVAILING SERVICES RELATED TO DELIVERY OR MODIFICATION OF A DOCUMENT

Please indicate which of the following services you have availed in the LAST ONE YEAR. MULTIPLE RESPONSE

1. Issue, re-issue, modication of birth/ death/ residence/ domicile/ caste/handicap/ income/ employment/ character certicate

2. Issue, re-issue, renewal, modication and surrender of ration card

3. Issue, re-issue, renewal, modication of weapon, restaurant, stampvendor and FPS licence

INSTRUCTIONS: If more than one document was applied for or modied in the LAST ONE YEAR, select the ONE document for whichthe respondent can provide full details of the experience with the service.

4. Specify the service code with respect to which questions in this sectionwould be answered. NOTE THE SERIAL NUMBER FROM 1 to 3 ABOVE

5. Please specify the name of the document that you had applied for or 1 - Birth certicaterequested for changes in. 2 - Death certicate

3 - Residence certicate 4 - Domicile certicate 5 - Caste certicate 6 - Handicap certicate 7 - Income certicate 8 - Employment certicate 9 - Character certicate 10 - Ration card 11 - Weapon license 12 - Restaurant license 13 - Stamp vendor license 14 - FPS licence 15 - Others (SPECIFY)

___________________

8 In case the respondent did not receive the document applied for, the interview should be terminated at this point.


39/66

38


6. Did you apply for a new document, for renewal of the document, 1 - For a new document

for copies of the document, or for changes in the document? 2 - For renewal of document 3 - For copies of document 4 - For changes in the document 7. When did you apply for the service? ___ ___ - ___ ___ (MM-YY)

8. Did you receive the service applied for? - Yes - No

9. How long did it take for the task to be completed, right from the date ofapplying to actually receiving the service applied for?SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS

10. For what purpose did you require the document? MULTIPLE RESPONSE 1 - Inclusion in electoral register 2 - Admission to educational institution 3 - Application for fee waiver 4 - Application for government employment 5 - Establishing legally permissible age for

marriage6 - Se lement of inheritance and property

rights 7 - To avail bank loan 8 - Obtaining identity documents such as driv-

ing licence or passport 9 - Others (SPECIFY)

11. How did you nd out about the procedure for availing the service? 1 - Newspaper MULTIPLE RESPONSE 2 - Television

3 - Neighbors/friends/relatives 4 - Departments/other website 5 - Citizen charter at offi ce 6 - Functionaries at offi ce 7 - Other government staff 8 - Agent/intermediary 9 - Others (SPECIFY)

12. Which offi ce did you avail the service from? 1 - District Collectorate offi ce 2 - Concerned departments offi ce 3 - Panchayat offi ce 4 - Post offi ce

13. Where was the offi ce located? 1 - Village 2 - Tehsil 3 - District

14. Please specify the distance that you had to travel to reach the offi ce.SPECIFY DISTANCE IN KILOMETERS

15. Please specify the travel time typically spent by you in making each trip.SPECIFY TIME IN MINUTES

16. Please specify the travel cost typically incurred by you in making each trip.SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES

17. How many visits did you have to make to the offi ce for availing this service?


40/66

39


Please provide the following details with respect to each trip to the offi ce.

TRIP # 1 2 3 > 3

18. What was the PRIMARY purpose of the trip? MULTIPLE RESPONSE

1 - To obtain information about requirements and procedures

2 - To submit application and required documents/fee

3 - To fulll requirement for physical presence

4 - To check status of application

5 - To collect certicate/document

6 - Others (SPECIFY)

19. Were you successful in completing the task?1 - Yes 21 2 - No

20. If not, please indicate the MOST IMPORTANT reason for not being able to complete the task.

1 - Very long queue(s) at service center/offi ce2 - Concerned functionary was not available3 - Counter was not operational4 - Application form was not available5 - Documents/application submi ed by me were incomplete6 - Others (SPECIFY)

21. How long did you wait at the offi ce during this visit?SPECIFY TIME IN MINUTES

22. If waiting time was more than what is typically required,please indicate the MAIN reason that you a ribute the long wait to.1 - Too many applicants at offi ce

2 - Long queues 3 - Badly managed queue 4 - Lack of counters for single window delivery 5 - Concerned functionary was not available 6 - Some windows/counters were not operational 7 - Slow processing by staff 8 - Power breakdown 9 - Computer/network connectivity failure 10 - Had diffi culty in lling up the forms 11 - Others (SPECIFY)

23. Did you pay a bribe directly or indirectly to department staff/functionaries? - Yes - No 25

24. For what purpose did you pay the bribe? MULTIPLE RESPONSE 1 - To expedite the process 2 - To enable service to be provided to you out

of turn 3 - To receive preferential treatment from func-

tionaries 4 - For additional convenience in obtaining

service 5 - To inuence functionaries to act in your

favour 6 - To be able to pay less than the stipulated fee

and still obtain service

7 - Others (SPECIFY)


41/66


42/66

41


PART 3: EXPERIENCE OF MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR PENSION, FILING GRIEVANCE OR RTI APPLICATION, APPLING FOR ELECTORAL OR REVENUE SERVIES


1. Application for social welfare pension for the aged, widows,handicapped or destitute

2. Filing and tracking of RTI application

3. Filing and tracking of grievance4. Electoral service such as application for inclusion of name in the electoral

register (ER), change in entry or address in the ER, and appointment ofproxy voter

5. Revenue court related service such as obtaining listing of cases, and

ling application for case adjournment, stay order, nal order andexecution of order

INSTRUCTIONS: If more than one service was availed in the LAST ONE YEAR, select the ONE service for which the respondent canprovide details of the experience with the service.

6. Specify the service code with respect to which questions inthis section would be answered. NOTE THE SERIAL NUMBERFROM 1 to 5 ABOVE

7. When did you apply for the service? ___ ___ - ___ ___ (MM-YY)

8. Were you successful in receiving the service applied for(for example, complaint was resolved, pension order was issued)? - Yes 10 - No

9. If not, please indicate the reasons as informed by functionaries or as 1 - Did not meet criteria required for approvalyou perceive them. 2 - Did not submit required document(s) MULTIPLE RESPONSE 3 - Missed date for submission/verication due SKIP TO 11 to personal reasons 4 - Missed date for submission/verication

since it was not clearly intimated 5 - Did not pay the bribe demanded/expected 6 - Had applied directly instead of taking help

of intermediary 7 - Others (SPECIFY)

10. How long did it take for the task to be completed, right from thedate of applying to actually receiving the service applied for?SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS

11. How many visits did you have to make to the offi ce for availing this service?

12. Please rate your overall experience of availing this service. 1 - Very dissatisfactory 2 - Dissatisfactory 3 - Average 4 - Satisfactory 5 - Very satisfactory


43/66

42


PART 4: EXPERIENCE OF USING PAYMENT RELATED SERVICES


1. Payment of land revenue dues

2. Payment of utility bills (water tax, house tax, property tax, electricity bill, telephone bill)

INSTRUCTIONS: If more than one service was availed in the LAST ONE YEAR, select the ONE service for which the respondent canprovide details of the experience with the service.

3. Specify the service code with respect to which questions in this section would be answered. NOTE THE SERIAL NUMBER FROM1 to 2 ABOVE

4. What is the frequency of payment of utility bills/revenue dues? 1 - Once a month

2 - Once in 3 to 6 months 3 - Once a year 4 - Once in 2 to 5 years 5 - Others (SPECIFY)5. Do you receive a notice/bill from the department/utility company for

payment of dues? - Yes - No

6. Were the details mentioned in the notice/bill correct? - Yes - No

7. Please rate your overall experience of making payments at the offi ce. 1 - Very Dissatisfactory 2 - Dissatisfactory 3 - Average 4 - Satisfactory 5 - Very Satisfactory

PART 5: OVERALL QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE

1. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of governance with 1 - Very Poor respect to the service(s) that you have availed. 2 - Poor GOVERNANCE IS UNDERSTOOD AS TRANSPARENCY, 3 - Average ACCOUNTABILITY AND CORRUPTION-FREE WORKING 4 - Good 5 - Very Good

2. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of service with 1 - Very Poor respect to the service(s) that you have availed. 2 - Poor QUALITY OF SERVICE IS UNDERSTOOD AS FAIRNESS, SPEED OF 3 - Average PROCESSING, ACCURACY OF TRANSACTIONS, LEGIBILITY AND 4 - Good DURABILITY OF CERTIFICATES AND PRINTOUTS, CONVENIENCE 5 - Very Good OF OBTAINING SERVICE.

PART 6: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE SERVICE

On the basis of your experience of availing the service mentioned in PART 2, please rate the current system on the following a ributeson a scale of 1 to 5 or 0 as indicated.

RATING 1 2 3 4 5 0 Very Bad Average Good Very DK/CS Bad Good1. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to

that specied in citizens charter

2. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures

3. Communication by department about the progress and next stepsin service delivery


44/66

43


4. Mechanism to le complaints and provide feedback to the concerned

department

5. Accountability of offi cers

6. Location of offi ce (in terms of accessibility and convenience)

7. Service area facilities (in terms of seating arrangement, queues fordifferently abled, ramp for wheel chairs, etc.)

8. Convenience of working hours of offi ce

9. Management of queuing

10. Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness)to your queries and complaints

11. Accuracy of issued documents

12. Clarity and simplicity of application forms

13. Durability of certicates/printouts

14. Legibility of printouts/certicates/receipts

15. Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records)

16. Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that noother person can access your records)

RATING Very HighHighAverage Low Very Low DK/CS

17. Costs of availing service

18. Time and effort in availing service

19. Effort in document preparation

20. Corruption in the working of the system

21. Dependence on agents

22. From the a ributes listed above, please select the three that youconsider the most important for the service.

NOTE THE ATTRIBUTE CODE (1 TO 21) FROM ABOVE


45/66

44


PART 7: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PLEASE ASK THE RESPONDENT IF HE/SHE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS ON SER-VICE DELIVERY, ETC. RECORD VERBATIM.

PART 8: RESPONDENT PROFILE

1. What is your age in completed years? 1 - Less than 14 2 - 15-59 3 - 60 or More

2. Record the gender of the respondent. 1 - Male 2 - Female

3. What is the level of education that you have a ained? 1 - Illiterate 2 - Literate without Education 3 - Below Primary 4 - Primary 5 - Middle 6 - Matric/ Higher Secondary/ Diploma 7 - Graduate & Above 8 - Others (SPECIFY)

4. What is your main occupation? 1 - Cultivator 2 - Agricultural Labourer 3 - Household Industry Worker 4 - Self-employed/ Professional/ Trader 5 - Student 6 - Pensioner 7 - Others (SPECIFY)

5. Record (BY OBSERVATION) the type of house the respondent 1 - Permanent currently resides in. 2 - Semi-permanent 3 - Temporary


46/66

45


Annexure-II

Factors to be Considered for Determining the Sample Size

Effect Size: Effect size is used to measure the magnitude of impact (of computerization, inthis case) and can be computed as the standardized difference between two means. Effectsizes can be dened as small (between 0 and 0.2), medium (> 0.2 and =0.8). Sample size is determined by the desired effect size that we would like to be able tostatistically detect with the desired precision (power) needed for the study.The primary criterion for determining sample size in an impact analysis is the ability todetect an impact of a desired magnitude with a high degree of condence the MinimumDetectable Effect (MDE). In other words if we believe an impact of a certain magnitudehas policy relevance, then we should have the statistical power to test whether or not it isstatistically different from zero. The smaller the MDE, the more likely we will be able todetect smaller impacts. The MDE depends on

The expected variance of the impact estimateThe assumed signicance level (selected to reduce Type 1 error), typically assumed to

be 95%)The assumed power level (selected to reduce Type 2 error). The typical level chosen is80%. At this level we would have an 80 percent chance of detecting an effect as big as theMDE.

These three factors determine the minimum detectable effect size i.e. the smallest programeffect that we have a reasonable chance of detecting. The MDE can be expressed asMDE = Factor (, , df) * (Var (Impact) / whereVar (Impact): Variance of Impact Estimate: Standard Deviation of the Outcome Measuredf: Degrees of Freedom for test, which depends on the total sample size and sample design.Generally this is equal to: Total Number of Individuals- Number of Strata -1

Factor: Is a constant that is a function of the signicance level (), statistical power () and

the number of degrees of freedom. For two-tailed tests with greater than 100 degrees of free-dom, a 5 percent signicance level and 80 percent power, factor is equal to 2.80.The impacts found in the IIMA studies conducted so far average around 0.22 and 4.60 withan average of 0.83. Since many of the projects are being evaluated for the rst time, targetingan MDE of 0.5 would be a conservative benchmark i.e. given our sample size we shouldhave a reasonable chance of detecting an impact of half a standard deviation. Cohen (1998)labels this as a medium effect size.

Taking Account of Clustering

The sample size of the number of respondents depends not only on the desired statisticalpower and accuracy but also on how the sample is distributed between different clusters


47/66

46


e.g. service delivery centers and locations (cities/towns /villages) within the catchment area

of a center. An important parameter here will be the intra-class correlation (ICC) whichmeasures the extent to which user experiences differ between clusters. For instance, if theclusters are very dissimilar to each other (large ICC), then we would want more clusters andsmaller number of respondents within a cluster. However if the clusters are alike each other,then it might be more cost effective to pick a few clusters and sample a higher percentage ofrespondents within each cluster.In the IIMA study, an analysis of ICCs on each of the dimensions (Governance, ServiceQuality, Trips Saved, Wait Time, and Travel Cost) suggests that the ICCs range from 0.005to 0.65 and the average ICC is 0.22. In coming up with sample designs, agencies should becognizant of

The level of clustering: ICCs are likely to be higher for higher levels of clustering. Forinstance, ICCs were lowest when the clusters were civic centers in Ahmedabad.The nature of the service being provided and service users: For services like e-Procure-ment where users are likely to be more homogenous, the ICC was relatively low. But theICC was high for Khajane Payee since pensioners could come from a broad spectrum ofthe society.A ributes like governance and service quality are likely to vary most across clusters

Table below provides illustrative sample sizes and corresponding MDEs. Level 1 refers tothe rst level of clustering (e.g. service delivery centers) and Level 2 refers to the secondlevel of clustering (e.g. locations in the catchment area of each delivery center). For purposesof illustration, we made the following assumptions for power calculations:There are 200 service centers in the entire state.ICC at rst level of clustering: 0.25ICC at second level of clustering: 0.15Variance of outcome: 0.25

Illustrative Power Calculations to Determine Sample Size and Design

Cluster 1(No. of

Centers)

Cluster 2(No. of Locations

per Center)

No. of Interviewsin each City

Total Sample Variance of ImpactEstimate

MDE

40 2 10 800 0.004 0.44825 2 16 800 0.007 0.56520 4 10 800 0.008 0.58420 2 20 800 0.009 0.63118 2 20 720 0.010 0.66716 3 16 768 0.010 0.67216 2 25 800 0.011 0.70510 5 16 800 0.015 0.81110 4 20 800 0.015 0.82510 2 40 800 0.018 0.8918 4 25 800 0.019 0.9228 2 50 800 0.022 0.995


48/66

47


Annexure III

Prole of Pilot Districts in the Five States 10

State Pilot District Population RuralPopulation (%)

SC Populationof 25% or

more 11

Madhya Pradesh Guna 1,666,767 78.7 XGwalior 1,632,109 39.8 XIndore 2,465,827 29.8 XSagar 2,021,987 70.8 XShivpuri 1,441,950 83.4 X

Maharashtra Latur 2,080,285 76.4 XNagpur 4,067,637 35.7 XPune 7,232,555 41.9 X

Tamil Nadu Ariyalur 695,524 88.6 XCoimbatore 4,271,856 34.0 XKrishnagiri12 1,546,700 83.6 XPerambalur 493,646 84.0Thiruvarur 1,169,474 79.7

U ar Pradesh Gautam Buddha Nagar 1,202,030 62.6 XGhaziabad 3,290,586 44.8 XGorakhpur 3,769,456 80.4 XRae Barelli 2,872,335 90.5Sitapur 3,619,661 88.0Sultanpur 3,214,832 95.3 X

West Bengal Bankura 3,192,695 92.6 Jalpaiguri 3,401,173 82.2

Source: Census of India 2001. (2001). District Prole. Retrieved January 13, 20 11, from h p://www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/Basic_Data_Sheet.aspx

___________________

10Shaded rows indicate districts that were selected for the study.11 indicates that as per the Census of India 2001 records, the district has an SC Population of 25% or more whereas X indicates other-wise.12Since Krishnagiri district was carved out of Dharmapuri district in February 2004, data reported for this district is based on informa-tion obtained from the website of Krishnagiri district (h p://www.krishnagiri.tn.nic.in/prole.html) instead of the Census of India 2001data.


49/66

48


Services MP MH TN UP WB TotalNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Birth certicate 30 7.4 12 2.7 123 30.8 43 10.5 144 36.0 352 17.05

Castecerticate 74 18.2 232 51.6 1 0.3 73 17.9 23 5.8 403 1952

Charactercerticate 0 0.0 5 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 6 0.29

Deathcerticate 10 2.5 7 1.6 15 3.8 17 4.2 19 4.8 68 0.29

Domicilecerticate 0 0.0 18 4.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 6 1.5 25 1.21

Employmentcerticate 0 0.0 8 1.8 77 19.3 0 0.0 9 2.3 94 4.55

FPS licence 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.05Handicapcerticate 1 0.2 4 0.9 44 11.0 8 2.0 7 1.8 64 3.10

Incomecerticate 42 10.3 99 22.0 2 0.5 135 33.1 6 1.5 284 13.75

Ration card169 41.5 19 4.2 137 34.3 89 21.8 134 33.5 548 26.54

Residencecerticate 70 17.2 32 7.1 1 0.3 41 10.0 41 10.3 185 8.96

Restaurantlicense 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.05

Stamp vendorlicense 7 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.5 9 0.44

Weaponlicense 2 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 3 0.15

Others 0 0.0 14 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 2.0 22 1.07Total 407 100.0 450 100.0 400 100.0 408 100.0 400 100.0 2,065 100

___________________

13The total column represents the aggregate number of users of the service across all states and percentage of all respondents using the service for all

states.

Annexure IV

Service Usage across the Five States (by Number and % of Respondents) 13


50/66

49


Annexure V

Type of Service Availed (by % of Respondents) 14

Services For a newdocument

For renewal ofdocument

For copies ofdocument

For changes indocument

Total

Madhya Pradesh

Birth certicate 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Caste certicate 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Income certicate 97.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 100.0Ration card 88.8 10.1 0.6 0.6 100.0

Residence certicate 98.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 100.0Overall 94.6 4.9 0.2 0.2 100.0Maharashtra

Caste certicate 99.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0Income certicate 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Ration card 47.4 36.8 0.0 15.8 100.0Residence certicate 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Overall 97.3 2.0 0.0 0.7 100.0Tamil Nadu

Birth certicate 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0

Employment certicate 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Ration card 17.5 13.1 0.0 69.3 100.0Overall 71.0 4.5 0.0 24.5 100.0U ar Pradesh

Birth certicate 93.0 0.0 4.7 2.3 100.0Caste certicate 98.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 100.0Income certicate 97.8 0.7 0.0 1.5 100.0Ration card 42.7 28.1 13.5 15.7 100.0Residence certicate 97.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 100.0Overall 85.0 6.9 3.7 4.4 100.0West Bengal

Birth certicate 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Caste certicate 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Ration card 81.3 11.2 0.7 6.7 100.0Residence certicate 97.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 100.0Overall 93.3 4.0 0.3 2.5 100.0

___________________

14 Annexure V is generated on the basis of Question number 6 (Part 2) of the questionnaire.


51/66


52/66

51


___________________

16N.A. indicates that either the sample did not include any respondent who had used the service or was too small to be considered statisti-cally relevant.N refers to the sample size. Mean refers to the expected value (average over all responses for the service) of the cost element for the givensample (N).

SE or Standard Error refers to the standard deviation of the means of all possible samples (of size N) drawn from a population. In Propor-tion paying bribes, the percentage column (%) measures the percentage of respondents who paid a bribe, from a sample of N for a particularservice.

Services Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Tamil Nadu U ar Pradesh West Bengal

Mean N SE Mean N SE Mean N SE Mean N SE Mean N SENUMBER OF TRIPS

Birth 2.50 30 0.34 N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.50 123 0.16 2.14 43 0.08 2.16 144 0.06Caste 5.32 74 0.57 3.23 232 0.16 N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.75 73 0.15 3.65 23 0.43Employment N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.95 77 0.08 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.Income 3.07 42 0.38 1.94 99 0.12 N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.56 135 0.09 N.A. N.A. N.A.Ration card 4.51 169 0.37 3.58 19 0.59 2.56 137 0.15 3.10 89 0.27 3.01 134 0.13Residence 3.94 69 0.46 1.81 32 0.15 N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.85 41 0.18 1.63 41 0.16Overall 4.25 384 0.22 2.79 382 0.11 2.63 337 0.09 2.71 381 0.08 2.53 342 0.07

TOTAL WAITING TIME (MINUTES)Birth 47.23 30 10.59 N.A. N.A. N.A. 100.69 123 6.21 43.65 43 10.50 106.63 144 10.17Caste 170.76 74 15.71 309.27 232 12.65 N.A. N.A. N.A. 96.49 73 13.87 147.61 23 21.46Employment N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 109.16 77 6.31 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.Income 190.17 42 25.47 201.46 99 14.84 N.A. N.A. N.A. 107.90 135 10.87 N.A. N.A. N.A.Ration card 82.79 169 5.39 323.16 19 40.40 85.26 137 4.67 45.61 89 8.02 181.93 134 16.98Residence 122.32 69 16.76 139.88 32 18.24 N.A. N.A. N.A. 87.00 41 16.32 74.39 41 22.26Overall 115.81 384 6.10 267.83 382 9.46 96.35 337 3.32 81.66 381 5.62 135.02 342 8.73AVERAGE WAITING TIME (MINUTES)

Birth 20.56 30 4.72 N.A. N.A. N.A. 42.67 123 2.71 19.32 43 4.56 47.20 144 3.46Caste 56.83 74 5.78 112.25 232 3.62 N.A. N.A. N.A. 33.92 73 4.35 44.26 23 4.72Employment N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 37.27 77 2.10 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

Income 71.81 42 8.00 109.12 99 6.61 N.A. N.A. N.A. 39.59 135 3.43 N.A. N.A. N.A.Ration card 30.22 169 1.64 115.57 19 10.55 35.04 137 1.90 16.61 89 2.81 61.04 134 4.39Residence 43.85 69 5.40 77.26 32 10.17 N.A. N.A. N.A. 30.06 41 5.62 42.87 41 7.69Overall 41.59 384 2.04 108.67 382 2.99 38.34 337 1.35 29.82 381 1.85 51.90 342 2.48ELAPSED TIME (DAYS)

Birth 9.63 30 3.45 N.A. N.A. N.A. 13.80 123 0.91 7.12 43 1.53 123.42 144 12.16Caste 20.23 74 2.63 19.01 232 1.36 N.A. N.A. N.A. 10.38 73 1.22 187.17 23 39.65Employment N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 15.31 77 2.02 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.Income 8.29 42 1.75 6.34 99 1.14 N.A. N.A. N.A. 7.77 135 0.60 N.A. N.A. N.A.Ration card 71.20 169 8.61 26.00 19 5.36 22.27 137 2.84 34.00 89 5.49 178.11 134 12.64Residence 19.09 69 3.93 5.47 32 1.26 N.A. N.A. N.A. 13.00 41 2.18 25.61 41 9.95Overall 40.32 384 4.14 14.94 382 0.98 17.59 337 1.30 14.89 381 1.45 137.41 342 8.11PROPORTION PAYING BRIBES (%)

% N % N % N % N % NBirth 10 30 0 12 0 123 25.6 43 9.0 144Caste 45.9 74 13.8 232 N.A. N.A 23.3 73 0 23Employment N.A N.A 0 8 3.9 77 N.A. N.A. 0 9Income 64.3 42 7.1 99 N.A. N.A. 24.4 135 0 6Ration card 20.1 169 10.5 19 2.2 137 29.2 89 17.2 134Residence 40.6 69 15.6 32 N.A. N.A. 31.7 41 0 41

Annexure VII

Detailed Analysis of Costs of Availing Services 16


53/66

52


Reasons Birth cer-ticate

Castecerti-

cate

In-come

certi-cate

Rationcard

Resi-dence

certicate

Employmentcerticate

Total

Madhya Pradesh

Concerned functionary was not avail-able

0.0 23.9 37.5 38.1 14.3 N.A. 28.0

Documents/application submi ed byme were incomplete

50.0 26.1 8.3 24.7 22.4 N.A. 23.9

Counter was not operational 16.7 12.5 8.3 12.4 24.5 N.A. 14.4Document was not ready 16.7 13.6 0.0 10.3 20.4 N.A. 12.5Very long queue(s) at service center/offi ce

0.0 14.8 45.8 3.1 10.2 N.A. 12.1

Application form was not available 16.7 5.7 0.0 11.3 8.2 N.A. 8.0Others 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 N.A. 1.1Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N.A. 100.0Maharashtra

Very long queue(s) at service center/offi ce

N.A. 47.1 55.4 52.9 60.0 N.A. 49.4

Concerned functionary was not avail-able N.A. 30.8 24.1 29.4 20.0 N.A. 29.2Application form was not available N.A. 9.5 14.5 5.9 8.0 N.A. 10.0Counter was not operational N.A. 10.5 3.6 8.8 8.0 N.A. 9.2Documents/application submi ed byme were incomplete

N.A. 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 N.A. 0.9

Others N.A. 1.0 2.4 2.9 0.0 N.A. 1.3Total N.A. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N.A. 100.0U ar Pradesh

Concerned functionary was not avail-able

62.5 62.1 66.0 48.6 73.3 N.A. 61.0

Document was not ready 25.0 20.7 21.3 48.6 6.7 N.A. 27.2Documents/application submi ed byme were incomplete

0.0 3.4 6.4 2.7 13.3 N.A. 5.1

Very long queue(s) at service center/offi ce

12.5 6.9 6.4 0.0 0.0 N.A. 4.4

Counter was not operational 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 N.A. 2.2Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N.A. 100.0

___________________

17Respondents were asked to select the most important reason from a given list for not being able to complete a task ( e.g. submi ing anapplication, checking the status of the application, receiving the nal document etc.) in a trip (i.e. 1st , 2nd , 3rd trip and > 3 trips ), for which atrip was made. Annexure VIII which is generated on the basis of question no: 20 (part 2) , presents the percentage of respondents whichidentify each of the listed reason as being the most important . N.A. indicates that either the sample did not include any respondentwho had used the service or was too small to be considered statistically relevant. The total column represents the importance of a reasonaggregated over all services. One of the reasons termed as others may include a number of reasons from the giv