PRESENTED BY: BK SINHA

DR MN ROY, DR RK SINGH,PHANI KUMAR

Report of the Sub-Committee on Capacity Building and

Convergence

Background of the Report

→ Sub Committee constituted in the second meeting of the Committee( 31st October 09);

→ Terms of Reference of the Sub Committee: →Access the resource envelope made available for capacity

building through various schemes;→Determine the extent of use of IEC/ICT and the handicaps

thereto;→Assess the extent of convergence in these programs at various

levels;→Prepare a concept and national framework for capacity

building. The frame work should include the definition of capacity building, principles of capacity building and the structures at national, state, district and sub-district level needed for capacity building.

Present Status of National Capacity Building Framework (NCBF)

→ NCBF – First comprehensive guide to planning and implementing capacity development investments for local governments.

→ NCBF supported some of the critical gaps other than training that are necessary for the capacity development of local governments→ complete cycle of training → provision to access technical support→ provision for availing services to cover the functional gaps at the PRI level→ provision training using the cascading model→ Most states have started using a combination of e-based learning approaches

→ satellite training centers→ video conferencing facilities → telephone help lines

→ Limitations→ far too focused on individual training and may not entirely address organisational

or institutional capacity gaps.→ does not require the States to conduct a capacity needs assessment for each

district→ omits pre-electoral training → limited to BRGF districts → no integration of line and sectors in capacity building→ un-realistic costing of capacity building training programme

Current Issues

→Underutilisation of resources available under the flagship programs of rural development.

→A substantial amount of resources committed for the capacity development under BRGF has not been utilised.

→A manifestation of the weak capacity of SIRDs, the “lynchpin service providers”, and other nodal agencies.

→No social audit of capacity building→Non-existent sub district training infrastructure

Institution Building

→Sine qua non to make SIRDs self sufficient and self renewing.

→to set up institution to capacity building at the district level

→to encourage learning from the people process→to create a network of institution for capacity building →Key role of civil society organisations and private

sector actors in developing capacities for local governance.

→NIRD as national level ‘lynchpin service provider’ with the mandate to coordinate national level activities and facilitate collaboration among capacity development service providers dispersed across the country.

Why a new framework?

→NCBF not complete, mostly confined to training →NCBF provides limited flexibility to States→Provision for institutionalisation of Best Practices →Lack of a common framework that could be used

for the need assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of capacity development projects

→The report of the first independent review mission for BRGF recommends developing format/template and guidelines for Capacity Needs Assessment for capacity development planning while allowing flexibility and innovation at State level

New Framework New Capacity Development Programme -

NCDP-

Participatory process

Monitoring & Evaluation

Delivering Structure Individual

Electoral Gram Sabha

Community/ CBos/ SHGs/ other Groups

State

Constitution

Legal/ Policy/ Guidelines/ Framework

Institutions

PRIs/ ULBs

Direct Democratic Process

Objectives

→Institution capacity in planning, implementation and self evolution

→Self Reliance and self support →Create pressure on other institution for assertion

of their share→Capacities of Dalits, Tribals, OBCs, Minorities &

Women should be brought at par with other →LSG Should be able to assert vis-à-vis.

Bureaucracy, State and National Government→Different tiers of PRIs institution should be able

to develop ownership and template for planning & action

→Should be able to create & function in a network

Features

→ Common to the entire country→ Provided the broad framework with provision for local

level variation → Common feature include

→ monitoring & evolution → funding → accounting procedure→ MIS based reporting → Electronics transfer, tracking and accounting → Integration with capacity building of all other

programmes→ Composite mode of training → 8 Sectoral Modules for training → Common content delivery in core areas

Proposed Structure Cascading Mode

NIRD ToT

SIRD

ETCs/DTC

Block

Panchayat

MTs MTs MTs

Training

Distance Mode

Ground Truthing

Master Trainers State

Self Learning Mode

e-learning Mobile Device Private Radio

Partner

Peoples Training Institute

Areas of Concern

→Inadequate in funding personal & infrastructure

→Highly segmented & Sectoral→No TNA & preparation of Training Profile→Inadequate reporting →No Social Audit of Training Delivery →Not demand driven →People’s initiatives not captured

Training Delivery Structure

Level Nomenclature

Composition Function funding

National NCCD National Council for Capacity Development

NIRD, Representatives of Rural Ministries, RoRD, MoPR, DoLR, DWS, Women & Child Welfare, Social, Planning Commission, representatives of CBOs, Minorities, HRD, Health

Policy formation, Monitoring , Co-ordination, Center Development, Evaluation, Data maintenance

National Capacity Development fund, 1%of sectoral funds

State Council for capacity development

SIRDs Convener, ATIs, concern departments, representatives of CBOs, Planning Commission, Elected Panchayats and ULBs representatives

Policy formation, Monitoring , Co-ordination, Center Development, Evaluation, Data maintenance , local variation content, production of training materials, delivery of content, supervision, monitoring evaluation

State level Capacity development fund SCDFs , State government grants

District DCCD ZP President , District Collector & Secretary, Municipal ChairpersonDistrict Technical Head, Nominated CBO/NGO representative SIRD Nominee

NCDP Planning, implementation monitoring local variations to national programmes, DCCD to device intermediate level structure

District capacity development fund Pulling together of all funds

IP IPCCD IP President, CEO, IP, Block technical heads, ETC nominee, Master trainers, NGO

NCDP Planning, implementation monitoring local variations to national programmes, DCCD to device intermediate level structure ,Support development of people’s learning process;Capacity building of the Gram Sabha; support GP Planning;

BRGF, flagship programmes, untied funds of the Panchayats

Module Mapping

Course objective

Expected Learning

out Come

Co

urs

e C

on

ten

t &

Se

lf Th

ou

gh

t Mo

de

Case Studies

Audio Visuals

Gam

es

Le

arn

ing

ou

t C

om

e

Course

Evalu

atio

ns

CD Institutions

Subject

Sub-Subject

Topic

Sub-Topic

Role of PRIs

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

Infrastructure

→Creation of National Vision →Disaggregated vision at different level →Clear delineation of personal →Flexibility in personal policies→MIS →Use of ICT

Funding

→National common funding pattern for CD→Fund allocation for training programme to be

computed at per capita basis →3 levels of funding to be clearly demarcated →Market & other linkages →Clear cut ear marking & integration of CD

funds of all CSS into NCD funds →Audit

Legislative Framework

→National Capacity development programme should be mandatory

→Pooling of Capacity Building Training funds of all scheme into NCDP to be made mandatory

→According to the Activity Mapping devolving of 3fs to be made mandatory by states

→Implementation of the recommendations of 7th round table conferences

Capacity Building Matrix

Thank You