Transcript NREGA in Orissa: Back to Basics?

NREGA in Orissa:
Back to Basics?
NREGA: Evaluation Criteria
1. Compliance with Act/Guidelines
2. Quality of process (e.g. participation)
3. Realisation of workers’ entitlements
4. Socio-economic impact
NREGA: Basic Entitlements







Work on demand
Unemployment allowance
Minimum wages
Payment within 15 days
Worksite facilities
No gender discrimination
Prompt redressal
The Field Survey
 Date: 3-12 October 2007
 Districts: Balangir, Boudh, Kalahandi
 Sample Frame:
 Two Blocks per Districts
 Five Gram Panchayats in each Block
 One worksite in each GP (i.e. 30 worksites)
Part 1
Selected Survey Findings
Awareness Levels are Still Very Low
Proportion (%) of sample worksites where “few”
or “none” of the labourers were aware of:
-
NREGA being in force
Right to apply for work
Right to unemployment allowance
Right to minimum wage
Mandatory worksite facilities
MRs to be kept at worksite
31
100
90
55
93
100
Incomplete Job Card Distribution
 Initial distribution restricted to BPL
households in some areas
 Confusion on BPL issue persists
 Households with no ration card are
often excluded
 Poor arrangements for issuing job
cards on a continuous basis
Job Card Distribution:
Some Good News
 Most people did not have to pay any
bribes or charges for the job card.
 However, about half of the applicants
were charged for the photu.
Work on Demand?
Did most labourers employed at this
worksite get employed in response to
an application for work?
YES
7%
NO
93%
Timeliness of Wage Payments:
A Glass Half-Full
Proportion of sample worksites
where wages had been paid:
 within 15 days
41
 within one month
82
Payment of Minimum Wages:
Half Empty!
Proportion (%) of worksites where:
“All” or “most” labourers earned
the minimum wage
48
“Very few” or “none” of the labourers
earned the minimum wage
41
Awareness of the schedule of rates
Positive feature: Growing awareness of
the schedule of rates (e.g. basic rate
for soft soil).
Shortcoming: Awareness of the details
remains very low (e.g. lift and lead,
dressing).
Work measurement:
Plenty of issues
 Low awareness of schedule of rates.
 Shortage of technical staff.
 Fiction of individual measurement by
Junior Engineers.
 Ground reality: rough measurements
by PEO/VLL, no official record.
 Lack of transparency all the way,
opening the door to cheating.
No Worksite Facilities
Proportion (%) of worksites that had:



Drinking water
First-aid kit
Child care facility
39
7
3
Participatory Planning:
A Long Way to go
 Proportion (%) of sample GPs that
had a shelf of projects:
46
 Proportion (%) of worksites that
were selected from a shelf of projects:
30
Productivity of works
Economic usefulness of the work, in the
assessment of survey team:
“Very useful” or “quite useful”
59
“Not particularly useful”
37
“Useless”
4
Impact on hunger, poverty and migration
 Clear evidence of enhanced food security
among NREGA workers.
 NREGA often helps to repay debts.
 Limited impact on migration: too little work
and not predictable.
 However, many people said that if there is
work in the village they won’t migrate.
 Most labourers prepared to work 100 days,
even more if possible.
Summary:
Incipient achievements




Payment of minimum wages.
Timely wage payments.
Creation of productive assets.
Where work is available, NREGA is a
lifeline for the rural poor.
Also: There have been major changes
over time, with much scope for more.
Summary: Major Concerns








Low levels of awareness.
Incomplete distribution of job cards.
Low level of employment generation.
Application process not in place.
Cryptic work measurement.
Gross violations of guidelines.
Absence of participatory planning.
Breakdown of transparency safeguards!
Part 2
Transparency and Corruption
The Traditional “System” of
Corruption




Contractor Raj
Dual records (kachha/pacca)
“PC system”
Contractor-politicians nexus
NREGA:
Major Transparency Safeguards







Contractors are banned
Transparency of muster rolls
Job cards
Worksite boards
Vigilance committees
Social audits
Monitoring and Information System
There are more…!
Breakdown of Transparency
Safeguards






Contractors are alive (and well?)
Muster rolls nowhere to be seen
Poor job card maintenance
Brazen “adjustments” in the records
Inactive Gram Sabhas
Vulnerability to local collusion
Survival of Contractors
Proportion of worksites where
evidence of contractor
involvement was found:
56
Dual Records Continue
 Muster rolls are never at the worksite.
 Kachha-pacca records are maintained
(both MRs and MBs).
 Sometimes labourers are asked to
sign blank MRs “in advance”.
PC System Persists
“Percentages” paid by contractors in
Balangir:
BDO
JE
AE
Block staff
2%
5%
3%
1%
PEO
GP Secy
Misc
5%
3%
3%
TOTAL 22%
Job Cards or Joke Cards?
 Faulty design, e.g. there is no column for
wage payments!
 Job card virtually impossible to read.
 Cards often kept by GP functionaries.
 Poor job card maintenance if any.
Outcome: Job cards are virtually useless.
Poor Job Card Maintenance
 Proportion (%) of worksites where
job card maintenance was
incomplete or irregular:
71
 Proportion (%) of worksites where
job card entries were made
at the time of wage payments:
7
Muster Rolls:
“Adjustment” or Fraud?
 Workers without job cards are often
“clubbed” with others in the MRs.
 Wages of several team members are
often entered in one person’s name.
 Fudging of MRs is common: fake
names, inflated days, etc.
 Badhigam: Fake muster roll!
Elusive Worksite Boards
 Proportion (%) of worksites that
had a “worksite board”
59
 Proportion (%) of boards
that mentioned the wage rate
55
Gram Sabhas: Still in Infancy
Good news: Gram Sabhas have started
discussing NREGA. However:




Poor attendance (no “quorum”).
Dominated by a few bigwigs.
Manipulation of proceedings.
No social audits.
Vigilance Committees are asleep
Proportion (%) of sample worksites:
 With Vigilance Committee
56
 With an “active” VC
20
 Where VC has prepared
a report or statement
8
Bottom line: Non-verifiable
System and Massive Leakages
 The records are virtually impossible to
verify due to faulty design, incomplete
maintenance, rampant adjustments, etc
 Proportion (%) of employment days
recorded in the MRs that were
“confirmed” by labourers:
60%
How Much Embezzlement?
“Guestimate” of leakages, based on
indirect evidence from the PC system:
 Total PC outlay
 Profit of contractors
22 %
10 %
 TOTAL
32 %
If anything, this may be on the low side.
Part 3
Recommendations
(see Interim Report at
www.righttofoodindia.org)
A “success story”: Kultajore








Work was selected by the Gram Sabha
Job cards well maintained
Workers earn the minimum wage
Wages are paid within 15 days
Worksite facilities are in place
Active Vigilance Committee
No sign of corruption at sample worksite
NREGA is highly valued by the villagers
If it can be done in Kultajore,
why not elsewhere?