Report of the Sub-Committee on
Capacity Building and Convergence
PRESENTED BY:
BK SINHA
DR MN ROY,
DR RK SINGH,
PHANI KUMAR
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-
Direct Democratic
Process
PRIs/ ULBs
Institutions
Participatory
process
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Delivering
Structure
Individual
Legal/ Policy/
Guidelines/ Framework
State
Constitution
Electoral
Gram Sabha
Community/
CBos/ SHGs/
other Groups
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
Distance Mode
ToT
NIRD
State
Master Trainers
SIRD
ETCs/DTC
Ground Truthing
MTs
MTs
Block
Panchayat
Training
Peoples Training
Institute
e-learning
Mobile Device
Private Radio
Partner
Self Learning Mode
MTs
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 , Coordination, 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 , Coordination, 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 Chairperson
District 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
Subject
CD Institutions
Audio Visuals
Course Content &
Self Thought Mode
Learning out Come
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