National
Drinking Water
Mission – Review
in Kerala –
To provide every
rural person with
water for drinking,
cooking and other
domestic basic




The Scheme revolved around the three distinct
interrelated issue:
accelerating the coverage of remaining uncovered
habitations with safe drinking water systems
promote sustainability of safe drinking water
systems and
institutionalising water quality management,
monitoring and surveillance systems.




the planning process conceived was adequate for
successful implementation of the programme in terms
of coverage, source sustainability and water quality;
the fund management was economical and effective;
the implementation of various programme components
was effective and efficient; and
there existed effective monitoring and evaluation
mechanism



Vision, Mission and Goals of NRDWP as
reflected in the framework for
implementation
Water Quality norms stipulated in the
Protocol on Water Quality Monitoring
Work execution norms of Kerala Public
Works Department Code and Public Health
Engineering Department data book.

Five year rolling plan as envisaged in the
framework for implementation of NRDWP
(2010) was not prepared and only Annual
Action Plan was prepared.
◦ Consequently, adequate priority was not
given for schemes started years back.

In schemes involving several components,
failure to plan and synchronize resulted in
delayed commissioning of the schemes

Audit analysis of the impact of the
programme revealed that despite the
Guidelines 2000 specifying norms of
40 lpcd of potable drinking water, by
the end of 2012-13
◦ only 76 lakh beneficiaries could be
provided with said quantity of
potable drinking water which
worked to only 30 per cent of the
total rural population of 2.55 crore.
◦ The challenges before the
Government become all the more
acute when faced with the
heightened norms of providing
piped water with quality to each
household and higher norms of 55
lpcd.



Delayed execution of 11 major schemes resulted in
cost escalation and denial of potable drinking
water facility to 10 lakh rural population.
Poor progress was noticed in respect of schemes
implemented for coverage of quality affected
habitations and for sustainability of waters sources
Out of the 16 subdivisional laboratories formed in
the State, 15 of them were functioning without
separate infrastructure and technical facilities.


Though a State Water and Sanitation
Mission was formed, activities as envisaged
in the guidelines were not performed.
Effective monitoring and evaluation by State
Level Scheme Sanctioning Committee or
evaluation study by Central/State
Government was absent during the period
covered under audit.




The KWA should prepare a
comprehensive rolling plan for
according priority for completion of
schemes already taken up.
KWA should accord priority to cover
all quality affected habitations in
providing safe drinking water to rural
population.
Government should urgently
formulate and execute schemes for
sustainability of water sources to
ensure water security
The SWS & S Mission should function
to ensure greater convergence among
various departments, besides carrying
out other activities as envisaged in

IAY launched by GOI in May 1985 was aimed to provide
financial assistance for construction/up-gradation of dwelling
units to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, freed bonded
labourers and non-SC/ST persons living Below Poverty Line.


The IAY benefits have been extended to widows or next kin
of defence personnel killed in action, ex-servicemen and
retired members of the paramilitary forces.

BPL General Category of 40% beneficiaries includes people
from the minority community to the extent of 15%.

Commissioner of Rural Development under LSGD is in overall charge of
implementation of the scheme in the State.

Project Directors of PAUs under CRD are in charge of District level.

Secretaries of Block Panchayats (BPs) are the Implementing Officers.

CRD is to forward monthly progress received from PAUs to GOI.

PAUs are to allocate the funds received from GOI and State to the
Secretaries of BPs in the respective district.

Kerala has much enhanced pattern of assistance by way of supplementary
assistance from PRIs from the Development Fund of ` 1,51,500 from
2011-12 (for SCs), for STs it is over Rs. 2 lakh– earlier it was Rs.38,500
for General and Rs.51,500 for SCs/STs.
CRD
Addl. Development
Commissioner
Project Directors, PAU
Extension
Officer/Joint BDO
(Housing)
Joint Development
Commissioner
Asst. Commissioner
State Level
Secretary , BP
Addl. Project Directors
(Planning & Monitoring)
District Level
Village Extension
Officer
Block Level




The Scheme is being implemented in all the 14 districts
in the State.
In the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994, implementation of
rural housing schemes is in the domain of panchayats.
There are 14 District Panchayats, 152 Block Panchayats
and 978 Grama Panchayats.
Four districts were selected using Probability
Proportional to Size Without Replacement Sampling
(PPSWRS) method, dividing the State into two strata
viz., Southern region and Northern region.
Wayanad
Malappuram
Alappuzha
Thiruvananthapuram




Within each selected district 20% Rural Blocks subject to a
minimum two and within each selected Block 30% number of
GPs subject to a maximum 10 were to be selected. Within each
selected GP, two wards (villages) were also to be selected.
Eleven Block Panchayats were selected from the selected
districts using Simple Random Sampling Without
Replacement (SRSWOR).
25 Grama Panchayats and 50 wards (two wards from each GP)
were selected in third stage sampling.
318 beneficiaries from 50 wards (minimum six from each)
were selected for joint inspection.
Period
allocation
OB
Centre
State
Release
Total
Centre
State
Misc
Total
Fund
available
Expenditure
incurred
2008-09
712.26
10805.52
3601.85
14407.37
15655.70
5009.45
20665.15
233.12
21610.53
15190.55
2009-10
6419.98
16261.55
5420.52
21682.07
16261.55
5440.14
21701.69
215.27
28337.24
21256.92
2010-11
7080.32
18590.8
6196.93
24787.73
18590.8
6196.94
24787.74
28.81
31896.87
23312.03
2011-12
8584.84
18160.05
6053.35
24213.4
18160.05
5822.25
23982.30
104.438
32671.58
26419.68
2012-13
6251.89
20121.29
6707.12
26828.41
15344.332
5302.14
20646.472
3741.47
30639.83
21831.29
83939.21
27979.77
111919
84012.43
27770.92
111783.4
4323.10
145156.1
108010.50
Total
•Percentage of expenditure during the five years ranged between 70 to 80.
•Short release by Centre and State in 2012-13 because of excess carryover of funds, short release of
state share, delayed submission of UCs and non-adjustment of homestead share into IAY
•The above figure do not include PRI assistance.
•In Kerala, out of the total cost of ` two lakh per dwelling, the GOI plus State Government assistance is
` 48,500 called IAY component.
•The supplementary assistance by PRIs from the Development Fund is presently `Rs.1,51,500 (in the ratio
of 25:50:25 for DPs, BPs & GPs) .
Rural Development Ministry
GOI
Consolidated Fund
Rural Dev. Ministry
CRD
Allotment Letter
Addl Development
Commissioner (General)
DD
Sanctions
PAU
Cheque
(RTGS)
BP Scheme Account




During 2008-09 to 2012-13, against the physical target of 2.89
lakh new houses, 2.54 lakh were sanctioned of which 1.89
lakh houses were completed till March 2013.
Construction of 65180 houses were in progress of which
48041 were delayed beyond two years.
Major reasons for delay attributed to shortage of construction
materials, non-availability of trained labourers, etc.
As of March 2013, 57086 houses were up-graded against
59238 houses sanctioned.
Audit Objective 1
 To examine whether systems and procedures were in place for
identification and selection of the target groups and the
processes for allotment, construction and up-gradation of
dwelling units were adequate and conformed to the scheme
provisions.
Selection of beneficiaries
 Grama Sabhas were to select the beneficiaries from the list of
eligible BPL households and their selection was final.
 Grama Sabhas were sending lists of beneficiaries to BPs without
verifying their eligibility.
 Verification of the lists by VEOs revealed that the lists contained
ineligible beneficiaries.

Selection of beneficiaries under IAY is to be done from the
permanent IAY waitlist prepared out of the BPL list and
approved by the Grama Sabha.

No permanent IAY waitlists were prepared by the Blocks testchecked (except one block each in Thiruvananthapuram &
Malappuram).

Selection was done from the annual beneficiary list prepared by
Grama Sabha.

Annual beneficiary lists contained some APL beneficiaries.

Since beneficiary lists are prepared annually, strict observance
of priority could not be ensured –Lack of transparency in
ranking of beneficiaries.

By not having a permanent waiting list, prioritization of
beneficiaries in terms of seniority does not take place.

Beneficiaries have to repeatedly apply year after year for
getting benefit as the preference is for widows as head of the
family, physically handicapped, war widows etc.

Minimum 2 years, beneficiaries have to wait on an average.

Most of the beneficiaries surveyed were not aware of waiting
list or their priority.

This underscores the importance of Permanent waiting list.
Beneficiary survey of 318 revealed:

◦ 268 held BPL ration cards
◦ 49 held APL ration cards
◦ One had no ration card- he was selected on the basis of VEO’s certificate
Criteria for allocation among blocks/GPs within a district
 Allocation of fund and physical target among blocks in a district was
to be done by giving 75% weightage to housing shortage and
25% weightage to rural SC/ST population of the concerned
block.

Only the PAU, Malappuram and one BP (out of the three BPs of the
district test-checked) adhered to the principle.

PAUs and BPs of Alappuzha, Thiruvananthapuram and Wayanad did
not observe this principle.

Non-adherence to the principle resulted in distribution of funds
without giving due weightage to housing shortage and SC/ST
population.
Homestead scheme
A part of IAY scheme for providing homestead sites to those rural BPL
households who have neither agricultural land nor a house site. Funding was
shared between Centre and States in the ratio of 50:50. Financial assistance per
beneficiary was `Rs.10,000.

GOI sanctioned grant-in-aid of Rs. 32.09 crore to the State in December
2009 as one-time measure. State matching grant Rs.32.08 crore.

Out of Rs. 23.34 crore received (December 2009) by the PAUs of the four
selected districts, only Rs.3.06 crore was utilised (13% achievement).

Assistance from Homestead scheme was meagre compared to the land
value.

Land value being very high in Kerala due
to
increased
urbanisation,
Rs.10,000 is considered as too low and
beneficiaries are not coming forward and
PRIs are not able to formulate projects
because of lack of interest.

Under decentralized planning, the
Panchayat are providing assistance of
Rs.50,000 per beneficiary in rural areas
for purchasing land – even that is not
considered enough.

In the test-checked districts, out of 23341
households selected under Homestead
only 3038 beneficiaries availed the
benefits
Homestead scheme (contd..)

PAU, Wayanad did not follow GOI direction to credit the
balance outstanding under Homestead into IAY account.
Consequently, GOI did not provide second installment of IAY
share during 2012-13.


There was shortage of fund under IAY during 2012-13 on
account of this in Wayanad.

In the four test-checked districts, total no. of landless families
were 45794, of this 23341 were sanctioned. And out of this,
3038 have benefitted, to the total cost of Rs.3.06 crore.
Cluster approach to facilitate better implementation



Guidelines stipulate that the States should follow the
cluster
approach
to
facilitate
better supervision,
convergence of schemes and economies in purchases. For
this purpose, all the villages in a district/block were to be
divided into three groups and each group of villages was to be
provided funds every year.
This was not seen done in any of the districts in the State.
Had this been followed, the difficulties faced by the
beneficiaries could have been reduced.
Inventory of houses
 The guideline provided that the implementing agencies should
have a complete inventory of houses constructed/upgraded
under IAY giving details of commencement of houses and its
completion, name of the village and block in which the house
is situated, occupation and category of beneficiaries and other
relevant particulars to ensure proper planning.

In the blocks/districts test-checked, inventory of houses as
stipulated in the guidelines were not prepared.

In the absence of inventorisation, details of the beneficiaries
for future reference are not available.
Objective 2
To examine whether the physical performance under IAY in terms of
number of units constructed and upgraded was as planned and targeted and
that the constructions corresponded to the quality and financial parameters
set out in the scheme guidelines.
Shortage of allocation to SC/ST
Guidelines provide that at least 60 per cent of the IAY fund and physical target
should be utilized for construction/upgradation of dwelling units for SC/ST
BPL households.
State picture


Against 152355 (60%) new houses to be provided, only 132239
(52.07%) were provided during 2008-13.
Physical achievement under Up-gradation was 50.43% against the
target 60%.
Delay in completion of houses




Considerable delay noticed in completion of houses.
Laxity in monitoring and supervision of the worksites by
VEO, Jt. BDO (Housing) and PDs.
BDOs failed to motivate the beneficiaries to complete the
houses in time.
Due to non-completion, beneficiaries failed to create
permanent shelter and also expenditure of Rs.4.66 crore is
locked up since 3-4 years.





Total expenditure (new houses & upgradation) during 2008-13 was
49.86%.
In Alappuzha, against 15255 (60%) houses, 9785 (38.48%) were provided,
shortage of 5470 houses. Against upgradation of 60%, the performance was
44.38%.
In Malappuram, against 14820 (60%) houses to SC/ST, only 12721
(51.41%) provided, short provision of 2099 houses. Against upgradation of
4258 (60%), only 3712(52.31%) were provided.
In both these districts, lack of willingness of SC/ST beneficiaries because
they were accessing from other SC/ST promotion schemes and amount
provided was perceived to be meagre compared to the actual cost of
construction.
In the other two districts, coverage of SC/ST was more than the required
percentage.
Survey of 318 beneficiaries revealed that:
 306 houses were allotted in the name of females
 Land ownership - females:162; jointly with spouse: 65;
other family members : 91
Non-provision of amenities
 IAY houses were to be provided with sanitary latrine,
smokeless chulha, drinking water facilities and electricity
connection.
 Out of 318 beneficiaries surveyed, 230 houses were without
smokeless chulha, 60 were without sanitation facilities and
20 were without proper drinking water facility.

Involvement of contractor
Guidelines stipulate that no contractor shall be involved in the
construction of dwelling units under lAY, by the Implementing
Agency.
 Four beneficiaries (ST) out of 12 surveyed in one GP under
Mananthavady Block in Wayanad District admitted
involvement of contactors in construction of their IAY houses.
 Village Extension Officer, Thondernadu GP, registered a
complaint with the local police against a contractor who failed
to complete construction of 5 houses (ST) sanctioned in 201112. These beneficiaries were sanctioned Rs.2.5 lakh each.
 Involvement of contractors will have risk of non-completion/
abandonment of houses/cost escalation.
Availability of information on technology
 Guidelines stipulate that effort should be made to utilize local
materials and cost effective
disaster
resistant
and
environment
friendly
technologies
developed
by
various institutions. The State Governments may also arrange
to make available information on cost effective and
environment friendly technologies, materials, designs etc., at
district/block level.
 Cost effective disaster resistant and environment friendly
technologies/products were not made available to
beneficiaries.
Absence of
(contd…)




uniform
design
of
dwelling
units
Guidelines provide that Officers dealing with the IAY at the State,
district and Block levels must be trained in various disaster resistant
features to be adopted in the houses and they should ensure that this
is complied with during their field visits.
No district and block level officials were trained in adopting cost
effective and environment friendly housing technologies and also
disaster proof building practices, to assist the beneficiaries.
No logos were displayed in front of majority of the houses
inspected.
70 out of 318 houses surveyed were not aware of the requirement of
displaying logos.
Delay in release of PRI share
Since 2012-13, 75% of total funds of Rs.two lakh were
contributed by PRIs in Kerala




During 2008-13, PRI share for construction of IAY houses was Rs.1417.82
crore. Of these, Rs.1,111.76 crore spent on completed houses.
Though the time for completion of houses was two years from the date of
sanction of house, release of supplementary assistance by PRIs was
delayed.
The delay ranged from one to five years in the test-checked blocks.
This was one of the major reasons for delay in completion of dwellings.
Availing loan under Differential Rate of Interest (DRI)
 There was failure on the part of the banks in providing hassle
free DRI loans to IAY beneficiaries. The banks insisted strict
security norms like pledging of property.
 Out of 2.53 lakh beneficiaries in the State during the period
2008-13, only 2753 availed DRI loan.
 In Thiruvananthapuram and Wayanad Districts, none of the
beneficiaries availed DRI loan whereas in Malappuram
district, out of the 45 applications received by banks during
2008-09 to 2012-13, loans were sanctioned to 15 beneficiaries
only and the remaining 30 applications were rejected.
 Majority of beneficiaries surveyed were not aware of DRI loan
facilities.
 Beneficiary survey revealed:
◦ Only 19 out of 318 beneficiaries were aware of DRI loan facilities. Of
these, 8 availed loan facilities.
Credit-cum-Subsidy scheme
 Guidelines provide that under Credit-cum-subsidy up to 20% of
the total funds can be utilized for up-gradation of existing
kutcha houses @ 15000 per household and Credit- cumSubsidy will be provided @ Rs. 12,500 per household for
construction of houses with credit from Banks/Financial
Institutions.
 During the period 2008-09 to 2012-13, only 8.65% against 20%
of the total funds was utilized for upgradation of existing kutcha
houses and Credit- cum-Subsidy.
 During the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 only 1491 beneficiaries
availed credit cum subsidy, percentage of utilization was 0.15.
Objective 4
To examine whether the convergence of the IAY activities
with other programmes as envisaged was effectively achieved
and availability of a complete functional dwelling unit was
ensured.



Absence of effective convergence in the test-checked districts.
Beneficiary survey also revealed that no support was received
from any Government scheme for the facilities of water,
sanitation and electricity.
Out of 318 beneficiaries surveyed, only 50 stated that there was
convergence with other programmes like TSC/RGGVY etc.
Objective 5
To examine whether the mechanism in place for monitoring and evaluation of
the outcomes of the programme was adequate and effective.
Monitoring

Shortfall in monitoring at district level.

Shortfall ranging from four to ten meetings during audit period in
convening District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee
meetings.



Difficulties experienced by IAY beneficiaries were seldom discussed
in these meetings.
Beneficiary survey (318 beneficiaries) revealed:
 45 households faced problems in getting IAY assistance.
Evaluation
Planning Commission entrusted PEO to
conduct evaluation study during June 2009 to
December 2010.

Many IAY beneficiaries ignorant about the
stages of fund release and when to complete the
house construction.

Wide range of time period for completion of
the construction of houses.

Majority of the houses did not display IAY
logo.
IAY houses are good and of average quality.
IAY beneficiaries faced problems regarding
release of instalment causing delay in
completion of the house.
The State Government also conducted an
evaluation study through Centre for
Development Studies that broadly corroborate
our findings








Necessity of
a permanent waiting list is
emphasised for identification of beneficiaries,
their prioritization and for transparency in
selection.
Land value being high it is essential that the
assistance is substantially increased for
Homestead schemes to be successful.
The cluster approach should be considered for
better supervision (in view of delay in
construction), convergence and economy in
purchase.
To avoid delay in PRI supplementary assistance,
augmentation of development fund/streamlining
the loan facilities through banks to be
considered.
System to be strengthened for effective
convergences of IAY with other programmes for
facilities of water, sanitation and electricity to
be provided.