NRLP Mid-Term Assessment Report_31032015_latest

Transcription

Aajeevika
National Rural Livelihoods Mission
Mid-Term Assessment Report
National Mission Management Unit
RL Division, Ministry of Rural Development
Government of India
March, 2015
Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... vii
Abbreviations Used ................................................................................................................................... viii
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 10
Table-1.1 Sample from Resource Blocks ....................................................................................... 12
Table-1.2 Sample from Intensive Blocks (Other than Resource Blocks) ............................ 13
Chapter-2 Mission Structures and Human Resources .................................................................. 16
Table-2.1 Timeline of Establishment of SRLMs .......................................................................... 17
Table-2.2 Status of SMMU Staff in SRLMs ..................................................................................... 19
Table-2.3 Key SMMU Staff in Position: Dec. ‘14 .......................................................................... 20
Table-2.4 DMMU Staff in Position: Dec. ‘14 .................................................................................. 21
Table-2.5 BMMU Staff in Position: Dec. ‘14 .................................................................................. 22
Chapter-3 NRLP Footprint....................................................................................................................... 25
Table-3.1 Expansion of Districts Implementing NRLM: Dec.’14 .......................................... 27
Table-3.2 Blocks Implementing NRLM: Dec. ‘14 ........................................................................ 28
Table-3.3 Year-wise Commencement of Intensive Blocks: NRLP ....................................... 29
Table-3.4 Expansion of Resource Block Strategy: Number of Blocks ................................ 30
Table-3.5 NRLP Resource Blocks in Progress: Dec 2014 ........................................................ 30
Table-3.6 NRLP Footprint in GPs and Villages: Intensive Blocks ........................................ 31
Chapter 4 Social Mobilization and Inclusion .................................................................................... 32
Table-4.1 Year-wise Mobilization of Households into NRLM Fold ..................................... 33
Table-4.2 Households Mobilized in Resource Blocks with NRO Support ........................ 33
Table-4.3 Extent of Social Mobilization in Sample Clusters .................................................. 34
Table-4.4 Social Composition of Members Mobilized in Intensive Blocks ...................... 36
Table-4.6 Social Composition of SHG Members: Sample ........................................................ 38
Table-4.7 Social Composition of Members in Resource Blocks: Sample .......................... 38
Table-4.8 Social Composition of Sample Members in Partnership Blocks ...................... 39
Table-4.9 Social Composition of SHG Leaders: Total Sample ............................................... 39
Table-4.10 Social Composition of SHG Leaders: Resource Block Sample ........................ 40
Table-4.11 Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: Partnership Blocks (%) ........ 40
Chapter–5 Promotion and Functioning of SHGs ............................................................................. 42
Table-5.1 SHGs Promoted and Revived Per Block: Intensive Blocks ................................. 43
Table-5.2 Average SHGs per Block in Resource Blocks ........................................................... 44
Table-5.3 Composition of Sample SHGs ........................................................................................ 45
Table-5.4 Age Analysis of Sample SHGs: All Block Sample .................................................... 45
i
Table-5.5 Adherence of SHGs to Panchsutras: Total Sample ................................................ 46
Table-5.6 Adherence of Sample SHGs to Panchsutras: Resource Block Sample............ 47
Table-5.7 Core Modules of SHG Member Training .................................................................... 48
Table-5.8 Training Provided to SHGs: Sample ............................................................................ 49
Table-5.9 Members Attending Three-Day Basic Training: Sample..................................... 50
Table-5.10 Facilitation Support Provided to SHGs: Sample .................................................. 50
Table-5.11 Source of Facilitation Support: Sample ................................................................... 50
Table-5.12 Number of SHGs Taking up Different Issues: All Block Sample .................... 51
Chapter-6 Finances of SHGs .................................................................................................................... 53
Table-6.1 SHGs with Saving Bank Accounts: All Intensive Blocks ...................................... 54
Table-6.2 Per SHG and per Member Cumulative Savings: Sample of New SHGs ........... 54
Table-6.3 Per SHG and per Member Cumulative Savings: Sample of New and Preexisting SHGs............................................................................................................................................ 55
Table-6.4 Eligible SHGs Provided RF in Intensive Blocks: MIS ............................................ 56
Table-6.5 Grading of SHGs: Sample ................................................................................................. 56
Table-6.6 No. of SHGs Provided with RF: Sample ...................................................................... 57
Table-6.7 Eligible SHGs Provided CIF in Intensive Blocks ..................................................... 58
Table-6.8 Sample SHGs Provided CIF ............................................................................................. 58
Table-6.10 SHG Bank Linkage in Intensive Blocks .................................................................... 59
Table-6.11 No. of SHGs Accessed Bank Credit: Sample ........................................................... 60
Table-6.12 CIF-Bank Loan Ratio in Intensive Blocks: 2014-15............................................ 60
Table-6.13 Leverage Ratio (Own Fund to Bank Loan) in Sample SHGs: All Blocks ...... 61
Table-6.14 Idle Funds with SHGs as Proportion of Total Outstanding Loans ................ 63
Table-6.15 Distribution of Sample SHGs by Amount of Idle Funds in Dec.’14 ............... 63
Table-6.16 Velocity of Fund Rotation in Sample SHGs: Up to Dec.’14 ............................... 64
Table-6.17 Members Availing Internal Loans (At least once): Total Sample (All
Blocks) ........................................................................................................................................................ 65
Table-6.18 Members Availing Internal Loans (At least once): Total Sample (Resource
Blocks) ........................................................................................................................................................ 65
Table-6.19 Purpose-wise Utilization of Loans As Indicated by Members: Sample ...... 66
Table-6.20 Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs .................................................................. 68
Table-6.21 Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs: Sample States .................................... 68
Chapter–7 Promotion and Functioning of VOs ................................................................................ 71
Table-7.1 Growth of VOs per Block: NRLP ................................................................................... 72
Table-7.2 Number of Villages with VOs: All Blocks ................................................................... 73
Table-7.3 Formation of VOs in During the Project Period: NRLP ........................................ 73
Table-7.4 SHGs Holding Membership in VO ................................................................................ 74
ii
Table-7.5 Analysis of Sample VOs by Age: Total Sample ........................................................ 74
Table-7.6 SHGs Federated into VOs: Sample ............................................................................... 75
Table-7.7 Regularity of VO Meetings in Sample VOs ................................................................ 75
Table-7.8 SHGs Attending VO Meetings......................................................................................... 76
Table-7.9 SHGs Reviewed by VOs: Oct-Dec.’14........................................................................... 76
Table-7.10 SHGs Provided CIF: All Block Sample ...................................................................... 77
Table-7.11 SHGs Provided CIF in Resource Blocks ................................................................... 77
Table-7.12 MIP Appraisal Total Sample ........................................................................................ 78
Table-7.13 CIF Amount Provided to SHGs: Total Sample ....................................................... 78
Table-7.14 CIF Amount Provided to SHGs: Resource Blocks ................................................ 79
Table-7.15 CIF Recovery in VOs ....................................................................................................... 79
Table-7.16 Receipts and Payments of Sample VOs: Total Sample ...................................... 80
Table-7.17 Status of Bookkeeping in VOs: Total Sample ........................................................ 81
Table-7.18 Status of Bookkeeping in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks ................................. 81
Table-7.19 Role of VO in Mobilization, Training and Convergent Activities: Total
Sample ........................................................................................................................................................ 82
Table-7.20 Capacity Building of EC Members: Total Sample ................................................ 83
Table-7.21 Social Issues Taken up by VOs: Sample .................................................................. 84
Chapter–8 Promotion of Social Capital............................................................................................... 86
Chapter 9: Process Study: MKSP Intervention ................................................................................ 96
Chapter 10 Process Study: CMSA Intervention .............................................................................107
Annex-1 Districts and Blocks ...................................................................................................... 116
Annex-2 HR Structure Recommended by NMMU ..................................................................... 117
Annex-3 HR Hygiene Practices in NRLP States: A Summary ...................................................... 119
Annex-4 Rationalised Structure ................................................................................................. 125
Annex-5 Efficiency Benchmarks for an Intensive Block (for 3 years)......................................... 126
Annex – 6 Identification of Target Households: A Summary of Methods Adopted .................. 130
Annex-7 Methods Adopted for Ensuring Social Inclusion in Different States ........................... 132
Annex-8 Identification and Mobilization ................................................................................... 134
Annex-9 Capacity Building of Community Institutions: NRLP States ......................................... 139
Annex-10 Revolving Fund Disbursement Channel: A Summary ................................................ 142
Annex-11 CIF Disbursement Channel: A Summary .................................................................... 147
Annex-12 Methods and Processes Adopted for Bookkeepers .................................................. 152
Annex-13 Internal CRPs Methods Adopted for Identification, Training and Deployment ........ 155
Annex-14 Status of MIS, Procurement and FMS in Different States ......................................... 159
Annex-15 State Information Report........................................................................................... 167
iii
Annex-16: NRLP: MTR A Suggested Methodology for Process Study ........................................ 175
Annex-17:NRLP: MTR Checklist for Process Study ..................................................................... 176
Annex-18 : NRLM – MTR Process Assessment Study Focus Group Discussion Guide for
SMMU/DMMU/BMMU Staff ..................................................................................................... 178
Annex-19: NRLP: MTR Sampling Procedure ............................................................................... 182
Annex-23 Implementation Processes in a Typical Block ............................................................ 215
Annex-24 Expansion from Resource Blocks to Newer Blocks .................................................... 217
Annex Table-3.1 NRLP Implementation in Progress: Districts, Blocks and Villages Entered ..... 218
Annex Table-4.1 Social Mobilisation in Resource Blocks (Sample) ............................................ 219
Annex Table-4.2 Social Mobilisation in Intensive Blocks ........................................................... 220
Annex Table-4.3 Social Mobilisation: Sample Clusters .............................................................. 221
Annex Table-4.4 Social Composition of Members Mobilized in Intensive Blocks ..................... 222
Annex Table-4.5 Social Composition of Members Mobilized in Resource Blocks ..................... 222
Annex Table-4.6 Social Composition of SHG Members: Total Sample ...................................... 223
Annex Table-4.7 Social Composition of Members in Resource Blocks: Sample ........................ 223
Annex Table-4.8 Social Composition of Sample Members in Intensive Blocks ......................... 223
Annex Table-4.9 Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: All Blocks .................................. 224
Annex Table-4.10 Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: Resource Blocks ..................... 224
Annex Table-4.11 Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: Intensive Blocks (%) ............... 224
Annex Table-5.1 New & Revived SHGs in NRLM fold in Intensive Blocks .................................. 226
Annex Table-5.2 New SHGs and Revived/Strengthened SHGs under NRLM Fold in Resource
Blocks ......................................................................................................................................... 227
Annex Table-5.3 CBOs Promoted: Total Sample ........................................................................ 227
Annex Table-5.4 CBOs Promoted in Resource Blocks ................................................................ 227
Annex Table-5.5 SHGs Formed/Revived and Strengthened: Total Sample ............................... 228
Annex Table-5.6 SHGs Formed/Revived and Strengthened in Resource Blocks: Sample ......... 228
Annex Table-5.7 Training Provided to SHGs: All Blocks ............................................................. 230
Annex Table-5.8 Training Provided to Sample SHGs During CRP Rounds: Resource Blocks ..... 230
Annex Table-5.9 Training Provided to Sample SHGs on Meeting Processes: All Blocks ............ 230
Annex Table-5.10 Sample SHGs Trained Maintenance of Books of Accounts: All Blocks ......... 231
Annex Table-5.11 Sample SHGs Trained Maintenance of Books of Accounts: Resource Blocks231
Annex Table-5.12 MCP Training Provided to Sample SHGs: All Blocks ...................................... 231
Annex Table-5.13 MCP Training Provided to Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks ........................... 232
Annex Table-5.14 Other Types of Training Provided to Sample SHGs: All Blocks ..................... 232
Annex Table-5.15 Other Types of Training Provided to Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks........... 232
Annex Table-5.16 Members Provided Three Day Basic Training: All Blocks.............................. 233
iv
Annex Table-5.17 Members Provided Three Day Basic Training: Resource Blocks ................... 233
Annex Table-5.18 SHGs Provided Facilitation Support: All Blocks ............................................. 233
Annex Table-5.19 SHGs Provided Facilitation Support: Resource Blocks .................................. 234
Annex Table-5.20 SHGs Provided Facilitation Support by Active Women and Staff: All Blocks 234
Annex Table-5.21 SHGs Provided Facilitation Support by Active Women and Staff: Resource
Blocks ......................................................................................................................................... 234
Annex Table-5.22 SHGs Providing Training During Preceding Three Months: All Blocks .......... 235
Annex Table-5.23 SHGs Providing Training During Preceding Three Months: Resource Blocks 235
Annex Table-5.24 Attendance of Members at Sample SHG Meetings: All Blocks ..................... 235
Annex Table-5.25 Savings Subscribed by Members: All Blocks ................................................. 236
Annex Table-5.26 Stipulated Meetings Conducted During Last Six Months: Sample SHGs ...... 236
Annex Table-5.27 Number of Meetings held Vis-à-vis Expected During Last Six Months: Sample
SHGs ........................................................................................................................................... 237
Annex Table-5.28 Average Member Attendance at Meetings: All Blocks ................................. 238
Annex Table-6.1 SHG Savings both Old and New SHGs: All Sample Blocks ............................... 239
Annex Table-6.2 Amount of Savings Collected by SHGs During Preceding 6 Months ............... 240
Annex Table-6.3 Savings Undertaken by Sample SHGs in All Blocks ......................................... 241
Annex Table-6.4 No. of members who have taken loans: All Blocks ......................................... 242
Annex Table-6.5 No. of members who have taken loans: Resource Blocks .............................. 242
Annex Table -6.6 Savings of Sample SHGs (New) by Age: All Blocks ......................................... 243
Annex Table -6.7 Savings of Sample SHGs (New) by Age: Resource Blocks............................... 244
Annex Table -6.8 Grading of Sample SHGs: All Blocks ............................................................... 245
Annex Table-6.9 Grading of Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks ..................................................... 245
Annex Table-6.10 Sample SHGs Provided RF: All Blocks ............................................................ 245
Annex Table-6.11 Sample SHGs Provided RF: Resource Blocks ................................................. 246
Annex Table–6.12 No. of Sample SHGs Provided with CIF: All Blocks ....................................... 246
Annex Table–6.13 No. of Sample SHGs Provided with CIF: Resource Blocks ............................ 246
Annex Table-6.14 No. of Sample SHGs Accessed Bank Credit: All Blocks .................................. 247
Annex Table-6.15 No. of Sample SHGs Accessed Bank Credit: Resource Blocks ....................... 247
Annex able – 6.16 Idle Funds with Sample SHGs by Age: All Blocks .......................................... 248
Annex Table-6.17 Average Idle Cash with Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks ............................... 249
Annex Table-6.18 Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs: Intensive Blocks ............................ 249
Annex Table-6.19 Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks ............................ 250
Annex Table-6.20 Velocity of Fund Rotation in Sample SHGs: Up to Dec.’14 ........................... 250
Annex Table-6.21 Leverage Ratio (Own Fund to Bank Loan) in Sample SHGs: All Blocks ......... 252
Annex Table–7.1 Growth of VOs Per Block: NRLP ..................................................................... 254
v
Annex Table-7.2 SHGs Holding Membership in Sample VOs: All Blocks.................................... 255
Annex Table-7.3 SHGs Holding Membership in Sample VOs:: Resource Blocks ........................ 255
Annex Table-7.4 SHGs Federated into Sample VOs: All Blocks .................................................. 255
Annex Table-7.5 SHGs Federated into Sample VOs: Resource Blocks ....................................... 256
Annex Table -7.6 Regularity of Sample VO Meetings: All Blocks ............................................... 256
Annex Table -7.7 Regularity of Sample VO Meetings: Intensive and Resource Blocks ............. 257
Annex Table-7.8 SHGs Attending VO Meetings: Total Sample .................................................. 257
Annex Table-7.9 SHGs Attending VO Meetings: Resource Blocks ............................................. 258
Annex Table-7.10 SHG Reviewed by Sample VOs: All Blocks..................................................... 258
Annex Table-7.11 SHG reviewed by Sample VOs: Resource Blocks........................................... 258
Annex Table-7.12 Status of CIF Recovery in Sample VOs: All Blocks ......................................... 259
Annex Table-7.13 Status of CIF Recovery in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks .............................. 259
Annex Table-7.14 MIP Appraisal in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks ............................................ 260
Annex Table-7.15 SHGs Provided CIF by Sample VOs: All Blocks............................................... 260
Annex Table-7.16 SHGs Provided CIF by Sample VOs: Resource Blocks .................................... 260
Annex Table-7.17 CIF Amount Provided to SHGs by Sample VOs: Total Sample ...................... 261
Annex Table-7.18 CIF Amount Provided to SHGs by Sample VOs: Resource Blocks ................. 261
Annex Table-7.19 Role of Sample VOs in Other Activities: Total Sample .................................. 262
Annex Table-7.20 Role of Sample VOs in Other Activities: Resource Blocks ............................. 262
Annex Table-7.21 Capacity Building of EC Members in Sample VOs: Intensive Blocks ............. 263
Annex Table-7.22 Capacity Building of EC Members in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks ............. 264
Annex Table-7.23 Receipts and Payments of Sample VOs: All Blocks ....................................... 264
Annex Table-8.1 Social Capital Available: All States .................................................................. 265
Annex Table-8.2 SHG Bookkeepers Services Available in Intensive Blocks ............................... 266
Annex- Table-8.3 MCP Trainers Available: Intensive Blocks ...................................................... 266
Annex Table-8.4 VO Book Keepers Available: Intensive Blocks ................................................. 267
Annex Table -8.5 All Community Cadres Required, Identified, Trained and Engaged: Total
Sample........................................................................................................................................ 268
Annex Table-8.6 VO Sub-Committees in Intensive Blocks ......................................................... 269
Annex Table-8.7 VO Sub-Committees in Resource Blocks ......................................................... 269
Annex Table –9.1 Status of SRLMs Submitting System Generated IUFRS (Tally IUFR) .............. 270
Annex Table – 9.2 Status of Procurement of Essential Services: NRLP States .......................... 271
Annex Table –9.3 NRLP Expenditure Up to Dec. ‘14 .................................................................. 272
vi
Acknowledgements
All NRLP states have participated in the Mid-Term Assessment Study. Several SMMU,
DMMU and BMMU professionals participated in the study, shared their perspectives
and facilitated collection of key information from the sample SHGs, VOs and Clusters. All
the State Mission Directors provided their valuable insights into the implementation
processes, emerging outcomes and the key challenges ahead of them. But for their
support, advice and cooperation, this study could not have been completed. The NMMU
seeks to place on record its deep sense of appreciation to all the State Missions. All
thematic units of NMMU participated in the design of the study, its methodology and
tools, besides effectively facilitating the conduct of the study in 13 NRLP states in a
relatively short span of time. We would like to place on record my appreciation for all
the thematic groups who have made this study possible. The World Bank TTL Parmesh
Shah and his team provided valuable advice and guidance on key indicators of
assessment and the dimensions to be explored as part of the study. The NMMU stands
grateful to the TTL and his team. Mr. T. Vijay Kumar, Additional Secretary and the
Mission Director, NRLM is the architect of the Mission. But for his guidance and
invaluable insights provided into the working of the Mission, this study could neither
have been conceived nor completed. We stand immensely grateful to him. The study
was closely monitored and supervised by Ms. Santhi Kumari, COO, NRLM. The team
stands grateful to her for her support, guidance and advise. Mr. G Muralidhar, Lead IBCB was involved in the initial preparation of the study design and tools. Finally, we
would like to thank all the members of NRLPS and the RL Division of the MORD for their
support and cooperation.
M&E Team
NRLM-MORD
vii
Abbreviations Used
AAP
Annual Action Plan
BMMU
Block Mission Management Unit
CB
Capacity Building
CBO
Community Based Organization
CC
Community Coordinator
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
COO
Chief Operating Officer
CRP
Community Resource Person
CSO
Civil Society Organization
DMMU
District Mission Management Unit
DPM
District Project Manager
DRDA
District Rural Development Agency
EC
Executive Committee
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
FI
Financial Inclusion
FM
Financial Management
FY
Financial Year
GB
General Body
GOI
Government of India
GOTN
Government of Tamil Nadu
GP
Gram Panchayat
HR
Human Resource
IB
Institution Building
iCRPs
Internal CRPs
IDA
International Development Agency
IPC
Innovation, Partnership and Convergence
KII
Key Informant Interview
KMC
Knowledge Management and Communication
M&E
Monitoring & Evaluation
MAVIM
Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal
MEL
Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
MIS
Management Information System
MORD
Ministry of Rural Development
viii
MTR
Mid-Term Review
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NIRD
National Institute of Rural Development
NMMU
National Mission Management Unit
NRLM
NRLP
National Rural Livelihoods Project
NRO
National Resource Organization
PRADAN
Professional Assistance for Development Action
S&P
Skills and Placement
SGSY
Swarnjayanthi Gram Swarozgari Yojana
SHG
Self Help Group
SID
Social Inclusion and Development
SMD
State Mission Director
SMMU
State Mission Management Unit
SRLM
State Rural Livelihoods Mission
TNWDC
Tamil Nadu Women Development Corporation
TRIPTI
Targeted Rural Initiatives for Poverty Termination and Infrastructure
VO
Village Organization
SM
Social Mobilization
IEC
Information, Education and Communication
GPLF
Gram Panchayat Level Federation
PRA
Participatory Research Analysis
CM
Community Mobilizer
SC
Scheduled Caste
ST
Scheduled Tribe
EAP
Externally Aid Project
CIF
Community Investment Fund
RF
Revolving Fund
OBs
Office Bearers
MCP
Micro Credit Plan
MIP
Micro Investment Plan
ix
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Assessment
1.
The NRLP has been implemented as part of NRLM since June 2011 in 13 high
poverty states with the support of the World Bank. As the project has reached mid-way,
an internal assessment has been undertaken to take stock of the implementation
progress and key achievements, assess key issues faced in implementation and identify
the tasks ahead. The internal assessment report is expected to feed into the MTR of the
project. The internal assessment is based on a three-part study comprising (i) a process
assessment study in each state; (ii) analysis of state MIS; and (iii) a sample study of 502
SHGs, 121 VOs and 65 clusters spread across 10 states which have implemented
intensive Mission activities for a minimum period of one year. Specially trained internal
teams of the project states conducted the study, which was designed and supported by
NMMU.
Transition of States
2.
There was an initial delay in setting up of autonomous Mission societies and
dedicated implementation structures by the states. Except Bihar, all other states
transited to NRLM after meeting the transition conditions during FY 2012-13. The
project, however, gathered momentum during 2013-14 and established
implementation structures and systems. Thus, by Dec.’14, the NRLP was being
implemented in 374 blocks located in 130 high poverty and low HDI districts of 13
states.
Human Resources
3.
By Dec.’14, the state Missions had a vast reservoir of professional staff (over
7,000), recruited primarily from the market through a transparent selection process.
The state Missions were able to recruit and use 67% of the approved SMMU staff, 56%
of DMMU staff and 67% of the BMMU staff for implementing the Mission activities, after
necessary induction and training. However, the state Missions need to focus on two
areas viz., attrition among the staff and relatively high rate of turnover among the
senior management, particularly, the CEOs/SMDs in some states. The rate of attrition
among staff was particularly high in Assam, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Karntaka and
Gujarat, while the turnover rate among CEOs/SMDs is relatively high in Assam, Bihar,
Gujarat, Rajasthan and Odisha. The attrition rate could be minimized by improving HR
hygiene in the state Missions. This would include payment of appropriate market based
compensation and other allowances, timely reimbursement of travel and other costs,
introduction of performance appraisal system and performance based incentives and
minimum social security benefits. Most of these problems could be solved if the state
Missions get their HR manual and policy approved by the competent authority. Further,
ensuring reasonably stable tenure for CEOs/SMDs is important to promote continuity in
implementation as states with stable tenure for CEOs/SMDs, have shown better results.
Appointment of COOs also assumes importance in this context. Equally important for
the state Missions is to undertake recruitment for the unfilled approved positions
1
consistent with the rationalization norms indicated as soon as possible to facilitate
deepening and expansion of the project activities.
Footprint
4.
Intensive implementation of NRLP was initiated by states in a phased manner –
13 blocks in FY 2011-12, 124 blocks in FY 2012-13, 183 blocks in FY 2013-14 and 54
blocks in FY 2014-15, bringing the total to 374 blocks by Dec.’14 (as against the target
of 400 blocks). These include 55 resource blocks supported by NROs and 14
partnership blocks in Jharkhand and 3 in Maharashtra supported by PRADAN and
MAVIM, respectively. Within these blocks, the project had its footprint in 74% of the
GPs and 60% of the villages. The staggered process of commencement of project
activities in different districts and blocks had their impact on the pace of social
mobilization.
Social Mobilization
5.
The mobilization of total households at the end of Dec.’14 stood at 3.2 million
(52% into the new SHGs and 48% into the revived and strengthened SHGs), at an
average rate of 8,599 households per block. This compares well with the expected
number of households to be mobilized as per the efficiency benchmark (of 7,560
households per block at the end of second year). The average rate of mobilization per
resource block works out to 7,547 households. The extent of social mobilization
suggests that most of the blocks could be saturated during the next one year. However,
there are inter-state variations in the rates of mobilization reflecting the history of SHG
movement in the states, legacy of implementing CBO-centred EAPs, the availability of
the stock of cognitive social capital and delays in the transition of states to the Mission.
The states with low rates of social mobilisation need to intensify their efforts to
saturate social mobilisation during the next one year.
Social Inclusion
6.
The emerging results of mobilization clearly demonstrates that the states have
adopted highly inclusive strategies. The 374 blocks under implementation are
characterized by a significant presence of the STs, the SCs and other vulnerable
communities. Of the 3.2 million households mobilized into NRLP fold, 29% belong to
the STs, 21% to the SCs and 9% to the minority groups, reflecting the inclusive
character of the entire mobilization process. The mobilization in the resource blocks is
even more inclusive. The social composition of SHG members in the resource blocks
also reveals that 46% belong to the STs, 16% to the SCs and 5% to the minorities.
Further, the project has firmly instituted inclusive approaches even in facilitating
selections for leadership positions. Of the total SHG-OBs, those from the STs and the SCs
constituted 42% and 16%, respectively. There was representation to the minorities as
well as physically challenged persons.
Promotion of SHGs
7.
SHGs are the building blocks on which the entire edifice of community
institutional structure is built. Commencing relatively slowly in FYs 2011-12 and 201213, the promotion of SHGs gathered momentum during FY 2013-14 and thereafter. By
2
Dec.’14, a total of about 1.44 lakh new SHGs were promoted, besides reviving 1.31 lakh
pre-project SHGs. On an average, about 738 SHGs were promoted per project block,
while the expected number of SHGs in a block after two years of intensive
implementation is 720. The resource blocks supported by external CRP teams of NROs
promoted a larger number of SHGs (912 SHGs per block). With the deepening of
resource block strategy, the numbers are expected to rise sharply. States which
transited early and those that had a history of strong SHG movement were ahead of
others in the process of SHG promotion. The study conducted in sample clusters also
indicates that 57% of the total SHGs promoted are new, while the proportion of new
SHGs in the resource blocks is relatively high (72%).
Age Analysis of SHGs
8.
The age analysis of the sample SHGs reveals that 8% are about 1 year old, 31%
are in the age group 12 to 18 months, 26% in the group 18 to 24 months and 34% over
two years old. The preponderance of relatively young SHGs indicates that a good deal of
capacity building and nurturing support would be required for the SHGs to become selfsufficient and sustainable.
Adherence to Panchsutras
9.
The sample study indicates that 75 to 90% of the SHGs were adhering to the five
canons of good governance known as Panchsutras, reflecting the initial support, training
and capacity building provided to SHGs, particularly, in the resource blocks. However,
there were minor inter-state variations.
Capacity Building of SHGs
10.
The project has been organizing basic SHG training (3 days) as well as training in
bookkeeping (5 days) and MCP (3 days), using core modules designed/customized by
Mission states. In the resource blocks, 60% of the SHGs were provided basic training as
part of CRP rounds, which was followed-up by trainings by PRPs and internal cadre.
However, the training of SHGs, both new and revived, needs to be increased in the
intensive blocks. Recognizing the importance of training, the state Missions have
stepped up their efforts in identifying and training community cadres who would in
turn provide training to the SHGs in a cascading mode. The state Missions are also
entering into partnerships with reputed training institutions to supplement their
efforts.
SHG Bank Accounts
11.
A necessary pre-requisite for all SHGs is to have savings bank accounts within
three months of their formation. As of Dec.’14, 84% of the SHGs under the project fold
had savings bank accounts with the states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and
Uttar Pradesh reporting a relatively lower percentage of SHGs having bank accounts.
SHG Savings
3
12.
The average cumulative savings per project SHG stood at Rs.14,353/(Rs.1,259/- per member) at the end of Dec.’14. The revived SHGs brought under NRLP
account for a larger average amount of Rs.20,116/- per SHG (Rs.2502/- per member).
The rate of average saving is commensurate with the average age of the SHGs.
Grading of SHGs
13.
The sample data indicates that about 61% of the SHGs had attained ‘A’ grade and
others were catching up rapidly. The study also indicates the need for instituting a
mechanism that would ensure grading of SHGs at regular intervals.
Revolving Fund
14.
As of Dec.’14, 63% of eligible SHGs (3 month old and adhering to Panchsutras)
were provided RF and efforts were afoot in the Mission states to cover all eligible SHGs
by Mar.’15. The sample data indicates that the RF coverage of SHGs was even higher.
CIF Disbursement System
15.
System of disbursing CIF through VOs was gradually getting established in
Mission states, involving (i) identification and training of MCP trainers; (ii) training of
SHGs in MCP preparation; (iii) appraisal of MCPs and disbursement of CIF to SHGs; and
(iv) recovery of CIF from SHGs including the CIF directly received by them from Mission
units. However, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan need to accelerate the
formation of VOs.
CIF Provided to SHGs
16.
Up to Dec.’14, 42,824 SHGs were provided CIF and this constitutes 57% of the
SHGs that had prepared MCPs. The sample data also indicates that 48% of the eligible
SHGs were provided CIF. The study reveals that shortage of MCP trainers, lag in training
of SHGs in the preparation of MCPs, inadequate MCP appraisal capacity and lengthy
sanction procedures contribute to the low CIF disbursement. The states are augmenting
their MCP training and appraisal capacity, besides bringing in changes in the funds flow
mechanisms. The VOs are being guided to managing CIF more efficiently.
Bank Credit to SHGs
17.
The MIS data reveals that 35% of the 6-month old SHGs under the project fold
had accessed first dose of bank credit, which is a significant achievement, considering
the fact that the project districts are located in areas with relatively low banking
infrastructure and not so encouraging bank loan repayment history for the SHGs.
Interestingly, the sample data also indicates that 34% of SHGs have accessed bank
credit. However, the Mission states would do well to explore all possibilities to bank
link all eligible SHGs for the first and repeat doses of credit. The project states were in
the process of taking up several measures such as appointment of retired bankers,
hiring the services of bank mitras and constitution of Community Based Recovery
Mechanism (CBRM) to augment the bank credit to SHGs. Implementation of interest
4
subvention initiative in the project districts is also expected to promote SHG bank
linkage.
5
Leverage Ratio
18.
An attempt made to relate state-wise CIF disbursed (based on IUFRs) and bank
loans mobilized by SHGs (MPR data) during FY 2014-15 indicates that the ratio is 1.87.
As the data on CIF and bank loans are taken from two different sources, the leverage
ratio was re-estimated using the sample data, which however suggests that the ratio
was 0.6 up to Dec.’14 (since formation of new SHGs and revival of pre-existing SHGs).
The leverage ratio of 0.6 appears to be reasonable considering the fact that it is the first
linkage for most of the sample SHGs.
Idle Funds with SHGs
19.
While leveraging external funds is important, even more important is efficient
utilization of own funds of the SHG by minimizing idle funds held in the form of cash-in
hand and cash-at bank. The analysis is made using sample data reveals that there is a
considerable amount of idle fund as percent of outstanding loan in Dec.’14. The number
of sample SHGs that had more than Rs.10,000/- as cash-at bank and cash-in hand was
large (153 out of 307 sample SHGs for which detailed comparable data was available).
Velocity of SHG Funds
20.
Rotation velocity of all SHG funds including own funds, RF, CIF and bank loans
up to Dec.’14 varied between 0.7 and 1.6 across the sample states (10 for which
comparable data were available), indicating scope for improving the rotation of funds.
On the average, the rotation velocity of all funds up to Dec.’14 worked out to 1.3.
Equity in the Use of Loan Funds
21.
Overall, 84% of the sample members had accessed at least one loan (small or
big) from the SHGs, irrespective of the source of funds. The proportion exceeds 90% in
all resource blocks. This bears testimony to the inclusive approaches promoted in the
resource blocks.
SHG Bookkeeping
22.
Analysis of bookkeeping practices suggests that there is a significant scope for
improving the quality of bookkeeping (books, bookkeepers and bookkeeping) by
facilitating engagement of adequate number of trained bookkeepers and providing
handholding support to SHGs.
Promotion and Functioning of VOs
23.
VOs have been promoted in the project states right from FY 2011-12, but their
promotion gathered momentum during FY 2013-14. A total of 13,450 VOs were formed
in all project states up to Dec.’14, at an average rate of 36 per block. Out of the 34,172
villages in which the implementation was in progress, only 37% had VOs and all the
villages are expected to form VOs during the next 3 to 6 months.
6
SHGs Federated into VOs
24.
A total of 1.18 lakh SHGs had federated into the VOs (43% of the total SHGs), at
an average rate of 9 per VO (12 in the sample clusters), with the inter-state variation
reflecting the overall progress of IB in the states; while in the sample clusters, 55% of
the SHGs had federated into the VOs.
Functioning of VOs
25.
Most of the VOs are nascent with 85% being less than 18 months of age (sample
data). The relatively young VOs were however, practising all democratic norms as
indicated by the regular conduct of EC meetings and the high proportion of SHGs (89%
to 92% during Oct-Dec.’14) participating in such meetings.
Review of SHGs
26.
As federations at the village level, the VOs (61%) were undertaking review of
performance of SHGs on a monthly basis using monthly report cards (Masik
Prativedan). The VOs were also found instituting the sub-committee system. A
significant proportion of VOs had loan repayment and bank linkage sub-committees.
However, the sub-committee system needs to be strengthened with suitable capacity
building and institution of agenda based reviews.
Management of CIF by VOs
27.
As most of the VOs were relatively young, only a small proportion of eligible
SHGs were provided CIF up to Dec.’14 (while a larger proportion of SHGs were provided
CIF directly prior to the establishment of VOs). On the average, sample VOs provided a
CIF amount of Rs.38,362/- per SHG. The VOs had also started recovering CIF from the
SHGs. The demand-collection-balance during Oct – Dec 2014, shows an increasing trend
with about 40% of the demand being recovered.
Average Receipts of VO
28.
The sample data reveals that on the average, each sample VO had a cumulative
total receipt of Rs.3.79 lakh up to Dec.’14, indicating that the VOs are handling
substantial amount of funds, largely received as CIF. It is therefore important that this
community fund is managed following all prudential norms such that it becomes a real
community fund in perpetuity.
VO Bookkeeping
29.
The status of bookkeeping in VOs was satisfactory with most books adopted
being regularly updated. However, there is need for all VOs to adopt all books of
accounts and engage the services of trained bookkeepers to maintain all books.
7
Other Activities
30.
Apart from managing CIF, the VOs were also undertaking other tasks expected of
them viz., mobilization of left out poor (63% of VOs), organizing training of SHGs (43%
of VOs), undertaking convergent activities with PRIs (46% of VOs) and working with
line departments (23% of VOs).
Capacity Building of VOs
31.
In order to improve the functional capacity of the VOs, the Mission units were
organizing systematic immersion and exposure and training in management of VOs,
bookkeeping, MCP appraisal and CIF management. Some VOs were also found training
the sub-committee members. With the VOs progressively gaining control over the
community staff and social capital, the functional capacity of the VOs is expected to
grow rapidly.
Social Capital
32.
The functional efficiency and sustainability of SHGs and their federations and the
livelihood outcomes expected of them depend on the stock and quality of different
types of social capital supporting them. In the context of NRLM, the social capital
required for the community institutions include: (i) SHG bookkeepers, (ii) MCP trainers;
(iii) women activists; (iv) VO bookkeepers; (v) VO animators; and (vi) internal CRPs. The
MIS data indicates that on the average there were:




284 SHG bookkeepers per block at the rate of 3 SHGs per bookkeeper;
71 women activists per block at the rate of 1 per 11 SHGs;
35 internal CRPs per block at the rate of 1 per 22 SHGs (while Chhattisgarh has
completed training of internal CRPs who are likely to be deployed in the intensive
blocks shortly); and
the projection of the NRO team indicates that 3,310 internal CRPs would be
ready by Mar.’16, 7,210 internal CRPs by Mar.’17 and 15,800 by Dec.’17.
33.
Further, the sample data indicates that 50% of all community cadres required
were available. The sample study also reveals that resource blocks had 56% of required
SHG bookkeepers, 40% of required MCP trainers and 70% of VO bookkeepers. The
intensive blocks had a relatively lower stock of social capital. Only 52% of SHG
bookkeepers, 41% of MCP trainers, and 37% of VO bookkeepers required as per norms
were available in Dec.’14. Clearly, the generation of social capital needs to be
augmented not only to meet the requirements of the existing CBOs but also to cater to
the needs of the community institutions that would come up in the other blocks. This is
particularly true of internal CRPs.
Capacity Building of Social Capital
34.
The internal CRPs and women activists identified in the resource blocks are also
required to be trained fully and their services utilized optimally in the scaling-up
process. Further, the real challenge is to ensure that all community cadres identified are
adequately trained and those trained and engaged continue to provide services to these
institutions. This in turn calls for a suitable policy to ensure payment of appropriate
compensation to each cadre for the service rendered by them.
8
Conclusion
35.
Establishment of new implementation structures and recruitment of
professional staff are inherently time-consuming. Notwithstanding, the initial delays,
the Mission gathered momentum from FY 2013-14 onwards. The states have
standardised implementation processes and instituted basic systems at all levels. By
Dec.’14, the project had its foot print in 374 blocks, spread over 130 districts and had
entered 74% of the target GPs and 60% of the villages and mobilized 3.2 million
households into 2.76 lakh SHGs. The results of mobilisation are highly inclusive, with
the SCs and the STs accounting for more than 50% of the total. Further, 80% of the
SHGs were adhering to panchasutras. About 2/3rd of eligible SHGs were provided RF,
while about half of eligible SHGs (that completed MCPs) were provided CIF. Even more
significant was that 33% of the 6 month-old SHGs were enabled to assess the first dose
of bank loans. The promotion of VOs had also started with over 12583 VOs having been
formed up to Dec.’14. All VOs were conforming to democratic principles of governance.
The VOs were being strengthened to manage CIF efficiently. The resource blocks have
adequately demonstrated the ‘proof of concept’ on the ground and are generating
different types of social capital required to facilitate deepening of the activities in the
project blocks. The states have reached a critical stage to take the project to the next
higher level viz., promotion and diversification of livelihoods of the poor, social
development activities such as promotion of health and nutrition and the welfare of the
disabled and the aged. The project is poised for a big leap forward and all the targets set
are feasible to be achieved during the rest of the project period.
9
Chapter-1
Introduction
The Context
1.1
The Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of India (GOI)
launched National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) in 2011, after restructuring the
Swarnjayanthi Gram Swarozgari Yojana (SGSY). The central objective of the NRLM is to
eliminate rural poverty through creation and strengthening of institutional platforms of
the rural poor. The NRLM has been designed to provide a combination of financial
resources and technical assistance to enable the states adopt a comprehensive
livelihoods approach that encompasses four inter-linked components viz., (a)
mobilization of all rural poor households into functionally effective self-help groups
(SHGs), SHG federations and other organizations; (b) enhancing access to financial,
technical and marketing services; (c) building capacities and skills of the poor and
promotion of sustainable livelihoods; and (d) finally, improving the inclusive delivery of
social and economic support services to the poor. The mandate of NRLM is to cover 70
million poor rural households in more than 600 districts, 6,000 blocks, 250,000 Gram
Panchayats and 600,000 villages in the country through self-managed community
institutions and support them for livelihoods over a period of eight to ten years.
1.2
In order to augment the resources required for implementation of NRLM in 13
high poverty states with special problems, the GOI has entered into an agreement with
the World Bank (IDA credit) for an assistance equal to USD 1.00 billion over XII Plan
period, which was later scaled down to USD 500 million with the closing date extended
up to 31st December, 2017. This part of the NRLM that is being implemented with the
support of the World Bank in 13 states1, 130 districts and 374 blocks is called National
Rural Livelihoods Project (NRLP). But in terms of strategy and components, NRLP falls
under the overall ambit of NRLM.
Purpose of Mid-Term Assessment
1.3
As NRLP has been implemented since 2011, it is only imperative that a mid-term
assessment is made to take stock of the (i) implementation progress and key
achievements; (ii) key processes instituted with respect to results indicators; (iii) key
issues faced with respect to progress, scaling-up and quality; (iv) feasibility of achieving
NRLP and intensive blocks results indicators, in the remaining period; and (v) any
changes/corrective measures and restructuring that would be required for accelerating
implementation and scaling-up, improved project outcomes and utilization of NRLP
funds. The financing agreement stipulates that an MTR be jointly conducted by the
World Bank and the project management. It is in this context that a mid-term
assessment has been undertaken by the states implementing NRLP under the overall
guidance of the NRLM-MORD, which is expected to provide inputs for the MTR.
1
Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha,
Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. These thirteen states account for 85% of the
rural poor in the country.
10
Scope of Mid-Term Assessment
1.4
In order to make a comprehensive mid-term assessment (MTA) of the progress
of NRLP, a three-part study was undertaken. The three components of the study
include: (i) a process assessment study; (ii) critical analysis of State MIS Information;
and (iii) a sample study of SHGs, VOs and Clusters. A process assessment study was
designed and conducted by an internal team comprising NMMU members and senior
state professionals with the objective of capturing the key processes adopted by each
Mission state. The independent state teams led by state anchor persons conducted the
process studies, primarily using FGD/KII mode with key staff of SMMU, DMMU, BMMU
as well as community resource persons. The mid-term assessment inter alia sought to
examine: (i) the key processes adopted by the Mission in the implementation of key
activities; (ii) internal and external constraints affecting implementation; and (iii)
emerging outcomes in key areas vis-à-vis the benchmarks. The FGD guide/tool used by
the internal teams is presented in Annex-18. The key issues that the teams sought to
explore is in Annex-17.
1.5
The second component of the assessment is based on analysis of progress
reports provided by the states. Detailed MIS information on the progress of NRLP in the
intensive districts and blocks was collected using pre-designed templates, from each
state, as part of this process. The information collected from each state on key
indicators was then analysed to delineate major trends emerging from different states
at the state, district and block levels. The pre-designed templates used for collection of
information from the states are furnished in Annex-15.
1.6
The third and most significant component part is a study of sample SHGs, VOs
and Clusters drawn from both resource and intensive blocks of the 10 NRLP states
which have completed at least one year of implementation in intensive blocks. The
focus of this component is an assessment of the functional effectiveness of the
community institutions (SHGs and VOs) and their potential sustainability features.
Study Sample
1.7
The universe of the study included all resource and intensive blocks in which
Mission implementation has been in progress more than one year. Based on the
intensity of Mission inputs provided, the blocks which were more than one year old
were divided into two categories viz., (i) resource blocks supported by external
resource person teams drawn from NROs; and (ii) intensive blocks in which
implementation was undertaken with internal resources of SRLMs. The number of
resource blocks which were more than one year old as of Dec.’14 and the number of
sample blocks selected from them are furnished in Table-1.1.
11
Table-1.1
Sample from Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
State
No. of
Resource
Blocks
No. of
Resource
Blocks > 1
year old
No. of
Sample
Blocks
No. of
No. of No. of Sample Sample
Sample
Villages
SHGs
Clusters (>1 year old) (>1 year
old)
4
12
36
8
24
72
4
4
2
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
12
8
4
Madhya
3.
7
6
3
6
18
54
Pradesh
4. Maharashtra
8
8
4
8
24
72
5. Rajasthan
5
3
2
4
12
36
6. Total
36
29
15
30
90
270
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate the actual number of SHGs covered in the study. The
changes were necessitated by field level constraints. But care was taken to adhere to
probability base of the sample.
Source: NRLM MIS.
1.8
Five NRLP states have been implementing resource block strategy with the
support of NRO teams in 55 blocks, of which implementation is more than one year old
in 29 of them. About 50% of these blocks were selected in the first stage. Then, from
each sample block comprising 4 clusters, 2 clusters were selected using the predesigned sampling procedure. From each cluster, 3 villages in which implementation
had been in progress for more than one year were selected. The sampling procedure is
outlined in Annex-19.
1.9
The second part of the universe included all the one-year old blocks in the 10
states (including the 5 resource block states indicated above). From each state, 2 blocks
were selected following the pre-designed sampling procedure. However, in Bihar with a
total of 77 intensive blocks, 5 sample blocks were selected. From each sample block, 2
clusters were randomly selected and from each cluster, 2 villages (not contiguous) were
sampled following the procedure outlined. From each sample village, 3 SHGs were
selected at the last stage following the randomization procedure indicated and after
ensuring that all the SHGs were more than one-year old. The intensive block sample
details are furnished in Table-2. Pre-tested tools were used to collect detailed
information from the sample SHGs, VOs and Clusters. The tools used are presented in
Annexes-20, 21 & 22.
12
Table-1.2
Sample from Intensive Blocks (Other than Resource Blocks)
No. of
Sample
No of
No. of
No. of
S.
SHGs
State
Intensive
Sample
Sample
No.
(>1
Blocks
Blocks
Clusters
year
old)
25
25
2
4
8
19
1. Assam
77
69
5
10
20
60
2. Bihar
12
12
2
4
8
24
3. Chhattisgarh
15
15
2
4
8
11
4. Gujarat
14
14
2
4
8
24
5. Jharkhand*
39
39
2
4
8
24
6. Madhya Pradesh
28
9
2
4
8
23
7. Maharashtra**
28
21
2
4
8
23
8. Odisha
2
0
0
9. Rajasthan
16
16
2
4
8
24
10. Tamil Nadu
11. Total
256
220
21
42
84
232
Notes: (1) *Includes Partnership Blocks with PRADAN; (2) ** Includes one Partnership Block with
MAVIM; (3) Figures in parentheses indicate the actual number of SHGs covered in the
study. The changes were necessitated by field level constraints. But care was taken to
adhere to probability base of the sample.
Source: NRLM MIS
No. of
Intensive
Blocks > 1
year old
No. of
Sample
Villages
(>1 year
old)
Field Teams
1.10 Field teams were constituted by individual states. Each state team was headed
by a senior professional by SMMU with 2 to 3 other professionals supporting him. One
of the professionals was drawn from other SRLMs to ensure objectivity and bring in
external perspective. Each district team was headed by a senior DPM and comprised
one CC from each sample block and another CC from a neighbouring block. Thus, a three
member district team visited the sample blocks and villages and collected detailed
information from the sample SHGs, VOs and Clusters. The teams were provided a twoday intensive training that included a pilot run. The teams followed quality assurance
norms built into the protocol. Each DPM heading the team was required to check 10%
of the SHG/VO schedules. The data collected through the schedules was double-checked
before transferring the same into an electronic data sheet pre-designed by NMMU.
Notwithstanding the precautions taken, there were certain data entry related problems
which were resolved by the NMMU team in consultation with the state teams. State
datasets which have significant outliers or data deficiencies are not included in the
analysis and the state teams have been requested to revalidate the datasets before they
can be factored into the analysis. The field data thus collected, cleaned and compiled
was analysed by NMMU team to generate two-way and three-way multivariate tables
and inferences drawn from them in conjunction with MIS and process study
information.
13
1.11 The study was designed and conducted in a reasonably short span of time. The
study was designed and tools developed and field tested during Dec.’14. A two-day
orientation was organized to the key NMMU and state professionals participating in the
study at NIRD during 6-7 January, 2015. The process study, followed by the field study
were conducted in two rounds. The first round, covering the states of Assam, Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu was completed during 20-24
January, 2015. While the states of Bihar, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Odisha were
covered during 27 January - 1 February, 2015. In these 10 states, both process study
and field study were conducted. In the states of Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and West
Bengal, where intensive implementation has not attained a critical stage, only process
studies were conducted during 27-31 January, 2015. Thereafter, the state teams
undertook preparation of state process study reports, while the field study teams
undertook cleaning and digitization of data. The NMMU teams undertook review of
draft state process reports and provided inputs for finalization of state process reports.
The NMMU-M&E team also undertook analysis data and report preparation in the
second part of February, 2015.
Outline of the Report
1.12 The report is presented in 8 chapters. Chapter-1 outlines the context, purpose,
scope and methodology of the study and its limitations. Chapter-2 discusses Mission
structures established in different states along with the human resources engaged for
Mission implementation. The NRLP footprint is briefly outlined in Chapter-3. The extent
of social mobilization and inclusion achieved in the project is analysed in Chapter-4.
Chapter-5 presents a discussion on the promotion and functioning of SHGs, while the
finances of SHGs are discussed in Chapter-6. The promotion and functioning of VOs in
the Mission states are discussed in Chapter-7. Chapter-8 examines the stock and forms
of the social capital used in the project.
Limitations of the Report
1.13 As described above, the internal mid-term assessment study was conducted in a
relatively short span of time, covering a sample of 502 SHGs, 122 VOs, and 65 clusters in
intensive and resource blocks spread over 10 states. This is a fairly representative
sample drawn following the basic principles of sampling. However, in the actual
selection of a small proportion of SHGs and VOs, not more than 5% of the samples, there
were deviations from the prescribed sample. In Maharashtra, a small number of villages
and SHGs had to be replaced due to the extremist threat in them. All efforts were made
to provide comprehensive training to the internal teams in the collection of data, data
cleaning and data entry. However, given the fact that the internal teams deployed are
not professionally trained investigators coupled with the time limitations, there could
be minor data quality problems particularly in recording and SHG and VO financial
transactions. Every effort was made to clean the data and truncate the suspected
contaminated sample before undertaking the analysis. There are significant inter-state
variations in the implementation of the Mission, largely arising out of the delays in
transition, establishment of Mission structures and systems, hiring of staff, attrition
among top Mission functionaries and the access to the stock of social capital. The
history of SHG movement also varies significantly across the Mission states. The states
with experience in implementing EAP projects had certain initial advantages which
14
others did not have. Because of these cross-sectional differences, drawing inferences on
the entire project being implemented in 13 states, posed several problems. However,
wherever possible, the differences in the progress of resource blocks and intensive
blocks have been brought out. As far as possible, the inter-temporal differences in the
progress of the Mission states have also been brought out. These limitations, however,
are not unusual to cross-sectional studies.
15
Chapter-2
Mission Structures and Human Resources
Introduction
2.1
The launch of NRLM marked a paradigm shift in the strategy of implementation
of rural poverty alleviation programmes in the country. Unlike its predecessor
programmes, NRLM is mandated to be implemented in a Mission mode. Mission mode
of implementation implies a shift from allocation based strategy to a demand driven
strategy requiring the states to formulate their own poverty reduction plans focusing
on time bound delivery of outcomes. All states are required to implement Annual Action
Plans (AAPs) after seeking necessary approval of the MORD. Given the extent of
mobilization envisaged and the community institutions expected to be promoted and
nurtured, the Mission also mandates that a dedicated implementation structure
manned by professional staff be established at the state, district and block levels. Thus,
the states were required to transit to NRLM, only after fulfilling the following
conditions:


set up a society or designate an existing society as State Rural Livelihoods
Mission (SRLM) and place a fulltime CEO to head the Mission; and
recruit suitable professional teams from the market for the Mission
management units at the state, district and block levels albeit in a phased
manner, after obtaining necessary approvals.
2.2
Pursuant to the launch of the Mission in June 2011, all states have either
established independent societies or designated the pre-existing entities as the
respective SRLMs. The timeline of establishment of 13 SRLMs is furnished in Table-2.1.
Out of the 13 SRLMs, 12 were established during FY 2012-13, while Bihar designated its
pre-existing society (Bihar LPS) as its SRLM in January 2012. Thus, there was an initial
loss of time in setting up the state Missions and consequently their activities. Given the
diversity in the state administrative environment, the process of establishing new
implementation architecture with a certain degree of functional and financial autonomy
would be expected to take time. Thus, most of the SRLMs would have spent a
substantial part of FY 2012-13 in establishing the three-tier implementation structures
and the associated systems.
16
Table-2.1
Timeline of Establishment of SRLMs
S.
No.
State
1.
Assam
2.
Bihar
3.
Chhattisgarh
4.
Gujarat
5.
Jharkhand
6.
Karnataka
7.
Madhya Pradesh
8.
Maharashtra
9.
Odisha
10. Rajasthan
11. Tamil Nadu
12. West Bengal
13. Uttar Pradesh
Source: NRLM MIS
Month and Year of Transition
May'12
Jan'12
May'12
Aug'12
May'12
Jan'13
May'12
May'12
May'12
Aug'12
May'12
Feb'13
Mar'13
Establishment of Mission Structures
2.3
Following the establishment of the SRLMs, all states have set up three-tier
implementation structures comprising an SMMU, DMMUs and BMMUs. Apart from 13
SMMUs headed by CEOs/SMDs, 13 NRLP states have set up 100 DMMUs headed by
district mission managers/other designated persons and 374 BMMUs headed by block
mission managers by Dec.’14. Some states such as Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan
which have been implementing externally funded DPIP have initially adopted PFT
structures at the sub-block level and are expected to transit to BMMU structures
gradually. All SRLMs have been formulating and implementing AAPs of the Mission in
intensive districts and intensive blocks (including resource blocks), after obtaining
necessary approval of the MORD through the implementation structures established.
However, it may be noted that there is a substantial degree of variations across the
states in the financial powers vested with the DMMUs and BMMUs. In some states, the
powers to sanction funds are vested with the district commissioners or CEOs of zilla
panchayats at the district level and BDOs at the block level. The number of intensive
districts and blocks approved for implementation during the last three years is
presented in Annex-1.
Human Resources
2.4
The transition conditions require the SRLMs to hire and optimally utilize the
services of professional staff at all SMMU, DMMU and BMMU levels. The adequacy and
quality of professional human resources are the key drivers of the Mission
implementation. Therefore, their timely recruitment, induction and training as well as
their optimal utilization assume importance. The state Missions are expected to
institute appropriate systems for induction, training, management, performance
17
assessment, compensation, and redressing grievances. These issues are briefly
examined in the following.
2.5
Further, in order to ensure that SRLMs have competent staff in different
thematic areas, SRLMs have been advised to hire professionals from the market through
a transparent selection process involving detailed notification, short-listing of eligible
candidates, written test, group discussion and personal interview by a board
comprising SMD, COO, thematic specialist, SPMs and a representative of NMMU. The
SRLMs were also permitted to procure the services of competent HR agencies to ensure
selection of quality professionals. The Missions were also advised to use the services of
existing government staff after necessary assessment and provide appropriate fitment
in the salary structure. A model compensation package for professionals of different
levels was also suggested to the SRLMs.
2.6
The early experience suggests that NRLM can be sustained only through a
gradual process of communitization. This would imply rationalization of HR structure
in such a way that the community institutions and the community cadres takeover the
activities presently handled by the Mission units in a phased manner.
2.7
In the rationalized structure, staff at the district and state levels would
concentrate on implementing and deepening interventions in the resource blocks.
While thematic specialists at the state, district and block levels would be merged and all
staff would have ‘area responsibility’ as their primary focus. The staff would need to
spend a substantial part of time in the community facilitating community institutions
and the livelihoods of the poor. It is from this perspective that the staff structures for
SMMU, DMMU and BMMU are being rationalised. The recommended rationalised
structure is in Annex-4.
SMMU Teams
2.8
The SRLMs are required to obtain appropriate sanctions from the state
governments for recruitment of professional as well as support staff at all levels. The
estimated number, level and type of staff required should match the actual
requirements of the Mission. Further, as the SRLMs may not be able to find all staff
required in one selection, the SRLMs and their HR agencies are expected to undertake
multiple selections including selections through deputations, re-employment of
professionals employed in externally aided projects and campus recruitments. The
SRLMs have also been advised to adopt a young professional policy to encourage
recruitment of young professionals from leading institutions. The HR structure
recommended for the SMMU is presented in Annex-2.
Hiring Processes
2.9
A review of the hiring process indicates that all except the state of West Bengal
have hired professionals through the open market by adopting a transparent selection
process, involving notification, written test, group discussion and personal interview. In
West Bengal, however, most of the state level SGSY staff have been absorbed into
SMMU. State Missions of Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, UP, Bihar and
Odisha undertook recruitment with the support of HR agency, while Assam through a
consultant. The SRLMs of Karnataka and Chhattisgarh undertook recruitment of SMMU
staff in-house. In Odisha and Bihar, most of the staff working with the state units of the
World Bank funded projects were absorb into SMMU. In Tamil Nadu, most of the SMMU
18
staff are deputed from the Tamil Nadu Women Development Corporation (TNWDC) and
Government of Tamil Nadu (GOTN).
SMMU Staff in Position
2.10 The number of staff required (as assessed by the SRLM), number of staff
approved by the state governments and the proportion of staff actually in position in
December, 2014, reveals varied trends. The staff in position at the SMMU level as
percentage of the approved staff is only 65. Jharkhand, which has hired all staff from the
market including COO, has reported that 94% of the positions approved are filled. The
states of Bihar, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal which have absorbed/accommodated staff
of the EAP/state government/ SGSY also indicate high percentage of recruitment (84 to
96%). The rate of attrition among staff is the lowest in these states. The lowest
percentage of staff in-position are in the states of Assam (29), UP (29) and Odisha (32).
Table-2.2
Status of SMMU Staff in SRLMs
Dec. ‘14
S.
No.
State
No. of Staff
Approved*
No. of Staff
In Position
Staff in Position
as % of Staff
Approved
Staff Attrition
(%)
Assam
48
14
28
29
1.
Bihar
111
93
<2
84
2.
Chhattisgarh
33
26
15
79
3.
Gujarat
50
37
74
13
4.
Jharkhand
62
58
4
94
5.
Karnataka
52
34
30
65
6.
Madhya
Pradesh
62
40
35
65
7.
Maharashtra
99
66
67
7
8.
Odisha
103
44
21
43
9.
55
33
18
TBC
10. Rajasthan
Tamil
Nadu
49
34
0
69
11.
52
22
10
42
12. Uttar Pradesh
25
23
92
8
13. West Bengal
14. Total
779
509
65
Note: * including support staff, young professionals and project executives; TBC – To Be Collected
Source: State Information Reports
2.11 Staff in-position is relatively low in certain SMMUs for three reasons viz., (i) high
attrition due to poor HR hygiene; (ii) delays in approval from the state governments
and consequent delay in hiring the services of professionals; and (iii) repatriation of
government employees on deputation. High attrition rates reported in Assam,
Chhattisgarh, MP, Karnataka and Odisha appear to be due to relatively lower salaries
(Assam), delayed payment of salaries (UP, Karnataka) and unusual delay in
reimbursement of travel costs (all states). A summary of the HR hygiene practices in
NRLM states is presented in Annex-3.
2.12 The existing HR Structure for the SMMU suggests that the recruitment of at least
one professional is made for different thematic areas viz., IB, CB, FI, Livelihoods, M&E
and MIS, HR, FM and Procurement. In the area of IB & CB, which is central to the
Mission, all 13 states have reported positioning of adequate staff. The thematic areas of
19
FI, Livelihoods, M&E, MIS, FM and Procurement are better placed in terms of
positioning of staff. In fact, in respect of FI, almost all states except UP and West Bengal
have more than one professional each.
2.13 The rationalised HR structure recommended seeks to collapse thematic
responsibilities for the SMMU staff and deploy the staff primarily for area
responsibiltieis. Accordingly, the job descriptions of SMMU staff need to be modified
and reorientation conducted. Further, the SRLMs are advised to avoid positioning staff
for layering interventions in advance. The states have also been advised to avoid the
tendency to assign additional thematic areas to SMMU staff.
2.14 The rationalised HR structure recommended each SMMU to hire and position 818 members, depending on the size of the state. Based on the suggested norm, the total
staff required for 13 SMMUs is 324, which is far lower than 520 members currently in
position. This implies that the surplus staff will have to be moved to the district and
sub-district levels with appropriate responsibilities.
Total
Resource
Cell/Pool
Procurement
FM
HR
KMC
MIS
ME&L
IP&C
S&P
FI
Livelihoods
(Farm & NonFarm)
State
SID
S
N
o
IB & CB
Table-2.3
Key SMMU Staff in Position: Dec. ‘14
1
2
3
4
5
6
Assam
2
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
11
Bihar
5
13
5
9
9
0
3
4
1
6 13 2
2
72
Chhattisgarh
3
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
12
Gujarat
4
0
5
2
5
0
1
2
1
3
2
0
0
25
Jharkhand
4
2
4
4
5
0
2
2
3
4
4
2
9
45
Karnataka
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
Madhya
7
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
16
Pradesh
8 Maharashtra
4
0
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
8
2
0
28
9 Odisha
3
2
2
4
2
0
1
1
1
3
3
2
0
24
10 Rajasthan
1
1
1
2
1
0
3
0
0
3
3
2
0
17
11 Tamil Nadu
3
3
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
2
2
1
0
20
12 Uttar Pradesh
2
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
9
13 West Bengal
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
14
Total
37 25
31
33 30 3 19 14 11 30 45 14 11 302
Note: In the states of Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra, Social Inclusion activities are also
handled by IB & CB teams.
Source: HR Unit- NMMU
DMMU
2.15 Each DMMU was advised to hire 4 to 8 thematic experts, apart from the district
mission manager. In addition, each DMMU could hire an MIS assistant, accountant and a
data entry operator (See Annex-2 for recommended HR structure for DMMU). The
20
states have been advised to utilize the services of district level thematic specialists for
area specific responsibilities from FY 2015-16 onwards covering all thematic areas to
speed-up the implementation process. The state-wise DMMU staff approved and inposition indicates that 58% of the positions required have been filled. The rationalised
structure recommended for DMMU is 3-5 members. At this rate, the required staff for
130 DMMUs would be around 650. The current staff in position exceeds the staff
required as per the restructuring norms.
Table-2.4
DMMU Staff in Position: Dec. ‘14
1.
Assam
No. of
Intensive
Districts Up to
Dec.’14(NRLP)
8
2.
Bihar
19
380
243
64
8
3.
Chhattisgarh
9
60
33
55
17
4.
Gujarat
9
81
53
65
34
5.
Jharkhand
12
100
75
75
7
6.
Karnataka
5
80
43
54
46
7.
Madhya Pradesh
10
163
89
55
TBC
8.
9.
Maharashtra
Odisha
10
7
170
112
105
24
62
21
12
17
10.
Rajasthan
7
36
19
53
TBC
11.
Tamil Nadu
4
56
44
79
0
154
46
30
8
200
1672
136
972
68
58
0
-
S.
No.
State
22
12. Uttar Pradesh
8
13. West Bengal
14. Total
130
Note: TBC – To Be Collected
No. of
Staff
Approved
No. of
Staff In
Position
80
62
Staff in
Position as
% of Staff
Approved
78
Staff
Attrition
(%)
47
BMMU
2.16 Each BMMU is recommended 2 to 4 thematic experts and 3 to 9 CCs, besides a
block Mission manager. The initial HR structure recommended for BMMU is furnished
in Annex-2, while the rationalized structure recommended is in Annex-4.
2.17 As of Dec. ‘14, the Mission was in progress in 374 intensive blocks including
resource blocks. The number of positions approved for these blocks was 4,505, out of
which 3,049 were filled in (68%). The variations in the number of staff appointed are
due to the delays in setting up of BMMUs, delays in securing approvals from the state
governments and the delays in procurement of HR agency to facilitate recruitment.
Further, high attrition rate among certain states is also responsible for the low staff
being in position.
21
2.18 In the rationalised structure, 4-6 members would be placed in each BMMU. This
implies that a total of 2,400 staff would be required at the block level. At present, there
are 3,301 staff in position, i.e. an excess of 901 staff. In the process of communitization,
the excess staff would have to be moved to new blocks.
Table-2.5
BMMU Staff in Position: Dec. ‘14
1.
Assam
No. of
Intensive
Blocks Up
to Dec.’14
(NRLP)
25
2.
Bihar
77
1131
582
51
13
3.
Chhattisgarh
16
128
99
77
22
4.
Gujarat
20
274
212
77
22
5.
Jharkhand
29
369
266
72
4
6.
Karnataka
20
160
124
78
25
7.
Madhya Pradesh
46
792
772
97
8.
9.
Maharashtra
Odisha
36
28
492
231
369
139
75
60
TBC
4
TBC
10.
Rajasthan
7
56
25
45
TBC
11.
Tamil Nadu
16
272
160
59
22
12. Uttar Pradesh
32
13. West Bengal
14. Total
374
Note: TBC – To Be Collected
176
88
50
0
17
224
4505
25
3049
11
68
S.
No.
State
No. of Staff
Approved
No. of Staff
In Position
Staff in
Position as %
of Staff
Approved
Staff
Attrition (%)
200
188
94
41
0
2.19 Several factors appeared to be responsible for the relatively low percentage of
staff being in position at the DMMU and BMMU level as per the existing norms:




First, delays in obtaining approvals from the state governments is the
principal reason.
Second, delays in procuring and contracting the services of HR recruitment
agency is another important factor. Critical lack of procurement staff at the
state level has delayed the procurement of HR agencies.
Third, some state governments such as UP and Karnataka advised SRLMs
against managing the contracts of Mission staff and instead advised them to
hire the services of a HR management agency (in addition to HR recruitment
agency) to manage the contracts of all Mission staff. This has resulted in
deferment of the entire recruitment process by the two SRLMs.
Fourth, in respect of Tamil Nadu, the recruitment of DMMU staff is delayed
due to the initial plans of the Mission to set up DMMUs in all 30 districts,
while MORD has accorded its approval for setting-up of only 4 DMMUs. The
state has ultimately decided to limit NRLP DMMU recruitment only to 4
22




districts, while taking up the remaining districts with state government
support.
Fifth, the long process of selection/ deselection/ rationalization of the
existing staff in the TRIPTI project as well as DRDAs, is causing delay in the
recruitment of DMMU staff in Odisha.
Sixth, attrition of existing staff primarily due to the sub-market rates of
remuneration and travel reimbursement policies is an important issue in the
states of Assam, Karnataka and Gujarat.
Further, delays in the adoption of a comprehensive HR manual and policy by
each Mission state is responsible for a large number of HR related decisions
being postponed leading to higher attrition rate.
Finally, lack of healthy HR practices such as abnormal delays in
reimbursement of travel cost (paid at non-market rates, often below the
rates applicable for government staff), absence of a contract renewal system,
lack of annual increments, absence of insurance cover and lack of social
security benefits have cumulatively affected the incentives of the staff and
contributed to the high rate of attrition.
Capacity Building of Staff
2.20 The capacity building framework of the SRLMs includes a four-phase rigorous
induction process comprising orientation (2-3 days), immersion (15-20 days), exposure
visit (30 days) and classroom input (5-10 days). Some states, such as Jharkhand, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, UP and Assam have also included attachment with CRPs (in
one village) as an integral part of induction. The core NRLM processes and COM are an
integral part of the staff induction.
2.21 Of the total staff, 82% underwent an initial orientation across SRLMs, while 65%
village immersion. Only 23% of staff went on an exposure visit and 38% had
accompanied CRPs on their regular rounds. Besides induction, the staff were also
trained in thematic areas in a phased manner.
2.22 The core staff capacity building modules include: (i) NRLM framework, (ii)
theory of change and processes, (iii) poverty, (iv) vulnerability and livelihoods, (v) 10year perspective for a block, (vi) household, SHG, VO and CLF, (vii) gender, (viii)
community institutions their cadres and sustainability, (ix) participatory skills, (x)
facilitation skills, (xi) training skills, (xii) leadership skills, and (xiii) project
management skills.
2.23 The capacity building framework for SRLM staff goes beyond induction and
classroom training. It includes training in the field, as well as demonstration. The
SRLMs have also assigned area responsibilities in addition to thematic responsibilities
to staff, further enhancing the understanding of the staff. As a result, the SMMU and
DMMU staff have begun to spend more time in the field, training the community and
block staff. SRLMs have facilitated learning forums such as Writeshops (at national and
state levels), team meetings (at national, state, district and block levels), mentoring and
visioning for the staff. Six SRLMs, viz. Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka have conducted visioning exercises, followed by
strategic planning workshops. State anchoring by NMMU has also contributed to the
23
capacities of SMMU staff, who are in turn nurturing district and block staff. The
preparation of annual action plans (AAPs) has also contributed to the capacities of the
staff.
2.24 The states have developed capacity building plans involving training needs
assessment, preparation/customization of modules, identification of resource pools,
training centres, partnerships with capacity building agencies, and preparation of
training calendars. Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan SRLMs have utilized the services of SSK,
Lucknow, while Jharkhand has partnered with both SSK, Lucknow and XLRI. A few
other states have partnered with their SIRDs as well as NIRD. Some states have also
developed training calendars for all staff at various levels. However, the capacity
building architecture needs to be strengthened at all levels and a training calendar
developed and monitored regularly.
Summary
2.25 Though NRLM was launched in June 2011, 12 out of 13 states transited to NRLP
after meeting the transition conditions only during FY 2012-13. This initial delay has a
cascading effect on the pace of implementation of the project. There were subsequent
delays in the setting up of implementation structures, hiring of HR agencies and
recruitment of staff, primarily due to the delays in obtaining necessary sanctions from
the state governments and lengthy process of procurement involved. Despite the initial
delay and the administrative delays, the state Missions were able to recruit 65% of the
staff approved at SMMU, 58% at the DMMU level and 68% at the BMMU level. This is a
significant achievement, considering the fact that these recruitments were made from
the market, following a transparent selection process. The human resources recruited
by the Missions constitute a vast reservoir of professionals drawn from multiple areas
which facilitated the states to set up three-tier implementation structures and
implement annual action plans. The high rate of turnover among CEOs/SMDs and the
high rate of attrition among key staff is a matter of serious concern. The state Missions
need to institute appropriate HR hygiene practices to retain the professional staff hired
and to put their full potential to optimum utilization. The relatively high attrition rate
could be checked by the state Missions by adopting suitable HR practices to ensure
payment of appropriate compensation and other allowances, timely reimbursement of
travel and other costs, institution of performance appraisal system and incentives
based on performance, provision of minimum social security benefits etc. Further, the
state Missions should ensure that key staff required are appointed at all levels to
facilitate project expansion into all clusters and villages, strengthening of community
institutions and promotion of the livelihoods of the poor. Finally, early adoption of HR
manual and policy by all state Missions would promote healthy HR environment in the
project.
24
Chapter-3
NRLP Footprint
Introduction
3.1
NRLM was designed to be implemented intensively in all rural blocks of the
country. However, intensive implementation of the Mission simultaneously in all rural
blocks of the country would require substantial human resources in general and social
capital in particular, besides financial resources. Moreover, not all states had prior
experience in implementing NRLM type programmes involving intensive mobilization
of the poor and building their institutions for promoting sustainable livelihoods. Unless
a ‘proof of concept’ is established on the ground, in each state, mainstreaming an
intensive strategy would be difficult. Therefore, NRLM was designed to be implemented
in a phased but intensive manner by applying human and financial resources in select
incubation blocks in the first phase such that they would emerge as replicable models
for the rest of the Mission area. Thus, NRLP was designed as a subset of NRLM to create
a ‘proof of concept’, and an enabling environment for scaling-up the Mission activities to
cover all blocks, villages and poor households in a time bound manner. An attempt is
made in this chapter to present the footprint of NRLP with a view to presenting the
progress of NRLP in 13 states since the inception of the Mission in June, 2011.
Intensive Block Implementation Strategy
3.2
Intensive block is a sub-district unit identified by State Rural Livelihoods Mission
(SRLM) in the first phase of implementation to demonstrate best practices and ideal
processes to be adopted in rolling out key Mission activities. Over a period of three
years, the intensive blocks are expected to identify and develop ‘social capital’ of the
poor for scaling up and replicating Mission mandate to other blocks in a systematic
manner. Besides serving as ‘proof of concept’, the intensive blocks are expected to serve
as immersion and training sites for the project staff and the members of the community
institutions. NRLM has adopted a three-pronged strategy for implementing the programme
at the block level as briefly indicated below.
Resource Block
3.3
Resource block strategy envisages use of social capital nurtured and developed
in states which have successfully implemented large scale community driven poverty
alleviation projects such as Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar. In order to facilitate
use of social capital (CRPs) from these states, the Mission implementation agencies in
these states have been recognized as National Resource Organizations (NROs) in June
2012 and the other Mission states are encouraged to enter into a partnership with them
for undertaking initial social mobilization, institution building, capacity building and
identification and training of internal social capital (internal CRPs, active women,
bookkeepers, trainers etc.,). The states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have been
using the services of NROs in implementing intensive block strategy in the first phase in
55 NRLP blocks (Dec.’14). The essence of resource block strategy is that external
women community resource persons of proven quality, drawn from the states of AP,
25
Telangana and Bihar undertake SM, IB and CB activities besides identifying and training
social capital in select blocks, named as resource blocks. Encouraged by the early
success of the model, the MORD has since recognized a few experienced CBOs also as
NROs with whom the state Missions can partner with for taking forward the resource
block strategy.
Intensive Blocks
3.4
In addition to intensive implementation in the resource blocks with the support
of social capital provided by NROs, the SRLMs have also been implementing intensive
strategies in select blocks with their own staff and internal social capital available or
through the social capital generated in the resource blocks. The basic difference
between the resource blocks and intensive blocks is the nature of social capital
employed for catalyzing social mobilization and institution building.
Partnership Blocks
3.5
The third variant of intensive implementation is the partnership block model in
which the state Missions have entered into partnership with reputed NGOs/CSOs which
have been engaged in the implementation of CBO-centered community based livelihood
promotion models. Under the partnership agreement, the NGO/CSO adopts and
mainstreams all NRLM approaches in their ongoing CBO based interventions. Under
this model, the Jharkhand SRLM is partnering with PRADAN for intensive
implementation in 14 blocks, while the Maharashtra SRLM with MAVIM, a parastatal
women development agency, for implementation of NRLM intensive approaches in 6
blocks.
Block Implementation Processes
3.6
NRLM has been designed to be implemented for a period of 10 years in a block. A
typical block has about 15,000 poor households, of which 13,500 (i.e. 90%) are
considered as NRLM target households. Similarly, a block on the average is expected to
have 120 villages, which could be divided into 4 clusters for implementation.
3.7
In a typical intensive block, the first 3 years are expected to focus on building the
organisations of the poor by mobilising them into SHGs, federations at village, cluster and block
levels. The following three years are expected to focus on deepening the Mission activities with a
particular focus on additional layers such as health, nutrition, interventions for persons with
disability (PwD) and livelihoods. The processes involved in different phases of implementation in a
block are summarized Annex-23. The benchmarks for implementation (over a period of three years)
are given in Annex-5.
Expansion of Intensive Blocks
3.8
All the 13 states have been implementing intensive Mission strategies. As of Dec.
’14, the NRLP was being implemented in 374 blocks (including resource and
partnership blocks) scattered over 130 districts of 13 states. This constitutes 29% of
the total districts of the 13 states (Annex Table-3.1). The socio-economic profile of the
districts selected indicates that a high proportion of them are relatively backward with
26
a substantial presence of the marginalized communities of the SCs and the STs. Thus,
the selection of the districts under NRLP could be considered as inclusive. It may be
noted that the Mission states have adopted intensive approach in select blocks of 42
other districts.
Table-3.1
Expansion of Districts Implementing NRLM: Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
Total
Districts
1.
Assam
27
2.
Bihar
38
3.
Chhattisgarh
27
4.
Gujarat
26
5.
Jharkhand
24
6.
Karnataka
30
7.
Madhya Pradesh
50
8.
Maharashtra
33
9.
Odisha
30
10.
Rajasthan
33
11.
Tamil Nadu
31
12.
Uttar Pradesh
75
13.
West Bengal
18
14. Total
442
(100)
No. of Districts in Progress
NRLM
Total
27
8
19
(100)
19
19
(50)
11
9
2
(41)
9
9
(35)
12
12
5
(50)
5
5
(17)
10
10
(20)
10
10
(30)
10
7
3
(33)
9
7
2
(27)
15
4
11
(48)
22
22
(29)
8
8
(44)
130
42
168
(29)
(10)
(38)
NRLP
Source: NRLM-MIS
3.9
NRLP was originally designed to be implemented intensively in 400 blocks of
100 districts in 12 states over a period of 5 years. In the restructured NRLP, the number
of blocks has been reduced to 300 in 13 states. However, as of Dec.’14, the states were
implementing NRLP in 374 blocks (Annex Table-3.1).
27
Table-3.2
Blocks Implementing NRLM: Dec. ‘14
S.
No.
State
Total Blocks in the State
Blocks in Progress
NRLP
NRLM
Total
44
1. Assam
219
25
19
(20)
77
2. Bihar
534
77
(14)
18
3. Chhattisgarh
146
16
2
(12)
20
4. Gujarat
224
20
(9)
32
5. Jharkhand
259
29
3
(12)
20
6. Karnataka
176
20
(11)
46
7. Madhya Pradesh
313
46
(15)
36
8. Maharashtra
351
36
(10)
40
9. Odisha
314
28
12
(13)
11
10. Rajasthan
248
7
4
(4)
60
11. Tamil Nadu
385
16
44
(16)
22
12. Uttar Pradesh
822
22
(3)
32
13. West Bengal
341
32
(9)
4332
374
84
458
14. NRLP States
(100)
(9)
(2)
(11)
Notes: (1) NRLP Blocks include Resource and Partnership Blocks; (2) NRLM Blocks include
Partnership Blocks; (3) figures in parentheses are percentages; (4) “ –“ indicates absences
of NRLM intensive blocks.
Source: NRLM-MIS.
Expansion of NRLP Blocks
3.10 The NRLP intensive block strategy was initiated in 124 blocks during FY 201213, 183 blocks in FY 2013-14 and 54 blocks in FY 2014-15. The state-wise and yearwise expansion of NRLP implementation is presented in Table-3.3. Delays in transition
of states to NRLM appears to be primary reason for the slow pace of expansion. It may
be noted that 12 out of 13 states transited to NRLM only during FY 2012-13 and thus
becoming eligible for NRLP funding. Delays in the establishment of Mission architecture
and recruitment of human resources required at SMMU, DMMU and BMMU are the
other important factors limiting the pace of expansion of NRLP. The pre-NRLM capacity
differential of the states, particularly, in respect of social capital also seems to have
affected the pace of expansion of intensive implementation into newer blocks.
28
Expansion of Intensive Blocks
3.11 The rate of expansion of intensive blocks in the NRLP states, however, has not
been uniform, though all the 13 states had transited to NRLM by Mar. ’13. Establishment
of implementation structures following the transition and recruitment of professional
staff from the market are inherently time consuming, given the diverse administrative
environment in different states. Thus, up to Mar. ’13, intensive implementation could be
taken up only in 124 (33%) blocks. Implementation started in most of the blocks in
2013-14 and 2014-15. The pace of expansion has had its impact on the rate of social
mobilization.
Table-3.3
Year-wise Commencement of Intensive Blocks: NRLP
Dec.’14
2011-12
S.
2014-15
2013-14
(3 Years) &
State
Total Blocks
No.
(<1 Year)
(1 Year)
2012-13
(2 Years)
1.
Assam
0
5
20
25
2.
Bihar
8
47
22
77
3.
Chhattisgarh
0
12
4
16
4.
Gujarat
0
0
20
20
5.
Jharkhand
7
17
5
29
6.
Karnataka
0
20
0
20
7.
Madhya Pradesh
1
3
42
46
8.
Maharashtra
19
9
8
36
9.
Odisha
0
28
0
28
10. Rajasthan
2
5
0
7
11. Tamil Nadu
0
0
16
16
12. Uttar Pradesh
17
5
0
22
13. West Bengal
0
32
0
32
54
183
137
374
14. Total
(14)
(49)
(37)
(100)
Notes: (1) Figures in parentheses are percentages to total intensive blocks; (2) Includes resource
blocks implemented with external CRP support.
Source: NRLM-MIS
Resource Blocks
3.12 Of the 374 NRLP intensive blocks, 55 are from resource block stream. The age of
the resource blocks also reflects inter-state variations. The resource block strategy was
started in 20 blocks during 2012-13, 10 blocks during 2013-14 and 25 blocks during
2014-15 (up to Dec.’14). There were some initial delays in preparing the states for
partnering with NROs. The process of identification and orientation of external CRPs
required on a large scale also took some time. After having established the partnerships
with NROs, there has been a steady progress in the scaling-up of resource block
strategy and in deepening SM and IB activities in the selected blocks.
29
Table-3.4
Expansion of Resource Block Strategy: Number of Blocks
Dec. ‘14
Year of Commencement
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
1. Chhattisgarh
4
--2. Gujarat
--3
3. Jharkhand
5
5
2
4. Karnataka
--3
5. Maharashtra
8
--6. Madhya Pradesh
3
3
1
7. Rajasthan
--5
8. Uttar Pradesh
-2
10
9. West Bengal
--1
10. Total
20
10
25
Note: Includes only blocks in which external CRP strategy is adopted
Source: NRLM-MIS
S.
No.
State
Total
4
3
12
3
8
7
5
12
1
55
Table-3.5
NRLP Resource Blocks in Progress: Dec 2014
S.
No.
State
1. Assam
2. Bihar
3. Chhattisgarh
4. Gujarat
5. Jharkhand
6. Karnataka
7. Madhya Pradesh
8. Maharashtra
9. Odisha
10. Rajasthan
11. Tamil Nadu
12. Uttar Pradesh
13. West Bengal
14. NRLP States
Source: NRLM-MIS
Total Intensive
Blocks in Progress
25
77
16
20
29
20
46
36
28
7
16
22
32
374
Resource Resource
Blocks
Blocks in
Identified Progress
0
0
0
0
4
4
5
3
16
12
5
3
7
7
8
8
0
0
5
5
0
0
12
12
8
1
70
55
Blocks in progress
as % of total
Intensive Blocks
0
0
25
15
41
15
15
22
0
71
0
55
3
15
Mission Footprint in Villages of Intensive Blocks
3.13 By Dec.’14, the Mission had its footprint in 74% of the GPs and 60% of the
villages. However, mere footprint does not indicate the intensity of efforts made and the
resulting outputs. For example in West Bengal, Assam, Karnataka, Odisha and Tamil
Nadu, the footprint reported indicates presence of the Mission or its predecessor
30
project, which have since been replaced by NRLM, in a larger proportion of villages.
Further, Karnataka and West Bengal, which are late comers to the resource block
strategy, just initiated Mission implementation in certain intensive blocks. These states
along with Assam, Odisha and Tamil Nadu are required to intensify their efforts by
deploying required frontline staff and strengthening implementation structures and
systems.
Table-3.6
NRLP Footprint in GPs and Villages: Intensive Blocks
Dec.’14
Percent of GPs
Percent of Villages
States
Districts
Blocks
Entered
Entered
Assam
8
25
100
80
Bihar
19
77
73
41
Chhattisgarh
9
16
82
73
Gujarat
9
20
61
59
Jharkhand
12*
29*
84
49
Karnataka
5
20
100
96
Madhya Pradesh
10
46
97
98
Maharashtra
10
36
64
54
Odisha
7*
28*
35
31
Rajasthan
7
7
52
25
Tamil Nadu
4
16
100
72
Uttar Pradesh
22
22
43
18
West Bengal
8
32
100
92
74
60
14. Total
130
374
(10595)
(34172)
Notes: (1) * Total districts approved for Odisha is 8. (2) The total blocks approved for NRLP in
Jharkhand and Odisha are 30 and 33, respectively. (3) Figures in parentheses are total GPs
and Villages entered. (4) Intensive blocks includes resource blocks.
Source: Computed from Annex Table-3.1.
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Summary
3.14 NRLP has been designed as a subset of NRLM to create a ‘proof of concept’ and an
enabling environment for scaling-up the Mission activities to cover all blocks, villages
and households of the poor in a time bound manner. Over a period of three years, the
intensive blocks are expected to identify, train and develop social capital to facilitate
scaling-up of the Mission. NRLM has adopted a three-pronged strategy covering
resource blocks, intensive blocks and partnership blocks to implement the Mission
activities intensively and generate the required social capital and establish ‘proof of
concept’. Thus, by Dec.’14, intensive implementation of the project, has been
implemented in 374 blocks of 130 districts in 13 states. The Mission has made its
footprint in 74% of the GPs and 60% of villages in these blocks. Establishing a footprint
is only the first critical step and the project is successful in respect of this. But what is
more important is the mobilization of all rural poor households in the ‘entered’ villages
and saturate mobilization. It is also important to expand the Mission activities to other
uncovered GPs and villages.
31
Chapter 4
Social Mobilization and Inclusion
Introduction
4.1
NRLP was originally designed to be implemented in about 400 blocks spread
over 12 states during 2011-16. The project had an original mobilization target of 4.8
million households. However, as the setting up of dedicated institutional structures to
implement the project took much longer time than expected, the project has since been
restructured and the period extended up to Dec.’17. The geographical spread and
household reach of the project have however remained the same. This chapter
examines the progress of the Mission in respect of social mobilization and inclusion.
Geographical Spread
4.2
As against the target of 400 blocks, the geographical spread of the project has
expanded to 374 blocks spread across 130 districts of 13 high poverty states by Dec. ‘14.
Out of the 374 blocks in which intensive implementation is in progress, 55 are resource
blocks implemented with the support of NROs in 9 states. Intensive implementation in
the other 319 blocks is spearheaded by the frontline staff of the state Missions with the
support of existing social capital, largely developed through EAP/state funded projects.
Mobilization of Households into NRLP Fold
4.3
The total number of households mobilized in the intensive blocks at the end of
Dec.’14 stood at 3.2 million, which constitutes 67% of the project target set for Dec.’17.
This includes both new households brought into SHGs as well as households holding
membership in pre-existing SHGs brought under NRLM fold. However, if only
households mobilized (1.44 million households) into new SHGs are considered, then the
mobilization ratio is 36%. From a macro perspective, the pace of mobilization appears
to be satisfactory and the target is not only feasible but is likely to be overreached, even
if only households mobilized into new SHGs are considered.
4.4
The average number of households (in all NRLM compliant SHGs) mobilized per
block stood at 8599 in Dec.’14. As most of the blocks are about 2 years old, the number
of households brought into NRLM fold (including member households in the revived/
strengthened SHGs) compares favourably with the expected number of households to
be mobilized as per the internal benchmarks suggested by NMMU (Annex-5).
4.5
The inter-state variations in the extent of mobilization reflect the age of the
Mission and implementation in each block, the delays in recruitment of staff, the
presence of resource blocks, the legacy of SHG-centred projects implemented in the
states and the availability of pre-existing social capital. Thus, mobilization per block is
higher in states with pre-existing projects woven around SHGs (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh
and Tamil Nadu). The large number of households mobilized in Assam and West Bengal
reflect the legacy of SHG movements and reporting. Uttar Pradesh, a late entrant to the
32
process of intensive implementation, has mobilized only 2,550 households per block on
the average.
Table-4.1
Year-wise Mobilization of Households into NRLM Fold
Dec.’14
No. of HHs Mobilized During
NRLP
Average
S.
State
Intensive 2011-12 &
Per
No.
2013-14
2014-15
Total
Blocks*
Block
2012-13
1. Assam**
25
-235869
37938
273807
10952
2. Bihar
77
109385
343709
427200
880294
11432
3. Chhattisgarh
16
-50165
31481
81646
5103
4. Gujarat
20
-144108
34771
178879
8944
5. Jharkhand
29
18083
83103
71843
173029
5967
6. Karnataka
20
-46425
52180
98605
4930
7. MP
46
118970
153313
120651
392934
8542
8. Maharashtra
36
37890
79335
135669
252894
7025
9. Odisha
28
-221762
15160
236922
8462
10. Rajasthan
7
-14235
8769
23004
3286
11. Tamil Nadu
16
-27216
87862
115078
7192
12. Uttar Pradesh
22
-21620
34500
56120
2551
13. West Bengal**
32
-434638
18039
452677
14146
14. Total
374
8599
284328 1855498
1076063 3215889
Notes: (1) * includes resource blocks; -- either state not transited or data not reported in the year;
(2) ** Assam and West Bengal reported pre-existing households brought under NRLM for
the first time in 2013-14; (3) Numbers include member households brought into new SHGs
as well as pre-existing SHGs brought into NRLM after strengthening/revival.
4.6
Number of households mobilized into NRLP fold with the support of external
CRPs in the resource blocks was on the average 7,811 per block at the end of Dec.’14.
The rate of mobilization of households per resource block appears to be in tune with
the expected rate of mobilization after two years. On the average, most of the blocks
had completed two years of intensive implementation by Dec.’14.
Table-4.2
Households Mobilized in Resource Blocks with NRO Support
Dec.’14
S.
No
1
2
3
4
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
4
12
12
16
36862
102473
3072
6405
9216
8539
Expected
Mobilizati
on after
Two
Years*
7560
7560
7
8
53911
6739
7702
7560
11340
8
10
69366
6937
8671
7560
11340
No.
of
RBs
No. of CRP
No. of HHs
Rounds
Mobilized
Completed
Average
Per CRP
Round
Average
Per
Block
Expected
Mobilization
after Three
Years*
11340
11340
33
5
6
Rajasthan
5
4
18600
4650
Total
36
50
281212
5624
Note: * Based on efficiency parameters worked out by NMMU
3720
7811
7560
7560
11340
11340
4.7
The extent of mobilization completed in sample clusters of 10 states (including
households mobilized into new SHGs and revived SHGs) as proportion of the potential
target households is slightly lower. In all sample clusters, assuming that 2/3rds of the
total households constitute the target, 57% stood mobilized by Dec.’14. In the resource
block sample, the corresponding ratio was 45%. The relatively lower ratio of
mobilization in the sample resource block clusters reflects the process oriented
approach adopted for mobilization in them. The other reason could be that most of the
resource block clusters are located in remote blocks with a strong presence of the most
vulnerable communities. It is expected to take relatively longer time for mobilization in
these clusters. In the sample intensive block clusters, other than resource block
clusters, the ratio was slightly higher at 61%. Overall, it may be said that the
mobilization of households is progressing at a rate faster than the expected rate. The
methodologies and processes adopted for social mobilization in the resource and
intensive blocks are summarized in Annex-6.
Table-4.3
Extent of Social Mobilization in Sample Clusters
S.
No.
Sample Type
1.
Sample clusters in all blocks
2.
Sample clusters in resource blocks
3.
Sample clusters in intensive blocks
Source: computed from Annex Table-4.3
Total HHs in
the Sample
Clusters
479803
176486
303317
Target HHs in the
Sample Clusters (2/3rd
of the Total HHs)
327891
125017
202874
Dec.’14
Percentage of
HHs Mobilized
into SHG Fold
57
45
61
Social Inclusion
4.8
An important mandate of NRLM is to adopt inclusive approaches in social
mobilization and institution building. The objective of social inclusion requires the state
Missions to adopt a strategy that would focus on mobilization of the left out households,
particularly, those belonging to the vulnerable communities of the SCs, the STs and the
Minorities. An inclusive strategy would also imply prioritization of most backward
geographies (states, districts, blocks, villages and households) for project intervention.
Social inclusion in the promotion of community institutions would require a strategy
that would result in a fair share in leadership positions as well as funds for the
members of the vulnerable communities. From this perspective, an attempt is made in
this chapter to briefly examine the results of inclusive approaches adopted by the state
Missions.
Selection of Geographies
4.9
NRLP has been designed to be implemented in 13 high poverty states. The
estimates of rural poverty made by the Tendulkar Committee and adopted by the
Planning Commission indicate that these 13 states account for 85% of the rural poor
34
(absolute number). Thus, the project design has an implicit inclusion agenda. The
Mission states are expected to identify districts, taking into account the intensity of
rural poverty, the presence of vulnerable communities of the SCs and the STs and other
human development indicators. The 130 districts selected by the Mission states for
intensive implementation are low HDI districts, with a substantial presence of the
population of the STs and the SCs. Some of these are IAP districts, affected by extremist
violence. The blocks selected within the intensive districts are also characterized by
significant presence of the STs and the SCs and located in fragile agricultural zones with
serious livelihood issues. The selection of blocks, based on objective indicators has been
approved by MORD as part of the state AAPs. Within the selected intensive blocks, the
Missions have adopted a strategy of prioritizing most backward villages in each cluster
such that the remote and interior villages as well as those with a large presence of the
STs and the SCs receive precedence.
Mobilization of Poverty Groups
4.10 As pointed out in the previous chapter, the total number of households
mobilized (including the member households of the pre-existing SHGs brought under
NRLM fold) stood at about 3.2 million at the end of Dec.’14. The underlying assumption
is that each member mobilized into an SHG represents one household. It is also
assumed that almost all these households belong to the poverty groups as the strategy
adopted by the Mission is to mobilize the poorest of the poor and the poor households.
However, the relative poverty status of these households will be assessed by the village
communities through participatory wealth ranking, in a phased manner and after the
establishment of the VOs. The methods adopted for identification of target households
are summarized in Annex-6, while the methods and processes adopted for promoting
social inclusion are summarized in Annex-7.
Mobilization of Vulnerable Communities
Intensive Blocks
4.11 The mobilization process adopted by the Mission states has resulted in highly
inclusive mobilization. Out of about 3.2 million poor member households mobilized into
NRLM fold from 374 intensive blocks up to Dec.’14, 29% belong to the STs, 21% to the
SCs and 9% to the minority groups, reflecting the inclusive character of mobilization
process adopted (Table-4.4). The inter-state variations in the extent of inclusion of
vulnerable communities also reflect the demography of the intensive blocks in which
implementation is in progress. Thus, the states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have mobilized a large percentage of the STs, while Bihar,
Rajasthan, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal account for a significant
percentage of the SC household members. As could be expected on a priori grounds,
Assam, Bihar, UP and West Bengal have mobilized significant proportion of members
from minority groups. The methods and processes adopted in the mobilization of
poverty groups into SHGs are summarized in Annex-8.
35
Table-4.4
Social Composition of Members Mobilized in Intensive Blocks
S.
Total SHG
State
No.
Members*
1. Assam
273807
2. Bihar
880294
3. Chhattisgarh
81646
4. Gujarat
178879
5. Jharkhand
173029
6. Karnataka
98605
7. Madhya Pradesh
392934
8. Maharashtra
252894
9. Odisha
236922
10. Rajasthan
23004
11. Tamil Nadu
115078
12. Uttar Pradesh
56120
13. West Bengal
452677
14. Total
3215889
Note: * Intensive Blocks includes Resource Blocks
Source: Computed from Annex Table-4.4
Percentage of Members Belonging to
ST
SC
ST
Others
28
12
19
41
2
30
13
55
48
13
1
39
63
9
4
24
65
9
5
21
14
26
6
54
76
8
1
15
26
17
3
53
56
14
7
23
19
30
1
50
12
19
6
63
1
27
9
63
10
39
15
36
29
21
9
40
Resource Blocks
4.12 The inclusive mobilization is also evident from the social composition of
members mobilized into SHGs from the resource blocks as well. The NRO-driven
external CRP strategy has been very inclusive. Special efforts have been made by the
external CRPs to identify and mobilize only poor and vulnerable households into the
SHGs. The external CRPs have been specially trained in the identification of the poor
households. The social composition of the SHGs promoted in the resource blocks
indicates that the STs constitute 46% followed by the SCs and the Minorities at 16%
and 5%, respectively.
Table-4.5
Social Composition of Members Mobilized in Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Dec.’14
State
Total Sample SHG
Members
Percentage of Members from
STs
SCs
Minorities
Others
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Total
36862
27084
73814
30456
91553
69375
19425
31663
32435
412667
59
44
68
18
76
44
11
1
1
46
8
15
9
30
12
14
32
30
24
16
1
15
7
5
2
3
2
10
6
5
33
27
17
47
10
39
55
59
69
33
36
37
Social Composition of Sample SHG Members
4.13 The sample study conducted in 10 states covering 5,854 members also amply
reflects the inclusive character of mobilization. The social composition of the sample
members indicates that 45% belong to the STs, 14% to the SCs and 5% to the minority
communities (Table-4.6). The inter-state variations reflect the demographic
composition of the sample villages.
Table-4.6
Social Composition of SHG Members: Sample
Dec.’14
S.
Percentage of Members belonging to
Total Sample
State
No.
SHG Members
ST
SC
Minority
Others
1. Assam
191
29
16
16
39
2. Chhattisgarh
542
56
13
0
31
3. Gujarat
256
35
13
3
49
4. Jharkhand
1219
79
2
4
15
5. Madhya Pradesh
861
73
7
2
18
6. Rajasthan
377
3
60
0
37
7. Maharashtra
1062
31
15
5
50
8. Bihar
714
0
18
20
62
9. Odisha
265
63
25
0
11
10. Tamil Nadu
309
16
8
0
75
11. Total
5796
45
14
5
36
Note: Sample includes resource, intensive and partnership blocks sub-sample.
Source: Computed from Sample data furnished in Annex Table-4.6.
Resource and Partnership Blocks
4.14 The inclusiveness is also evident from the sub-sample of SHG members from the
resource blocks. Out of a total of 3,076 sample SHG members, 55% belong to the STs,
15% to the SCs and 5% to the minority communities, clearly reflecting the focus of the
project on inclusive mobilization. The sample data reinforces the analysis based on the
state MIS. The social composition of the sample members from the partnership blocks
also indicates a preponderance of the ST and the SC members.
Table-4.7
Social Composition of Members in Resource Blocks: Sample
Dec.’14
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Total
Total Sample
SHG
Members
414
899
605
377
781
3076
ST
SC
Minority
Others
69
78
69
3
36
55
8
2
10
60
16
15
0
6
3
0
6
5
23
14
19
37
42
26
38
Table-4.8
Social Composition of Sample Members in Partnership Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
1. Jharkhand
2. Maharashtra
3. Total
Source: Sample data
Total Sample SHG
Members
ST
83
14
51
320
281
601
SC
1
12
6
Minority
0.0
1
1
Others
16
73
43
Social Composition of SHG Leaders: Sample
4.15 NRLP has also been promoting inclusion at the SHG leadership level as well to
avoid elite capture of these institutions and to train members of the vulnerable
communities in management of community institutions. The data from the total sample
of SHGs clearly indicates that 42% of the leaders are from the STs, 16% from the SCs
and 6% from the minorities (Table-4.9). It is interesting to note that even physically
challenged persons found a place in leadership roles.
Table-4.9
Social Composition of SHG Leaders: Total Sample
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
Total
ST
Percentage of Leaders from
SC
Minority
PWD
1.
Assam
43
28
23
2.
Bihar
180
0
18
3.
Chhattisgarh
96
54
16
4.
Gujarat
48
35
15
5.
Jharkhand
287
78
3
6.
Madhya Pradesh
165
72
7
7.
Maharashtra
199
29
18
8.
Odisha
48
60
25
9.
Rajasthan
125
5
50
10.
Tamil Nadu
52
17
13
11.
Total
1243
42
16
Source: Computed from sample data furnished in Annex Table-4.9
19
20
0
2
6
2
2
0
1
4
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Others
30
62
30
48
12
19
51
15
45
65
35
4.16 The sample data from the resource blocks suggests greater degree of inclusion
with 52% of the leaders drawn from the STs, 18% from the SCs and 4% from the
minorities. It is interesting to note that even physically challenged persons are
encouraged to hold leadership positions (Table-4.10). The social background of the
leaders of SHGs drawn from partnership blocks also indicates positive bias in favour of
vulnerable groups (Table-4.11).
39
Table-4.10
Social Composition of SHG Leaders: Resource Block Sample
Dec.’14
Percent of Leaders from
S.
State
Total
No.
ST
SC Minorities PWD Others
1.
Chhattisgarh
74
66
9
0
0
24
2.
Jharkhand
215
75
3
8
1
13
3.
Madhya Pradesh
116
66
10
3
0
22
4.
Maharashtra
144
35
19
3
1
42
5.
Rajasthan
108
6
57
1
0
36
6.
Total
657
52
18
4
1
26
Source: Computed from sample data furnished in Annex Table-4.10
Table-4.11
Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: Partnership Blocks (%)
S.
No.
State
1.
Jharkhand
2.
Maharashtra
3.
Total
Source: Sample data
Total
72
55
127
ST
Leaders from
SC
89
13
56
1
15
7
Others
10
73
37
Summary
4.17 NRLP is currently being implemented in 374 blocks spread over 130 districts of
13 high poverty states. Of the total, 55 are resource blocks, in which intensive
implementation is supported by NROs. The geographical spread of the project exceeds
the revised project target of 300 blocks. The mobilization of total households at the end
of Dec.’14, stood at 3.2 million which constitutes 85% of the project target set for
Dec.’17. This includes both households mobilized into new SHGs (52%) and the
households in the revived and strengthened SHGs. The average number of households
mobilized per block works out to about 8599, which compares well with the expected
number of households to be mobilized as per the efficiency benchmarks. The average
mobilization per resource block works out to 7,560 households. Assuming the twothirds of the total households in a block constitute the target, the project had mobilized
57% by Dec.’14. However, there are inter-state variations in the magnitude of
mobilization reflecting the history of SHG movements in the states, legacy of
implementing CBO-centred EAPs, the stock of pre-existing cognitive social capital and
the date of transition of the states to the Mission.
4.18 An important mandate of NRLM is to promote inclusive approaches in social
mobilization. The early results amply demonstrates the inclusiveness of the project.
First of all, the project is being implemented in the states in which account for 85% of
the rural poor in the country. Within the 13 states, 130 districts selected for project
implementation are relatively backward with a strong presence of the vulnerable
communities of the SCs and the STs, besides being low HDI districts, with some of them
40
being exposure to extremist violence. The 374 blocks under implementation are also
characterized by significant presence of the SCs and the STs besides being located in the
fragile agricultural zones with serious livelihood issues. Within the selected blocks, the
Mission units are focusing on mobilizing the most vulnerable communities particularly
in the remote and interior areas. More significantly, out of the 3.2 million households
mobilized into NRLP fold, 29% belong to the STs, 21% to the SCs and 9% to the
minority groups, reflecting the inclusive character of the entire mobilization process.
The mobilization in the resource blocks is even more inclusive with the vulnerable
communities accounting for 67% of the total households. The social composition of SHG
members also reveals that about 65% of them belong to the ST (45%), the SC (14%)
and minority (6%). This is equally true of the composition of members from the
resource and partnership blocks. The project has firmly instituted inclusive approaches
even in leadership positions. Of the total SHG-OBs, those from the STs and the SCs
constituted 42% and 16%, respectively. There was representation to the minorities as
well as physically challenged persons. The project states have adopted a calibrated
inclusive strategy to achieve the results. Thus, the mobilization process and outcomes
have been extremely inclusive.
41
Chapter–5
Promotion and Functioning of SHGs
Introduction
5.1
The central objective of NRLM is to reduce rural poverty in all its forms and
enable the rural poor, particularly, the poorest of the poor to improve their livelihoods
and quality of life in a sustained manner. The Mission seeks to achieve this objective by
building and sustaining self-managed and self-governed institutions of the poor, which
would in turn promote their livelihoods and mitigate the downside risks faced by them.
Institution building is the bedrock on which the entire NRLP strategy is posited. SHGs
constitute the basic foundation of this institution building model. The implicit
assumption of the project is that unless all the target households are mobilized into
functionally effective SHGs, the higher objectives cannot be achieved. An attempt is made
in this chapter to examine the promotion of SHGs as well as revival and strengthening of
pre-existing SHGs in different states since the launch of the project and their adherence
to the canons of democratic functioning.
Promotion of New SHGs
5.2
The promotion of new SHGs gathered momentum only from 2013-14 due to
delays in the transition of the states to NRLM and the recruitment of staff. Thus up to
March 2013, only 16,672 new SHGs were promoted in states that had transited early.
During FY 2013-14, the number of new SHGs promoted peaked to 66,802 in the project
states. During 2014-15, the number of new SHGs promoted exceeded 61,330 (up to
Dec.’14). Thus, a total of 1,44,804 new SHGs were promoted up to Dec.’14 in the 13
project states.
Revival and Strengthening of Pre-Existing SHGs
5.3
Along with promotion of new SHGs, the project states have undertaken equally
significant steps to revive and strengthen 1,31,344 pre-existing SHGs fulfilling NRLM
criteria. The revival of pre-existing SHGs also followed a similar time pattern of growth.
During FY 2011-12, only 8,378 pre-NRLM SHGs were brought under NRLM fold. This
number rose to 96,314 during FY 2012-13. During FY 2014-15, the number of revived
and strengthened SHGs was 26,652 (up to Dec.’14). States which had transited early and
those which have been implementing externally aided projects account for a larger
number of new SHGs, besides bringing into NRLM fold a good number of pre-existing
SHGs after revival and strengthening (Table-5.1).
SHGs Per Block
5.4
On the average, 387 new SHGs were promoted per block up to Dec.’14. In
addition, 351 pre-existing SHGs per block were revived, strengthened and brought
under NRLM fold. Both the new and revived SHGs together account for 738 SHGs per
block. As most of the project blocks are about 2 years old on the average, the number of
SHGs promoted compares well with the normatively estimated number of 720 SHGs per
block at the end of second year. Thus, the efforts made to promote new SHGs and revive
pre-existing SHGs are yielding expected results, notwithstanding the fact that there is
need for deepening and expanding mobilization in the intensive blocks. It may also be
noted that the high block averages for Assam, West Bengal, Bihar and Gujarat appear to
be due to the large scale promotion of SHGs undertaken under the state/EAP projects.
42
Table-5.1
SHGs Promoted and Revived Per Block: Intensive Blocks
Dec.’14
Average New SHGs Promoted
Average Existing SHG Revived/
Average SHGs Per Block in NRLM
Sl.
Per Block
Strengthened Per Block
Fold
State
Blocks
No.
Y1
Y2
Y3
Total
Y1
Y2
Y3
Total
Y1
Y2
Y3
Total
1
25
0
449
97
546
0
484
55
539
0
933
152
1085
Assam
2
77
118
350
286
755
0
6
164
169
118
356
450
924
Bihar
3
16
0
216
149
365
0
97
48
145
0
313
196
510
Chhattisgarh
4
20
0
175
130
304
0
488
39
527
0
662
169
831
Gujarat
5
29
22
115
172
308
29
110
37
176
50
224
210
484
Jharkhand
6
20
0
0
47
47
0
167
45
212
0
167
92
259
Karnataka
7
46
123
249
222
594
116
48
17
181
239
297
239
775
Madhya Pradesh
8
36
36
88
233
356
62
96
99
258
98
184
332
614
Maharashtra
9
28
0
14
19
33
0
658
34
692
0
672
53
725
Odisha
10
7
0
120
86
206
0
47
0
47
0
167
86
253
Rajasthan
11
16
0
0
167
167
0
126
207
333
0
126
374
500
Tamil Nadu
12
22
0
34
98
132
0
49
11
60
0
83
109
192
Uttar Pradesh
13
32
0
55
43
98
0
1200
10
1210
0
1255
53
1308
West Bengal
14
374
45
179
164
387
22
258
71
351
67
436
235
738
Total
Notes: (1) Y1 is up to March 2013; Y2 refers to 2013-14; and Y3 covers Apr-Dec.’14; (2) Intensive blocks includes resource blocks.
Source: State Information Reports; Computed from Annex Table-5.1.
43
Promotion of SHGs in Resource Blocks
5.5
The promotion of new SHGs as well as revived SHGs in resource blocks presents
a slightly different picture. The average number of SHGs promoted per block is
significantly higher than the number of pre-existing SHGs revived and strengthened in
all the resource blocks. This is a reflection of the intensive work in progress in resource
blocks with focus on mobilization of left out households. The average number of new
SHGs promoted per resource block works out to 660, while the corresponding number
for pre-existing SHG is 252 per block. On the whole, the 4 senior resource block states
had on the average promoted 845 SHGs per block. The inter-state variations in the
promotion of SHGs is a reflection of the age of the resource blocks and the number of
external CRP rounds completed. Thus, the analysis suggests that with the deepening of
implementation in intensive blocks, the proportion of new SHGs would gradually
increase.
Table-5.2
Average SHGs per Block in Resource Blocks
Dec.’14
Sl.
No.
State
No. of
No. of
Resource
CRP
Blocks
Rounds
Average Per CRP
Round
New Existing
Total
SHGs
SHGs
1.
2.
Average No. of SHGs per
Block in NRLM Fold
New
SHGs
845
410
Existing
SHGs
146
138
Total
Chhattisgarh
4
12
282
49
331
992
Jharkhand
12
9
546
184
730
547
Madhya
3.
7
8
451
129
580
515
148
662
Pradesh
4. Maharashtra
8
10
463
174
637
579
218
797
5. Total
31
39
524
201
725
660
252
912
Note: In the states of Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan, UP and West Bengal implementation of RB
strategy started only in FY 2014-15.
Source: State Information Report; Computed from Annex Table-5.2
Promotion of SHGs in Sample Villages
5.6
An examination of the composition of sample SHGs drawn from 10 states
indicates that 57% of the total sample SHGs (502) are new SHGs, while the rest are preexisting SHGs in both intensive and resource blocks (including partnership blocks). In
resource block alone, the ratio of new to pre-existing SHGs revived is 70: 30 and in
intensive blocks, it is 41:59.
44
Table-5.3
Composition of Sample SHGs
Dec.’14
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
SHGs in
SHGs in
Total Sample
Intensive Block
Resource Block
New Pre NRLM Total New Pre NRLM Total New Pre NRLM Total
12
7
19
0
12
7
19
60
0
60
0
60
0
60
1
10
11
29
7
36
30
17
47
0
24
24
0
0
24
24
2
22
24
33
39
72
35
61
96
12
12
24
44
7
17
24
52
2
22
24
0
0
0
33
1
23
24
97
137
234 192
11. Total
(41)
(59)
(100) (71)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages
Source: Sample data
10
20
5
81
(29)
54
56
72
59
0
2
38
33
0
1
272 289
(100) (57)
22
78
37
22
5
23
218
(43)
96
24
38
24
506
(100)
Age Analysis of Sample SHGs
5.7
The age analysis of the sample SHGs indicates that 9% are about one year old,
31% are in the age bracket 12 to 18 months and 26% in the age group 18-24 months.
The remaining 33% of the SHGs are above two years of age and most of them were from
the revived and strengthened category. Thus, the sample SHGs represent the age
distribution of the SHGs in the universe.
Table-5.4
Age Analysis of Sample SHGs: All Block Sample
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
<52
3
0
6
0
8
4
7
6
7
0
41
(8)
52-76
0
27
13
9
31
25
32
5
12
4
158
(31)
Age in Weeks
76-100 100-124
14
1
10
3
8
11
6
0
34
17
25
22
19
28
1
2
15
2
0
1
132
87
(26)
(17)
124-148
0
5
9
3
1
0
9
0
0
0
27
(5)
>148
1
15
0
6
5
2
1
9
0
18
57
(11)
Total
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
(100)
Source: Sample data
45
Functioning of SHGs
Adherence to Panchsutra
5.8
All NRLM compliant SHGs are required to adhere to Panchsutras or five canons of
democratic functioning. These are (i) regular conduct of weekly meetings; (ii) member
attendance at meetings; (iii) regular subscription of savings by members; (iv) interlending of SHG funds; and (v) up to date bookkeeping. The frontline Mission staff and
the social capital engaged are expected to guide the institutions to adhering to
Panchsutras. The Mission units are also expected to take into account the adherence of
the SHGs to Panchsutras for providing project funds in the form of RF and CIF. As part of
the sample study, an attempt was made to examine the adherence of the SHGs to
Panchsutras. The findings from the analysis are briefly summarized below:





as per the books of sample SHGs, 93% of the stipulated meetings were
conducted. Except in Assam and Gujarat, the percentage of stipulated
meetings held exceeded 90%;
on an average, 85% of the members attended the meetings of the SHGs. In
respect of Assam, Bihar and Gujarat, however, the attendance was relatively
low;
95% of the sample SHGs had subscribed the expected amount of savings
during six months preceding the sample survey. Only sample SHGs of
Assam had contributed 75% of the expected savings;
85% of the sample SHG members had borrowed from the internal funds of
the SHGs. Internal lending covered a relatively smaller proportion of
members in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Assam; and
more than 75% of the sample SHGs had minutes book and 77% had savings
registers prescribed by the Mission units along with other books and a very
high proportion of them were being updated.
Table-5.5
Adherence of SHGs to Panchsutras: Total Sample
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
No. of
Sample
SHG
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
Percentage Adherence to the Norm During Last 6 Months
Member Coverage
Meetings
Attendance
Savings
of Internal Loans
81
79
75
71
92
79
89
90
99
91
97
89
66
67
97
38
96
85
97
96
90
83
94
88
97
90
98
92
96
96
93
85
92
92
97
49
92
--89
93
85
95
85
46
Notes: (i) -- indicates data is being verified; (ii) Computed from data furnished in Annex Tables
5.24, 5.25, 5.26 and 6.4
Source: Sample data
5.9
In the case of resource block sample, the adherence of SHGs to Panchsutras is
higher in respect of all states except Rajasthan (coverage of internal loans). This is
clearly due to the intensive nurturing support, capacity building and follow-up support
provided to SHGs in the resource blocks.
Table-5.6
Adherence of Sample SHGs to Panchsutras: Resource Block Sample
Percentage Adherence to the Norm During Last 6 Months
No. of
Sample
Member Coverage
Meetings Attendance
Savings
SHG
of Internal Loans
36
1.
Chhattisgarh
99
89
95
100
72
2.
Jharkhand
99
85
98
92
54
3.
Madhya Pradesh
97
88
96
93
72
4.
Maharashtra
97
90
98
97
36
5.
Rajasthan
92
92
97
49
270
6.
Total
97
88
97
89
Note: Computed from data furnished in Annex Tables-5.27 & 5.28
Source: Sample data
S.
No.
State
Training and Capacity Building of SHGs
5.10 The functional effectiveness and sustainability of SHGs depend inter alia on the
knowledge and capacities of the SHG members in general and the leaders in particular.
Recognizing the importance of capacity building of members, OBs and different types of
social capital, the Mission states have adopted several innovative strategies.
Basic SHG Training
5.11 In all resource blocks, a three-day basic training is provided by external CRPs to
all SHGs promoted and revived on formation of SHGs, meeting processes and norms and
maintenance of books of accounts. The external CRPs use the prescribed training
module for this purpose. The training provided by CRPs is followed-up by the PRPs,
cluster staff and active women. The same approach has been adopted in Chhattisgarh,
Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Maharashtra. A similar strategy is being adopted in the
recently taken up resource blocks in Assam, West Bengal and Karnataka. The post-CRP
round training provided by PRPs and internal staff in different states, however, needs to
be standardized as different states have adopted different methodologies. As and when
the VOs are formed and internal trainers prepared, the responsibility of follow-up
training is expected to be taken over by the VOs.
5.12 In the state of Odisha, internal CRPs drawn from the ongoing TRIPTI project
provide a three-day training to the newly formed SHGs. In Bihar, both internal CRPs and
community mobilizers provide the training in basic SHG concepts to new SHGs, which is
also followed up by dedicated CRPs and community mobilizers. In Tamil Nadu, specially
trained teams along the lines of Pudhuvazhvu project provide training to new SHGs
47
using pre-designed modules. The training methodologies and processes adopted by the
states are briefly summarized in Annex-9.
Training in Bookkeeping
5.13 The second important type of training provided to SHGs in some states is the
training in bookkeeping. In resource block states, MBKs are identified and trained
before they undertake SHG bookkeepers and SHGs. However, there is a critical shortage
of MBKs in all the states, affecting training in bookkeeping.
MCP/MIP Training
5.14 The third important type of training provided/expected to be provided to all
SHGs when the SHGs are around 6-month old is the training in the preparation of
MIP/MCP, which is a pre-condition for sanction of CIF. The picture emerging from the
resource blocks is that most of the SHGs promoted and revived/strengthened have been
provided the three day participatory training at the community level in the resource
blocks. However, there is a lag between the number of eligible SHGs to be trained in
MCP/MIP and the number actually trained due to the shortage of MCP trainers. A
similar approach is adopted in Assam, where active women train the SHGs in MCP using
a six-day module. Odisha also employs trained internal CRPs to train SHG members in
MCP preparation, internal lending and bank linkage.
Modules
5.15 The state Missions have developed/customized and adopted the following
modules.
Table-5.7
Core Modules of SHG Member Training







SHG Modules
(3 days)
Understanding
poverty
Gender and Poverty
Panchsutra
SHG Management
Leadership Training
Conflict Resolution
Management of bank
a/c
Bookkeeping Modules
(5 days)
 Introduction to SHG

books of accounts

 Bookkeeping practices
 Importance of

bookkeeping in SHGs


MCP Modules
(3 days)
Purpose of MCP
Individual member
(household planning)
Consolidation of household
level plans at SHG and due
review of household level
plans
Creating a SHG level plan
Calculating the total
investment required,
estimating member
contribution and expectation
from Mission/ Bank.
SHGs Provided Training
48
5.16 Sample data indicates that a significant proportion of SHGs remained to be
trained in the basic concept of SHG, except in resource blocks. In resource blocks, 60%
of the SHGs were provided training in basic concepts as part of the CRP rounds,
followed by staff and PRPs (55%) and internal community cadre (24%). The proportion
of SHGs provided this initial training is significantly lower in intensive and partnership
blocks. Similar trends could be discerned in respect of training provided on SHG
meeting processes and norms. The training on bookkeeping also exhibits similar trends,
except in resource blocks. The percentage of sample SHGs trained on MCP is very less,
considering the fact that all sample SHGs are one year old and need to be provided MCP
training.
Table-5.8
Training Provided to SHGs: Sample
Percentage
Percentage of SHGs Trained by
No. of
Sample
External
Community Cadres
Staff/PRPs
SHGs
CRPs
I.
SHG Formation Training
a) All Blocks
502
60
24
55
b) Resource Blocks
270
87
15
28
c) Intensive Blocks
184
27
4
22
d) Partnership
48
29
5
5
Blocks
II.
Training on SHG meeting processes & norms
a) All Blocks
502
60
31
59
b) Resource Blocks
270
87
19
32
c) Intensive Blocks
184
27
6
22
d) Partnership
48
29
6
4
Blocks
III.
Maintenance of Books of Accounts
a) All Blocks
502
49
32
66
b) Resource Blocks
270
74
18
43
c) Intensive Blocks
184
20
8
19
d) Partnership
48
17
6
4
Blocks
IV.
MCP Training
a) All Blocks
502
13
25
48
b) Resource Blocks
270
17
16
26
c) Intensive Blocks
184
7
3
18
d) Partnership
48
13
5
4
Blocks
V.
Others
a) All Blocks
502
13
25
48
b) Resource Blocks
270
10
3
10
c) Intensive Blocks
184
2
0
12
d) Partnership
48
2
2
1
Blocks
Source: Computed from sample data presented in Annex Table-5.9
S.
No.
State
5.17 A good feature, however, is that about 80% of the sample SHG members had
attended a three day basic training on SHGs either as part of external CRP rounds or as
part of training organized by internal staff PRPs and active women. However, it is to be
49
noted that this constitutes only basic training on SHG processes and dynamics. This
again emphasizes the need for strengthening training input in intensive and partnership
blocks.
Table-5.9
Members Attending Three-Day Basic Training: Sample
S.
Type
No.
1. All Blocks
2. Resource Blocks
3. Intensive Blocks
4. Partnership Blocks
Source: Sample data
Total Members
5802
3082
2119
601
Members Trained
for Three Days
4635
2743
1537
355
Percent of Members
Trained for Three Days
80
89
73
59
5.18 Training is both formal and informal. Training inputs are also provided as part of
the facilitation support provided to SHGs, although it is not a substitute for rigorous
module- based training. In terms of facilitation, however, more than 90% of the sample
SHGs reported to have received support in recent times.
Table-5.10
Facilitation Support Provided to SHGs: Sample
S.
No.
Type
1. All Blocks
2. Resource Blocks
3. Intensive Blocks
Source: Sample data
Total no. of
Sample SHGs
SHGs being
Facilitated
502
270
184
48
461
242
173
46
Percent of
Meetings
Facilitated
92
90
94
96
5.19 It is also interesting to note from the sample SHGs that the facilitation support
comes primarily from the internally identified active women, while the role of the
frontline staff is very limited.
Table-5.11
Source of Facilitation Support: Sample
S.
Type
No.
1. All Blocks
2. Resource Blocks
3. Intensive Blocks
Source: Sample data
Total No. of
Sample SHGs
502
270
184
48
SHGs Facilitated
by Active Women
67
67
59
92
SHG Facilitated
by NRLM Staff
32
17
15
1
Social Activities
50
5.20 A significant proportion of SHGs across the states have worked for prevention of
certain common social activities such as domestic violence, child labour, illicit
distillation and child marriages. An equally substantial number of SHGs have also
participated in national and state programmes such as Swatch Bharat campaign, Aam
Aadmi Bima Yojana, Hamari Gaon Hamari Yojana, Sanjay Gandhi Niradhay Yojana, Nasha
Mukhti Abhiyan, Garib Kalyan Mela and Jan Dhan Yojana. Some sample SHGs indicated
that they were able to take up issues of individual members relating to job cards, PDS
cards, Aadhar cards, Janshree Bima Yojana, AABY, pensions, IAY and such other
entitlement related issues with the support of PRIs and line departments. The number
of SHGs indicating their active participation in different types of activities are
summarized in Table-5.12.
Table-5.12
Number of SHGs Taking up Different Issues: All Block Sample
S.
No. of SHGs
State
No.
Analysed
1. Assam
24
2. Bihar
60
3. Chhattisgarh
49
4. Gujarat
12
5. Odisha
24
6. Rajasthan
38
7. Jharkhand
96
8. Madhya Pradesh
78
9. Maharashtra
96
10. Total
477
Note: -- data not available.
Source: Sample data.
Social Issues
Entitlements
Benefits
2
56
21
5
9
4
77
51
72
297
2
53
10
12
8
1
43
33
48
210
11
47
14
2
8
-57
17
21
177
Summary
5.21 SHGs are the building blocks on which the entire edifice of community
institutions is designed to be built. Due to the initial delays in the transition of states to
NRLM and in the establishment of institutional structures, the promotion of SHGs
gathered momentum only during FY 2013-14. By Dec.’14, a total of about 1.56 lakh new
SHGs were promoted besides reviving 1.42 lakh pre-project SHGs. States which
transited early and those that had a history of strong SHG movements were ahead of
others in the process of SHG promotion. On the average, about 800 SHGs were
promoted per project block, while the expected number of SHGs at the end of the second
year is 720 SHGs. The resource blocks supported by external CRP teams of NROs
promoted a larger number of SHGs (826 new SHGs and 179 strengthened SHGs per
block). With the deepening of resource block strategy, the numbers are expected to rise
sharply. The study conducted in sample clusters also indicates that 57% of the total
SHGs promoted are new, while this ratio is 71% in the resource block sub-sample. The
age analysis of the sample reveals that 9% are about 1 year old, 31% 12 to 18 months,
26% 18 to 24 months and 33% above two years of age.
51
5.22 The sample study indicates that 75 to 90% of the SHGs were adhering to the five
canons of good governance known as Panchsutras. However, there were minor interstate variations in adherence to the Panchsutras. The high rate of adherence to
Panchsutras reflects the intensive nurturing support, training and capacity building
support provided to SHGs, particularly, in the resource blocks. The project has been
organizing basic SHG training (3 days) as well as training in bookkeeping (5 days) and
MCP (3 days) using core modules. In the resource blocks, 60% of the SHGs were
provided basic training as part of CRP rounds, which was followed-up by trainings by
PRPs and internal cadre. However, the training of SHGs, both new and revived, needs to
be increased in the other intensive blocks. Recognizing the importance of training, the
state Missions are identifying and training community cadres who would in turn
provide training to the SHGs in a cascading mode. The state Missions are also entering
into partnerships with reputed training institutions to supplement their efforts.
52
Chapter-6
Finances of SHGs
Introduction
6.1
Micro-finance constitutes the foundation of the SHGs. The long-term self-reliance
and sustainability of the SHGs critically depend on the quality of their micro-finance
practices. All SHGs are expected to save and inter-lend the funds to meet essential
requirements of members. In order to strengthen the fund base of the SHGs, the Mission
provides revolving fund (RF) and community investment fund (CIF) to SHGs fulfilling
certain criteria. Further, after attaining certain experience in managing funds, the
Mission expects them to leverage bank loans. Further, all funds of the SHGs are expected
to be used for meeting the livelihood requirements of the member households. An
attempt is made in this chapter to examine these aspects, using both sample and MIS
data.
SHG Bank Accounts
6.2
An essential pre-requisite for promoting financial inclusion of the poor is to link
all the SHGs to the banks. As a first step, all SHGs are required to have a savings bank
account opened with the banks. SHG-bank account is essential to make transfer of
Mission funds in the form of RF and CIF to the SHGs. Saving bank accounts are also
essential for leveraging loans from the banks. Therefore, all state Missions are required
to ensure opening of bank accounts for all SHGs within 3 months of formation of the
SHGs. However, due to several state specific bank level problems, bank accounts are not
opened for all SHGs within 3 months. Apart from relatively low density of banking
infrastructure in certain states such as Jharkhand, Bihar and MP, there are bank branch
related problems such as lack of adequate bank staff and high time costs involved in
banking with SHGs. The Mission states are required to facilitate opening of SHG bank
accounts by undertaking several steps such as sensitization of bankers, use of retired
bank staff and appointment of bank mitras to minimize the time cost of the bank staff.
Despite certain steps being taken by the project states, the percentage of SHGs having
bank accounts in Bihar continues to be very low at 64%, followed by Jharkhand, UP
(76%) and Madhya Pradesh (77%) (Table-6.1). This is an area which requires the
priority attention of the Mission states.
Savings of SHGs
6.3
All SHGs in the intensive blocks have been undertaking weekly/monthly savings
at variable rates ranging from Rs.5/- to Rs.100/- per member per week/month. The MIS
data on SHG savings is presented in Table-6.2.
6.4
The data on savings of sample SHGs, both new and revived/strengthened
indicates that average cumulative savings per SHG stood at Rs.14,353/- at the end of
Dec.’14. In respect of revived and strengthened SHGs, the amount stood at Rs.30,311/per SHG and Rs.2,502/- per member. The savings per capita for both new and
revived/strengthened SHGs stood at 1716/- per member (Table-6.3). The age-wise
savings of sample SHGs is presented in Annex Table-6.1 indicates that there has been
53
regularity in the subscription of savings, notwithstanding the variability in the rates
adopted.
Table-6.1
SHGs with Saving Bank Accounts: All Intensive Blocks
S.
State
Total No. of SHGs
No.
1.
Assam
27137
2.
Bihar
71141
3.
Chhattisgarh
8154
4.
Gujarat
16625
5.
Jharkhand
14035
6.
Karnataka
5179
7.
Madhya Pradesh
35627
8.
Maharashtra
22094
9.
Odisha
20306
10. Rajasthan
1771
11. Tamil Nadu
7993
12. Uttar Pradesh
4221
13. West Bengal
41865
14. Total
276148
No. of SHGs with
Saving Bank A/c
25447
46116
7245
14677
10735
4849
27429
19000
20171
1562
7993
3215
41065
229504
Dec.’14
Percent of SHGs
with Bank A/c
94
65
89
88
76
94
77
86
99
88
100
76
98
83
Table-6.2
Per SHG and per Member Cumulative Savings: Sample of New SHGs
Dec.’14
Average
Average
Average
S.
Sample SHGs Member Size
Cumulative
Cumulative
State
No.
(No.)
of SHGs
Savings per
Savings per
(No.)
SHG in Rs.
Member in Rs.
1. Assam
8
10
7100
710
2. Bihar
57
12
13343
1111
3. Chhattisgarh
24
12
17977
1560
4. Jharkhand
21
12
11069
948
5. Madhya Pradesh
50
11
15341
1407
6. Maharashtra
46
11
19080
1635
7. Odisha
2
12
12640
1057
8. Rajasthan
26
10
7982
792
9. Total
234
11
14353
1259
Note: Sample includes only SHGs newly promoted by the Mission units after excluding SHGs in
respect of which receipts and payments did not tally.
Source: Sample SHG data
54
Table-6.3
Per SHG and per Member Cumulative Savings: Sample of New and Preexisting SHGs
6841
Dec.’14
Average Savings
per Member in
Rs.
680
12
13343
1111
41
11
21064
1835
Gujarat
9
10
18069
1651
5.
Jharkhand
49
12
19946
1568
6.
Madhya Pradesh
69
11
17180
1569
7.
Maharashtra
78
11
23274
2101
8.
Odisha
21
11
29293
2591
9.
Rajasthan
30
10
9508
927
1.
Assam
Sample
SHGs
(No.)
12
2.
Bihar
57
3.
Chhattisgarh
4.
S.
No.
State
Average
Member Size
of SHGs (No.)
10
Average Savings
per SHG in Rs.
10.
Total
370
11
20116
1716
Note: Sample includes both SHGs newly promoted and Pre-Existing SHGs taken into NRLM fold,
after excluding SHGs in respect of which receipts and payments did not tally.
Revolving Fund for SHGs
All Intensive Blocks
6.5
The project provides for distribution of revolving fund to all 3-month old SHGs
which have not received the fund earlier and after necessary grading. The RF is meant
to augment the internal resources of the SHGs from which members can meet their
initial loan requirements and enable the SHG to institute transparent financial
management practices. Each SHG is provided Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- as one-time grant
to the SHGs. As of Dec.’14, only 63% of eligible SHGs were provided RF. This constitutes
only 43% of total SHGs. The process study conducted in different project states indicate
that delays in opening of bank accounts, identification of SHGs for RF on the basis of
eligibility criteria and administrative delays partly caused by multiple layers of financial
control are driving the wedge between the number of eligible SHGs and those provided
RF. Frequent changes in the top level of management, including high turnover of CEOs
in some states has affected the timely release of RF. The methods adopted for disbursing
RF is summarized in Annex-10.
55
Table-6.4
Eligible SHGs Provided RF in Intensive Blocks: MIS
Dec.’14
S.
No
State
1. Assam
2. Bihar
3. Chhattisgarh
4. Gujarat
5. Jharkhand
6. Karnataka
7. Madhya Pradesh
8. Maharashtra
9. Odisha
10. Rajasthan
11. Tamil Nadu
12. Uttar Pradesh
13. West Bengal
14. Total
Source: MIS data
Total No. of
SHGs
No. of SHGs
eligible for
RF
No. of SHGs
Provided
RF
27137
71141
8154
16625
14035
5179
35627
22094
20306
1771
7993
4221
41865
276148
19748
45775
7191
9159
9014
4849
27011
15837
6573
1558
4255
3126
36651
190747
13481
21257
5512
6141
8799
4320
18618
9426
4411
1067
3519
1360
21470
119381
Percent of
Eligible
SHGs
Provided
RF
68
46
77
67
98
89
69
60
67
68
83
44
59
63
Percent of
All SHGs
Provided
RF
50
30
68
37
63
83
52
43
22
60
44
32
51
43
RF to Sample SHGs
6.6
Mission states are required to institute appropriate mechanism for undertaking
grading of SHGs based on their adherence to Panchsutras. The first time grading results
of sample SHGs indicates that about 60% have attained ‘A’ grade (Table-6.5). The
Missions are expected to provide RF and later CIF only to those SHGs which are graded
‘A’. However, the process study conducted in Mission states indicates that all of them
have not instituted mechanisms for periodic grading of SHGs. It is therefore imperative
that the states ensure that all SHGs attain ‘A’ grade by putting in place an appropriate
support system and a mechanism to periodically grade them.
Table-6.5
Grading of SHGs: Sample
S.
No.
1.
Block Type
All Blocks
2.
Resource Blocks
3.
Intensive Blocks
4.
Partnership Blocks
No. of Sample SHGs
502
270
184
48
SHGs Graded
306
(61)
162
(60)
115
(63)
29
(60)
56
Source: Sample SHG data see Annex Table-6.8 & 6.9
6.7
As pointed out earlier, all three month old SHGs are eligible for RF. However,
only 75% of the sample SHGs (sample consists of more than one year old SHGs) were
provided RF. The proportion of SHGs that receive RF is close to 90% in resource blocks,
while it is only 55% in intensive blocks and 65% in partnership blocks. It is imperative
from the sample data that all SHGs are graded and eligible SHGs provided RF.
Table-6.6
No. of SHGs Provided with RF: Sample
S.
No. of SHGs Provided
Block Type
No. of Sample SHGs
No.
with RF
1.
All Blocks
502
374 (75)
2.
Resource Blocks
270
241 (89)
3.
Intensive Blocks
184
102 (55)
4.
Partnership Blocks
48
31 (65)
Notes: (1) Figures in parentheses are percentages; (2) Only data for 502 SHGs is taken into
account.
Source: Sample SHG data see annex table-10 & 11
SHGs Provided CIF Support
6.8
CIF constitutes the major portion of project fund to the community institutions.
CIF is meant to be a fund in perpetuity from which the SHGs could borrow and repay.
The VOs are expected to disburse the CIF to the SHGs and recover from them. As the VOs
can be promoted only after a minimum number of SHGs is promoted in each village, the
Mission units are expected to disburse CIF to the SHGs, with the condition that the CIF
loan be repaid to the VO along with interest charges as and when the VOs come into
being. However, CIF can be disbursed to SHGs only after a micro-investment plan is
prepared in a participatory manner in all SHGs and appraised by the VO/Mission units.
The SHGs are also required to be trained in advance in the preparation of MIPs which
essentially capture the priority fund requirements of the individual members of SHGs.
The MIS data up to Dec.’14, however, indicates that only 33% of the eligible SHGs across
the project states prepared MCP, of which only 57% received CIF. The process study
findings indicate that shortage of MCP trainers, delays in training of SHGs in MCP and
appraisal of MCPs by Mission units and VOs, administrative delays and fund routing
related issues are responsible for the relatively low coverage of SHGs. However, the
states are streamlining the disbursement process and are expected to catch-up by Mar.
‘15. The funds flow channels adopted in different states are summarized in Annex-11.
57
Table-6.7
Eligible SHGs Provided CIF in Intensive Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
No.
Total
No. of
SHGs
State
1. Assam
27137
2. Bihar
71141
3. Chhattisgarh
8154
4. Gujarat
16625
5. Jharkhand
14035
6. Karnataka
5179
7. Madhya Pradesh
35627
8. Maharashtra
22094
9. Odisha
20306
10. Rajasthan
1771
11. Tamil Nadu
7993
12. Uttar Pradesh
4221
13. West Bengal
41865
14. Total
276148
No. of SHGs
which are
more than 6
months old
No. of
SHGs
Prepared
MCP
Percent
of SHGs
Prepared
MCP
No. of
SHGs
Provided
CIF
Percent
of SHGs
Provided
CIF
23257
62840
5652
12838
10169
4348
25273
13286
18447
1037
7993
4264
33320
2151
1128
6255
0
17568
4368
1340
216
2619
2279
32385
219804
0
11
73240
18
53
38
9
62
0
70
33
7
21
33
0
0
33
1383
20856
1858
690
5507
0
8446
2241
391
180
932
0
0
42484
31
63
86
61
88
0
48
51
29
83
36
0
0
57
CIF Support Provided to Sample SHGs
6.9
The sample data also indicates similar trends. Only 48% of the sample SHGs
were provided CIF, while the percentage was relatively higher in resource blocks up to
Dec.’14. The proportion of SHGs that was provided CIF from the intensive blocks was
still less at 38%. As all the sample SHGs are one year old and eligible to receive CIF, the
state Missions are required to take appropriate steps to identify SHGs, train them in
MCP, facilitate preparation of MCP, appraise and sanction the CIF. It is equally important
to streamline the funds flow by cutting down the layers involved in decision-making.
Table-6.8
Sample SHGs Provided CIF
S.
No.
1.
All Blocks
2.
Resource Blocks
Block Type
No. of Sample SHGs
502
270
3.
Intensive Blocks
4.
Partnership Blocks
184
48
Dec.’14
No. of SHGs Provided
CIF
243
(48)
145
(54)
69
(38)
29
(60)
58
SHG-Bank Linkage
6.10 Project funds provided to the SHGs are only in the nature of seed money
intended to prepare the SHGs for leveraging large funds, in repeat doses, from the banks
to meet their livelihood requirements. However, this requires substantial efforts on the
part of the Mission units to enable the SHGs access bank loans, year after year. The
Mission staff are required to liaise with the banks, orient the bankers to NRLM and
sensitize them to the needs of the SHG members, facilitate regular repayment of loans
and subsidize the time cost of their transactions with the SHGs by providing the support
of bank mitras/CRPs. A review of the MIS data, however, indicates that as of Dec.’14,
only 35% of the 6 month old SHGs had accessed first dose of bank credit. As a
percentage of the total SHGs, this figure is only 27%. This is another area which requires
focused efforts. Several states have initiated measures to promote bank linkage. These
include appointment of a large number of retired bankers to liaise with banks, use of
bank mitras, promotion of community based recovery mechanisms, preparation of a
larger number of SHGs for bank linkage etc. These measures are expected to yield
results in months ahead.
Table-6.10
SHG Bank Linkage in Intensive Blocks
S.
No.
State
Total No. of
SHGs
1. Assam
27137
2. Bihar
71141
3. Chhattisgarh
8154
4. Gujarat
16625
5. Jharkhand
14035
6. Karnataka
5179
7. Madhya Pradesh
35627
8. Maharashtra
22094
9. Odisha
20306
10. Rajasthan
1771
11. Tamil Nadu
7993
12. Uttar Pradesh
4221
13. West Bengal
41865
14. Total
276148
Note: TBC – To be collected
No. of SHGs
with Bank
Account
25447
46116
7245
14677
10735
4849
27429
19000
20171
1562
7993
3215
41065
229504
No. of SHGs
which are
more than 6
months old
No. of SHGs
accessed
Bank Credit
(1st dose)
23257
62840
5652
12838
10169
4348
25273
13286
18447
1037
7993
2732
18615
4440
5899
1477
TBC
13127
4801
2083
82
3889
2279
32385
219804
1300
17485
75930
Dec.’14
Percent of
more than 6
months
SHGs
accessed
Bank Credit
12
30
79
46
15
TBC
52
36
11
8
49
57
54
35
Bank Linkage of Sample SHGs
6.11 The sample data also indicates that out of 502 more than one year old SHGs, only
34% have accessed bank credit. The proportion of SHGs accessing bank loans in the
resource blocks was 27%, while a larger proportion of sample SHGs are credit linked in
59
the intensive and partnership blocks. This could be due to a larger proportion of preexisting SHGs in these categories.
Table-6.11
No. of SHGs Accessed Bank Credit: Sample
S.
Block Type
No. of Sample SHGs
No.
1. All Blocks
502
2. Resource Blocks
270
3. Intensive Blocks
184
48
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages.
Source: Computed from sample SHG data in Annex Tables-6.14 & 6.15.
Dec.’14
No. of SHGs Accessed
Bank Credit
172 (34)
72 (27)
78 (42)
22 (46)
Leverage of Bank Loans
6.12 As indicated earlier, the purpose of RF and CIF to SHGs is to enable them to gain
experience in fund management, besides meeting their immediate consumption and
production requirements of credit. But the more important objective of funding support
to the SHGs is to enable them to leverage funds from the formal financial institutions.
From this perspective, an attempt has been made to compare the CIF actually disbursed
to SHGs through all channels during FY 2014-15 and the bank loans accessed by the
SHGs. It may be noted however, that the SHGs accessing bank loans and SHGs that have
received CIF may not exactly overlap. The CIF data is taken from the IUFRs. The bank
loan data is taken from MPRs of NRLM. The leverage ratio computed is 1.87, indicating
that a rupee of CIF given to SHG is able to leverage 1.87 rupees of bank loan. This is for
financial year FY 2014-15 (up to Dec.’14). With the establishment of larger number of
VOs, higher amounts of CIF would be disbursed to the SHGs. Similarly, the states are
rationalizing the funding channels and financial systems are getting strengthened.
There is a great deal of focus on promoting SHG-bank linkage as well. All these
developments are pointing to a higher leverage ratio.
Table-6.12
CIF-Bank Loan Ratio in Intensive Blocks: 2014-15
Rs. Lakh; Dec.’14
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Total
CIF
930
1970
536
155
1407
2224
1282
141
198
8843
Bank Loan
Amount as Per MPR
1400
3334
1909
995
463
6072
2350
1.00
32
16556
Leverage Ratio
1.51
1.69
3.56
6.43
0.33
2.73
1.83
0.01
0.16
1.87
60
Notes: (1) Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Bengal data are being validated and hence not included;
(2). CIF disbursed includes RF disbursed in intensive and resource blocks as per IUFRs; (3) Bank loan
amount is taken from both NRLM-bank linkage portal and MPRs.
Source: NRLM-MIS and NRLM-SHG bank linkage portal.
Leverage Ratio in Sample SHGs
6.13 An attempt has been made to relate the total funds of the SHG including savings,
RF and CIF with the bank loan to assess the extent of leverage in respect of all sample
SHGs. The leverage ratio works out to 0.6, implying that the sample SHGs have been able
to mobilize Rs.60/- has bank loan for every Rs.100/- of own funds. This is consistent
with the field level observations as most of the SHGs are admitted to the first bank
linkage, which is generally around Rs.50,000/-. Given the relatively low average age of
SHGs, the ratio appears to be satisfactory. However, there is need for increasing the
access of the SHGs to bank loans. The states have already initiated multiple strategies
for this purpose.
Table-6.13
Leverage Ratio (Own Fund to Bank Loan) in Sample SHGs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State
No. of
SHGs
12
57
40
9
47
Savings
RF
CIF
Total
In Rs; Dec.’14
Leverage
Bank Loan
Ratio
50000
0.4
877000
0.2
1310000
0.5
100000
0.4
484000
0.1
Assam
82090
45000
-127090
Bihar
760525 600000 2919000 4279525
Chhattisgarh
850410 435000 1320000 2605410
Gujarat
162619
70000
-232619
Jharkhand
954809 630000 2100000 3684809
Madhya
6.
68
1182812 855000 2555000 4592812 1452900
0.3
Pradesh
7. Maharashtra
75
1772648 754200 1496101 4022949 3309000
0.8
8. Odisha
21
615160
65000
-680160 3935500
5.8
9. Rajasthan
29
279140 435000
-714140
-0.0
10. Tamil Nadu
4
695700
25000
-720700
958500
1.3
11. Total
362
7355913 3914200 10390101 21660214 12476900
0.6
Notes: (1) -- Sample SHGs had not received CIF up to Dec.’14. (2) The leverage ratio is based on
the cumulative total funds available with the SHGs and the bank loan accessed up to
Dec.’14.
Source: Sample data
Idle Funds with the SHGs
6.14 While leveraging external funds is important but equally important is to ensure
that own funds are efficiently used. Efficient use of funds requires that idle funds held in
the form of cash in hand and cash at bank are the lowest. Efficient use implies a very
high velocity of use of funds without keeping idle funds either in the bank or as in the
cash. But computation of idle fund ratio requires data on cash balances as well as bank
balances for each month. However, such data could not be collected. As an alternative,
idle funds in the form of cash at bank and cash in hand at the end of Dec.’14 for all
sample SHGs was computed and expressed as a proportion of total outstanding loans.
61
While this does not explain the idleness of funds over a long duration, it is certainly
indicative of the extent of idle funds in Dec.’14. This ratio varied between 20 and about
50% in the sample SHGs across the states.
62
Table-6.14
Idle Funds with SHGs as Proportion of Total Outstanding Loans
Dec.’14
S.
Idle funds as Percent of
State
No. of Sample SHGs
No.
Outstanding loans
1.
Assam
8
54
2.
Bihar
57
27
3.
Chhattisgarh
36
26
4.
Gujarat
4
20
5.
Jharkhand
43
39
6.
Madhya Pradesh
45
45
7.
Maharashtra
69
35
8.
Odisha*
16
60
9.
Rajasthan
26
40
Notes: (1) Ideally, the ratio of idle funds is computed as average reckoned on month on month
basis. However, data is available only for the month of Dec.’14; (2) The idle funds including
cash in hand and cash at bank is expressed as proportion of outstanding loans at the end of
Dec.’14. (3) Odisha sample is lysed and therefore needs to be taken with a caution and
efforts are being made to validate the sample.
Source: Computed from sample SHG data and age wise distribution of SHGs vis-à-vis idle cash in
Annex Tables-6.16 & 6.17
6.15 The distribution of SHGs by amount of idle cash and bank balances in Dec.’14
indicates that out of 307 SHGs for which complete receipts and payments data was
available for Dec.’14, 153 SHGs had an idle fund of over Rs.10,000/- , 62 SHGs between
Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and 92 SHGs less than Rs.5,000/-. Notwithstanding the data
limitations, the pointers are clear and the Mission units would be required to promote
rotation of internal funds and minimize idle funds.
Table-6.15
Distribution of Sample SHGs by Amount of Idle Funds in Dec.’14
Number
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Rs.0-5000
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Total
7
15
7
2
5
8
33
12
3
92
Rs.500010000
1
16
13
9
3
9
10
1
62
Rs.10000
and above
0
26
16
2
29
34
27
4
13
2
153
Total
8
57
36
4
43
45
69
26
16
3
307
63
Velocity of Rotation of All SHG Funds
6.16 Almost all SHGs promoted and revived and strengthened under NRLP have been
practising rotation of funds through lending among members. The velocity of lending,
however, varied across the SHGs in different states depending on the size of the fund
base (total of savings, RF received, CIF received, bank loans received and other income
accrued) and the total loans disbursed out of such funds. The detailed state-wise and
age-wise analysis of velocity of fund rotation is presented in Annex Table-6.20 and the
state-wise summary in the following Table-6.16. The coefficient is estimated for all new
SHGs promoted and pre-existing SHGs brought under NRLM fold. For new SHGs, the
total fund base as well as loans advanced were taken from the date of formation up to
Dec.’14 and for revived SHGs from the date of coming into NRLM fold and up to Dec.’14.
The coefficient presented for different states indicates that Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh,
Jharkhand, Bihar, Gujarat and Rajasthan have relatively higher coefficients, suggesting
greater utilization of internal funds. As all the states are resource block states (except
Bihar), it can be inferred that the rate of rotation of funds is relatively higher in resource
block states.
Table-6.16
Velocity of Fund Rotation in Sample SHGs: Up to Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
1.
Assam
2.
Bihar
3.
Chhattisgarh
4.
Gujarat
5.
Jharkhand
6.
Madhya Pradesh
7.
Maharashtra
8.
Odisha
9.
Rajasthan
10. Tamil Nadu
11. Total
Average
Corpus
(in Rs. Per
SHG)
11793
32608
37604
30001
39800
33027
41403
30449
25464
199281
36384
Average of
Funds Available
(in Rs. Per SHG)
15960
110706
104074
43890
96928
92944
105590
222140
25464
438906
102248
Average Loan
Amount
Disbursed
(in Rs. Per SHG)
15042
125109
166604
57313
137703
91428
158140
182900
27424
450550
125984
Velocity
0.9
1.1
1.6
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.9
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.3
Members Availing Loans
6.17 Proportion of SHG members that have accessed loans from SHGs, irrespective of
the source of loan funds, is a measure of equity and fairness in access to funds. From this
perspective, the sample data indicates that 84% of the members of the sample SHGs
have accessed loans from SHGs. This includes the small as well as big loans made out of
SHG corpus, CIF and bank loan proceeds. Clearly, the outcome is inclusive. Further, the
proportion exceeds 90% in all resource blocks, except Rajasthan, owing perhaps to the
close nurturing and follow-up support provided to the SHGs.
64
Table-6.17
Members Availing Internal Loans (At least once): Total Sample (All
Blocks)
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
9. Rajasthan
10. Tamil Nadu
11. Total
Source: Sample data
Total Members of
Sample SHGs
191
714
542
256
1225
861
1062
265
377
309
5802
Members who have
Availed Loans from SHG
at least Once
130
639
483
96
1111
754
973
224
193
281
4884
Percentage of
Members
68
89
89
38
91
88
92
85
51
91
84
Table-6.18
Members Availing Internal Loans (At least once): Total Sample
(Resource Blocks)
Dec.’14
S.
State
No.
1. Chhattisgarh
2. Jharkhand
3. Madhya Pradesh
4. Maharashtra
5. Rajasthan
6. Total
Source: Sample data
Expected
414
905
605
781
377
3082
Members who have
taken loans
412
828
564
759
193
2756
Percentage of
Members
100
91
93
97
51
89
Utilization of Loans
6.18 As part of sample study, an attempt was made to assess the purpose-wise
utilization of individual loans borrowed by members through the agency of SHG. It may
be noted that the analysis is based on the purpose of utilization of loan as indicated by
the members. The actual purpose for which loan proceeds are utilized could be
different. Another limitation is that the amount of loan received/utilized for each
purpose could not be collected and analysed. Notwithstanding these limitations, an
attempt has been made to analyse the number of loans by indicated purpose to examine
the potential direction of use rather than the actual utilization.
65
6.19 The analysis carried out for the sample states (Table-6.19) indicates that out of
7,271 total loans borrowed by members, 5% were stated to have been utilized for debt
redemption, 38% for meeting household expenses, 34% for asset creation and 23% for
meeting health and educational requirements of the member households. The pointers
are clear. Only 34% of the total loans (made out of all funds available with SHGs
including CIF and bank loan) were intended to be used for creation of livelihood assets.
As the SHGs mature and fund base grows, the proportion of loans used for promoting
livelihood assets should increase and those of others should decline.
Table-6.19
Purpose-wise Utilization of Loans As Indicated by Members: Sample
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
9.
Rajasthan
10. Tamil Nadu
11. Total
Source: Sample data
Total Loans
Analysed
140
1305
615
131
1829
1008
1359
299
241
344
7271
Debt
Redemption
1
10
2
4
2
6
3
0
3
12
5
Percent of
Household
Asset
Expenses
Creation
31
48
37
22
57
25
53
29
32
43
44
30
37
31
27
71
42
50
37
29
38
34
Health/
Education
20
31
16
14
24
21
29
2
5
22
23
Bookkeeping
6.20 Transparent and accountable bookkeeping practices are indispensable for
promoting sound micro-finance practices in SHGs. The state Missions are required to
promote good bookkeeping practices in all SHGs and their federations. All SHGs are
therefore required to maintain certain basic books of accounts and update them
regularly with the support of a trained bookkeeper. An examination of the bookkeeping
practices in sample SHGs presented in the following tables indicates that bookkeeping
leaves scope for improvement (Table-6.20).
6.21 All Missions have prescribed minutes book, cash book, general ledger, loan
ledger, member passbook and saving register as essential for all SHGs. Some state
Missions have also supplied the books of accounts to the SHGs at subsidized cost.
However, not all of them had been maintaining all the books regularly by updating
relevant entries. About 75% of the sample SHGs had been updating minutes book and
savings register, while a relatively smaller percentage of SHGs were found updating
cash book, general ledger, loan ledger and passbooks. The situation in the resource
blocks was relatively better in respect of all types of books. There are significant interstate disparities in the status of bookkeeping as revealed by the sample SHGs (Table66
6.21). Overall, the status of bookkeeping in Assam, Gujarat, Odisha and Chhattisgarh
appears to be relatively poor with a smaller percentage of books being updated.
67
6.22 Relative lack of updated books of accounts in states could be due to shortage of
trained bookkeepers available and the regularity and quality of bookkeeping
undertaken by them. An equally important factor affecting the quality of bookkeeping is
the training input provided to the bookkeepers and the handholding support provided
to them by project staff and master bookkeepers. The process study as well as the data
from sample clusters indicates that in the resource blocks, the required number of
bookkeepers are identified and trained and support provided. In the other blocks, the
number of bookkeepers is disproportionately small and the training input provided
inadequate. It is therefore imperative that the Missions focus on improving the supply of
books, number and quality of bookkeepers and bookkeeping practices.
Table-6.20
Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs
Dec.’14
S.
No.
Sample Block
Type
Sample
SHGs
1.
Percent of SHGs with Updated Books of Records
Minutes
Book
Cash
Book
General Loan Members Savings
Ledger Ledger Passbook Register
Resource
270
83
57
53
79
Blocks
2. Intensive
184
65
48
29
46
Blocks
3. Partnership
48
65
88
79
77
Blocks
4. Total Blocks
502
75
57
47
67
Source: Computed from sample data furnished in Annex Tables—8.17 to 8.23.
80
87
47
61
83
83
68
77
Table-6.21
Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs: Sample States
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
Sample
SHGs
Percent of SHGs with Updated Books of Records
Minutes
Cash
General
Loan
Members Savings
Book
Book
Ledger Ledger Passbook Register
1.
Assam
19
63
5
5
53
16
37
2.
Bihar
60
75
57
7
27
45
78
3.
Chhattisgarh
47
55
28
19
57
53
74
4.
Gujarat
24
42
46
50
50
50
50
5.
Jharkhand
96
80
56
55
97
97
98
6.
MP
78
72
63
55
69
67
78
7.
Maharashtra
96
88
77
73
70
70
82
8.
Odisha
23
74
39
17
35
43
52
9.
Rajasthan
36
67
58
56
75
86
58
10. Tamil Nadu
23
100
83
78
91
96
83
11. Total
502
75
57
47
67
68
77
Notes: (1) 3% of the SHGs (11 in Bihar, 1 in Jharkhand and 1 in Odisha) did not have minutes
book; (2) 16% of the sample SHGs have not introduced cash book; (3) 23% of the sample
SHGs have not introduced general ledger book; (4) 9% of the sample SHGs have not
introduced loan ledger book; (5) 10% of the sample SHGs have not introduced member
passbook; (6) 9% of the sample SHGs have not introduced member passbook.
68
Source: Computed from Annex Tables-6.18 & 6.19
Summary
6.23 Self-reliance and sustainability of the SHGs critically hinge on the quality of
micro-finance activities undertaken by the SHGs. All SHGs are expected to undertake
regular savings, inter-lending and leverage external funds, in addition to the revolving
fund and CIF provided by the Mission.

a necessary pre-requisite for all SHGs is to have savings bank accounts within
three months of formation. As of Dec.’14, 84% of the SHGs under the project
fold had savings bank accounts. The states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh with a relatively lower percentage of bank
accounts need to promote bank accounts for all SHGs;

the average cumulative savings per SHG stood at Rs.14,353/- (Rs.1,259/- per
member) at the end of Dec.’14. The revived SHGs account for Rs.20,116/- per
SHG (Rs.1,716/- per member);

as of Dec.’14, 66% of eligible SHGs (6 month old and adhering to
Panchsutras) were provided RF and efforts are afoot in the Mission states to
cover all SHGs by Mar.’15. The sample data suggests that the RF coverage of
SHGs is very high;

the sample data indicates that 60% of the SHGs have attained ‘A’ grade and
others are catching up rapidly;

system of disbursing CIF through VOs is gradually being established in all
Mission states, involving (i) identification and training of MCP trainers; (ii)
training of SHGs in MCP preparation; and (iii) appraisal of MCPs and
disbursement of CIF to SHGs and its recovery;

up to Dec.’14, 43,254 SHGs were provided CIF and this constitutes 57% of the
SHGs that had prepared MCPs. The sample data also suggests that 48% of the
SHGs were providing CIF. Fund flow mechanisms are being streamlined in all
states to speed-up disbursal of CIF;

the MIS data indicates that 33% of the 6-month old SHGs had accessed first
dose of bank credit which is a significant achievement, considering the fact
that the project districts are located in areas with relatively low banking
infrastructure and with a not so encouraging bank loan repayment history of
SHGs. Interestingly, the sample data also indicates that 34% of SHGs have
accessed bank credit;

an attempt made to relate state-wise CIF disbursed (based on IUFRs) and
bank loans mobilized by SHGs (MPR data) during FY 2014-15 indicates that
the ratio is 1.87. As the data on CIF and bank loans are taken from two
different sources, the leverage ratio was estimated using the sample data,
which suggests that the ratio was 0.6 up to Dec.’14 (since formation of new
SHGs and revival of pre-existing SHGs). The leverage ratio of 0.6 appears to
be reasonable considering the fact that it is the first linkage for most of the
sample SHGs;

while leveraging external funds is important, but even more important is
efficient utilization of own funds of the SHG by minimizing idle funds. From
69
this perspective, the analysis is made using sample data reveals that there is a
considerable amount of idle fund as percent of outstanding loan in Dec.’14.
The number of sample SHGs that had more than Rs.10,000/- as cash in bank
and cash in hand was quite large (153 out of 307 sample SHGs for which
detailed data was available);

rotation velocity of all SHG funds including RF, CIF and bank loans varied
between 0.7 to 1.6 across the 10 sample states, indicating scope for
improving the fund rotation. On the average, the velocity was 1.3.
Considering the average age of the SHGs, the velocity coefficient appears to
be satisfactory.

overall 84% of the sample members had accessed at least one loan (small or
big) from the SHGs, irrespective of the source of funds. The proportion
exceeds 90% in all resource blocks. This is a clear testimony to the
inclusiveness in the use of SHG funds; and

analysis of bookkeeping practices suggest that there is significant scope for
improving the quality of bookkeeping (books, bookkeepers and bookkeeping)
by facilitating engagement of adequate number of trained bookkeepers and
providing handholding support to them.
70
Chapter–7
Promotion and Functioning of VOs
Introduction
7.1
The Village Organization (VO) is the first level federation of the SHGs. As a village
level federation, VO provides financial and non-financial support to the SHGs and guides
their functioning. The principal form of financial support provided by VO to the SHGs is
CIF which in turn facilitates leverage of bank loans. More importantly, VOs are expected
to provide capacity building support to the SHGs and the community cadre. VOs provide
a forum for SHGs to articulate and resolve common social issues affecting them. As
federating units, SHG members constitute the general body of the VOs and participate in
the election of executive committee and office bearers. Thus, the VOs and the SHGs are
interlocked both organizationally and financially. An attempt is made in this chapter to
present the functioning of the VOs promoted in the intensive blocks as democratic
organizations providing financial and non-financial support to the SHGs, largely on the
basis of sample data.
Formation of VOs
7.2
As part of the NRLM design, all Mission states are required to promote VOs in all
villages which have completed significant extent of social mobilization and have
acquired a minimum number of NRLM compliant SHGs. In resource block states, the
process of VO formation is entrusted to senior CRPs drawn from NROs. Some of the
resource block states have promoted VOs in villages which have at least 5 SHGs
adhering to Panchsutras and are ready/ have undertaken preparation of micro-credit
plan. Senior CRP teams, comprising 3 members each, visit identified villages and
undertake a 15-day process of promotion of VO and training of members, EC and OBs.
The senior CRP team institutes all governance structures and systems during this
period. While all members constitute the GB, two representatives from each SHG in the
village represents their SHGs at the EC of the VO. The EC in turn elects a 4 to 5 member
team of OBs who carry out the operations of the VO with the support of VO bookkeeper
and activists/ animator. The frontline staff facilitate the overall process of formation of
VO and the institution of governance and financial norms and systems. The states of
Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have promoted VOs in some resource block
villages up to Dec.’14. In Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Bihar, VOs exist in the
EAP blocks. These states are planning to adopt structures and systems similar to the
VOs existing in the EAP blocks.
VOs in NRLP States
7.3
Though VOs have been promoted right from 2011-12, their formation peaked
during 2013-14. A total of 12583 VOs were formed under the project up to Dec.’14. On
an average, 2 VOs were formed up to 2012-13, while 18 VOs were formed during 201314 and 13 per block during 2014-15. As of Dec.’14, there were 34 VOs per block on the
average. The average numbers presented here need to be taken with a caution. For
example, the VOs promoted in West Bengal are pre-NRLM entities known as sansad
level sanghas or federations which do not exactly correspond to VOs. Similarly, Assam
71
has promoted loosely-knit federations in a campaign mode. The VOs in respect of
resource block states of Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh reflect the growth of
VOs that follow NRLM processes. In Madhya Pradesh, a resource block state, VOs have
not been promoted in resource blocks but intensive blocks have promoted VOs
following the DPIP model. In Tamil Nadu too, the PLFs promoted are based on the
model promoted in Pudhuvazhvu project. The progress is relatively slow in Odisha and
Rajasthan.
Table-7.1
Growth of VOs per Block: NRLP
No. of VOs Formed Per Block
Total
Up to Dec.’14
2012-13*
2013-14
2014-15
0
42
13
55
Assam
3
15
15
32
Bihar
0
6
6
12
Chhattisgarh
0
12
8
20
Gujarat
1
4
19
24
Jharkhand
0
0
10
10
Karnataka
11
19
17
48
Madhya Pradesh
3
9
15
27
Maharashtra
0
3
2
5
Odisha
0
5
4
9
Rajasthan
0
12
32
43
Tamil Nadu
0
0
0
0
Uttar Pradesh
0
83
17
100
West Bengal
2
18
13
34
14. Total
(872)
(6772)
(4939)
(12583)
Notes: * includes VOs formed 2011-12; (ii) Figures in parentheses are total VOs formed in each
year.
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
State
7.4
Not all villages entered have VOs promoted. Out of the total NRLP villages in
progress (34,172), only 12583 villages have established Village Organizations up to
Dec.’14. This constitutes only 37% of the total villages. Further, only 43% of the SHGs
mobilized were federated into SHGs by Dec.’14. Considering the fact that there are a
large number of villages which have completed one year of implementation with at least
5 SHGs, it is imperative that the state Missions expedite the VO building process without
compromising on the stipulated norms.
Size of VOs
7.5
The average size of the VO measured in terms of the number of federating SHGs
has remained around 9 during the last two years, indicating the scope for mobilizing
newly formed and revived SHGs into the VO fold.
72
Table-7.2
Number of Villages with VOs: All Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
No. of Villages
State
No
Implementing NRLP
1.
Assam
3889
2.
Bihar
3919
3.
Chhattisgarh
1438
4.
Gujarat
1069
5.
Jharkhand
1957
6.
Karnataka
2930
7.
Madhya Pradesh
5925
8.
Maharashtra
2713
9.
Odisha
1924
10. Rajasthan
278
11. Tamil Nadu
2779
12. Uttar Pradesh
793
13. West Bengal
4558
14. Total
34172
No. of villages
with VOs
1369
2482
189
396
687
202
2188
975
144
63
692
0
3196
12583
Percent of Villages
without VOs
35
63
13
37
35
7
37
36
7
23
25
0
70
37
Table-7.3
Formation of VOs in During the Project Period: NRLP
Cumulative No. of VOs Formed Per Block
2014-15
2012-13*
2013-14
(Up to Dec.’14)
10
10
1. Assam
-12
11
11
2. Bihar
7
7
3. Chhattisgarh
-7
8
4. Gujarat
-12
12
12
5. Jharkhand
10
6. Karnataka
--5
5
5
7. Madhya Pradesh
11
9
9
8. Maharashtra
12
12
9. Odisha
-9
9
10. Rajasthan
-11
12
11. Tamil Nadu
-12. Uttar Pradesh
---9
9
13. West Bengal
-8
9
9
14. Average Size of VO
15. Cumulative No. of VOs
872
6772
12583
16. Cumulative No. of SHGs Federated
6856 (27)
62049 (38)
117563(43)
17. Cumulative No. of SHGs in NRLM
25050(100)
163116(100)
276148(100)
Notes: * includes VOs formed 2011-12. Figures in parentheses are percentage of SHGs federated.
S.
No.
State
73
7.6
The sample data indicates that on the whole, 55% of the SHGs are holding
membership in the VOs, while in the resource blocks, it is 34%. The higher proportion of
SHGs getting federated into VOs in the intensive blocks needs to be taken with some
caution. Most of these SHGs are relatively nascent and loosely-knit organizations which
needs to be strengthened along the lines of VOs in the resource blocks.
Table-7.4
SHGs Holding Membership in VO
S.
No.
1.
Sample
All Blocks
Total No of
SHGs in the
sample
Clusters
No of SHGs
Holding
membership
in the VO
Percent of
SHG
memberships
No of SHGs
Following
Panchsutra
Percent of
SHGs
Following
Panchsutras
17265
9449
55
14793
86
2030
34
5496
93
7419
65
9297
82
Resource
5893
Blocks
3. Intensive
11372
Blocks
Source: Cluster sample data
2.
Age Analysis of Sample VOs
7.7
The age analysis of sample VOs clearly indicates that 85% are less than 18
months of age, 4% are in the age group of 18-24 months and 11% above 24 months of
age. This is broadly reflective of the situation in the NRLP states. As part of the strategy,
VOs are expected to be formed one year after the entry of the Mission into the villages
and after forming at least 5 functional SHGs.
Table-7.5
Analysis of Sample VOs by Age: Total Sample
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Age of Sample VOs (in Months)
<18
18-24
14
2
13
1
10*
-4
-17* + 5
-5
1
>=24
1
5
1*
--2
Total
17
19
11
4
22
8
15* + 4$
1*
4
24
8
--8
8*
--8
103
5
13
121
10. Total
(85%)
(4%)
(11%)
(100%)
Note: (1) $ indicates 1 very recently formed, VO is not included; (2) -- indicates nil; (3) * indicates
sample VOs from resource blocks; (4) The sample does not include Tamil Nadu; Tamil
Nadu sample data is being validated.
Source: Sample VO data
74
Table-7.6
SHGs Federated into VOs: Sample
Average Size of
Sample VOs
(No. of SHGs)
1.
All Blocks
121
1430
12
2.
Resource Blocks**
52
567
11
3.
Intensive Blocks*
69
863
13
Notes: (1) Tamil Nadu sample data is not included in the analysis. (2) ** In the state of Madhya
Pradesh, VOs were not formed in the resource blocks up to Dec.’14; (3) * in case of
Chhattisgarh formation of VOs was not taken up in the intensive blocks up to Dec.’14.
Source: Sample VOs
S.
No.
Sample
Sample VOs
SHGs Federated
into Sample VOs
Governance
7.8
Each VO consists of a GB, an EC/sub-committees and OBs. Both the GB and EC are
expected to conduct meetings as per norms. However, as the VOs are in the formative
stage, the GB meetings is not yet standardized. ECs are expected to meet once in a
month to deliberate on key activities. The data suggests that all sample VOs from
resource blocks are holding all meetings as per norms. In intensive blocks, however,
there is a shortfall of 15 to 25%.
Table-7.7
Regularity of VO Meetings in Sample VOs
Percent of Expected EC Meetings Conducted
S.
Sample Block Type
Sample VOs
No.
Dec.’14
Nov.’14
Oct.’14
1. All Blocks
121
86
85
87
2. Resource Blocks**
52
96
107$
100
3. Intensive Blocks*
69
80
75
80
Notes: (1) ** In the state of Madhya Pradesh, VOs remained to be promoted in the resource blocks;
(2) * in case of Chhattisgarh, promotion of VOs remained to be taken up in the intensive
blocks. (3) $ indicates additional meetings; and (4) The sample does not include Tamil
Nadu;
SHG Participation in VO Meetings
7.9
Regular conduct of meetings is an important democratic principle. But SHG
participation in the meetings conducted is even more significant. The sample data
(Table-7.8) reveals that more than 90% of the members that were expected to attend,
had actually attended the meetings, as per the records of the VO.
75
Table-7.8
SHGs Attending VO Meetings
% of Attendance
S.
Total
Sample Types
No.
Sample VOs
Dec
Nov
Oct
1.
All Blocks
121
95
90
93
2.
Resource Blocks**
92
90
91
52
3.
Intensive Blocks*
69
92
89
92
Notes: (1) ** In the state of Madhya Pradesh, VOs are not formed in the resource blocks; (2) * in
case of Chhattisgarh VOs are not formed in the intensive blocks; and (3) the sample does
not include Tamil Nadu
SHGs Reviewed by VO
7.10 One of the key functions of VO is to undertake a monthly review of the
performance of the federating SHGs on the basis of a set of indicators usually furnished
in the form of a Masik Prativedan/Nivedan. The sample data indicates that this practice
was being adopted by more than 75% of the sample VOs in all blocks, while the relative
percentage for the resource blocks is 83%. The percentage of SHGs reported to have
been covered in all sample blocks was about 60%, while the proportion of SHGs in
resource blocks was slightly less than 50%. But the method and intensity of review
varies from state to state and across the blocks.
Table-7.9
SHGs Reviewed by VOs: Oct-Dec.’14
Percentage of SHGs Reviewed by VOs
Dec.’14
Nov.’14
Oct.’14
1.
All Blocks
66
64
61
2.
Resource Blocks
49
48
46
3.
Intensive Blocks
76
74
69
Note: The relative percentage of SHGs reviewed in resource blocks is lower as the number of VOs.
S.
No.
Block Type
VO Sub-Committees
7.11 The sample study of VOs indicates that out of 121 sample VOs for which data is
available, 65 had social action committees, 49 had loan repayment committees and 51
had bank linkage committees (Annex Tables-8.6 & 8.7). As the VOs are relatively young,
the sub-committees were nascent and the Mission units were making efforts to institute
these committees and promote their functioning. The committees need to be oriented to
and provided training to discharge their responsibilities.
CIF Provided to SHGs in the Sample VOs
7.12 All 6-month old SHGs are eligible for CIF. The sample data from all blocks
presented in Table-7.10 reveals that out of 1,268 eligible sample SHGs, 725 were
provided CIF. This constitutes 57% of the total eligible SHGs. As the most of the VOs are
76
relatively young, VOs provided CIF only to a small proportion of eligible SHGs, while the
Mission units directly provided CIF to most SHGs. The inter-state variations in the
proportion of SHGs provided CIF reflects several issues in the Mission states such as
shortage of MCP trainers, delays in training in MCP and appraisal of MCPs,
administrative delays in the sanction and disbursal of CIF, lack of appropriate financial
delegation etc. In the resource block sample, 64% of the eligible SHGs were provided
CIF (Table-7.11).
Table-7.10
SHGs Provided CIF: All Block Sample
S.
No.
State
Sample
VOs
Total Eligible
SHGs for CIF
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
110
214
85
23
171
192
227
173
73
10.
Total
121
1268
Percent of SHGs Provided CIF
Directly by
By VOs
Total
Mission
18
15
34
85
0
85
91
16
107
30
17
48
95
6
101
58
14
71
24
11
35
0
5
5
0
11
11
48
9
57
(613)
(112)
(725)
Table-7.11
SHGs Provided CIF in Resource Blocks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
11
17
0
16
8
Total
Eligible
SHGs for CIF
85
142
134
156
73
6.
Total
52
590
S.
No.
State
Sample
VOs
Percent of SHGs Provided CIF
Directly by
By VOs
Total
Mission
91
9
100
99
11
110
60
0
60
35
3
38
0
0
0
60
5
64
(353)
(27)
(380)
Note: In Jharkhand, some SHGs were provided CIF twice.
Source: Sample VO data.
7.13 One of the bottlenecks in the process of disbursement of CIF is the appraisal of
MIPs by VO-ECs after necessary training. However, the sample data reveals that only
41% of the VOs were involved in appraisal of MIP, primarily in Maharashtra, Madhya
77
Pradesh and Odisha. It is imperative that all VOs undertake MIP appraisal as per the
protocol. This in turn calls for provision of appropriate training of select EC members.
Table-7.12
MIP Appraisal Total Sample
S.
No.
State
No. of Sample
VO
1
Assam
2
Bihar
3
Chhattisgarh
4
Gujarat
5
Jharkhand
6
Madhya Pradesh
7
Maharashtra
8
Odisha
9
Rajasthan
10 Total
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
121
No. of VOs
Undertaking MIP
Appraisal
2
1
3
2
9
8
17
8
0
50
Percentage
12
5
27
50
41
100
68
100
0
41
Average Amount of CIF per SHG
7.14 As indicated earlier, only 57% of the total eligible sample SHGs, received CIF at
an average rate of Rs.39,368/- per SHG. In Maharashtra and Bihar, the average CIF
disbursed is relatively higher exceeding Rs.50,000/- per SHG. In resource block sample,
the average CIF disbursed works out to only Rs.31,986/- per SHG as CIF distribution
through VOs has not started in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Table-7.13
CIF Amount Provided to SHGs: Total Sample
S.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
State
Sample VOs
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
Total
121
Total Eligible
SHGs for CIF
SHGs
Provided CIF
110
214
85
23
171
192
227
173
73
1268
(100%)
37
181
91
11
173
137
79
8
8
725
(59%)
CIF Amount
Per SHG
(in Rs.)
27027
56851
41753
1364
37514
15620
60848
0
0
39368
78
Table-7.14
CIF Amount Provided to SHGs: Resource Blocks
S.
No
State
1. Chhattisgarh
2. Jharkhand
3. Madhya Pradesh
4. Maharashtra
5. Rajasthan
6. Total
Sample VOs
Total Eligible
SHGs for CIF
11
17
0
16
8
52
85
142
134
156
73
590
No. of SHGs
Provided CIF
85
156
80
59
0
380 (64%)
CIF Amount
Per SHG
(in Rs.)
44700
39679
0
36695
0
31986
CIF Recovery in VOs
7.15 The demand-collection ratio of CIF by the VOs during Oct-Dec.’14 indicates that
22% to 44% of the CIF due was recovered. The percentage of recovery in the resource
blocks where VOs are relatively nascent is lower, while in the intensive blocks the
percentage of recovery is higher. As the systems get strengthened and practices get
streamlined, the CIF recovery would increase further. The SHGs which were provided
CIF directly by the Mission units prior to the establishment of VOs need to be guided to
making their CIF repayments to the VOs. This would in turn require engagement of
trained bookkeepers by all VOs and regular maintenance of books of accounts. Once VOs
establish their financial hegemony over the SHGs, and the SHGs realize that the CIF is a
common community fund from which they could perpetually borrow and repay, the
recovery percentage would improve.
Table-7.15
CIF Recovery in VOs
Amount Due
(in Rs. Lakh)
Dec.’14 Nov.’14 Oct.’14
1. All Blocks
121
52
47
42
2. Resource Blocks
52
33
30
24
3. Intensive Blocks
69
20
17
18
Note: The sample does not include Tamil Nadu
S.
No.
Block Type
No. of
Sample VOs
Percentage of
CIF Recovery
Dec.’14 Nov.’14 Oct.’14
22
21
44
11
8
8
41
43
35
VO Receipts and Payments
7.16 As indicated before, a majority of the sample VOs were less than 18 months of
age. As such, the cumulative receipts per VO at the end of Dec.’14 amounted to Rs.3.83
lakh, while the cumulative payments made by a VO on the average amounted to Rs.4.01
lakh. VOs which have received VRF and administering CIF indicate higher volume of
transactions. This is clearly evident in Bihar, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh. Despite
being relatively young VOs, financial accounting systems are slowly being instituted.
79
Most of the VOs have core books of accounts and a good proportion of them have also
hired the services of paid VO bookkeepers. However, there is scope for strengthening
the financial system in terms of introducing and maintaining all books of accounts by a
trained bookkeeper, transfer of VRF, recovery of CIF from SHGs including CIF received
directly from the Mission units and prudent management of funds by avoiding idle
funds and improving the velocity of loans. Equally important is to improve the financial
literacy of all federating SHGs.
Table-7.16
Receipts and Payments of Sample VOs: Total Sample
Cumulative Up to Dec.’14
S.
Number of VOs
Receipts
Payments
State
Number of VOs
No.
Provided VRF
Per VO in Rs. Per VO in Rs.
-67538
67636
1. Assam
17
9
941374
940518
2. Bihar
19
-322034
390714
3. Chhattisgarh
11
-88175
88175
4. Gujarat
4
3
436930
489105
5. Jharkhand
22
7
443800
467056
6. Madhya Pradesh
8
-299073
300808
7. Maharashtra
24
-2008
4288
8. Rajasthan
8
19
383062
401953
10. Total/Average
113
Note: There is a small mismatch between receipts and payments due to lack of updated books of
accounts in all sample VOs. However, the gap is not substantial.
Status of Bookkeeping
7.17 All the VOs promoted under NRLM are required to institute books of records
listed in Table-7.17. However, as a majority of the VOs are relatively young, all books are
not adopted. Most VOs had membership register. All other books need to be introduced
in the remaining VOs. However, most of the VOs which have adopted the books are
updating all entries as per the bookkeeping protocol. It was also found that the
transactions entered meet the three dimensions of quality viz., completeness,
correctness and consistency. With additional rounds of training to the VO bookkeepers,
the quality of bookkeeping would improve.
80
Table-7.17
Status of Bookkeeping in VOs: Total Sample
S.
No.
Books of Records
No. of
Sample VOs
Percentage
Introduced
Percentage Updated
(Out of those
Adopted)
1.
Membership Register
121
50
2.
Minutes Book
121
88
3.
Cash Book
121
65
4.
Loan Ledger
121
57
5.
General Ledger
121
46
6.
Receipt & Payment Vouchers
121
53
7.
Stock Register
121
45
8.
CIF DCB Register
121
34
9.
Bank Linkage DCB Register
121
26
Note: The sample does not include data relating to 16 sample VOs from Tamil Nadu
98
93
95
97
95
97
91
95
88
7.18 As the VOs in the resource blocks are relatively younger, a substantial proportion
of them have not introduced all the books except membership register and bank loan DC-B register. Adoption of required books is an essential pre-requisite and all the Mission
states would do well to facilitate adoption of all books, position bookkeepers and
introduce regular bookkeeping practices. All VOs should also be required to hire the
services of trained bookkeepers.
Table-7.18
Status of Bookkeeping in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
Books of Records
1.
Membership Register
2.
Minutes Book
3.
Cash Book
4.
Loan Ledger
5.
General Ledger
6.
Receipt & Payment Vouchers
7.
Stock Register
8.
CIF DCB Register
9.
Bank Linkage DCB Register
No. of
Sample
VOs
Percentage
Introduced
Percentage Updated
(Out of those Adopted)
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
73
87
54
56
54
58
56
56
52
97
100
96
100
100
97
93
97
89
81
Role of VO in Mobilization of Left Out Poor
7.19 VOs are expected to undertake several activities such as mobilization of left out
poor into SHGs, training of SHGs, convergent activities with PRIs and line departments.
Sample data reveals that over 60% of the VOs were involved in different types of
activities relating to mobilization of the poor. About 40% were engaged in training of
SHGs, while 46% were working closely with PRIs. It may be noted that the intensity and
duration of engagement of VO in different activities varies across the sample.
Table-7.19
Role of VO in Mobilization, Training and Convergent Activities: Total
Sample
S.
No.
State
1.
Assam
2.
Bihar
3.
Chhattisgarh
4.
Gujarat
5.
Jharkhand
6.
Madhya Pradesh
7.
Maharashtra
8.
Odisha
9.
Rajasthan
10. Total
Sample
VOs
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
121
Mobilization
of POP
12
100
73
50
73
75
56
100
25
63
Percent of VOs Undertaking
Training
Convergence
of SHGs
with PRIs
0
12
84
74
9
18
50
50
50
27
38
63
36
84
100
50
25
0
43
46
Working
with LDs
12
0
27
0
18
75
52
0
0
23
Capacity Building of VO-ECs
7.20 Mission units/VOs are expected to organize training of EC members (including
OBs) in a wide range of areas which would enable them to discharge their functions
effectively. Important among these trainings are conduct of VO meetings, VO
management, bookkeeping, MCP and CIF and cadre management. The sub-committees
of the EC are also expected to be trained in specific areas such as CIF recovery, bank
loan repayment and SHG monitoring. Some states such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh,
Jharkhand and Maharashtra were ahead of others in organizing training for the VO-ECs.
It is important to organize training of VO-ECs and their sub-committees in all essential
areas to improve their functional effectiveness. The Mission units need to plan and
facilitate organization of the trainings as per the action plans.
82
Table-7.20
Capacity Building of EC Members: Total Sample
Sub Committees
MCP
CIF
Audit
Cadre
Management
7.
8.
9.
10.
Book keeping
6.
Sample
VOs
Management
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State
Exposure and
Immersion
S.
No.
Meetings
Number
No. of VOs that Organized Training and Exposure Visits and
Immersion to EC Members
17
19
11
4
22
10
19
11
4
22
0
10
2
1
1
1
17
10
2
17
0
18
11
2
16
0
16
3
2
11
6
8
5
4
5
0
13
7
3
8
0
0
3
2
0
0
10
2
0
4
8
8
4
8
2
8
6
7
0
0
24
8
8
121
23
8
2
107
3
4
0
25
12
8
0
75
16
8
0
73
10
0
0
50
14
0
0
48
6
0
0
44
3
0
0
8
4
0
0
20
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Total
Source: Sample data
Social Activities
7.21 The nascent VOs have also been engaged in taking up certain common social
issues for resolution with the PRIs and the line departments. Most of these issues have
been escalated by the SHGs in the EC meetings. About 50% of the VOs had either taken
up or resolved social issues affecting a large proportion of their members. These issues
include eradication of illicit distillation, fight against domestic violence, prevention of
child labour and mainstreaming of out of school children and sanitation issues. As the
VOs mature and grow in experience, they are likely to articulate and resolve larger
number of issues. Experience of other states such as AP, Telangana, Kerala and Bihar
suggests that the intensity of social issues taken up by the VOs will increase with
community cadres/social capital gaining ground. The sample study also indicates that a
large proportion of VOs were getting engaged in mobilization of left out poor, training of
SHGs and convergent activities with PRIs and line department agencies (Annex Table7.19 & 7.20).
83
Table-7.21
Social Issues Taken up by VOs: Sample
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Total
Total Sample
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
121
No of VOs taking
up Social Issues
4
10
9
2
16
7
14
4
1
65
Percent
24
52
82
50
73
88
56
50
13
55
Source: Sample data
Summary








all Mission states are required to promote VOs in all villages with a minimum
number of SHGs. VOs have been promoted in the project states right from FY
2011-12, but their promotion gathered momentum during FY 2013-14;
a total of 13,450 VOs were formed in all project states up to Dec.’14, at an
average rate of 36 per block;
out of the 34,172 villages in which the implementation is in progress, only 39%
had VOs and all the villages are expected to form VOs during the next 3 to 4
months;
a total of 1.26 lakh SHGs have federated into the VOs (42% of the total SHGs), at
an average rate of 9 per VO (12 in the sample clusters), with the inter-state
variation reflecting the overall progress of IB in the states; while in the sample
clusters, 55% of the SHGs had federated into the VOs;
most of the VOs were nascent with 85% being less than 18 months of age
(sample data);
the relatively young VOs were however, practising all democratic norms as
indicated by the regular conduct of EC meetings and the high proportion of SHGs
(89% to 92% during Oct-Dec.’14) participating in such meetings;
as apex federations at the village level, the VOs (61%) were undertaking review
of performance of SHGs on a monthly basis using monthly report cards (Masik
Prativedan). The VOs were also found instituting the sub-committee system. A
significant proportion of VOs had loan repayment and bank linkage subcommittees. However, the sub-committee system needs to be strengthened with
suitable capacity building and conduct of agenda based reviews;
as most of the VOs were relatively young, only a small proportion of eligible SHGs
was provided CIF up to Dec.’14 (while a substantial proportion of SHGs were
directly provided CIF prior to the establishment of VOs). The VOs need to
overcome constraints in the disbursement of CIF by having adequate number of
84






MCP trainers and instituting rapid MCP appraisal protocols. It is equally
important for the VOs to institute appropriate systems for recovery of CIF given
to the SHGs both prior to and after the formation of VOs.
on the average, sample VOs provided an amount of Rs.39,368/- per SHG;
the VOs have also started recovering CIF from the SHGs. The demand-collection
balance during Oct-Dec.’14 shows an increasing trend with about 40% of the
demand being recovered;
the sample data indicates that on the average, each sample VO had a cumulative
total receipt of Rs.3.79 lakh up to Dec.’14, indicating that the VOs are handling
substantial funds, largely received as CIF; it is therefore important that this
community fund is efficiently managed following all prudential norms such that
it becomes a community fund in perpetuity;
the status of bookkeeping in VOs was satisfactory with most books adopted
being regularly updated. However, there is need for VOs to adopt all books of
accounts and engage the services of trained bookkeepers to maintain them;
apart from managing CIF, the VOs were also undertaking other tasks expected of
them viz., mobilization of left out poor (63% of VOs), organizing training of SHGs
(43% of VOs), undertaking convergent activities with PRIs (46% of VOs) and
working with line departments (23% of VOs); and
in order to improve the functional capacity of the VOs, the Mission units were
organizing systematic immersion and exposure and training in management of
VOs, bookkeeping, MCP appraisal and CIF management. Some VOs are also found
training the sub-committee members. With the VOs progressively gaining control
over the community staff and social capital, the functional capacity of the VOs are
expected to grow rapidly.
85
Chapter–8
Promotion of Social Capital
Introduction
8.1
The functional efficiency and long term sustainability of SHGs and their
federations critically depend on the stock and quality of different types of social capital
supporting them. Social capital in the context of NRLP comprises the SHG and federation
bookkeepers, master bookkeepers, women activists, community resource persons,
trainers, master trainers, livelihood para professionals etc. The availability and quality
of different types of social capital are an essential prerequisite for nurturing and
building the capacities of community institutions and their functionaries. Identification,
training and use of social capital therefore assume importance, particularly in the initial
phase of the project. Generation of adequate quality social capital assumes greater
significance in the context of scaling up of NRLM. The strategy of resource blocks is
designed to generate adequate social capital to catalyse social mobilisation and
institution building in other blocks. The NRO supported resource blocks are expected to
identify, train and prepare internal community resource persons who would undertake
social mobilisation and institution building in other blocks. The rate of generation of
internal resource persons is thus a critical determinant of the rate of expansion of the
Mission. From this perspective, this chapter examines the quantity of cognitive social
capital identified, trained and used in the resource and intensive blocks for promoting
bonding and bridging social capital (SHGs and their federations) on the basis of state
MIS and sample data.
Overall Availability of Social Capital in NRLP States
8.2
The availability of SHG bookkeepers, women activists and internal CRPs working
with the SHGs in the project states is summarized in Table-8.1. Each SHG is required to
have a trained bookkeeper, paid or honorary, to maintain the books of accounts of the
SHGs. One of the members can be a bookkeeper. A trained bookkeeper can provide
bookkeeping services for more than one SHG. Different states have different systems of
deployment of bookkeepers. Some state Missions such as Bihar, Gujarat and Odisha hire
the services of SHG-bookkeepers paid for by the Mission units or from out of the funds
provided to the federations, while in most states bookkeepers are paid small
honorarium by the SHGs. The MIS data suggests that in the states of Maharashtra,
Assam and Tamil Nadu, each SHG has a separate bookkeeper. In Chhattisgarh,
Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, there is a bookkeeper for 2 to 3
SHGs. In Bihar, Gujarat and Odisha, the SHG bookkeeper ratio is adverse. The number of
SHG bookkeepers reported to be working in each block on the average indicates a great
degree of diversity. It may be noted that the resource blocks states of Chhattisgarh,
Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, besides Tamil Nadu have a favourable
number of bookkeepers per block. This is clearly due to the special efforts made in the
resource blocks of these states to identify, train and use the services of bookkeepers and
the social capital generated under the EAPs implemented in some of these states.
86
8.3
All project states have adopted policies for identification and use of women
activists who facilitate conduct of SHG meetings and build their capacities. However,
there is variation across the states in the use of social capital. Not all women activists
are paid regular honorarium by the Mission units or the SHGs. The inter-state picture
indicates that in the states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh
and Maharashtra, the number of women activists identified and working is relatively
large. In the resource block states as well as those with the legacy of EAPs, the presence
of activists is larger. There is no uniformity in the terms and conditions of work of
different types of women activists and the honorarium paid to them.
8.4
Internal CRPs identified, trained and working in NRLP states also reveals a great
deal of diversity. In Assam, Bihar, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, the number of
internal CRPs reported to be working is relatively higher. In the resource block states,
however, the number is low, as most of the internal resource persons identified and
trained in the resource blocks have not started their work in the native blocks or other
blocks.
Table-8.1
Social Capital Engaged in Project States
Bookkeepers
Working
S.
No.
State
Sample
Blocks
SHGs
Per
BK
Bookkeeper
s Per Block
Women Activists
Identified and
Working
Women
SHGs Per
Activist
Women
s Per
Activist
Block
0
0
Dec.’14
Internal CRPs
Trained &
Working
Interna
SHGs
l CRPs
Per
Per
CRP
Block
68
28
1.
Assam
25
1
1603
2.
Bihar
77
10
96
39
24
34
27
3.
Chhattisgarh
16
2
390
7
89
0
0
4.
Gujarat
20
27
31
9
97
0
0
5.
Jharkhand
29
3
169
10
50
100
5
6.
20
4
63
0
0
14
19
46
2
350
4
193
4
195
8.
9.
Karnataka
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
36
28
1
26
545
28
13
0
48
0
316
39
2
19
10.
Rajasthan
7
2
123
22
12
13
20
11.
Tamil Nadu
16
1
453
1
570
53
10
12.
Uttar Pradesh
22
20
10
44
4
0
0
7.
39
34
0
0
361
4
13. West Bengal
32
3
284
11
71
22
35
14. Total
374
Note: Data for Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu includes the social capital from the EAP areas of
sample blocks as well. In Assam, SHG bookkeepers reported are not regularly providing
services as their honorarium is not paid regularly.
87
Availability of Bookkeepers in Resource Blocks: Sample Data
8.5
As stated before, each SHG ideally has a trained bookkeeper to maintain the
books of accounts and other transactions regularly. Sample data collected from 30
resource block clusters in which implementation is in progress reveals that out of 5,893
SHGs requiring bookkeepers, only 4,711 bookkeepers were identified, of whom only
3,223 were reported to be providing bookkeeping services. This constitutes only 56% of
the required number. Interaction with the block teams and CRPs indicates that a
significant number of bookkeepers have withdrawn their services, some after receiving
training due to low and irregular payment of honorarium, migration of bookkeepers,
and other alternative work opportunities for the bookkeepers. FGDs with frontline staff
in the sample districts also indicates that the quality of bookkeeping leaves a scope for
improvement in three dimensions viz., completeness, correctness and consistency. The
FGDs also brought out the need for training/re-training all bookkeepers besides
instituting the system of master bookkeepers providing continuous handholding
support. The methods and processes adopted for identification of bookkeepers is
summarized in Annex-12.
Table-8.2
SHG Bookkeeper Services Available: Sample Resource Block Clusters
Dec.’14
No. of SHG Book Keepers
S.
No
State
Sample
Blocks
Chhattisgarh
2
1.
Jharkhand
4
2.
Maharashtra
4
3.
MP
3
4.
Rajasthan
2
5.
Total
6.
15
Total
Sample SHGs in
Percent of
Clusters Sample Required Identified Working
BKs
Clusters
Working
4
8
8
6
4
30
983
1633
1324
1487
466
5893
983
1633
1324
1487
466
5893
918
1481
1192
915
205
4711
531
871
1044
693
84
3223
58
54
79
47
18
56
8.6
The availability of bookkeepers in the total sample (including resource blocks)
also reveals similar trends. While Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, MP,
Odisha and Tamil Nadu are relatively better placed, the states of Gujarat, Rajasthan and
Assam have very negligible proportion of bookkeepers working. In Assam, it is reported
that a vast majority of bookkeepers have discontinued their services during the last 6
months due to a drastic change in the policy of payment of honorarium to the
bookkeepers by the Mission unit.
88
Table-8.3
SHG Book Keepers Services Available: Total Sample
No of SHG Book Keepers
Total SHGs
Sample Sample
State
in Sample
Percent
Blocks Clusters
Required Identified Working
Clusters
Working
2
4
1
Assam
1431
1431
762
123
9
2
Bihar
5
10
4582
4582
513
469
10
3
Chhattisgarh
3
6
1310
1310
1198
781
60
4
Gujarat
2
3
989
989
60
NA
NA
5
Jharkhand
6
10
2409
2409
2257
1172
49
6
Maharashtra
6
12
2056
2056
1920
1747
85
7
MP
5
10
2475
2475
1334
1075
43
8
Odisha
2
2
494
494
57
33
7
9
Rajasthan
2
4
466
466
205
84
18
10 Tamil Nadu
2
4
1053
1053
46
23
2
11 Total
35
65
17265
17265
8352
5507
32
Notes: (1) NA – Not Available; (2) In Tamil Nadu and Odisha, book-keepers maintained accounts
for multiple SHGs.
S.
No
MCP Trainers
8.7
The second important community cadre required for the Mission states is the
MCP trainers. Each eligible SHG is required to be trained in MCP in a participatory
manner to enable it to prepare an MCP for accessing CIF. The state Missions are
required to identify and train one person per village in the preparation of MCP who
would in turn undertake training of the SHGs in the village. Thus, in the 30 sample
clusters of resource blocks, 200 MCP trainers are required to be identified and trained.
However, only 159 persons were identified and trained, of whom only 80 were found to
be working. This constitutes only 40% of the requirement. This could be due to delays
in the identification of eligible SHGs for CIF as well.
Table-8.4
MCP Trainers Availability: Sample Resource Block Clusters
S.
No.
State
Sample
Blocks
2
1. Chhattisgarh
4
2. Jharkhand
4
3. Maharashtra
3
4. MP
2
5. Rajasthan
6. Total
15
Sample
Clusters
4
8
8
6
4
30
No of MCP Trainers
Required
(villages)
Identified
Working
Percent
Working
30
40
73
37
20
200
25
32
66
24
12
159
17
18
27
18
0
80
57
45
37
49
0
40
8.8
The availability of MCP trainers and their working status also reveals similar
trends when the total sample too is considered. Only 41% of the MCP trainers required
89
were found to be working in the sample clusters. The sample data for Bihar and
Rajasthan indicates that the MCP trainers are not working in the sample clusters.
Table-8.5
MCP Trainers Availability: Total Cluster Sample
S.
No
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sample Sample
Blocks Clusters
Total
No of MCP Trainers
SHGs in
Sample Required Identified Working
Clusters
1431
12
12
12
4582
16
10
0
1310
52
36
28
989
40
20
0
2409
136
63
49
2056
112
105
55
Percent
Working
Assam
2
4
100
Bihar
5
10
0
Chhattisgarh
3
6
54
Gujarat
2
3
0
Jharkhand
6
10
36
Maharashtra
6
12
49
Madhya
7.
5
10
2475
57
36
30
53
Pradesh
8. Odisha
2
2
494
63
63
34
54
9. Rajasthan
2
4
466
20
12
0
0
33
61
16212
508
357
208
41
10. Total
Source: Cluster Sample Data, includes both intensive, partnership and resource block sample
VO Bookkeepers
8.9
VO bookkeepers constitute another important form of social capital that needs to
be identified, trained and used in all villages with VOs. In the resource blocks, the
external CRPs and PRPs facilitate identification and initial training of VO bookkeepers.
In the other blocks, the frontline staff are required to identify the VO bookkeepers
through a transparent process and provide them training before making use of their
services. The sample data from 187 VOs of 5 resource block states reveals that
Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, the two leading resource block states have 100% VO
bookkeepers working, while Maharashtra is catching up slowly with 57% of the
required bookkeepers in place. In MP, VOs were yet to be formed in the sample clusters
and as such identification of bookkeepers was not taken up. In Rajasthan, identification
of bookkeepers is completed in 15 VOs but the training needs to be undertaken.
90
Table-8.6
VO Bookkeepers Available: Sample Clusters in Resource Blocks
Total VOs
No of VO Book Keepers
in the
State
Percent
Sample Required Identified Working
Working
Clusters
2
4
Chhattisgarh
45
45
45
100
1.
45
4
8
65
36
36
36
100
2. Jharkhand
4
8
74
61
42
57
3. Maharashtra
62
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
4. MP
Rajasthan
2
4
15
21
15
0
0
5.
187
176
157
123
70
6. Total
15
30
Notes: (1) In Madhya Pradesh, VOs were not promoted in the resource blocks up to Dec.’14. (2) In
Rajasthan, bookkeepers were identified but remained to be trained and used.
Source: Cluster Sample Data
S.
No
Sample Sample
Blocks Clusters
8.10 Overall sample also reveals similar trends with Assam, Gujarat, Rajasthan and
Odisha lagging behind in the identification, training and use of bookkeepers. On the
whole, however, the states are likely to catch up with the identification, training and use
of bookkeepers in tune with the formation of VOs.
Table-8.7
VO Bookkeepers Available: Total Cluster Sample
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Sample Sample
Blocks Clusters
Total
No of VO Book Keepers
VOs in
Percent
the
Required Identified Working
Working
Sample
Clusters
98
98
17
0
0
284
284
56
55
19
45
45
45
45
100
23
23
11
0
0
95
95
54
49
52
111
111
107
81
73
Assam
2
4
Bihar
5
10
Chhattisgarh
3
6
Gujarat
2
3
Jharkhand
6
10
Maharashtra
6
12
Madhya
7.
5
10
99
99
83
47
47
Pradesh
8. Odisha
2
2
7
7
7
3
43
9. Rajasthan
2
4
15
15
15
0
0
33
61
777
777
395
280
36
10. Total
Notes: (1) Sample includes both resource blocks and intensive and partnership blocks. (2) In
Chhattisgarh, VOs were not formed in intensive blocks up to Dec.’14. (3) In Gujarat,
Rajasthan and Assam, VO bookkeepers were identified but remained to be trained and
used.
Source: Cluster Sample
91
All Community Cadres
8.11 All community cadres required were estimated for 65 sample clusters in which
field study was conducted. The estimated number as per the norms adopted was 16,457
of whom, 76% were reported to have been identified and 67% trained and 50%
currently engaged. While this is promising, the real challenge is to ensure that all
community cadres identified and trained continue to provide services to the
institutions.
8.12 This in turn calls for a suitable policy to ensure payment of appropriate
compensation to each cadre for the service rendered. However at present, there is lack
of uniformity in the compensation system. For example, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh
and MP are making payment of honorarium to the bookkeepers from funds provided by
the project to the SHGs. In Odisha, payment to bookkeepers is done on task basis for
which GPLF makes payment of honorarium from the IB, CB fund. A bookkeeper is paid
Rs.20/- per meeting. In Rajasthan, only some SHGs pay Rs.10/- per meeting from their
own funds. In Gujarat, West Bengal, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, there is no protocol at
present. The methods and processes adopted for identification, training and
deployment of internal CRPs and active women is summarized in Annex-13.
Table-8.8
All Community Cadres Required, Identified, Trained and Engaged: Total Sample
Dec.’14
S.
No
State
Percent of All Cadres
Total Sample
Clusters
Total Community
Cadre Required*
Identified
Trained
Engaged
1.
Assam
4
1561
53
42
11
2.
Bihar
10
911
90
85
74
3.
Chhattisgarh
6
1675
90
85
60
4.
Gujarat
3
213
58
34
0
5.
Jharkhand
10
3786
84
73
48
6.
Maharashtra
12
2878
90
78
75
7.
MP
10
4088
59
54
42
8.
Odisha
2
222
94
65
48
9.
Rajasthan
4
608
53
38
16
10.
Total
61
15942
76
67
50
Notes: (1) * includes SHG bookkeepers @ 1 per SHG, women activists @ 2 per village, MCP trainers
@ 1 per village, PIP facilitators @ 1 per village, VO animator/facilitator @ 1 per VO, VO
bookkeeper @ 1 per VO, MBKs @ 1 per cluster.
Source: Cluster sample data.
92
Community Cadre Engaged by Sample VOs
8.13 All VOs promoted by the state Missions are expected to hire essential community
cadre through a transparent process and make them suitable compensation. The VO
cadre includes animators, VO bookkeepers, MCP trainers, and community auditors. The
VOs are required to facilitate their training with the support of the Mission before
engaging their services. Out of 125 sample VOs, 103 had community cadres. However,
there were variations across the states in terms of the number as well as types of cadres
engaged. Bookkeepers, MCP trainers and activists/facilitators are common across most
VOs.
Table-8.9
Community Cadre Engaged by Sample VOs
No. of Community Cadre
No. of VOs with
Community
Percentage
Engaged
Paid
Cadre
Paid
17
9
9
0
0
1. Assam
19
19
70
53
76
2. Bihar
11
11
33
24
73
3. Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
4
0
0
0
NA
4.
17
16
84
47
56
5. Jharkhand
8
7
41
0
0
6. Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
16
16
80
28
35
7.
8
0
0
0
NA
8. Odisha
8
8
45
0
0
9. Rajasthan
Total
108
86
362
152
42
Notes: (1) VO community cadre includes VO animators, VO bookkeepers, MCP trainers, community
auditors etc., who are paid for by the VO;
S.
No.
State
Sample
VOs
Summary
8.14 The functional efficiency and sustainability of SHGs and their federations and the
livelihood outcomes expected of them depend on the stock and quality of different types
of social capital supporting them. The strategy of resource blocks has been designed to
generate adequate social capital to catalyse social mobilization, institution building and
livelihood promotion in other blocks. In the context of NRLM, the social capital required
for the community institutions include: (i) SHG bookkeepers, (ii) MCP trainers; (iii)
women activists; (iv) VO bookkeepers; (v) VO animators; and (vi) internal CRPs. The MIS
data indicates that on the average there were:



284 SHG bookkeepers per block at the rate of 3 SHGs per bookkeeper;
71 women activists per block at the rate of 1 per 11 SHGs; and
35 internal CRPs per block at the rate of 1 per 22 SHGs (while Chhattisgarh has
trained internal CRPs who will be deployed shortly).
93
8.15 Further, the sample data indicates that the following forms of social capital
required were available:




56% of the SHG bookkeepers in resource blocks and 52% in intensive blocks;
40% of the MCP trainers in resource blocks and 41% in intensive blocks;
70% of VO bookkeepers in resource blocks and 37% in intensive blocks; and
50% of all community cadres.
8.16 Considering the age of the VOs and other institutions, the size and diversity of
the social capital available in terms of SHG bookkeepers and VO bookkeepers appears to
be satisfactory, if not adequate. However, the number of MCP trainers and internal CRPs
needs to be augmented significantly to meet the growing requirements of the Mission.
The internal CRPs and women activists identified in the resource blocks are also
required to be trained fully and their services utilized optimally in the scaling-up
process. Further, the real challenge is to ensure that all community cadres identified are
adequately trained and those trained and engaged continue to provide services to the
institutions. This in turn calls for a suitable policy to ensure payment of appropriate
compensation to each cadre for the service rendered across the states.
94
PART-II
MKSP & CMSA2
2
Contributed by Livelihoods Group of NMMU
95
Chapter 9: Process Study: MKSP Intervention
Report on Focus Group Discussion in
Bihar, Maharashtra, Odisha, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh
96
1. Focussed Group Discussion Plan
FGDs were conducted with women farmers in the MKSP areas wherein
officials from NMMU, SMMU and teams of district and block were also present. In the
FGD discussions were carried out on the issues relating to practices being adopted and
challenges faced by women farmers in implementation of MKSP. The discussion
focussed on understanding Ultra-poor strategy roll out protocols, as perceived by the
targeted households. The objective of this exercise was to understand the perception
of SHG members towards the existing protocols, and, also the factors that have
fashioned the existing perceptions. In the course of discussions, the difference
between the practices adopted under MKSP and traditional method of farming in the
village, was discussed, with a focus on understanding the rationale for adopting or not
adopting a given practice by a poor household. The MKSP intervention areas where the
FGDs were conducted are as follows:
S.
No.
1
2
State
MKSP
partner
ASA
Madhyam
Foundation
District
Block
Jamui
Malkangiri
Madhya
Pradesh
PRADAN
Mandla
Maharashtra
West Bengal
MSSRF
LKP
Wardha
Birbhum
Chakai
Rajasarai
Kudumulugumma *FGD
was
conducted
in
PRADAN Office
Narayanganj
*FGD
was
conducted
in
Narayanganj
PRADAN Office
Wardha
Sonegaon
Mohammad
Bhutara
Bazar
3
4
5
Bihar
Odisha
Village
2. Participants
This discussion was conducted with the randomly selected SHG members
from each of the selected villages (selection of villages was done on the basis of systematic
random sampling of 3 villages from each cluster of given block). This discussion was
facilitated by the NMMU representative with the support of BMMU staff. The other
officials from SMMU and DMMU were invited to the discussion as observers.
3. Process study based on the probing points
3.1 Topic 1: USP of the package of practices promoted under MKSP for the
rural poor households
Probe: Uniqueness of the package of practices, constraints etc.
97
3.1.1 Discussions:
The key package of practices promoted by MKSP partners are around seed
management, soil health management, in-situ moisture conservation, disease and
pest management which vary across PIAs and states. The major discussion areas
revolved around:
1. The different critical stages of cultivation of existing crops
2. Comparison of input requirements
3. Cost implications of adopting sustainable agriculture practices for a given
crop, vis a vis, the existing practice
4. Seed management, soil health management, in-situ moisture conservation,
disease and pest management
3.1.2 Observations
During the FGD it emerged that sustainable agriculture practices were promoted at
three levels; pre-production, production, post production. The Mahila Kisans have
been practicing deep summer ploughing, local seed selection, seed treatment from
Beejamruth and soil health management through Jeevamruth and compost. At
production level crop specific protocol developed by MKSP PIAs like SRI, SWI, line
sowing in maize, kitchen garden etc. are being practiced. As a part of postproduction process, sorting & grading of vegetables, zero energy cool chamber,
proper and scientific method of harvesting are followed by the Mahila Kisans. For
disease and pest management, plant, cow dung & urine based inoculants are being
practiced.
In many cases it was observed that these protocols were not universalized with all
the farmers. It also emerged that the demonstration for 2-3 times helps women
farmers to understand and adopt the eco-agriculture practices.
3.1.3 Issues



With many of the PIAs a complete technical protocol is absent
Understanding of the benefit of each component of protocol is not clear to
the community.
Understanding of the holistic view of agro-ecology as innovative concept in
sustainable agriculture is not clear to the community and it appears as a
piece meal approach in many cases.
3.2 Topic 2: Training & Capacity building of women farmers in the package
of practices- Tools and methodologies adopted for training women farmers
Probe: The different types of training (classroom, FFS, Field demonstrations etc.)
received, Role of MKSP partners and trainers in building capacity, factors
affecting training, perceived gaps in training
98
3.2.1 Discussions:
1. CRP selection process
2. The different techniques adopted by the CRPs and project staff for
generating awareness around the existing protocols
3. The perception of Mahila Kisan, vis a vis the different training techniques
adopted.
4. The perceived ease of understanding the different protocols through
different tools/technique employed
5. The apprehension of households with respect to the different package of
practices promoted
6. Issues
3.2.2 Observations
The observations which are common across MKSP partners are as follows:
1. CRP identification and training process: Most of the PIAs are found to have a
well - defined CRP identification, selection and training process
2. Community training is undertaken by CRPs and project staff
In Odisha, Madhyam Foundation The criteria of CRP identification process is from
the same village, active farmer, able to read & write, less than 50 years of old,
attitude to convince and motivate others. The information for search for CRPs is
given through SHGs in the Panchyat, Village, Community Hall, Project Office. The
SHG leaders and the team of Madhyam Foundation is selecting the CRPs based on
the discussion/interview with the interested CRPs and also a feedback from SHG
women is also being taken. Training of trainers have been organized for the newly
selected CRPs. The ToT includes class room training, audio visual shows, on-field
demonstration and distribution & use of IEC materials. The CRPs are also going to
best practicing cites for exposure and then deployed to train and handhold Mahila
Kisans to adopt eco-agriculture practices. For every 50 Households a CRP is
identified and placed. CRPs have also trained the Mahila Kisans for 2-3 days a
month for all the 12 months in a year apart from handholding to adopt best
practices on eco-agriculture practices.
In ASA (Bihar), the women farmer were imparted classroom training, on field
demonstration, demonstration and training during the crop cutting. The training is
imparted by the field coordinator and staff on seed treatment, system of root
intensification in rice, maize and wheat and kitchen gardening in the intervention
villages. ASA (the MKSP partner) from each intervention village identifies at least 2
active farmers and train and groom them to be ‘VRPs’ who are basically
community best practioner. The VRP selection is finally done based on small test
on SHG and its concepts and agriculture practices. The selected VRPs are taken on
99
exposure visit and imparted a 7 days training at ASA office in Madhya Pradesh. The
VRP is trained on SHG book keeping, different government programmes such as
MNREGA and agriculture intervention. The VRPs provide handholding support to the
community members for scaling up of agriculture intervention. The perceived gaps
as emerged during discussions is of follow up training on agriculture interventions.
On the training needs, it was suggested by FGD group members training on the
methods for water conservation as water availability was the major issue in the
intervention villages.
In Maharashtra, MSSRF promotes good quality training programmes in class-rooms,
audio visuals prepared by Digital Green, Practice Sessions, demonstration and
handholding. A 2-3 days training per month for all the women farmers being
imparted by the CRPs and similarly 2 days training programme per month for all
the CRPs being imparted by MSSRF staffs. However, all the Mahila Kisans have spelt
out clearly that demonstration and audio-visual based training programme are the
most effective training programmes.The training is imparted around seed and soil
management practices, bio-pesticide, proper time and method of harvesting,
cleaning, grading and storage, soil and Water conservation, INM, IPM and postharvest management.
At PRADAN (MP), the CRPs conducted farmer field schools for the farmers to learn
techniques and also demonstrated in their field. They visited fields of the farmers
periodically and helped farmers to solve problems with current practices and pest
infestations. Project staff well equipped in social as well as agriculture science
facilitated knowledge building/ capacity building of the farmers. CRPs were
provided intensive trainings and they attend periodic review cum planning in the
field offices. The CRPs were trained at different phases. Their training included in
house training and as well as field training. This included classroom training
sessions interspersed with field visit on knowledge dissemination on soil
identification, plant structure, seed testing, nursery raising, transplanting of
nursery, irrigation, pest management, disease identification etc. through audio,
video and theoretical aids. Besides the theoretical training ‘Ek ropa dhaan’ movie
was also shown to the CRPs for knowledge on POP for SRI. Besides that they were
also provided technical skills which included use of machinery like thresher,
weeder, treadle pump, paddy cutter etc. The CRPs were given on field training
with live demonstration on identifying disease and pest. They also underwent a
small test after the training to measure their understanding. After this they are
given printed materials so that they can read, relate and use the knowledge.
In West Bengal, training was provided through class room teaching, reading
materials, audio visual kits, Field demonstration, exposure visits. For adoption
input support was facilitated. The training was imparted by the Project staff and
CRPs.
100
LKP facilitated community to select best practitioners as CRPs based on
recommendation of federation and PRI. The selected CRPs were imparted training
at district and the block levels by the expertise available with LKP as well as
through external learning through exposure visit. The CRPs were trained on
Preparations of Micro plans, Non – pesticide management, Soil fertility
management Multi-tier / poly crop models, Root Intensifications, Effective
utilization of inputs etc.The CRPs provided support to the Mahila Kisan in adoption
of sustainable best practices, organize regular meeting with the women farmers,
document the local innovative best practices / case studies in the area. On the
training needs, it was suggested by FGD group members more training on the
methods for water conservation as water availability was the major issue in the
intervention villages.
3.2.3 Issues
a. CRPs should be from the same village.
b. In the selection process, the definition of best practicing farmer is not
clear.
c. CRP to Mahila Kisan ratio should be maintained and it was observed that at
some places a single CRP was assigned for livelihoods, social and other
issues. Also, in many cases it was observed one CRP is taking care of more
than one village.
d. CRPs need to be trained on all aspects of package of practice i.e. seed
management, soil health management, in-situ moisture conservation,
disease and pest management.
e. Standardisation of training material for training of CRP, community and staff
needs to be done as it was observed that communication material has been
referred to training material in many cases.
3.3 Topic 3: Exposure of women farmers to best practice sites
Probes: No. of exposure trips undertaken vis a vis the approved plan, Impact of
exposure to best practice sites on boosting adoption of a package of practice,
constraints, plans
Most of the PIAs have exposure visit as part of the training program for Mahila
Kisan and CRP to the nearby villages, districts and other states.
In Madhyam Foundation (Odisha), the exposure program for women farmers have
also been organized systematically. 1-2 women farmers have got the exposure to
Jeevan Jyoti Vegetable Growers Cooperative in Kodabhata, Mathili block,
Malkangiri district. Another set of group of Mahila Kisans have gone to Brundabati
Vegetable Growers Cooperative in Maliguda Udulubeda, Mathili block, Malkangiri
district. Few Mahila Kisans have also gone for exposure to individual farm on
vegetable cultivation in Nandanban area, Chhattisgarh. Different kinds of exposure
101
is also organized during the System of Rice Intensification during panicle initiation
& harvesting (operational area of Pragati in Kotpad), zero energy cool chamber,
application and impact of Jeevamruta, Handikhata, Hadari, Amruta Mati & Amruta
Pani. The PRPs for every 300 households have also gone to Sambhav, an organic
farming institution at Rohibanka, Nayagarh.
In MSSRF (Maharashtra), the identified CRPs and women farmers have visited
model farm on sustainable agriculture of Subhash Sharma and Ramesh Sakharkar.
Exposure is also being organized locally on poly-house, soil and water conservation,
warehouse management, exposure to soil and water conservation field, IPM and
INM practised field, Agriculture produce marketing committee management.
Exposure on Subhash Sharma and Ramesh Sakharkar is found to be more effective
expressed by all the active women farmers.
At ASA (Bihar), 1-2 women farmers from each village were taken to the exposure
visit to the nearby villages of the same block. The VRPs were taken to the best
practice sites to other states (Jharkhand and MP). During the FGD discussion it
emerged that on an average 15-20 days training in a year is imparted the VRP on
agriculture intervention. The members who were taken on exposure visits had
better understanding of the SHG processes and agriculture intervention concepts
than their village counterparts.
Issues:
1. It is not clear whether the PIA holds the exposure visit around the package
of practice or it is a general exposure. The learning objectives of exposure
visits are to be clearly defined and should be around a protocol of
agroecology, The PIA needs to have frequent exposure visit of the
community members and not just the CRPs to the best practicing sites.
3.4 Topic 4: Tools and methodologies adopted for training women farmers
Probes: Different tools employed for training (charts, video films etc.), Efficiency
of different training tools towards boosting adoption of package of practices
MKSP partners have used wide array of tools and methodology for training CRPs
and community members including the audio-visuals using pico-projectors, flipcharts, charts/posters, leaflets etc. The training was also of different types: class
room training, on field training and exposure visits.
Madhyam Foundation has used on-field demonstration, audio-visual shows, IEC
materials on crop planning to break the mono-crop method of farming and on
vegetable crop cycle. The audio-visuals prepared by Centre for World Solidarity
and Madhyam Foundation are displayed through Projector and PICO-Projector. The
PRPs and CRPs says the IEC materials such as leaflets and booklets remain a very
102
good ready reckoner for training and adoption be eco-agriculture practices and
follow ups.
Tools and methodologies used by MSSRF (Mah) includes audio-visuals, flip-charts,
interactive sessions, exposure within clusters and demonstration is being adopted.
At ASA (Bihar), it was observed that on field demonstration of equipment usage
and agriculture practice was done by the project staff and village resource person
(VRP). For class room based training, training through flip-charts were done and
video-films of Digital GREEN were also demonstrated on lap tops and picoprojectors. It emerged from the discussions that on-field demonstration was more
effective for understanding of the concept and adoption of best practices.
At PRADAN (MP), classroom training sessions interspersed with field visit on
knowledge dissemination on soil identification, plant structure, seed testing,
nursery raising, transplanting of nursery, irrigation, pest management, disease
identification etc is imparted supported with audio, video and theoretical aids.
At LKP (West Bengal), it was observed that on field demonstration was done by the
project staff and CRP. For class room based training, training through flip-charts
were done and video-films were shown.
Issues:
1. The training architecture (schedule, module and curriculum) appears to be
missing in most cases.
2. Refresher training of the CRPs and the community members needs to be
reinforced.
3.5 Topic 5: Benefits to a household covered under MKSP
Probe: Reduction in the cost of cultivation, increase in household income,
additional food security, any other benefit at the household level.
During the FGDs, observation common to all PIAs the increase in income was due
to:
a. Increase in yield
Increase in yield of paddy (1.5 to 2 times) from the same plot as it was
observed in case of ASA (Bihar).
b. Reduction in input cost due to less seed rate, high tiller count in case of
paddy thereby reducing the input cost and increased yield. Saving in costs
was also due to less expenditure on food grains and vegetable purchase from
market.
c. Due to crop planning; mono crops have been changed to multiple crops in 2
seasons and in some places, due to assured irrigation; 3 seasons crops also
being grown.
103
d. Food security cover increased owing to increased yield and the grains
produced from paddy, maize, wheat and vegetable cultivation.
e. Nutrition level improved due to increase in vegetable consumption as more
vegetable were produced.
f. The Mahila Kisans also mentioned the drudgery reduction after using the
cono-weeder compared to the earlier practice of weeding manually.
Issue:
1. PIA should have a clear strategy to highlight the benefit to the community.
Understanding of the benefit of each element of protocol is not clear to the
community. A strong facilitation process should be introduced to discuss
these points.
2. Mahila Kisan Card should be introduced at farmer level which will help to
capture the details of benefit.
3. Understanding of the holistic view of agro-ecology as innovative concept in
sustainable agriculture is not clear to the community and the benefits due
to soil and in situ water conservation, bio-pesticides and bio-fertilizers need
to be explained to community in Farmer Field School, SHG meeting etc.
3.6 Topic 6: Perceived progress of implementation
Probes: No. of households covered against the population of all households in the
village, No. of ultra-poor households covered under MKSP in the village vis a vis
the no. of existing vulnerable households, No. of households adopting at least two
package of practices etc.
The agro-ecology practices under MKSP is not very widely spread in the
intervention villages though adoption of 2 components of package of practices is
almost universal for all the women farmers intervened.
Issues:
1. The horizontal expansion is still not very encouraging. It is expected that by
seeing the best practices being adopted by MKSP farmers other farmers in
the same intervention village would adopt the practice but which is not
being observed.
2. Similarly, the number of famers doing all package of practice promoted
under agro-ecology protocol is very negligible.
3.7 Topic 7: No. of CRPs deployed in the village, for scaling up best
practices to other areas
Probes: Number of active women farmers identified, role of CRPs in boosting
adoption of different package of practices, No. of days of training received by the
active women, factors affecting selection and training of active women for
greater role in scaling up Ultra-poor strategy etc.
104
Ideally there should be good number of active women farmers in every
intervention village which was not observed. Also, there should be one CRP for
every 50 Mahila Kisan which was also not universal. It was also observed that the
role of the CRP is not restricted to supporting agriculture intervention but the SHG
book keeping and accounting and social mobilization as well. However promotion
and deployment of CRP is not happening as desired.
3.8 Topic 8: Perceived overall progress of implementation
Probes: Perceived Key areas in which progress is not satisfactory, reasons thereof
and tasks ahead.
1. For the start-up of any livelihood intervention in a village, a critical mass in
terms of number of active women and community members taking up
intervention needs to be achieved. It was observed women farmers are
thinly spread across villages i.e. deepening of activities in a village needs to
be strengthened.
2. It was observed that multipurpose CRPs may not be useful and a dedicated
livelihood CRP is required for scaling up of livelihood intervention.
3. Besides, the farmer level tracking of information is missing and making
Mahila Kisan card compulsory for tracking the benefit and impact may be
done.
4. Institutionalizing Farmer Field School (FFS) should be a regular affair.
5. Embedding discussion of livelihood intervention in generic institution agenda
may be useful.
6. Organizing producers (Mahila Kisan) around similar livelihood activity may
be focussed.
3.9 Topic 9: Perceived overall benefits under MKSP
Probes: Key benefits to the poor households covered under MKSP
The perceived key benefits to the Mahila Kisans covered under MKSP programme
was increased yield of foodgrains, decreased cost of cultivation in terms of reduced
labour and input cost, enhanced food security and drudgery reduction.
3.10 Topic 10: Perceived constraints in implementation of MKSP
Probes: Key constraints and obstacles that have affected the pace and progress of
implementation
1. From the PIA point of view the perceived constraint in the pace and
progress of MKSP was the lack of timely fund release (central share and the
state share).
2. Natural calamities like Cyclone, delayed onset of monsoon and dry spell in
the critical stages of crops.
105
3. It emerged from discussions that a dedicated community resource person for
proposed agriculture intervention would have expedited the scaling up of
agricultural activities.
4. Unavailability of quality bio pesticide and bio fertilizers, less availability
organic manure (due to less number of cattle in that geographical area)
106
Chapter 10 Process Study: CMSA Intervention
Report on Focus Group Discussion in
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh
107
1. Focussed Group Discussion (FGD) Plan
FGDs were conducted with women farmers in the CMSA areas wherein
officials from NMMU, SMMU and project teams of district and block were also present.
The FGDs were carried out on the issues relating to practices being adopted and
challenges faced by women farmers in implementation of CMSA. The discussion
focussed on understanding Ultra-poor strategy roll out protocols, as perceived by the
targeted households. The objective of this exercise was to understand the various
processes taken up under the ‘ultra poor strategy’ roll out for livelihoods promotion in
resource blocks and assess their effectiveness. In the course of discussions, the
difference between the practices adopted under CMSA and traditional method of
farming in the village, was discussed, with a focus on understanding the rationale for
adopting or not adopting a given practice by a poor household. The key intervention
strategy adopted by NRLM is to deploy best practicing farmers as CRPs to work as
extension workers to promote agroecology. The FGD also tried to assess the
effectiveness of the CRPs in terms of promoting the practices.
The intervention areas where the FGDs were conducted are as follows:
S.
No.
1
State
District
Block
Village
Chhattisgarh
Rajnandgaon
Rajnandgaon
2
Jharkhand
West Singhbhum
Goilkera
Mudpar
and
Mokhla
Jhilrua
Condcuted
By
Jnanesh
Jha
KK Jha
2. Participants
This discussion was conducted with the randomly selected SHG members from each of
the selected villages (selection of villages was done on the basis of systematic random
sampling of 3 villages from each cluster of given block). This discussion was facilitated
by the NMMU representative with the support of BMMU staff. The other officials from
SMMU and DMMU were invited to the discussion as observers.
3. Process study based on the probing points
3.1 Topic 1: USP of the package of practices promoted under CMSA for the
rural poorhouseholds
Probe: Uniqueness of the package of practices, constraints etc.
3.1.1 Discussions:
The participants compared the existing practices vis a vis the CMSA technique, for
the cultivation of crops popularly grown in the villages. The major discussion areas
revolved around:
108
1. The different critical stages of cultivation of existing crops
2. Comparison of input requirements in the two techniques
3. Cost implications of adopting CMSA for a given crop, vis a vis, the existing
practice
4. Comparison of production details on account of adoption of the two
techniques
5. Technology and rationale
3.1.2 Observations
The farmers found the agroecology highly beneficial against the current
chemical input intensive agriculture.
Agroecology
a.
Seed requirements for a given size of
land have reduced significantly, so there
is reduced expenditure on seeds. As seed
prices have soared by almost 200% over
last 2-3 years, the community found the
cost reduction quite substantial.
b.
Under
this
technique,
Seed
treatment was done by Beejamruth,
which enhanced seed germination.
Therefore the local varieties also result in
better yields. These seeds are locally
available and cheap. Community valued
the benefit on this account.
c.
Production is more when paddy was
grown under SRI. On an average, the
production has improved by 3-5 quintals
per acre in case of paddy.
d.
Reduced dependence on market for
agriculture inputs because all the
agricultural inputs are prepared using
locally available materials in the village.
e.
Less expenditure on fertilizers and
chemicals for plant protection due to the
use of organic insecticides (neemastra,
brahmastra etc.) and fertilizers like
jeevamruth etc.
Current Practice
a. Cost of cultivation increases
due to more input requirements,
particularly seeds.
b. Since, the local varieties do
not show good growth under this
technique, the market is therefore
flooded with hybrid varieties of
seeds, which require high dose of
fertilizers and pesticides to save
them from pest attack to which the
hybrid seeds are highly susceptible.
c. Production is less as compared
to CMSA
d. Farmers are dependent on
market
completely
for
the
chemical inputs. Besides, there is a
huge shady market of fertilizers
and pesticides where the premium
over the government prices is
almost 50%
e. Huge investment on purchase
of
chemical
fertilisers
and
pesticides as everything has to be
purchased from market.
3.1.3 Issues:

Collection of cow urine is a challenge.
109


Farmers need more labour if their area under CMSA practices is more
(particularly in case of SRI, where transplantation has been promoted). In
the peak season, the labour cost for this activity soars up.
Practices under CMSA are more time consuming than the traditional method.
Preparation of the different ingredients is a time consuming activity.
3.2 Topic 2: Training & Capacity building of women farmers in the package
of practices- Tools and methodologies adopted for training women farmers
Probe: Different tools employed for training (charts, video films etc.), Efficiency
of training through video films vis a vis other traditional techniques on boosting
adoption of package of practices
3.2.1 Discussions:
1. The different techniques adopted by the external CRPs for generating
awareness around the existing protocols
2. The perception of targeted households, vis a vis the different training
techniques adopted.
3. The perceived ease of understanding the different protocols through
different tools/technique employed
4. The apprehension of households with respect to the different package of
practices promoted
5. Issues
3.2.2 Observations
The observations which are common across SRLMs are as follows:
a. External CRPs from AP have extensively employed on field demonstrations
and video presentations for the SHG members in the village for training of
women farmers.
b. Conduction of FFS and on field demonstration by CRPs were more useful
and effective than any other method of training.
c. Farmers’ Field schools are interesting training tools, since there is indepth discussion on the different protocols. Moreover, the best
practicing farmers find these as effective platforms to demonstrate their
experience and ingenuity.
d. Flip charts, wall paintings, dummy training kits etc. are other effective
training tools which have aroused interest in the targeted households.
3.2.3 Issues
The recall for video demonstration was poor, though the video was an
interesting way of presenting the practices. This suffered from the inability
of CRP team to handle audio-visual training material effectively.
110
The training process faced some difficulties on account of the language
barrier in the initial phase. It was observed that the CRPs who can
comprehend/speak Hindi can explain the techniques in a better way.
These CRPs could develop rapport with the women farmers.
3.3 Topic 3: Benefits if any, to a household covered under Ultra-poor
strategy
Probe: Reduction in the cost of cultivation, increase in household income,
additional food security
3.3.1 Discussions
a.
The benefits accrued to a household on account of reduced cost of
cultivation
b.
The benefits accrued to a household on account of increased
production
c.
The benefits accrued to a household on account of construction of
homestead nutrition gardens
3.3.2 Observation
The observations across SRLMs are:
a.
Production has increased after adoption of CMSA practices for the
households on account of the use of inputs prepared from naturally
available materials. On an average, the paddy production has increased by
3-5 quintals/acre as observed in Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). In West
Singhbhum (Jharkhand), there has been increase in income per household
due to focused CMSA intervention through CRPs. Normally farmers in the
village practice broadcasting method for paddy and therefore when SRI was
done productivity enhanced.
b.
In Jharkhand, NTFP and livestock based livelihoods interventions
initiated in the same blocks. The SHG members found the training in
better practices of inoculation and capacity building in scientific package
of practices including harvesting technique very useful. Under livestock
intervention of CMSA, SHG members involved in goat rearing were identified
and trained as Pashu Sakhi to provide doorstep animal care services which
resulted in reduced morbidity and mortality.
c.
In all SRLMs it was observed that purchase of chemical pesticides is
not required as all botanical extracts are prepared out of materials
available at home. This is important because, in the traditional method, a
farmer had to increase the dose/concentration of chemical
fertilizers/pesticides to have increased production. Since, the cost of
chemical inputs had increased tremendously, the agriculture was highly
unprofitable. Now the people find the agroecological practices beneficial in
reducing cost.
d.
The technique of producing agricultural inputs is suitable to the
agricultural requirements of a poor tribal household.
111
e.
On an average, each household (adopters) could save INR 2000-2500
per acre, due to reduction in the cultivation cost as observed in
Chhattisgarh.
f.
Due to extensive use of cow dung based inoculants, it was
observed that there was greater retention of moisture (it was observed
that there were fewer cracks during summer months in the current
season).
3.4 Topic 4: Progress of implementation
Probe: In terms of coverage of Ultra-poor households in the fold of Ultra-poor
strategy, issues with adoption of a package of practices
3.4.1 Discussions
1.
2.
3.
4.
The coverage of rural households under Ultra-poor strategy in the villages
The discussions on the CMSA protocols in the institutions of poor, role
played by the external CRPs to promote discussions in the SHG and VO
meetings
Required strategies for promoting deepening of adoption in the village
Issues with scaling up of Ultra-poor strategies in the villages
3.4.2 Observations
The observations which are common across SRLMs are as follows:
a.
The practices under the CMSA protocols were gradually evoking the interest
of SHG members. Gradually, discussions have started in the SHGs on
account of the excellent results observed by the SHG members during
the different crop cutting experiments carried out in the presence of
concerned SHG.
b.
The current focus is to include at least one SHG member from each SHG
under the protocols of CMSA.
c.
It was understood that the best practitioners of the previous seasons will
shoulder the responsibility of spreading awareness on the package of
practices (by initiating discussions in their SHGs and VOs) and demonstrate
the same on their own fields.
d.
Each individual will target adding 2 members of her SHG into the fold.
e.
It is important to constitute a team of 2-3 best practitioners of each village,
who can tag along with the external CRP team, to help in promoting
awareness generation (on account of their fluency in the local language and
better understanding of the village setting), monitoring the quality of
adoption of package of practices and scaling up.
3.4.3 Issues
I. Chhattisgarh
112
a. The coverage of Ultra-poor households was less. This was because the
practices promoted under Ultra-poor strategy were suitable for households
with some assured irrigation source. This was unavailable with the
households who were actually very poor.
b. Since the animal population has been dwindling over the years, it will be
difficult to procure the inputs at village level, when the adoption of
package of practices increases. Also, every potential practitioner may not
have the amount of time required to produce the botanical extracts
required under this technique. Therefore it is important to establish shops
in the village to sell the botanical extracts. Establishment of such shops can
be taken up by individual SHG member (with Livestock assets) or managed
by the VO through its team.
II.
Jharkhand
a. Lack of irrigation facility is however a big constraint in taking up Kitchen
garden/vegetable garden
b. Lack of quality seeds is another constraint.
3.5 Topic 5: Role played by external CRP team in boosting adoption
of package of practices
Probe: Capability of an external CRPs to mobilize households towards Ultra-poor
strategy, Efficiency of external CRPs in handling different types of trainings- FFS,
Field demonstrations, class-room training, video-demonstration etc., perceived
constraints
3.5.1 Discussions
1.
The efforts made by the external CRPs to mobilize households towards the
package of practices promoted under Ultra-poor strategy.
2.
The capability of the CRPs to handle the different training tools
3.
Perceived bottle-necks
3.5.2 Observations
The observation common to SRLMs are as:
a. The external CRPs were hard-working farmers who demonstrated the
package of practices in the field of targeted households. The amount of
dedication shown by the team was commendable.
b. The genuineness of their efforts was the major attraction for the small
holder farmers in the village. The CRPs have made excellent efforts
towards rapport building with the villagers.
c. The CRPs were more comfortable in demonstrating the protocols;
therefore this technique drew the strongest response from the target
household.
113
d. Other training techniques failed to evoke stronger response from the
poor households on account of the inability of CRPs to communicate
effectively.
e. There were 2-3 early adopters and fast learners in the village, who could
be trained as the local resource for the dissemination of best practice in
the village.
114
Annexes
115
Annex-1
Districts and Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Total
No of DMMUs
Approved
8
19
12
9
12
5
10
10
8
7
4
22
8
134
No of DMMUs
Established
8
19
9
9
10
5
9
10
8
7
4
22
8
128
Dec.’14
No of BMMUs
Established
25
77
16
20
29
20
46
36
28
7
16
22
32
374
116
Annex-2
HR Structure Recommended by NMMU
Years of
Experience
State Mission Management Unit (SMMU)
Chief Executive Officer/State Mission Director
COO (Program Functions)
Post-Graduate degree or
10+ years
Diploma
Addl COO/Jt MD/Addl CEO
10+ years
(System Functions)
Diploma
State Mission Managers
7+ years
Diploma
Mission Managers
5+ years
Diploma
Mission Executives
3+ years
Diploma
Young Professionals/NRLM
< 2 years
Fellows
Diploma
Retainer Consultants (Category
Graduate
5+ years
Wise)
Data Entry Operators/MIS
Graduate
2+ years
Assistant + Accountant
District Mission Management Unit (DMMU)
District Mission Manager
3+ years
Diploma
District Thematic Experts
2+ years
Diploma
Graduate
1+ years
Block Mission Management Unit (BMMU)
Block Mission Manager
2+ years
Diploma
Block Thematic Experts
1+ years
Diploma
Community/Cluster Coordinators Graduate
1+ year
Graduate
1+ years
Level

Qualification
Indicative
Numbers
1
1
1
1–2
5–9
8 – 12
3–5
1–4
1
4–8
1–3
1
2- 4
3–9
1 -2
The staff of the SRLMs come through routes:
a) Through open market
b) On deputation from the government; and
c) Staff from Externally Aided Projects
117
Hiring Process
Hiring through open market: The SRLM issues an advertisement for the positions it wishes to
hire for. The applications are then scrutinised by the SRLM/HR agency and the candidates
meeting the eligibility criteria for the position are called for the next round of the selection
process. In most SRLMs, the preliminary screening process is followed by a written test, group
discussion and personal interview. The candidates are tested for their domain knowledge and
managerial ability.
In Karnataka, Jharkhand and Bihar, a field attachment is a part of the selection process for the
block and cluster level positions.
The selection panel usually consists of the SMD (for personal interview round), COO, the
relevant thematic SPM, a representative from NMMU and a thematic expert.
Hiring Government Staff on Deputation: Government staff on staff are selected either through
advertisement or through a selection committee set up for this purpose.
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand, Bihar and
Karnataka
Advertisement issued, applications invited
Candidates filtered according to eligibility criteria for the post
Shortlisted candidates called for next round of selection
o Written test
o Group Discussion
o Personal Interview
o Skill Test (for Clerical Positions)
o Advertisement issued, applications invited
o Candidates filtered according to eligibility criteria for the post
o Shortlisted candidates called for next round of selection
o Written test
o Group Discussion
o Personal Interview
Field Stay for Block/Cluster level positions
o
o
o
118
Annex-3
HR Hygiene Practices in NRLP States: A Summary
Dec.’14
S
No.
1
2
Area
ASM
JH
BH
CH
RAJ
MP
KR
WB
GUJ
OD
TN
MH
Salary/
Remune
ration
Lower
than
market
rate;
disburs
ement
on time
Close to
market
rate
disburs
ement
on time
Based
on
market
rate;
disburs
ement
on time
Based
on
market
rate;
disburs
ement
on time
Lower
than
market
rate and
delay in
disburs
ement
for 1-2
months
Lower
than
market
rate and
disburse
ment
made on
time
As per
market
rates
SMMU
disburs
ement
made
on time
for
DMMU/
BMMU
delay
was 2
months
SMMU
as per
market
rate and
DMMU
and
BMMU
lower
than
market
rate;
Disburs
ement
on time
Low
er
mar
ket
rate
but
on
time
pay
men
t
Less
than
market
rates
(very
low)
and
delay
in
disburs
ement
up to
15-20
days
SMMU
as per
market
rates.
Lower
for
DMMU
and
BMMU.
Disburs
ement
is on
time
Based
on
market
rates
and
disburs
ement
is on
time
TA/DA
As per
state
govt.
rates.
No
provisio
n for
hotel
stay.
Delay
Based
on
market
rates
and
reimbur
sement
is on
time
Based
on
market
rate and
reimbur
sement
on time
Based
on
market
rates
and
reimbur
sement
on time
Based
on
market
rates
and
delay in
reimbur
sement
for 2-3
months
Based on
market
rates
and
reimbur
sement
on time
State
Govt.
rate
and
reimbu
rsemen
t for
SMMU
is on
time
State
Govt.
rate and
delay in
reimbur
sement
is for 23
months
Stat
e
Govt
.
rate
s
and
on
time
pay
State
Govt.
rates
and
delay
in
disburs
ement
up to
2-3
State
Govt
rates
and on
time
payme
nt
UP
As per
market
rates
and
disbur
sement
on
time
for
SMMU
and
delay
as 1530
days
for
DMMU
and
BMMU
Based
As per
on
market
market rate
rates
and
and
disbur
delay
sement
upto 2- on
3
time
months for
for
SMMU
119
S
No.
Area
ASM
JH
BH
CH
RAJ
MP
upto 2-3
months
in
reimbur
sement
3
4
5
Paymen
t of
Local
Conveya
nce/Fix
ed
Travel
Allowan
ces
(FTA)
Paymen
t of
Commu
nication
- Mobile
& Data
Card
charges
Other
allowan
cesMedical,
Insuran
KR
WB
and for
DMMU/
BMMU
getting
delay
for 2-3
months
GUJ
OD
men
t
months
TN
MH
UP
DMMU
/
BMMU
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
Yes
and for
DMMU
and
BMMU
delay
of up
to 3-4
month
s.
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
In place
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
no
No
No
No
No
EPF
No
120
S
No.
Area
ASM
JH
BH
CH
RAJ
MP
KR
WB
GUJ
OD
TN
MH
UP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
No
yes
no
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
General
y
extened
but no
formal
contract
issued
except
for
SMMU
Yes on
time
Yes on
time
Yes on
time
Yes on
time
Yes on
time
Yes on
time
No
formal
issuanc
e of
contract
letter
on
extensi
on. Only
verbal
commu
nication
.
Howeve
r,
getting
salary
Not
exte
nded
.
Issue
is
with
cour
t
No
No
Yes.
3% per
annum
Not on
regular
basis
Yes on
time
Yes on
time
No
formal
issuan
ce of
contra
ct
letter
on
extensi
on.
Only
verbal
comm
unicati
on.
Howev
er
ce, PF,
Gratuity
, etc.
6
7
8
9
10
Provisio
n of
Comput
er/Lapt
op
GRM
ASH
Annual
Increme
nt
Renewa
l of
contract
121
S
No.
11
12
13
Area
ASM
JH
BH
CH
RAJ
MP
KR
WB
GUJ
OD
TN
MH
UP
Timely
Approv
al
Leave
Eligibilit
y
Delay
Yes
Yes
yes
yes
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Delay
Yes
yes
salarie
s are
being
paid.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Yes
yes
yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
leaves
for
contract
staff
No
Yes
HR
Manual
in place
No
leaves
for
contrac
t staff
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
122
Performance Management System


A model PMS was developed at Writeshop 2014 in consultation with the states
The model has been tested in Jharkhand and it is expected to be rolled out in at least 5
states in FY 2015-16
Current PMS/Review System in the SRLMs
State
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Karnataka
PMS/Review System
 Annual performance appraisal is done for all staff
 However, no promotion/increment/incentives/contract renewal
are given on the basis of the appraisal
 Performance appraisal has not happened for staff since 2011-12
 Earlier, the SMMU would assess the performance of district and block
level staff by going on field visits
 However, due to rapid expansion of the Mission, it is no longer
feasible for the SMMU staff to visit all blocks and districts and assess
their performance
 The SRLM now ranks the Blocks and Districts according to their
progress in implementation as against the targets set in the AAP. The
respective block and district teams would be ranked against this
performance
 Individual staff performance is assessed by their contribution to the
achievement of the expected outcomes. The top 15% of staff are
considered “A” grade and are eligible for promotion
Review
 Monthly reviews for all themes are held at SMMU, DMMU and BMMU,
where the AAP v/s progress is reviewed
 There is no formal mechanism in place
Review
 Taluka (block) level: All staff at the Taluka office prepare their weekly
and monthly plans. These are reviewed twice a month by the District
Managers
State Level
 A monthly progress review meeting is held on the basis of data
uploaded in the MIS.
 A joint State coordination review meeting is held between JSLPS and
PRADAN is held every two months to assess the progress and iron out
issues, if any
 Thematic Review meetings are also held on a regular basis
District Level
 A joint monthly meeting is held with PRADAN. The meeting generally
focuses on the performance of individual blocks on the basis
 A coordination meeting is held to iron out issues, if any
Block Level
 BMMU holds a review meeting with Active Women, CCs, CLCs.
Occasionally, the thematic head from the district also participates in
this meeting
 Also holds a meeting with bookkeepers to assess the progress made
during the month
 Monthly review for SMMU is held
123
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra




There is no formal mechanism in place
Review meeting are held monthly at the district and state level
The SMMU holds VCs with the district level once a month for review
PMS tracks village stay, no. of SHGs formed, attendance, achievement
of expected outcomes
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
 Online PMS was introduced in August 2014
 It is based on the Key Performance Indicators (as laid down in the
contract) of each staff member
 SMD, District Project Directors and Admin staff are exempted from
the PMS
 The PMS is conducted on a monthly basis
 Professionals who get a score of more than 80 are rewarded
(monetary) annually

 No system for appraisal is in place
 SMMU holds a weekly planning and review meeting. Work done
report and plans are uploaded on the website for the reference of all
staff.
 Monthly state level review of District Project Directors
 Review meeting with staff of resource block (including staff of the
concerned district) is held once a month at SMMU
 DMMU holds a monthly review meeting with the BPM
124
Annex-4
Rationalised Structure
SMMU Level
S.
No.
Number of
Persons
Particulars
1
State Mission Director (SMD) / Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
1
2
Chief Operating Officer (COO)- Programme
1
3
Joint MD/Addl. CEO – Systems
1
4
State Mission Manager (SMM)/Mission Manager (MM) – Programme
2-5
5
State Mission Manager (SMM)/ Mission Manager (MM) – Systems
1-3
6
Mission Manager (MM)/Mission Executive (ME)
1-4
7
Young Professionals (YP)/Consultants
05-15
First three positions are fixed.
Number of remaining positions are expected to be between 04-15, apart from YPs/NFs/
Consultants hired for a limited period or on a fellwoship basis.
DMMU Level
S.
No.
Number of
Persons
Particulars
1
1
District Mission Manager (DMM)
1-3
2
Manager/Executive (DMMU member)
3
MIS Officer/Accountant
1
Expected numbers are between 03-05 (Maximum number of professionals based on age of the
programme)
BMMU Level
S.
No.
Number of
Persons
Particulars
1
Block Mission Manager (BMM)
1
2
Cluster Coordinator (CC)*
(@ 1 CC/Cluster (or a set of clusters) based on size of the block)
1-4
3
MIS Officer/Accountant
* also referred as Area Coordinator.
Expected numbers are between 03 an 06;
May place a YP/NF at the block level in resource blocks.
1
125
Annex-5
Efficiency Benchmarks for an Intensive Block (for 3 years)
Indicator
Target
Y1
Y2
Y3
Block Level Indicators
Coverage
Villages entered
120
Villages saturated
120
Households
48
96
120
48
15000
2520
7560
11340
80%
20%
50%
80%
SHGs formed through CRP Rounds
960
240
720
960
SHGs formed through VO/WA
240
%of SC/ST/Minorities Households
Institutions
SHGs
120
Total SHGs formed
1200
240
720
1080
SHGs following Panchasutra
1200
240
720
1080
29
72
Federations
Village Organisations
120
VOs supporting and nurturing SHGs
96
9
VOs identifying left out poor and forming new SHGs
96
9
VOs conducting monthly review of VO level Cadre &
paying their honorarium
96
9
SC/ST/Minority OB in VO
30%
VOs implementing Social Action Agenda
40%
9
Cluster Level Federations
4
Block Level Federations
1
4
Communitisation
Community Cadre Development
Bookkeepers
WA
MCP trainers
VOA
Community Auditors
1200
216
648
972
240
96
192
240
20
6
18
20
29
72
120
20
4
Social Capital to Support 20 Other Blocks
I.CRP
240
48
120
Master Bookkeepers
140
28
70
Total CRP Teams (3 iCRPs and 2 Master Bookkeepers)
80
16
40
R.bookkeepers/I.PRPs
80
16
48
Bank Mitra
12
4
8
Mandatory Trainings
126
Indicator
Target
Y1
Y2
Y3
SHG (Formation training, Training on meeting process &
norms, Books of accounts, MCP training, Leadership)
1200
240
720
1080
VO (Formation training, Training on meeting process &
norms, Exposure & immersion, CIF management, PIP,
Sub-committee system, Audit & legal compliance)
120
0
29
72
1200
216
648
972
WA (attachment to CRP Rounds, Immersion, Exposure
Visit to NRO/Resource Block, Classroom Inputs, On-the
Job Training)
240
96
192
240
MCP trainers (attachment to Sr. CRP Rounds, basic MCP
Preparation, Classroom Inputs, Exposure Visit to NRO/
Resource Block)
20
6
18
20
120
0
29
72
Resource bookkeeper/IPRP (experience in SHG
bookkeeping, attachment to CRP Rounds, ToT on SHG
formation and bookkeeping, on the job training, exposure
visits)
40
0
16
48
Community Auditors training (experience in SHG
bookkeeping, audit training, exposure visits, classroom
inputs)
20
0
0
4
240
0
48
120
12
0
4
8
Mobilisation
10%
30%
Training
10%
30%
Development of Community Cadre
10%
30%
Support to SHGs
10%
30%
Review of Community Cadres
10%
30%
80%
80%
80%
5
5
5
Remuneration and TA/DA given on time
60%
60%
80%
Block Staff Trained (Orientation, Immersion, Exposure
visit, Classroom Inputs, Thematic Trainings)
50%
60%
80%
Bookkeeper (basic bookkeeping of SHGs, refresher
trainings)
VOA training (Office management, office bookkeeping,
staff and funds management, Exposure Visits)
I.CRP training (experience as WA, training in Resource
Block/NRO, exposure visits, SHG formation training, ToT)
Bank Mitra (banking system, account opening, loan
processing)
Transfer of roles to institutions
Systems
Block Staff in Place (BMM, Accountant, CCs)
Block Training Centre
1
Resource Pool at Block level
1
1
Block Level MIS in place
1
1
Percentage of Blocks in which Community Procurement
system instituted
20%
127
Indicator
Target
Y1
Y2
Y3
Capitalisation
Total Savings of members (Rs., Lakh)
1143
8
38
129
3 months old SHGs having a bank account
1200
180
660
1020
3 month old SHGs received RF
1200
180
660
1020
27
99
153
Amount of RF disbursed (Rs., Lakh)
6 month old SHGs prepared MCP
1200
120
480
900
6 month old SHGs received CIF
1200
120
480
900
60
240
450
Amount of CIF disbursed (Rs., Lakh)
1 year old VOs received VRF
120
14
Amount of VRF disbursed (Rs., Lakh)
22
Total Interest Earned by SHG (@12%) (Rs., Lakh)
6
10
37
95
377
732
101
387
769
6770
20772
27626
171
1570
3133
4.06
4.07
0.10
0.17
4
4
3
Leverage of Bank Linkage v/s SHG Corpus
0.4
0.4
0.6
Repayment Rate of CIF to VO (%)
95
95
95
Total Funds (Rs., Lakh)
Total SHG Corpus (Rs., Lakh)
Total Credit accessed by member
Total Credit Accessed (Rs., Lakh) (all members in a
block)
Rotation of Internal Funds (Credit:Funds)
1.69
Leverage of funds (RF, VRF and CIF) against savings
0.08
Leverage of Bank Linkage v/s Savings
SHG bank linked
1200
100
200
500
Amount of Bank Linkages (Rs., Lakh)
8973
36
168
438
10%
10%
30%
2
2
2
SHGs having bank loan outstanding
NPA on bank loans (%)
% of poor households investing in retiring high cost
debt or making productive investments
20%
SC, ST and Minorities households accessing Community
Investment Support or formal financial support through
SHGs/Federations
15%
25%
35%
VOs having a Bank account
120
29
72
VO handling CIF
120
29
72
128
Indicator
Target
Y1
Y2
Y3
Layering
Food security
4950
450
Households with at least 2 viable Livelihoods (no.)
9500
500
50
10
120
20
Agriculture/Livestock/NTFP CFs
SHGs of PwDs
Elderly/PwD CFs
20
SHGs of Elderly
120
20
SHGs of PoPs
120
20
PoP CFs
50
10
Gender/Social Action CFs
50
10
PRI Convergence/Entitlements CFs
50
10
Health and Nutrition CFs
50
10
129
Annex – 6
Identification of Target Households: A Summary of Methods Adopted
S.
No.
1
Assam


2
Bihar
Identification of Hamlets:
 Hamlets mostly inhabited by the SC and ST communities are prioritised.
 The habitations are identified on the basis of caste concentration - habitations with high concentration of
extremely backward castes (EBCs), the Scheduled Castes (SC), and the Scheduled Tribes (ST) are targeted for
community mobilization.
State
Identification Methods
Social mapping with the support of SHGs/VOs is undertaken to identify excluded households in a village
CRPs from SGSY areas and block staff facilitate this process
Identification of Target Households in the Newer Blocks
 After entering a hamlet, 100% of SC, ST and EBC households and 60% of OBC households are considered as
the target group.
Identification of Target Households in Older Blocks, where VOs have been formed (18 blocks):




3
Chhattisgarh


4
Gujarat


5
Jharkhand

The VOs conduct participatory rural appraisal (PRA) exercises to identify the extremely poor and vulnerable
households that are excluded from SHGs in the village
The VO creates a team of 3 CRPs and 1 Community Mobilizer for facilitating mobilization
The team lists the poorest, left out households in the village after conducting the PRA.
These households are then mobilized into SHGs by the CRPs.
In resource blocks, external CRPs identify the target households, based on a door-door survey in the village
and the CRPs prioritize the SC/ST and other vulnerable households
In intensive and partnership blocks, besides strengthening existing SHGs the CCs identifies the households
through a consultative process.
In resource blocks, CRPs identify the target households, based on a door-door survey
In other blocks, the staff identify the households using the annual survey of rural households conducted by
the Shram Yogi programme of the Government of Gujarat. Vulnerable households (low income, landless,
small farmers) which are excluded are identified and mobilized into SHGs.
In resource blocks, the CRPs identify the households during the mobilization round. They identify the
130
S.
No.
State
Identification Methods
households through a survey and through consultations with the community.
Jharkhand has initiated the PIP process in the resource blocks, where strong VOs have emerged. A pool of
trainers for PIP from the community have been identified to scale up the process to other blocks.
 The SRLM staffs identify households for mobilization through consultations with the Panchayat leaders and
other stakeholders in the village.
 Target households are identified through Participatory Identification of the Poor prior to the CRP rounds
 PIP is undertaken in three phases. A detailed wealth-ranking is also a part of the PIP process.
 So far, the SRLM has conducted in all 9 districts under the intensive approach.
 Odisha, an elaborate PIP process, including well-being ranking and situation analysis under the TRIPTI
project. This approach has been adopted in the NRLP blocks as well.
 Based on the situation analysis, all households in a village are categorized into 4 groups:
o well off
o manageable,
o poor and
o extremely poor and vulnerability group (EPVG)
 This categorisation is then endorsed by the Panchayat. The last two categories, i.e. poor and EPVG constitute
the target group.
 In the resource blocks, the CRP teams approached hamlets with predominantly SC/ST/ minority households
to begin with and then gradually reach out to others.
Identification of Villages/Habitations:
o Villages with a higher concentration of SC/ST households are identified.
Identification of Households:
o The households are identified by the CRP teams. They prioritize the mobilization of SC/ST/Minority
households.

6
Karnataka
7
Madhya Pradesh
8
Odisha
9
Rajasthan
10
Uttar Pradesh
131
Annex-7
Methods Adopted for Ensuring Social Inclusion in Different States
State
All Resource
Block States



Bihar, MP and
Odisha



State
Rajasthan

Maharashtra

Madhya Pradesh 
Bihar

Social Inclusion Strategy
Purposeful selection of SC/ST households: SRLMs have selected districts
and blocks with higher concentration of SC, ST and marginalised
communities for implementation. After entering the block,
villages/habitations where the highest population of marginalised
communities are chosen for implementation.
When CRPs conduct the mobilisation rounds, they spend 15 days in each
village. During this period, they study the dynamics of the village and
focus on including the poorest of the poor households in the SHGs.
Despite these efforts, some extremely vulnerable households may still be
left out of the institutions. These households are mobilised by Women
Activists and the Village Organisation (once they are formed)
Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha are using participatory techniques to
identify target households. This has reduced exclusion errors by a great
margin.
Further, the PIP process has begun to roll-out. The PIP would be
conducted by VOs once every two years to measure the changing
patterns in poverty and include any left out households.
Jharkhand has already piloted the PIP process in certain blocks and has
already developed resource persons to train VOs, and community cadre
in the PIP process. This standardised PIP process is expected to be
deepened in Jharkhand and scaled-up to other states during 2015-16.
State-specific Social Inclusion Strategies
Social Inclusion Strategy
The mobilization approach itself focused on forming SHGs of households
from marginalized communities – SC/ST/minorities. This has resulted in
the inclusion of 30% SC households, 19 % ST households, 1.3 % Minority
households and 0.08 % Persons with Disabilities out of total mobilized
households.
Coverage of SC/ST/Minorities and persons with disabilities in the
existing mobilization is 45.3% across the blocks.
A wealth ranking exercise ins conducted in the habitation/village as a
part of the PIP process. During the wealth ranking exercise, the
households are categorised into various categories such as poorest of
poor, poor and well-off. Households falling in the last two categories are
mobilised on a priority basis.
In 18 Phase 1 (Jeevika) blocks, VOs have been actively mobilising left out
households, the results are as follows:
o Nearly 70% of the SCs, STs and landless in the project blocks have
been mobilized into SHGs;
o 94% of the membership is from the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribe and Backward Classes;
132
o
o
o
o
Nearly 41% SHG members that received the ICF and utilized the
Food security funds are SC/STs;
About 50% SHG Members reduced high cost debts from informal
sources;
About 90% of the SHG households report increased food Security
by 3 months; and
Large numbers of SC, ST households have accessed the pensions
and health insurance services
133
Annex-8
Identification and Mobilization
Resource Blocks
Category A: Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, MP and Rajasthan








States supported by NRO - SERP, AP.
A five member external CRP team stays in a village for 15 days and identifies poorest of
the poor and poor HHs and mobilizes them into SHGs. One CRP Rounds lasts for 45 days,
covering 3 villages in one round. each CRP team is assigned a cluster in the resource
block.
Professional Resource Persons (PRP) placed at each cluster by NRO is also assisting in
mobilizing the poor into SHGs.
Two active women are identified in every village. They strengthen the SHGs in the
village. Once the VO is formed, it takes over the responsibility of mobilising the left out
poor.
Madhya Pradesh: MPSRLM started mobilization activities even before the external CRP
rounds. The mobilization was accelerated by the Mission staff (District and PFT
members). They stayed in the villages for 2-3 days and conducted video shows, cultural
activities and village meetings. In this manner, they created at least one SHG in the
village before the CRP rounds. The capacity building of the SHGs was left to the CRPs.
During 15 days CRP round, 40% eligible households are covered under SHGs.
Rajasthan: For ensuring effective social mobilization, each resource block is divided
into 4 clusters with 6-9 Gram panchayats each (30-50 villages). Social Mobilization
efforts by RGAVP are spearheaded by CRP teams from Jeevika, Bihar. One CRP team of 5
members is positioned in each cluster. Each CRP team spends about 30-45 days in each
round (4 rounds of 120-150 days annually) covering 2-3 villages. 1 block anchor person
placed at the block level provides support to the CRP teams during the rounds. PFT
members of the respective clusters work along with the CRP teams during the
mobilization process and take the responsibility of the follow-up actions once the CRP
round ends.
The entry CRP team begins with a meeting with the key decision makers in the village
like Sarpanch, village elderly etc. The CRPs also prepares a social map of the village to
identify the hamlets with predominantly SC/ST/ minority population. After
identification of the hamlets with population from the backward communities, CRP team
starts the mobilization process from these hamlets with preparing a list of the poor
households reported by villagers. The team also makes household visits to verify the
same. Hamlet level meetings are conducted with the poor households for seeding the
concept of SHG and explaining their own life stories how they have benefitted from
SHGs. Willing Women from poor households are organized into groups. The CRP team
also facilitates the initial meeting of these groups. After the initial meeting where
members have contributed their compulsory savings, members are provided basic
orientation training to reinforce the concept of SHG and group management. Each CRP
team spends about 15 days in each village.
After 4 rounds of SHG-CRP, Senior CRP teams are introduced in the resource blocks to
facilitate promotion of Community Development Organizations (CDO) / Village
Organizations (VO). A three member Sr. CRP team is introduced in each cluster to
facilitate promotion of CDO/VO.
Category B: West Bengal, Gujarat, Karnataka, UP and Assam


West Bengal: The External CRPs are spending 15 days in one Village/Upa-Sangha area
(GP level) and doing the same activities prescribed for RB – from social mobilization to
formation of SHGs and its training. But in many villages there are very few SHGs only
they could form. CRPs are providing training in the name of revival of SHGs.
During SGSY period, Village organization was formed at gram sansad level called as Upa-
134



Sangha and Cluster Federations is at GP level called as Sangha. On an average 200 to 250
SHGs are there in one Sangha/GPLF.
ASRLM has approved the provision of flight charges for the external CRPs to avoid the
train journey time to reach Guwahati from AP
Issues:
o External CRPs faced communication problems initially. The community was not
able to follow Hindi, so first round was not fruitful as planned.
o Visit to SHGs also proved the same because the SHGs in first round villages are not
able to follow all direction of CRPs especially the book keeping. For rectifying this
issue it was decided in the first Debriefing meeting attended by AS (RL) that the
External CRPs will be assisted by internal CRPs as translators. For this SRLM has
selected 4 iCRPs from each GP and sent them to Kamareddy for induction and
immersion for 15 days. Thus the second round onwards they could work in
tandem so the impact was very high in training and reaching community.
o The continuous and holding by PRPs after the CRP round yet to happen. The old
SHGs who got training in the second CRP round onwards doing good practices but
the newly formed SHGs need further handholding.
o Need to review the process because already SHGs are there so formation of SHGs
may be kept away then concentrate in second level of capacity building of SHGs
and VOs, particularly on MCP and fund management.
Assam: MoU singed between ASRLMS and BRLPS on 26th November, 2014 to roll-out
Resource Block Strategy in four (4) blocks First CRP round started on 29th January,
2015 in three blocks.
Gujarat: The first external CRP round of 60 days was completed on 27 Jan 2015.
Intensive Blocks/Home grown Model
Category A: Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, MP and Rajasthan: Other than resource blocks, SRLM field functionaries are mobilizing the poor into SHGs
in targeted villages.
 Internal CRPs (active women) developed in the resource blocks would also be employed
in the SRLM intensive blocks to seed the social mobilization and institution building
process.
 Maharashtra: Wardha model (3 blocks): In Wardha district, the legacy of SGSY has been
taken forward through ‘Wardhini’, who is from within the community and is a
community cadre. The Wardhini mobilize the community and play a pivotal role in the
formation of SHG. A team of 5 Wardhinis go to different village and mobilize the
community members into SHGs.
Category B: West Bengal, Gujarat, Karnataka, UP and Assam


West Bengal: DRD Cell is mobilising households in the blocks. The DRDC has adopted
the same strategies as under SGSY
o Sangha (Cluster Level Federation) selects a community cadre of 3 women called
community service providers (CSPs) one for institution building, one for fund
management and one for Bank linkages; and one Sanga Coordinator (SC) in these
blocks as well as in non-intensive blocks also. the majority of GPRPs under SGSY
system became the CSPs or SCs.
Assam: ASRLMS have been utilizing the strength of the community cadre such as the
Community Resource Persons (CRPs). Prior to the implementation of the NRLM
activities in the state, Active Women/CRPs were selected and deployed by the District
Rural Development Agency (DRDA) of all the blocks in Assam.
135
While entering a village the concerned community cadres (CRP or 2 CRPs &
Bank Mitra) along with the BC interact with the Village Headman, PRI members
and the community level workers (AWW & ASHA)& others as a measure to
generate awareness about NRLM, its importance and need and about the various
process undertaken in brief.
o Accordingly a community level meeting is organized that is attended by the BPM,
BC, Community Cadre and at times DMMU representative. The villagers are
oriented on the role of NRLM vis-a-vis SGSY, ASRLMS and its work with the
community in this meeting.
o The process is followed by small hamlet level meetings especially with the
women with the objective to further provide information and share knowledge
about NRLM and SHGs.
o Social mappings are conducted to understand and identify PoP households, SHG
households & left out poor households. Post this, group level meetings are held
for formation of SHGs & in consecutive weekly meetings decisions are taken on
name of the SHG, composition of the leaders, opening of saving account of the
SHGs, orientation on panchasutra and introduction of Books of Records.
Simultaneously, orientation and handholding process is initiated with existing
SHGs for their strengthening and revival and making them NRLM complaint.
o After formation of SHGs and validation of existing SHG, they are provided 3 days
training on SHG Management and Gender Sensitivity that include sessions on
Panchasutra. In their regular weekly meetings as well CRPs and BMMU staff
regularly reiterate on Panchasutra. After completion of 3 months, the SHG is also
graded on the basis of practice of Panchasutra.
Gujarat: Implementation in Intensive Blocks is executed by GLPC staff at block level. In
process of formation of new institution and revamp existing institutions, social capital
are identified and trained.
o In intensive blocks, after information dissemination and developing cognizance
about NRLM, Cluster Coordinator organizes Aam Sabhas with the help of existing
SHGs. During Aam Sabha 1st basic module briefing is given for 2 days after which
institutions are formed. Departmental staffs at block level are also aware of
Mission Mangalam and NRLM program. Local Sarpanch also provide support to
conduct Aam Sabha in the intensive blocks.
Uttar Pradesh: UPSRLM has assigned the work for revival of old SHGs in the intensive
districts through the staff of the state government posted at Block/ District level. The
officials visits the villages and make the process of revival of existing SHGs and after
grading the SHGs, RF is released to these SHGs.
o


Partnership Blocks


1.
Maharashtra, MAVIM model (6 blocks): MAVIM is the women development
corporation of Maharashtra. MAVIM has ‘Sahayogini’ in the form of community cadre,
who mobilizes the community.
Jharkhand - PRADAN: Existing SHGs are strengthened and capitalised. Any left out
households in the block are mobilised by Community Federations and cluster staff.
Odisha

The structure followed in Odisha is a bit different as the SHGs form a CLF which
comprises of 5-15 SHGs and 10-15 CLFs clubbed together form a GPLF. The CLFs and
GPLFs are formed within the first phase which is spread across one month. The CLF in
Odisha acts like a Village Organization elsewhere and is a first level representative,
aggregating and monitoring body which also houses a CRP who assists in preparation of
MIP, bookkeeping and everything which goes to the GPLF goes through the scrutiny of
the CLF for the SHGs falling under the purview of the CLF. At the Gram Panchayat level a
GPLF is formed in Odisha which is similar to the CLF elsewhere as per its functions
136


For intensive blocks - Social mobilization starts in a village when the TRIPTI team (staff
and CRPs) visits the intensive blocks and revives the old SHGs and forms new SHGs by
involving block staff and community cadres, the local institutions like PRIs or local
NGOs. In this process the community are informed about the Mission’s interventions.
This is followed by interlocking of institutions by forming CLFs and GPLFs to strengthen
and enable them to have a stronger voice.

The formation and promotion of community institutions in Odisha is done in three
phases. In the first phase the Community Resource Persons (CRPs) from TRIPTI blocks
visits the intensive blocks and revive the existing SHGs and lock these institution by
forming the Cluster Level Federations (CLFs) and GPLFs in order to strengthen them
and to ensure their existence.
The master bookkeepers (MBKs) and Internal CRPs are also identified in this phase only.
A significant amount of time is also spent in undertaking situation analysis exercise of
the area. Situational analysis is being taken up in NRLP region as it was being practiced
in the TRIPTI region. It is in the second phase that the new SHGs are formed and the
capacity building exercises for the SHGs are initiated. In the third phase the staff is
taught how Micro Investment Plan (MIP) is to be prepared.

2.
wherein the financial transactions are recorded for SHGs wherein the details of the CLF
are mentioned in brackets for easy recognition.
Internal CRP and staff from TRIPTI blocks act as resource persons in implementing
NRLM in intensive blocks of OLMS.
Bihar
 The SHGs are formed by the internal CRPs as well as by the project staff, number of
which are fixed and mentioned in the Annual Action Plan. The CRPs are internal CRPs,
drawn from the mature CBOs of 1st phase districts of Jeevika (Resource Districts).
 There are 4 rounds of CRP visits per year. Each round is of 30-day duration. The CRP
round starts with a scoping study with the help of Participatory Rural Appraisal tools.
Prior to the arrival of CRPs, a mobilization exercise is already been conducted by the
staff (specifically by the Community co-ordinators and area co-ordinators) and during
this exercise, at least 2 SHGs are formed by them. As of now, 231 rounds of CRP visits
have been conducted and the number of internal CRPs deployed is 30256.
 The CRP team is 5-membered team with at least 2 book-keepers. 2-3 CRP teams are
deployed within a Block. They cover 2 villages during the round and form 15-20 SHGs in
those 2 villages. The team identifies 2 Community Mobilisers/ Women activists in each
village. It also facilitates the preparation of documents required for bank account
opening. CRP’s work is followed-up by the Community co-ordinators and community
mobilisers. Currently, there are 1822 women activists who have been trained and
positioned.

It was felt that the training mechanism for CRPs needs to be strongly emphasized as
there are no CRP quality control mechanisms. In addition to this, the expansion of BRLPS
in all 534 blocks (which is supported/ mobilized by the CRPs drawn from 6 Resource
districts i.e. 52 blocks) would require a huge force of CRPs, approximately 1602 teams of
CRPs. Therefore, it is imperative to have the following modules and protocols in placeo Module on CRP selection
o Protocol on CRP quality control
137

o Module on Community Cadre Appraisal
A visioning exercise should be conducted for shaping up of BRLPS project for the
coming 10 years and focus should be on building capacity of the staff, cadre and
community institutions. This exercise will not only help in bringing a clarity on
achieving the Mission’s goals, but would also go long way in determining the role of
community institutions towards attaining self-sustainability.
Mobilisation through VOs







Mobilization of PRA teams of 3 CRPs and 1 CM in 18 phase1 blocks involved in inclusion
of left out HHs with the quality VOs.
Training VOs in conducting participatory rural appraisal (PRA) exercises to identify the
extremely poor and vulnerable households that are excluded from SHGs
Incentivizing community functionaries to ensure identification and inclusion of the left
out households SC/STs and the landless.
Caste wise Listing of PoP/ left out HHs by the VO by taking help of CMs and CRPs.
Specially targeted mobilization of any left out households, based on improved
understanding of barriers to inclusion
Greater capacity building and role of VO subcommittees in promoting mobilization of
left out and poor households
Adoption of specific SHG norms tailored for ultra-poor households
Results:

More than 4000 such left out households have been identified and mobilized so far,
using this approach. The project MIS, process monitoring studies and external impact
assessments3 have shown the following outcomes for the key social groups






3
Nearly 70% of the SCs, STs and landless in the project blocks have been
mobilized into SHGs;
94% of the membership is from the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and
Backward Classes;
Nearly 41% SHG members that received the ICF and utilized the Food security
funds are SC/STs;
35 to 40% beneficiaries of agriculture intervention were SC/STs and 76% were
marginal farmers;
About 50% SHG Members reduced high cost debts from informal sources;
About 90% of the SHG households report increased food Security by 3 months;
and
Large numbers of SC, ST households have accessed the pensions and health
insurance services
External Impact assessments: Mid-term review of BRLPS was conducted
138
Annex-9
Capacity Building of Community Institutions: NRLP States
Dec.’14
S.
No.
1
State
Chhattisgarh
Type of Training/
Trainee Category
Trainers
SHGs in RBs
External CRPs
MCP Training
2
Madhya
Pradesh
SHGs in RBs
SRLM staff,
Active
women,
internal CRPs
External CRPs
3
Jharkhand
SHGs in RBs
External CRPs
SHGs follow-up
training
Active
women,
SRLM Staff,
PRPs
SHGs in RBs
External CRPs
4
Maharashtra
Training Strategy/
Methodology
Initially as part of
CRP rounds;
followed up by
PRPs and cluster
staff
Provided 6
months after
formation of the
SHG,
CRP rounds;
followed up by
PRPs and PFT
members
CRP rounds;
followed up by
PRPs and cluster
staff members
Follow-up training
to SHG members
on basic SHG
concepts after the
CRP rounds in the
village
CRP
rounds;
Modules
Developed/
Used
CRP training
module
Duration of
Training
Training
Location
3-day basic
training
Community
MCP Training
Module
3 days
Community
CRP training
module
3-day basic
training
Community
CRP training
module
3-day basic
training
Community
3-day basic
training
Community
Other Issues,
if any
Basic SHG
concepts
CRP training
module
139
S.
No.
5
6
State
Assam
West Bengal
Type of Training/
Trainee Category
Trainers
SHG training in
Intensive Blocks
CRPs and
BMMU staff
Micro Credit Plan
Active
Women
SHGs in RBs
External CRPs
SHGs in intensive
blocks
Community
Service
Providers
7
Karnataka
SHGs in Intensive
Blocks
resource
persons at
taluka level
and internal
CRPs
8
Odisha
SHGs in Intensive
Blocks
Internal CRPs
Training Strategy/
Methodology
followed up by
PRPs and cluster
staff members
Training imparted
during initial SHG
meetings
SHG members
trained on
preparing MCP,
six months after
the SHG is formed
CRP
rounds;
followed up by
PRPs and cluster
staff members
Training as part of
CRP rounds,
followed up by
block staff
SHG members
trained
immediately after
the formation of
the SHG, followup by Taluka staff
SHG members
trained
immediately after
the formation of
Modules
Developed/
Used
Basic SHG
concept, gender,
Duration of
Training
Training
Location
MCP Module
3 days,
spread over
3 weeks
6 days
CRP training
module
3-day basic
training
Community
Basic SHG
concepts
3 days
Community
Basic SHG
concepts
Basic SHG
Concepts
Other Issues,
if any
Community
3 days
140
S.
No.
9
State
Bihar
Type of Training/
Trainee Category
Trainers
MCP and Financial
Inclusion
Internal CRPs
SHG
CRPs and
Community
Mobiliser
SHG follow-up
training
CRPs and
Community
Mobiliser
Training Strategy/
Methodology
the SHG (phase 1)
SHG members
trained
immediately after
the formation of
the SHG (phase 2)
SHG members
trained
immediately after
the formation of
the SHG
Village-level
trainings during
meetings,
exposure visits
Modules
Developed/
Used
Duration of
Training
Training
Location
MCP
preparation,
internal lending,
bank linkage
3 days
Basic SHG
Concepts
3-4days
Community
Basic SHG
concepts
3-4 days
Community/best
practice sites
Other Issues,
if any
141
Annex-10
Revolving Fund Disbursement Channel: A Summary
S.
State
No.
1 Assam
Process



2
Bihar


SHGs completing
3 months are
eligible for RF
SHGs are graded
by the block staff
and active
women
The number of
eligible SHGs are
listed according
grading
Three-month old
SHGs are graded
on the basis of
their adherence
to ‘Panchsutras’
by the Loan
Committee of the
VO
BMMU approves
the grading and
recommends the
list of eligible
SHGs to the
DMMU
Approving/Sanctioning
Authority

Deputy Commissioner
through BDO and Project
Director DRDA
DMMU

Transfer of Fund
DMMU transfers RF
directly to the SHG
account
DMMU releases the RF
to the accounts of
SHGs performing well
(‘A’ category SHGs)
Time taken for fund
transfer
 2 months (after
grading)

2-3 months (after
grading)
Issues

142
S.
State
No.
3 Chhattisgarh 
4
Gujarat

5
Jharkhand




Process
3 month-old
SHGs are graded
for their
adherence to
Panchasutra
3-month old
SHGs are graded
for their for their
adherence to
Panchasutra
3-month old
SHGs are graded
by Active
women/
Community
Coordinators
(CC)
The CCs submit
an application
form to Cluster
Coordinator
(Cl.C), who
recommends it to
the BPM
The application is
validated using
MIS data
The application is
discussed at the
Transfer of Fund
Authority
CEO of the Zilla Janpad
‘Janpad’ transfers amount
to SHG accounts
Time taken for fund
transfer
 2-3 months (after
grading)



15-20 days

SMMU
SMMU transfers amount to
the SHG directly
Issues

143
S.
No.
State
Process


6
Karnataka
7
Maharashtra 


Authority
Loan Committee
Meeting of the VO
The list is sent to
the SMMU
SMMU
3-month old
SHGs are graded
according to their
adherence to
Panchasutra by
cluster/Taluka
staff
Grading of three- DMMU
month old SHGs
based on the
Panchsutras.
A gradation
format has been
developed to
capture 5
additional
indicators to the
Panchsutras sanitation, girl
child education
etc.
After the grading
is done by the
cluster
coordinator, the
proposal along
with the grading
Time taken for fund
transfer
Transfer of Fund
Issues
SMMU transfers funds
directly


Funds are directly
transferred to the SHG
account
8-15 days

cumbersome file
movement
process at
DMMU level
causes delays
144
S.
No.
8
State
Madhya
Pradesh
Process




sheet is
submitted to the
BMMU.
3-month old
SHGs are graded
by the PFT
members on the
Panchasutra.
The SHG grading
is done in the
presence of the
members.
The SHGs are
graded as A, B
and C. The SHG
receives the full
quantum of RF Rs. 15,000 if it
falls in Category
A; and Rs. 12,000
for Category B;
and Rs. 10,000
for Category C
SHGs.
The SHGs are
graded only once
at the time of
providing RF. No
grading happens
thereafter.
Authority
DMMU
Transfer of Fund
Funds are directly
account
Time taken for fund
transfer
15 days
Issues

145
S.
No.
State
Process

9
Odisha



10
11
Rajasthan
West Bengal

Authority
Time taken for fund
transfer
Transfer of Fund
Issues
After the grading
is done, the PFT
coordinator
submits the
grading sheets to
the DMMU.
3-month old
SHGs are graded
by cluster/block
staff
List of eligible
SHGs is
recommended to
district
The SHG files a
simple
application form
to DMMU counter
signed by PFT
member
verifying
adherence to
Panchasutra.
SHGs are graded on
the basis of
Panchasutra


SMMU on
recommendation of
DMMU
DMMU
Enormous delays in
disbursement due to
long winding
procedures

Funds are directly
account by DMMU

DMMU
Funds are directly
account
o
RF is disbursed
only 8-12
months after
SHG formation
No system of
grading is in
place
Some SHGs which
had earlier received
RF under SGSY were
also provided under
NRLM
146
Annex-11
CIF Disbursement Channel: A Summary
S.
No.
1
2
State
Assam
Bihar
Process
 SHGs which are at
least 6-month old
are provided
training on
preparation of MCP
 Based on the
training, SHGs
prepare MCPs.
 The MCPs prepared
by the SHGs are
appraised and
approved in the
MCP appraisal and
approval committee
(consisting of VO EC
member, SHG
member and BPM).
 The BMMU then
submits the list of
eligible SHGs and
the demand to the
Deputy
Commissioner
 Preparation of MCP
Authority
 Deputy Commissioner
through BDO and
Project Director DRDA,
for approval
The BPM recommends
Transfer of Fund

DMMU transfers RF
directly to the SHG
account
Amount is released
Time taken for fund
transfer
2 months (after MCP
is approved)
Issues


Tedious and
time-consuming
approval process
Lag in training
SHGs in MCP
preparation as
there is a
shortage of MCP
Trainers
1.5 months (after
147
S.
No.
State
Process
by SHGs
 MCPs are then
appraised by the
LCM at the VO and
submit to the
BMMU.
3
Chhattisgarh 

4
Gujarat



5
Jharkhand


Authority
eligible SHGs to the DPM
Transfer of Fund
directly from DMMU to
the SHG account.
Time taken for fund
transfer
MCP Preparation) on
the average
Issues
Preparation of
MCP by 6-month
old SHGs
Block office
appraises MCPs
and recommends
to the district
office
CEO of the Zilla Janpad
Janpad transfers
amount to SHG account


MCP preparation
by 6-month old
SHGs
MCPs are
appraised by
VO/block office
Block office
recommends SHGs
to DMMU
6-month old SHGs
prepare MCPs
The CCs submit
MCP to Cluster
DMMU
DMMU transfers
amount to SHG Account
1 month


SMMU
SMMU transfers amount
to the SHG directly
15-20 days
Cumbersome file
movement
process to get
sanction
approved
Lag in training of
SHG members in
MCP
Inadequate number
of MCP trainers has
led to lag in MCP
preparation
148
S.
No.
State
Process



6
Maharashtra 

Coordinator (Cl.C),
who in turn
recommends it to
the BPM
The MCP is
validated using
MIS data
The MCP is
discussed at the
Loan Committee
Meeting of the VO
The list is sent to
the SMMU
Six-month old
SHGs prepare
their MCPs
MCPs appraised
by BMMU and
recommended to
DMMU for funds
realse
Authority
DMMU
Transfer of Fund
DMMU transfers
amount to SHG directly
Time taken for fund
transfer
8
– 15 days
Issues

Enormous delay
in release of RF
and CIF due to
cumbersome file
movement
process at DMMU
level

Inadequate
community
cadre/trainers to
facilitate
MCP/MIP
preparation in
order to match
with the pace of
149
S.
No.
State
Process
Authority
Transfer of Fund
Time taken for fund
transfer
Issues
no.of SHGs
becoming eligible
to receive CIF
7
Madhya
Pradesh





six-month old
SHGs prepare
MCPs
The SHG then
submits the MCP
to the PFT for
appraisal. The PFT
appraises it and
suggests any
changes to the
SHG.
The appraised
MCP is
recommended to
the DMMU.
In case where VOs
have been formed,
MCP is sent to VO
for evaluation and
approval.
Demand of
Compiled MCP
sent to DMMU for
verification and
disbursement of
fund,
[team/committee
DMMU

SMMU transfers the
fund through NEFT
to districts.

Districts transfer
funds through NEFT
to VO.

CIF disbursement
process takes
maximum 10 days.
5 days for
preparation of MCP,
5 days for DMMU
and SMMU transfer
of funds to VO.
15 days
150
S.
No.
State
Process

Authority
of concerned PFT
Coordinator, PFT
Nodal, MF/IBCB
District Manager
would verify]
Demand is
consolidated in
financial terms by
DMMU and sent to
SMMU.
Money has been
transferred to
GPLFs, but no
clear protocol is in
place
8
Odisha

9
West Bengal
SHGs prepare MCP
and submit to Sangha
(CLF) through UpaSangha (VO).
Sangha verifies and
assesses the MCP
Transfer of Fund

Sangha (CLF)
Time taken for fund
transfer
Issues
Transfer from GPLF
has not taken place
Sangha disburses CIF to
SHGs
The Sanghas have not
disbursed any CIF to
SHGs so far.
151
Annex-12
Methods and Processes Adopted for Bookkeepers
S.
No.
1
Assam
2
Bihar
3
Chhattisgarh SHG members select a literate
member from among themselves
State
Identification Process
SHG members select a literate
member from among themselves,
or choose a literate member they
know and trust in the community
SHG members select literate
members from among themselves,
or choose a literate member they
know and trust in the community
4
Gujarat
5
Jharkhand
Training
Deployment
Payment
NA
During every SHG meeting
Not paid at
the moment
Duration: 18 days
Modules:
 SHG Concept and Books of
Accounts
 VO Concept and Books of
Accounts
 VO MIS
 Other Need Based Training,
Financial statement
Resource Blocks: 5-day
bookkeeping training during CRP
rounds, followed by refresher
trainings
Modules:
 Introduction to SHG books of
accounts
 Bookkeeping practices
 Importance of bookkeeping in
SHGs
rounds
Paid by the
SHG (from
funds
received
from the
project)
Paid by the
SHG (not
project fund)
Rs.
30/meeting
Paid by the
the project
Paid by the
152
S.
No.
State
6
Karnataka
7
Maharashtra SHG members select a literate
members from among themselves
8
MP
SHG members select literate
Training
trainings
Modules:
accounts
SHGs
rounds
Intensive Block: Trained by
MYRADA
trainings
Modules:
accounts
SHGs
training by PRPs, block staff,
master trainers
Modules:
Deployment
Payment
SHG (from
funds
received
from the
project)
In intensive
blocks: paid
by SHG (Rs.
10/meeting)
Resource
Block: Not
paid
Paid by the
SHG (from
funds
received
from the
project)
Paid by the
SHG (from
funds
received
from the
project)
153
S.
No.
State
Training
Deployment
accounts
SHGs
9
Odisha
NA
10
Rajasthan
11
West Bengal
trainings by PRPs, block staff,
master trainers
Modules:
 SHG Concept and Books of
Accounts
 Other Need Based Training,
Financial statement
NA
Payment
Rs. 10
before CIF
and Rs. 20
after CIF is
received
Paid by GPLF
from the
project
funds (Rs.
20/meeting)
Not all are
paid, some
SHGs pay
from their
own funds
NA
154
Annex-13
Internal CRPs Methods Adopted for Identification, Training and Deployment
S.
No.
1
2
State
Bihar
Training
Deployment
Payment
Best practicing SHG women,
members who have saved, borrowed
loans and repaid on time, taken up
social action

Duration: 22 days
Modules:
 Social
Mobilisation,
SHG

Concept and Formation

 VO Concept and Formation
 CLF Concept & Management
 Social Inclusion (PRA)/Scoping
 VO quality
 FSF/HRF
 Procurement
 Basic Modular Training to
trainer CRP
 Other Need Based Training
(FLCC)
Mobilisation of left out
households in the village and
block
Mobilisation in other blocks
Identification (through PRA) of
poor households
Paid
by
project,
based
on
number of
days worked
SHG women fulfilling the following
criteria are identified as ICRPs:
 Should have attended at least 52
meeting,
 attendance in SHG meeting
should be 90% or more,
 Should have taken small loan at
least 3 times and big loan at least
2 times, prompt repayment.
 Good communication skills.
 Should belong to POP category.

Not deployed yet, their services
will used for scaling up in
intensive blocks
To be paid by
VO, based on
number of
days
deployed


Attachment with external CRPS
(45 days)
residential training (30 days)
exposure visit to SERP (NRO)

Rs. 300 (food
and
travel
charges are
additional)
155
S.
No.
State
Training
Deployment
Payment

2
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
3
MP
5
Odisha
6
West Bengal
(CRPs in WB
are known
as
Community
Service
Providers)
Should have promoted other
SHGs in her own village.
Best practicing SHG women,
members who have saved, borrowed
loans and repaid on time, taken up
social action, may have worked as
active women earlier





To be paid by
VO, based on
number of
days
deployed
Attachment with external
CRPS (45 days)
residential training (30 days)
exposure visit to SERP (NRO)
Well performing and active SHG
Women are identified by the block
staff as CRPs
 Training is being provided by CRPs
from TRIPTI block
Well performing and active SHG
Women from the SGSY promoted
SHGs are identified by the block staff
as CSPs






Mobilisation and institution
building in other blocks
Each CRP Round lasts for 3 days
only
Supporting, nurturing SHGs in
the village
Forming new SHGs
Assisting in bank account
opening, grading, bookkeeping,
etc.
Paid by the
project
Paid by the
the project
Social Capital: Active Women
S.
No.
1
State
Bihar
(known as
community
mobiliser)
Any person (preferably woman)
who is literate and willing to
support SHGs in the village is
identified.
Training
Duration: 35 days
Modules:
 Facilitation, SHG Concept &
Management
 Leadership Rotation of SHG &
Role



the village
Forming new SHGs
MCP preparation etc.
Payment
Paid by
project
156



2
Chhattisgarh Well-performing/active SHG
members are identified by the PRP
or SRLM Staff









3
Jharkhand



4
Maharashtra SHG members select a literate
VO
Book Keeping- Transaction
Sheet
Book Keeping- Others Books of
Account
Microplan (Including 2 days
Field Practice)
SHG MIS
VO Concept and Management
Food Security and HRF
RSBY and other entitlements
Micro- Insurance
Other Need Based Training
Exposure visit to NRO (15 days)
Classroom training – SHG
concept, bookkeeping, (1
month)
Attachment with CRP Rounds
(45 days)
On-the-job training
Follow-up training provided by
the SRLM









the village
Forming new SHGs
etc.
the village
Forming new SHGs
etc.
the village
Forming new SHGs
etc.
Paid by the
project
Paid by the
the project
Paid by the
the project
157
5
MP



6
Odisha
7
Rajasthan
8
West Bengal
 2-3 Active Women identified by
CRPs.
 Active Women participate in
mobilization drives with the
CRPs
PRPs and CRPs identify 2 Active
Women during the CRP Rounds
NA

Duration: 20 days
Modules:
 Exposure Visit
 Village level, on the job training

NA


the village
Forming new SHGs
etc.
Present during every SHG
meeting
the village
Forming new SHGs
etc.
Supporting, nurturing SHGs in the
village
Paid by the
the project
Paid by the
the project
Paid by the
project, but
there are
delays in
payment
Not paid
158
Annex-14
Status of MIS, Procurement and FMS in Different States
S.
No.
State
1
Assam
2
Bihar
MIS





3
Chhattisgarh
Monitoring and Evaluation
All blocks are reporting the MPR by the 10th of every month
Lack of MIS staff in most blocks
NRLM MIS being used
The community mobiliser (community cadre) collects the data for her
village and submits the transaction sheet to the Community Coordinator
and Area Coordinator. They compile the data of all SHGs in their area and
submit it to the Block office
Block level entry, data validated at block and district levels
 NRLM MIS being used, with help from NIC
Process of Data Collection: Area Coordinators of blocks were used “Masik Prativedan” format to collect
the monthly data from SHG.
 Data collected by area coordinators were compiled by BPM and entered the
records indicator wise into the MIS Ver1 as block level user.
 District level user i.e. DPM was verifies the data provided by BPM.
 Reports were reflected progress of each blocks and district at state and
national level once after the verification done by district level user.
Modules:
 Master Database (i.e. Mapping of districts, blocks, GP and village) and Bank
- Branch
 Mapping was already shared by NMMU for our State MIS.
 Profiles Details of SHG, Members and VO.
 Mapping Between SHG and VO.
159
S.
No.
State
4
5
Gujarat
Jharkhand
6
Karnataka
7
Madhya Pradesh
8
Maharashtra
9
Odisha
MIS





Transaction based MIS in place (since Apr 2014)
Transaction-based MIS in place (in 15 blocks)
CC submits a weekly transaction sheet at the BMMU
BMMU digitizes and uploads the data on the portal
MIS is the single point of information, information collection by other
verticals discouraged
 Data from Panchatantra (MIS of Ministry of Panchayati Raj , Govt. of
Karnataka being used)
 National MIS operationalised in 20 blocks
 All blocks submit MPRs before 10th of the month
Issues:
 Data validation, removal of duplicate entries
 NRLM MIS being used
 PFT Members collect the data of their Nodal Villages and make the
necessary entries in the transaction sheet.
 One PFT Member is appointed as the MIS point person in the cluster.
 The data is then verified by the DMMU before being sent to the state office.
The district also has a dedicated MIS person in place.
 National MIS being used
 Active Women fill the MPR-data sheet at the village level and submit it to
the CC
 The CC validates and compiles the data for her/his cluster and submits the
sheet to the BMMU
 The BMMU submits the Block consolidated sheet to the DMMU.
 The process is all done manually up to the district level.
 The MIS information is used regularly during review meetings with staff
 SHG Report Card being piloted
 MPR is updated online on the state MIS System on a monthly basis
 The data is verified by the district team and made available on a public

Baseline study Completed, move to
include community members as
enumerators yielded greaeat
results.

Baseline study being conducted
with help of Nielsen Pvt Ltd
o Sample size: 10,000
households, 10 districts
160
S.
No.
10
11
State
MIS
Rajasthan

West Bengal





forum
Two types of MIS
a) Sakh Darpan (developed by RGAVP)
b) NRLM MIS
PFT collects data and feeds them into the MIS
The data is validated at the block level
MIS is housed on the Department of Panchayati Raj Wbsitre
MIS to be developed in-house using NIC
NIC is hiring professionals to support the SRLM
Status of Procurement
S.
No.
State
1
Assam
2
Bihar
3
Chhattisgarh
Procurement
 Procurement process for HR agency and agency for baseline study has been started
 No progress on other services
 There is no separate staff for procurement, FM staff doubling up as procurement staff
Large scale procurement (state level):
i. Infrastructure and Mission unit establishment procurement, completed in 80% new blocks
ii. HR agency hired
iii. MIS agency hired
iv. Audit agency hired
v. Process Monitoring, in process

Approval for procurement of services is taken from ACS when procurement is initiated and secondly when
agency is finalized.
 For Goods procurement at state level the procurement is done as per need.
 At DMMU & BMMU level as of now procurement of Goods is only done
Agencies procured:
 Internal audit
 Office furniture
161
S.
No.
State
4
Gujarat
5
6
Jharkhand
Karnataka
7
Madhya Pradesh
8
Maharashtra
Procurement
 HR Agency
 Agency to study SHG quality (reports to be received)
 Statutory audit
Agencies procured:
 Internal audit
 HR Agency
 Statutory audit

 3 essential services have been procured
 5 more are being processed
 The DMMU can purchase anything up to Rs. 5000 without having to follow the procurement process. It has
to invite tenders/quotations to procure anything above Rs. 5000.
Agencies procured:
 Baseline
 FMTSCA
 Internal audit
 Statutory audit
 HR Agency
Procurement Progress
 At SMMU, 61% of consultancy procured, 100% of goods and civil works converted to contracts
 Draft community procurement manual is in place
Procurement process:
 Status of procurement of various services is updated online
 Competitive bidding method adopted – expenditure saved
 Rate contract system for office supplies, transport facilities, training facilities
162
S.
No.
State
9
10
Odisha
Rajasthan
11
12
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Procurement
 Evaluating of technical bids and proposals outsourced, has resulted in unprecedented delays
Agencies procured:
 Baseline (to be in place by Feb 2015)
 FMTSCA
 Internal audit
 Office furniture (partly purchased)
 HR Agency
 Statutory audit
 - All services procured during 2014-15, except process documentation and MIS. MIS will be done in-house.
163
Finance Management System in States
Process of funds release:
Release of 1st instalment: Central share is released by MoRD, based on approved AAP & budget in April of every year, matching grant is released by
state.
Release of 2nd instalment: released in the months of October-December, on fulfilment of the following conditions:
i.
ii.
Utilization of at least 60% of the available funds including the opening balance;
The opening balance of the SRLM should not exceed 10% of the allocation of the previous year (in case, the opening balance exceeds this limit,
the Central share would be proportionally reduced)
FM systems in various states
S.
No.
1
State
Bihar
Funds Release, other systems





2
Chhattisgarh



Funds released to districts based
on quarterly budget
The district allots an impressed
amount of 1 lakh/quarter to the
block office, block submits bills
every fortnight
Funds utilised based on approved
unit costs
Training of all staff on Financial
Management of Community
Institutions
Multiple projects, with different
procedures for funds release
delays the implementation
Mode of flow/transfer of Funds
from SMMU to DMMUs/ through
bank e-transfer (RTGS).
Transfers from District level to
Block / SHG/VOs through bank etransfer (RTGS).
Reverse flow of Expenditure on
Accounting System

Engaging services of ROLTA to
roll-out a customised Tally
Monitoring






All the accounting centres are
having Tally ERP9.
Purchased 5 multi-user and 8
single user licenses from Tally
solution. Service contract has also
been signed with Tally for
installation, initial sep-up of chart


Internal audit conducted
Financial statements based on internal
audits are released on a half-yearly
basis
Manual IUFR being used, district
submits IUFR once a quarter to State
office
SPMU reconciles expenditure
monthly finance review meeting with
finance head of all the districts
Finance staff also participate in the
monthly review meeting with the
program team where we discuss on
financial progress, budget & budgetary
control, timely settlement of dues and
164



monthly basis from Block to
DMMU.
Consolidation of Block expenditure
at DMMU and submission to
SMMU.
Consolidation of Monthly
expenditure at SMMU for onwards
submission to NMMU.
All expenditure and third party
payments are through RTGS.




3
Madhya
Pradesh

SRLM releases funds to Districts as
per their requirement & budget
allocation of the district


of account, training and AMC.
Standard chart of accounts have
been developed as per IUFR heads
and same are installed at each
centre.
Administrative right is with PMFinance to add a new account head
or edit an existing account head.
First phase of accounting centres
was set-up in the month of August,
2013 with 3 DMMUs, SRC and
Sanjivani project. Presently these
centres are working independently
and making all the payment
including salary and transfer of RF
/ CIF to SHGs.
Second phase of accounting
centres set-up has been completed
in the month of January, 2014.
They have started transactions.
Salary and transfer of RF / CIF are
still been taken care-of from SMMU
and will continue till they will be
fully trained.
Tally Software being used

Accounting centres are SMMU and
DMMU





4
Maharashtra

FM handled by Dy. Director (from

Tally software being used

any other issue related with finance.
Monthly meetings and review with
DMMU finance team is done.
Monthly progress report.
Quarterly IUFR is another source of
monitoring.
Weekly expenditure review against
budget and variance analysis is done.
Concurrent audit of all districts is
regularly undertaken.
Monthly Financial Progress review of
non-intensive area with team of CEOZP is done.
Monthly review with FM staff, held by
165



Govt. of Maharashtra)
FM manual approved
Approval for release of funds at
DMMU lie with CEO-ZP and DMMU.
But, most matters are referred to
the DRDA
Resulted in excessive delays in
releasing funds to community
SMMU
166
Annex-15
State Information Report
Each NRLP State is required to submit a brief report (15 pages) indicating the current
status of the State Mission. The report should focus on the overall progress of the Mission, key
processes adopted in each area, resulting outcomes, internal and external constraints that have
affected the progress of the Mission and the plans/strategies for the rest of the project period. It
may be noted that the report should focus on qualitative aspects, particularly on the issues
and the constraints that have affected and how the Mission seeks to overcome them. The
data may be furnished in the Tables. The report may adopt/customize the following as
necessary.
1. Transition to NRLM
2. Architecture and Systems Established (at all levels)
3. Human Resources (at all levels)
4. Implementation Progress (in different components)
a. Resource Blocks
b. Intensive Blocks
5. Key Constraints and Issues faced
6. Plans for the remaining project period
7. Attachments (templates given)
167
NRLP State Information Schedule
Table-1
Basic Information of the State: _____________________
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Item
Value
Number of Districts in the State
Total Number of Blocks in the State
Total Number of Gram Panchayats
Total Number of Villages
Rural Households (2011)
Total
SC
ST
Minority
Others
Table-2
Information on the State Mission
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Items
Response
Date of transition to NRLM
Present Chief Executive Officer/Mission Director
Full time/Additional Charge
No. of months since the current CEO/MD has been in office
No. of CEOs/MDs prior to the present CEO/MD
Table-3
Coverage of Intensive Districts and Blocks
S.
No.
Intensive District
Intensive
Blocks
Type
(Intensive/Resource)
Implementation
Started in
Month/Year
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
168
Table-4
Human Resource Status
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
No. of Staff
Required
Level
No. of Staff
Approved
No. of Staff in
position
SMMU
DMMU
BMMU
Total
Table-5
Staff Required, Approved and in Position
S.
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Functional Area
Number of
Staff
Required
Number of
Staff
Approved
Number of
Staff in
position
Program Staff
Institutional Building
Training & Capacity Building
Social Inclusion and Social
Development
Financial Inclusion/ Bank Linkage/
Micro Finance/ Insurance
Livelihoods (Farm/Non-Farm/OffFarm)
Innovation and Partnership
Self-Employment/ Skill Development/
Placement
Marketing
Young Professional
Retainer Consultants
Management Staff
Human Resource Development
Procurement
Administration/Project Management
MIS / IT/ ICT
Communication and Knowledge
Management
Support Staff
Project Assistants/ Project Associates
Admin Assistants / Office Assistants
Data Entry Operators (DEOs)/ Data
Assistants
Accountants/Cashiers
Other Assistants/Associates/Supports
169
Table-6
Resource Block Status
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
No. of Districts
Progress as on
31st Dec’14
No. of Resource Blocks
No. of GPs covered
No. of Clusters
No. of Villages covered
NRLM target HHs covered in Resource Blocks
New SHGs formed
Old & defunct SHGs revived
Total SHGs adopting Pancha Sutras
Total SHGs formed by CRP teams
Total SHGs formed by PRPs
Total SHGs formed by trained Women Activists
SHG Bookkeeping introduced
SHGs opened Bank accounts
No. of SHGs eligible for Revolving fund
No. of SHGs received Revolving Fund
Revolving Fund amount released (Rs.in Lakhs)
No. of SHGs eligible for preparing MCP to access CIF
No. of SHGs prepared MCPs for CIF
No. of SHGs received CIF through MCPs
CIF amount received in SHGs (Rs.in Lakhs)
No. of SHGs sanctioned Bank Linkage
Bank loan amount received in SHGs (Rs.in Lakhs)
No. of Women Activists identified
Number of Resource Bookkeepers trained
170
Table-7
Staff Training Status
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
SMMU
Staff
Module
DMMU
staff
BMMU Staff
Induction
Initial Orientation
Immersion
Exposure Visit
30 day Classroom Training
Attachment with CRP Rounds
Table-8
Capacity Building Architecture
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Item
Status
Annual training needs assessment being conducted
Induction modules for all levels of staff developed
Thematic training modules for all levels of staff developed
Resource pool in place
Resource pool being used regularly
Partnerships with capacity building agencies/academic institutions
Annual capacity building plan for staff, community and community
cadres
Training calendars for staff at block, district and state levels
Training calendars for community cadres
Training calendars for community institutions and members
Training infrastructure at block, district and state levels
Capacity building being tracked in MIS
171
Table-9
Progress of the Mission
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Items
Y1
Y2
Y3
Cumulative
Progress
(Dec’14)
No. of “new” SHGs promoted
No. of Pre-NRLM SHGs
revived/strengthened
Total No. of SHGs
No. of HHs mobilized
No. of SC HHs mobilized
No. of ST HHs mobilized
No. of Minority HHs mobilized
No. of Other HHs mobilized
No. of HHs with PwD mobilized
No. of SHG bookkeepers placed
No. of women activists trained and in
position
No. of Internal CRPs deployed
No. of Internal CRP rounds conducted
No. of SHGs with Saving Bank A/c
No. of SHGs eligible for RF
No. of SHGs provided RF
No. of SHGs which are more than 6
months old
No. of SHGs prepared MCP
No. of SHGs provided CIF
No. of SHGs accessed bank credit (1st
dose)
No. of VOs formed
No. of SHGs federated into VOs
No. of VOs provided startup fund
No. of CLFs promoted
No. of CLFs provided startup fund
172
Table-10
Financial Inclusion
S.
No.
1.
2.
Item
Yes/No
Formation of sub-committee for SLBC
Regular participation in SLBC meetings in the last six months
Table-11
Training of Bank Staff and Community Cadre
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Initiated (Y/N), (If
yes, then year of
commencement)
Item
Status
(Number)
Branch Managers in Intensive Blocks immersed in
best practice sites
Training Community cadre on Bank linkage
processes (Documentation, Repayment etc.)
Bank Linkage Camps Conducted
Introduction of Community Based Recovery
Management System (VOs)
Community Members trained to be financially
literate
Table-12
Status of Livelihood Activities
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Item
Initiated (Y/N), (If yes, then Year
of Commencement)
Status (Beneficiary
Household)
SRI Cultivation
MKSP
CMSA
Dairy
Poultry
Table-13
Status of Pilots
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pilot
Initiated (Y/N),
(If yes, then year of
commencement)
Status
(Beneficiary
Households)
Anti-Human Trafficking
Persons engaged in Manual
Scavenging
PRI-CBO-NREGA Convergence
Bonded Labour
173
Table-14
Progress in Establishment of Systems
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
Initiated
(Yes/No)
Item
If Yes, Month and
Year of
Commencement
Number
Blocks submitting information
through transaction based MIS
system
Districts generating automated
IUFRs through FMTSA
Procurement of Essential
Services completed by districts
Table-15
Status of NRLP Expenditure
Component
Number
Component
Name
FY 14-15
Expenditure
Approved
Incurred
Rs. Lakhs
Cumulative
Expenditure
Approved
Incurred
A
A1
A2
B
B1
B2
B3
B4
C
C1
C2
C3
D
D2
D3
D4
D5
174
Annex-16: NRLP: MTR
A Suggested Methodology for Process Study
1. The purpose of the process study is to assess the ‘efficiency’ of the processes adopted by
Mission Management Units and the effectiveness of such processes in terms of outputs/
results. Only key processes adopted need to be assessed under each component. Some
of the illustrative processes that need to be assessed could include the following:










Mission Units adopt intensive efforts to saturate social mobilization (90% target
households) in the first three years of entry;
Mission Units undertake inclusive social mobilization efforts which would result in all
eligible vulnerable groups (the SCs, the STs and the minorities) being mobilized into
SHGs on a priority basis;
Resource Blocks generate adequate quality social capital to meet the requirements
of intensive blocks;
Sustained project efforts result in most SHGs adhering to Panchsutras;
Mission units disburse funds to community institutions following MCP/MIP
guidelines;
Mission units facilitate leveraging of optional amount of external funds by SHGs;
SHGs emerge as viable community based and community managed banks with
optimized capital base, efficient fund utilization and management practices;
Mission staff promote and nurture VOs as efficient first level federations of SHGs;
VOs identify, train and use the services of adequate number of social capital to
facilitate scaling up of the Mission; and
Mission Units provide adequate technical support to members of SHGs to
strengthen and diversify their livelihoods. Efficiency of BMMU is to be reckoned with
reference to year-wise benchmarks indicated for each Intensive Block.
2. The focus of the process study is to understand the key processes adopted, identify
internal and external constraints faced and the results achieved and likely to be achieved
and the persistent problems affecting Mission activities and their effectiveness.
3. Given the purpose of the study and the time limitations, it is proposed to assess
efficiency of the process adopted by interacting with a small number of key professionals
of SMMU, DMMU and BMMU involved in decision making and implementation.
4. It is proposed to conduct 2 to 3 small focus group discussions/ key interviews to assess
the nature and quality of processes adopted, constraints experienced and the emerging
results. The FGDs may be conducted with SMMU staff and DMMU/BMMU staff (sample)
and select cadres, separately, to understand different perspectives.
5. An illustrative process checklist is attached to facilitate conduct of FGD/KII (Annex -3). In
each area, the focus of the FGD should be on key process adopted, process deviations
observed, internal and external constraints faced and overcame and the emerging
results.
6. The FGDs/KIIs are to be conducted by a 2-3 member team drawn from NMMU and
SMMU. The primary responsibility for conducting the assessment and documenting the
findings rest with the SMMU members.
7. A reporting template will be furnished in shortly.
175
Annex-17:NRLP: MTR
Checklist for Process Study
S.
No.
4
Processes to
be examined
1
State Level
Processes
2
Social
Mobilization
3
Grading and
release of RF
4
MCP and CIF
release
5
SHG - Bank
Linkage
5
VO Formation
Areas to be
Explored4
Establishment of implementation
architecture
Recruitment of HR, induction, immersion
and training
Policies, guidelines and business processes
Provision of support to BMMU and
community etc.,
Selection/prioritization of blocks, clusters
and villages
Strategies adopted for mobilization – CRP
strategy etc.,
Identification, revival and strengthening of
existing SHGs
Institution of democratic and financial
norms
Training of new and old SHGs
Nurturing of SHGs
Progress towards saturation
Other issues
Opening of SHG bank accounts
Identification of eligible SHG for RF
Grading of SHGs
Release of RF
Mechanism for scaling up
Identification of eligible SHGs for MCP
Training in MCP
Conduct of MCP
Appraisal of MCP and release of CIF
Follow up of MCP
End use of funds, types of assets created
Mechanism for scaling up
Identification of SHGs for bank linkage
Documentation support by Bank Mitra,
liaison with bankers, promotion of CBRM,
access to fresh loans and repeat loans,
trends in amounts and repayments.
Support for accessing interest subvention.
Use of bank loans and interest subvention –
typology of uses of loan funds
Identification of villages for VO formation
Respondent
group/ level (FGD
or KII)
SMMU, DMMU and
BMMU (BMMs)
DMMU,
BMMU – Block
Manager and
CCs/PFTs, select
Cadre and SHG/VO
leaders
DMMU, BMMU –
Block Manager and
CCs/PFTs, select
Cadre and SHG/VO
leaders
DMMU, BMMU –
Block Manager and
CCs/PFTs, select
Cadre and SHG/VO
leaders
BMMU – Block
Manager and
CCs/PFTs, select
Bank Mitras and
SHG/VO leaders
BMMU – Block
For each area, explore all the processes adopted i.e. who undertook the processes and how, time
taken, what worked and what did not worked, internal and external constraints and issues faced,
support received and provided, problems in scaling up etc.,
176
S.
No.
Processes to
be examined
6
Functioning of
VOs
7
Cadre
development –
Internal CRPs,
PRPs, SHG
Book keepers,
VO Book
keepers, VO
Activists, Bank
Mitra, Master
Book keepers
etc.
Human
Resources
Staff Induction
8
Monitoring and
review
mechanism
Systems in
operation
9
Overall
progress of the
block
Areas to be Explored4
Process of formation of VO
Institution of norms
Training of VO EC/OB/Sub committees
Nurturing of VOs
VO saturating mobilization
Training of SHGs/Community Cadres
Facilitating sub-committee functioning
Appraisal of MCP and release of CIF
Other functions
Adequacy of trained Cadres for scaling up
Identification
Capacity building
Preparation for deployment in other blocks
Adequacy and quality
Village stay, attachment with CRP rounds,
resource block immersion, understanding
processes, tagging with the counterparts,
preparation of action plan
Conduct of staff reviews
MIS – MPR reporting,
FMS – fund flow management and reporting
HR – conduct of staff reviews, grievance
redress mechanism
Procurement management
Progress in IB, CB, capitalization, bank
linkage, cadre development vis-à-vis
expected outputs and timeline
Respondent
group/ level (FGD
or KII)
Manager and
CCs/PFTs, select
Cadre and SHG/VO
leaders
BMMU – Block
Manager and
CCs/PFTs, select
Cadre and SHG/VO
leaders
BMMU – Block
Manager and
CCs/PFTs, select
Cadre and SHG/VO
leaders
BMMU – Block
Manager and
CCs/PFTs
BMMU – Block
Manager and
CCs/PFTs,
177
Annex-18 : NRLM – MTR
Process Assessment Study
Focus Group Discussion Guide for SMMU/DMMU/BMMU Staff
Part-A: Basic Information
1. Introduction
The process assessment team (comprising NMMU staff, member from other SRLM) should
introduce itself, state the purpose and relevance of the MTR and the process study. Also the
team should clearly state that the information sought from the group would be used for
understanding and assessing the key management and implementation processes adopted by
the Mission, deviations if any in the processes adopted, reasons for such deviations, results of
implementation or outputs, key constraints and issues faced etc. The team should therefore
encourage a free and frank discussion on each key area listed in the checklist. (Annexure 2 & 3
to the MTR Note). Three focus groups may be conducted separately for: (i) SMMU and DMMU
staff; (ii) BMMU staff and CCs; and (iii) cadres (CRPs, book keepers, trainers etc.,). There should
be an adequate number of respondents in each group. If the number is less than 6, the
discussion could be converted into a key interview. The ideal number for an FGD is 10.
2.
Identification Details
SRLM:
3.
S.
No
FGD Group:
FGD Date:
Focus Group Details
Name
Position in the
Mission
Date of Joining
Major Functional
Responsibilities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
178
Part-B : Focus Group Discussion
Guide for use with SMMU/DMMU/BMMU Staff members
1. General Aspects
1. Overall status of the SRLM
Probes: Establishment of the Mission, progress made and present status.
2. Mission Management Systems
1. Establishment of implementation architecture
Probes: Expected vs actual establishment of Mission units, plans vis a vis progress, processes
adopted, reasons for delays if any.
2. Recruitment, induction, immersion and training of human resources
Probes: Number of approved positions vacant at all levels, number recruited and in position,
adequacy and quality, attrition, processes adopted for recruitment and training,
reasons for delays and constraints faced and persistent issues, status of HR manual
adoption and practice
3. Business processes established
Probes: Guidelines and procedures laid down for the functioning of the Mission units (SMMU,
DMMU and BMMU), delegation of powers, guidelines vis a vis practice, deviation if any
etc.
4. Performance monitoring and review
Probes: Last review conducted, frequency of reviews of staff, performance assessment and
grievance redress, timeless of payment of salary and reimbursement of travel etc.
5. MIS
Probes: Number of blocks not reporting MPR before 10th of January 2015. MPR based reports
generated and used by the Mission units, systems instituted for collection for
recording, collecting, compiling and transmit MIS information.
6. Procurement
Probes: Key procurements pending, reasons for delays, time overruns in contracts, issues in
contract management, adequacy and quality of procurement staff, community
procurement systems promoted, if any.
3. Mission Footprint
1. Rollout of Mission in resource blocks
Probes: Coverage of resource blocks, pace of coverage, plans vis a vis progress, support from
NROs, constraints experienced.
2. Implementation in intensive blocks
Probes: Coverage of intensive blocks, phasing plan vis a vis progress, adequacy of generation
of internal social capital, other constraints experienced
179
4. Social Mobilization
1. Social Mobilization
Probes: Strategies adopted for saturating social mobilization, pace of mobilization since
inception, plans vis a vis progress, constraints experienced and tasks ahead
2. Social Inclusion
Probes: Strategies adopted for promoting inclusive social mobilization, proportion of
vulnerable groups mobilized (the SC, ST, PVTG, the disabled, minorities etc) plans visà-vis progress, factors affecting inclusive mobilization efforts.
5. Promotion of Community Institutions
1. New SHGs promoted and preexisting SHGs revived
Probes: New SHGs promoted by external CRPs and staff in resource blocks, strategies
adopted for promotion and strengthening of SHGs in intensive blocks, plans vis a vis
progress, constraints experienced and persisting problems.
2. Capacity building of SHGs
Probes: Type of training provided, number of SHGs provided training ,plans vis a vis
progress, factors affecting training, training infrastructure available, adequacy of
trainers, perceived gaps in training
3. Promotion of Panchsutra
Probes: Adherence of SHGs to Panchsutras, systems for grading SHGs, efforts made to
promote adherence.
4. Promotion of VOs
Probes: Villages without VOs, SHGs outside VOs, governance structure prompted for VOs,
norms instituted, capacity building inputs provided, SHGs-VOs financial relations
6. Capitalization of Community Institutions
1. SHGs provided RF
Probes: Reasons for eligible SHGs not provided RF, mechanism in place for identification for
eligible SHGs, fund transfer mechanisms, factors affecting fund disbursal and plans for
scaling up
2. SHGs provided CIF
Probes: Eligible SHGs not provided CIF, SHGs not provided training in MCP/MIP, trainers
available, appraisal process and duration, funds disbursement route, terms and
conditions of CIF, trends in end use of CIF funds, trends in repayment of CIF
3. SHGs accessing bank loans
Probes: Eligible SHGs not accessing bank loans, strategies adopted for promotion of SHGs
bank linkage, bank mitras placed, CBRM promoted, trends in repayment of bank loans,
steps taken to promote awareness of interest subvention scheme, eligible SHGs not
accessing interest subvention
4. Fund management by SHGs
Probes: Proportion of members that have not accessed internal loans, steps taken to reduce
idle funds with SHGs and improve velocity of fund rotation, accountability promoted.
180
7. Social Capital Generation
1
Active women identified, trained and prepared for working as internal CRPs/ trainers/
bookkeepers
Probes: Number of internal CRPs and other forms of social capital prepared, number
required vis a vis number available, factors affecting selection and training of CRPs
etc.
8. Perceived Progress and Challenges before the Mission
1. Perceived overall progress of the Mission
Probes: Perceived Key areas in which progress is not satisfactory, reasons thereof and tasks
ahead.
2. Perceived overall benefits from the Mission
Probes: Key benefits to the poor households in the SHGs.
3. Perceived constraints faced by the Mission
Probes: Key constraints and obstacles that have affected the pace and progress of the
Mission
9. Any Other Relevant Areas
FGD Interviewer
Documenter
Start Time
Finish Time
181
Annex-19: NRLP: MTR
Sampling Procedure
1. Participating States
All states with blocks in which intensive implementation has been in progress for more than
1 year shall participate in the MTR studies. As the states of Karnataka, UP and WB which do
not have such blocks, they are not required to administer SHG, VO and cluster schedules.
However, they are required to conduct the process study. They may call a representative
number of community cadre and staff from all levels to the State Mission Management Unit.
2. Selection of Sample Resource Blocks
The states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, MP, Maharashtra and Rajasthan implementing
Resource block strategy for more than 1 year, will participate in the study. The states will
adhere to the sample size and distribution, indicated in the Table-1.
Table-1
NRLP:MTR
Proposed Sample from Resource Blocks
S.
No.
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Source: NRLM MIS
Total No.
of
Resource
Blocks
No. of
Resource
Block > 1
year old
No. of
Sample
Blocks
No. of
Sample
Clusters
4
16
7
8
5
40
4
8
6
8
3
29
2
4
3
4
2
15
4
8
6
8
4
30
No. of
Sample
Villages
(>1 year
old)
12
24
18
24
12
90
No. of
Sample
SHGs
(>1 year
old)
36
72
54
72
36
270
Before selecting the sample blocks, each state will undertake ranking of resource blocks
on the basis of number of SHGs promoted/ revived and brought under NRLM fold and are at
least one year old either in ascending or descending order. Subsequently, the States may select
the blocks at appropriate interval, using random number generator procedure. For example,
Jharkhand has a universe of 16 blocks arranged in ascending or descending order of number of
SHGs from which 4 blocks are to be selected. Assuming that the 16 blocks are arranged in the
descending order of number of SHGs in each of them, then the blocks in the serial order 1, 5, 9
and 13 could be selected if the first block selected is no 1.
3. Sample Clusters
In each sample resource block selected, the clusters may be arranged in a descending or
ascending order, again based on the number of SHGs which are more than one year old as on
31st Dec, 2014. The required number of sample clusters may be identified using the same
approach used for selecting sample blocks. Thus, for example, in a block with 4 clusters
(arranged in descending order of SHGs), cluster numbers 1 and 3 could be selected, if the first
cluster selected is no 1.
182
4. Sample Villages
In each cluster, the villages in which intensive implementation is under progress, may be
arranged, again based on the total number of SHGs promoted and revived and are more than
one year old in each of them. Subsequently, three villages may be selected from each cluster
using the following formula:If ‘N’ is the total number of villages and ‘m’ is the required number of sample villages, then, the
sample should be selected as follows.
1, 1+(N/m), 1+(N/m)+(N/m), 1+(N/m)+(N/m)+(N/m) and so on where N=total number, m=
number to be selected. Please take only integer portion only (do not round-off). For example, If
2 villages are to be selected, it will be village 1, Village 1+N/2; If N=10, then it is village 1 and
1+10/2 = 6. If N=11; 1, 1+11/2 = 6.
If 3 villages are to be selected, it will be village 1, 1+N/3, 1+N/3+N/3; If N=10; 1, 1+10/3,
1+10/3+10/3 = 1, 4, 7. If N=11, 1+11/3, 1+11/3+11/3 = 1, 4, 8
All VOs in the selected villages will be subject to the sample study. However, if VOs are not
formed in the sample villages, only the information pertaining to the village details (point no. 1)
in the village schedule may be collected.
5. Sample SHGs
All 1 year old sample SHGs will constitute the universe of SHGs in each sample village. The
names of the SHGs may be listed alphabetically and the first, the middle [(n/2) or (n+1)/2] and
the last one may be selected, using the random generator procedure.
Table-2
Proposed Sample from Intensive Blocks (other than Resource Blocks)
Sl.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
State
No of
Intensive
Blocks
No of
Intensive
Blocks > 1
year old
No of
No of No of Sample
Sample Sample Villages (>1
Blocks Clusters
year old)
Assam
25
25
2
Bihar
77
69
5
Gujarat
15
15
2
Odisha
28
21
2
Tamil Nadu
16
16
2
Chhattisgarh
12
12
2
Jharkhand
14
14
2
Madhya Pradesh
39
39
2
Maharashtra
28
9
2
Rajasthan
2
0
Total
256
220
21
Source: NRLM MIS
Notes: *Includes one Partnership Block with PRADAN
** Includes one Partnership Block with MAVIM
4
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
42
8
20
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
84
No of
Sample
SHGs
(>1 year
old)
24
60
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
252
183
6. Selection of sample Intensive Blocks
The sample proposed from intensive blocks is furnished in Table-2. The method used in case of
Resource blocks may be applied to identify the required sample blocks, clusters, villages and
SHGs. The only difference is that in intensive blocks, two villages per cluster and two SHGs per
villages are to be selected.
As in the resource blocks, all one year old SHGs in the sample would form the universe. The
names of the SHGs may again be listed alphabetically, and two SHGs may be selected using the
random selection procedure.
7. Selection of Sample for Assessment of Livelihoods Component
For assessing emerging outcomes of MKSP and CMSA interventions, the following purposive,
but representative sample has been proposed.
Table-3
Proposed Sample from MKSP Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
State
Assam
Bihar
Maharashtra
West Bengal
Gujarat
Odisha
Madhya Pradesh
Total
MKSP Sample Blocks
Villages
Households
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
35
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
350
Dhemaji
Chakai
Wardha
Mohammed Bazar
Nasawadi
Kudumulguma
Narayanganj
Table-4
Proposed Sample from CMSA Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
State
Madhya Pradesh
Jharkhand
Chhattisgarh
Total
CMSA Sample Blocks
Sheopur/Pushprajgarh
Goilkera
Rajnandgaon
Villages
Households
5
5
5
15
50
50
50
150
8. Survey Teams
Each state participating in the MTR is required to constitute field study teams of adequate size.
Apart from nominating nodal persons, the states are required to constitute district/block teams.
DPM-M&E/MIS of the district or any other DPM may head the district/ block team. For each
block, 1 internal CC and 1 external CC (to the block) may be nominated to administer the
schedules and collect the information using the SHG, VO and Cluster schedules. The DPM leading
the team in each district will be responsible for collection of information as per the norms
prescribed. Each team comprising 1 DPM and 2 CCs can complete 4 to 6 SHG schedules and 2 VO
schedules and 1 cluster schedule per day i.e., 1 cluster and 2 villages. The DPM may be given the
responsibility for collecting information from the sample VOs and clusters, the CCs may be
entrusted with the responsibility of collecting information from the sample SHGs. Based on the
size of the sample, each state is required to constitute adequate number of members in the
184
teams. States of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra with larger
samples would be required to identify and field teams of larger size. States with smaller sample
such as Assam, Gujarat, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan may require smaller teams. Team size
can be suitably augmented or multiple teams constituted to complete the survey as per the
timeline indicated.
9. Study teams and Training
All SRLMs participating in MTR studies are required to identify the state nodal person and the
district/ block teams in advance and provide necessary training. As part of training, DPMs/ CCs
may be required to undertake field testing of the schedules. In order to identify the district
teams, it would be necessary for the states to identify the sample blocks, clusters, villages and
SHGs in advance.
185
Annexure-20: NRLP: MTR
SHG Schedule
Code No
S
D
B
C
CBO
X
X
X
*SDBCxxx, First letter in the name of the State, District, Block, Cluster, CBO and give serial
no. of the schedule
State
:
GP
:
District
:
Village
:
:
Date of
Visit
Name of
SHG
:
Block
Block Type
:
(RB/IB/PB/HGM)
:
Cluster:
1.
Membership
1.1
Type of SHG (1=New; 2=Revived and brought under NRLM)
1.2
Date of formation (If formed under NRLM)/Date of Coming into NRLM
Fold) (If Pre-existing SHG)
1.3
Present size of SHG (No. of Members)
1.4
Social composition of members
(indicate number of each social
category)
1.5
Does the SHG have a Bank A/c
1.6
Date of opening Bank A/c
1.7
Length of membership in VO (in months, if member of VO, otherwise
‘0’)
Leadership (Details of Present Leaders of SHG)
2.
S.
No.
2.1
Name
ST
SC
Min
DDMMYYYY
Others
DDMMYYYY
Social Category*
Education$
2.2
2.3
Notes: * Indicate Response as: 1= SC, 2=ST, 3=Minority, 4= Persons with Disability, 5=Others
$Indicate Response as: 1=Illiterate/Neo-literate; 2=Primary; 3=Upper Primary;
4=Secondary; 5=Others.
3.
3.1
Adherence to Panchsutras (Last 6 Months)
Regularity of Meetings, Attendance of members and Savings
186
S.
No.
3.1.1 Meetings
Item
Expected
Actual
Percentage
3.1.2 Attendance
3.1.3 Savings
3.2
Number of members who have taken loan from the SHG since formation of
SHG/ Coming into NRLM Fold
3.3
Repayment of Internal Loans (Up to Dec ’14)
S.
No.
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.4
S.
No.
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
Item
Amount (in Rs)
Total Demand
Total Collection
Bookkeeping
Books
Response
Minutes Book (Not Introduced – 1; Introduced but partly updated -2;
Introduced & up to date -3)
Cash Book (Not Introduced – 1; Introduced but partly updated -2;
Introduced & up to date - 3)
General Ledger (Not Introduced – 1; Introduced but partly updated -2;
Loan Ledger (Not Introduced – 1; Introduced but partly updated -2;
Member Pass Book (Not Introduced – 1; Introduced but partly updated -2;
Saving Cum Attendance Register (Not Introduced – 1; Introduced but
partly updated -2; Introduced & up to date -3)
Monthly Report (Not Introduced – 1; Introduced but partly updated -2;
4.
Training/Capacity Building Provided to Members
4.1
Details of Training Provided to Members during and after the CRP rounds
S.
Module/Subject
No.
4.1.1 SHG Formation
Training
During CRP
rounds
By Community
Cadres
By Staff and PRPs
4.1.2 Training on SHG
Meeting processes and
norms
4.1.3 Maintenance of Books
of Accounts
4.1.4 MCP Training
4.1.5 Others
Notes: Indicate Response as: (Yes=1, No=2)
187
4.2
How many members have attended at least 3 days of training?(including training
during CRP rounds)
4.3
SHG meeting facilitation/Capacity Building during SHG Meeting
4.3.1 Are the SHG meetings being facilitated? [Yes=1; No=2]
4.3.2 Who facilitates the SHG meetings? [1=Women Activists; 2=NRLM Staff]
4.3.3 Does any training/capacity building of SHG members happen during the meeting
in last 3 months? [Yes=1; No=2]
5.
S.
No.
SHG-Bank Linkage Details (Up to December, 2014)
Loan Type
(TL/CCL)
Before Coming into NRLM Fold
Loan Amount
Received (Rs)
Total Outstanding
Amount (Rs)
5.1
5.2
5.3
Total Amount (in Rs.)
After Coming into NRLM Fold
5.4
5.5
Total Amount (in Rs.)
Note: TL = Term Loan; CCL= Cash Credit Limit
6.
Micro Investment Plan (MCP/MIP) and Community Investment Fund (CIF)
6.1
Details of CIF received by SHGs and Repayment of CIF (up to Dec ’14)
S.
No.
Dose
6.1.1
1st
6.1.2
2nd
6.1.3
3rd
Date of
MCP/
MIP
Date of
Disbursement
of CIF
Amount (in Rs.)
Requested
Actual
as per
disbursement
MCP/MIP
Amount
repaid
to / VO
(in Rs.)
Amount
Outstanding
(In Rs.)
6.1.4
6.1.5
188
7.
Micro Finance
7.1 Has the SHG been graded by VO/ NRLM staff/Promoting NGO in the last six
months? [Yes=1/No=2]
7.2 Has the SHG received Revolving Fund (RF)? [Yes=1/No=2]
7.3 If yes, how much RF has the SHG received? (in Rs.)
7.4 When did the SHG receive RF date
DDMMYYYY
7.5 Receipts and Payments of SHG (As on 31st December, 2014)
S.
Receipts
No
7.5.1 Cumulative Compulsory
Savings of Members
7.5.2 Cumulative Other Savings of
Members
7.5.3 Cumulative loan recoveries
from members
7.5.4 Cumulative Interest Income
Amount
(in Rs.)
Amount
(in Rs.)
Payments
Cumulative Loan disbursed to
Members
Cumulative Deposit with VO
CIF Loan Repaid
Bank Loan Repaid
7.5.5 Revolving Fund (RF)
Received
7.5.6 Cumulative CIF Received
Other Loans Repaid
7.5.7 Cumulative Bank Loan
Received
7.5.8 Other loans Received
Interest Charges Paid on Bank
Linkage
Other Payments Made
7.5.9 Interest Subvention Amount
Received (If any)
7.5.10 Other Receipts
Total
Interest Charges Paid on CIF
Cash in Hand (closing balance)
Cash at Bank (closing balance)
[incl. deposits]
Total
Note: All figures as per the books of records
189
7.6 Details of Savings and Credit Accessed by Members (Up to 31st Dec 2014)
S.
No.
Name of
Member
Social
Category*
Compulsory
Savings (Rs)
Total
Other No. of small No. of big Total No. of Amount of
Savings
loans
loans
loans
Credit
(Rs)
accessed
accessed
accessed
Accessed
(Rs)
Loan
Purpose$
Total Loan
Outstanding
(Rs)
7.6.1
7.6.2
7.6.3
7.6.4
7.6.5
7.6.6
7.6.7
7.6.8
7.6.9
7.6.10
7.6.11
7.6.12
7.6.13
7.6.14
7.6.15
Total
Notes: * - Indicate Response as: 1= SC, 2=ST, 3=Minority, 4= Persons with Disability, 5=Others
$ - More than one response may be recorded.
Indicate Responses as: 1 = Debt Redemption; 2 = Household Expenses; 3 = Asset Creation (to augment income); 4 = Health /education
190
Assessment of the Investigator (Based on Perceptions of the Members)
8.
Social Issues/Actions
8.1
Indicate Social/Collective issues that the SHG has resolved or represented to the
VO for resolution:
8.2
Indicate Redemption of Rights and Entitlement Accessed of Members
facilitated by SHG:
8.3
Other Benefits Received by the SHG [as perceived by the members]
191
9.
Issues faced by the SHG (if any)[as perceived by the members]
SHG Scheduled is be administered by 2 CCs (one internal and one external to the cluster).
The Information is to be collected from the books of accounts and other records and in
consultation with all/ majority of the members, preferably in the presence of book keeper. The
data recorded is to be checked by the DPM accompanying the team. The DPM may also re-visit 1
sample SHG to check the quality of information collected. The data needs to be cleaned and
entered in the electronic data sheet either on the same day or within 2 days of collection of
information.
Name of the CC1
Name of the CC2
District/ Block
District/Block
Mobile No
Mobile No
Date
192
Glossary
SHG Schedule
Reference
Number in the
SHG Schedule
Term
Explanation
Block type
Resource Block or Intensive Block or Partnership
Block or Home Grown Model Block
1.1
Type of SHG
New SHG promoted under NRLM/Revived SHG (preexisting SHGs brought into NRLM fold after
strengthening / training)
1.2
Date of formation
Date of resolution of members forming the SHG in case
of new SHGs; date of coming into NRLM fold in case of
pre-existing SHGs
1.7
Length of
membership in VO
Number of months since joining the fold of VO
3
Adherence to
Panchsutras
Include adherence of SHG to accepted norm of
3.1.1
Meetings
(i)
3.1.2
Attendance
(i)
3.1.3
Savings
(i)
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
conducting regular meetings;
regular subscription of savings by members;
regular inter-lending among members;
regular repayment of loans by members; and
regular book-keeping to reflect all transactions
correctly and consistently.
Expected – No. of meetings expected to be
conducted as per the norm during the preceding
six months;
(ii) Actual - No. of meetings actually conducted as
per the norm during the preceding six months;
(iii) Percentage – (ii) ÷ (i) X 100
Expected – No. of members expected to attend
during the preceding six months in all meetings
(Total SHG members X No. of Meetings to be
Conducted as per norm)
(ii) Actual – No. of members actually attended
during the preceding six months in all meetings
conducted (Total SHG members that attended in
each meeting conducted)
(ii)
Expected – Amount of savings expected to be
subscribed as per norm during the preceding six
months by all members (Total SHG members X
Amount per member as per norm X No. of weeks
or months)
Actual – Amount of savings actually subscribed
by members during the preceding six months
(Cumulative amount of savings subscribed by
members in each meeting during the preceding
193
Reference
Number in the
SHG Schedule
Term
Explanation
six months)
3.2
No. of members
who have taken
internal loan
No. of SHG members who have taken internal loan
from the corpus of SHG since its formation (in respect
of new SHG); since coming into NRLM fold in the case
of revived SHGs
3.3.1
Total Demand
Cumulative amount of demand of internal loans
payable by members since formation of new SHGs /
since coming into NRLM fold (revived SHG)
3.3.2
Total Collection
Cumulative amount of internal loans collected from
members since formation of new SHGs / since coming
into NRLM fold (revived SHG)
4.3.1
Are the SHG
meetings being
facilitated?
Has the conduct of SHG meetings been regularly
facilitated during the last six months? (1=Yes/2=No)
4.3.2
Who facilitates SHG
meetings?
Has the SHG meetings been facilitated by women
activists or NRLM staff during the last six months?
(1=Women activists; 2=NRLM staff; 3=None)
5
Loan type: TL
Term loan
5
Loan type: CCL
Cash credit limit
5.1, 5.2, 5.3
Before coming into
NRLM fold
Relevant only to revived SHGs brought into NRLM fold.
The total loan amount received and total outstanding
amount may be indicated for the SHG at the time of
coming into NRLM fold
6
Date of MCP/ MIP
Indicate the date when Micro-credit plan/ Micro
Investment plan was prepared
6
CIF
Community Investment Fund
6.1.1
Actual
disbursement
Amount actually disbursed to SHG
Amount repaid
CIF loan repaid to Mission/VO
Amount
outstanding
Balance amount of CIF loan outstanding
7.5
Receipts and
Payments
All receipts and payments since formation of new
SHGs up to December 2014; since coming into NRLM
fold in respect of pre-existing SHGs up to December
2014
7.5.2
Cumulative deposit
with VO
Includes all kinds of deposits including savings made
by SHGs with VO
194
Reference
Number in the
SHG Schedule
7.6
Term
Savings and Credit
Explanation
Savings subscribed by individual members from
inception up to December 31, 2014 in respect of new
SHGs;
Savings subscribed by individual members from
coming into NRLM fold in respect of revived SHGs
Other savings
Other than normal savings subscribed by members, if
any
Total amount of
credit accessed
Total amount of loans accessed by individual members
from inception up to December 31, 2014 in respect of
new SHGs;
Total amount of loans accessed by individual members
from coming into NRLM fold in respect of revived
SHGs
Loan purpose
Purposes of loan as recorded in books which fall into
one or more of the indicated response categories
7.6
Small loans
All loans below Rs.5000/- given to individual
members
8.2
Rights and
entitlements of SHG
members
Include access of member households to PDS cards/
BPL cards, AAY cards, Job cards under MGNREGS, Old
age/widow and other types of pensions, National
Social Assistance Benefit etc.
195
Annexure–21: NRLP – MTR
VO Schedule
Code No
S
D
B
C
CBO
X
X
X
* SDBCxxx, First letter in the name of the State, District, Block, Cluster, CBO and give serial number
of the schedule
State
District
Block
Block Type
(RB/IB/PB/HGM)
5
:
Cluster
:
:
GP
:
:
Village
:
:
Date of
Visit
:
1.
Details of the Village
1.1
Date of entry into the village5
1.2
Total no. of
households in
the village
1.3
Total no. of households mobilized into new SHGs and existing SHGs (as on date of field
study)
ST
SC
Min
Others
Total
2.
Details of VO
2.1
Name of VO (In Capital Letters)
2.2
Type of VO (1=New; 2=Revived and brought under NRLM)
2.3
Date of Formation
2.4
Total no. of SHGs in the VO
2.5
Total SHG Members in the VO
2.6
Does the VO have bank A/c [Yes=1/No=2]
2.7
Is the VO a member of CLF? [Yes=1/No=2]
2.8
Is the VO registered? [Yes=1/No=2]
3.
Leadership
ST
DDMMYYYY
SC
Min
Others
Total
DDMMYYYY
Date of formation of first SHG in the village
196
3.1
S.
No.
3.1.1
Details of Office Bearers (OBs)
Name of OB
Designation
Social Category*
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
Note: *- Indicate Response as: 1= SC, 2=ST, 3=Minority, 4= Persons with Disability, 5=Others
3.2
Has there been any rotation of Office Bearers in the VO (if VO is more than 3
year old) [Yes=1/No=2]
3.3
Details of Sub-Committees
S.
No.
3.3.1
Name of Sub-Committee
No. of Members
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
4.
Performance of VO
4.1
Regularity of RGB/EC Meetings (during preceding 3 months)
S.
Item
No.
4.1.1 No. of RGB/EC meetings expected to be
held as per norm
4.1.2 No. of RGB/EC meetings actually held
4.2
Dec
Nov
Oct
Regularity of SHGs attending VO meetings (during preceding 3 months)
S.
No.
4.2.1 No. of SHGs part of VO
Item
Dec
Nov
Oct
4.2.2 No. of SHGs actually attended the RGB/ EC meetings
4.3
Review of Performance of SHG (During preceding 3 months)
197
S.
Item
No.
4.3.1 No. of SHGs expected to be reviewed based on
MPR/Masa Nivedika
4.3.2 No. of SHGs reviewed based on MPR/Masa Nivedika
(including grading)
4.4
Dec
Nov
Oct
Disbursement of CIF loan to SHGs by VO
S.
Item
No.
4.4.1 No. of SHGs eligible to receive CIF
Up to
Dec.’14
4.4.2 No. of SHGs provided CIF by Mission
4.4.3 No. of SHGs provided CIF by VO, based on MIP
4.5
Status of Repayment of Funds (During preceding 3 months)
S.
Item
No.
4.5.1 Total amount of CIF due from SHGs
Dec
Nov
Oct
4.5.2 Total amount of CIF recovered from
SHGs
4.6
Status of VO Bookkeeping
S.
Books of Records
No.
4.6.1 Membership Register
Introduced
Record up to
Date
4.6.2 Minutes Book
4.6.3 Cash Book
4.6.4 Loan Ledger
4.6.5 General Ledger
4.6.6 Receipt & Payment Vouchers
4.6.7 Stock Register
4.6.8 CIF DCB Register
4.6.9 Bank Linkage DCB Register
Any Other
4.6.10
4.6.11
Note: Indicate the Response as: Yes=1, No=2
5.
Role of VO
198
5.1
Has the VO or women activists under VO mobilized left out poor
into SHGs (at least one SHG) [Yes=1/No=2]
5.2
Has the VO organized/conducted training for SHGs/members [Yes=1/No=2]
5.3
Has the VO undertaken any activities in convergence with the Panchayati Raj
Institutions? [Yes=1/No=2]
If yes, list out the activities below
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.4
Has the VO undertaken any activities in convergence with the line
Departments/other stakeholders? [Yes=1/No=2]
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.5
Has the VO taken up/resolved any social issues? [Yes=1/No=2]
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.6
Has the VO initiated any Collective Livelihood Activities? [Yes=1/No=2]
5.6.1
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
5.6.5
199
5.7
Community Cadres6 being engaged by the VO
S.
No.
5.7.1
Type of Cadre
Number
Engaged
Number being Paid Honorarium*
5.7.2
5.7.3
5.7.4
5.7.5
Total
5.8
Does the VO conduct review of the community cadres? [Yes=1, No=2]
5.9
Has the VO organized training for the cadres:
5.9.1 SHG Book keeper [Yes=1/No=2]
5.9.2 Women Activists [Yes=1/No=2]
5.9.3 Others [Yes=1/No=2]
5.10
Did the VO undertake appraisal of MIP, before releasing CIF? [Yes=1/No=2]
5.11
Does the VO facilitate opening of bank a/c of SHGs? [Yes=1/No=2]
5.12
Does the VO facilitate credit linkage of SHGs? [Yes=1/No=2]
6.
S.
No.
6.1
Capacity Building of EC Members
Module/Subject
6.2
Formation, meeting processes
and norms
Exposure and immersion
6.3
Training on VO management
6.4
Training on VO Book keeping
6.5
Training of Sub-committees
6.6
Training on MCP Appraisal
6.7
Training on CIF & Fund
Management
6Community
Yes=1;
No=2
Place*
Duration
(Days)
Trainers**
Cadres expected to be paid by VO namely – VO Animators, VO Book keepers etc.
200
S.
No.
6.8
6.9
Module/Subject
Yes=1;
No=2
Duration
(Days)
Place*
Trainers**
Training on Audit and legal
compliance
Training on Cadre
Management
Other Trainings (specify)
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
Note: * Indicate the Response as: 1=within the village, 2=outside the village but within the
block; 3=outside the block
** Indicate the Response as: 1=By CRPs; 2=By Community Cadre; 3=By Staff
7.
Financial Details of VO
7.1 Receipts and Payments of the VO (Up to 31st Dec. ’14)
S.
No.
Receipts
Amount
(in Rs.)
Payments
7.1.1 SHG savings held in VO
CIF loans disbursed to SHGs
7.1.2 CIF recoveries from
member SHGs
VRF loan disbursed to SHGs
7.1.3 Interest earned on loans
Deposits made with CLF (if any)
7.1.4 CIF received from
CLF/SRLM
CIF loan repaid to CLF
7.1.5 VRF recovered from SHGs
Other loans repaid
7.1.6 VRF received from CLF/
SRLM
Interest paid to CLF
7.1.7 Other loans received (if
any)
VO expenditure*
7.1.8 Other receipts (if any)
Other payments
7.1.9
Cash in Hand (closing balance)
7.1.10
Cash at Bank (closing balance)
[incl. deposits]
Total
Amount
(in Rs.)
Total
201
7.2 Details of Savings made and Credit Accessed by SHGs from VO (As on Dec 31st)
S.
No.
Name of SHG
Do the
SHGs Save
in the VO
(Y/N)7
No. of doses of
CIF loans
disbursed to
SHGs
CIF
Total Amount
of CIF Loan
Disbursed
(Rs.)
Total CIF loan
Outstanding
(Rs.)
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.2.5
7.2.6
7.2.7
7.2.8
7.2.9
7.2.10
7.2.11
7.2.12
7.2.13
7.2.14
7.2.15
Total
The VO schedule is to be administered by the DPM and supported by one of the external CCs.
The information required should be collected from records of VO and in consultation with the
VO OB/EC members in the presence of VO bookkeeper. After collection of data, the DPM needs
to ensure that the information collected is correct, complete and consistent. The data collected
should entered in the electronic data sheet on the same day or on the following day using the
electronic data sheet.
Name of the CC
Name of the DPM
District/ Block
District/
Mobile No
Mobile No
Date
7
Other than one time membership fee
202
Glossary
VO Schedule
Reference
Number in the
VO Schedule
Term
Explanation
Block type
Resource Block or Intensive Block or Partnership Block or
Home Grown Model
Date of entry
into the village
Date of formation of the first SHG in the village or date of
entry of external CRPs into the village
2.2
Type of VO
1. New = New VO promoted under NRLM
2. Revived VO = Pre-existing VO brought under NRLM
after training and strengthening
2.4
No. of SHGs that have paid membership fee and join the VO
2.8
Total no. of
SHGs in the VO
Registered VO
3.1
Office Bearers
3.3
VO subcommittees
4.1.1
No. of RGB/EC
meetings
expected to be
held as per
norm
Regularity of
SHGs attending
VO meetings
Present Office Bearers
The designation could be President or Vice-President or
Secretary or Joint Secretary or Treasurer;
A person with disability could belong to the SC, the ST,
minority or others. Both should be indicated
Sub-Committees could be
i.
Bank linkage sub-committee
ii.
Loan recovery sub-committee
iii.
Monitoring sub-committee
iv.
Social audit sub-committee
v.
Review sub-committee
vi.
Indicate any other
No. of meetings to be conducted during the preceding
three months.
No. of meetings actually conducted during the preceding
three months as per records.
4.2.1
4.3.1
Review of
Performance of
SHGs
4.4.1
Number of
SHGs eligible to
receive CIF
VO registered under appropriate State Act
No. of SHGs part of VO – Number of SHGs that have paid
membership fee.
No. of SHGs actually attended – Number of SHGs that have
actually attended and representatives signed in the
EC/RGB meeting register.
No. of SHGs expected to be reviewed – Number of SHGs to
be reviewed based on MPR/Masanivedika as per the
established norm in each month.
No. of SHGs actually reviewed based on
MPR/Masanivedika in each month
No. of six month SHGs that have applied for CIF/submitted
MCPs/MIPs up to December, 2014.
No. of SHGs disbursed CIF by the Mission up to December,
2014.
No. of SHGs disbursed CIF by the VO up to December,
2014.
203
Reference
Number in the
VO Schedule
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.6
5.2
5.3
Term
Total amount
of CIF due from
SHGs
Total amount
of CIF
recovered from
SHGs
Status of VO
bookkeeping
Has the VO
organized/
conducted
training?
Has the VO
undertaken any
activities under
convergence?
5.4
Has the VO
undertaken any
activities in
convergence
with line
departments?
5.5
Has the VO
taken up or
resolved any
social
activities?
5.6
Collective
Livelihood
Activities
5.7
Community
Cadres
5.10
Did the VO
undertake
Explanation
Total amount of CIF due from all SHGs at the end of each
month (December, November, and October 2014).
Total amount of CIF recovered from all SHGs at the end of
each month (December, November, and October 2014).
For all books of records indicate the status in terms of one
of the three options viz., 1=Introduced; 2=Record up to
date; 3=Not introduced
Has the VO or women activist or CRP under the VO
conducted any type of training (1=Yes; 2=No)
The activities that could be undertaken in convergence
with PRIs could include activities relating to road access,
water and sanitation, organization of health camps,
MGNREGS related works, running of Anganwadi, mid-day
meals, identification of program beneficiaries etc.,
The activities could include identification of beneficiaries,
support for organization of health camps, running of
Anganwadi and mid-day meal kitchens, MGNREGS related
support works such as organization of crèche centers,
labour groups, and supply of implements. Mobilization of
ANCs and PNCs for appropriate pre-natal and post-natal
support etc.,
These could include (i) Problems with functioning of
public facilities – anganwadi, primary/elementary school,
health sub-center, access to grazing lands or commons,
PDS; (ii) Access to drinking water; (iii) Campaign against
child labour; (iv) Prevention of illicit distillation; (v)
Prevention of Atrocities against vulnerable
communities/caste based violence; (vi) Prevention of Child
marriages; (vii) Promotion of road access and common
facilities etc. These are only illustrative.
Collective livelihood activities could be one which isi.
Undertaken collectively by the members of one
or more SHGs; or
ii.
Undertaken by VO in which members from
more than one SHG are involved.
iii.
These could include common procurement
centers (e.g. milk, agricultural commodities,
NTFP etc.,), marketing activities, supply of
agricultural inputs and activities in the value
chain that could benefit the members
Could include activists, animators, bookkeepers, CRPs,
trainers, para-professionals (health, agriculture, animal
husbandry, NTFP etc.,)
To be answer with reference to the most recent practice.
204
Reference
Number in the
VO Schedule
5.11
5.12
7.1
7.2
Term
appraisal of
MIP before
releasing CIF?
Does the VO
facilitate
opening of
bank account of
SHGs?
Does the VO
facilitate credit
linkage of
SHGs?
Receipts and
Payments of VO
Details of
savings made
and credit
accessed by
SHGs
Explanation
Answer with reference to the more recent experience.
Answer with reference to the more recent activities taken
up such as using the services of bank mitras, promotion of
CBRM etc.,
All receipts and payments of the VO as on 31st December,
2014 and as per books of accounts
Cumulative as on 31st December, 2014.
205
Annex-22
Cluster Schedule
Code No
S
D
B
C
CBO
X
X
X
* SDBCxxx, First letter in the name of the State, District, Block, Cluster, CBO and give
serial no. of the schedule
:
District
:
Block Type
(RB/IB/PB/HGM)
Cluster
Block
:
Date of Visit
State
:
:
:
Date of Commencement of Implementation in Block8
1.
Coverage
1.1
Total no. of GPs in the Cluster
1.2
Total no. of villages in the Cluster
1.3
Total no. of rural Households in the Cluster
1.4
Total no. of villages in which Mission Implementation is in progress
in the cluster
1.5
Social Composition of Households in Mission Villages
S.
No.
Category
Total
Households
Target Households
(2/3rds of Total)
DDMMYYYY
Households
Mobilized
(Up to Dec’14)
1.5.1 SC
1.5.2 ST
1.5.3 Minorities
1.5.4 Others
1.5.5 Total
8
Resource Block: Inception of CRP Rounds
Intensive Blocks: Full complement of staff inducted and placed in the block
Partnership Blocks: Date of signing MoU
206
2.
2.1
Institutions of the Poor Promoted
Institutions Promoted in the Cluster
S.
No.
2.1.1 SHG
Institution
Number
2.1.2 VO
2.1.3 CLF
2.1.4 BLF
2.1.5 Other Collective
2.1.6 Total
2.2
SHGs Formed/Revived and Strengthened in the Cluster
S.
No.
Type
No. Formed/
Revived
during CRP
Rounds
No. Formed/
Revived by
Community
Cadre
No. Formed/
Revived by
Institutions/
Staff
Total
2.2.1 New SHGs
formed
2.2.2 SHGs revived/
Strengthened
2.2.3 Total
2.3
Capacity Building undertaken for SHG Members in Core Modules (including
capacity building undertaken CRP Rounds)
S.
Module
No.
2.3.1 SHG Concept and Management
Number of SHGs Trained
2.3.2 Agenda Setting and Meeting process
2.3.3 Importance of Bookkeeping
2.3.4 MCP and fund rotation
2.3.5 Leadership and Conflict management
2.3.6 Any other
Note: Indicate Response as: 1 = All trained, 2 = Some trained, 3 = None trained
2.4
Number of SHGs under NRLM fold in the cluster following Panchasutra
2.5
Number of SHGs holding membership in Village Organisations in the Cluster
207
2.6
Social Category-wise SHG membership in VOs and VO Office Bearers in the Cluster
No. of Office
S.
No. of Members
Category
Bearers
No.
in all VOs
in all VOs
2.6.1 Total members
[
2.6.2 SC members
2.6.3 ST members
2.6.4 Members belonging to Minority groups
2.6.5 Others
2.6.6 Total
2.7
Capacity Building of VO Office Bearers in Core Modules in the Cluster
S.
Module
No.
2.7.1 Why VO?
Status
2.7.2 Functions of VO
2.7.3 Structure of VO
2.7.4 Meeting process
2.7.5 Leadership
2.7.6 Fund management
2.7.7 Sub-committee System
2.7.8 MCP/MP Appraisal
Any Other
2.7.9
2.7.10
2.7.11
2.7.12
2.7.13
Note: Indicate Response as: (1 = All trained, 2 = Some trained, 3 = None trained)
2.8
Types of Social Issues Taken up/Resolved by VOs in the Cluster
2.8.1
2.8.2
2.8.3
208
3.
Communitisation
3.1
Total number of SHG members/community members identified and
engaged to provide services to community Instituiions institutions
3.2
Community Cadre Identified, Trained and Engaged for Providing Services
S.
No.
Cadre Type
No.
Required
for
Cluster
No.
Identified
for Cluster
No. Trained in
Core Modules
Fully
Trained
Partially
Trained
No. actually
Providing
Services in
Nov/ Dec.
‘14
3.2.1 SHG Bookkeepers
3.2.2 Women Activists
3.2.3 MCP Trainers
3.2.4 PIP Facilitators
3.2.5 VO Activist/
Animator/
Community
Facilitator
3.2.6 VO Bookkeeper
3.2.7 Master
Bookkeepers
Others
3.2.8
3.2.9
3.2.10
3.2.11
3.3
Capacity Building of Community Cadres in Specific Modules
S.
No.
Module
Number Trained
up to Dec. 31st
Bookkeepers
3.3.1 Basic training on Community Institutions
3.3.2 Classroom Training on Bookkeeping
3.3.3 Refresher Training
Women Activists
3.3.4 Attachment to CRP Rounds
3.3.5 Immersion / Exposure visit
3.3.6 Classroom Training
209
3.3.7 TOT
3.3.8 On –the-Job Training
MCP Trainers
3.3.9 Classroom Training
3.3.10 Exposure Visit to NRO/Resource Blocks
VO Activist/Animator/Community Mobiliser
3.3.11 SHG Formation
3.3.12 VO Office Management
3.3.13 Exposure Visit to NRO/Resource Block
3.3.14 TOT
Bank Mitra
3.3.15 Banking System
3.3.16 Account Opening
3.3.17 Loan Processing
3.3.18 Exposure Visit to NRO/Resource Block
Community Auditors
3.3.19 Classroom Training on SHG Audit
3.3.20 On the Job Training
Master Bookkeepers
3.3.21 Classroom training
3.3.22 ToT on Bookkeeping
VO Bookkeeper
3.3.23 Basic VO Bookkeeping
3.3.24 Refresher Training
Any Other
3.3.25
3.3.26
3.3.27
3.3.28
210
4.
S.
No.
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.3
5.
Development of Internal CRPs, Internal CRP Bookkeepers and PRPs to Support
other Blocks (applicable to Resource Blocks only) [Information to be collected at
the Block Level]
No. of
CRPs
Item
No. of CRP
Bookkeepers
No. of PRPs
Identified
Training
Exposure Visit
Immersion
Attachment to CRP Rounds
Classroom training
Deployment for local work
Deployment for local training
Deployed/Ready for Deployment
Number of Block Staff provided capacity building [Information to be collected at
the Block Level]
S.
No.
Module
No. of
BMMs
No. of
Accountants
No. of MIS
Operators
No.
of
CCs
Any
Other No.
(Specify -------)
5.1 Initial Orientation
5.2 Village Immersion
(Individual Village
Stay)
5.3 Exposure Visit
5.4 Attachment with CRPs
5.5 Attachment with
frontline Professionals
5.6 Attachment with peers
5.7 Classroom Training
5.8 Individual Action Plan
The Cluster schedule is to be administered by the DPM and supported by one of the external
CCs. The information required should be collected from records of VO and in consultation with
the VO OB/EC members in the presence of VO bookkeeper. After collection of data, the DPM
needs to ensure that the information collected is correct, complete and consistent. The data
collected should entered in the electronic data sheet on the same day or on the following day
using the electronic data sheet.
Name of the CC
Name of the DPM
District/ Block
District/
Mobile No
Mobile No
Date
Glossary
211
Cluster Schedule
Reference
Number in the
Cluster
Schedule
Term
Block type
Resource Block or Intensive Block or Partnership Block
or Home Grown Model
Cluster
A cluster is a sub-block unit comprising certain GPs. The
division of block into clusters in only for facilitating
Mission implementation
Indicate date of commencement of implementation in
the sample cluster.
In case of resource block, it is the date of commencement
of first CRP round. In the case of intensive block, it is the
date from which the cluster staff are placed.
In the case of partnership block, it is the date of signing
MOU.
No. of villages in which mobilization has commenced
Date of
commencement
of
implementation
1.4
1.5
2.1
Explanation
Mission
implementation
in the villages
Social
composition of
households
The number of total households under each category
could be taken from 2011 District Census Handbook or
from the records of the Mission or the estimates made by
the Mission staff.
A household said to be mobilized if at least one member
from the household is mobilized into new or revived
SHG.
Include revived (pre-existing) SHGs/VOs and brought
into NRLM fold
2.1.3
Institutions
promoted in the
cluster
CLF
2.1.4
BLF
Block Level Federation is a federation of Clusters
2.2
SHGs formed/
revived and
strengthened in
the cluster
2.3
Capacity
Building
undertaken for
SHG members
Number of SHGs
following
Panchsutra
Number of SHGs
holding
Number formed/revived during CRP rounds are those
promoted and revived by external CRPs.
Number formed/revived by community cadre are those
that have been promoted after the CRP rounds by
internal community cadre.
Number formed/revived by staff include those that are
promoted/revived by either frontline staff or higher
level institutions (VOs/CLFs)
Includes number of SHGs trained in the core module by
external CRPs, internal trainers/CRPs as well as staff. It
can be community based or outside training.
2.4
2.5
Cluster Level Federation is a federation of VOs
Number of SHGs adhering to Panchsutras in the cluster
as per the records of Cluster Coordinators/BMMU
Number of SHGs holding membership in VOs as per the
records of cluster coordinators/BMMU
212
Reference
Number in the
Cluster
Schedule
2.6
2.7
2.8
3
3.1
3.2
3.2.4
3.3
4
4
Term
membership in
VOs
Social category
of VO members
and Office
Bearers
Capacity building
of VO Office
Bearers
Types of social
issues
Explanation
Number as per records of Cluster Coordinators/BMMU
Number as per records of Cluster Coordinator/BMMU
These could include (i) Problems with functioning of
public facilities – Anganwadi, primary/elementary
school, health sub-center, access to grazing lands or
commons, PDS; (ii) Access to drinking water; (iii)
Campaign against child labour; (iv) Prevention of illicit
distillation; (v) Prevention of Atrocities against
vulnerable communities/caste based violence; (vi)
Prevention of Child marriages; (vii) Promotion of road
access and common facilities etc. These are only
illustrative.
Communitization Refers to the transfer of responsibility of managing
community staff and cadre to CBOs
Number of SHG
Number of active women identified and engaged as per
members/
records of Cluster Coordinators and BMMU (SHG
community
bookkeepers, women activists, MCP trainers, PIP
members
facilitators, VO animators, VO bookkeepers, MBKs and
identified and
others)
engaged
Community
Number required is the minimum number required for
cadre identified, all institutions in the cluster.
trained and
Number identified is the number of women identified up
engaged
to December 31, 2014 for different functions
Number trained includes those who are fully trained (in
all modules) for the minimum no. of days and partially
trained includes those who are not trained all modules
for the minimum number of days.
Number actually providing service as per records during
November-December, 2014.
PIP Facilitator
Persons identified and made responsible for facilitating
the conduct of Participatory Identification of the Poor
Capacity building Indicate number of each cadre trained in specific
of community
modules as per the records of Cluster
cadre
Coordinators/BMMU
Internal CRPs
Internal CRPs are active women identified, trained and
prepared for undertaking social mobilization, institution
building, capacity building activities both in the native
block and other blocks.
PRPs
Professional Resource Person is a staff from NRO who
does the preparatory ground work for CRP rounds and
213
Reference
Number in the
Cluster
Schedule
5
5.5
5.6
5.8
Term
Capacity
Building of Block
Staff
Attachment with
frontline
professionals
Attachment with
peers
Individual action
plan
Explanation
later follows-up the work done by the CRPs when they
move to other villages.
Indicate number of each category of staff provided
training in specific modules
It refers to on the job training with CCs/ Community
mobilisers etc.
It refers to attachment with other CRPs or similar cadres
An action plan clearly indicating the activities to be
undertaken by each block staff
214
Annex-23
Implementation Processes in a Typical Block
During the first three years, intensive implementation in a block involves the following
processes:








Placing inducted BMMU team and PRPs to prepare ground for implementation
SHG formation
- Village entry by block/cluster team
- Preparation of village for CRP round
- CRP round
 Conduct of aam sabha to introduce CRPs to the village
 Brief survey by the CRPs to ascertain number of poor households
 Identification of households and formation of SHGs
 Basic SHG training (for 5-6 SHGs, 3 days per SHG)
 Identification of bookkeepers and their training (5 days)
 Identification of Women Activists in the village (or immediately after CRP round)
 Presentation of status on mobilisation and SHG formation during the round to
aam sabha
Follow-up facilitation and capacity building of SHGs done by PRPs, women activists and
trainer CRPs
Opening of bank account for SHGs
Release of funds
- Grading of 3-month old SHGs
- Release of RF (Rs. 10,000-15,000/SHG) to SHGs
- Micro-Credit Plan (MCP) preparation by 6-month old SHGs
 SHG member profiles prepared
 Individual family plans developed
 Member-wise plans discussed and consolidated at the SHG level
 Prioritisation of members’ needs (poorest given preference)
 Plan submitted to a committee of SHG leaders
Release of CIF
- Plan appraised by committee of SHG leaders and recommended to SRLM
- CIF (Rs. 75,000-1,10,000) released to SHG
- CIF meant for CLF, in absence of CLF it is released to VO. In absence of VO, it is
released to SHG.
- SHG repays the CIF amount to the VO, when it is formed, and VO repays the amount
to the CLF when it is formed.
- Only 5-6 SHGs in a village receive CIF directly from NRLM, other SHGs receive it
from the VO, from the repaid amount
VO Formation
- VO Formation through Senior CRP Rounds in villages which have completed at least
9 months after the first CRP rounds
 One-day workshop for all SHG members on VO
 SHG leaders trained in VO management
 Appointment of VO Animator
Selection of VO office bearers by VO Executive Committee; EC meets once a month
215







Repayment of CIF amount to VO by SHGs
Constitution of VO Sub-committees
One woman activist in the village identified as VO Animator
Vulnerability Reduction Fund (Rs. 1,50,000) released to VO
Conduct of PIP by VO to assess status of poverty in the village, done every two years
Mobilising left out households into SHGs by VO, with focus on poorest and most
marginalised households
Identification and Training of Community Cadres
- Continuous capacity building and nurturing of SHGs, members and leaders in core
modules by local social capital and resource persons in the SHG meetings, village,
non-residential and residential
- Women Activists’ training includes immersions and exposure visit at NRO/best
practice site (15 days), attachment with CRP rounds (15 days) and Classroom
training (15 days) over a period of one-year
- Best performing SHG women (completed 75 weeks of regular meetings, borrowed at
least Rs. 25,000 and repaid loans on time, may have served as Woman Activist)
identified as Internal CRP (during the 2nd year); trained for 15 days additionally
- Best performing SHG bookkeepers identified as CRP Bookkeepers; trained for 15
days additionally. A proportion of CRP Bookkeepers would go on to become internal
PRPs in the new blocks.
- SHG Bookkeeper basic training conducted during CRP round itself; follow-up
training provided by SRLM over a period of one year
- MCP trainers, Trainer CRPs, Community auditors identified from among the SHG
bookkeepers and Women Activists and trained additionally
CLF is formed in the 2nd or 3rd year and BLF in the 3rd or 4th year. From year three onwards,
various layering interventions such as health, nutrition, interventions for Persons with
Disability (PwD), livelihoods, etc. are introduced in the block. In resource blocks, the social
capital generated begins to support other blocks from year 3.
216
Annex-24
Expansion from Resource Blocks to Newer Blocks
S.
No
State
No.of NRLP
resource blocks
which have
completed 2
years of
implementation
1
Chhattisgarh
4
2
Maharashtra
8
3
Jharkhand
5
4
Madhya Pradesh
6
5
Rajasthan
10
Total
No.of new blocks taken
for expansion
(cumulative)
33
6
Date of
1st CRP
round
May
2012
July
2012
Oct
2012
Nov
2012
Jan 2013
No.of new
blocks
taken up
during
2014-15
No.of
new
blocks
taken up
during
2015-16
Internal
CRPs
available
in March
2015
Internal
CRPs
available in
March 2016
Internal
CRPs
available in
March 2017
Internal
CRPs
available in
December
2017
18
12
360
610
910
4000
0
15
0
300
900
1800
3
30
0
600
1600
2600
1
18
0
600
1400
2000
0
30
0
1200
2400
4800
22
22
105
105
360
18
3310
165
7210
360
15800
790
217
Annex Table-3.1
NRLP Implementation in Progress: Districts, Blocks and Villages Entered
S.
No.
States
Total NRLP
Districts Blocks GPs
Dec.’14
NRLP Implementation Started
Villages Districts Blocks GPs Villages
1.
Assam
8
25
358
4853
8
25
357
3889
2.
Bihar
19
77
1592
9546
19
77
1167
3919
3.
Chhattisgarh
9
16
1109
1960
9
16
912
1438
4.
Gujarat
9
20
1178
1825
9
20
713
1069
5.
Jharkhand
12
30
540
4034
12
29
453
1957
6.
Karnataka
5
20
550
3068
5
20
550
2930
7.
Madhya
Pradesh
10
46
2900
6067
10
46
2826
5925
8.
Maharashtra
10
36
2890
5038
10
36
1839
2713
9.
Odisha
8
33
566
6294
7
28
200
1924
10.
Rajasthan
7
7
200
1119
7
7
104
278
11.
Tamil Nadu
4
16
458
3846
4
16
458
2779
12.
Uttar Pradesh
22
22
1636
4368
22
22
703
793
13.
West Bengal
8
32
313
4968
8
32
313
4558
14.
Total
131
380
1429
0
56986
130
374
1059
5
34172
Source: NRLM-MIS
218
Annex Table-4.1
Social Mobilisation in Resource Blocks (Sample)
S.
No.
State
Sample
Blocks
No of
Sample
Clusters
Total
HHs in
the
Sample
Clusters
Potential Target HHs in Sample Clusters (2/3rd
of Total)
SC
ST
Minorities Others
% HH Mobilised
Total
SC
ST
Minorities Others Total
1.
Chhattisgarh
2
4
16637
546
10931
208
2813
14498
51
80
83
72
51
2.
Jharkhand
4
8
33729
1795
20053
505
5579
27932
63
72
83
38
63
3.
Madhya
Pradesh
3
6
55986
5623
23952
724
5645
35944
44
52
34
36
44
4.
Maharashtra
4
8
49599
3891
9711
956
19836
34394
54
43
34
40
54
5.
Rajasthan
2
4
20535
5488
2042
181
4538
12249
34
18
10
54
34
6.
Total:
15
30
176486
17343
66689
2574
38411
125017 45
60
46
43
45
Source: Cluster Schedule
219
Annex Table-4.2
Social Mobilisation in Intensive Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State
Sample
Blocks
No of
Sample
Clusters
Total
HHs in
the
Sample
Clusters
29075
109290
30208
20071
10470
Potential Target HHs in Sample Clusters (2/3rd
of Total)
SC
ST
Assam
2
4
2257
2380
Bihar
5
10
23364
420
Chhattisgarh
1
2
4911
1015
Gujarat
2
3
534
3683
Jharkhand
2
2
1320
5844
Madhya
6.
Pradesh
2
4
28231
1020 16190
7.
Maharashtra
2
4
19007
1639
2375
8.
Odisha
2
2
11842
1720
3426
9.
Tamil Nadu
2
4
45123
6595
969
10. Total
20
35
303317 43360 36302
Note: Including Partnership blocks in Jharkhand and Maharashtra;
Total
HH Mobilised
Minorities
Others
SC
5029
13515
72
508
140
10224
40250
16646
10162
2225
19890
77549
22644
14887
9529
78
57
25
53
89
81
403
334
912
20994
2006
8257
4022
8426
102218
19297
12674
9502
16902
202874
46
65
72
91
61
ST
Minorities
Others
Total
84
56
20
70
92
94
59
32
88
88
60
71
14
67
82
78
57
25
53
89
52
72
74
17
64
94
76
74
100
71
37
81
79
96
63
46
65
72
91
61
220
Annex Table-4.3
Social Mobilisation: Sample Clusters
S.
No
State
Sample
Blocks
No of
Sample
Clusters
Total
HHs in
the
Sample
Clusters
Potential Target HHs in Sample Clusters
(2/3rd of Total)
Percent of HH Mobilised
SC
ST
Minorities
Others
Total
SC
ST
Minorities
Others
Total
1.
Assam
2
4
29075
2257
2380
5029
10224
19890
78
84
94
60
78
2.
Bihar
5
10
109290
23364
420
13515
40250
77549
57
56
59
71
57
3.
Chhattisgarh
3
6
46845
5457
11946
280
19459
37142
28
75
70
23
28
4.
Gujarat
2
3
20071
534
3683
508
10162
14887
53
70
88
67
53
5.
Jharkhand
6
10
44199
3115
25897
645
7804
37461
74
76
84
51
74
6.
Madhya
Pradesh
5
10
84217
6643
40142
805
7651
55241
44
52
40
36
44
7.
Maharashtra
6
12
68606
5530
12086
1359
28093
47068
57
49
46
52
57
8.
Odisha
2
2
11842
1720
3426
334
4022
9502
72
74
74
79
72
9.
Rajasthan
2
4
20535
5488
2042
181
4538
12249
34
18
10
54
34
10.
Tamil Nadu
2
4
45123
6595
969
912
8426
16902
91
17
100
96
91
11.
Total:
35
65
479803
60703
102991
23568
140629
327891
57
61
68
58
57
Note: Including Partnership blocks in Jharkhand and Maharashtra
221
Annex Table-4.4
Social Composition of Members Mobilized in Intensive Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total SHG
Members*
273807
880294
81646
178879
ST
77844
20703
38986
112559
173029
112751
15752
7818
36708
Karnataka
98605
Madhya Pradesh
392934
Maharashtra
252894
Odisha
236922
Rajasthan
23004
Tamil Nadu
115078
Uttar Pradesh
56120
West Bengal
452677
Total
3215889
13596
297771
66567
133082
4302
13986
471
45627
938245
25350
30447
43467
32375
6792
21460
15245
176971
688308
6164
4301
7699
17161
296
7134
5301
67825
295427
53495
60415
135161
54304
11614
72498
35103
162254
1293909
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11.
12.
13.
Total No. of Households
SC
Minority
32746
51017
260750
113678
10588
581
16365
6452
Others
112200
485163
31491
43503
Annex Table-4.5
Social Composition of Members Mobilized in Resource Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
6. Maharashtra
7. Rajasthan
8. Uttar Pradesh
9. West Bengal
10. Total
Source: NRLM MIS
Total
Resource
Blocks
4
3
12
3
7
8
5
12
1
55
Total SHG
Members
Total No. of Households
ST
SC
Minority
Others
36862
27084
73814
30456
21615
11816
50031
5462
2810
4014
6326
9197
341
3987
5203
1487
12096
7267
12254
14310
91553
69304
10875
2049
9325
69375
30548
19425
2208
31663
396
32435
297
412667 191677
9508
6220
9532
7857
66339
1985
396
3144
1819
20411
27334
10601
18591
22462
134240
222
Annex Table-4.6
Social Composition of SHG Members: Total Sample
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
Members Belonging to
SC
Minority
ST
1. Assam
2. Chhattisgarh
3. Gujarat
4. Jharkhand
5. Madhya Pradesh
6. Rajasthan
7. Maharashtra
8. Bihar
9. Odisha
10. Tamil Nadu
11. Total
Source: Sample Data
56
302
89
965
627
12
324
31
71
34
24
61
227
158
132
67
26
831
168
50
2593
Total
Others
30
74
169
126
179
158
138
530
442
30
233
2079
7
51
15
50
140
0
293
191
542
256
1219
861
377
1062
714
265
309
5796
Annex Table-4.7
Social Composition of Members in Resource Blocks: Sample
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
1.
Chhattisgarh
2.
Jharkhand
3.
Madhya Pradesh
4.
Rajasthan
5.
Maharashtra
6.
Total
Source: Sample Data
ST
287
698
417
12
284
1698
Members Belonging to
SC
Minority
33
22
59
227
125
466
51
15
47
113
Others
94
128
114
138
325
799
Total
414
899
605
377
781
3076
Annex Table-4.8
Social Composition of Sample Members in Intensive Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
1. Assam
2. Chhattisgarh
3. Gujarat
4. Madhya Pradesh
5. Bihar
6. Odisha
7. Tamil Nadu
8. Total
Source: Sample data
Total
Sample SHG
Members
56
15
89
210
168
50
588
ST
SC
Minority
Others
31
38
34
2
132
67
26
330
30
74
75
126
44
442
30
233
1024
191
128
256
256
714
265
309
2119
7
140
0
177
223
Annex Table-4.9
Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: All Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
State
No.
1.
Assam
2.
Bihar
3.
Chhattisgarh
4.
Gujarat
5.
Jharkhand
6.
Madhya Pradesh
7.
Maharashtra
8.
Odisha
9.
Rajasthan
10. Tamil Nadu
11. Total
Source: Sample data
ST
SC
10
32
15
7
8
12
36
12
62
7
201
12
0
52
17
225
118
57
29
6
9
525
Leaders from
Minority
PWD
8
36
0
1
17
3
4
0
1
2
72
Others
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
4
13
112
29
23
34
32
101
7
56
34
441
Total
43
180
96
48
287
165
199
48
125
52
1243
Annex Table-4.10
Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: Resource Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
State
No.
1.
Chhattisgarh
2.
Jharkhand
3.
Madhya Pradesh
4.
Maharashtra
5.
Rajasthan
6.
Total
Source: Sample data
ST
SC
49
161
76
50
6
342
Leaders from
Minorities
7
7
12
28
62
116
0
17
3
4
1
25
PWD
Others
0
3
0
1
0
4
18
27
25
61
39
170
Total
74
215
116
144
108
657
Annex Table-4.11
Social Composition of Sample SHG Leaders: Intensive Blocks (%)
Dec.’14
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total
43
180
22
48
0
49
0
48
459
ST
Leaders from
SC
Minorities
28
0
14
35
86
60
0
17
24
23
18
36
15
0
25
0
13
17
19
20
0
2
0
0
0
4
10
Others
30
62
50
48
14
15
100
65
49
224
Source: Sample data
225
Annex Table-5.1
New & Revived SHGs in NRLM fold in Intensive Blocks
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
New SHGs Promoted
Y1
Y2
Y3
Existing SHG Strengthened
Total
Y1
11225
2435
13660
1 Assam
9094
26970
22057
58121
0
2 Bihar
3461
2380
5841
3 Chhattisgarh
3490
2591
6081
4 Gujarat
627
3326
4992
8945
827
5 Jharkhand
0
947
947
6 Karnataka
5669
11436
10205
27310
5315
7 Madhya Pradesh
1282
3164
8374
12820
2236
8 Maharashtra
388
538
926
9 Odisha
843 600
1443
10 Rajasthan
2664
2664
11 Tamil Nadu
743
2163
2906
12 Uttar Pradesh
1756
1384
3140
13 West Bengal
14 Total
16672
66802
61330
144804
8378
Note: Y1 is up to March 2013; Y2 refers to 2013-14; and Y3 covers Apr-Dec.’14
Y2
12112
429
1551
9758
3179
3340
2212
3469
18434
328
2016
1073
38413
96314
Y3
1365
12591
762
786
1084
892
790
3569
946
3313
242
312
26652
Total
13477
13020
2313
10544
5090
4232
8317
9274
19380
328
5329
1315
38725
131344
Total SHGs in NRLP Fold
Y1
0
9094
0
0
1454
0
10984
3518
0
0
0
0
0
25050
Y2
23337
27399
5012
13248
6505
3340
13648
6633
18822
1171
2016
1816
40169
163116
Y3
3800
34648
3142
3377
6076
1839
10995
11943
1484
600
5977
2405
1696
87982
Total
27137
71141
8154
16625
14035
5179
35627
22094
20306
1771
7993
4221
41865
276148
226
Annex Table-5.2
New SHGs and Revived/Strengthened SHGs under NRLM Fold in Resource Blocks
Sl.
State
No.
1.
Chhattisgarh
2.
Gujarat
3.
Jharkhand
4.
Karnataka
5.
Madhya Pradesh
6.
Maharashtra
7.
Rajasthan
8.
Uttar Pradesh
9.
West Bengal
10. Total
New SHGs
Promoted
3381
738
4914
593
3604
4629
1267
1242
87
20455
Existing SHG
Strengthened
585
1838
1655
272
1033
1743
176
37
485
7824
Dec.’14
Total SHGs in
NRLM Fold
3966
2576
6569
865
4637
6372
1443
1279
572
28279
Annex Table-5.3
CBOs Promoted: Total Sample
S.
No.
Type of CBO
State
1.
Assam
2.
Bihar
3.
Chhattisgarh
4.
Gujarat
5.
Jharkhand
6.
Madhya Pradesh
7.
Maharashtra
8.
Odisha
9.
Rajasthan
10. Tamil Nadu
11. Total
Source: Sample data
SHG
VO
CLF
BLF
1431
4582
1310
989
2409
2056
2475
494
466
1053
17265
98
284
45
23
95
111
99
7
15
191
968
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
41
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
Other
Collectives
0
9
0
0
1
0
2
11
0
0
23
Total
1529
4879
1355
1012
2507
2169
2576
554
481
1244
18306
Annex Table-5.4
CBOs Promoted in Resource Blocks
S.
No.
Type of CBO
State
1.
Chhattisgarh
2.
Jharkhand
3.
Madhya Pradesh
4.
Maharashtra
5.
Rajasthan
6.
Total
Source: Sample data
SHG
VO
CLF
BLF
983
1633
1324
1487
466
5893
45
65
62
0
15
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Collectives
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1028
1698
1386
1487
481
6080
227
Annex Table-5.5
SHGs Formed/Revived and Strengthened: Total Sample
S.
No.
Formed during CRP
Rounds
New
Revived
0
0
898
26
663
110
0
0
821
563
668
265
694
168
40
0
425
0
217
639
4426
1771
State
1
Assam
2
Bihar
3
Chhattisgarh
4
Gujarat
5
Jharkhand
6
Maharashtra
7
Madhya Pradesh
8
Odisha
9
Rajasthan
10
Tamil Nadu
11
Total
Source: Sample data
Formed by Community
Cadre
New
Revived
588
588
839
59
154
18
0
0
584
342
540
216
169
4
10
100
0
0
23
2
2907
1329
Formed by Institutions/
Staff
New
Revived
95
160
2743
17
244
121
465
524
43
56
236
131
1093
347
19
325
11
30
140
32
5089
1743
Total
New
683
4480
1061
465
1448
1444
1956
69
436
380
12422
Revived
748
102
249
524
961
612
519
425
30
673
4843
Annex Table-5.6
SHGs Formed/Revived and Strengthened in Resource Blocks: Sample
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Formed during
CRP Rounds
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Formed by
Community
Cadre
Formed by
Institutions/Staff
Total No of SHGs in NRLM
Fold
Percent of New SHGs
Formed/Revived
New
Revived
New
Revived
New
Revived
New
Revived
Total
663
821
110
563
154
123
18
27
37
43
1
56
854
987
129
646
983
1633
During
CRP
Rounds
79
85
694
168
73
4
443
105
1210
277
1487
58
5
37
668
425
3271
265
0
1106
131
0
481
33
176
11
710
51
30
243
975
436
4462
349
30
1431
1324
466
5893
70
91
74
12
0
10
17
9
16
82
By
Community
Cadre
17
9
By
Staff
4
6
228
Source: Sample data
229
Annex Table-5.7
Training Provided to SHGs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Total no.
Sample SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
States
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
During CRP
Rounds
16
31
1
76
45
64
21
34
11
299
By Comm.
Cadres
6
18
54
10
23
5
6
122
By
Staff/PRPs
4
50
25
22
44
74
46
2
2
7
276
Annex Table-5.8
Training Provided to Sample SHGs During CRP Rounds: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
States
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Total No.
Sample SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
During CRP
Rounds
31
63
45
63
34
236
By Comm.
Cadres
26
47
8
14
95
By Staff/
PRPs
30
43
51
31
7
162
Annex Table-5.9
Training Provided to Sample SHGs on Meeting Processes: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
States
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total no. Sample
SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
During CRP
Rounds
78
96
23
36
23
502
45
64
21
34
11
299
16
31
1
76
By Comm.
Cadres
12
2
26
64
9
26
5
10
154
By Staff/
PRPs
6
51
31
19
47
75
49
2
7
7
294
230
Annex Table-5.10
Sample SHGs Trained Maintenance of Books of Accounts: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
States
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total No.
Sample SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
During CRP
Rounds
28
52
44
55
30
20
17
246
By Comm.
Cadres
6
16
28
54
11
32
5
11
163
By Staff/
PRPs
4
43
27
15
64
71
64
2
34
8
332
Annex Table-5.11
Sample SHGs Trained Maintenance of Books of Accounts: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
States
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Total no.
Sample SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
During CRP
Rounds
28
45
44
54
30
201
By Comm.
Cadres
28
37
8
18
91
By Staff/
PRPs
27
60
50
47
34
218
Annex Table-5.12
MCP Training Provided to Sample SHGs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
States
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total no.
Sample SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
During CRP
Rounds
3
By Comm.
Cadres
4
5
23
26
12
9
13
2
48
8
34
1
65
123
By Staff/
PRPs
4
56
20
11
56
55
38
240
231
Annex Table-5.13
MCP Training Provided to Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
States
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Total No.
Sample SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
During CRP
Rounds
3
21
12
8
2
46
By Comm.
Cadres
23
32
4
23
By Staff/
PRPs
20
51
36
25
82
132
Annex Table-5.14
Other Types of Training Provided to Sample SHGs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
States
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total no.
Sample SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
During CRP
Rounds
3
By Comm.
Cadres
4
5
23
26
12
9
13
2
48
8
34
1
65
123
By Staff/
PRPs
4
56
20
11
56
55
38
240
Annex Table-5.15
Other Types of Training Provided to Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
States
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Total no.
Sample SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
During CRP
Rounds
7
7
10
2
By Comm.
Cadres
5
6
4
1
By Staff/
PRPs
18
14
12
5
26
16
49
232
Annex Table-5.16
Members Provided Three Day Basic Training: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Total Members
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
191
714
542
256
1225
861
1062
265
377
309
5802
Members who have
undergone three days of training
125
670
403
173
894
677
930
254
317
192
4635
Annex Table-5.17
Members Provided Three Day Basic Training: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Total Members
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
414
905
605
781
377
3082
Members who have
undergone three days of training
402
778
555
691
317
2743
Annex Table-5.18
SHGs Provided Facilitation Support: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
States
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total No. of
Sample SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
SHGs being
Facilitated
17
60
45
17
85
71
92
22
29
23
461
233
Annex Table-5.19
SHGs Provided Facilitation Support: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
States
Total No. Sample SHGs
SHGs being facilitated
36
72
54
72
36
270
34
63
48
68
29
242
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Annex Table-5.20
SHGs Provided Facilitation Support by Active Women and Staff: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
No. of
Sample SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
SHGs facilitated by
Active Women
17
60
23
2
87
21
71
11
25
17
334
SHG facilitated by
NRLM Staff
2
24
22
5
57
25
11
11
6
163
Annex Table-5.21
SHGs Provided Facilitation Support by Active Women and Staff: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
No. of Sample SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
SHGs facilitated by
Active Women
23
65
19
49
25
181
SHG facilitated by
NRLM Staff
13
4
35
23
11
86
234
Annex Table-5.22
SHGs Providing Training During Preceding Three Months: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
No. of
Sample SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
SHGs Trained in
Last 3 Months
4
16
26
13
59
49
36
21
12
5
241
Annex Table-5.23
SHGs Providing Training During Preceding Three Months: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
SHGs Trained in
Last 3 Months
25
44
32
24
12
137
No. of Sample SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
Annex Table-5.24
Attendance of Members at Sample SHG Meetings: All Blocks
S.
No.
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Expect.
4966
19872
13697
5344
33295
24129
20623
3600
10134
Total
Act. Attend
3946
15739
12446
3560
28186
19960
18633
3449
9365
%
79
79
91
67
85
83
90
96
92
135660
115284
85
235
Annex Table-5.25
Savings Subscribed by Members: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Expected
Total
Conducted
Percentage
57610
194280
245580
120218
406240
548085
421625
117790
150690
43252.5
172830
237520
116168
392725
514295
414675
109870
146115
75
89
97
97
97
94
98
93
97
2262118
2147450.5
95
Annex Table-5.26
Stipulated Meetings Conducted During Last Six Months: Sample SHGs
S.
No.
State
1.
Assam
2.
Bihar
3.
Chhattisgarh
4.
Gujarat
5.
Jharkhand
6.
Madhya Pradesh
7.
Maharashtra
8.
Odisha
9.
Rajasthan
10.
Tamil Nadu
11.
Total
Source: Sample data
Total SHG Meetings During Preceding 6 Months
Expected
Conducted
Percentage
494
402
81
1689
1561
92
1209
1198
99
520
344
66
2526
2427
96
2187
1975
90
1906
1847
97
315
303
96
974
899
92
1480
1361
92
13288
12329
93
236
Annex Table-5.27
Number of Meetings held Vis-à-vis Expected During Last Six Months: Sample SHGs
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Intensive Blocks
Expect.
Held.
494
402
1689
1561
265
261
520
344
Resource Blocks
Expect.
Held.
%
81
92
98
66
624
457
73
303
315
104
1480
5375
1361
4701
92
87
Partnership Blocks
Expect.
Held.
%
944
937
99
1887
1416
1906
1860
1375
1847
99
97
97
974
899
92
7127
6918
97
%
639
147
567
143
89
97
786
710
90
237
Annex Table-5.28
Average Member Attendance at Meetings: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Intensive Blocks
Act.
Expect.
Attend
4966
3946
19872
15739
2850
2799
5344
3560
%
79%
79%
98%
67%
6656
4462
67%
3600
3449
96%
23062
66350
40705
74660
177%
113%
Resource Blocks
Act.
Expect.
Attend
%
10847
9647
89%
25064
15757
20623
21343
13923
18633
85%
88%
90%
10134
9365
92%
82425
72911
88%
Partnership Blocks
Act.
Expect.
Attend
%
8231
1716
6843
1575
83%
92%
9947
8418
85%
238
Annex Table-6.1
SHG Savings both Old and New SHGs: All Sample Blocks
S.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
State/ Age
in Weeks
Assam
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Bihar
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Chhattisgarh
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
Gujarat
52-76
76-100
124-148
>148
Jharkhand
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Madhya Pradesh
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Maharashtra
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
No. of SHGs
12
2
8
1
1
57
27
9
3
5
13
41
6
11
8
8
8
9
3
2
2
2
49
4
20
18
3
1
3
69
25
22
21
1
78
6
26
16
21
8
Average Size of
SHG
10
10
10
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
12
13
10
10
11
10
12
12
12
13
12
14
10
12
11
11
11
11
12
11
12
11
12
11
10
Average
Savings
6841
10925
6400
3100
5940
13343
6615
10132
13107
15430
28789
21064
23867
12773
16333
18992
37164
18069
13160
23640
9600
28330
19946
9634
16252
15749
78565
26955
22547
17180
13206
17846
21100
19550
23274
25881
23498
15569
24827
30629
Average
Savings/Capita
680
1093
640
310
540
1111
568
854
1125
1222
2371
1835
2258
1210
1470
1610
2968
1651
1316
2259
960
2237
1568
714
1249
1326
5683
2696
1801
1569
1202
1639
1930
1629
2101
2290
2108
1330
2287
2950
239
S.
No.
8
9.
10
State/ Age
in Weeks
>148
Odisha
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Rajasthan
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
Tamil Nadu
52-76
100-124
>148
Total
1
21
6
5
1
2
7
30
6
9
14
1
4
1
1
2
Average Size of
SHG
14
11
13
10
11
12
11
10
10
10
10
11
15
13
16
16
Average
Savings
33600
29293
32838
22062
3300
20525
37639
9508
6137
9533
11100
7220
173925
20150
165850
254850
Average
Savings/Capita
2400
2591
2632
2099
300
1800
3459
927
598
937
1080
656
10551
1550
10366
15144
370
11
20116.3
1716.0
No. of SHGs
Annex Table-6.2
Amount of Savings Collected by SHGs During Preceding 6 Months
In Rs.
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Rajasthan
Total
19
60
47
24
96
Expected
57610
194280
245580
120218
406240
Amount
Collected
43252.5
172830
237520
116168
392725
78
548085
514295
94
96
24
38
24
506
421625
117790
414675
109870
98
93
150690
2262118
146115
2147450.5
97
95
No. of
Sample SHGs
Percentage
75
89
97
97
97
240
Annex Table-6.3
Savings Undertaken by Sample SHGs in All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Intensive Blocks
Expect.
Act. Sav
57610
194280
76200
120218
43252.5
172830
75950
116168
%
75%
89%
100%
97%
117560
94100
80%
117790
109870
93%
1655374
2339032
1611756
2223926.5
97%
95%
Resource Blocks
Expect.
Act. Sav
%
169380
161570
95%
341030
261625
421625
334725
251695
414675
98%
96%
98%
150690
146115
97%
1344350
1308780
97%
Partnership Blocks
Expect.
Act. Sav
%
65210
168900
58000
168500
89%
100%
234110
226500
97%
241
Annex Table-6.4
No. of members who have taken loans: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total
Members
191
714
542
256
1225
861
1062
277
397
321
5846
Members who
have taken loans
135
640
485
96
1182
754
974
236
193
286
4981
%
71%
90%
89%
38%
96%
88%
92%
85%
49%
89%
85%
Annex Table-6.5
No. of members who have taken loans: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Total Members
414
905
605
781
397
3102
Members who have
taken loans
414
830
564
760
193
2761
%
100%
92%
93%
97%
49%
89%
242
Annex Table -6.6
Savings of Sample SHGs (New) by Age: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
State/ Age in
Weeks
Assam
52-76
76-100
100-124
Bihar
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Chhattisgarh
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
Jharkhand
<52
52-76
76-100
Madhya
Pradesh
52-76
76-100
100-124
Maharashtra
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Odisha
<52
Rajasthan
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
Total
No. of
SHGs
8
2
5
1
57
27
9
3
5
13
24
7
6
6
5
21
1
8
12
Average Member
Size of SHGs
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
Average Savings
per SHG
7100
10925
6370
3100
13343
6615
10132
13107
15430
28789
17977
11029
15838
16967
31482
11069
4280
11451
11380
Average Savings per
Member
710
1093
637
310
1111
568
854
1125
1222
2371
1560
997
1394
1477
2646
948
389
974
978
50
11
15341
1407
23
14
13
46
1
15
15
14
1
2
2
26
6
7
12
1
234
11
11
11
11
15
11
12
11
14
12
12
10
10
10
10
11
11
11746
15904
21095
19080
19800
16588
14942
25094
33600
12640
12640
7982
6137
7757
9100
7220
14353.6
1057
1496
1931
1635
1320
1405
1268
2243
2400
1057
1057
792
598
776
910
656
1259
243
Annex Table -6.7
Savings of Sample SHGs (New) by Age: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State/
Age in Weeks
Chhattisgarh
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
Jharkhand
<52
52-76
76-100
Madhya Pradesh
52-76
76-100
100-124
Maharashtra
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Rajasthan
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
Total
No. of
SHGs
23
6
6
6
5
19
1
7
11
38
19
12
7
39
11
13
14
1
26
6
7
12
1
145
Average
Member Size of
SHGs
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
14
10
10
10
10
11
11.1
Average
Savings per
SHG
17981
9888
15838
16967
31482
10396
4280
9613
11450
15854
12903
15388
24664
17724
12986
12575
25094
33600
7982
6137
7757
9100
7220
14567.6
Average Savings
per Member
1557
892
1394
1477
2646
892
389
797
998
1430
1151
1428
2189
1593
1240
1128
2243
2400
792
598
776
910
656
1309
244
Annex Table -6.8
Grading of Sample SHGs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
No. of Sample SHGs
SHGs graded
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
9
30
33
20
50
52
71
22
9
10
306
No. of Sample SHGs
SHGs graded
36
72
54
72
36
270
30
39
31
53
9
162
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
Annex Table-6.9
Grading of Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Annex Table-6.10
Sample SHGs Provided RF: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
No. of SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
SHGs Provided with RF
Number
Percentage
8
41
35
23
88
70
68
7
36
374
42%
68%
77%
96%
92%
90%
0%
75%
245
Annex Table-6.11
Sample SHGs Provided RF: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
No. of SHGs
SHGs provided with RF
Number
Percentage
36
72
54
72
36
270
32
68
49
56
36
241
89%
94%
91%
78%
100%
89%
Annex Table–6.12
No. of Sample SHGs Provided with CIF: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
No. of SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
SHGs provided with CIF
Number
Percentage
1
5%
56
93%
26
55%
0%
85
89%
48
62%
27
243
0%
48%
Annex Table–6.13
No. of Sample SHGs Provided with CIF: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
No. of SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
SHGs provided with CIF
Number
Percentage
26
72%
67
93%
36
67%
16
22%
0%
145
54%
246
Annex Table-6.14
No. of Sample SHGs Accessed Bank Credit: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
No. of SHGs
19
60
47
24
96
78
96
23
36
23
502
SHGs Accessed Bank Credit
Number
Percentage
1
20
17
7
36
20
36
19
5%
33%
36%
29%
38%
26%
16
172
70%
34%
Annex Table-6.15
No. of Sample SHGs Accessed Bank Credit: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
No. of SHGs
36
72
54
72
36
270
SHGs accessed Bank Credit
Number
Percentage
13
32
9
18
72
36%
44%
17%
25%
0%
27%
247
Annex able – 6.16
Idle Funds with Sample SHGs by Age: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8..
State/Age
Assam
52-76
76-100
>148
Bihar
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Chhattisgarh
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
Gujarat
76-100
124-148
>148
Jharkhand
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Madhya Pradesh
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Maharashtra
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Odisha
<52
Name of SHG
8
2
5
1
57
27
9
3
5
13
36
5
9
8
7
7
4
1
2
1
43
3
17
17
3
3
45
11
16
17
1
69
6
23
13
18
8
1
16
4
Average of Idle Cash
Percentage
54%
49%
59%
42%
27%
36%
22%
38%
25%
10%
26%
21%
26%
44%
24%
13%
20%
52%
13%
4%
39%
48%
37%
40%
31%
49%
45%
66%
35%
42%
29%
35%
57%
26%
44%
26%
54%
24%
60%
86%
248
S.
No.
9.
10.
11.
State/Age
Average of Idle Cash
Percentage
14%
51%
77%
40%
15%
47%
50%
29%
42%
1
4%
23%
37%
Name of SHG
52-76
100-124
>148
Rajasthan
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
Tamil Nadu
52-76
100-124
>148
Total
4
2
6
26
6
7
12
1
3
1
1
1
307
Annex Table-6.17
Average Idle Cash with Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks
Number
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0-5000
(Rs.)
5
4
3
24
12
48
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
5000-10000
(Rs.)
10
6
2
8
10
36
10000 and
Above (Rs.)
12
21
24
16
4
77
Total
27
31
29
48
26
161
Annex Table-6.18
Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs: Intensive Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
State
Assam
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Madhya Pradesh
Bihar
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Total
No. of
SHGs
19
11
24
24
60
23
23
184
Minutes
Book
63%
9%
42%
46%
75%
74%
100%
65%
Cash
Book
5%
0%
46%
58%
57%
39%
83%
48%
General
Ledger
5%
0%
50%
58%
7%
17%
78%
29%
Loan
Members
Ledger Passbook
53%
16%
0%
9%
50%
50%
71%
46%
27%
45%
35%
43%
91%
96%
46%
47%
Savings
Register
37%
18%
50%
58%
78%
52%
83%
61%
249
Annex Table-6.19
Status of Bookkeeping in Sample SHGs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
No. of
SHGs
36
72
Minutes
Book
69%
90%
Cash
Book
36%
42%
General
Ledger
25%
42%
Loan
Ledger
75%
97%
Members
Passbook
67%
97%
Savings
Register
92%
97%
54
83%
65%
54%
69%
76%
87%
72
36
270
90%
67%
83%
78%
58%
57%
76%
56%
53%
74%
75%
79%
69%
86%
80%
88%
58%
87%
Annex Table-6.20
Velocity of Fund Rotation in Sample SHGs: Up to Dec.’14
State
Assam
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Bihar
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Chhattisgarh
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
Gujarat
52-76
76-100
124-148
>148
Jharkhand
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Average Corpus Per SHG in Rs.
11793
19225
11518
3460
7465
32608
23024
25537
18557
26111
63148
37604
31097
25212
31519
39667
62734
30001
20848
32394
20573
50769
39800
27112
32869
36097
116310
44410
Average Loan Disbursed
15042
15750
16350
5300
12900
125109
76101
86471
104717
144390
250933
166604
43340
104254
121089
215628
318074
57313
4000
24750
81500
119000
137703
38102
91053
149106
456683
160900
Velocity
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.7
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.0
1.6
2.9
1.5
1.0
0.1
0.8
1.0
2.7
1.2
0.6
1.1
1.3
2.1
1.6
250
Madhya Pradesh
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Maharashtra
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Odisha
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Rajasthan
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
Tamil Nadu
52-76
100-124
>148
Grand Total
33027
28607
33956
37038
34430
41403
35975
36153
32667
50515
54240
65651
30449
33529
20079
3350
21598
41617
25464
21310
25740
27232
23410
199281
19590
164024
306755
36384
91428
55551
104285
115953
154600
158140
52742
107655
121658
258842
194373
447153
182900
182917
98139
1200
91500
295500
27424
22217
25885
30962
25000
450550
40000
371800
695200
125984
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.8
1.1
1.9
1.8
2.2
1.4
1.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.3
251
Annex Table-6.21
Leverage Ratio (Own Fund to Bank Loan) in Sample SHGs: All Blocks
S.
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
State
Assam
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Bihar
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
>148
Chhattisgarh
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
Gujarat
52-76
76-100
124-148
>148
Jharkhand
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Madhya
Pradesh
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Maharashtra
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
124-148
No. of
SHGs
Savings
12
2
8
1
1
57
27
9
3
5
13
40
5
11
8
8
8
9
3
2
2
2
47
3
20
18
3
3
82090
21850
51200
3100
5940
760525
178605
91190
39320
77150
374260
850410
130000
140505
130660
151935
297310
162619
39479
47280
19200
56660
954809
35735
332265
283474
235695
67640
68
1182812
24
22
21
1
75
6
26
15
19
8
327545
392620
443097
19550
1772648
155287
610952
229705
498072
245032
RF
CIF
45000
15000
30000
Total
In Rs; Dec.’14
Lever
Bank Loan
age
Ratio
50000
0.4
0.0
50000
0.6
0.0
0.0
877000
0.2
50000
0.0
0.0
99000
0.5
178000
0.5
550000
0.5
1310000
0.5
100000
0.7
230000
0.4
100000
0.2
100000
0.2
780000
0.9
100000
0.4
0.0
0.0
100000
2.6
0.0
484000
0.1
24000
0.2
98000
0.1
274000
0.2
88000
0.2
0.0
2100000
50000
900000
850000
150000
150000
127090
36850
81200
3100
5940
4279525
2043605
561190
188320
342150
1144260
2605410
145000
605505
460660
571935
822310
232619
59479
62280
39200
71660
3684809
130735
1502265
1373474
430695
247640
855000
2555000
4592812
1452900
0.3
305000
285000
255000
10000
754200
40000
188000
210000
279000
22200
860000
760000
885000
50000
1496101
1492545
1437620
1583097
79550
4022949
195287
948952
805806
1427072
537232
130000
574900
668000
80000
3309000
50000
1485000
270000
942000
422000
0.1
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.3
1.6
0.3
0.7
0.8
600000
375000
90000
15000
120000
435000
15000
105000
90000
120000
105000
70000
20000
15000
20000
15000
630000
45000
270000
240000
45000
30000
2919000
1490000
380000
149000
250000
650000
1320000
360000
240000
300000
420000
150000
366101
650000
270000
252
S.
No
8.
9.
10
11
State
>148
Odisha
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
>148
Rajasthan
<52
52-76
76-100
100-124
Tamil Nadu
52-76
100-124
>148
Total
No. of
SHGs
1
21
6
5
1
2
7
29
6
8
14
1
4
1
1
2
362
Savings
RF
CIF
33600
615160
197030
110310
3300
41050
263470
279140
36820
79700
155400
7220
695700
20150
165850
509700
7355913
15000
65000
15000
20000
60000
30000
435000
90000
120000
210000
15000
25000
25000
3914200
10390101
Total
108600
680160
212030
130310
3300
41050
293470
714140
126820
199700
365400
22220
720700
20150
165850
534700
21660214
Bank Loan
140000
3935500
1082500
473000
145000
2235000
958500
50000
325500
583000
12476900
Lever
age
Ratio
1.3
5.8
5.1
3.6
0.0
3.5
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
2.5
2.0
1.1
0.6
253
Annex Table–7.1
Growth of VOs Per Block: NRLP
S.
No.
State
Intensive
Blocks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Total
25
77
16
20
29
20
46
36
28
7
16
22
32
374
No. of VOs formed
Y1
Y2
Y3
Total
1049
320
1369
1118
1160
2482
88
101
189
230
166
396
117
540
687
0
202
202
522
866
800
2188
116
323
536
975
96
48
144
32
31
63
507
692
204
30
185
872
2668
528
3196
6772
4939
12583
Average
No. of
VOs Per
Block
55
32
12
20
24
10
48
27
5
9
43
0
100
34
No. of SHGs federated into VOs
Y1
Y2
Y3
Total
10555
3211
13766
12050
13444
27939
633
725
1358
1713
1342
3055
1404
6480
8244
0
2061
2061
2780
4683
4237
11700
1271
2855
4862
8988
1152
528
1680
2445
360
289
568
279
2016
5977
7993
Average
No. of
SHGs
Per VO
10
11
7
8
12
10
5
9
12
9
12
0
6856
24699
5512
30211
62049
48658
117563
9
9
254
Annex Table-7.2
SHGs Holding Membership in Sample VOs: All Blocks
S.
No.
State
Total No. of SHGs
in the Sample
Clusters
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Total
1431
4582
1310
989
2409
2056
2475
494
466
1053
17265
No. of SHGs
Following
Panchsutra
1205
4211
1198
265
2321
1968
1995
359
394
877
14793
No of SHGs
Holding
Membership
in the VO
976
3377
621
177
967
1330
543
488
124
846
9449
Percent of SHG
Memberships
68.20
73.70
47.40
17.90
40.14
64.69
21.94
98.79
26.61
80.34
54.73
Annex Table-7.3
SHGs Holding Membership in Sample VOs:: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
Total
Total No of
SHGs in the
sample
Clusters
983
1633
1324
1487
466
5893
No of SHGs
Following
Panchsutra
No of SHGs Holding
membership in the
VO
Percent of SHG
memberships
982
1569
1266
1285
394
5496
621
552
733
0
124
2030
63.17
33.80
55.36
0.00
26.61
34.45
Annex Table-7.4
SHGs Federated into Sample VOs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Total
Sample VOs
SHGs Federated in
Sample VOs
Size of VO
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
121
172
217
135
30
230
64
303
208
71
1430
10
11
12
8
10
8
12
26
9
12
255
Annex Table-7.5
SHGs Federated into Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
State
Sample VOs
SHGs Federated
in Sample VOs
Size of VO
1.
Chhattisgarh
11
135
2.
Jharkhand
17
174
3.
Madhya Pradesh**
0
4.
Maharashtra
16
187
5.
Rajasthan
8
71
6.
Total
52
567
Note: ** In the state of Madhya Pradesh, VOs are not formed in the resource blocks
12
10
0
11
9
11
Annex Table -7.6
Regularity of Sample VO Meetings: All Blocks
S.
No
1.
Sample
Types
All Blocks
Total
Sample
VOs
121
VO Meetings
Dec
Nov
Oct
E
A
P
E
A
P
E
A
P
179
152
85
166
139
84
168
150
89
2.
Resource
52
56
54
96
44
47
107
47
47
100
Blocks**
3. Intensive
69
123
98
80
122
92
75
121
103
85
Blocks*
Note: (1) ** In the state of Madhya Pradesh, VOs are not formed in the resource blocks. (2) * in
case of Chhattisgarh VOs are not formed in the intensive blocks. (3) E-Expected; A-Actual;
P-Percent
256
Annex Table -7.7
Regularity of Sample VO Meetings: Intensive and Resource Blocks
S.
No.
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Sample
VOs
Dec
E
A
17
19
14
7
22
8
25
32
8
17
17
13
6
22
8
26
16
6
10. Total
121 152
Note: E-Expected; A-Actual; P-Percent
131
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
Nov
P
E
A
100
89
93
86
100
100
104
50
75
17
19
10
7
22
8
23
32
2
13
17
10
6
22
7
25
16
3
86
140
119
Oct
P
E
A
P
76
89
100
86
100
88
109
50
150
17
18
15
7
21
8
24
32
0
16
17
13
6
21
8
25
16
1
94
94
87
86
100
100
104
50
0
85
142
123
87
Annex Table-7.8
SHGs Attending VO Meetings: Total Sample
No of SHGs in the
VOs
Dec
Nov
Oct
1. Assam
162
162
162
2. Bihar
217
215
213
3. Chhattisgarh
132
126
125
4. Gujarat
30
30
30
5. Jharkhand
208
196
189
6. Madhya Pradesh
64
64
64
7. Maharashtra
318
312
307
8. Odisha
208
195
188
9. Rajasthan
73
12
0
10. Total
1412 1312 1278
Note: Including partnership blocks
Source: VO Sample
S.
No.
Sate
No of SHGs Attending
VO meetings
Dec
Nov
Oct
147
118
128
185
200
191
128
123
124
28
30
28
203
190
195
61
52
62
331
264
272
202
195
193
61
12
0
1346 1184
1193
% of attendance
Dec
91
85
97
93
98
95
104
97
84
95
Nov
73
93
98
100
97
81
85
100
100
90
Oct
79
90
99
93
103
97
89
103
0
93
257
Annex Table-7.9
SHGs Attending VO Meetings: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sate
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
No of SHGs in the
No of SHGs Attending
VOs
VO Meetings
Dec
Nov
Oct
Dec
Nov
Oct
132
126
125
128
123
124
172
160
153
167
154
159
0
0
0
0
0
0
181
175
172
202
145
149
73
12
0
61
12
0
558
473
450
558
434
432
% of attendance
Dec
97
97
0
112
84
100
Nov
98
96
0
83
100
92
Oct
99
104
0
87
0
96
Annex Table-7.10
SHG Reviewed by Sample VOs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Total
Total No of SHGs
expected to be
reviewed by the VO
Dec
Nov
Oct
0
215
31
0
80
50
261
0
0
637
0
215
30
0
80
50
260
0
0
635
0
215
29
0
77
50
250
0
0
621
Total No. of SHGs
actually Reviewed
Percentage of SHGs
reviewed
Dec
Dec
0
178
17
0
44
29
152
0
0
420
Nov
0
182
15
0
44
33
132
0
0
406
Oct
0
172
17
0
37
27
124
0
0
377
0
83
0
0
55
58
58
0
0
66
Nov
0
85
0
0
55
66
51
0
0
64
Oct
0
80
0
0
48
54
50
0
0
61
Annex Table-7.11
SHG reviewed by Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Total No. of SHGs
expected to be
reviewed by the VO
Dec
Nov
Oct
31
30
29
67
67
64
0
0
0
145
145
137
0
0
0
243
242
230
Total No. of SHGs
actually Reviewed
Dec
17
43
0
60
0
120
Nov
15
43
0
58
0
116
Oct
17
36
0
53
0
106
Percentage of SHGs
reviewed by VOs
Dec
55
64
0
41
0
49
Nov
50
64
0
40
0
48
Oct
59
56
0
39
0
46
258
Annex Table-7.12
Status of CIF Recovery in Sample VOs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Total
Dec
Amount of CIF due
Nov
121050
941608
76700
0
3251025
463825
390751
0
0
5244959
107900
824338
69500
0
2999772
384213
338946
0
0
4724669
Oct
Amount of CIF recovered
Dec
Nov
Oct
94670
733207
55000
0
2497430
595542
284270
0
0
4260119
0
560350
68300
0
225580
108947
186151
0
0
1149328
0
525950
68300
0
123213
88941
185346
0
0
991750
Recovery Percentage
Dec
Nov
Oct
0
441758
54000
0
105685
103736
141870
0
0
847049
0
60
89
0
7
23
48
0
0
22
0
64
98
0
4
23
55
0
0
21
0
60
98
0
4
17
50
0
0
20
Annex Table-7.13
Status of CIF Recovery in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Amount of CIF due
Dec
Nov
76700
2951025
0
264630
0
3292355
69500
2699772
0
207730
0
2977002
Oct
55000
2197430
0
185630
0
2438060
Amount of CIF recovered
Dec
Nov
Oct
68300
225580
0
60030
0
353910
68300
123213
0
54130
0
245643
54000
105685
0
43230
0
202915
Recovery Percentage
Dec
Nov
Oct
89
8
0
23
0
11
98
5
0
26
0
8
98
5
0
23
0
8
259
Annex Table-7.14
MIP Appraisal in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
No. of
Sample VO
11
22
24
57
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Total
No. of VOs Undertaking
MIP Appraisal
3
8
10
21
Percentage
27
41
68
21
Annex Table-7.15
SHGs Provided CIF by Sample VOs: All Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Sample
VOs
No. of SHGs Provided CIF
Total
Eligible
SHGs for Directly by
By VOs Total
CIF
Mission
17
19
11
4
22
110
214
85
23
171
20
181
77
7
162
17
0
14
4
11
37
181
91
11
173
8
192
111
26
137
25
8
8
227
173
73
55
0
0
24
8
8
79
8
8
Percent of SHGs Provided
CIF
Directly
by
By VOs Total
Mission
18
15
34
85
0
85
91
16
107
30
17
48
95
6
101
58
24
0
0
48
10.
122
1268
613
112
725
Total
(613)
Note: Tamil Nadu sample will be included after getting the field data revalidated.
14
71
11
5
11
9
(112)
35
5
11
57
(725)
Annex Table-7.16
SHGs Provided CIF by Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
No of SHGs Provided
Percent of SHGs
CIF
Provided CIF
S.
Sample
State
Directly
Directly
No.
VOs
By
By
by
Total
by
Total
VOs
VOs
Mission
Mission
11
85
77
8
85
91
9
100
1. Chhattisgarh
17
142
141
15
156
99
11
110
2. Jharkhand
0
134
80
80
60
0
60
3. Madhya Pradesh
16
156
55
4
59
35
3
38
4. Maharashtra
8
73
0
0
0
0
0
5. Rajasthan
52
590
353
27
380
60
5
64
6. Total
Note: In Jharkhand, some SHGs have received CIF twice.
Total
Eligible
SHGs for
CIF
260
Annex Table-7.17
CIF Amount Provided to SHGs by Sample VOs: Total Sample
S.
No.
State
Sample VOs
17
Assam
19
Bihar
11
Chhattisgarh
4
Gujarat
22
Jharkhand
Madhya
8
6. Pradesh
24
7. Maharashtra
8
8. Odisha
8
9. Rajasthan
121
10. Total
Note: Excluding Tamil Nadu
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
Eligible
SHGs for
CIF
110
214
85
23
171
192
227
173
73
1268
SHGs
Provided
CIF
CIF Amount
Provided Rs.
CIF Amount
Per SHG
(in Rs.)
37
181
91
11
173
1000000
10290000
3799500
15000
6490000
27027
556851
41753
1364
37514
137
79
8
8
725
2140000
4807000
0
28541500
15620
60848
0
0
39368
Annex Table-7.18
CIF Amount Provided to SHGs by Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
S.
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
CIF Amount
Provided Rs.
85
142
No. of SHGs
Provided
CIF
85
156
3799500
6190000
CIF Amount
Per SHG
(in Rs.)
44700
39679
134
80
0
0
156
73
590
59
0
380
2165000
0
12154500
36695
0
31986
Sample VOs
Total Eligible
SHGs for CIF
11
17
16
8
52
261
Annex Table-7.19
Role of Sample VOs in Other Activities: Total Sample
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
VOs Engaged in
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Total
Sample VOs
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
8
121
SM
Training
2
19
8
2
16
6
14
8
2
77
16
1
2
11
3
9
8
2
52
Percent of VOs Undertaking Other Activities
Convergence
with PRI
Working
with LDs
2
14
2
2
6
5
21
4
2
3
4
6
13
56
28
SM
Training
Convergence
with PRI
Working
with LDs
12
100
73
50
73
75
56
100
25
63
0
84
9
50
50
38
36
100
25
43
12
74
18
50
27
63
84
50
0
46
12
0
27
0
18
75
52
0
0
23
Annex Table-7.20
Role of Sample VOs in Other Activities: Resource Blocks
VOs Undertaking Other Activities
S.
No
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Total
Sample VOs
11
17
16
44
Percent of VOs Undertaking Other Activities
SM
Training
Convergence
with PRI
Working
with LDs
SM
Training
Convergence
with PRI
Working
with LDs
8
12
1
9
5
15
2
3
13
18
3
3
7
13
73
71
0
60
9
53
29
33
18
18
76
40
27
18
41
29
27
262
Annex Table-7.21
Capacity Building of EC Members in Sample VOs: Intensive Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Rajasthan
Total
Sample
VOs
17
19
No of VOs that provided Training and Exposure and Immersion to EC members: Intensive Blocks
Exposure
Book
Sub
Cadre
Meetings
and
Management
MCP CIF Audit
keeping
Committees
Management
Immersion
10
1
6
19
10
17
18
16
8
13
10
4
5
4
5
1
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
3
2
8
8
4
8
2
8
6
7
8
8
8
8
3
4
8
8
8
8
5
8
4
1
4
69
62
22
48
42
33
32
27
3
14
263
Annex Table-7.22
Capacity Building of EC Members in Sample VOs: Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
State
Sample VOs
No of VOs that provided Training and Exposure and Immersion to EC members: Resource Blocks
Exposure
Book
Sub
Cadre
Meetings
and
Management
MCP CIF Audit
keeping Committees
management
Immersion
11
2
10
11
3
5
7
3
2
11
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
17
16
8
17
15
2
1
6.
Total
52
45
3
13
4
12
8
9
5
5
6
8
2
4
2
27
31
17
16
17
5
6
Annex Table-7.23
Receipts and Payments of Sample VOs: All Blocks
In Rs. Cumulative Up to Dec.’14
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Total
Number of VOs
17
19
11
4
22
8
24
8
113
Total
Receipts of VO
1148152
17886113
3542369
352700
9612457
3550396
7177754
16060
43286001
Receipts Per VO
67538
941374
322034
88175
436930
443800
299073
2008
383062
Total
Payments of VO
1149812
17869844
4297858
352700
10760302
3736450
7219382
34300
45420648
Payments Per VO
67636
940518
390714
88175
489105
467056
300808
4288
401953
264
Annex Table-8.1
Social Capital Available: All States
S.
No.
State
Blocks
1.
Assam
25
2.
Bihar
77
3.
Chhattisgarh
16
4.
Gujarat
20
5.
Jharkhand
29
6.
Karnataka
20
7.
Madhya Pradesh
46
8.
Maharashtra
36
10.
Odisha
28
11.
Rajasthan
7
12.
Tamil Nadu
16
13.
Uttar Pradesh
22
14.
West Bengal
32
15.
Total
374
Total
SHGs
27137
71141
8154
16625
14035
5179
35627
22094
20306
1771
7993
4221
41865
276148
No. of SHG
Bookkeepers
Placed
BKs
Per
Block
40084
7377
6246
612
4915
1261
16083
19613
782
861
7252
213
1086
106385
1603
96
390
31
169
63
350
545
28
123
453
10
34
284
No. of
SHGs
Per BK
No. of
Women
Activists
Trained
and
Position
No. of
Women
Activists
Per
Block
No. of
SHGs
Per
Women
Activist
No. of
Internal
CRPs
Deployed
1
10
2
27
3
4
2
1
26
2
1
20
39
3
0
1822
1428
1944
1450
0
8886
1711
0
84
9120
95
0
26540
0
24
89
97
50
0
193
48
0
12
570
4
0
71
0
39
7
9
10
0
4
13
0
22
1
44
0
11
703
2081
0
0
140
383
8957
70
526
140
152
0
116
13268
Internal
CRPs
Per
Block
28
27
0
0
5
19
195
2
19
20
10
0
4
35
No. of
SHGs
per
CRP
68
34
0
0
100
14
4
316
39
13
53
0
361
22
265
Annex Table-8.2
SHG Bookkeepers Services Available in Intensive Blocks
S.
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total
SHGs in
Sample
Clusters
1431
4582
327
989
776
732
988
494
1053
11372
No. of SHG
book
keepers
Required
1430
523
296
88
776
732
828
59
46
4778
No.
Actually
Identified
762
513
280
60
776
728
419
57
46
3641
No.
Actually
Serving
123
469
250
0
301
703
382
33
23
2284
Percent of BKs
available (No
actually serving/
No required)
8.60
89.67
84.46
0.00
38.79
96.04
46.14
55.93
50.00
47.80
Annex- Table-8.3
MCP Trainers Available: Intensive Blocks
S.
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Total
Total
SHGs in
Sample
Clusters
1431
4582
327
989
776
732
988
494
1053
11372
No. of
MCP
Trainers
Required
No. of
MCP
Trainers
Identified
No.
Actually
Serving
12
16
22
40
96
39
20
63
0
308
12
10
11
20
31
39
12
63
0
198
12
0
11
0
31
28
12
34
0
128
Percent of MCP
Trainers available (No
actually serving/ No
required)
100.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
32.29
71.79
60.00
53.97
0.00
41.56
266
Annex Table-8.4
VO Book Keepers Available: Intensive Blocks
S.
No.
State
Total VOs
in the
Sample
Clusters
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Total
98
284
0
23
30
49
99
7
191
781
No. of VO
Book
Keepers
Required
No. of VO
Book
Keepers
Identified
No.
Actually
Serving
82
73
0
30
18
49
128
7
23
410
17
56
0
22
18
46
83
7
23
272
0
55
0
0
13
39
47
3
23
180
Percent of VO
Book Keepers
Available (No.
actually serving/
No required)
0.00
75.34
0.00
0.00
72.22
79.59
36.72
42.86
100.00
43.90
267
Annex Table -8.5
All Community Cadres Required, Identified, Trained and Engaged: Total Sample
Dec.’14
S.
No.
State
Total
Sample
Clusters
Total
Community
Cadre
Required
Total
Identified
Percent
Identified
No of Cadre Trained
in Core Modules
Fully
Partially
No Actually
Providing
Services
% of Cadre Servicing
(Total required/
Actually working)
1.
Assam
4
1561
828
53.04
149
503
168
10.76
2.
Bihar
10
911
821
90.12
584
186
671
73.66
3.
Chhattisgarh
6
1675
1503
89.73
1192
237
998
59.58
4.
Gujarat
3
213
123
57.75
0
73
0
0.00
5.
Jharkhand
10
3786
3174
83.84
2629
133
1820
48.07
6.
Maharashtra
12
2878
2598
90.27
1752
495
2170
75.40
7.
MP
10
4088
2417
59.12
1481
713
1733
42.39
8.
Odisha
2
222
209
94.14
144
0
106
47.75
9.
Rajasthan
4
608
325
53.45
87
141
96
15.79
10.
Tamil Nadu
4
515
515
100.00
492
0
492
95.53
11.
Total
65
16457
12513
76.03
8510
2481
8254
50.15
268
Annex Table-8.6
VO Sub-Committees in Intensive Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
State
Sample VOs
Number of VOs having
Loan
Social Action
Bank Linkage
Repayment
Committee
Committee
Committee
11
7
16
18
16
11
4
4
3
1
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Jharkhand
17
19
4
5
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
8
8
8
8
3
8
6
5
8
5
4
Total
69
51
47
40
Annex Table-8.7
VO Sub-Committees in Resource Blocks
S.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State
Sample VOs
Number of VOs having
Social Action
Loan repayment
Bank Linkage
Committee
committee
Committee
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
11
17
16
8
5
7
2
2
3
4
4
Total
52
14
2
11
269
Annex Table –9.1
Status of SRLMs Submitting System Generated IUFRS (Tally IUFR)
S.
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
System Generated IUFR for
Dec.’14
Manual IUFR
Manual IUFR
System generated
System generated
System generated
Remarks
6.
7.
Karnataka
Maharashtra
System generated
System generated
8.
9.
10.
MP
Odisha
Rajasthan
System generated
System generated
Manual IUFR
Under trail run.
11.
Tamil Nadu
Not Submitted
Under trail run.
12.
13.
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Not Submitted
Not Submitted
Under trail run.
Under trail run.
Under trail run.
Tally FMS not being implemented
270
Annex Table – 9.2
Status of Procurement of Essential Services: NRLP States
As on 6th March 2015
Sl.
No
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
State
Completed
TOR/EOI
RFP
Final
Stage
Total Key
services
2
3
6
8
7
7
7
4
6
6
3
6
4
2
6
4
2
5
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
72
13
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Maharashtra
MP
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Total
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
10
9
1
2
3
104
271
Annex Table –9.3
NRLP Expenditure Up to Dec. ‘14
S.
No
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
A.P. (NRO)
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
(NRO)
M.P.
Maharashtra
Orissa
Rajasthan
T.N.
U.P.
West Bengal
Sub Total
NMMU
Grand Total
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Actual Exp
during
2012-13
0.00
259.76
905.34
301.91
179.56
376.84
138.26
Actual Exp
during
2013-14
912.30
1891.83
11320.98
1518.66
1358.01
3848.99
568.55
Actual Up to
Dec. 2014 (1415)
624.62
3312.82
10719.81
2279.85
1068.00
5156.02
882.16
0.00
3391.97
832.65
1004.96
38.31
813.09
10.17
0.00
8252.82
1432.03
9684.85
485.98
7475.76
3442.93
1123.82
331.72
2455.44
312.00
2852.55
39899.52
1665.42
41564.94
517.99
6378.03
3859.83
1328.95
402.49
2127.60
1068.15
1214.90
40941.22
1090.37
42031.59
Rs. Lakh
Total
Expenditure
1536.92
5464.41
22946.13
4100.42
2605.57
9381.85
1588.97
1003.97
17245.76
8135.41
3457.73
772.52
5396.13
1390.32
4067.45
89093.56
4187.82
93281.38
272

NRLP Mid-Term Assessment Report_31032015_latest

Transcription

Similar documents

,@+gP slhr`ffurFo,rsfu `rfi{cidtvrrt - Sa-Dhan

Issue-22-E--Bulletin - JHARKHAND STATE LIVELIHOOD

Convergent action for better management of malnutrition

Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelihood Mission

Uganda Annual Report 2011

Department of Information Technology Government of Madhya

SHG Visions Spring 2014 - Sacred Heart

rA.`ft - Department of Chemistry

Noroz_Gala-English - Canadian Iranian Foundation