POOREST AREAS CIVIL SOCIETY (PACS) PROGRAMME- Four Years of “Small” Grants

Funding from DFID

Management by Development Alternatives and PriceWaterhouse Coopers

August, 2005

Note :- Map not to Scale

MAHARASHTRAMAHARASHTRA(11/35)(11/35)

MADHYA PRADESHMADHYA PRADESH(20/45)(20/45)

UTTAR UTTAR PRADESHPRADESH

(20/70)(20/70)

CHHATTISGARHCHHATTISGARH(4/16)(4/16)

JHARKHANDJHARKHAND(19/22)(19/22)

BIHARBIHAR(35/38)(35/38)

State Boundary

District Boundary

Legend

(108/225) PACS Districts / Total Districts

Operations in 6 States

Note :- Map not to Scale

MAHARASHTRAMAHARASHTRA

MADHYA PRADESHMADHYA PRADESH

UTTAR UTTAR PRADESHPRADESH

CHHATTISGARHCHHATTISGARH

JHARKHANDJHARKHAND

BIHARBIHAR

PACS Projects Status- as on January 2005

OTHERSOTHERS

126

CumulativeCumulative

24

21

15

24

31

9

Note:

• 33 projects approved (awaitingDEA’s approval)

2

% Distribution of Funds across States Cumulative till July 2005

Total Commitment Rs. 118 Crores

UP26%

Bihar18%

JH17%

MP19%

CH4%

MH16%

UP

Bihar

JH

MP

CH

MH

Achievement Against Targets – Project GrantCumulative till July 2005

Amount in Rs. Lakhs

*17 proposals valuing Rs. 1421 lakhs are subject to approval of 14 PSC

Category of Projects Target Achievement *

No. Project Cost No. Project Cost

A (Above 150 lakhs) 19 5700 20 4996

B (50 - 150 lakhs) 56 5600 53 4486

C (20 - 50 lakhs) 64 2240 55 1905

D (Upto 20 lakhs) 32 320 35 442

         

Sub Total 171 13860 163 118,29

Total funds for Project Grant: 14350 (Equivalent of 20.5 MGBP)

Funds Committed Till Date 11829

% Commitment 82%

Parameter Current Total % Cov. BalanceStates 6 6 100 0Districts 79 108 73 29Blocks 308 1,084 28 776Villages 12,136 128,830 9 116694Population (Mil) 3 161 2 158Projects 107 230 47 123Partners 353 600 59 247CBOs 16,817 30,000 56 13183Members 233,000

SOS - PACS Scale of Operation

Programme Reach – Running Projects

• Highest number of network projects in Jharkhand (81%)

• Highest number of CSOs involved in PACS in Maharashtra (100)

• Highest number of projects in UP (31)

1663

1630

18100

3186

1954

100

333

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

JH

MP &CG

MH

UP

BHR

Overall

No. of projects No. of CSOs

Programme Reach - Geographical

3737

3186

1307

2331

1575

12136

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

JH

MP &CG

MH

UP

BHR

Overall

Number of Villages

Programme Reach: CBOs

7368

2452

2571

2491

1935

16817

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

JH

MP &CG

MH

UP

BHR (9 CSOs)

Overall

• Jharkhand has almost 44% of all PACS CBOs (16,817)

• Women SHGs are main vehicle of project delivery

•CBOs have total of 237,774 members

PACS – Some Breakthroughs

• Effective model for attack on poverty

• Balanced approach to development support

• Outsourced model of support to CSOs (state based resource organizations)

• Intensive, supported interventions in clusters

– Thematic

– Geographic

• Communication and advocacy initiatives

• Learning system (MEAL) for a large program

PACS: Cost-effectiveness

• Disbursed: Rs 103 cr

• Overhead Costs: 8%

• Entitlements realized: Rs 1,000+ cr (Est.)

• SHG Funds Saved: Rs 30+ cr

• Other Funds Mobilised: Rs 100+ cr

• Project locations: Poorest and Remotest villages; in MP avg. road is 5+ Km

• “A Giant Step Forward for the Marginalised and the Very Poor”

• “A rigorous and principled governance structure founded upon peer respect and recognition”

• “PACS financial systems are strong and are based upon uncompromising integrity”

• “Monitoring of finances is systematic and regular and subject to numerous checks and balances”

• “MEAL also effectively completes the transfer of power to meso levels in the project”

Quotes from UK Government’s Annual Reviews of PACS

PACS MandateGoal

To empower the poor to exercise their entitlements

Strategy

By strengthening civil society’s capacity

Outputs

• Successful interventions• Governance, Livelihoods, Women’s Empowerment

• Self-help to meet basic needs, etc

• Effective partnerships of civil society

• Lessons learnt and disseminated

PACS – Basic GivensBudget

• £ 25 Million (Rs 200 Crores) over 7 years

Region

• 100 Poorest Districts – in UP, Bihar, MP, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh

Activities Fundable• Capacity Building: Training, Institutional Dev’t

• Participatory, Knowledge Sharing, Advocacy

• But NO Service Delivery

PACS – Decision Structure

DFID: Nil (Reps in NAB and PSC)

NAB: Overalll Policy

PSC: Project Selection

DA: Day-to-day Operations

PwC: Financial Accountability

PACS – Programme Structure and Functions

Policy advice & guidance

Programme Oversight

Project Selection & Progress Review

External Monitoring & Assessment

PACS Management & administration

Outreach and Information dissemination, Capacity building

Impact Assessment Consultants

National Advisory Board

DFID India / UK

Category (A)

DA Support Systems

Project Selection Committee

DA-PWC PACS Programme Management Team

DA PwC (Technical) (Financial)

Programme implementationCategory

(B)Category

(C)Category

(D)

MEAL Core Group

CAPCommunication Advise & Guidance

Overseen the MEAL Implementation

PACS – Management Structure

Development Alternatives: 8 Professionals

PriceWaterhouse & Coopers: 6 Professionals

Partners in Each of 6 States: 6 Resource Org’s

(Each State has about 16 development consultants to provide CSOs with Project Development, Supportive Supervision, MEAL and Communication)

Development Alternatives

Provides for Grant-making Process

• Basic Design of Entire System

• Data Systems for Managing Projects

• GIS Support for Tracking and Reporting

Provides to PACS Management:

• Infrastructure and Intellectual Supports

• Substantive Project Appraisal Services

• Concept and Design of MEAL System

Development Alternatives

Provides to Projects in the Field

• Technical Support

• Livelihood Options

• Network Connections for– Governance Projects

– Inclusion-oriented Projects

• Training and Capacity Building

PACS – State Level Structure and Functions

State Anchor (MC)

Programme Support Team (PST)

CSO

State Core Group

• MEAL Implementation l• Analysis and synthesis• Feedback and communication• Co-ordination at State level

• Strategic direction• Capacity building• Regional/ state level initiatives• Plan, monitor • Research, innovation• State level liaison • Advocacy and networking

Management Consultants

Achievements shown by…

• Programme reach and coverage

• Effectiveness of programme strategies

• Innovations in programme systems

• Programme innovations and best practices

• Achievement of stated objectives

• Programme impact and cost effectiveness

• New ideas for development praxis

Model for Outsourcing Management

21 vibrant State based resource organizations strengthened to:

– Provide effective support system for CSOs– Be constructively flexible in its own work– Identify core developmental issues in the

State and align PACS objectives with them– Conduct rigorous monitoring & evaluation– Spearhead advocacy efforts at State Level

Uniqueness and Strength of PACS Strategies

Programme Elements

Programme and Management Systems Rigorous process, procedures, doc’n Aggressive Outreach for New Projects Project Development Support Project Implementation Backstopping Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Continuous, Dynamic Improvement Reporting, Communication, Networking

PACS Supports Unorthodox Projects

• Integrated– Cross-cutting, multi-faceted, result-oriented

• Flexible– Responsive to community needs– No constraint by pre-conceived budget lines– Encourages innovation and risk-taking

• Process-oriented– Wide range of methodologies– Self-monitoring

PACS - A Value based Programme• Integrity and Accountability

– Substantive and Financial– Accountability built integrally into systems

• Transparency– Encourage sharing of successes and failures– Actively permits mid-course redesign of projects

based on experiences and learning

• Respect– Putting the last first– Incorporate local knowledge and perceptions– Participative programme and project design

MEAL – The Cutting-Edge Monitoring, Evaluation and

Learning System• An integrated methodolgy:

– An integral part of every intervention– At all levels: Process, Program, Project and Activity

• A systemic method to improve:– Reflection and learning within and externally– Generation and management of decision information

• Adapted for PACS from DA Group’s systems

Key Success FactorsProgramme Design

• Donor flexibility and acceptance of innovative grantmaking process– 1st year allowed for planning and system design– Long-term commitment (no FY lapsing of funds)

• Large Provision for Capacity Building of Partners

• Rigorous but User Friendly Procedures• Clear and Detailed Documentation• Competent Project Selection Committees

Concept Papers – Mobilisation and Appraisal

05

Key Success FactorsProgramme Delivery

• Highly Responsive Grant-making Processes• Focused Project Mobilisation Strategy• Decentralised Project Management Systems• Highly Transparent Processes• Programme Management Highly Accessible • Rigorous Monitoring and Accountability• Low Overhead Costs, High Level Support