D I R E C T I O N S I N D E V E L O P M E N T Local Organizations in Decentralized Development Their Functions and Performance in India RUTH ALSOP AND BRYAN KUREY Local Organizations in Decentralized Development: Their Functions and Performance in India Local Organizations in Decentralized Development: Their Functions and Performance in India Ruth Alsop Bryan Kurey THE WORLD BANK Washington, DC © 2005 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: feedback@worldbank.org All rights reserved. 1 2 3 4 08 07 06 05 This volume is a product of the staff of the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ISBN-10: 0-8213-6312-3 ISBN-13: 978-0-8213-6312-6 e-ISBN: 0-8213-6313-1 DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-6312-6 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data has been applied for. Cover photograph by: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org. Cover design by: Serif Design Group. Contents Acknowledgments x List of Abbreviations xi I. Introduction 1 Background: Local Organizations and Decentralization 4 Conceptual Framework 5 Methodology 8 II. Performance of Mandated Functions 10 Mandated Functions of Organizations 10 Actual Functions Performed by Local Organizations 11 Quality of Organizational Performance 21 Summary 25 III. Assets and Effective Organizational Performance 27 Human and Material Assets 27 Financial Assets 30 Summary and Analysis of the Relationship Between Assets and Performance of Functions 30 IV. Processes and Effective Organizational Performance 35 Awareness of Rules 35 Transparency and Information Availability 38 Decision-Making Procedures 42 Relationship Between Processes and Performance of Functions 43 V. Linkages, Context, and Effective Organizational Performance 51 Linkages 51 Context 59 Summary 63 v vi CONTENTS VI. Equity, Sustainability, and Organizational Performance 65 Equity 65 Sustainability 68 Summary 74 VII. Summary of Findings and Their Operational Implications 77 Core Findings 77 Core Design Issues 85 Bibliography 87 Annex 91 Index 163 Boxes Box 1 Main Categories of the Organizational Typology 6 Box 2 Difficulties Working with Gram Panchayats 20 Box 3 Quality of Human Assets Is Key 33 Box 4 Transparency in Operation--or Not 39 Box 5 The Importance of Good Transparency Mechanisms 42 Box 6 Elite Capture 43 Box 7 The Importance of Group-to-Group Linkages 54 Box 8 Caste Differences Complicate Organizational Performance 61 Figure Figure 1 Schematic Representation of the Conceptual Framework 7 Tables Table 1 Mandated Functions of Organizations: Women's Development and Empowerment Sector (W), Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (D), and Watershed Development Sector (H) 12 Table 2 Functions Undertaken by Village-Level Local Organizations, Watershed Development Sector 15 Table 3 Functions Undertaken by Village-Level Local Organizations, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector 16 Table 4 Functions Undertaken by Gram Panchayats, Watershed Development Sector 18 Table 5 Quality of Performance of Functions by Village-Level Organizations 22 Table 6 Performance of Functions by Support Organizations, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector 23 CONTENTS vii Table 7 Adequacy of Human Assets 28 Table 8 Adequacy of Material Assets 29 Table 9 Adequacy of Financial Assets 31 Table 10 Ordered Probit Results for Assets and Performance 32 Table 11 Representatives' Awareness of Rules and Functions, by Local Organization Type and Sector 36 Table 12 Members' Awareness of Rules, by Local Organization Type and Sector 37 Table 13 Meeting Minutes Read, by Local Organization Type and Sector 40 Table 14 Meeting Information through Word of Mouth, by Local Organization Type and Sector 41 Table 15 How Decisions Are Made, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector 44 Table 16 Extent to Which Decisions Are Made by Consensus, Watershed Development Sector 45 Table 17 Extent to Which Decisions Are Made by Consensus, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 46 Table 18 Ordered Probit Results for Processes and Performance 48 Table 19 Organizational Linkages with Elected Government 52 Table 20 Organizational Linkages with Line Departments 53 Table 21 Organizational Linkages with Other Sector Local Organizations 55 Table 22 Ordered Probit Results for Linkages and Performance 57 Table 23 Household Caste/Religious Group and Performance 60 Table 24 Village Characteristics and Performance 62 Table 25 Number of Loans Obtained by Poverty Ranking 67 Table 26 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Improving Access to Clean Drinking Water, by Poverty Ranking 68 Table 27 Sustainability of Benefits, by Sector 69 Table 28 Member Attendance of Local Organization Meetings, by Sector 70 Table 29 Local Organizations Managed by the Members, by Local Organization Type and Sector 71 Table 30 Local Organizations Receiving Regular Financial Contributions from Members, by Type and Sector 72 Table 31 Local Organizations' Assessments as to Whether They Have Sufficient Internal Resources, by Local Organization Type and Sector 73 Table 32 Summary Figures on Sustainability 75 viii CONTENTS Annex Table A1 Typology of Local Organizations 91 Table A2 Functions and Subfunctions of Local Organizations 92 Table A3 Sectors and Projects Selected for the Study 94 Table A4 Village-Level Instruments 95 Table A5 Number of Organizations Covered in the Study 96 Table A6 Functions Undertaken by Village-Level Local Organizations, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 98 Table A7 Functions Undertaken by Gram Panchayats, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector 99 Table A8 Functions Undertaken by Gram Panchayats, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 101 Table A9 Performance of Functions by Support Organizations, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 103 Table A10 Performance of Functions by Support Organizations, Watershed Development Sector 105 Table A11 Performance of Functions by Gram Panchayats, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 107 Table A12 Performance of Functions by Gram Panchayats, Watershed Development Sector 109 Table A13 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 111 Table A14 Poverty Ranking and Performance 112 Table A15 Household Landholdings and Performance 113 Table A16 Gender, Attendance, and Performance 114 Table A17 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector 115 Table A18 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 116 Table A19 Participation in Decision Making by Poverty Rank, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 117 Table A20 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Watershed Development Sector 118 Table A21 Participation in Decision Making by Poverty Rank, Watershed Development Sector 119 Table A22 Poisson Regression of Number of Loans Obtained by Sample Members 120 Table A23 Ordered Probit Results for Improved Access to Clean Drinking Water 121 Table A24 Ordered Probit Results for Provision of Sanitary Facilities 122 CONTENTS ix Table A25 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Preventing Soil Erosion and Water Loss, by Poverty Ranking 122 Table A26 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Improving Agricultural Production, by Poverty Ranking 123 Table A27 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Preventing Soil Erosion and Water Loss, by Size of Operational Holding 123 Table A28 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Improving Agricultural Production, by Size of Operational Holding 123 Table A29 Ordered Probit Results for Prevention of Soil Erosion and Water Loss 124 Table A30 Ordered Probit Results for Improvements in Agricultural Production 125 Table A31 Age of the Sample Organizations by Sector 126 Table A32 Probit Estimation Results: Association between Assets, Processes, Linkages, Context, and Performance of Functions 127 Acknowledgments This research was conducted as a collaborative venture between the World Bank's South Asia Environment and Social Development Unit, in Washington, DC; the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) in Bangalore, India; and international consultants from the Danish Centre for International Studies and Human Rights in Copenhagen and the Agricul- tural University of Norway in Oslo. Norwegian Trust Funds financed fieldwork and consultants. The authors would first like to thank Dr. Rajasekhar and his team from the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) in Bangalore, India, for their unremitting and consistent partnership in an often-difficult and certainly time-consuming project. We would also like to recognize the inputs of the Samarthan team from Bhopal who worked with ISEC in data collection and entry. Other members of the research team deserving thanks are Dr. Olvar Bergland of the Agricultural University of Norway in Oslo for his superb econometric skills and his willingness to work through the night, and Dr. Neil Webster of the Danish Centre for International Studies and Human Rights in Copenhagen for his support during the development of survey instruments, early analysis, and drafting. We are also in debt to those who provided comments on the research analysis and outputs. In particular, we are grateful to our peer reviewers for their valuable and constructive insights: Dr. Francois Vaillancourt of the University of Montreal; Dr. Ruth Mienzen-Dick of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, DC; Dr. Dana Weist of the World Bank; and Dr. T. R. Raghunandan, Secretary for Rural Development and Panchayat Raj in the Government of Karnataka. This research could not have been undertaken without funds from the Norwegian government or the support of managers in the South Asia Region of the World Bank. x List of Abbreviations ARWSP Advanced Rural Water Supply Program CBO Community-based organization DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom GAREMA Gram Resources Management Association GOI Government of India GOK Government of Karnataka GP Gram panchayat IRWES Integrated Rural Water and Environment Sanitation Program ISEC Institute for Social and Economic Change JFM Joint forest management JFMC Joint Forest Management Committee KAWAD Karnataka Watershed Development Project LD Line department LD-VL Line department (village-level) M&E Monitoring and evaluation NGO Nongovernmental organization NGO-VL Nongovernmental organization (village-level) PIA Project implementation agency PRI Panchayat raj institution SC Scheduled caste SGSY Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna SHG Self-help group TP Taluk panchayat WB World Bank ZP Zilla panchayat xi xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Glossary Anganawadi Village-based worker for women and child development programs Gram panchayat Village-level elected body Gram sabha Gathering of all villagers within the jurisdiction of a gram panchayat Jal Sansthan Corporation established by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, before State bifurcation, for the maintenance of water supply sources Panchayat raj Elected local government bodies Stree-Shakthi Government program for women's empower- ment managed by the Department of Women and Child Development Swajal Term used as the name of a project and for the implementing NGO Swa-Shakthi World Bank- and IFAD-aided government program for Rural Women's Development and Empowerment (RWDEP), managed by a project office Taluk panchayat Block-level elected body Van panchayat Elected government unit in locations scheduled as tribal areas Zilla panchayat District-level elected body I Introduction Local organizations are central actors in the rural development strategies sponsored by government and donor agencies in India.1 Underlying their current prominence are, first, the 1992 constitutional amendments that paved the way for decentralization of government throughout India; second, concerns of efficiency and effectiveness that have led to increasing reliance on Indian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for local-level project implementation over the past two decades; and third, the rise in popular- ity of community-level membership organizations as mechanisms for local management of development resources and benefits. However, many of these local organizations do not perform as expected, and development practitioners are uncertain about their effectiveness, fair- ness, and sustainability. Given the prevalence of local organizations and their high profile in contemporary development programs, these uncer- tainties need to be addressed. This document summarizes research that sought to meet this need. The study focused on local organizations involved in three sectors: rural women's development and empowerment; rural drinking water supply and sanitation; and watershed development. It sought to answer the following questions: (1) What types of organizations were working in each of the study sectors at the district level and below? (2) Which functions were these organizations mandated to perform? (3) What did they do in practice? (4) How well did organizations perform? (5) Which attributes--of an organization or of its context--contributed to better performance? The study used a mixed methodology, drawing on both secondary sources and primary information. Using a range of instruments and tech- niques, fieldworkers collected data from representatives and staff of orga- nizations implementing programs at different administrative levels in the three sectors, from villagers and elected bodies in the study sites, and from households receiving sector benefits. Organizational and functional typolo- gies were central to the analysis. The first comprised 26 types of organiza- tions falling into four broad categories: government organizations (elected and administrative); project organizations; private organizations (for profit and not-for-profit); and community-based organizations (CBOs). These operated at different levels--national, district, subdistrict (block), and vil- lage. The functional typology included nine broad functions: financing, 1 2 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT staffing, provisioning, community-based action, capacity building, coordination of activities, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), conflict resolution/accountability, and information sharing/dissemination. Each broad function was subdivided to give 39 subfunctions. Analytic techniques ranged from analysis of narrative reports through descriptive statistics to econometrics. The research was undertaken in the states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttaranchal. For each study sector, data were gathered from a total of four districts in two states. The number of villages covered was 71 in the women's development sector, 72 in the drinking water and sanitation sector, and 69 in the watershed sector. A total of 345 village-level CBOs, 49 project organizations, 204 panchayat raj institutions (PRIs), and 151 line agencies were investigated. In all, interviews were held with 3,311 individual mem- bers of village-level organizations. In each study village, an organizational inventory was undertaken, poverty and performance rankings were done, transect walks were used to build a village profile, focus groups were con- ducted with members of local organizations, and in-depth case studies were undertaken. The Indian research organization collaborating in the study also held district- and state-level meetings to verify findings, draw out explanations, and ascertain what the implications of the findings might be for the design and implementation of decentralized interventions. The conceptual framework guiding the research was based on the premise that an organization's assets, processes, linkages, and context determine its performance. Performance of a range of organizational functions and achieve- ment of development outcomes were assessed based on three criteria: effec- tiveness, equity, and sustainability. Assessment of assets examined data on the human, material, and financial assets of organizations. Assessment of processes involved examining an organization's internal transparency and accountability. Linkages analyzed were those with other organizations. Finally, context analysis involved examining the physiographic, social, and infrastructure characteristics of the location in which an organization operated. As rural development approaches in India increasingly stress decen- tralized resource management and control, two debates dominate dis- course on the roles of local organizations in this process. The first is a practical one on how to make local organizations perform effectively. The second focuses on the relative functions of government organizations-- both elected local governments and administrative line departments (LDs)-- and different forms of NGOs, including the private sector and community groups at the local level. The empirical research reported here suggests that the debates on effectiveness and relative functions cannot be sepa- rated. At present, interventions struggle with suboptimal performance of local organizations, indicating that different configurations of a plural orga- nizational landscape, in which local government organizations are an INTRODUCTION 3 integral part, are required for the effective delivery and sustainability of different development benefits. Research findings indicate that local administrative government bodies (LDs) are deeply involved, and largely effective, in the execution of projects. Elected local governments (gram, tuluk, and zilla panchayats), however, currently have only limited roles and are often ineffective in performing their assigned functions. Community-level membership organizations function as extensions of project implementation structures, performing functions associated with the distribution of short-term project benefits. The sustainability of these organizations and that of the benefits they deal with is highly questionable and while multistakeholder coordination com- mittees exist, in practice they meet rarely, comprise a limited range of stake- holders, focus mainly on administrative monitoring, and provide little in the way of strategic guidance for interventions. The presence of NGOs working independently of external interventions is low--with most acting as contractors for government programs--and the private sector is virtually inoperative in the sectors studied. Local organizations, of whatever provenance, clearly require--but are often not receiving or generating on their own--sufficient financial assets to perform the roles expected of them. Furthermore, while less important than the influence of finance on quality of performance, other organiza- tional attributes, including human and material assets and internal orga- nizational processes, carry varying but significant degrees of importance depending on the type of benefit being delivered. In part because of this complexity, achieving the optimal "mix" in project design of both up-front investments in assets and distribution of functions has proven difficult, resulting in mixed outcomes in terms of the equity and sustainability of organizations and project benefits. While the research outlined in this paper took place in India, experience suggests that the findings may be appropriate to other countries where rural development depends on the effective performance of decentralized organizations both for implementation and as the medium for local-level empowerment.2 The remainder of this section briefly outlines current thinking on the importance of local organizations in decentralized interventions and then describes the conceptual framework and methodology used in this research. Section II moves into a description of findings, beginning with mandated functions of the different types of organizations and then on to an analysis of how those functions are performed. Sections III through V examine the factors associated with different levels of performance: assets, processes, linkages, and context. Section VI then assesses the equity and sustainabil- ity aspects of performance. Finally, section VII draws together the main findings and summarizes operational implications. 4 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Background: Local Organizations and Decentralization While decentralization of government has been attempted periodically within states in postindependent India, the central government first artic- ulated it as a national priority in the 73rd and 74th constitutional amend- ments in 1992. Decentralization takes a variety of forms, not all of which promote greater citizen participation or seek to devolve decision making to lower level authorities. Where decentralization reforms pursue a strategy of devolution, they involve the transfer of significant political, administra- tive, and fiscal responsibilities to local elected bodies and/or administra- tive (LD) governments. Such reforms are premised on the belief that localization improves linkages to local communities, which is intended to enhance transparency and accountability of development activities, governance, and service delivery. It is also intended to enable communities to become involved in collective decision making over local resource allo- cation and management. The ultimate objective is the empowerment of citizens in their relations with the state. In practice, however, decentralization reforms have enjoyed mixed suc- cess. The problems are many and complex, but factors commonly influ- encing less-than-desired outcomes include the following: unwillingness on the part of central, state, and substate governments to devolve significant powers or resources to implement the activities provided for by legislation; the paucity of funds--particularly untied funds--available to transfer to local bodies, and the lack of a revenue base at the local level; the problem of local elites capturing decentralized organizations and the accompany- ing resources; the inability of local government organizations to respond to local needs and priorities; the lack of accountability of service providers to citizens; and the poor design of decentralized interventions by govern- ments and donor agencies.3 To address some of these issues, central governments and development organizations are placing greater responsibility on local organizations. Local organizations are by their nature closer to citizens, and thus, it is argued, more capable of understanding and responding to them. Among other func- tions, these organizations are considered to be useful in the following: · Determining resource or staffing needs at the local level; · Engaging citizens, their elected representatives, and government staff (LD) in planning actions and budget expenditures; · Raising resources and implementing community-level projects, such as road-building or school maintenance; · Ensuring local monitoring of expenditures, processes, and outcomes; · Improving accountability of the state and elected representatives to citizens; INTRODUCTION 5 · Resolving local-level conflicts; and · Disseminating information in locally appropriate ways. Conceptual Framework Despite their growing popularity, many of these local organizations do not perform as expected, and development practitioners are uncertain about their effectiveness, fairness, and sustainability. This document seeks to shed light on what factors influence the quality of an organization's performance. It presents data from research focused on local organizations involved in three sectors in the states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttaranchal: rural women's development and empowerment; rural drinking water supply and sanitation; and watershed development (annex table A3). The research sought to answer the following questions: (1) What types of organizations were working in each of the study sectors at the district level and below? (2) Which functions were these organizations mandated to perform? (3) What did they do in practice? (4) How well did organizations perform? (5) Which attributes contributed to better performance? Typologies of the variety of organizations at the local level and the range of functions that those organizations perform were key in the analysis of organizational performance. Organizational Typology Following North (1990), this paper defines organizations as "groups of indi- viduals, bound by a common purpose, involving a defined set of author- ity relations and dedicated to achieving objectives." Organizations differ from institutions, which are defined as rules of the game and include "codes of conduct, norms of behavior and conventions" (North 1990; Uphoff 1986). Institutions are both embedded in and surround organizations. Local organizations, defined in this study as those operating at the district level and below, are divided into four general analytic categories (box 1): government organizations, project organizations, private organizations, and CBOs. This organizational typology allows categorization of local organizations at any given administrative level--the state, district, subdistrict, and village. Annex table A1 provides summary figures on which types of organization were found in each location studied. Functions of Local Organizations Atypology of nine major functions was developed, and data were collected on 39 subfunctions within these nine categories (annex table A2). The major 6 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Box 1 Main Categories of the Organizational Typology Government organizations · Administrative government organizations: These include all organiza- tional entities staffed by government employees, general civil servants (secretaries and other Indian Administrative Service/state cadre officers) and line department staff. · Elected government organizations: National and state level politicians were not included in the sample. The sample included zilla panchayats (ZP) at the district level; taluk panchayats (TP), also called panchayat samitis, at the block level; and gram panchayats (GP) at the village level. Project organizations These are created by the sector programs or projects in order to oversee implementation activities at the district, block, or village level. At the district and block levels, these project organizations fall into two categories: those especially created as new agencies to manage specific interventions; and existing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) co-opted by projects. Private organizations These include organizations that are managed independently in each of the sectors studied. Organizations of this type include private for-profit organiza- tions (of which this study covers very few) and private nonprofit organiza- tions (mostly those recognized as NGOs). Community-based organizations (CBOs) CBOs are membership organizations based on collective action and are found almost entirely at the village level. They can be categorized into four types: self-initiated, self-evolved CBOs; NGO-initiated CBOs; government- initiated CBOs; and project-initiated CBOs, which are initiated as part of an intervention. functions include the following: · Financing involves mobilizing and securing funds and other resources that support the work of local organizations. · Staffing covers the provision of staff by an organization to form or sup- port groups elsewhere. · Provisioning is defined as activities that facilitate access to services, resources, and local assets. The specific form of provisioning depends on the project's subsector. · Community-based action covers physical construction and mobilization of village resources by group members. INTRODUCTION 7 · Capacity building covers facilitation or direct provision of training programs. · Coordination of activities refers to coordination with other organizations of the same type or of different types and at different levels (village, block, and district). · Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) refers to activities undertaken to track organizational inputs, outputs, and performance. · Conflict resolution and accountability covers activities that can prevent con- flict, such as regular meetings between different local organizations, as well as direct activities to resolve disputes, such as mediation and adjudication. · Information sharing and dissemination involves sharing information within and among local organizations. Measuring Performance of Local Organizations Analysis of performance tells us what different organizations do and how well they do it. Studies undertaken in recent years demonstrate that four factors play significant roles in shaping an organization's performance: assets, processes, linkages, and context.4 The first three of these are attrib- utes particular to an organization, while the last relates to the environment in which the organization and its members operate. This is schematically presented in figure 1. Three dimensions of performance are explored in this paper: effective- ness, equity, and sustainability. Effectiveness is measured through an assess- ment of the quality of performance of functions and delivery of development outcomes; equity is measured by looking at participation in an organiza- tion's activities and the distribution of development benefits; and Figure 1 Schematic Representation of the Conceptual Framework Organizational attributes Organizational performance Assets Effectiveness Processes Equity Linkages Sustainability Context Source: Authors' creation. 8 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT sustainability is measured on the basis of organizational independence and continuation of benefit streams. The four factors hypothesized as causal in organizational performance are measured using clusters of variables as indicators of the following:5 · Assets. Human, material, and financial assets are considered. Human assets include the quantity and quality of human resources, while material assets include physical resources. Financial assets refer to the monetary resources of an organization. · Processes. Three key process variables are measured: knowledge of organizational rules, transparency of operation, and decision-making processes. · Linkages. Variables include the number and form of linkages with line agencies, PRIs, and other organizations working in a study sector. · Context. These variables include the physiographic, social, infrastruc- tural, and state context of the location in which an organization operates. Methodology The study used a mixed methodology comprising: (a) extensive data collection based on standard instruments, including semistructured inter- views and seven different questionnaires (annex table A4); and (b) an inten- sive inquiry using interactive techniques (focus groups, case studies, and a range of participatory rural appraisal tools) to obtain more nuanced infor- mation on variables, including social context, quality of organizational par- ticipation, equity in processes, and quality of collective action.6 In each of the three states (Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttaranchal), two districts for each sector were sampled. Selection criteria included indices of modernization of agriculture, dependence on agricultural/other primary production sectors and human resource development, and presence of a sector development intervention.7 From each district, three blocks were ran- domly selected from a list of those in which there were program or project interventions. Within each block six villages with interventions were ran- domly selected.8 In each village, stratified random sampling, based on a poverty ranking exercise, was used to select eight households with mem- bership in the organizations financed by the World Bank­aided project (or in the case of Karnataka watersheds, a project financed by the UK Department for International Development [DFID]), and eight that were members of other local organizations operating in the same sector.9 On the basis of this sampling framework, data collection covered 212 villages, 3,311 households, 345 village-level CBOs, 49 project organizations, 204 PRIs (elected government bodies), and 151 line agencies (administra- tive government) across all three sectors. These are categorized by type of local organization and sector in annex table A5. INTRODUCTION 9 Notes 1. Local organizations are defined for this study as all types of organizations working at the district level and below. 2. Empowerment is defined as the process of enhancing an individual's or group's capacity to make choices and to translate those choices into effective outcomes (Alsop and Heinsohn 2005). 3. See Bahl 2002; Bardhan and Mookherjee 1999; Bird 2002; Dreze and Sen 1996; Hirway 1989; Jodha 1992; Manor 1995; Ostrom, Schroeder, and Wynne 1993; Parker 1995; Prud'homme 1995; Tanzi 1995; Walker 1991; Westergaard and Alam 1995; World Bank 2000. 4. See, for example, Ahmed 1999; Buckley 1996; Ghatak and Guinnane 1999; Kolavalli and Kerr 2002; Morduch 1999; Narayan 1995; Rajakutty 1997; Sharma and Zeller 1997; Uphoff 1997; Uphoff, Esman, and Krishna 1998; Wenner 1995; White and Runge 1995. 5. The direct impact of assets, processes, linkages, and context on organiza- tional performance can be statistically established only in the case of effectiveness of an organization's performance of functions. While it is possible that these factors also impact organizational performance in terms of equity and sustainability, the data collected here do not allow for such links to be conclusively established. The data do enable, however, an analysis of equity and sustainability as indicators of the quality of organizational performance, as detailed in section VI. 6. Information derived using interactive and semistructured approaches provided insight about how to specify and interpret quantitatively identified associations. They also allowed exploration of specific issues and the preparation of case studies. In addition to primary data collection, the Indian research collabo- rator also held state- and district-level workshops. These workshops considered draft sector findings, allowing for verification, enhanced interpretation, and discussion of implications. 7. A detailed research protocol is available from the author on request. 8. Of these six villages, five had projects supported by the World Bank--or the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) in the case of Karnataka watersheds--in a given sector. One had a project not supported by the World Bank in the same sector. For the purposes of this study, we conflate World Bank­aided and DFID-aided projects. All references to local organizations induced by World Bank­aided projects also cover those induced by DFID-aided projects. 9. In practice, the sample was slightly smaller than anticipated and distributed differently in the watershed sector. The former occurred because in some villages there were limited numbers of community-based organization (CBOs), and in other cases some CBOs had few members. The latter occurred because the Karnataka Watershed Development Project (KAWAD) operated only in three districts and in three blocks of those districts. II Performance of Mandated Functions Mandated functions are defined as those found assigned in project docu- mentation, legislation, or similar secondary sources. This section begins by describing the functions mandated, by design, to organizations at different administrative levels and begins to illustrate planned patterns of compar- ative advantage for different organizations in decentralized settings. Following this, the frequency with which organizations actually perform these mandated functions is reviewed. This allows for analysis of both the extent to which project designers effectively allocate functions, as well as the ways in which local organizations take on such assignments and adapt to conditions on the ground. Finally, the section assesses quality of perfor- mance of functions by organization. Mandated Functions of Organizations Table 1 outlines mandated functions for organizations at different levels in each sector and highlights a number of points. First, the work of state-level orga- nizations (both government and nongovernment) is wide-ranging, but it is directed primarily at facilitating or undertaking the macrolevel functions necessary for strategic management (staffing and coordination), financing, M&E, and maintaining information systems. This is true across all three sec- tors studied. These functions are less likely to be assigned to organizations below the state level (particularly staffing and coordination), indicating that state-level administrative government bodies and project organizations are viewed as having a particular comparative advantage in these areas. At the district level, elected government bodies are mandated responsi- bility for financing, community-based action, M&E, and conflict resolution (except in women's development). District-level administrative govern- ments are frequently mandated functions in these same areas, with the exception of conflict resolution. Project organizations are also mandated to carry out similar functions, with the added responsibilities of capacity build- ing (except in the case of women's development), coordination, conflict resolution (except in the watershed development sector), and information dissemination. At the block level, project organizations are mandated a wide 10 PERFORMANCE OF MANDATED FUNCTIONS 11 range of functions. Administrative government bodies are also mandated to perform several functions at the block level, but only in the women's development and watershed development sectors. Table 1 also shows that elected governments have a greater level of man- dated responsibilities at the village level than at any other level, and are more often mandated responsibilities than any other organization at the village level. Gram panchayats (GPs) have responsibility for M&E and conflict resolution in all three sectors, and are given several additional functions in the water supply and sanitation sector. Also of note is that the village level is the only place where NGOs are mandated functions, in this case banks (in the women's development sector) and CBOs.10 Project organizations have widespread responsibilities at the village level in the watershed development sector, but they are mandated no responsibilities in the other two sectors. In sum, project designers spread mandated functions widely across sec- tors, among government and project organizations, and at various administra- tive levels. Project organizations are mandated functions at all administrative levels, although their role is quite limited at the village level, where only the watershed development sector assigns responsibilities. Elected gov- ernment bodies, while holding considerable responsibilities at the village level, are mandated no functions at the state or block levels. Administrative government bodies at the block and village levels have only limited respon- sibilities. In addition, · In rural water supply and sanitation projects, functions are mandated to administrative government at all levels in the areas of resource alloca- tion (financing, staffing, provisioning). · In the women's development sector this is reversed, with functions man- dated to administrative government at all levels in the areas of capacity building and information. · In the watershed development sector, by contrast, these organizations have no mandated responsibilities below the state level. Finally, there appears to be considerable duplication of mandated functions in all sectors, particularly at the state and district levels, as well as at the block and village levels in the watershed development sector. This may not be a problem if the project's design and implementation are good and if functions are undertaken in a coordinated manner. However, as evidence presented later demonstrates, this is rarely the case. Actual Functions Performed by Local Organizations Analysis of functions actually undertaken indicates that the frequency with which they are performed is significantly lower than envisaged in project design. In addition, many organizations undertake functions for which they Table 1 Mandated Functions of Organizations: Women's Development and Empowerment Sector (W), Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (D), and Watershed Development Sector (H) Community- Local organization Provi- based Capacity Coordi- Conflict Informa- type Financing Staffing sioning action building nation M&E resolution tion State level Administrative W D W D H W D H W W D H W D H W H 12 government Project W D H W D H W D H W H W D H W D H H D H organizations District level Administrative W D D W D W W W D W government Elected government D H W D H W D H D H (zilla panchayat) Project H D H W D H D H W D H W D H W D W D H organizations Block level Administrative D W D W D W W W D W government Project H W D H D H W H W D H W H W D H W H D H organizations Village level Administrative D D D W D W W government Elected government D D D D W D H W D H (gram panchayat) 13 Banksa W W W W W Project H H H H H H H organizations Community-based W D D W D H W D H D D W D H W D organizations Sources: GOI 1999, 2002a, 2002b; GOK 2001, 2002; KAWAD 1995, 2002; World Bank 1993, 1997, 2001. Note: This table summarizes information for sectors; therefore, while information for each sector relates to a series of interventions, differences among different types of intervention are not noted. M&E monitoring and evaluation. a. Banks are difficult to classify as they are run on quasi-commercial lines and operate outside of a line agency structure, but they have a major vested interest by government. 14 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT have no mandate. Three general tendencies emerge from the research and are discussed in detail below: · Functions mandated to support organizations are often undertaken by local organizations that they have initiated, indicating subsidiarity; · Mandated functions are often transferred among local organizations; and · Elected governments (panchayats) consistently fail to undertake man- dated functions. Subsidiarity and Transference While subsidiarity is practiced in all three sectors studied, the watershed development sector illustrates the pattern well. The actual functions under- taken by village-level organizations in this sector are presented in table 2. This table also indicates whether each function is (a) mandated to the sup- port organization that initiated the local organization but not to the local organization itself; (b) mandated to the local organization itself; or (c) not mandated to either the local organization or its initiating support organi- zation. The first tells us whether subsidiarity is occurring, that is, whether an organization is taking on functions allocated to a higher-level body. The second tells us whether an organization is undertaking the tasks it is man- dated. The third tells us whether, in practice, organizations are operating without mandate. Over three-quarters of government-initiated CBOs in the watershed sector and 61 percent of project-initiated CBOs undertake financing activ- ities, even though this task is mandated only for their support organiza- tion. Similarly, the NGO-initiated CBO operating in this sector undertakes financing, provisioning, capacity building, M&E, and conflict resolution functions mandated to its support organizations. Almost all (92 percent) of the 59 project-initiated CBOs studied in this sector undertake capacity build- ing, a function mandated to their support organization. The women's development and empowerment sector reinforces this (for conflict resolution and information), and also illustrates the prevalence of transferring functions among local organizations. This is indicated by orga- nizations not performing functions mandated to them (those with a letter b in table 3) when others--without a mandate--perform that same function (those with a letter c in table 3). Table 3 indicates transferring staffing, coor- dination, M&E, and conflict resolution functions. In terms of coordination, for example, only 32 percent of organizations mandated to carry out this function (government-initiated CBOs) actually undertake it. By contrast, while coordination is not mandated to the village-level NGO (NGO-VL) Table 2 Functions Undertaken by Village-Level Local Organizations, Watershed Development Sector (Percentage of local organizations of each type) Local Community- organization based Capacity Conflict type N Financing Staffing Provisioning action building Coordination M&E resolution Information Elected government 43 13a 12c 24c 0a 6c 17c 27b 5b 33a 15 Government- initiated CBO 9 78a 22c 89b 33b 100c 44c 67b 78b 56c NGO-initiated CBO 1 100a 0c 100a 0a 100a 100c 100a 100a 0c Project-initiated CBO 59 61a 14b 95b 41b 92a 66b 85b 71b 86b Source: Local organization officials questionnaire, watershed development sector. Note: CBO community-based organization; M&E monitoring and evaluation. a. The local organization does not have a mandate to undertake activities in this function area, but the support organization does. b. Mandated function for the local organization. c. Not mandated to the local organization or to its initiating support organization. Table 3 Functions Undertaken by Village-Level Local Organizations, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector (Percentage of local organizations of each type) Local Community- organization based Capacity Conflict type N Financing Staffing Provisioning action building Coordination M&E resolution Information Line department n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0b n.a. n.a. 0b 0b GP/GS n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0b 0b n.a. NGO (village) 1 0c 0c 0c 0c 100a 100c 0a 0a 0 16 Government- initiated CBO 56 50b 11c 78b 18b 77c 32b 59c 77c 50b NGO-initiated CBO 11 45b 9b 100b 9b 55c 64c 36c 55c 36a Project-initiated CBO 60 55b 30c 93b 35b 90c 70c 80b 82b 68b Self-initiated CBO 2 50b 0c 50b 50b 100c 50c 50c 100a 50a Source: Local organization officials questionnaire, women's development and empowerment sector. Note: GP gram panchayat; GS gram sabha; M&E monitoring and evaluation. n.a. Not applicable. a. The local organization does not have a mandate to undertake activities in this function area, but the support organization that initiated it does. b. Mandated function for the local organization. c. Not mandated to the local organization or to its initiating support organization. PERFORMANCE OF MANDATED FUNCTIONS 17 operating in this sector, it does perform this function, as do 70 percent of project-initiated CBOs, and one of the two self-initiated CBOs. Transferring coordination, M&E, and conflict resolution functions is also commonly found in the drinking water supply and sanitation sector (annex table A6). In sum, while functions are being undertaken, in none of the three sec- tors is there a close correlation between functions mandated and functions undertaken. In nearly half (48 percent) of all cases, functions mandated to a specific type of organization are not performed. It is to be expected that, as a project or program is implemented, the functional requirements of orga- nizations may change from the original vision. Poor project design, changes in contexts, the subsequent implementation of other projects in the same localities, and changes in the situations and conditions of beneficiaries can all have significant consequences for operational functions. A mandate to perform a function is therefore not a guarantee that a local organization will actually undertake the function, and many functions are undertaken that are not mandated. Performance of Decentralized Local Government Organizations Legislation on local government enacted as part of India's overall decen- tralization program gives a broad set of responsibilities to village-level elected governments (that is, GPs) in all three states covered by the study. These include conflict resolution and minor law and order issues. GPs are also accorded a degree of responsibility with respect to development activ- ities, including making needs assessments and implementing a number of programs such as employment assurance schemes, pension schemes, hous- ing programs for the poor, and relief work. In line with these responsibilities, the expectation is that GPs would undertake such functions as coordination of activities, conflict resolution, and M&E. However, despite these formally assigned roles, this research found that GPs did not generally undertake such activities in the sectors studied. Only when a GP is directly involved in a specific project's imple- mentation are these functions performed. Box 2 illustrates how problems can arise when GPs do not show an active interest in performing the func- tions expected of them. The watershed development sector provides an illustration of the low frequency in undertaking functions by local elected government. In this sector, GPs have mandates with respect to project M&E and conflict reso- lution. However, household survey responses indicate that these functions were rarely undertaken. As table 4 shows, only 3.5 percent of households in Karnataka, and 3.7 percent of households in Uttaranchal noted that GPs performed conflict resolution activities. In Karnataka, M&E was performed even less frequently than conflict resolution (1.8 percent). In Uttaranchal, Table 4 Functions Undertaken by Gram Panchayats, Watershed Development Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Line department 18 department and JFM/Van KAWAD and JFMC GAREMA panchayat Function (Mandated functions noted in bold) (N 455) (N 112) (N 430) (N 124) Resolving conflicts within the local organization 3.5 0.0 3.7 14.5 Mobilizing benefits from the government (funds and so on) and banks 5.3 3.6 20.9 21.0 Providing financial assistance (pension to widows, agricultural laborers, support toward housing, loans, and so on) to vulnerable groups 24.2 16.1 81.4 99.2 Sending GP staff to help local organizations perform functions 0.4 0.0 19.1 33.9 Instructing line department staff to provide technical support (such as extension services) to members 2.4 6.3 22.6 25.8 Providing the GP building for local organization meetings 0.4 0.9 12.3 10.5 Providing village tanks, grazing lands, trees, and so on for collective income-generating activities 9.9 9.8 9.3 32.3 Providing income-generating opportunities 0.4 3.6 18.8 21.0 Providing community assets (roads, child care centers, and so on) 27.7 22.3 17.2 63.7 Facilitating training from agriculture, horticulture departments 0.7 0.0 18.1 6.5 Coordinating with line departments to ensure that benefits (seeds, saplings, and so on) reach members 1.3 2.7 25.1 37.1 Coordinating with other local organizations for resource convergence 0.9 0.9 17.7 12.9 Monitoring local organization activities 0.0 1.8 40.2 66.9 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to members 0.2 0.0 27.4 16.9 Ensuring that the local organization incorporates the interests of the poor and vulnerable 5.7 4.5 36.5 19.4 Sharing information on GP programs with local organization members 9.7 0.0 59.8 62.9 19 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GAREMA Gram Resources Management Association; GP gram panchayat; JFM joint forest management; JFMC Joint Forest Management Committee; KAWAD Karnataka Watershed Development Project. 20 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Box 2 Difficulties Working with Gram Panchayats The Swa-Shakthi women's group in Jangamanahalli prepared proposals to obtain benefits such as a community hall and loans under SGSY from the gram panchayat. Despite their efforts, nothing generated a positive response. According to the president, who was also a ward member in the gram panchayat (GP), no one even bothered to tell the women's group the status of their proposals. Similarly, the Swa-Shakthi group in Nakkanahalli in Kolar district requested the GP to provide a site for construction of a meeting hall, or allow the group to conduct its meetings in the GP office. The GP did neither. As a result, the meetings had to be conducted in a temple, where a few of the members' belongings were stolen. In Maradaghatta village in Kolar district, the Swa-Shakthi group obtained training from their support organization on how to obtain benefits from GPs. The group, consisting of scheduled caste (SC) households, was apprehensive that the sharp caste divisions that had emerged in the village between the dominant Reddys and the lower-status SCs would keep them from obtaining benefits. The support organization staff took the group leaders and a few members to the GP to petition for allocation of a site to construct a meeting hall. The GP allotted the group a building site located in a supposedly vacant space between the main village, where the Reddys reside, and the SC colony. However, this became a problem when it was found that the lot had already been encroached by a Reddy household. At the same time, the location of the allotted building site became a source of conflict. The Reddys in the community argued that the meeting hall should be built in the main village for the benefit of everyone, while the SC households maintained that it should be built in the SC colony as the request had been made by a group from the colony. This secondary conflict over where the hall should be built overshadowed the most immediate issue--that a common property had been encroached. Rather than enforce its original decision regarding the location of the meeting hall and take up the issue of removing the encroachers from the land, the GP stated that the larger conflict over its location should be resolved first. Source: Case studies. however, while still low, around half of all GPs undertook M&E. The vast majority of GPs in Uttaranchal also played a key financing role and, while still averaging low involvement, did tend to be more involved across func- tions than their counterparts in Karnataka. PERFORMANCE OF MANDATED FUNCTIONS 21 The case is similar in the women's development sector (annex table A7), in which responses to the household survey indicated that village-level elected governments rarely undertook any functions, mandated or otherwise. This was corroborated by presidents of GPs working in the study locations, who said they had nothing to do with women's devel- opment and empowerment and that they undertook functions related to providing financial assistance to "vulnerable groups" (presumably includ- ing women), implementing construction works, and maintaining basic infrastructure. In the water supply and sanitation sector, by contrast, GPs are reported to much more consistently undertake mandated (and to some extent non- mandated functions) than in the other sectors (annex table A8). When they are charged with a substantial role in coordinating the water supply scheme, as in the Advanced Rural Water Supply Program (ARWSP) and to a lesser extent the Integrated Rural Water and Environment Sanitation Program (IRWES)--both in Karnataka--GPs perform mandated and many non- mandated functions, including those associated with delivery of benefits.11 However, in schemes in which LDs, NGOs (Swajal), or local corporations (Jal Sansthan) are given primary responsibility for managing the scheme, per- formance of functions in this sector are reduced considerably. GPs perform best across programs in this sector in sending staff to local organizations and providing facilities for meetings. In these, as in most other functions, elected governments in Karnataka undertake functions far more frequently than those in Uttaranchal. Quality of Organizational Performance Functions undertaken are not necessarily functions performed well. Broadly, as table 5 indicates, village-level organizations are rated as good or, more often, adequate in performance of functions. However, that responses are concentrated in the "adequate" category indicates that there is room for improvement. Examination of these figures indicates that, while performance of func- tions across sectors appears to be generally good in organizational admin- istration and management (financing, M&E, and conflict resolution), ratings are weighted toward "adequate" on quality of performance in more development-oriented functions, notably community-based action (55.7 per- cent adequate and 23.5 percent poor, versus 20.8 percent good) and coor- dination (48.5 percent adequate versus 31.3 percent good).12 Further investigation of this pattern--using household survey responses on quality of performance of a variety of functions by local support orga- nizations and village-level elected governments--confirms this observa- tion. Local support organizations in the women's development sector were 22 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 5 Quality of Performance of Functions by Village-Level Organizations Performance Function Poor (%) Adequate (%) Good (%) Na Financing 15.4 39.2 45.4 230 Staffing 21.2 48.6 30.2 102 Provisioning 24.0 43.1 32.9 320 Community-based action 23.5 55.7 20.8 213 Capacity building 14.0 41.3 44.7 317 Coordination of activity 20.2 48.5 31.3 269 Monitoring and evaluation 8.8 38.7 52.5 293 Conflict resolution/accountability 15.7 36.1 48.2 299 Information sharing/dissemination 17.2 47.3 35.5 280 Average 17.8 44.3 37.9 Source: Household questionnaire. a. Number of local organizations undertaking these functions across all sectors and including all organizational types. found to perform basic functions such as formation of groups, provision of savings and credit services, conflict resolution, and monitoring quite well. But broader development and empowerment functions, especially those not related to savings and credit, were poorly done. Table 6 provides feed- back from households on performance of support organizations in projects within this sector. In Karnataka, management and administration functions received a good rating on average, with the responses ranging from a low of 66 percent in providing capable staff, to nearly 94 percent for local orga- nization formation. Support organizations in Madhya Pradesh received similarly favorable ratings for these functions. In both states, good ratings for performance of development-oriented functions by support organizations were much less frequent. In Karnataka, good ratings ranged from an average of 41 percent for training in income gen- eration activities, to a high of almost 70 percent for coordination with other local organizations. Numbers are perhaps slightly higher in Madhya Pradesh, but good ratings still do not exceed 70 percent, on average, for develop- ment functions. Much like the women's empowerment sector, the tendency among sup- port organizations in both the drinking water supply and sanitation sector and the watershed development sectors was to undertake basic adminis- trative functions well, but not development functions (annex tables A9 and A10). Table 6 Performance of Functions by Support Organizations, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Swa- Stree- Swa- Shakthi Shakthi Others Shakthi SGSY Others Function (N 257) (N 220) (N 75) Average (N 290) (N 155) (N 58) Average 23 Administration and Management Formation of the local organization 98.4 88.6 94.7 93.9 88.6 86.5 93.1 89.4 Explaining how to manage the group 96.1 75.5 81.3 84.3 88.3 70.3 93.1 83.9 Providing books for accounts maintenance 92.6 70.0 74.7 79.1 85.5 74.8 89.7 83.3 Monitoring the local organization activities 91.4 69.5 72.0 77.6 80.7 61.9 89.7 77.4 Resolving conflicts within the group 90.7 71.8 62.7 75 83.4 65.8 91.4 80.2 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to members 75.1 67.7 62.7 68.5 85.2 57.4 89.7 77.4 Providing capable staff 85.6 69.1 45.3 66.7 81.4 63.2 86.2 76.9 (Table continues on the following page.) Table 6 (continued) Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Swa- Stree- Swa- Shakthi Shakthi Others Shakthi SGSY Others Function (N 257) (N 220) (N 75) Average (N 290) (N 155) (N 58) Average Development Oriented Coordination with PIA/line department/NGO 73.9 67.7 68.0 69.9 52.4 38.1 51.7 47.4 Training on how to secure benefits 24 for members 71.2 64.5 57.3 64.3 71.0 48.4 74.1 64.5 Organizing training programs and exposure visits 79.4 38.2 32.0 49.9 77.6 51.6 81.0 70.0 Explaining how to improve the habit of savings contributions to local organization 87.5 71.8 38.7 66.0 62.8 41.3 72.4 58.8 Organizing meetings with banks and government departments to obtain assistance for members 61.5 49.5 42.7 51.2 65.9 44.5 63.8 58.1 Training on selecting the right income-generating activities and making them successful 51.8 30.5 41.3 41.2 69.7 38.7 79.3 62.6 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: NGO nongovernmental organization; PIA project implementation agency; and SGSY Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna. PERFORMANCE OF MANDATED FUNCTIONS 25 Similar to the findings for support organizations, village-level elected government performance was divided between satisfactory performance of administrative functions and unsatisfactory performance of development- oriented functions in the water supply and sanitation sector (annex tables A11 and A12). In the watershed development sector, GPs were reported to perform few functions well, administrative or development oriented, par- ticularly in Karnataka.13 Summary At the state level, organizations are assigned macrolevel functions neces- sary for strategic management (staffing and coordination), financing, and maintaining information systems. Elected governments and NGOs are both assigned the most responsibility at the village level, rather than any other level. In practice, local organizations are often found to delegate assigned func- tions to subsidiary organizations at lower levels, or to transfer functions among organizations. Functions, however, are performed and the quality of performance generally is reported to be positive. This is particularly the case for performance of administrative and management functions. More development-oriented functions, such as community-based action, capacity building, and information sharing are performed less well. This is particu- larly true among village-level elected governments. In an environment in which such a variety of different types of organi- zations at different levels are assigned such wide-ranging functions, coor- dination among local organizations is valuable for efficiency and to avoid unnecessary duplication. Coordination committees or multiagency work- ing groups are featured in each sector with such intentions, usually as part of project design. However, few of them were found to function as intended, other than those at the state level in the water and sanitation and water- shed sectors and at the district level in the watershed sector. The coordina- tion committees rarely included organizations other than government LDs or government staff of project units, at least in practice, and were generally used more for monitoring purposes than for strategic guidance. Notes 10. The amount lent by banks to self-help groups (SHGs) stood at 1 percent of total outstanding loans at the time of the survey. 11. In annex table A8, the Advanced Rural Water Supply Program (ARWSP) is labeled as the one managed by gram panchayats (GPs) in Karnataka. 12. Organizational administration and management functions include most subfunctions relating to financing, staffing, provisioning, monitoring and 26 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT evaluation, and conflict resolution/accountability. Development functions cover activities aimed at securing resources for the local organization or the beneficiaries, enhancing the capacity of beneficiaries to secure entitlements on the basis of resources or skills possessed, or providing new assets or organizational links to beneficiaries. These functions include most subfunctions related to community- based action, capacity building, coordination, and information sharing/ dissemination. 13. Respondents in the women's development sector reported quite limited activity by GPs, and thus ratings of performance quality for these organizations are not provided. III Assets and Effective Organizational Performance The preceding analysis outlined considerable variation in performance of functions among different types of local organizations in the three sectors. The following analysis focuses on the factors associated with different levels of organizational performance. The conceptual framework underpinning this study specifies that an organization's performance is contingent on four groups of factors: its assets, processes, linkages, and context. This section reviews findings on assets and their importance for performance of local organizations. Three types of assets were assessed: human, material, and financial. Human and Material Assets Overall, nearly three-quarters of organizations operating at the village level are reported to have adequate human resources (table 7). Just under a quar- ter of all organizations in the watershed development sector are underre- sourced with human assets, as are nearly a third of all organizations in the other two sectors. There is some variation by type of organization and state. Excluding the one NGO-VL, in the women's development sector, all types of organizations in Madhya Pradesh are less likely than those in Karnataka to have adequate human resources; in both states the NGO-initiated CBOs are the most poorly endowed. In the water and sanitation sector, LDs oper- ating at the village level are seriously underresourced in Uttaranchal but less so in Karnataka. Sixty-eight percent of GP representatives in Karnataka said they have adequate resources for their work in this sector. In water- shed development, organizations in Karnataka were the most poorly endowed in terms of human assets. This was particularly striking for government-initiated CBOs, in which 40 percent of officeholders reported lack of adequate human assets. Levels of material assets were poorer than those of human assets (table 8). Dissatisfaction was highest for the watershed sector (65 percent), and lowest for the water supply and sanitation sector (55 percent). In the women's development sector, organizations in Madhya Pradesh had far fewer mate- rial assets than those in Karnataka and this was true across organizational 27 28 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 7 Adequacy of Human Assets Women's development and empowerment sector Local organization All Karnataka Madhya Pradesh type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N NGO-VL 100 0 1 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 22 78 55 12 88 33 36 64 22 CBO-NI 45 55 11 17 83 6 80 20 5 CBO-PI 32 68 60 10 90 30 53 47 30 CBO-SI 50 50 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 50 50 2 Total averagea 29 71 129 13 87 70 49 51 59 Drinking water supply and sanitation sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N LD 43 57 49 33 67 36 69 31 13 GP 32 68 22 32 68 22 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 17 83 58 17 83 29 17 83 29 Total averagea 29 71 129 28 72 87 33 67 42 Watershed development sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N CBO-GI 44 56 9 60 40 5 25 75 4 CBO-NI 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 19 81 59 28 72 29 10 90 30 Total averagea 22 78 69 31 69 35 12 88 34 Sources: Local organization and GP officials questionnaires. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organiza- tion (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD line department; NGO-VL nongovernmental organization (village-level). n.a. Not applicable (not operating in this sector). a. Reflects average percentage for all ungrouped organizations. ASSETS AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 29 Table 8 Adequacy of Material Assets Women's development and empowerment sector Local organization All Karnataka Madhya Pradesh type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N NGO-VL 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 58 42 55 39 61 33 86 14 22 CBO-NI 73 27 11 67 33 6 80 20 5 CBO-PI 59 41 59 30 70 30 90 10 29 CBO-SI 100 0 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 0 2 Total averagea 60 40 128 37 63 70 88 22 58 Drinking water supply and sanitation sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N LD 44 56 48 43 57 35 46 54 13 GP 55 45 22 55 45 22 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 64 36 58 48 52 29 79 21 29 Total averagea 55 45 128 48 52 87 69 31 42 Watershed development sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N CBO-GI 44 56 9 40 60 5 50 50 4 CBO-NI 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 69 31 59 45 55 29 93 7 30 Total averagea 65 35 69 43 57 35 88 12 34 Sources: Local organization and GP officials questionnaires; semistructured interviews with district-level officials. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organiza- tion (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD line department; NGO-VL nongovernmental organization (village-level). n.a. Not applicable (not operating in this sector). a. Reflects average percentage for all ungrouped organizations. 30 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT types. In the drinking water sector, organizations in Uttaranchal had far fewer material assets than those in Karnataka, with project-initiated CBOs suffering particularly badly. Even in Karnataka, however, nearly half of the organizations of this type lacked the material assets that officeholders thought they required, and over half of all GPs reported inadequate mate- rial assets. Finally, state differences are again apparent in watershed devel- opment, with nearly 90 percent of organizations recording inadequate material assets in Uttaranchal. This difference is particularly apparent for project-initiated CBOs. Financial Assets Nearly three-quarters of all organizations working in the women's devel- opment sector had insufficient financial assets (table 9). In the water supply and sanitation sector, 6 out of 10 local organizations, and nearly half of all organizations in watershed, reported inadequate financial assets. In the former sector, there was not a great deal of difference between states, but GPs reported severe financial constraints on their work.14 LDs operating at the village level in Uttaranchal were poorly funded, but to no greater extent than any other local organization in that state.15 Summary and Analysis of the Relationship Between Assets and Performance of Functions Tables 7 through 9 provided an overview of the asset positioning of differ- ent organizations. Across sectors, 3 in 10 organizations reported inadequate human assets, 6 in 10 had inadequate material assets, and 7 in 10 had inad- equate financial assets. Obviously, the poor asset position of organizations is serious. But is it affecting performance of functions? Table 10 presents ordered probit results on the association between an organization's asset positioning and the quality of performance of the nine main functions. In terms of human assets, the picture is statistically inconclusive but leaning toward a negative association with performance. In the women's development sector, the number of human assets has no significant rela- tionship with anything other than conflict resolution. In the water supply and sanitation sector, numbers of staff had either insignificant or negative associations with performance of functions. The negative relationship was even more apparent in the watershed sector. Additional staff is obviously not the answer to low quality of performance, but better-quality staff may be (box 3).16 The same trend is apparent in the relation between the quantum of mate- rial assets available to an organization and its performance. While there is little association between material assets and performance in the water ASSETS AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 31 Table 9 Adequacy of Financial Assets Women's development and empowerment sector Local organization All Karnataka Madhya Pradesh type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N NGO-VL 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 76 24 54 64 36 33 95 5 21 CBO-NI 60 40 10 50 50 6 75 25 4 CBO-PI 68 32 59 60 40 30 76 24 29 CBO-SI 100 0 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 0 2 Total averagea 71 29 126 60 40 70 84 16 56 Drinking water supply and sanitation sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N LD 40 60 48 29 71 35 69 31 13 GP 86 14 22 86 14 22 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 71 29 58 79 21 29 62 38 29 Total averagea 62 38 128 60 40 86 64 36 42 Watershed development sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N CBO-GI 63 37 8 40 60 5 100 0 3 CBO-NI 100 0 1 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 44 56 59 31 69 29 57 43 30 Total averagea 47 53 68 34 66 35 61 39 33 Sources: Local organization and GP officials questionnaires. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organiza- tion (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD line department; NGO-VL nongovernmental organization (village-level). n.a. Not applicable (not operating in this sector). a. Reflects average percentage for all ungrouped organizations. 32 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 10 Ordered Probit Results for Assets and Performance (See annex table A29) Function Sector Type of assets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women Human assets ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Material assets ° ° ° - -- ° ° -- ° Financial assets ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Water/sanitation Human assets ° * - ° - - ° ° ° Material assets - * ° ° ° ° ° Financial assets * ° ° ° ° ° Watershed Human assets -- - ° -- -- -- -- -- ° Material assets -- ° -- -- -- - - -- Financial assets ° Sources: Local organization officials and household questionnaires. Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 conflict resolution; 9 information sharing/dissemination. Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. supply and sanitation sector, there is a negative association with develop- ment functions in the women's development sector. The same negative rela- tionship is observed with almost all functions in the watershed sector, apart from community-based action. In the last case, the more material assets an organization has, the more likely it is to be effective in terms of generating community-level collective action. Financial assets have the most significant impact on an organization's performance. In the drinking water and sanitation sector, in which 4 in 10 organizations have sufficient financial assets, these associate positively with financing, provisioning, and external coordination functions. In the water- shed sector, where half of all organizations report adequate asset endow- ments, there is a strong positive relationship with quality of performance of most functions. The relationship is least noticeable in the women's ASSETS AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 33 Box 3 Quality of Human Assets Is Key In the watershed sector, delivery of benefits was linked with contributions. NGO staff played a critical role in motivating farmers to make contribu- tions, and discussions during performance rankings indicated that the benefits to farmers were substantial when the NGO staff carried out this function effectively. It was reported, however, that NGO staff performance was irregular and some did not undertake the functions assigned to them. For instance, the farmers in S.D. Kote village in Chitradurga stated that the NGO staff had not been providing guidance to farmers on contributions or land development works. Similar complaints were made in the groups formed by the local administrative government. The president of the watershed committee in Chikkobanahalli stated that the line department staff was irregular, and that works carried out during his tenure were substandard. Furthermore, the committee wanted such works as land leveling, clearing of bushes, and building of checkdams to be taken up. The response of the staff was that "there was shortage of money." The committee resolved in one of its meetings that the staff should be transferred and sent the request to the Department of Agriculture. But the president stated that "no action was taken." Source: Performance rankings. development sector, in which the only significant association is a positive one with community-based action. Financial assets are clearly required for good performance. Material and human assets matter less, and interestingly, generally appear to detract from quality of performance. Interventions appear to be unable to provide local organizations with required finance. If local organizations are to succeed, they require higher levels of financial resources. This, along with the issue of local organization resource generation, is discussed further in section VI. Notes 14. This is consistent with other recent research on fiscal decentralization in Karnataka, which found that local elected governments (from the district level down) had in practice virtually no expenditure discretion in plan funds, as all transfers were already earmarked by state governments. Furthermore, while GPs 34 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT were the only elected governments with the authority to generate their own source revenues, because of limited tax collection capacities and weak administrative processes, in 2001 these amounted to less than 1 percent of Gross State Domestic Product. In part because of this, the research found that village-level elected governments "do not evoke appreciable interest and response from the majority of people. Many have commented on the apparent lack of local interest in the business of the panchayats, as evidenced by the poor attendance at the gram sabhas" (World Bank 2004). 15. In addition to being largely inadequate, sustainability of financial assets of local organizations is also questionable. This is discussed in greater detail in section VI. 16. Analysis of capacity building, organizational business practices, and levels of rules awareness indicates that quality, rather than number, of staff may be significant (Alsop 2004). It is essential to ensure that organizational staff have sufficient knowledge and skills to perform the tasks required of them. This requires immediate attention in interventions under implementation, as well as enhanced capacity-building strategies for staff and functionaries in the design of future projects. IV Processes and Effective Organizational Performance Processes refer to the manner in which a local organization engages its ben- eficiaries and, to a lesser extent, other stakeholders. Believing them to be core to the functioning of democratic organizations, project designers have encouraged local organizations to operate in a transparent and participa- tory manner. This is understood to improve functional performance and lead to better equity outcomes. Furthermore, such organizations are thought to be more likely to be sustainable beyond the life of a project. This section reviews the extent to which local organizations in the sec- tors studied carry out such processes in practice, and the extent to which such processes impact performance. Descriptive statistics for key variables are first presented, followed by discussion of regression estimations of the association between organizational processes and the quality of the orga- nizations' performance of functions. Key indicators used to investigate how a group manages itself and its business include levels of awareness of organizational rules, transparency of operation, and decision-making procedures. Awareness of Rules Tables 11 and 12 show the levels of awareness representatives and mem- bers have of rules across sectors and types of organization. A full aware- ness of rules is rare, as is having no awareness of rules at all. Overall, around half of all CBO representatives are aware of some of their organization's rules (table 13). Awareness among representatives is highest for project-initiated CBOs and lowest for government-initiated CBOs, where in all sectors, around 30 percent had no knowledge of organizational rules. At least 13 percent of representatives of project-initiated CBOs had no knowledge of organiza- tional rules. In the women's development and water supply and sanitation sectors, this figure approached 20 percent, but it was far lower (2 percent) for watershed interventions. In the drinking water sector, among repre- sentatives of LDs, 18 percent had no knowledge of the rules governing their operation. Just under 10 percent of GP representatives admitted they had no knowledge of the rules governing the GP's involvement in this sector. 35 Table 11 Representatives' Awareness of Rules and Functions, by Local Organization Type and Sector (percent) Local organization All Women Water/sanitation Watershed type None Some All N None Some All N None Some All N None Some All N Admin. Govt. 18 73 9 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 18 73 9 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Elected Govt. 9 69 22 23 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9 69 22 23 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. NGO-VL 0 100 0 1 0 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 36 CBO-GI 30 45 25 64 29 49 22 55 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 33 22 44 9 CBO-NI 25 58 17 12 27 64 9 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 0 100 1 CBO-PI 13 56 31 175 17 62 21 58 19 41 40 58 2 66 32 59 CBO-SI 0 50 50 2 0 50 50 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all orgs. 17 56 27 288 23 57 20 127 16 52 32 92 6 59 35 69 Source: Local organization officials questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO-VL nongovernmental organization (village-level). n.a. Not applicable. Table 12 Members' Awareness of Rules, by Local Organization Type and Sector Local organization All Women Water/sanitation Watershed type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N Elected Govt. 30 70 23 n.a. n.a. n.a. 30 70 23 n.a. n.a. n.a. NGO 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 39 61 64 36 64 55 n.a. n.a. n.a. 56 44 9 37 CBO-NI 33 67 12 36 64 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 100 1 CBO-PI 22 78 176 22 78 59 24 76 58 19 81 59 CBO-SI 0 100 2 0 100 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all orgs. 26 74 289 29 71 128 23 77 92 23 77 69 Source: Local organization officials questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO nongovernmental organization. n.a. Not applicable. 38 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT The proportion of members unaware of organizational rules was higher (table 12). Overall, nearly one-third of members of women's groups and one-quarter of members in the water supply and sanitation and watershed sectors were unaware of organizational rules. Similar to the findings for representatives' awareness, project-initiated CBOs have the best record of members' awareness and government-initiated CBOs the worst. Transparency and Information Availability As indicated by the reports in box 4, transparency plays an important role in enhancing the quality of an organization's performance. Sharing min- utes from previous meetings is a key transparency mechanism. In addition to updating members who missed the preceding meeting, reading minutes allows an organization's members to verify records and to reopen discussion on matters dealt with previously. Table 13, which pre- sents findings on the reading of minutes at meetings, suggests that this practice is far from universal. Minutes are read, on average, at the meetings of 60 percent of organizations across sectors. This is lowest in the water supply and sanitation sector, in which 58 percent of organizations do not read minutes. This largely results from low incidence among administra- tive and elected governments, who read minutes in only 8 and 30 percent of cases, respectively. Performance is better, but still somewhat low, in the watershed and women's development sectors, in which minutes are read in 75 percent and 65 percent of organizations respectively. Project-initiated CBOs in all sectors have the best record, but even then more than one-quarter do not use this transparency mechanism. As later analysis shows (table 28) attendance at meetings of local orga- nizations is low, so what mechanisms exist that allow members not present at a meeting to learn what happened? As table 14 shows, many organizations rely on word of mouth for transmitting information about the activities and decisions that take place when an organization meets. This is especially the case among NGOs and CBOs in all sectors. Word of mouth, while common, is a mode of information sharing in which messages are frequently subject to different interpretations. It can also be selectively used. In general, CBOs place too much reliance on this highly unreliable mechanism for sharing information among members. Unless backed by available records of meet- ings, this practice renders organizations vulnerable to mismanagement, as box 5 demonstrates. Because of its key role in good governance, transparency is critical to organizational sustainability. Women's development organizations appear the least likely to suffer from future problems. In general, however, orga- nizations across sectors do not appear to prioritize transparency of opera- tion. This obviously requires those designing interventions to pay more PROCESSES AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 39 Box 4 Transparency in Operation--or Not The members of Swa-Shakthi and Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna (SGSY) groups in Madhya Pradesh did not consider it necessary to know the annual income and expenditure of their groups. For instance, two members of the Swa-Shakthi group of Nayagaon village in Chattarpur district stated that "the secretary of the group should know this" and said they only kept track of their own money in the group. Swa-Shakthi group members in Dadudhana village in Betul reported that "the information on income and expenditure is known to only some influential persons who are actively involved in the group." In some villages, such as Raipur village in Betul district, an "annual budget was never prepared and discussed." It was alleged that the support organizations, which trained the groups to be transparent, were themselves not transparent. The members of the self-help group in Raipur village noted that individual savings passbooks were not provided, savings records were not up-to-date, and members did not have information on the total savings and their own savings in the group. Members also complained about lack of transparency with regard to the distribution of benefits. One of the Stree-Shakthi members from Maradaghatta village, who belonged to the scheduled-caste (SC) community, noted that the president (upper caste), vice-president (SC), and anganawadi worker accounted for more than one-third of the total loans from the group. She stated that the criteria for distribution of benefits were not clear. She also hinted that the decision-making process was not made transparent to members belonging to the lower castes. In the watershed sector, transparency norms also proved nonfunc- tional. Gram Resources Management Associations (GAREMAs) in six sample villages were provided with agricultural assets such as sprayers. While these were used to meet the requirements of farmers in a few villages, they were misused in several cases. In Gajpur village of Ramnagar block in Nainital district, the project had provided the GAREMA with a sprayer for the villagers to use. However, the people did not know this. The president of the GAREMA, a local landlord with around 40 acres of land, had taken custody of the sprayer, apparently for his own use. The general public had no idea the sprayer was available for rent, and the watershed committee therefore lost a means of generating income. Source: Case studies. Table 13 Meeting Minutes Read, by Local Organization Type and Sector Local organization All Women Water/sanitation Watershed type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N Admin. Govt. 92 8 331 n.a. n.a. n.a. 92 8 331 n.a. n.a. n.a. Elected Govt. 70 30 117 n.a. n.a. n.a. 70 30 117 n.a. n.a. n.a. NGO 100 0 4 100 0 4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 40 60 556 47 53 392 n.a. n.a. n.a. 22 78 174 40 CBO-NI 43 57 87 39 61 71 n.a. n.a. n.a. 56 44 16 CBO-PI 30 70 2,079 26 74 539 40 60 666 25 75 874 CBO-SI 0 100 22 0 100 22 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all orgs. 40 60 3,206 35 65 1,028 58 42 1,114 25 75 1,064 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO nongovernmental organization. n.a. Not applicable. Table 14 Meeting Information through Word of Mouth, by Local Organization Type and Sector Local organization All Women Water/sanitation Watershed type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N Admin. Govt. 78 22 328 n.a. n.a. n.a. 78 22 328 n.a. n.a. n.a. Elected Govt. 43 57 119 n.a. n.a. n.a. 43 57 119 n.a. n.a. n.a. NGO 0 100 4 0 100 4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 17 83 565 15 85 391 n.a. n.a. n.a. 21 79 174 41 CBO-NI 31 69 87 28 72 71 n.a. n.a. n.a. 44 56 16 CBO-PI 15 85 2,074 10 90 539 23 77 662 11 89 873 CBO-SI 5 95 22 5 95 22 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all orgs. 23 77 3,199 13 87 1,028 42 58 1,109 13 87 1,063 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO nongovernmental organization. n.a. Not applicable. 42 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Box 5 The Importance of Good Transparency Mechanisms In one of the villages studied, the community organizer helped a women's self-help group to establish linkages with a local commercial bank. After the financial assistance was approved for the group, the community organizer stated that each member would have to pay Rs 200 toward the expenses incurred by the bankers. However, she showed no proof of this requirement. The group members paid up and the bank loans were disbursed. But the president of the group became suspicious and sent her husband to check this with the manager of the bank branch, who stated that no such amount was requested or obtained from the members. The group members asked for an explanation from the community organizer and made her return their money. They also pressed for the removal of the community organizer. The NGO transferred her to another area, and appointed a fresh graduate to the position, after a delay of about three months. The NGO confirmed this incident, and stated that action was taken against the staff member concerned. There were also three instances of Stree-Shakthi staff using the members' savings for their personal gain. Because banks were not located in these villages, it was the practice for the anganawadi worker to deposit members' savings in the banks. This resulted in members losing trust, and their gradual withdrawal from the group. Source: Performance ranking. attention both to the establishment of transparency measures and to mon- itoring their use. Decision-Making Procedures Participation in collective decision making is argued to be a necessary con- dition for equitable and sustainable development outcomes. Such partici- pation is seen as ensuring that the interests of marginalized groups are voiced and considered, that all participants accept responsibility for the decisions made, and that the subsequent activities undertaken are collec- tively owned. Collective decision making is expected to lead to better dis- tribution of benefits (greater equity) and to increase people's motivation to engage in local governance and development. Some of the factors that come into play when trying to achieve these objectives are highlighted in box 6. The mode of decision-making processes varies widely by sector. Table 15 shows how key decisions are reached in organizations in the women's PROCESSES AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 43 Box 6 Elite Capture In Jigjeevani in Bijapur district in Karnataka, the NGO staff preferred to have the local landlord as a representative, because his support was considered useful to the NGO for carrying out watershed works in the village. Similarly, influence of the local elite in the election of officeholders was evident in Inderpur, a village in Nainital district with many well-off farmers. The president of the Gram Resources Management Associations (GAREMA), in view of his dominant position in the locality, became the leader of the organization and has continued to hold the position since inception. In many other villages as well--such as Gajpur, Bhalon, and Dharamgarh in Uttaranchal, to name just a few--the officeholders of the GAREMA came from the local elite. They were local landlords, retired army person- nel, and the like, who became officeholders because of their status in their village. Village-level project staff went along with this as it ensured that they could carry out their activities with the blessings of, or at least without much opposition from, powerful local citizens. Source: Focus group discussion. development sector--by secret majority vote, by general consensus, or by the local organization president. The overwhelming majority of respon- dents stated that decision making in their organization was by general consensus. This is less so but still largely the case in the watershed devel- opment sector (table 16). In the drinking water supply and sanitation sector, by contrast, only 54 percent of respondents report at least partial consen- sus in decision making, and 23 percent report that there is no consensus at all (table 17). Who participates in decision making is another key question. This ques- tion is taken up in detail in section VI, in which equity of organizational performance is discussed. Relationship Between Processes and Performance of Functions Analysis of organizational processes intended to ensure inclusiveness of stakeholders suggests a need for improvement across sectors. Full aware- ness of organizational rules and functions among both members and representatives appears to be rare, with the exception of the water and san- itation sector, in which awareness among both is relatively high. 44 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 15 How Decisions Are Made, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector Local Secret Local organization majority General organization type vote (%) consensus (%) president (%) Other (%) N All NGO 0 100 0 0 4 CBO-GI 1 91 4 4 399 CBO-NI 0 92 4 4 70 CBO-PI 0 96 3 1 544 CBO-SI 0 86 0 14 22 Average across all orgs. 1 94 3 2 1,039 Karnataka NGO 0 100 0 0 4 CBO-GI 1 90 6 4 248 CBO-NI 0 86 7 7 43 CBO-PI 0 95 5 0 257 CBO-SI n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all orgs. 1 92 5 2 552 Madhya Pradesh NGO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 0 93 3 6 151 CBO-NI 0 100 0 0 27 CBO-PI 0 98 1 1 287 CBO-SI 0 86 0 14 22 Average across all orgs. 0 96 1 3 487 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organiza- tion (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO nongovernmental organization. n.a. Not applicable. Table 16 Extent to Which Decisions Are Made by Consensus, Watershed Development Sector (Percent) All Karnataka Uttaranchal Local Do Not To a Do Not To a Do Not To a organization not at large not at large not at large type know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N CBO-GI 3 6 6 85 173 0 10 1 89 80 5 3 10 82 93 45 CBO-NI 6 19 6 69 16 6 19 6 69 16 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 5 3 5 87 879 1 2 6 91 455 9 5 3 83 424 Average across all orgs. 5 4 5 86 1,068 1 4 5 90 551 9 4 4 82 517 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated). n.a. Not applicable. Table 17 Extent to Which Decisions Are Made by Consensus, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (Percent) All Karnataka Uttaranchal Local Do Not To a Do Not To a Do Not To a organization not at large not at large not at large type know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N 46 LD-VL 42 41 3 14 327 10 63 5 22 210 99 1 0 0 117 GP 11 56 3 30 123 11 56 3 30 123 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 16 8 13 63 676 31 19 9 41 240 7 2 15 76 436 Average across all orgs. 23 23 9 45 1,126 19 43 7 31 573 27 2 11 60 553 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD-VL line department (village-level). n.a. Not applicable. PROCESSES AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 47 Organizational transparency is also of concern, with heavy reliance across sectors on word of mouth for transferring meeting information, which leaves organizations open to mismanagement as this information can be unreli- able. More transparent means of information dissemination, such as reading meeting minutes aloud, are much less prominent, and particularly low in the water and sanitation sector. How do organizational processes impact their performance of functions? Table 18 presents ordered probit results on the extent of association between an organization's processes and its performance of functions. Broadly, find- ings indicate that the relative impact of organizational processes on performance depends on sector and type of organization. · Members' awareness of rules shows a positive relationship with a number of functions in the women's development sector and the water supply and sanitation sector. But it has negative associations with several func- tions in watershed, including staffing, community-based action, conflict resolution, and information sharing. · Representatives' awareness of rules is generally positively associated with performance in women's development and watershed, but it has an over- all negative relationship with performance in water supply and sani- tation. Organization members in this sector report little belief in accountability practices or rules, whereas in the other sectors the account- ability rules, while still not properly functioning, were used more frequently.17 · Oral transmission of information associates with poor performance in financ- ing and staffing for the women's development sector, but it has no sig- nificant association with performance in the water supply and sanitation sector and a positive relationship with performance in watershed. For women's groups, because many SHG members are illiterate, oral trans- mission of business transactions is important. Given the susceptibility of this form of information sharing to misinterpretation, better use should be made of mechanisms, such as reading minutes, which reinforce infor- mation about financing and staffing. · At the same time, however, currently the only significant finding in rela- tion to reading minutes is in the water supply and sanitation sector, in which there is a positive association with conflict resolution. There are no negative associations with this practice. This suggests that while such an activity has no statistical association with organizational performance, in the interests of due process it is worth continuing. · In the women's development sector, the greater the availability of minutes by request the poorer an organization performs its financing and, inter- estingly, its information-sharing and dissemination role. In the water- shed sector, the availability of minutes on request is more likely to be found in organizations that perform community-based action and capacity Table 18 Ordered Probit Results for Processes and Performance (See annex table A29) Function Sector Attribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women Always conducts self-monitoring ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Members aware of objectives ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 48 Meeting minutes read ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Members aware of rules ° ° ° ° Representatives aware of rules ° ° ° ° Meeting minutes orally informed -- - ° ° ° ° ° ° Minutes available on request - ° ° ° ° ° ° ° -- Water/sanitation Always conducts self-monitoring - * ° - -- -- ° ° ° Members aware of objectives * -- ° -- ° Meeting minutes read ° * ° ° ° ° Members aware of rules ° * ° ° Representatives aware of rules ° * -- -- -- ° -- -- - Meeting minutes orally informed ° * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Minutes available on request ° * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Watershed Always conducts self-monitoring ° ° Members aware of objectives ° - ° ° - ° -- ° Meeting minutes read ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Members aware of rules ° -- ° -- ° ° - -- Representatives aware of rules ° ° ° ° ° ° Meeting minutes orally informed ° ° ° ° ° Minutes available on request ° ° ° - -- ° ° ° ° Sources: Local organization officials and household questionnaires. Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 conflict resolution; 9 information sharing/dissemination. Significant positive association at 95 percent. 49 Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. 50 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT building functions poorly. In the water supply and sanitation sector, there are no significant associations. These findings suggest that, at the current level of evolution of organizations in most sectors, availability of min- utes is not critical. However, as organizations move forward into inde- pendent and perhaps more sophisticated action, other research demonstrates that this transparency mechanism will become increas- ingly important. Note 17. In the water and sanitation sector, only 17 percent of households in Karnataka and 5 percent in Uttaranchal had complained about poorly function- ing water resources. In the watershed development sector more than 60 percent of organizations had functioning complaint systems. In Karnataka, all complaints were dealt with. In Uttaranchal, one-fifth were not. Figures and effectiveness varied by intervention in women's development and empowerment but, on average, more than half of all organizations had functioning complaint systems and only about 15 percent of complaints were not attended to (Alsop 2004, volume 3, parts 2, 4, 6). V Linkages, Context, and Effective Organizational Performance Two additional factors are held to influence the performance of organiza- tions at the local level: linkages with other local organizations, and the context in which those organizations operate. These are considered in turn in this section. Linkages A dense network of linkages is often associated with higher levels of per- formance of an organization and to better development outcomes for indi- viduals. The significance of three specific linkages for performance of functions by local organizations is assessed here: local organization's link- ages with village-level elected governments; with other local organizations, ranging from village to district levels; and with LDs. Linkages are first assessed descriptively and then regression analysis is used to identify sig- nificant associations between the linkages an organization has and its qual- ity of performance of the nine major functions. Linkages with Village-Level Elected Governments Linkages with elected government at the village level vary by sector and by organizational type, but are generally high. Half of the local organizations in the women's development sector, nearly 80 percent in the water and san- itation sector, and just over 70 percent in the watershed sector have link- ages with GPs (table 19). In the women's development sector, in which linkages are fewest, project-initiated CBOs are more likely to link with GPs than any other CBO. The relationship is slightly more common in Madhya Pradesh than in Karnataka. In the water supply and sanitation sector, administrative gov- ernment bodies always link with elected governments in Karnataka, but seldom do in Uttaranchal. In Karnataka, all project-initiated CBOs connect to elected governments, but in Uttaranchal the figure is lower at 66 per- cent. In the watershed sector, in which three-quarters of all organizations link to GPs, figures are higher in Karnataka than in Uttaranchal. 51 52 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 19 Organizational Linkages with Elected Government Women's development and empowerment sector Local organization All Karnataka Madhya Pradesh type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N NGO-VL 100 0 1 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 55 45 56 59 41 34 50 50 22 CBO-NI 83 17 12 86 14 7 80 20 5 CBO-PI 40 60 60 43 57 30 37 63 30 CBO-SI 100 0 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 0 2 Total averagea 52 48 131 56 44 72 47 53 59 Drinking water supply and sanitation sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N Admin. Gov't. 20 80 50 0 100 36 71 29 14 CBO-PI 17 83 59 0 100 30 34 66 29 Total averagea 23 77 109 0 100 66 47 53 43 Watershed development sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N CBO-GI 40 60 10 0 100 5 80 20 5 CBO-NI 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 25 75 59 17 83 29 33 67 30 Total averagea 27 73 70 14 86 35 40 60 35 Source: Organizational mapping. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organi- zation (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO-VL nongovernmental organization (village-level). n.a. Not applicable (not operating in this sector). a. Reflects average percentage for all ungrouped organizations. Linkages with Administrative Government In terms of linkages with administrative government bodies, there are dif- ferences among sectors (table 20). Nearly three-quarters of organizations in the water supply and sanitation sector, including all organizations EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 53 Table 20 Organizational Linkages with Line Departments Women's development and empowerment sector Local organization All Karnataka Madhya Pradesh type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N NGO-VL 100 0 1 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 82 18 56 76 24 34 91 9 22 CBO-NI 92 8 12 86 14 7 100 0 5 CBO-PI 93 7 60 87 13 30 100 0 30 CBO-SI 100 0 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 0 2 Total averagea 89 11 131 82 18 72 97 3 59 Drinking water supply and sanitation sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N Elected govt. 0 100 25 0 100 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 41 59 58 0 100 30 86 14 28 Total averagea 28 72 83 0 100 55 86 14 28 Watershed development sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N CBO-GI 60 40 10 40 60 5 80 20 5 CBO-NI 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 76 24 59 66 34 29 87 13 30 Total averagea 73 27 70 60 40 35 86 14 35 Source: Organizational mapping. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organi- zation (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO-VL nongovernmental organization (village-level). n.a. Not applicable (not operating in this sector). a. Reflects average percentage for all ungrouped organizations. in Karnataka, have linkages to line agencies. In the watershed sector, however, just over 25 percent of organizations have linkages to LDs, and in the women's development sector, figures are much lower at only 11 per- cent overall. 54 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Linkages with Other Local Organizations in a Sector As box 7 illustrates, linkages among local organizations within a sector can have multiple and important effects. Table 21 shows sector and state dif- ferences in the extent to which linkages are formed with sector local orga- nizations, other than elected and administrative government bodies. Overall linkages with other local organizations are less common than those with Box 7 The Importance of Group-to-Group Linkages Kerekondapura in Chitradurga district is a multicaste village with the Lingayat community in a dominant position both numerically and economically. A majority of the scheduled-caste households (the second- largest community) are landless laborers and marginal and small farmers. The village is relatively developed, with a good access road, connections with the outside world, public infrastructure, cultivation of cash crops, and marketing facilities. A Swa-Shakthi women's group was formed in 2000 with 20 members, most of them from the Lingayat community. The group did well in attend- ing meetings, contributing savings, borrowing, and repayment. The members took loans for tailoring, purchasing cows and sheep, vegetable trading, petty business ventures such as tea stalls, and consumption purposes such as home repair and education. The members even tried to undertake nontraditional activities such as stitching jeans and other garments, food processing, and so forth. A Stree-Shakthi group was formed in the same village in 2000. All the members belonged to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The members stated that they had learned from the Swa-Shakthi group about the importance of regular attendance and savings. Although there had been drought in the area for the last couple of years, the members had been saving regularly and had obtained bank assistance. All the members had taken loans, which were used only for health and consumption. Although repayment had been nil because of members' lack of regular employment and the impact of drought on their livelihoods, they continued to contribute savings. The members said, "You see how the other group is functioning. If we cannot function as well as the other group does, we should at least regularly contribute savings. Otherwise, we will be the laughingstock of the village. Whatever may be our problem, we should continue to function." Source: Focus group discussions. EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 55 Table 21 Organizational Linkages with Other Sector Local Organizations Women's development and empowerment sector Local organization All Karnataka Madhya Pradesh type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N NGO-VL 100 0 1 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 65 35 55 55 45 33 82 18 22 CBO-NI 42 58 12 29 71 7 60 40 5 CBO-PI 52 48 60 43 57 30 60 40 30 CBO-SI 50 50 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 50 50 2 Total averagea 57 43 130 48 52 71 68 32 59 Drinking water supply and sanitation sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N LD 29 71 48 6 94 36 100 0 12 GP 16 84 25 16 84 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 59 41 58 30 70 30 90 11 28 Total averagea 40 60 131 16 84 91 93 7 40 Watershed development sector Local organization All Karnataka Uttaranchal type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N CBO-GI 80 20 10 60 40 5 100 0 5 CBO-NI 100 0 1 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-PI 69 31 59 59 41 29 80 20 30 Total averagea 71 29 70 60 40 35 83 17 35 Source: Organizational mapping. n.a. Not applicable (not operating in this sector). Note: Covers organizations other than GPs and line agencies. CBO-GI community- based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD line depart- ment; NGO-VL nongovernmental organization (village-level). a. Reflects average percentage for all ungrouped organizations. 56 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT elected government, but slightly more so than with administrative gov- ernment. The water supply and sanitation sector has the highest rate, with about 60 percent of organizations having such linkages. The correspond- ing figures are approximately 30 percent for the watershed sector and just over 40 percent for the women's development sector. In the latter sector, more organizational linkages are present for local organizations operating in Karnataka than in Madhya Pradesh. In the water supply and sanitation sector very few organizations demon- strate linkages with other organizations in Uttaranchal, whereas in Karnataka more than 80 percent have such linkages. In the watershed sector, organi- zations in Uttaranchal are rather unlikely to link with other organizations, while in Karnataka 40 percent do so. Relationship Between Linkages and Performance of Functions Do linkages among local organizations influence their performance of func- tions? Table 22 presents findings from regression analysis by sector and state. Looking first at linkages with administrative government bodies across sectors, the results indicate that line agencies are not, at present, providing any real assistance to rural women's development and empowerment groups. Where such linkages exist in Karnataka, this relationship has a neg- ative association with the quality of provisioning, community-based action, and capacity building. In Madhya Pradesh, this linkage associates with poor financing performance. In the drinking water and sanitation sector, link- ages with LDs associate positively with conflict resolution and information sharing, but negatively with financing and community-based action.18 Administrative government linkages have significant positive associa- tions with most functions in the watershed sector. This is particularly notice- able in Uttaranchal, where these linkages associate with good performance in all functions except for information sharing--and even here the associ- ation is only indifferent. While less pronounced in Karnataka, the relation- ship between local organizations and LDs associates positively with staffing, financing, capacity building, and information sharing. Linkages with village-level elected governments associate with mixed results. In the women's sector, this relationship in Madhya Pradesh associ- ates with poor provisioning and good capacity building, while in Karnataka it associates with good community-based action and capacity building. In the water supply and sanitation sector there is a negative association between linkages with GPs and performance in provisioning, community-based action, and conflict resolution. However, these linkages associate strongly with good capacity building. For watershed organizations, linkages with GPs in both Karnataka and Uttaranchal have a negative association with performance of most functions. Table 22 Ordered Probit Results for Linkages and Performance (See annex table A32) Function Sector Links with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women Gram panchayats (Karnataka) ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Gram panchayats (Madhya Pradesh) ° ° -- ° ° ° ° ° ° Other local organizations 57 (Karnataka) ° ° ° ° Other local organizations (Madhya Pradesh) ° ° ° ° ° - ° ° Line department (Karnataka) ° * -- - - ° ° Line department (Madhya Pradesh) -- * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Water/sanitation Gram panchayats ° * -- - ° ° -- ° Other local organizations ° * ° ° ° ° Line department - * ° -- ° ° ° (Table continues on the following page.) Table 22 (continued) Function Sector Links with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Watershed Gram panchayats (Karnataka) ° ° -- ° -- - ° ° -- Gram panchayats (Uttaranchal) ° - ° -- -- ° -- Other local organizations (Karnataka) ° ° -- ° ° ° ° - Other local organizations (Uttaranchal) -- - ° -- -- - -- - ° 58 Line department (Karnataka) ° ° ° ° ° Line department (Uttaranchal) ° Sources: Local organization officials and household questionnaires. Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 conflict resolution/accountability; 9 information sharing/dissemination. Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 59 In relation to other sector organizations, positive associations are par- ticularly strong for women's organizations in Karnataka, but less so in Madhya Pradesh, where only staffing improves with an increased number of linkages and M&E actually deteriorates. This finding raises interesting questions about the value of federating women's SHGs--a cornerstone of much of the work in this sector, which requires more investigation. In the water and sanitation sector, linkages with other organizations have a pos- itive association with external coordination and M&E. In the watershed sector, linkages to other organizations primarily have a negative or indifferent impact on performance. Context Two clusters of variables are used to test the importance of context to orga- nizational performance. The first cluster, which focuses on the internal envi- ronment of the organization, concerns attributes of member households and includes household caste, poverty ranking, landholding, gender of household head, and the respondent's meeting attendance. The second clus- ter focuses on the external environment in which an organization operates and considers a range of village attributes, the sector in which an organi- zation is located, and the state in which the study took place. Internal Environment Looking first at member characteristics in the women's development sector (table 23), backward caste membership associates with better performance in financing, provisioning, and M&E, and forward caste membership asso- ciates with better provisioning and external coordination. The importance of caste in the women's development sector is reinforced by experience in Karnataka highlighted in box 8. Caste is not particularly significant in the water supply and sanitation sector, although a small pro­scheduled caste bias is apparent in relation to community-based action and information sharing. It is more significant in watershed, but findings--while not favoring scheduled castes--appear to be slightly less skewed in favor of high-caste status in this sector than in the women's sector. The poverty status of members does not seem to affect organizational performance (annex table A14). The exception is in the watershed sector, in which there is a positive association between capacity building and poverty rank. The landholding status of members also has little significance for performance, with the exception of a positive relationship with capac- ity building and information sharing in the water supply and sanitation sector (annex table A15). 60 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 23 Household Caste/Religious Group and Performance (See annex table A32) Function Sector Caste/religious group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women Scheduled tribe ° ° ° ° ° ° Backward caste ° ° ° ° ° ° Forward caste ° ° ° ° ° ° Minority ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Water/sanitation Scheduled tribe ° * ° -- ° ° ° ° -- Backward caste ° * ° - ° - ° ° -- Forward caste ° * ° ° ° - ° ° - Minority ° * ° - ° ° ° ° -- Watershed Scheduled tribe ° ° ° ° ° ° -- Backward caste ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Forward caste ° ° ° ° ° ° Minority ° ° ° Sources: Household questionnaire. Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 governance; 9 information sharing/dissemination. Note: Scheduled caste is the reference category. Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. Attendance at meetings has some significance for the performance of women's sector projects, but even more for rural water supply and sani- tation projects. However, in the watershed sector, attendance associates negatively with staffing and positively with information sharing (annex table A16). External Environment Five village characteristics are used to assess how the setting of local orga- nizations associates with performance of the nine main functions. Variables EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 61 Box 8 Caste Differences Complicate Organizational Performance In Rajapura in Chitradurga district, a multicaste village with sharp economic divisions, a Stree-Shakthi group was formed with members of different castes. The SC households were agricultural laborers, while the others were landed cultivators, and these subgroups of members developed different expectations of the group. Because the anganawadi worker stayed in a different village, she could not conduct night meetings, and usually conducted them during the day. The wage laborers stated at the beginning that they could not attend meetings during the work day and would expect the staff to collect savings from their doorsteps. Women belonging to the upper castes did attend the daytime meetings. This led to a more intimate relationship between the staff and those members. The SC women, meanwhile, felt that because the anganawadi worker belonged to the upper caste she was biased toward her caste people and was neglect- ing the SC women. They alleged that the worker had misappropriated the group savings, and the issue had not yet been resolved when the fieldwork was conducted. The anganawadi worker complained that the SC women did not attend any training programs conducted outside the village, while the latter took the position that their livelihood demands were such that they could not afford to lose one day's wage. The study team found that the anganawadi worker was not able to understand or deal with the problems arising from caste heterogeneity. She took the position that the SC women were illiterate, ignorant, and irresponsible. The study team had a different impression of the SC women, who were raising issues relating to participation, transparency, and accountability. These factors have in fact had an adverse impact on the functioning of the group, which after functioning well between October 2000 and December 2001, was disbanded in February 2002. Source: Case studies. include distance to market, number of households in a village, the amount of irrigated land in a village, whether or not it is a project village, and the state in which the village is located. Table 24 presents the findings from regression analysis of core characteristics of the villages where the sample organizations are operating. Distance to market associates negatively with performance of most func- tions in the women's development sector, but it has positive significance for many functions in the other two sectors.19 The farther away a village is 62 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 24 Village Characteristics and Performance (See annex table A32) Function Sector Characteristic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women Distance to market -- - - ° -- ° -- -- -- Number of households ° -- ° ° ° ° Irrigated land ° ° ° ° Project villagea ° ° ° ° ° Madhya Pradesh -- - ° ° -- ° ° ° ° Water/ Distance to market ° * -- sanitation Number of households ° * ° Irrigated land -- * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Project villagea ° * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Uttaranchal ° * ° ° Watershed Distance to market ° Number of households ° ° Irrigated land -- ° ° ° -- ° ° ° Project villagea ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Uttaranchal ° ° Sources: Village-level and household questionnaires. Note: Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 conflict resolution/accountability; 9 information sharing/dissemination. a. The variable project village identifies a village that comes under a World Bank­aided intervention (or in the case of watershed development in Karnataka, one aided by the Department for International Development). Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. from a market, the better the organization performs. In all sectors, the size of a village has a positive relationship with performance, although results in the women's sector were mixed: a larger village population associates positively with staffing, community-based action, and M&E, but negatively with provisioning. EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 63 The amount of irrigated land in a village has little association with any function in the water supply and sanitation sector except financing. In water- shed, it associates negatively with financing and capacity building, but pos- itively with coordination of activities. In the women's development sector, higher amounts of irrigated land relate to better organizational performance in provisioning, capacity building, M&E, and conflict resolution. The presence of a World Bank­aided project is only significant in the women's development sector. Finally, in terms of states, local organizations in Uttaranchal perform significantly better than those in Karnataka for the water supply and sanitation and watershed sectors. However, for women's development, the only significant pattern is that organizations in Madhya Pradesh appear to be more able to address conflict and better at sharing information. Summary The importance of linkages and context for effective performance of local organizations varies significantly by sector. Findings suggest a need for caution when making assumptions in program design about how these factors will influence outcomes. While linkages among local organizations are considered useful for strengthening organizations and avoiding duplication in environments with limited resources, there is variation in what types of linkages appear to be important in different sectors. Linkages with elected governments are generally high; linkages with administrative government are low in the women's development and watershed sectors, but high in the water supply and sanitation sector. Linkages with other local organizations are low across sectors, ranging from 29 percent with such linkages in the watershed devel- opment sector to 60 percent in the water supply and sanitation sector. This analysis suggests that it is not just the number of linkages that is important, but the nature of the relationships and the needs of each sector. Relationships with LDs, panchayats, and other organizations associate with successful outcomes in some sectors more than in others. Women's devel- opment organizations, for example, actually appear to suffer more than benefit from a relationship with LDs, whereas in the other two sectors there are apparent benefits. Similarly, the internal composition of organizations has significance par- ticular to each sector. Factors such as social composition and gender of household head were important determinants of quality of organizational performance only in the women's development sector. Factors such as poverty rank or land ownership did not significantly impact performance, except capacity building in the watershed sector, and capacity building and information sharing in the water and sanitation sector. Regarding the external environment, organizations performed signifi- cantly better in both sectors studied in Uttaranchal than in Karnataka (water 64 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT supply and sanitation and watershed), while women's development orga- nizations in Karnataka showed a tendency to perform better than those in Madhya Pradesh. The distance of a village to market mattered, but again the relationship varied by sector. Proximity was important in the women's development sector and had a negative impact in water supply and sanita- tion and watershed. Similarly, village size had a negative relationship with performance in the water supply and sanitation and watershed sectors. The amount of irrigated land in a village had little effect in the water supply and sanitation sector, mixed effects in watershed, and positive influ- ences in the women's development sector. Finally, apart from positive out- comes in a few functions in the women's development sector, organizations operating in a village with a World Bank or DFID-aided intervention did not perform much differently from organizations in villages benefiting from any other form of sector intervention. Notes 18. This may be explained to an extent by the fact that these agencies have quite specific roles to play according to the project design for projects studied in this sector. 19. Distance to market serves as an indicator of the extent to which a village is interacting with external markets in terms of commodity flows both into and out of the village. It is also indicative of the direction and pace of development as it reflects the degree to which a village is open to the movement of people as laborers, government employees, businessmen, students, and consumers, and the flows of ideas and information that accompany these movements of people in rural India. VI Equity, Sustainability, and Organizational Performance In addition to organizational effectiveness, two other dimensions of orga- nizational performance were investigated: equity in participation and deliv- ery of benefits, and organizational and benefit sustainability. Results for each are described in this section. Equity Two aspects of equity outcomes are examined: participation in decision making, and receipt of development benefits. Equity in Decision Making Participation in collective decision making is argued to be a necessary con- dition for equitable and sustainable development outcomes. Such partici- pation is seen to ensure that the interests of marginalized groups are voiced and considered, that all participants accept collective responsibility for the decisions made, and that the subsequent activities undertaken are collec- tively owned. Collective decision making is expected to lead to better distribution of benefits (greater equity) and to increase people's motiva- tion to engage in the work of local government. Equity in decision making is measured in two ways. The first is by look- ing at the organizational positions of the individuals who appoint office- holders and who participate in key decisions. These data give insight into the democratic functioning of an organization. The second is through analy- sis of the poverty status of decision makers, which helps reveal the extent to which processes and outcomes may or may not be pro-poor. Annex tables A17, A18, and A20 present reports from household surveys on participation in decision making in the three sectors. Responses indi- cate that both the position a person holds in an organization and a person's poverty rank affect his or her ability to influence decision making in each sector. In the women's development sector, organization members are deeply involved in the selection of their representatives and strongly represented 65 66 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT in final decisions on key issues such as loan disbursal, repayments, and cor- rective action (annex table A17). Exploring differences by poverty rank shows that the women's development projects operate in an equitable, but not pro-poor manner. The poverty rank of respondents has little effect on their participation in making important decisions in either state. In the water supply and sanitation sector, the situation is very different. More than one-third of those interviewed in Karnataka did not know how officeholders were selected (annex table A18). However, those who did know reported that members were the most highly involved of all partici- pants in the selection of officeholders. While influential members did not play a major role in the selection of officeholders, they do have some influence and this is strongest in Uttaranchal. In this sector, poverty in Uttaranchal seems to have a minor impact on a person's influence in making key deci- sions in an organization (annex table A19). The chances of a middle or wealthy member of an organization making final decisions are only mar- ginally higher than for members in lower poverty ranks. However, in Karnataka wealthier representatives and presidents are more likely to dom- inate final decisions. Of even more concern is the finding that in Karnataka three-quarters of members belonging to very poor and poor groups did not know how deci- sions were made. Wealthier representatives and presidents are more likely to dominate final decisions. Water supply and sanitation organizations in Karnataka are not functioning as the collective management units envis- aged in project documentation. In the watershed sector, levels of knowledge of decision making were high (annex table A20). Respondents indicated that across organizational types and states, members took part in selecting officeholders. However, one-fifth of respondents did not know whether representatives were involved in making key decisions. The watershed sector demonstrates a minor pro- poor bias in terms of decision-making roles (annex table A21). While levels of knowledge of decision making were reasonable, fewer wealthy people than poor people in Uttaranchal knew how decisions were made. Equity in Delivery of Benefits Because all of the projects studied purport to be poverty alleviation pro- jects, a key question is who receives the benefits. The nature of benefits to members varies from sector to sector and, to a lesser extent, from project to project. · In the women's development and empowerment sector the benefits ana- lyzed include (a) the number of loans obtained from the local organiza- tion to which a member belonged, (b) the quality of credit delivery from the local organization to which a member belonged, and (c) the quality of credit delivery from banks. EQUITY, SUSTAINABILITY, AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 67 · For rural water supply and sanitation projects the study assessed (a) reduction in time required to collect clean drinking water, (b) improve- ment in individual sanitary facilities, and (c) availability of new facili- ties for washing clothes. · Watershed management benefits are defined as (a) prevention of soil erosion and water loss, and (b) increase in a respondent's household agricultural production. Women'sdevelopmentinterventionsachievethemostequityindistribution of benefits among the three sectors studied. Regression results indicate that factors including social grouping, land ownership, and poverty rank do not significantly associate with the number of loans received (annex table A22). Minorities are only slightly more likely than other groups to receive loans. However, this is not without caveats. Nearly half of all women's SHG members had not yet received a loan from their organization, but 33 per- cent had received two or more loans. Table 25 shows that, while 18 percent of the very poor have received three or more loans, 48 percent have received no loans at all. This is potentially problematic because the very poor have the greatest need and least capacity to secure credit from the rural banking sector. If they cannot secure credit from a local organization, they will have to pay exorbitant interest rates for loans taken with local moneylenders. Because of the nature of the good, it is difficult to target only the poor in water supply and sanitation sector interventions. Dissatisfaction with pro- vision of both sanitary and washing facilities was fairly equally distributed across poverty groups. However, the key benefit delivered--access to clean drinking water--shows a bias in favor of wealthier households. Half of households in the lowest two poverty ranks thought there had been no improvement, whereas only one-third of respondents from the top two poverty ranks found this to be the case (table 26). Despite these ratings, regression analysis found no significant association between different poverty Table 25 Number of Loans Obtained by Poverty Ranking Poverty ranking 0 loans (%) 1 loan (%) 2 loans (%) 3 loans (%) 4 loans (%) N Very poor 48 20 14 12 6 315 Poor 40 28 18 9 5 372 Middle 42 24 17 11 6 256 Wealthy 65 10 13 9 3 107 Average across all ranks (N) 45 (475) 23 (243) 16 (166) 11 (111) 5 (55) 1,050 Source: Household questionnaire. 68 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 26 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Improving Access to Clean Drinking Water, by Poverty Ranking Poverty ranking Poor (%) Adequate (%) Good (%) N Very poor 21 20 59 251 Poor 28 21 51 336 Middle 18 17 65 283 Wealthy 16 18 66 194 Average across all ranks (N) 22 (229) 19 (203) 59 (632) 1,064 Source: Household questionnaire. status or any other variable (except state, in which living in Uttaranchal has a significant positive association) and improved access to clean drinking water or improved sanitary facilities (annex tables A23 and A24). In the watershed sector, delivery of benefits appears to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, particularly those with large landholdings. The poor and very poor were more likely to be dissatisfied with performance of local orga- nizations in both preventing soil erosion and water loss, and in improving agricultural production. Conversely, the middle and wealthy were most likely to rate performance in these areas as good (annex tables A25 and A26). When looking at ratings by size of landholdings, satisfaction with perfor- mance increases quite clearly with the size of landholding in both areas (annex tables A27 and A28). Regression analysis reinforces this when significant positive associations are found between landholdings of more than one acre and the highest perception of benefits received from soil erosion prevention and agricultural production interventions (annex tables A29 and A30). Sustainability Sustainability was investigated in terms of perceived sustainability of ben- efits delivered by organizations, as well as the potential for the organiza- tion itself to remain in existence over time. Sustainability of Benefits With nearly three-quarters of all respondents predicting that key benefits would continue in the future, the overall assessment of benefit sustainability by respondents in all three sectors was relatively high (table 27). Figures were best for women's groups, at 90 percent, followed by water supply and sanitation and watershed organizations, both around 70 percent. State EQUITY, SUSTAINABILITY, AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 69 Table 27 Sustainability of Benefits, by Sector Sector Not sustainable (%) Sustainable (%) Missing data (%) N Women 10 89 1 1,055 Water/sanitation 29 71 0 1,148 Watershed 30 68 2 1,075 Average across sectors (N) 23 (757) 76 (2,482) 1 (39) 3,278 Source: Household questionnaire. disparities were apparent in the latter two sectors: more respondents in Karnataka than in Uttaranchal thought benefits were sustainable (28 percent more in watershed and 17 percent more in water and sanitation). In terms of types of organization, project-initiated CBOs were considered more likely to have generated sustainable benefits than other types of CBOs. Organizational Sustainability An initial indicator of a local organization's sustainability is the length of time it has been in existence. The expansion of local organizations gained momentum in the late 1990s (annex table A31). Before 1998, only 38 of the 254 CBOs in the studied communities existed. The remainder emerged over the following five-year period. This is unsurprising, as the majority of the sample local organizations were formed more or less as a direct consequence of the development of the interventions studied. In addition, these findings do not support the often-heard accusations that project planners ignore the presence of large numbers of preexisting local organizations when design- ing new interventions. However, the fact that the majority of sector-related organizations found in villages were project- or government-initiated CBOs suggests a degree of program dependency that could be a problem for future organizational sustainability. Asecond indicator of sustainability is the percentage of meetings attended by an organization's members. While an imperfect measure, attendance can reflect the participatory nature of the organization and, to some degree, the sense of commitment possessed by its members. A common assumption in project design is that poor participation and a weak sense of member com- mitment augurs badly for a local organization's sustainability. While this assumption is not tested here, attendance is reported as an initial yet admit- tedly inconclusive sign of the potential for organizational sustainability. The women's development sector enjoys the highest level of attendance, with 95 percent of respondents saying they attend meetings (table 28). Only half of respondents in the water supply and sanitation sector attend meetings, while just over 60 percent attend watershed organization meetings. These 70 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Table 28 Member Attendance of Local Organization Meetings, by Sector Never Sometimes Always Sector attend (%) attend (%) attend (%) N Women 5 20 75 1,039 Water/sanitation 50 32 18 1,147 Watershed 39 31 30 1,058 Average across sectors (N) 31 (1,019) 28 (876) 41 (1,349) (3,244) Source: Household questionnaire. differences are easily explained. The core activities of rural women's devel- opment and empowerment groups are savings and credit, and attendance is closely linked to credit allocation. Thus, high levels of participation are crit- ical to the core business of these organizations. However, the same is not true for the other sectors. A third indicator of sustainability is management of an organization. In particular, the locus of management reflects both the degree of members' commitment to the local organization and the organization's capacity to exist without external support. As table 29 shows, most organizations (64 per- cent) are seen to be managed by members. Figures range from 53 percent in the women's development interventions to 75 percent in the rural water supply and sanitation projects. Data are also presented according to the local organization types present in each sector. The most interesting point to emerge is that the project-initiated CBOs have a high level of member- based management, significantly higher than government- or NGO- initiated CBOs. A final indicator of organizational sustainability is the sustainability of financial resources. As indicated in section III, financial assets are currently inadequate. How likely, then, are organizations to generate financial resources independent of project or external support? One way in which they can do this is through contributions from their members. However, table 30 shows that approximately 25 percent of all organizations in women's and watershed development do not receive financial contribu- tions (other than loan repayments) from members, and this figure more than doubles in the drinking water sector. Across sectors, project-initiated CBOs are more likely to receive contributions than any other type of local organization. With such limited track records of generating their own financial resources, perceptions of financial sustainability tend to depend on whether support from outside organizations is secure and expected to continue. Table 31 shows officials' assessments of the adequacy of their organizations' internally generated financial resources. In illustration, staff from the LDs Table 29 Local Organizations Managed by the Members, by Local Organization Type and Sector Local organization All Women Water/sanitation Watershed type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N NGO 100 0 1 100 0 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 52 48 62 55 45 53 n.a. n.a. n.a. 33 67 9 CBO-NI 58 42 12 64 36 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 100 1 71 CBO-PI 29 71 173 38 62 58 22 78 58 28 72 57 CBO-SI 0 100 2 0 100 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all organizations 36 64 269 47 53 125 25 75 58 29 71 67 Source: Local organization officials questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); NGO nongovernmental organization. n.a. Not applicable. Table 30 Local Organizations Receiving Regular Financial Contributions from Members, by Type and Sector Local organization All Women Water/sanitation Watershed type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N LD 44 56 18 n.a. n.a. n.a. 44 56 18 n.a. n.a. n.a. GP 75 25 32 n.a. n.a. n.a. 75 25 32 n.a. n.a. n.a. NGO 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 32 68 65 32 68 56 n.a. n.a. n.a. 33 67 9 72 CBO-NI 42 58 12 45 55 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 100 1 CBO-PI 35 65 209 23 77 60 50 50 92 25 75 57 CBO-SI 0 100 2 0 100 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all organizations (N) 39 (132) 61 (207) 339 28 (37) 72 (93) 130 55 (78) 45 (64) 142 25 (17) 75 (50) 67 Source: Local organization officials questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD line department. n.a. Not applicable. Table 31 Local Organizations' Assessments as to Whether They Have Sufficient Internal Resources, by Local Organization Type and Sector Local organization All Women Water/sanitation Watershed type No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N No (%) Yes (%) N LD 0 100 18 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 100 18 n.a. n.a. n.a. GP 56 44 34 n.a. n.a. n.a. 56 44 34 n.a. n.a. n.a. NGO 0 100 1 0 100 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. CBO-GI 54 46 65 57 43 56 n.a. n.a. n.a. 33 67 9 73 CBO-NI 50 50 12 55 45 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 100 1 CBO-PI 33 67 211 42 58 60 n.a. n.a. n.a. 20 80 59 CBO-SI 100 0 2 100 0 2 36 64 92 n.a. n.a. n.a. Average across all organizations (N) 38 (132) 62 (211) 343 50 (65) 50 (65) 130 36 (52) 64 (92) 144 22 (15) 78 (54) 69 Source: Local organization officials questionnaire. Note: Internal resources include funds generated by the local organization or now owned by the local organization; that is, they could include a capital grant from a donor. CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD line department. n.a. Not applicable. 74 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT in the water and sanitation sector perceive there to be no problem with their internal resources. This is not surprising because their internal resources are based on departmental budgetary allocations, which in India tend to be quite stable for staff and other recurrent expenditures, and are increased annually on the basis of a ministry's general budget increase.20 Project- initiated CBOs also record a relatively high degree of financial security; again, their budgets are based on program allocations that are not expected to change within the project's lifetime. These findings are also broadly con- sistent with those in table 9 above (section III), in which LDs and project- initiated CBOs (at least in the watershed sector) were the only local organizations to report adequate financial asset bases. Excluding the single NGO, all of the other types of local organizations-- none of which have stable sources of financing--are much less positive about their resource position. Assessments are almost equally divided between those who believe their own internal resources are sufficient and those who do not. Less than half of all GPs report adequate internally generated resources. Summary Analysis of indicators of equity in participation in decision making and deliv- ery of benefits shows considerable variation across sectors. In decision making, the women's development sector shows broad and largely equi- table participation. In the watershed sector, there is also broad participation in decision making, and a slight pro-poor bias in knowledge of decision- making roles. In the water and sanitation sector, however, knowledge of decision-making procedures is low, and wealthier representatives and office- holders appear to have higher levels of influence, particularly in Karnataka. The women's development sector also demonstrates equity in distribu- tion of benefits. In the other two sectors, however, key benefits appear to disproportionally reach wealthier households. This is particularly strong in the watershed sector, in which regression analysis reinforces reported dissatisfaction with performance of local organizations among the poor. With nearly three-quarters of all respondents predicting that key bene- fits would continue in the future, the overall assessment of benefit sustain- ability by respondents in all three sectors was relatively high. Clear patterns for organizational sustainability are less easily found from the data presented above. In addition, these indicators, particularly for attendance, provide only crude information regarding how well an organization performs and how likely it is to sustain itself. Not all organizations require regular attendance of all members, as executive committees can often handle routine business. However, when combining these indicators with others considered to associate with sustainability (attendance, participation in decision making, awareness of business rules and organizational activities, self-management, capacity to generate funds), the story becomes more telling. Table 32 provides Table 32 Summary Figures on Sustainability (Percent) All Women Water/sanitation Watershed Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Meeting Attendance 31 69 5 95 50 50 39 61 (Table 28, section VI) Self-Managed 36 64 47 53 25 75 29 71 (Table 29, section VI) Meeting Minutes Read 40 60 35 65 58 42 25 75 (Table 13, section IV) Meeting Information Passed through Word of Mouth 77 23 87 13 58 42 87 13 (Table 14, section IV) 75 Decisions Made by Consensus n.a. n.a. 6 94 46 54 9 91 (Tables 16 and 17, section IV) Representatives' Awareness of Rules 17 83 23 77 16 84 6 64 (Table 11, section IV) Members' Awareness of Rules 26 74 29 71 23 77 23 77 (Table 12, section IV) Regular Financial Contributions from Members 39 61 28 72 55 45 25 75 (Table 30, section VI) Sources: Household and local organization officials questionnaires. Note: Assessments drawn from existing analysis, "negative"/"positive" values correspond to the following: row 1, never (negative) and sometimes/always (positive); rows 2 and 3, no (negative) and yes (positive); row 4, yes (negative) and no (positive); row 5, Don't Know/Not at All (negative) and Potentially/To a Large Extent (positive); row 6, None (negative) and Some/All (positive); rows 7 and 8, no (negative) and yes (positive). n.a. Not available. 76 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT summary indicators of sustainability presented in different sections of this paper.21 The women's development and watershed sectors demonstrate the most consistently positive indications of sustainability, with the exception of member participation in management in women's development. Organizations in the water supply and sanitation sector perform quite poorly in most indicators with the exceptions of member management and aware- ness of rules (representatives and members), in which positive results are highest among the three sectors. Organizations in this sector appear to have the smallest chance of sustaining themselves. Notes 20. Nonrecurrent expenditures and discretionary funds, however, are often quite limited among administrative government at the local level. 21. The table also notes when a more detailed discussion of each of these is provided in this paper. VII Summary of Findings and Their Operational Implications Local organizations appear set to remain key actors in decentralized rural development activities supported by government and donor agencies in India. The interventions studied here have diversified the organizational landscape in all sectors. LDs are no longer singularly responsible for activities--elected government bodies are mandated roles in sector inter- ventions (albeit often limited in number and type) and the practice of work- ing through village-level CBOs has firmly taken root. These organizations--of whatever provenance or type--are regarded by those sponsoring and design- ing interventions as improving effectiveness, ensuring that benefits reach those most in need, and enhancing local capacities to articulate, prioritize, and respond to their own needs. This section first summarizes the core findings of the research and then suggests options for enhancing the effectiveness of the local organizational landscape in decentralized interventions. Core Findings Despite broadening the range of local organizational actors in the three sectors studied, administrative government bodies (LDs) remain, by design, deeply involved down to the village level. Combined with the limited role allocated to and played by elected governments, this indicates that decen- tralization in these sectors remains essentially a matter of deconcentration for LDs, rather than a true decentralization in the spirit of the 73rd amend- ment to the Constitution. In addition-- · Administrative government bodies are placed firmly in control of bud- gets, policy, and activities, at least through the district and block levels. At the village level, numbers of organizations are far greater and decision making over budgets and activities is no longer purely under their control. · The role of district-level elected government is limited on paper and in practice; block-level PRIs play no role in any sector; and only in the drink- ing water and sanitation sector are village-level GPs mandated a sub- stantial role. 77 78 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT The presence of interventions is largely responsible for increasing the number of village-level organizations. Reflecting this, more than 85 percent of all village-level organizations in the study had been established since 1998. Contradicting the popular belief that villages host a high number and wide range of organizations, few were found to be working in the study sectors other than those connected to government or initiated as part of a project. This may not be true for other sectors, but does indicate that much of the con- cern about creating parallel membership-based organizations or under- mining existing organizations is unfounded for these sectors. The presence of independent NGOs working in the sectors studied was surprisingly low. NGOs were active, but generally as contractors for specific government projects. They reported slightly different working relations with government across sectors and states, but overall they were concerned that their contractual obligations and financial dependence on government placed them in a poor bargaining position. Private sector organizations were noticeably absent from the inventory of organizations studied. This is because they were deemed by respondents to have no role at the village level and no direct role at any other level in any of the sectors. In the women's development sector, banks were expected to be important actors, but the study found that only 14 percent of all village-level SHGs had secured loans from banks. Frequency of performance of mandated functions varied by state, sector, and type of organization. At the state and district levels, line agencies and project organizations (including support organizations) undertook most of the functions for which they were mandated. At the village level, project- initiated CBOs in the women's development sector undertook 79 percent of mandated functions, but this figure fell to 47 and 46 percent respectively for government- or NGO-initiated CBOs. In the water and sanitation sector, 64 percent of GPs, 61 percent of LDs, and 57 percent of project-initiated CBOs did what they were mandated to do. In the watershed sector, 44 percent of government-initiated CBOs and 70 percent of project-initiated CBOs undertook mandated functions. Three core findings emerge from data on frequency of functions performed: · Many functions mandated to local organizations are undertaken--albeit at a lower frequency than envisaged in design. Many organizations also undertake functions for which they have no mandate and there is fre- quently a transfer of mandated responsibility between organizations. · Project organizations and project-initiated CBOs perform mandated func- tions more frequently than other types of local organizations. · There are state differences in the frequency with which organizations per- form functions, but these differences are not as regular or as significant as one might expect given the different policy contexts of the three states. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND THEIR OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 79 Undertaking functions without mandate indicates that subsidiarity, avoid- ance of duplication, or responses to unforeseen needs are occurring. Subsidiarity is most commonly found when CBOs undertake functions mandated to support organizations. Transfer of functions primarily occurs when LDs regularly undertake many functions not mandated to them, espe- cially those mandated to GPs. The fact that GPs are commonly found in sit- uations of subsidiarity and duplication implies that the planned roles for the elected and administrative government bodies in local development, which were envisaged in India's decentralization reforms, have yet to be achieved in practice. Functions undertaken are not necessarily functions performed well. Quality in performance of functions varies in relation to the type of activity, the type of organization, and the sector. In particular, performance was generally ade- quate in the basic functions of organizational administration and manage- ment (financing, staffing, provisioning, M&E, and conflict resolution), but poor in more development-oriented functions (community-based action, capacity building, coordination, and information sharing). Project organiza- tions and project-initiated CBOs not only more frequently performed functions (mandated and nonmandated), but also had the highest-quality performance of all local organizations. GPs generally performed less well than other types of local organizations, particularly in relation to development functions. Key sector-specific findings include the following: · In the women's development sector, in general, interventions have not managed to extend the benefits of collective action beyond savings and credit to other areas of empowerment. Furthermore, the contracting arrangements for NGOs in projects limit their capacity to operate creatively and responsively. · In the drinking water and sanitation sector, the multiplicity of actors and rigid delineation of functions was problematic, as was the number of uncoordinated interventions. Both resulted in duplication of functions and inefficient use of resources. · Organizations in the watershed sector reflect the cross-sector patterns-- basic business functions were performed reasonably well and project- initiated CBOs outperformed all other village-level organizations. GP performance in this sector was poor. Performance of functions may not be as good as it could be, but development benefits are reaching beneficiaries. Again though, there is room for improve- ment. Nearly half of all members of women's SHGs had not yet received a loan from their organization, but 33 percent of respondents had received two or more loans. A third of respondents felt that loan provision from SHGs was poor and three-quarters thought loan provision from banks was poor. In the water and sanitation sector, nearly one-quarter of household 80 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT respondents thought that access to clean drinking water had not improved, three-quarters indicated provision of sanitation facilities was poor, and more than half thought there had been no improvement in the provision of washing facilities. Twenty-five percent of watershed project beneficiaries perceived no improvement in soil erosion and water loss, and more than one-third saw no improvement in agricultural productivity. When looking at issues of equity in delivery of benefits, notable sector findings include the following: · Women's development interventions achieve the most equity in distri- bution of benefits, but this achievement is not without caveats. While there is generally a good degree of equity in the distribution of loans, scheduled tribes, the landless, and the poorest group members rate SHG performance lower than others and these groups are least likely to receive loans. · Because of the nature of the good, water and sanitation sector interven- tions are difficult to target accurately. However, high levels of dissatis- faction with provision of both sanitary and washing facilities were fairly equally distributed across poverty groups. But the key benefit delivered in the water and sanitation sector--access to clean drinking water-- shows a bias in favor of wealthier households. Half of households in the lowest two poverty ranks thought there had been no improvement, whereas only one-third of respondents from the top two poverty ranks found this to be the case. · In the watershed sector, social group did not associate with benefits in preventing soil erosion and water loss. However, landless people and marginal and small cultivators had the lowest assessments of perfor- mance, and disaggregation by poverty groups demonstrates that the very poor benefit least in the watershed sector. Nearly three-quarters of all respondents receiving benefits predicted that these benefits would continue in the future. Figures were best for women's groups, at 90 percent, followed by water and sanitation and watershed orga- nizations, both around 70 percent. State disparities were apparent in the latter two sectors: more respondents in Karnataka than in Uttaranchal thought benefits were sustainable. In terms of types of organizations, project- initiated CBOs were considered more likely to have generated sustainable benefits than other types of CBOs. Sustainability of organizational entities remains a real issue in all sectors, and as such it raises questions about sustainability of benefits. Without an organizational mechanism to govern and manage the collective action required to yield benefits, it is unlikely that benefit streams will continue to the extent anticipated by members. An organization's mode of operation is considered to associate with sustainability, and analysis of relevant SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND THEIR OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 81 variables demonstrates considerable divergence by sector, state, and orga- nizational type. Key findings include the following: · The majority of organizations in the study were established as inter- ventions were launched, suggesting a degree of program dependency that could be a problem for future organizational sustainability. Organizational representatives, however, indicated that between 60 and 70 percent of organizations were managed by members, independent of a support organization. Figures for the three sectors vary, however, with 53 percent of organizations in the women's development projects oper- ating independently compared with 75 percent of those in the rural water supply and sanitation projects. CBOs in general had the highest depen- dency on external management. · Attendance of organization meetings varies by sector but is generally low. More than half of all members of water and sanitation organiza- tions and 40 percent in watershed organizations did not attend meet- ings. In the women's development sector, attendance was far higher--only 5 percent of members said they never attend meetings. · Members have varying levels of awareness of organizational transac- tions and general business discussed in meetings. Reading aloud min- utes from previous meetings is not universally practiced, and minutes are not always made available. Most organizations rely on word of mouth for transmitting information among members about what happens in an organization's meetings. This highly unreliable mechanism is heavily used by all CBOs and, unless backed by available meeting records, ren- ders organizations vulnerable to mismanagement. · Involvement in decision making varies by sector. In the women's devel- opment sector, all organizational members of all poverty ranks and social groups were deeply involved in selection of their representatives and were strongly represented in final decisions on key issues. In the water and sanitation sector, more than one-third of those interviewed in Karnataka did not know how officeholders were selected, but nearly three-quarters of members did know how other key decisions were made in their organization. In the watershed sector, findings indicate that while staff of a support organization may be a key party in decision making, appointment of representatives usually occurs with full knowledge of an organization's general membership. · Full awareness of organizational rules is low. Overall, only half of all CBO representatives were aware of some of an organization's rules and nearly 20 percent had no knowledge at all. Representatives of NGO- initiated CBOs had the highest levels of awareness of organizational rules, and representatives of government-initiated CBOs had the lowest. In the sector in which they operated, just under 10 percent of GP representatives admitted they had no knowledge of the rules governing 82 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT its involvement in the sector. The proportion of members unaware of organizational rules was higher. Nearly one-third of members of women's development groups and a quarter of members in the water and sanita- tion and watershed sectors did not know what organizational rules were. · Three-quarters of all organizations generated insufficient internal resources to sustain their operations in the future. A quarter of all orga- nizations in women's development and watershed and more than half in water and sanitation did not receive regular financial contributions from members. This indicates that initial success in securing mandatory con- tributions has, at present, little bearing on an organization's capacity to ensure a sustained income base. Four factors were originally hypothesized as determinants of organiza- tional performance: assets, processes, linkages, and context. Across sectors, 30 percent of organizations reported inadequate human assets, 60 per- cent had inadequate material assets, and 70 percent had inadequate finan- cial assets. Obviously, the poor asset position of organizations is serious, but does it affect performance? In terms of human assets, the picture was inconclusive, except that quality of human assets appears to have greater bearing on organizational performance than quantity of staff. The quantum of material assets available to an organization had little effect on performance in the water and sanitation sector, had a negative asso- ciation with development functions in the women's development sector, and associated negatively with almost all functions in the watershed sector. Financial assets had the most significant association with an organi- zation's performance: · In the water and sanitation sector, in which 40 percent of organizations had sufficient financial assets, these associated positively with all core administrative and management functions. · In the watershed sector, in which half of all organizations reported ade- quate endowments, there was a strong positive relationship between financial assets and quality of performance of most functions. · In the women's development sector, the relationship was least noticeable. The only significant association was a positive one with community-based action, perhaps because so many organizations in the sector (70 percent) are underfinanced. The association between an organization's processes and its performance are sector- and type-specific, as are the explanations. · Self-monitoring had little significant association with performance, but members' awareness of governance rules generally associated with good SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND THEIR OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 83 performance in all but the watershed sector. Representatives' awareness of governance rules positively related to performance in all but the water and sanitation sector--a sector in which the use of accountability rules was limited and ineffective. · Availability and use of minutes, and the form in which information was transmitted, associated with performance in different ways in each sector. Generally speaking, at the current level of evolution of organizations in most sectors, availability of minutes appears not to be critical. However, as organizations move forward into independent and perhaps more sophisticated action, this transparency mechanism will likely become increasingly important. · The only generic lesson for design or implementation to be drawn from these findings is that processes must be tailored to the type of organi- zation and to its core business. In a plural organizational landscape, linkages among organizations are important for ensuring project effectiveness. There are multiple organiza- tions operating at the local level, including administrative and elected gov- ernments, project organizations, and nonproject organizations. Each of these often has specific skills and roles to play in ensuring delivery of pro- ject benefits. Linkages with administrative government, for example, have significant positive associations for other organizations with most func- tion areas in the watershed sector. Regarding linkages with other organi- zations, in the water and sanitation sector there is a positive association with external coordination and M&E. In the watershed sector, linkages to other organizations primarily have a negative or negligible impact on performance. This analysis suggests that it is not just the number of linkages that is important, but the nature of the relationships and the needs of each sector. Relationships with LDs, panchayats, and other organizations associate with successful outcomes in some sectors more than in others. Women's devel- opment organizations, for example, appear to suffer more than benefit from a relationship with LDs, whereas in the other two sectors there are appar- ent benefits. Project-based efforts to facilitate these linkages, however, often fall short. Coordination committees or multiagency working groups were fea- tured in each sector with the intention of encouraging linkages among local organizations, usually as part of project design. Few of them were found to function as intended, however, other than those at the state level in the water and sanitation and watershed sectors and at the district level in the watershed sector. The coordination committees rarely included organizations other than government LDs or government staff of project units, at least in practice, and were generally used more for monitoring purposes than for strategic guidance. 84 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT Does the internal environment within which an organization operates affect performance? · The poverty rank of members does not associate with organizational performance. The single exception was in the watershed sector, in which organizations performing best in capacity building had wealth- ier members. · The social composition of groups was only significant in the women's development sector, in which the presence of the two higher-caste groups (backward and forward) associated with good performance. · The amount of land owned by members had little relationship with per- formance, except in the water and sanitation sector, in which landless- ness associated with poorer performance in capacity building and information sharing. · Members' attendance of meetings had only a minimal association with organizational performance in watershed, but it related positively to performance in the other sectors. The external environment of an organization has a similarly complex asso- ciation with performance: · The state in which organizations were located was associated with an overall difference in some sectors. Organizations performed significantly better in Uttaranchal than in Karnataka in both sectors studied in those states (water supply and sanitation and watershed). Women's develop- ment organizations in Karnataka showed a tendency to perform better than those in Madhya Pradesh. · The distance of a village to market mattered, but again the relationship varied by sector. In the women's development sector, the farther a vil- lage is from markets the worse the performance, whereas in water and sanitation and watershed the situation was reversed. · Similarly, the size of the village had a negative relationship with per- formance in the water and sanitation and watershed sectors. The smaller the village, the better the overall performance. Results in the women's development sector were mixed: a larger village population associated positively with staffing, community-based action, and M&E, but nega- tively with provisioning. · Finally, whether or not a village received support from a World Bank­ or DFID-aided project was insignificant in all but the women's develop- ment sector. In the women's development sector, it associated posi- tively with financing, external coordination, M&E, and conflict resolution. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND THEIR OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 85 Core Design Issues This study provides some new insights into the performance of organiza- tions, and using rigorously collected and analyzed information confirms existing anecdotal and scattered evidence on what organizations do, how they do it, and what attributes associate with their performance. As the main body of the report demonstrates, generic findings are difficult to iden- tify and therein lies an important lesson: The organizational design of any intervention requires tailoring to the development benefit in question. This may appear obvious, but the specification of organizational functions in documentation is at present strikingly similar across sectors. This leads to the second point. It is apparent that, to date, the organiza- tional and institutional arrangements within interventions have received limited attention during design. Organizational structures and the attrib- utes that govern their performance are critical to implementation. The impor- tance of this aspect of design has grown in tandem with the increase in the number and diversity of organizational actors. In particular, the role of GPs is poorly conceived and resourced in most interventions and insufficient attention has been paid to their capacity to control the behavior of LD staff. Given the current reality of dependency on local organizations, this study indicates that the shape of the organizational landscape and expectations of what an organization is likely to achieve in the short, medium, and long term need to be better addressed during the design and implementation of interventions. This does not mean detailed specification of implementation arrangements before an intervention. Rather, consideration of a range of design principles that could in turn assist in effective implementation is recommended, including the following: · Recognizing diversity in functions and being pragmatic in allocation of roles to different types of organizations, including coordination com- mittees, multistakeholder working groups, the private sector, and elected governments; · Equipping organizations with sufficient financial and high-quality human assets; · Expecting less of local organizations, whose members are generally inter- ested in short-term outcomes and benefits and judge performance on that basis; · Allowing flexibility in task allocation, and having monitoring systems that encourage local-level learning and management and at the same time do not tie organizations to deliverables that restrict their capacity to evolve or respond to changing circumstances; · Embedding in monitoring systems indicators that capture both equity and indirect benefits; 86 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED DEVELOPMENT · Ensuring that the final clients play a role in annual performance appraisals of support organizations, including GPs and line agencies; · Establishing incentive systems in support and village organizations that reflect good performance along a range of variables critical to each sector; · Developing robust recruitment and selection processes for support organizations; · Allowing, where appropriate to the task, contracting organizations to play a more creative and strategic role building on and effectively uti- lizing ongoing experience with villagers; · Investing more in capacity building and organizational functioning, particularly when long-term presence of village-level organizations is important; · Focusing capacity building not only on administrative skills but also on skills to help support and village organizations manage a broader devel- opment role when appropriate; and · Establishing appropriate expectations when considering broader devel- opment goals, which take time to achieve in light of existing political, economic, and social constraints. Bibliography Ahmed, Habib. 1999. "Operating Format of Micro-Finance Schemes, Negative Shocks and Poverty." Savings and Development 23 (1): 57­66. Alsop, Ruth. 2004. "Local Organizations in India: Roles and Relationships." Draft Research Report. World Bank, Washington, DC. Alsop, Ruth, and Nina Heinsohn. 2005. "Measuring Empowerment in Practice: Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators." Policy Research Working Paper No. 3510. World Bank, Development Economics Research Group, Washington, DC. Alsop, Ruth, et al. 2005. "Sector Reports." Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India. Andrews, Matthew, and Anwar Shah. 2002. "Voice and Local Governance in the Developing World: What Is Done, to What Effect, and Why?" World Bank, Washington, DC. Bahl, W. Roy. 2002. "Implementation Rules for Fiscal Decentralization." In Development, Poverty and Fiscal Policy: Decentralization of Institutions, ed. M. Govinda Rao. New Delhi: Oxford. Baland, J. M., and J. P. Platteau. 1996. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bardhan, Pranab, and Dilip Mookherjee. 1999. "Relative Capture of Local and Central Governments: An Essay in the Political Economy of Decentralization." Center for International and Development Economics Research, Institute for Business and Economic Research, University of California at Berkeley. Bird, Richard M. 2002. "Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations: Universal Principles, Local Applications." In Development, Poverty and Fiscal Policy: Decentralization of Institutions, ed. M. Govinda Rao. New Delhi: Oxford. Bretton, Albert. 1995. Competitive Governments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Bromley, D. W. 1991. Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Buckley, Graeme. 1996. "Rural and Agricultural Credit in Malawi: A Study of the Malawi Mudzi Fund and the Smallholder Agricultural Credit Administration." In Finance Against Poverty, ed. David Hulme and Paul Mosley. London: Routledge. Clay, Edward, and Bernard Schaffer. 1984. Room for Manoeuvre: An Exploration of Public Policy in Agricultural and Rural Development. London: Heinemann. 87 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY Cox, Aidan, Steen Folke, Lau Schulpe, and Neil Webster. 2002. Do the Poor Matter Enough? A Comparative Study of European Aid for Poverty Reduction in India. New Delhi: Concept. Dreze, Jean, and Amartya Kumar Sen. 1996. India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity. New York: Oxford University Press. Ghatak, Maitreesh. 1999. "Group Lending, Local Information and Peer Selection." Journal of Development Economics 60 (1): 27­50. Ghatak, Maitreesh, and Timothy W. Guinnane. 1999. "The Economics of Lending with Joint Liability: Theory and Practice." Journal of Development Economics 60 (1): 195­228. GOI (Government of India). 1978. "The Sixth Five-Year Plan." Planning Commission, New Delhi. ------. 1999. "Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana: Guidelines." Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. ------. 2002a. "Guidelines for Watershed Development (Revised)." Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Land Resources, New Delhi. ------. 2002b. "Ninth Five-Year Plan, 1997­2002: Thematic Issues and Sectoral Programs." Planning Commission, New Delhi. GOK (Government of Karnataka). 2001. "Karnataka Administrative Reforms Commission: Final Report." Bangalore. ------. 2002. "Stree-Shakthi." Department of Women and Child Development, Bangalore. Greene, W. H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hirway, Indira. 1989. "Panchayati Raj at Crossroads." Economic and Political Weekly 24 (29): 1663­67. Jodha, N. S. 1992. "Common Property Resources: A Missing Dimension of Development Strategies." World Bank Discussion Paper 169. World Bank, Washington, DC. Johnson, Craig. 2001. "Local Democracy, Democratic Decentralisation and Rural Development: Theories, Challenges and Options for Policy." Development Policy Review 19 (4): 521­32. Johnson, Craig, Priya Deshingkar, and Daniel Start. 2003. "Grounding the State: Devolution and Development in India's Panchayats." Working Paper 226. Overseas Development Institute, London. Kabeer, Naila. 2003. Gender Mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the Millennium Goals. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, International Development Research Centre, Canadian International Development Agency. KAWAD (Karnataka Watershed Development Project). 1995. "ODA-Karnataka Watershed Development Project: Final Draft Report." Vol. 1. Overseas Development Administration, London, and Government of Karnataka, Bangalore. ------. 2001. "Mid-Term Evaluation Report: Karnataka Watershed Development Project." Bangalore. ------. 2002. "Project Guidelines (Up to 10-06-2002)." Bangalore. BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 Kolavalli, Shashi L., and John Kerr. 2002. "Mainstreaming Participatory Watershed Development." Economic and Political Weekly 37 (January 19): 225­42. Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Manor, James. 1995. "Democratic Decentralization in Africa and Asia." IDS Bulletin 26 (2): 81­88. ------. 2002. "User Committees: A Potentially Damaging Second Wave of Decentralization." Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. McCarten, W. J. 2003. "The Challenge of Fiscal Discipline in the Indian States." In Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints, ed. J. Rodden, G. Eskeland, and J. Litvack. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Morduch, Jonathan. 1999. "The Microfinance Promise." Journal of Economic Literature 37 (4): 1569­614. Narayan, Deepa. 1995. "The Contribution of People's Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects." Environmentally Sustainable Development, Occasional Paper 1, World Bank, Washington, DC. North, Douglas. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. ------. 1992. Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press. ------. 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms." Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (3): 137­58. Ostrom, Elinor, Larry Schroeder, and Susan Wynne. 1993. "Analyzing the Performance of Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Sustaining Rural Infrastructure in Developing Countries." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3 (1): 11­45. Parker, Andrew N. 1995. "Decentralization: The Way Forward for Rural Development." Agricultural and Natural Resources Department, World Bank, Washington, DC. Prud'homme, Rémy. 1995. "The Dangers of Decentralization." World Bank Research Observer 10 (2): 201­20. Rajakutty, S. 1997. "Development of Women and Children in RuralAreas (DWCRA): Are We in the Right Course?" Journal of Development Studies 16 (2): 85­112. Rao, V. M. 2002. "Eradicating Poverty: Some Missing Policy Dimensions." In Development, Poverty and Fiscal Policy: Decentralization of Institutions, ed. M. Govinda Rao. New Delhi: Oxford. Sharma, Manohor, and Manfred Zeller. 1997. "Repayment Performance in Group- Based Credit Programs in Bangladesh: An Empirical Analysis." World Development 25 (10): 1731­42. Stiglitz, J. E. 1990. "Peer Monitoring and Credit Markets." World Bank Economic Review 4 (3): 351­66. 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY Tanzi, Vitto. 1995. "Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization: A Review of Some Efficiency and Macroeconomic Aspects." In Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1995, eds. Michael Bruno and Boris Pleskovic. Washington, DC: World Bank. Uphoff, Norman. 1986. Local Institutional Development: An Analytical Sourcebook with Cases. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. ------. 1997. "Institutional Capacity and Decentralization for Rural Development: Technical Consultation on Decentralization." United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Uphoff, Norman, Milton J. Esman, and Anirudh Krishna. 1998. Reasons for Success: Learning from Instructive Experiences in Rural Development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Vedeld, Trond. 2003. "Roles and Relationships in Rural Decentralization: Towards a Multi-Agency Approach." Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo. Walker, David B. 1991. "Decentralization: Recent Trends and Prospects from a Comparative Governmental Perspective." International Review of Administrative Sciences 57 (1): 113­29. Wenner, Mark. 1995. "Group Credit: A Means to Improve Information Transfer and Repayment Performance." Journal of Development Studies 32 (2): 263­81. Westergaard, Kirsten, and Mustafa Alam. 1995. "Local Government in Bangladesh: Past Experiences and Yet Another Try." World Development 23 (4): 679­90. White, Thomas Anderson, and C. Ford Runge. 1995. "The Emergence and Evolution of Collective Action: Lessons from Watershed Management in Haiti." World Development 23 (10): 1683­89. Wooldridge, J. W. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. World Bank. 1993. "Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Project: Project Appraisal Report." Washington, DC. ------. 1997. "Staff Appraisal Report on Rural Women Development and Empowerment Project." Report No. 16031-IN, South Asia Country Department II. ------. 1999. "Project Appraisal Document for the Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills-II)." Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia Regional Office. ------. 2000. Overview of Rural Decentralisation in India. Volume II. New Delhi: World Bank. ------. 2001. "Second Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project." Washington, DC. ------. 2002. World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets. New York: Oxford University Press. ------. 2004. India Fiscal Decentralization to Rural Governments. Report No. 26654- IN. Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia Region, Washington, DC. Annex Table A1 Typology of Local Organizations General category Organizational type by level Government Government administrative (line department)--state level Government administrative (line department )-- district level Government administrative (line department)-- subdistrict/block level Government administrative (line department)-- village level Government administrative (panchayat raj department)-- state level Government elected--district level (zilla panchayat) Government elected--subdistrict level (block/ taluk panchayat) Government elected--village level (gram panchayat) Project Project unit--state level Project unit--district level Project unit--subdistrict level Project unit--village level Private NGO for-profit--state level NGO for-profit--district level NGO for-profit--subdistrict level NGO for-profit--village level NGO nonprofit--state level NGO nonprofit--district level NGO nonprofit--subdistrict level NGO nonprofit--village level For-profit--subdistrict level For-profit--village level Community-based Community-based organization--government-initiated (village level) Community-based organization--NGO-initiated (village level) Community-based organization--project-initiated (village level) Community-based organization--self-initiated (village level) Source: Alsop 2004. Note: NGO nongovernmental organization. 91 92 ANNEX Table A2 Functions and Subfunctions of Local Organizations 1. Financing Obtaining funds for the establishment of the study local organization Provision of funds for the establishment of other local organizations Obtaining funds for the local organization to facilitate its operation (such as funds to procure seeds, fertilizers, medicines, and so on) Provision of funds to other local organizations to facilitate their operations Obtaining funds for the provision and maintenance of physical facilities for members of the sample local organization. Financial assistance to vulnerable groups such as women, scheduled tribes, and scheduled castes in the sample local organization. Financial assistance to other local organizations in terms of loans, grants, matching funds, and so on 2. Staffing Obtaining salaried staff for the sample local organization Provision of salaried staff for other local organizations Obtaining staff on deputation from gram panchayat/line department for the local organization Provision of staff to the other local organizations 3. Provisioning Obtaining material assets for development works (such as pipes for drinking water schemes) Provision of material assets for development works of other local organizations Obtaining community resources or assets (such as land, village water sources) for the temporary or permanent use of the local organization Provision of community resources or assets (such as land, village water sources) for the temporary or permanent use of the local organization Provision of services (such as renting out sprayers for profit, and so on) 4. Community-based action Facilitating periodic repair and maintenance of physical assets for the sample local organization Mobilizing community involvement for implementing development works of the sample local organization 5. Capacity building Providing training opportunities for members/beneficiaries of the sample local organization Enhancing capacity of the local organization to access services from government and other agencies in the district ANNEX 93 Table A2 (continued) Ensuring and facilitating incorporation of weaker constituencies (women, scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, and so on) in the activities of the local organization Providing opportunities to members/beneficiaries to participate in local development programs and activities Enhancing the capacity of collaborating local organizations to access services and benefits available for members/beneficiaries 6. Coordination of activities Facilitating the establishment of relationships with other local organizations/supporting organizations Facilitating the access of the sample local organization to external resources (material and financial) Facilitating the coordination of local organizations among relevant sectors (for example, coordinating the activities of village-level community-based organizations with the local units of line department) 7. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring activities Supervising activities Evaluating performance of works undertaken for local development Providing guidance to improve effectiveness and minimize shortcomings in the implementation of local development works 8. Conflict resolution and accountability Ensuring the accountability of the members/representatives of the local organization Ensuring the financial accountability of the local organization Ensuring representation of vulnerable social groups in the local organization Providing feedback to gram panchayat/line department/project implementing agency/NGO Resolving disputes among the various stakeholders Ensuring that there is accountability in the other local organizations 9. Information sharing and dissemination Sharing the relevant available information with other local organizations Facilitating the sharing of information among relevant local organizations operating at that level Sharing information among members (such as personal hygiene in the rural water and sanitation sector) Source: Alsop 2004. Note: NGO nongovernmental organization. Table A3 Sectors and Projects Selected for the Study Types of local organizations Sector Projects at village level States in the study Women's development Swa-Shakthi (Rural Women Development Self-help groups Madhya Pradesh and empowerment and Empowerment Program) Karnataka Stree-Shakthi Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna Drinking water supply Accelerated Rural Water Supply Program Village water supply and Uttaranchal and sanitation Integrated Rural Water and Environmental sanitation committees Karnataka Sanitation Gram panchayats 94 Swajal Watershed development National Watershed Development Project Watershed associations Karnataka for Rainfed Areas Micro watershed development Uttaranchal Drought Prone Area Program committees Desert Development Program Village development committees Integrated Watershed Development Gram Resource Management Program--Hills (II) Associations Karnataka Watershed Development Self-help groups (KAWAD) Project User groups Joint Forest Management Program Joint forest management committees Source: Alsop 2004. ANNEX 95 Table A4 Village-Level Instruments Instrument Purpose Respondents Village-level Build a profile of the village Data collected from questionnaire villagers and officials at the village level through a combination of methods (secondary data, poverty ranking, timelines, focus group discussion, organi- zational mapping) GP profile Build a profile of the GP in The president or secretary terms of its human, material, of the GP and financial assets and its links with other local organizations Local organization/ Build a profile of the local The chief of the local SO questionnaires organizations/SOs (other organization/SO or any than the GP) operating in the other knowledgeable village member of the organization GP-elected Learn respondent's assess- The president or vice functionaries ment of roles, assets, and president of the GP at the questionnaire processes of the GP and its time of the survey links with other local organi- zations Local organization Learn respondent's assess- Local organization officials ment of the sample local officeholders questionnaire organization (including those formed by NGOs, project implementing agencies, and LDs, including self-initiated) Village-level staff of Learn staff assessment of (a) Staff of local organization support organization the LD/NGO role in sup- promoted by LD, NGO, (LD/NGO/GP) porting a local organization, or other organization questionnaire and (b) performance of the local organization receiving support Household Gain information on (a) per- Sample of members questionnaire (three formance and attributes of of village-level versions, adapted organization to which house- organizations to specific sectors) hold belongs, (b) SO perfor- mance, and (c) GP perfor- mance Source: Alsop 2004. Note: GP gram panchayat; LD line department; NGO nongovernmental organization; SO support organization. Table A5 Number of Organizations Covered in the Study General category Organizational type by level Womena Water/sanitationb Watershedb Government Government administrative (LD)--state level 2 4 6 Government administrative (LD )--district level 10 4 15 Government administrative (LD)--subdistrict/block level 18 6 14 Government administrative (LD)--village level 51 36 13 Government administrative (panchayat raj department)--state level 2 2 1 Government elected--district level (zilla panchayat) 4 4 5 96 Government elected--subdistrict level (block panchayat) 12 6 6 Government elected--village level (gram panchayat) 55 70 42 Project WB/DFID-initiated project unit--state level 2 2 2 WB/DFID-initiated project unit--district level 4 6 3 WB/DFID-initiated project unit--subdistrict level 12 9 10 WB/DFID-initiated project unit--village level 0 0 0 Private NGO for-profit--state level 0 0 0 NGO for-profit--district level 0 0 0 NGO for-profit--subdistrict level 0 0 0 NGO for-profit--village level 0 0 0 Individual for-profit--subdistrict level 0 0 0 Individual for-profit--village level 0 0 0 Collective action NGO nonprofit--state levelc 0 0 0 NGO nonprofit--district levelc 0 0 0 NGO nonprofit--subdistrict levelc 1 0 0 NGO nonprofit--village levelc 0 0 0 CBO--government-initiated (village level) 51 76 16 CBO--NGO-initiated (village level) 16 0 2 CBO--project-initiated (village level) 60 60 60 CBO--self-initiated (village level) 4 0 0 Source: Alsop 2004. Note: CBO community-based organization; DFID Department for International Development; LD line department; NGO nongovern- mental organization; WB World Bank. 97 a. Summary figures for Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh. Banks were present at the district and taluk levels but were not included in the survey because of their limited function in the sector. Taluk panchayats were reported to play no role in this sector but were included in surveys because of interest in related activities, such as inclusion of marginalized groups in broader development activities. b. Summary figures for Karnataka and Uttaranchal. Taluk panchayats had no role in this sector but representatives were interviewed. c. The organizational typology specifies that NGOs functioning as project agencies are classified as project organizations. NGOs are independent of project management in the sectors studied. Table A6 Functions Undertaken by Village-Level Local Organizations, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (Percentage of local organizations of each type) Local Community- Capacity Conflict organization type N Financing Staffing Provisioning based action building Coordination M&E resolution Information LD 46 9b 0c 91b 30b 30c 48c 26c 78c 67c 98 GP 21 5b 10b 100c 57b 62c 86c 57c 86b 62c CBO-PI 56 36b 7b 89b 48b 64a 64b 63b 70b 82b Source: Local organization officials questionnaire, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector. Note: CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated); GP gram panchayat; LD line department; SO support organization. a. The local organization does not have a mandate to undertake activities in this function area, but the SO that initiated it does. b. Mandated function for the local organization. c. Not mandated to the local organization or to its initiating SO. Table A7 Functions Undertaken by Gram Panchayats, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Swa- Stree- Swa- Shakthi Shakthi Others Shakthi SGSY Others Function (N 257) (N 220) (N 75) (N 290) (N 155) (N 58) Resolving conflicts within the local organization 4.3 0.5 0.0 14.5 18.7 39.7 Help in mobilizing benefits from the government and banks for the members 3.1 0.9 0.0 15.9 14.2 15.5 Providing financial assistance (pension to widows, agricultural laborers, support toward housing, loans, and so on) to vulnerable 99 groups 19.8 10.9 24.0 15.5 16.1 15.5 Sending the staff of GP to help the local organization in performing its functions 0.8 0.5 0.0 6.6 4.5 22.4 Instructing the LD staff to provide technical support for the members 4.3 1.4 0.0 11.7 11.6 19.0 Providing the GP building for conducting local organization meetings 10.1 2.7 0.0 14.8 16.8 34.5 Providing village tanks, grazing lands, trees, and so on for collective income-generating activities 3.5 0.9 0.0 7.6 13.5 3.4 Providing opportunities to the local organization members to undertake income-generating activities successfully 2.3 0.9 0.0 13.1 18.1 24.1 (Table continues on the following page.) Table A7 (continued) Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Swa- Stree- Swa- Shakthi Shakthi Others Shakthi SGSY Others Function (N 257) (N 220) (N 75) (N 290) (N 155) (N 58) Providing community assets (roads, child care center, and so on) to the local organization members 15.6 5.5 18.7 6.9 12.3 10.3 Facilitating the provision of training to the local organization members 3.1 0.9 0.0 7.9 14.8 10.3 100 Coordination with LDs in getting benefits to the local organization members 4.7 5.9 0.0 6.6 9.7 8.6 Coordination with other local organizations in resource convergence for the local organization members 1.6 0.5 0.0 5.5 8.4 12.1 Monitoring the local organization activities 2.7 0.5 0.0 6.2 12.3 3.4 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to members 3.9 0.9 0.0 8.6 18.1 22.4 Ensuring that the local organization incorporates the interests of the poor and vulnerable 7.0 7.3 18.7 8.6 11.6 22.4 Sharing information on GP programs with the local organization members 11.7 5.5 0.0 16.6 15.5 15.5 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; LD line department; SGSY Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna. Table A8 Functions Undertaken by Gram Panchayats, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Gram Jal IRWES department panchayat Swajal Sansthan Function (N 240) (N 216) (N 120) (N 437) (N 135) Providing community assets (roads, child care center, and so on) to the local organization members 63.8 19.4 71.7 18.5 6.7 Monitoring the local organization activities 59.6 11.1 68.3 23.6 8.1 Resolving conflicts within the local organization 47.9 12.5 75.0 4.6 3.0 101 Help in mobilizing benefits from the government for the members 24.2 7.9 15.0 17.8 29.6 Providing financial assistance (pension to widows, agricultural laborers, support toward housing, loans, and so on) to the vulnerable groups 36.7 12.0 74.2 79.9 80.0 Sending staff of GP to help the local organization in performing its functions 58.8 84.7 69.2 14.6 17.0 Instructing LD staff to provide technical support (water supply, health, and so on) for the members 35.4 10.6 30.0 3.0 17.0 Providing GP building for conducting local organization meetings 54.6 79.6 63.3 29.5 14.1 Providing village tanks, grazing lands, trees, and so on for collective income-generating activities 2.9 8.8 50.8 7.1 9.6 (Table continues on the following page.) Table A8 (continued) Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Gram Jal IRWES department panchayat Swajal Sansthan Function (N 240) (N 216) (N 120) (N 437) (N 135) Providing opportunities to the local organization members in undertaking income-generating activities successfully 0.8 0.0 25.8 13.3 4.4 Facilitating the provision of training (health education and awareness) to the local organization members 7.9 0.0 1.7 8.7 3.7 102 Coordination with LDs in getting benefits (water quality testing, health support, and so on) to the local organization members 29.2 78.2 65.0 6.4 4.4 Coordination with other local organizations (CBOs, NGOs, and so on) in resource convergence for the local organization members 16.3 4.2 22.5 7.8 4.4 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to the members 25.4 6.9 56.7 21.7 4.4 Ensuring that the local organization incorporates the interests of the poor and vulnerable 15.4 2.3 60.8 34.3 4.4 Sharing the information on GP programs with the local organization members 53.3 16.7 74.2 41.6 8.9 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO community-based organization; GP gram panchayat; IRWES Integrated Rural Water and Environment Sanitation Program; LD line department; NGO nongovernmental organization. Table A9 Performance of Functions by Support Organizations, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Gram Jal IRWES department panchayat Swajal Sansthan Function (N 240) (N 216) (N 120) Average (N 437) (N 135) Average Administration and Management Formation of the local organization 86.3 12.0 19.2 39.2 92.7 14.1 53.4 103 Explaining how to manage the group 52.5 4.6 13.3 23.5 80.8 11.1 46.0 Monitoring the local organization activities 45.0 29.6 36.7 37.1 65.7 5.9 35.8 Organizing training programs and exposure visits 12.1 1.4 9.2 7.6 76.9 11.1 44.0 Explaining how to improve the habit of making contributions to the local organization 34.6 5.6 5.0 15 67.3 9.6 38.5 Providing capable staff 41.3 24.1 32.5 32.6 62.7 5.2 34.0 Resolving conflicts within the group 30.4 25.0 30.0 28.5 45.5 3.7 24.6 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to members 18.8 10.2 24.2 17.7 63.8 5.9 34.9 Providing books for accounts maintenance 19.2 6.9 8.3 11.5 70.5 7.4 39.0 (Table continues on the following page.) Table A9 (continued) Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Gram Jal IRWES department panchayat Swajal Sansthan Function (N 240) (N 216) (N 120) Average (N 437) (N 135) Average Development Oriented Training on securing benefits for members 38.3 32.9 12.5 27.9 67.0 6.7 36.9 Coordination with PIA/LD/NGO 47.1 17.1 5.0 23.1 43.7 5.2 24.5 Training on selecting the right technology 104 (borewell, piped water supply, gravity and lift schemes) and making them successful 8.3 0.9 1.7 3.6 62.7 8.9 35.8 Training on how to establish links with GP and LD 26.3 15.7 10.8 17.6 36.8 5.9 21.4 Organizing meetings with government departments to obtain assistance 3.8 1.9 5.0 3.6 36.4 3.0 19.7 Sharing information on waterborne diseases and environmental sanitation 6.3 2.8 2.5 3.9 76.2 6.7 41.5 Sharing information on government programs with the people 45.0 44.4 39.2 42.9 65.4 3.7 34.6 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; IRWES Integrated Rural Water and Environment Sanitation Program; LD line department; NGO nongovern- mental organization; PIA project implementation agency. Table A10 Performance of Functions by Support Organizations, Watershed Development Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Line department department and JFM/Van KAWAD and JFMC GAREMA Panchayat Function (N 455) (N 112) Average (N 430) (N 124) Average Administration and Management Formation of the local organization 97.8 98.2 97.5 97.2 100.0 98.6 Explaining how to manage the group 89.5 75.9 82.7 93.0 100.0 96.5 105 Providing matching grant to the SHGs 72.5 30.4 51.5 82.1 54.0 68.1 Providing capable staff 91.4 66.1 78.8 82.3 80.6 81.5 Providing books for accounts maintenance 93.6 75.9 84.8 72.6 41.1 56.9 Monitoring the local organization activities 89.0 75.0 82 82.8 74.2 78.5 Resolving conflicts within the group 77.1 47.3 62.2 41.6 3.2 22.4 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to the members 60.2 39.3 49.8 74.4 55.6 65 Development Oriented Coordination with PIA/LD/NGO 78.7 55.4 67.1 44.7 73.4 59.1 Training on how to secure benefits for the members 61.1 40.2 50.7 80.0 58.9 69.5 Organizing training programs and exposure visits 60.4 39.3 49.9 88.4 61.3 74.9 (Table continues on the following page.) Table A10 (continued) Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Line department department and JFM/Van KAWAD and JFMC GAREMA Panchayat Function (N 455) (N 112) Average (N 430) (N 124) Average Explaining how to improve the habit of making contributions to the local organization 73.0 45.5 59.3 78.8 69.4 74.1 106 Organizing meetings with the government departments to obtain assistance for the members 58.2 34.8 46.5 49.5 42.7 46.1 Training on how to select the right technology, species, and income-generating activities, and how to make them successful 42.9 31.3 37.1 74.7 58.9 66.8 Training on how to establish links with the GP and LD 16.7 9.8 13.3 48.6 32.3 40.5 Sharing information on government programs with the people 51.9 26.8 39.4 72.1 81.5 76.8 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; GAREMA Gram Resources Management Association; JFM joint forest management; JFMC Joint Forest Management Committee; KAWAD Karnataka Watershed Development Project; LD line department; NGO nongovernmental organization; PIA project implementation agency; SHG self-help group. Table A11 Performance of Functions by Gram Panchayats, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Gram Jal IRWES department panchayat Swajal Sansthan Function (N 240) (N 216) (N 120) (N 437) (N 135) Administration and Management Providing community assets (roads, child care center, and so on) to the local organization members 45.4 16.7 55.8 14.0 5.9 107 Monitoring the local organization activities 48.3 8.3 65.0 19.5 7.4 Resolving conflicts within the local organization 42.5 10.6 55.8 4.6 3.0 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to the members 16.3 2.3 56.7 20.1 3.7 Sending staff of GP to help the local organization perform its functions 48.3 12.5 67.5 13.7 11.9 Instructing LD staff to provide technical support (water supply, health, and so on) for the members 25.8 8.8 20.0 1.8 7.4 Providing GP building for conducting local organization meetings 45.8 9.3 62.5 25.4 8.9 Providing village tanks, grazing lands, trees, and so on for collective income-generating activities 2.5 8.3 50.8 5.5 7.4 (Table continues on the following page.) Table A11 (continued) Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Gram Jal IRWES department panchayat Swajal Sansthan Function (N 240) (N 216) (N 120) (N 437) (N 135) Development Oriented Coordination with LDs in extending benefits (water quality testing, health support, and so on) to the local organization members 17.9 10.2 61.7 5.3 2.2 Coordination with other local organizations 108 (CBOs, NGOs, and so on) in resource convergence for the local organization members 9.6 4.2 8.3 6.9 4.4 Ensuring that the local organization incorporates the interests of the poor and vulnerable 11.7 2.3 53.3 33.6 3.7 Providing opportunities to the local organization members in undertaking income-generating activities successfully 0.4 0.0 0.8 12.4 2.2 Facilitating the provision of training (health education and awareness) to the local organization members 7.5 0.0 1.7 7.3 1.5 Sharing information on GP programs with local organization members 40.8 7.9 63.3 39.1 8.1 Help in mobilizing benefits from the government for the members 13.8 3.2 5.0 14.9 26.7 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO community-based organization; GP gram panchayat; IRWES Integrated Rural Water and Environment Sanitation Program; LD line department; NGO nongovernmental organization. Table A12 Performance of Functions by Gram Panchayats, Watershed Development Sector Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Line department department and JFM/Van KAWAD and JFMC GAREMA Panchayat Function (N 455) (N 112) (N 430) (N 124) Administration and Management Monitoring the local organization activities 0.0 0.9 35.3 35.5 Resolving conflicts within the local organization 2.9 0.0 3.7 12.9 109 Ensuring that the local organization is accountable to the members 0.0 0.0 24.0 13.7 Sending the staff of GP to help the local organization in performing its functions 0.0 0.0 18.6 33.9 Instructing the LD staff to provide technical support (such as extension services) for the members 0.7 4.5 19.8 25.8 Providing the GP building for conducting local organization meetings 0.0 0.9 7.9 7.3 Providing village tanks, grazing lands, trees, and so on for collective income-generating activities 3.3 8.0 7.4 30.6 Providing community assets (roads, child care center, and so on) to the local organization members 16.0 7.1 15.1 59.7 (Table continues on the following page.) Table A12 (continued) Percentage responses from households under differently managed interventions citing good performance Karnataka Uttaranchal Line Line department department and JFM/Van KAWAD and JFMC GAREMA Panchayat Function (N 455) (N 112) (N 430) (N 124) Development Oriented Coordination with the LDs (seeds, saplings, and so on) in getting the benefits to the local organization members 0.2 0.0 24.4 37.1 Coordination with other local organizations in resource 110 convergence for the local organization members 0.7 0.0 17.7 12.1 Help in mobilizing benefits from the government (funds and so on) and banks for the members 1.8 0.9 17.4 18.5 Ensuring that the local organization incorporates the interests of the poor and vulnerable 3.3 0.0 35.8 19.4 Providing opportunities to the local organization members to undertake income-generating activities successfully 0.2 2.7 17.7 21.0 Facilitating the provision of training from agriculture and horticulture departments to the local organization members 0.2 0.0 17.4 6.5 Sharing information on GP programs with the local organization members 5.7 0.0 52.3 56.5 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; GAREMA Gram Resources Management Association; JFM joint forest management; JFMC Joint Forest Management Committee; KAWAD Karnataka Watershed Development Project; LD line department. Table A13 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (Percent) Karnataka Uttaranchal Do not Not at To a large Do not Not at To a large know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N Who appoints officeholders Members 32 12 6 50 404 13 24 3 60 570 Influential members 36 46 15 3 403 12 59 26 3 570 Influential nonmembers 38 59 3 0 402 11 82 76 0 568 Locals who initiate the organization become leaders 39 54 6 1 394 13 85 2 0 569 111 The NGO/SO staff 33 57 8 2 397 12 40 35 13 568 GP 33 33 18 16 402 12 78 9 1 568 Who participates in key decisions Representatives of local organization 25 48 20 7 568 9 34 34 23 557 All members 23 39 14 24 565 0 17 10 73 548 Dominant members 25 62 8 5 562 10 74 14 2 550 GP president 26 26 30 18 576 11 82 6 1 549 GP dominant members 26 44 20 9 565 10 86 4 0 548 Rural elites 26 54 12 8 574 10 74 14 3 546 NGO/SO staff 30 65 4 2 568 8 39 30 23 544 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; NGO nongovernmental organization; SO support organization. 112 ANNEX Table A14 Poverty Ranking and Performance (See annex table A32) Function Sector Poverty rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women Poor ° ° ° - ° ° ° ° ° Middle ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Wealthy - - ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Water/ Poor ° * ° ° - ° - ° ° sanitation Middle ° * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Wealthy ° * ° ° - ° ° ° ° Watershed Poor ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Middle ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Wealthy ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Source: Household questionnaire. Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 governance; 9 information sharing/dissemination. Note: Very poor is the reference category. Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. ANNEX 113 Table A15 Household Landholdings and Performance (See table A32) Operational Function Sector holding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women 0 to 1 acre ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 1 to 2.5 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 2.5 to 5 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 5 to 10 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 10 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Water/ sanitation 0 to 1 acre ° * ° ° ° ° ° 1 to 2.5 acres ° * ° ° ° ° ° 2.5 to 5 acres ° * ° ° ° ° ° 5 to 10 acres ° * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 10 acres ° * ° ° ° ° ° Watershed 0 to 1 acre ° ° ° ° ° ° -- ° 1 to 2.5 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 2.5 to 5 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 5 to 10 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 10 acres ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Source: Household questionnaire. Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 governance; 9 information sharing/dissemination. Note: No cultivation is the reference category. Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. 114 ANNEX Table A16 Gender, Attendance, and Performance (See table A32) Function Sector Characteristic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Women Woman-headed household ° ° ° ° ° ° Attend meetings ° ° ° ° ° ° Water/ Woman-headed sanitation household -- * ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Attend meetings ° * ° ° Watershed Woman-headed household ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Attend meetings ° - ° ° ° ° ° ° Source: Household questionnaire. Functions: 1 financing; 2 staffing; 3 provisioning; 4 community-based action; 5 capacity building; 6 coordination of activities; 7 M&E; 8 conflict resolution/ accountability; 9 information sharing/dissemination. Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. * Insufficient data. Relatively few local organizations undertook activities falling under the general function area of staffing. In the case of the drinking water and sanitation projects, in which this problem was particularly acute, this function has not been included in the analysis. Table A17 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Women's Development and Empowerment Sector (Percent) Who appoints officeholders Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Do not Not at To a large Do not Not at To a large Position know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N Members 1 2 4 93 552 2 2 8 88 486 Influential members 2 95 3 0 550 3 58 31 8 483 Influential nonmembers 3 94 2 1 550 5 86 9 1 483 115 Locals who initiate the organization become leaders 3 95 2 0 551 7 89 3 1 474 NGO/SO staff 3 55 30 12 548 7 59 28 6 465 Who participates in key decisions LO All Dominant Rural GP LO State reps members members elite president staff Others N Karnataka 12 84 2 0 0 1 1 547 Madhya Pradesh 6 92 1 0 0 1 1 470 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: Because of differences in the structure of data sets for each sector, the information for this sector is presented in a slightly different format than information for the other two sectors. GP gram panchayat; LO local organization; NGO nongovernmental organization; SO support organization. Table A18 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (Percent) Karnataka Uttaranchal Do not Not at To a large Do not Not at To a large know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N Who appoints officeholders Members 32 12 6 50 404 13 24 3 60 570 Influential members 36 46 15 3 403 12 59 26 3 570 Influential nonmembers 38 59 3 0 402 11 82 76 0 568 Locals who initiate the 116 organization become leaders 39 54 6 1 394 13 85 2 0 569 The NGO/SO staff 33 57 8 2 397 12 40 35 13 568 GP 33 33 18 16 402 12 78 9 1 568 Who participates in key decisions Representatives of local organizations 25 48 20 7 568 9 34 34 23 557 All members 23 39 14 24 565 0 17 10 73 548 Dominant members 25 62 8 5 562 10 74 14 2 550 GP president 26 26 30 18 576 11 82 6 1 549 GP dominant members 26 44 20 9 565 10 86 4 0 548 Rural elites 26 54 12 8 574 10 74 14 3 546 NGO/SO staff 30 65 4 2 568 8 39 30 23 544 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; NGO nongovernmental organization; SO support organization. ANNEX 117 Table A19 Participation in Decision Making by Poverty Rank, Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Sector (Percent) Who has the final say in important decisions (such as locating water supply points and Karnataka setting user charges for water) Very poor Poor Middle Wealthy Representative of a local organization 12.3 14.5 22.9 24.7 All the members 4.9 6.4 7.8 11.1 Dominant members in the group 2.5 7.7 9.2 4.9 GP president 9.0 16.4 24.8 19.8 GP dominant members 6.6 11.8 5.9 4.9 Rural elites 4.1 10.9 2.0 4.9 NGO/LD staff 0.8 2.7 3.3 8.6 GP secretary 12.3 8.2 7.8 8.6 Do not know/no response 47.5 21.4 16.3 12.3 Total respondents 122 220 153 81 Who has the final say in important decisions (such as locating water supply points and Uttaranchal setting user charges for water) Very poor Poor Middle Wealthy Representative of a local organization 49.7 44.7 48.9 45.6 All the members 9.8 10.6 16.3 15.6 Dominant members in the group 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.7 GP president 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP dominant members 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural elites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NGO/LD staff 19.6 16.3 18.4 16.3 Do not know/no response 18.2 25.5 14.2 19.7 Total respondents 143 141 141 147 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; LD line department; NGO nongovernmental organization. Table A20 Participation in Decision Making by Organizational Position, Watershed Development Sector (Percent) Karnataka Uttaranchal Do not Not at To a large Do not Not at To a large know all Partially extent N know all Partially extent N Who appoints officeholders Members 1 2 3 94 549 8 8 2 82 521 Influential members 2 84 13 1 549 8 51 38 3 519 Influential nonmembers 2 97 1 0 549 8 88 3 0 520 Locals who initiate the 118 organization become leaders 3 95 2 0 549 9 88 2 1 520 The NGO/SO staff 2 47 46 5 549 9 74 14 3 517 Who participates in key decisions Representatives of a local organization 20 43 36 21 548 6 87 0 7 441 All members 0 17 10 73 548 5 21 1 73 440 Dominant members 0 88 11 1 548 5 95 0 0 441 GP president 0 99 1 0 548 6 94 0 0 393 GP dominant members Rural elites 1 99 0 0 547 5 95 0 0 441 NGO/LD staff 0 52 35 13 548 6 85 0 9 393 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; LD line department; NGO nongovernmental organization; SO support organization. ANNEX 119 Table A21 Participation in Decision Making by Poverty Rank, Watershed Development Sector (Percent) Who has the final say in important decisions (such as deciding the location of Karnataka checkdams, etc.) Very poor Poor Middle Wealthy Representative of a local organization 12.6 13.9 10.3 9.8 All the members 46.0 31.5 39.4 32.1 Dominant members in the group 4.6 1.8 3.0 8.0 High-caste and rich people outside the local organization 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 GP president 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NGO/LD staff 25.3 37.6 36.5 36.6 Do not know/no response 11.5 15.2 10.3 13.4 Total respondents 87 165 203 112 Who has the final say in important decisions (such as deciding the location of Uttaranchal checkdams, etc.) Very poor Poor Middle Wealthy Representative of a local organization 6.7 7.4 5.4 2.1 All the members 70.9 54.4 64.3 64.1 Dominant members in the group 0.0 3.4 1.6 0.7 High-caste and rich people outside the local organization 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP president 0.0 0.7 1.6 2.8 NGO/LD staff 6.0 10.7 5.4 2.1 Do not know/no response 16.4 23.5 21.7 28.2 Total respondents 134 149 129 142 Source: Household questionnaire. Note: GP gram panchayat; LD line department; NGO nongovernmental organization. 120 ANNEX Table A22 Poisson Regression of Number of Loans Obtained by Sample Members (See table A32) Variable CBO-GI -- CBO-NI ° CBO-SI ° Scheduled tribe ° Backward caste ° Forward caste ° Minority Poor ° Middle ° Wealthy ° 0 to 1 acre ° 1 to 2.5 acres ° 2.5 to 5 acres ° 5 to 10 acres ° 10 acres ° Woman ° Madhya Pradesh -- Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-PI, scheduled caste, very poor, and landless are the reference categories. CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community- based organization (NGO-initiated); CBO-PI community-based organization (project- initiated); CBO-SI community-based organization (self-initiated). Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. ANNEX 121 Table A23 Ordered Probit Results for Improved Access to Clean Drinking Water (See table A32) Variable Line department ° Gram panchayat ° Scheduled tribe ° Backward caste ° Forward caste ° Minority ° Poor ° Middle ° Wealthy ° 0 to 1 acre ° 1 to 2.5 acres ° 2.5 to 5 acres ° 5 to 10 acres ° 10 acres ° Woman ° Uttaranchal Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-PI, scheduled caste, very poor, and landless are the reference categories. CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated). Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. 122 ANNEX Table A24 Ordered Probit Results for Provision of Sanitary Facilities (See table A32) Variable Line department ° Gram panchayat ° Scheduled tribe ° Backward caste ° Forward caste ° Minority ° Poor ° Middle ° Wealthy ° 0 to 1 acre ° 1 to 2.5 acres ° 2.5 to 5 acres ° 5 to 10 acres ° 10 acres ° Woman ° Uttaranchal ° Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-PI, scheduled caste, very poor, and landless are the reference categories. CBO-PI community-based organization (project-initiated). Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. Table A25 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Preventing Soil Erosion and Water Loss, by Poverty Ranking Poverty ranking Poor (%) Adequate (%) Good (%) N Very poor 35 20 45 203 Poor 24 21 55 272 Middle 20 20 60 324 Wealthy 27 17 56 231 Mean across all rankings (N) 25 (262) 19 (201) 55 (567) 1,030 Source: Household questionnaire. ANNEX 123 Table A26 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Improving Agricultural Production, by Poverty Ranking Poverty ranking Poor (%) Adequate (%) Good (%) N Very poor 45 26 29 201 Poor 41 27 32 274 Middle 32 28 40 324 Wealthy 37 28 35 229 Average across all rankings (N) 38 (391) 27 (282) 35 (355) 1,029 Source: Household questionnaire. Table A27 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Preventing Soil Erosion and Water Loss, by Size of Operational Holding Size of operational holding Poor (%) Adequate (%) Good (%) N No cultivation 57 13 30 47 0 to 1 acre 39 24 37 170 1 to 2.5 acres 29 27 44 154 2.5 to 5 acres 27 21 52 210 5 to 10 acres 17 14 69 213 10 acres 13 15 72 246 Average across all sizes (N) 26 (264) 19 (201) 55 (575) 1,040 Source: Household questionnaire. Table A28 Members' Assessment of Their Local Organization's Performance in Improving Agricultural Production, by Size of Operational Holding Size of operational holding Poor (%) Adequate (%) Good (%) N No cultivation 73 9 18 45 0 to 1 acre 66 15 19 169 1 to 2.5 acres 44 31 25 153 2.5 to 5 acres 33 29 38 212 5 to 10 acres 26 30 44 214 10 acres 22 34 44 246 Average across all sizes (N) 38 (394) 27 (284) 352 (361) 1,039 Source: Household questionnaire. 124 ANNEX Table A29 Ordered Probit Results for Prevention of Soil Erosion and Water Loss (See table A32) Variable CBO-GI ° Scheduled tribe ° Backward caste ° Forward caste ° Minority Poor ° Middle ° Wealthy ° 0 to 1 acre ° 1 to 2.5 acres 2.5 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres 10 acres Woman ° Uttaranchal -- Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-PI, scheduled caste, very poor, and landless are the reference categories. CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-PI community- based organization (project-initiated). Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. ANNEX 125 Table A30 Ordered Probit Results for Improvements in Agricultural Production (See table A32) Variable CBO-GI ° Scheduled tribe ° Backward caste ° Forward caste ° Minority ° Poor ° Middle ° Wealthy ° 0 to 1 acre ° 1 to 2.5 acres 2.5 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres 10 acres Woman ° Uttaranchal - Source: Household questionnaire. Note: CBO-PI, scheduled caste, very poor, and landless are the reference categories. CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-PI community- based organization (project-initiated). Significant positive association at 95 percent. Significant positive association at 99 percent. - Significant negative association at 95 percent. -- Significant negative association at 99 percent. ° No significant association. 126 ANNEX Table A31 Age of the Sample Organizations by Sector Year established Women Water/sanitation Watershed Total 1955 0 1 0 1 1965 0 1 0 1 1976 1 0 0 1 1984 0 4 0 4 1990 0 3 0 3 1992 1 0 0 1 1993 0 5 0 5 1995 0 6 0 6 1996 1 8 0 9 1997 1 6 0 7 1998 4 9 3 16 1999 9 10 17 36 2000 62 6 26 94 2001 31 1 19 51 2002 16 0 3 19 Total 126 60 68 254 Source: Local organization officials questionnaire. Note: Accurate data on age were only available for 254 CBOs. Respondents least able to answer this question were found in the water and sanitation section. This reflects the fact, emphasized in the sector reports (Alsop 2004), that many CBO-GIs are more de facto than de jure. CBO community-based organization; CBO-GI community-based organiza- tion (government-initiated). ANNEX 127 Table A32 Probit Estimation Results: Association between Assets, Processes, Linkages, Context, and Performance of Functions Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Women's Development and Empowerment Financing (N 606) Human assets 0.10272 0.16232 0.63 0.527 Material assets 0.14050 0.14692 0.96 0.339 Financial assets 0.19439 0.13976 1.39 0.164 Households attend meetings 0.17449 0.16023 1.09 0.276 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.13986 0.13731 1.02 0.308 Members aware of objectives 0.06459 0.14891 0.43 0.664 Members aware of rules 0.45590 0.17944 2.54 0.011 Representatives aware of rules 0.20650 0.14849 1.39 0.164 Meeting minutes read 0.03670 0.12304 0.30 0.766 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.54715 0.18722 2.92 0.003 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.22768 0.10957 2.08 0.038 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.04484 0.14551 0.31 0.758 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.13072 0.19697 0.66 0.507 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.29717 0.14863 2.00 0.046 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.05690 0.19725 0.29 0.773 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.16161 0.16170 1.00 0.318 Linkages with line department (MP) 1.22879 0.42834 2.87 0.004 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.34732 0.15673 2.22 0.027 Caste: backward caste 0.35285 0.14073 2.51 0.012 Caste: forward caste 0.28256 0.25521 1.11 0.268 Caste: minority 0.45029 0.31148 1.45 0.148 Poverty ranking: poor 0.17538 0.13070 1.34 0.180 (Table continues on the following pages.) 128 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Poverty ranking: middle 0.07257 0.16078 0.45 0.652 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.45361 0.21856 2.08 0.038 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.19149 0.15109 1.27 0.205 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.25098 0.15509 1.62 0.106 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.10380 0.15938 0.65 0.515 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.18956 0.19496 0.97 0.331 Landholding: 10 acres 0.34975 0.30405 1.15 0.250 Woman-headed household 0.23599 0.13003 1.81 0.070 Distance to market 0.61067 0.08952 6.82 0.000 Irrigated land 0.07901 0.06358 1.24 0.214 Number of households 0.20357 0.09933 2.05 0.040 Project village 0.90798 0.17847 5.09 0.000 Madhya Pradesh 0.77370 0.26845 2.88 0.004 CBO-GI 0.39150 0.15150 2.58 0.010 CBO-NI 0.49170 0.23126 2.13 0.033 Constant: lower boundary 0.50811 0.59354 0.86 0.392 Constant: upper boundary 0.60017 0.59016 1.02 0.309 Staffing (N 161) Human assets 0.78298 0.48872 1.60 0.109 Material assets 0.41192 0.37619 1.09 0.274 Financial assets 0.10065 0.32996 0.31 0.760 Households attend meetings 0.76827 0.33500 2.29 0.022 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.35911 0.45159 0.80 0.426 Members aware of objectives 0.50980 0.38347 1.33 0.184 Members aware of rules 0.47928 0.54700 0.88 0.381 Representatives aware of rules 0.09571 0.37934 0.25 0.801 Meeting minutes read 0.17521 0.35568 0.49 0.622 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.95044 0.46313 2.05 0.040 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.26428 0.24510 1.08 0.281 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.70725 0.62994 1.12 0.262 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.08165 0.42943 0.19 0.849 ANNEX 129 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.25991 0.56025 0.46 0.643 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.95046 0.46963 2.02 0.043 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.74393 0.40409 1.84 0.066 Caste: backward caste 0.51359 0.44758 1.15 0.251 Caste: forward caste 0.70807 0.55029 1.29 0.198 Caste: minority 1.94287 0.87658 2.22 0.027 Poverty ranking: poor 0.01923 0.27929 0.07 0.945 Poverty ranking: middle 0.05441 0.29440 0.18 0.853 Poverty ranking: wealthy 1.16683 0.39941 2.92 0.003 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.22378 0.37058 0.60 0.546 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.09451 0.35132 0.27 0.788 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.07073 0.31711 0.22 0.824 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.31029 0.32241 0.96 0.336 Landholding: 10 acres 0.13040 0.57909 0.23 0.822 Woman-headed household 0.02987 0.27219 0.11 0.913 Distance to market 0.52220 0.23402 2.23 0.026 Irrigated land 0.30406 0.18345 1.66 0.097 Number of households 0.76785 0.28032 2.74 0.006 Project village 0.07276 0.45989 0.16 0.874 Madhya Pradesh 0.17754 0.84301 0.21 0.833 CBO-GI 0.60335 0.42174 1.43 0.153 CBO-NI 0.97504 1.06448 0.92 0.360 Constant: lower boundary 0.70962 1.71050 0.41 0.678 Constant: upper boundary 2.33025 1.70798 1.36 0.172 Provisioning (N 1,360) Human assets 0.06010 0.10204 0.59 0.556 Material assets 0.11080 0.09229 1.20 0.230 Financial assets 0.00910 0.09168 0.10 0.921 Households attend meetings 0.15933 0.10400 1.53 0.126 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.05497 0.09286 0.59 0.554 Members aware of objectives 0.12647 0.10236 1.24 0.217 (Table continues on the following pages.) 130 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Members aware of rules 0.36969 0.10121 3.65 0.000 Representatives aware of rules 0.36051 0.09941 3.63 0.000 Meeting minutes read 0.11791 0.08839 1.33 0.182 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.16185 0.11635 1.39 0.164 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.11493 0.07309 1.57 0.116 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.09181 0.11403 0.81 0.421 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.39045 0.10949 3.57 0.000 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.39775 0.10940 3.64 0.000 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.10599 0.11471 0.92 0.356 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.54690 0.15822 3.46 0.001 Linkages with line department (MP) 0.33107 0.29131 1.14 0.256 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.26965 0.10395 2.59 0.009 Caste: backward caste 0.23717 0.09894 2.40 0.017 Caste: forward caste 0.54311 0.14670 3.70 0.000 Caste: minority 0.19388 0.24983 0.78 0.438 Poverty ranking: poor 0.01684 0.09243 0.18 0.855 Poverty ranking: middle 0.00685 0.10231 0.07 0.947 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.14965 0.12629 1.18 0.236 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.03020 0.12411 0.24 0.808 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.06440 0.10630 0.61 0.545 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.09576 0.11259 0.85 0.395 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.01159 0.11945 0.10 0.923 Landholding: 10 acres 0.26178 0.15145 1.73 0.084 Woman-headed household 0.09707 0.08405 1.15 0.248 Distance to market 0.15913 0.05724 2.78 0.005 Irrigated land 0.28380 0.04645 6.11 0.000 Number of households 0.19917 0.05909 3.37 0.001 Project village 0.27379 0.13358 2.05 0.040 ANNEX 131 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Madhya Pradesh 0.46838 0.16648 2.81 0.005 CBO-GI 0.04951 0.10189 0.49 0.627 CBO-NI 0.26086 0.18568 1.40 0.160 Subfunction #6 dummy 0.75925 0.09111 8.33 0.000 Subfunction #9 dummy 1.33645 0.11795 11.33 0.000 Subfunction #10 dummy 1.28996 0.21513 6.00 0.000 Subfunction #11 dummy 1.10928 0.09851 11.26 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 1.67547 0.39606 4.23 0.000 Constant: upper boundary 0.58984 0.39509 1.49 0.135 Community-based action (N 256) Human assets 0.33335 0.28318 1.18 0.239 Material assets 0.56693 0.27770 2.04 0.041 Financial assets 1.04176 0.32851 3.17 0.002 Households attend meetings 0.41491 0.24275 1.71 0.087 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.19077 0.27637 0.69 0.490 Members aware of objectives 0.65096 0.33517 1.94 0.052 Members aware of rules 0.23190 0.29125 0.80 0.426 Representatives aware of rules 0.71988 0.27724 2.60 0.009 Meeting minutes read 0.33121 0.32290 1.03 0.305 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.40397 0.29384 1.37 0.169 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.10382 0.18073 0.57 0.566 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 1.59128 0.46691 3.41 0.001 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.28988 0.25680 1.13 0.259 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 1.21399 0.46214 2.63 0.009 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.05177 0.34986 0.15 0.882 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.95150 0.50835 1.87 0.061 Linkages with line department (MP) 0.74283 0.64280 1.16 0.248 (Table continues on the following pages.) 132 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Caste: scheduled tribe 0.06135 0.23416 0.26 0.793 Caste: backward caste 0.01673 0.26431 0.06 0.950 Caste: forward caste 0.63601 0.60087 1.06 0.290 Caste: minority 0.44120 1.29483 0.34 0.733 Poverty ranking: poor 0.30475 0.20074 1.52 0.129 Poverty ranking: middle 0.02229 0.22040 0.10 0.919 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.42958 0.34587 1.24 0.214 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.39799 0.29862 1.33 0.183 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.18411 0.23031 0.80 0.424 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.30267 0.25771 1.17 0.240 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.28091 0.31454 0.89 0.372 Landholding: 10 acres 0.42822 0.33393 1.28 0.200 Woman-headed household 0.18412 0.19350 0.95 0.341 Distance to market 0.42724 0.18836 2.27 0.023 Irrigated land 0.38438 0.14657 2.62 0.009 Number of households 0.42700 0.19467 2.19 0.028 Project village 0.13736 0.41281 0.33 0.739 Madhya Pradesh 1.14678 0.55078 2.08 0.037 CBO-GI 0.04287 0.29486 0.15 0.884 CBO-NI 0.15777 0.56708 0.28 0.781 Subfunction #13 dummy 0.05308 0.15432 0.34 0.731 Constant: lower boundary 2.35675 1.38272 1.70 0.088 Constant: upper boundary 3.69875 1.38777 2.67 0.008 Capacity building (N 1,946) Human assets 0.08140 0.09874 0.82 0.410 Material assets 0.33509 0.07809 4.29 0.000 Financial assets 0.03258 0.08965 0.36 0.716 Households attend meetings 0.09929 0.09968 1.00 0.319 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.16955 0.08471 2.00 0.045 Members aware of objectives 0.09110 0.09292 0.98 0.327 Members aware of rules 0.34981 0.10295 3.40 0.001 Representatives aware of rules 0.28217 0.09501 2.97 0.003 Meeting minutes read 0.01691 0.07858 0.22 0.830 ANNEX 133 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Meeting minutes orally informed 0.04610 0.11961 0.39 0.700 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.00843 0.06688 0.13 0.900 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.19397 0.08502 2.28 0.023 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.08945 0.12151 0.74 0.462 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.29374 0.09190 3.20 0.001 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.10962 0.13304 0.82 0.410 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.22402 0.10490 2.14 0.033 Linkages with line department (MP) 0.37631 0.30182 1.25 0.212 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.02402 0.09332 0.26 0.797 Caste: backward caste 0.18928 0.08963 2.11 0.035 Caste: forward caste 0.22771 0.14760 1.54 0.123 Caste: minority 0.17687 0.20743 0.85 0.394 Poverty ranking: poor 0.16911 0.08329 2.03 0.042 Poverty ranking: middle 0.19213 0.09672 1.99 0.047 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.18923 0.15293 1.24 0.216 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.00136 0.10299 0.01 0.989 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.05920 0.10177 0.58 0.561 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.06151 0.10557 0.58 0.560 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.00040 0.11910 0.00 0.997 Landholding: 10 acres 0.02294 0.17846 0.13 0.898 Woman-headed household 0.02218 0.07980 0.28 0.781 Distance to market 0.24353 0.06164 3.95 0.000 Irrigated land 0.29345 0.05180 5.66 0.000 Number of households 0.04253 0.05731 0.74 0.458 Project village 0.15795 0.12806 1.23 0.217 Madhya Pradesh 0.43026 0.17537 2.45 0.014 CBO-GI 0.24627 0.09109 2.70 0.007 (Table continues on the following pages.) 134 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value CBO-NI 0.24112 0.17101 1.41 0.159 Subfunction #16 dummy 0.85216 0.06872 12.40 0.000 Subfunction #17 dummy 0.82052 0.07271 11.29 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 0.29636 0.36366 0.81 0.415 Constant: upper boundary 0.95202 0.37022 2.57 0.010 Coordination of activities (N 866) Human assets 0.12467 0.14402 0.87 0.387 Material assets 0.00540 0.12927 0.04 0.967 Financial assets 0.02274 0.13524 0.17 0.866 Households attend meetings 0.09978 0.11643 0.86 0.391 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.03213 0.13438 0.24 0.811 Members aware of objectives 0.07367 0.12423 0.59 0.553 Members aware of rules 0.29379 0.14125 2.08 0.038 Representatives aware of rules 0.25320 0.12605 2.01 0.045 Meeting minutes read 0.07559 0.12488 0.61 0.545 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.25382 0.16527 1.54 0.125 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.14893 0.08917 1.67 0.095 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.25598 0.18831 1.36 0.174 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.06924 0.13158 0.53 0.599 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.05105 0.18052 0.28 0.777 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.27148 0.14963 1.81 0.070 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.22944 0.20774 1.10 0.269 Linkages with line department (MP) 0.50039 0.58327 0.86 0.391 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.13995 0.13625 1.03 0.304 Caste: backward caste 0.17146 0.14324 1.20 0.231 Caste: forward caste 0.59539 0.23909 2.49 0.013 Caste: minority 0.77371 0.43598 1.77 0.076 ANNEX 135 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Poverty ranking: poor 0.13537 0.10915 1.24 0.215 Poverty ranking: middle 0.10317 0.12160 0.85 0.396 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.04602 0.16902 0.27 0.785 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.07650 0.16431 0.47 0.642 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.04398 0.13796 0.32 0.750 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.07664 0.13172 0.58 0.561 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.13390 0.14086 0.95 0.342 Landholding: 10 acres 0.03654 0.17919 0.20 0.838 Woman-headed household 0.24470 0.10315 2.37 0.018 Distance to market 0.09356 0.06447 1.45 0.147 Irrigated land 0.09462 0.04950 1.91 0.056 Number of households 0.10201 0.08975 1.14 0.256 Project village 0.50951 0.19124 2.66 0.008 Madhya Pradesh 0.35020 0.25656 1.37 0.172 CBO-GI 0.10771 0.14388 0.75 0.454 CBO-NI 0.21650 0.22452 0.96 0.335 Subfunction #18 dummy 0.76125 0.09812 7.76 0.000 Subfunction #19 dummy 0.88101 0.10758 8.19 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 0.17632 0.59280 0.30 0.766 Constant: upper boundary 1.33481 0.59037 2.26 0.024 Monitoring and evaluation (N 711) Human assets 0.18398 0.15424 1.19 0.233 Material assets 0.00147 0.13391 0.01 0.991 Financial assets 0.14881 0.14761 1.01 0.313 Households attend meetings 0.11657 0.15807 0.74 0.461 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.22470 0.12389 1.81 0.070 Members aware of objectives 0.05884 0.14157 0.42 0.678 Members aware of rules 0.26186 0.16746 1.56 0.118 Representatives aware of rules 0.05174 0.15221 0.34 0.734 Meeting minutes read 0.21279 0.12634 1.68 0.092 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.01481 0.17212 0.09 0.931 (Table continues on the following pages.) 136 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Meeting minutes available upon request 0.10180 0.10980 0.93 0.354 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.01876 0.13851 0.14 0.892 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.07881 0.18057 0.44 0.663 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.44597 0.15294 2.92 0.004 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.43991 0.21032 2.09 0.036 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.39240 0.18693 2.10 0.036 Linkages with line department (MP) 0.63643 0.43243 1.47 0.141 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.00456 0.15289 0.03 0.976 Caste: backward caste 0.32409 0.14005 2.31 0.021 Caste: forward caste 0.41860 0.22284 1.88 0.060 Caste: minority 0.12043 0.29574 0.41 0.684 Poverty ranking: poor 0.15408 0.13166 1.17 0.242 Poverty ranking: middle 0.23196 0.14839 1.56 0.118 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.01557 0.21681 0.07 0.943 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.03502 0.17474 0.20 0.841 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.00549 0.15276 0.04 0.971 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.15192 0.15783 0.96 0.336 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.05958 0.17571 0.34 0.735 Landholding: 10 acres 0.06611 0.26138 0.25 0.800 Woman-headed household 0.13324 0.12106 1.10 0.271 Distance to market 0.36324 0.09621 3.78 0.000 Irrigated land 0.29826 0.08164 3.65 0.000 Number of households 0.26789 0.09472 2.83 0.005 Project village 0.36881 0.20057 1.84 0.066 Madhya Pradesh 0.32539 0.26258 1.24 0.215 CBO-GI 0.12602 0.15014 0.84 0.401 CBO-NI 0.55705 0.28308 1.97 0.049 Constant: lower boundary 0.01026 0.58610 0.02 0.986 Constant: upper boundary 1.35405 0.59775 2.27 0.023 ANNEX 137 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Conflict resolution and accountability (N 1,388) Human assets 0.39574 0.10767 3.68 0.000 Material assets 0.51027 0.09837 5.19 0.000 Financial assets 0.17246 0.10178 1.69 0.090 Households attend meetings 0.19256 0.11066 1.74 0.082 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.00826 0.09816 0.08 0.933 Members aware of objectives 0.02854 0.10318 0.28 0.782 Members aware of rules 0.14608 0.11657 1.25 0.210 Representatives aware of rules 0.01860 0.10347 0.18 0.857 Meeting minutes read 0.08944 0.09240 0.97 0.333 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.07956 0.14382 0.55 0.580 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.11881 0.07927 1.50 0.134 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.09503 0.11486 0.83 0.408 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.19249 0.12545 1.53 0.125 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.41001 0.11633 3.52 0.000 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.08602 0.13681 0.63 0.530 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.08112 0.17000 0.48 0.633 Linkages with line department (MP) 0.23476 0.33817 0.69 0.488 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.33350 0.11471 2.91 0.004 Caste: backward caste 0.14981 0.10422 1.44 0.151 Caste: forward caste 0.36898 0.18522 1.99 0.046 Caste: minority 0.16983 0.30061 0.56 0.572 Poverty ranking: poor 0.05619 0.09558 0.59 0.557 Poverty ranking: middle 0.11387 0.10877 1.05 0.295 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.20747 0.18461 1.12 0.261 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.09220 0.13565 0.68 0.497 (Table continues on the following pages.) 138 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.13057 0.11005 1.19 0.235 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.26329 0.11830 2.23 0.026 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.25935 0.13646 1.90 0.057 Landholding: 10 acres 0.12442 0.17322 0.72 0.473 Woman-headed household 0.10783 0.09296 1.16 0.246 Distance to market 0.29809 0.06818 4.37 0.000 Irrigated land 0.20890 0.05038 4.15 0.000 Number of households 0.12223 0.07151 1.71 0.087 Project village 0.35718 0.13836 2.58 0.010 Madhya Pradesh 0.12310 0.19104 0.64 0.519 CBO-GI 0.05870 0.10761 0.55 0.585 CBO-NI 0.02275 0.19293 0.12 0.906 Subfunction #22 dummy 1.65272 0.08896 18.58 0.000 Subfunction #23 dummy 2.23559 0.10171 21.98 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 1.21141 0.46771 2.59 0.010 Constant: upper boundary 0.03747 0.46268 0.08 0.935 Information sharing and dissemination (N 496) Human assets 0.15379 0.18153 0.85 0.397 Material assets 0.08766 0.14502 0.60 0.546 Financial assets 0.17651 0.14500 1.22 0.223 Households attend meetings 0.19267 0.15914 1.21 0.226 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.02181 0.14520 0.15 0.881 Members aware of objectives 0.17769 0.16300 1.09 0.276 Members aware of rules 0.74751 0.17371 4.30 0.000 Representatives aware of rules 0.46811 0.15874 2.95 0.003 Meeting minutes read 0.15367 0.13316 1.15 0.248 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.59989 0.21449 2.80 0.005 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.33363 0.11454 2.91 0.004 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.12233 0.15345 0.80 0.425 Linkages with gram panchayats (MP) 0.39226 0.20454 1.92 0.055 ANNEX 139 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.08685 0.15822 0.55 0.583 Linkages with other local organizations (MP) 0.19711 0.23701 0.83 0.406 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.48861 0.19314 2.53 0.011 Linkages with line department (MP) 0.03021 0.86836 0.03 0.972 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.14404 0.16289 0.88 0.377 Caste: backward caste 0.16468 0.15322 1.07 0.282 Caste: forward caste 0.25230 0.22289 1.13 0.258 Caste: minority 0.52560 0.27999 1.88 0.060 Poverty ranking: poor 0.13163 0.13534 0.97 0.331 Poverty ranking: middle 0.09037 0.17638 0.51 0.608 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.29008 0.23800 1.22 0.223 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.10477 0.17972 0.58 0.560 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.08880 0.16935 0.52 0.600 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.26571 0.17140 1.55 0.121 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.05386 0.20520 0.26 0.793 Landholding: 10 acres 0.33265 0.27645 1.20 0.229 Woman-headed household 0.30752 0.13848 2.22 0.026 Distance to market 0.42853 0.10939 3.92 0.000 Irrigated land 0.01177 0.08714 0.14 0.893 Number of households 0.14032 0.10165 1.38 0.167 Project village 0.06654 0.19381 0.34 0.731 Madhya Pradesh 0.65148 0.32427 2.01 0.045 CBO-GI 0.21412 0.16332 1.31 0.190 CBO-NI 0.06368 0.29760 0.21 0.831 Constant: lower boundary 0.15089 0.71405 0.21 0.833 Constant: upper boundary 1.32229 0.71330 1.85 0.064 Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Financing (N 173) Human assets 0.08892 0.26895 0.33 0.741 Material assets 0.64721 0.31386 2.06 0.039 Financial assets 0.90177 0.30376 2.97 0.003 (Table continues on the following pages.) 140 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Households attend meetings 0.04596 0.28359 0.16 0.871 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.61098 0.30044 2.03 0.042 Members aware of objectives 1.12871 0.30088 3.75 0.000 Members aware of rules 0.21349 0.33213 0.64 0.520 Representatives aware of rules 0.39605 0.33671 1.18 0.240 Meeting minutes read 0.15259 0.25973 0.59 0.557 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.16317 0.27563 0.59 0.554 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.20514 0.24603 0.83 0.404 Linkages with gram panchayats 0.19407 0.56768 0.34 0.732 Linkages with other local organizations 0.15246 0.33989 0.45 0.654 Linkages with line department 1.81792 0.86825 2.09 0.036 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.41225 0.45004 0.92 0.360 Caste: backward caste 0.53707 0.36996 1.45 0.147 Caste: forward caste 0.26401 0.26209 1.01 0.314 Caste: minority 0.58496 0.31735 1.84 0.065 Poverty ranking: poor 0.32322 0.29954 1.08 0.281 Poverty ranking: middle 0.43849 0.29348 1.49 0.135 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.18801 0.32229 0.58 0.560 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.02730 0.38138 0.07 0.943 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.32498 0.45909 0.71 0.479 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.37839 0.34711 1.09 0.276 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.15421 0.47843 0.32 0.747 Landholding: 10 acres 0.37913 0.45618 0.83 0.406 Woman-headed household 1.00958 0.31679 3.19 0.001 Distance to market 0.30389 0.17649 1.72 0.085 Irrigated land 0.66375 0.18442 3.60 0.000 Number of households 0.01065 0.20777 0.05 0.959 Uttaranchal 1.50918 1.14269 1.32 0.187 Line department 1.33769 0.84482 1.58 0.113 Gram panchayat 0.88048 0.45990 1.91 0.056 Local organization has no officials 2.41034 0.94248 2.56 0.011 ANNEX 141 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Constant: lower boundary 3.77168 2.09534 1.80 0.072 Constant: upper boundary 1.02155 2.09625 0.49 0.626 Provisioning (N 1133) Human assets 0.25189 0.10790 2.33 0.020 Material assets 0.05325 0.09564 0.56 0.578 Financial assets 0.22870 0.09938 2.30 0.021 Households attend meetings 0.28037 0.11239 2.49 0.013 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.19022 0.10569 1.80 0.072 Members aware of objectives 0.35343 0.11016 3.21 0.001 Members aware of rules 0.73136 0.15055 4.86 0.000 Representatives aware of rules 0.42307 0.10823 3.91 0.000 Meeting minutes read 0.36633 0.11706 3.13 0.002 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.12424 0.10553 1.18 0.239 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.01471 0.09087 0.16 0.871 Linkages with gram panchayats 0.37550 0.16136 2.33 0.020 Linkages with other local organizations 0.08376 0.13572 0.62 0.537 Linkages with line department 0.12774 0.16803 0.76 0.447 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.49879 0.20970 2.38 0.017 Caste: backward caste 0.03047 0.15176 0.20 0.841 Caste: forward caste 0.10415 0.13519 0.77 0.441 Caste: minority 0.12403 0.18781 0.66 0.509 Poverty ranking: poor 0.16882 0.11308 1.49 0.135 Poverty ranking: middle 0.08222 0.12994 0.63 0.527 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.03543 0.13538 0.26 0.794 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.05529 0.14692 0.38 0.707 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.05834 0.16002 0.36 0.715 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.11728 0.13700 0.86 0.392 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.19927 0.18326 1.09 0.277 (Table continues on the following pages.) 142 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Landholding: 10 acres 0.08933 0.18048 0.49 0.621 Woman-headed household 0.09232 0.09797 0.94 0.346 Distance to market 0.09259 0.05240 1.77 0.077 Irrigated land 0.02518 0.05142 0.49 0.624 Number of households 0.28605 0.08961 3.19 0.001 Uttaranchal 1.03822 0.32518 3.19 0.001 Line department 0.19144 0.31087 0.62 0.538 Gram panchayat 0.35903 0.16817 2.13 0.033 Local organization has no officials 0.05029 0.38719 0.13 0.897 Subfunction #6 dummy 0.50816 0.12244 4.15 0.000 Subfunction #9 dummy 0.20139 0.25577 0.79 0.431 Subfunction #10 dummy 0.70182 0.12477 5.62 0.000 Subfunction #11 dummy 0.23584 0.08044 2.93 0.003 Constant: lower boundary 1.47125 0.71053 2.07 0.038 Constant: upper boundary 3.27916 0.71629 4.58 0.000 Community-based action (N 452) Human assets 0.19417 0.16662 1.17 0.244 Material assets 0.29824 0.15087 1.98 0.048 Financial assets 0.13852 0.18593 0.75 0.456 Households attend meetings 0.31832 0.14535 2.19 0.029 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.42373 0.17545 2.42 0.016 Members aware of objectives 0.48242 0.18899 2.55 0.011 Members aware of rules 0.36935 0.26183 1.41 0.158 Representatives aware of rules 0.54645 0.19425 2.81 0.005 Meeting minutes read 0.16912 0.17639 0.96 0.338 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.06653 0.16269 0.41 0.683 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.18366 0.12747 1.44 0.150 Linkages with gram panchayats 1.59073 0.57363 2.77 0.006 Linkages with other local organizations 0.61422 0.20059 3.06 0.002 ANNEX 143 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with line department 1.84671 0.37180 4.97 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 1.21483 0.31734 3.83 0.000 Caste: backward caste 0.53201 0.21472 2.48 0.013 Caste: forward caste 0.37445 0.19717 1.90 0.058 Caste: minority 0.78731 0.29846 2.64 0.008 Poverty ranking: poor 0.08312 0.15800 0.53 0.599 Poverty ranking: middle 0.09939 0.17634 0.56 0.573 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.01358 0.21106 0.06 0.949 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.04410 0.19643 0.22 0.822 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.27752 0.24365 1.14 0.255 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.05196 0.19065 0.27 0.785 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.15605 0.26326 0.59 0.553 Landholding: 10 acres 0.00215 0.25817 0.01 0.993 Woman-headed household 0.04059 0.16854 0.24 0.810 Distance to market 0.24241 0.08847 2.74 0.006 Irrigated land 0.03835 0.08279 0.46 0.643 Number of households 0.51175 0.14433 3.55 0.000 Uttaranchal 0.43424 0.52780 0.82 0.411 Line department 0.22279 0.43224 0.52 0.606 Gram panchayat 0.62973 0.20217 3.11 0.002 Local organization has no officials 0.44576 0.55326 0.81 0.420 Subfunction #13 dummy 0.12791 0.13368 0.96 0.339 Constant: lower boundary 1.30447 1.32183 0.99 0.324 Constant: upper boundary 0.76652 1.31851 0.58 0.561 Capacity building (N 1,050) Human assets 0.26245 0.11414 2.30 0.021 Material assets 0.16488 0.11282 1.46 0.144 Financial assets 0.17837 0.10010 1.78 0.075 Households attend meetings 0.04905 0.10080 0.49 0.627 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.43366 0.10192 4.25 0.000 Members aware of objectives 0.28445 0.10585 2.69 0.007 Members aware of rules 0.93579 0.13138 7.12 0.000 (Table continues on the following pages.) 144 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Representatives aware of rules 0.40887 0.10218 4.00 0.000 Meeting minutes read 0.13223 0.11131 1.19 0.235 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.03036 0.11234 0.27 0.787 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.04339 0.09118 0.48 0.634 Linkages with gram panchayats 0.45054 0.14658 3.07 0.002 Linkages with other local organizations 0.02651 0.12666 0.21 0.834 Linkages with line department 0.29235 0.16958 1.72 0.085 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.22058 0.22907 0.96 0.336 Caste: backward caste 0.26097 0.15602 1.67 0.094 Caste: forward caste 0.08342 0.13958 0.60 0.550 Caste: minority 0.12335 0.16152 0.76 0.445 Poverty ranking: poor 0.23052 0.11644 1.98 0.048 Poverty ranking: middle 0.03336 0.12027 0.28 0.781 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.25163 0.13300 1.89 0.058 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.21521 0.15645 1.38 0.169 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.14619 0.15149 0.97 0.335 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.11187 0.15668 0.71 0.475 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.06218 0.19287 0.32 0.747 Landholding: 10 acres 0.35213 0.17573 2.00 0.045 Woman-headed household 0.10966 0.10219 1.07 0.283 Distance to market 0.14716 0.04932 2.98 0.003 Irrigated land 0.01426 0.05119 0.28 0.781 Number of households 0.36957 0.09389 3.94 0.000 Uttaranchal 1.98440 0.34931 5.68 0.000 Line department 0.90821 0.51816 1.75 0.080 Gram panchayat 0.47559 0.14379 3.31 0.001 Local organization has no officials 0.56229 0.55891 1.01 0.314 Subfunction #16 dummy 0.17954 0.15765 1.14 0.255 Subfunction #17 dummy 0.79662 0.16521 4.82 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 3.21451 0.75309 4.27 0.000 Constant: upper boundary 4.99620 0.75538 6.61 0.000 ANNEX 145 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Coordination of activities (N 515) Human assets 0.41843 0.17815 2.35 0.019 Material assets 0.13122 0.20493 0.64 0.522 Financial assets 0.38164 0.18610 2.05 0.040 Households attend meetings 0.44661 0.17376 2.57 0.010 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.48596 0.17716 2.74 0.006 Members aware of objectives 0.09760 0.19890 0.49 0.624 Members aware of rules 0.88536 0.24647 3.59 0.000 Representatives aware of rules 0.00438 0.22208 0.02 0.984 Meeting minutes read 0.74793 0.20174 3.71 0.000 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.21060 0.19694 1.07 0.285 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.17753 0.16196 1.10 0.273 Linkages with gram panchayats 0.41853 0.28325 1.48 0.140 Linkages with other local organizations 0.49664 0.19483 2.55 0.011 Linkages with line department 0.36005 0.34497 1.04 0.297 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.06541 0.31286 0.21 0.834 Caste: backward caste 0.52317 0.24945 2.10 0.036 Caste: forward caste 0.48028 0.21124 2.27 0.023 Caste: minority 0.44855 0.28315 1.58 0.113 Poverty ranking: poor 0.14003 0.18174 0.77 0.441 Poverty ranking: middle 0.14962 0.18401 0.81 0.416 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.23417 0.22221 1.05 0.292 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.13616 0.23591 0.58 0.564 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.00356 0.26000 0.01 0.989 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.28542 0.23042 1.24 0.215 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.72807 0.31376 2.32 0.020 Landholding: 10 acres 0.16704 0.29080 0.57 0.566 Woman-headed household 0.35928 0.16603 2.16 0.030 Distance to market 0.15654 0.08686 1.80 0.072 Irrigated land 0.07157 0.09646 0.74 0.458 (Table continues on the following pages.) 146 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Number of households 0.29554 0.13331 2.22 0.027 Uttaranchal 1.58352 0.71679 2.21 0.027 Line department 0.83484 0.45892 1.82 0.069 Gram panchayat 0.06285 0.22217 0.28 0.777 Local organization has no officials 0.60881 0.69206 0.88 0.379 Subfunction #18 dummy 0.52366 0.16902 3.10 0.002 Subfunction #19 dummy 0.32594 0.14206 2.29 0.022 Constant: lower boundary 1.59135 1.33428 1.19 0.233 Constant: upper boundary 3.97705 1.34400 2.96 0.003 Monitoring and evaluation (N 365) Human assets 0.33897 0.21355 1.59 0.112 Material assets 0.51083 0.20575 2.48 0.013 Financial assets 0.03842 0.18998 0.20 0.840 Households attend meetings 0.19505 0.14929 1.31 0.191 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.27207 0.17293 1.57 0.116 Members aware of objectives 0.61769 0.21404 2.89 0.004 Members aware of rules 0.74046 0.23118 3.20 0.001 Representatives aware of rules 0.73002 0.19374 3.77 0.000 Meeting minutes read 0.14450 0.17597 0.82 0.412 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.33634 0.21254 1.58 0.114 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.16103 0.15651 1.03 0.304 Linkages with gram panchayats 0.40752 0.24341 1.67 0.094 Linkages with other local organizations 1.32391 0.24800 5.34 0.000 Linkages with line department 0.33432 0.19799 1.69 0.091 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.63698 0.36098 1.76 0.078 Caste: backward caste 0.31732 0.30477 1.04 0.298 Caste: forward caste 0.28352 0.23794 1.19 0.233 Caste: minority 0.71317 0.42719 1.67 0.095 Poverty ranking: poor 0.45340 0.17967 2.52 0.012 ANNEX 147 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Poverty ranking: middle 0.34202 0.18323 1.87 0.062 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.20531 0.18968 1.08 0.279 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.08287 0.26691 0.31 0.756 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.28828 0.27430 1.05 0.293 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.20561 0.28794 0.71 0.475 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.42284 0.36278 1.17 0.244 Landholding: 10 acres 0.37605 0.31997 1.18 0.240 Woman-headed household 0.14388 0.16106 0.89 0.372 Distance to market 0.38911 0.09635 4.04 0.000 Irrigated land 0.09442 0.10665 0.89 0.376 Number of households 0.32307 0.18840 1.71 0.086 Uttaranchal 2.53760 0.60501 4.19 0.000 Line department 0.20892 0.38946 0.54 0.592 Gram panchayat 0.56940 0.35317 1.61 0.107 Local organization has no officials 0.60570 0.56824 1.07 0.286 Constant: lower boundary 2.80631 1.30278 2.15 0.031 Constant: upper boundary 5.04195 1.32400 3.81 0.000 Conflict resolution and accountability (N 683) Human assets 0.17923 0.14008 1.28 0.201 Material assets 0.23026 0.12239 1.88 0.060 Financial assets 0.00156 0.13464 0.01 0.991 Households attend meetings 0.22377 0.11697 1.91 0.056 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.00790 0.12218 0.06 0.948 Members aware of objectives 0.13457 0.12626 1.07 0.287 Members aware of rules 0.71588 0.20468 3.50 0.000 Representatives aware of rules 0.73794 0.15564 4.74 0.000 Meeting minutes read 0.49131 0.13451 3.65 0.000 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.18172 0.14994 1.21 0.226 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.04139 0.11578 0.36 0.721 (Table continues on the following pages.) 148 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with gram panchayats 0.88378 0.20014 4.42 0.000 Linkages with other local organizations 0.13291 0.16775 0.79 0.428 Linkages with line department 1.29634 0.17177 7.55 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.35106 0.28693 1.22 0.221 Caste: backward caste 0.10349 0.21524 0.48 0.631 Caste: forward caste 0.26072 0.18843 1.38 0.166 Caste: minority 0.40473 0.28351 1.43 0.153 Poverty ranking: poor 0.18809 0.14035 1.34 0.180 Poverty ranking: middle 0.08362 0.13958 0.60 0.549 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.13406 0.14364 0.93 0.351 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.35944 0.20393 1.76 0.078 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.13743 0.20894 0.66 0.511 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.39424 0.21435 1.84 0.066 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.08839 0.27744 0.32 0.750 Landholding: 10 acres 0.37619 0.22626 1.66 0.096 Woman-headed household 0.21363 0.14366 1.49 0.137 Distance to market 0.16526 0.06741 2.45 0.014 Irrigated land 0.20326 0.07977 2.55 0.011 Number of households 0.80854 0.11923 6.78 0.000 Uttaranchal 3.45003 0.42782 8.06 0.000 Line department 0.61951 0.30138 2.06 0.040 Gram panchayat 0.05628 0.27250 0.21 0.836 Local organization has no officials 1.02717 0.45534 2.26 0.024 Subfunction #22 dummy 0.38800 0.12940 3.00 0.003 Subfunction #23 dummy 0.39624 0.11581 3.42 0.001 Constant: lower boundary 5.80682 0.97690 5.94 0.000 Constant: upper boundary 7.83676 0.99698 7.86 0.000 Information sharing and dissemination (N 425) Human assets 0.03243 0.15843 0.20 0.838 Material assets 0.01628 0.15242 0.11 0.915 Financial assets 0.08380 0.15373 0.55 0.586 Households attend meetings 0.30914 0.15756 1.96 0.050 ANNEX 149 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Always conducts self-monitoring 0.02093 0.16423 0.13 0.899 Members aware of objectives 0.46808 0.15333 3.05 0.002 Members aware of rules 0.09141 0.16284 0.56 0.575 Representatives aware of rules 0.69749 0.18417 3.79 0.000 Meeting minutes read 0.09666 0.16969 0.57 0.569 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.29078 0.16444 1.77 0.077 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.17282 0.14017 1.23 0.218 Linkages with gram panchayats 0.29218 0.33212 0.88 0.379 Linkages with other local organizations 0.09713 0.21454 0.45 0.651 Linkages with line department 1.56005 0.28138 5.54 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.71083 0.28409 2.50 0.012 Caste: backward caste 0.61085 0.22881 2.67 0.008 Caste: forward caste 0.39453 0.20500 1.92 0.054 Caste: minority 0.85459 0.25693 3.33 0.001 Poverty ranking: poor 0.15876 0.16477 0.96 0.335 Poverty ranking: middle 0.42129 0.18086 2.33 0.020 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.02519 0.19097 0.13 0.895 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.65467 0.22371 2.93 0.003 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.77088 0.23054 3.34 0.001 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.41041 0.20826 1.97 0.049 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.40833 0.28582 1.43 0.153 Landholding: 10 acres 0.72298 0.26794 2.70 0.007 Woman-headed household 0.19802 0.18180 1.09 0.276 Distance to market 0.26886 0.08877 3.03 0.002 Irrigated land 0.00427 0.07710 0.06 0.956 Number of households 0.47885 0.13369 3.58 0.000 Uttaranchal 2.88938 0.49059 5.89 0.000 Line department 0.87455 0.48230 1.81 0.070 Gram panchayat 0.40843 0.26020 1.57 0.116 (Table continues on the following pages.) 150 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Local organization has no officials 0.81481 0.55233 1.48 0.140 Constant: lower boundary 5.32127 1.02914 5.17 0.000 Constant: upper boundary 7.26739 1.05474 6.89 0.000 Watershed Development Financing (N 546) Human assets 0.82434 0.20266 4.07 0.000 Material assets 1.05439 0.18264 5.77 0.000 Financial assets 1.58275 0.19705 8.03 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.12120 0.13827 0.88 0.381 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.48179 0.22604 2.13 0.033 Members aware of objectives 0.05041 0.23395 0.22 0.829 Members aware of rules 0.25584 0.24581 1.04 0.298 Representatives aware of rules 0.04561 0.15427 0.30 0.767 Meeting minutes read 0.09125 0.14235 0.64 0.522 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.30864 0.22919 1.35 0.178 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.17283 0.18274 0.95 0.344 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.56202 0.34251 1.64 0.101 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 0.08126 0.27973 0.29 0.771 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.23098 0.23806 0.97 0.332 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 1.44468 0.28047 5.15 0.000 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.68020 0.32299 2.11 0.035 Linkages with line department (UA) 1.20192 0.28976 4.15 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.13393 0.27766 0.48 0.630 Caste: backward caste 0.50466 0.25901 1.95 0.051 Caste: forward caste 0.41512 0.23519 1.77 0.078 ANNEX 151 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Caste: minority 1.19373 0.45235 2.64 0.008 Poverty ranking: poor 0.17767 0.17106 1.04 0.299 Poverty ranking: middle 0.11770 0.16485 0.71 0.475 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.22645 0.17379 1.30 0.193 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.11082 0.28394 0.39 0.696 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.16901 0.27078 0.62 0.533 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.07790 0.23644 0.33 0.742 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.00491 0.23833 0.02 0.984 Landholding: 10 acres 0.35118 0.24636 1.43 0.154 Woman-headed household 0.02929 0.16771 0.17 0.861 Distance to market 0.76191 0.10874 7.01 0.000 Irrigated land 0.12037 0.03215 3.74 0.000 Number of households 0.24105 0.12515 1.93 0.054 Uttaranchal 2.12735 0.54726 3.89 0.000 CBO-GI 1.17614 0.22305 5.27 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 4.16455 0.86781 4.80 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 6.02350 0.88250 6.83 0.000 Staffing (N 160) Human assets 2.92485 1.16392 2.51 0.012 Material assets 2.68677 1.49358 1.80 0.072 Financial assets 4.24796 1.06833 3.98 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.69856 0.25528 2.74 0.006 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.12200 0.53882 0.23 0.821 Members aware of objectives 1.72179 0.69598 2.47 0.013 Members aware of rules 6.88911 2.29640 3.00 0.003 Representatives aware of rules 0.51615 0.53351 0.97 0.333 Meeting minutes read 0.16893 0.32757 0.52 0.606 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.59588 0.52640 1.13 0.258 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.09522 0.31670 0.30 0.764 (Table continues on the following pages.) 152 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.77647 0.61123 1.27 0.204 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 4.07745 1.63872 2.49 0.013 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.67060 0.48820 1.37 0.170 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 3.18872 1.34780 2.37 0.018 Linkages with line department (KA) 2.29971 0.82372 2.79 0.005 Linkages with line department (UA) 3.67219 1.08179 3.39 0.001 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.76044 0.56070 1.36 0.175 Caste: backward caste 0.48248 0.53183 0.91 0.364 Caste: forward caste 0.58826 0.39534 1.49 0.137 Caste: minority 1.00464 0.88110 1.14 0.254 Poverty ranking: poor 0.51325 0.39764 1.29 0.197 Poverty ranking: middle 0.23066 0.34144 0.68 0.499 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.45651 0.35558 1.28 0.199 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.03712 0.42511 0.09 0.930 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.03155 0.54608 0.06 0.954 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.18048 0.49798 0.36 0.717 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.42857 0.45760 0.94 0.349 Landholding: 10 acres 0.85708 0.52663 1.63 0.104 Woman-headed household 0.45597 0.35897 1.27 0.204 Distance to market 0.13407 0.46915 0.29 0.775 Irrigated land 0.08326 0.11768 0.71 0.479 Number of households 1.73951 0.34362 5.06 0.000 Uttaranchal 0.43264 1.84323 0.23 0.814 CBO-GI 1.90054 0.68826 2.76 0.006 Constant: lower boundary 1.68512 2.87793 0.59 0.558 Constant: upper boundary 1.58726 2.91263 0.54 0.586 Provisioning (N 1,201) Human assets 0.03972 0.13017 0.31 0.760 Material assets 0.63250 0.11321 5.59 0.000 ANNEX 153 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Financial assets 0.63112 0.09528 6.62 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.00820 0.08329 0.10 0.922 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.39630 0.11290 3.51 0.000 Members aware of objectives 0.13904 0.13834 1.01 0.315 Members aware of rules 0.02117 0.13010 0.16 0.871 Representatives aware of rules 0.17093 0.08241 2.07 0.038 Meeting minutes read 0.06344 0.09556 0.66 0.507 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.49163 0.13806 3.56 0.000 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.04071 0.09592 0.42 0.671 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.86315 0.26241 3.29 0.001 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 0.35536 0.15382 2.31 0.021 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.54159 0.16295 3.32 0.001 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 0.05561 0.13954 0.40 0.690 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.30808 0.19856 1.55 0.121 Linkages with line department (UA) 0.38505 0.11847 3.25 0.001 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.27478 0.17086 1.61 0.108 Caste: backward caste 0.11230 0.18240 0.62 0.538 Caste: forward caste 0.45652 0.13507 3.38 0.001 Caste: minority 0.78544 0.22493 3.49 0.000 Poverty ranking: poor 0.05805 0.09569 0.61 0.544 Poverty ranking: middle 0.12459 0.09557 1.30 0.192 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.00982 0.10505 0.09 0.926 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.06568 0.17301 0.38 0.704 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.16969 0.17291 0.98 0.326 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.03746 0.15961 0.23 0.814 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.08952 0.16391 0.55 0.585 (Table continues on the following pages.) 154 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Landholding: 10 acres 0.14840 0.16565 0.90 0.370 Woman-headed household 0.17696 0.10165 1.74 0.082 Distance to market 0.13151 0.06411 2.05 0.040 Irrigated land 0.02250 0.01874 1.20 0.230 Number of households 0.33477 0.07212 4.64 0.000 Uttaranchal 0.70655 0.39203 1.80 0.072 CBO-GI 0.50191 0.13245 3.79 0.000 Subfunction #6 dummy 0.93887 0.15476 6.07 0.000 Subfunction #9 dummy 0.18503 0.16640 1.11 0.266 Subfunction #10 dummy 0.84642 0.23468 3.61 0.000 Subfunction #11 dummy 0.21578 0.07646 2.82 0.005 Constant: lower boundary 0.93711 0.58603 1.60 0.110 Constant: upper boundary 2.44804 0.58384 4.19 0.000 Community-based action (N 454) Human assets 1.66554 0.54231 3.07 0.002 Material assets 2.54296 0.72756 3.50 0.000 Financial assets 0.16144 0.18157 0.89 0.374 Households attend meetings 0.24829 0.17975 1.38 0.167 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.76400 0.25969 2.94 0.003 Members aware of objectives 2.26426 0.45215 5.01 0.000 Members aware of rules 1.15665 0.34874 3.32 0.001 Representatives aware of rules 0.57310 0.31779 1.80 0.071 Meeting minutes read 0.19736 0.21210 0.93 0.352 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.59401 0.33116 1.79 0.073 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.57753 0.26093 2.21 0.027 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 0.12212 0.42865 0.28 0.776 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.50584 1.34378 0.38 0.707 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 0.82368 0.30480 2.70 0.007 ANNEX 155 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with line department (KA) 0.40516 1.35849 0.30 0.766 Linkages with line department (UA) 2.14151 0.26123 8.20 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.82016 0.58268 1.41 0.159 Caste: backward caste 1.09109 0.51664 2.11 0.035 Caste: forward caste 0.34600 0.22819 1.52 0.129 Caste: minority 0.74816 0.56120 1.33 0.182 Poverty ranking: poor 0.10322 0.18756 0.55 0.582 Poverty ranking: middle 0.19787 0.19596 1.01 0.313 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.22454 0.21331 1.05 0.293 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.40581 0.28458 1.43 0.154 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.33078 0.29934 1.11 0.269 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.19979 0.28325 0.71 0.481 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.14283 0.29895 0.48 0.633 Landholding: 10 acres 0.45075 0.35042 1.29 0.198 Woman-headed household 0.18433 0.19194 0.96 0.337 Distance to market 0.94787 0.19763 4.80 0.000 Irrigated land 0.12440 0.06825 1.82 0.068 Number of households 0.71799 0.20961 3.43 0.001 Uttaranchal 3.00853 0.96176 3.13 0.002 CBO-GI 0.70331 0.64715 1.09 0.277 Subfunction #13 dummy 0.13311 0.12134 1.10 0.273 Constant: lower boundary 0.63426 1.45923 0.43 0.664 Constant: upper boundary 3.64759 1.48091 2.46 0.014 Capacity building (N 1,931) Human assets 0.38662 0.11250 3.44 0.001 Material assets 0.38922 0.11739 3.32 0.001 Financial assets 1.06805 0.11648 9.17 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.00889 0.09018 0.10 0.921 Always conducts self-monitoring 1.17129 0.12208 9.59 0.000 Members aware of objectives 0.12157 0.15136 0.80 0.422 Members aware of rules 0.05643 0.14672 0.38 0.701 (Table continues on the following pages.) 156 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Representatives aware of rules 0.05484 0.09819 0.56 0.576 Meeting minutes read 0.07819 0.10081 0.78 0.438 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.57955 0.14813 3.91 0.000 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.39131 0.10752 3.64 0.000 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.65592 0.18504 3.54 0.000 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 0.42284 0.16381 2.58 0.010 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.03272 0.13382 0.24 0.807 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 1.02875 0.16188 6.35 0.000 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.76564 0.19229 3.98 0.000 Linkages with line department (UA) 0.81548 0.15851 5.14 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.14985 0.16201 0.92 0.355 Caste: backward caste 0.05238 0.15250 0.34 0.731 Caste: forward caste 0.05231 0.12487 0.42 0.675 Caste: minority 0.93250 0.22395 4.16 0.000 Poverty ranking: poor 0.06208 0.11714 0.53 0.596 Poverty ranking: middle 0.17730 0.10935 1.62 0.105 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.22466 0.12627 1.78 0.075 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.11321 0.19773 0.57 0.567 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.25649 0.20203 1.27 0.204 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.20292 0.18197 1.12 0.265 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.32349 0.18585 1.74 0.082 Landholding: 10 acres 0.14972 0.18330 0.82 0.414 Woman-headed household 0.02118 0.11407 0.19 0.853 Distance to market 0.42901 0.06553 6.55 0.000 Irrigated land 0.05984 0.01954 3.06 0.002 Number of households 0.33797 0.08936 3.78 0.000 Uttaranchal 0.68233 0.35919 1.90 0.057 ANNEX 157 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value CBO-GI 0.25313 0.15656 1.62 0.106 Subfunction #16 dummy 0.82788 0.06596 12.55 0.000 Subfunction #17 dummy 0.91922 0.06987 13.16 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 3.34596 0.63108 5.30 0.000 Constant: upper boundary 4.98047 0.64502 7.72 0.000 Coordination of activities (N 664) Human assets 0.82017 0.20403 4.02 0.000 Material assets 0.46512 0.15866 2.93 0.003 Financial assets 0.93694 0.13878 6.75 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.09684 0.12583 0.77 0.442 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.09030 0.17535 0.51 0.607 Members aware of objectives 0.37593 0.18889 1.99 0.047 Members aware of rules 0.58917 0.20012 2.94 0.003 Representatives aware of rules 0.40045 0.12869 3.11 0.002 Meeting minutes read 0.03531 0.11782 0.30 0.764 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.34898 0.16227 2.15 0.032 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.29681 0.15724 1.89 0.059 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.71972 0.36395 1.98 0.048 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 0.68863 0.22522 3.06 0.002 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.53825 0.23247 2.32 0.021 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 0.48510 0.20004 2.43 0.015 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.21995 0.31256 0.70 0.482 Linkages with line department (UA) 0.67193 0.16104 4.17 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.44029 0.23967 1.84 0.066 Caste: backward caste 0.63681 0.25311 2.52 0.012 Caste: forward caste 0.45843 0.16676 2.75 0.006 (Table continues on the following pages.) 158 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Caste: minority 1.41285 0.31084 4.55 0.000 Poverty ranking: poor 0.11069 0.15097 0.73 0.463 Poverty ranking: middle 0.21551 0.13049 1.65 0.099 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.22621 0.15177 1.49 0.136 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.25724 0.24003 1.07 0.284 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.00802 0.27244 0.03 0.977 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.30086 0.25487 1.18 0.238 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.03677 0.25134 0.15 0.884 Landholding: 10 acres 0.02027 0.25405 0.08 0.936 Woman-headed household 0.02908 0.14022 0.21 0.836 Distance to market 0.63892 0.08853 7.22 0.000 Irrigated land 0.12381 0.03199 3.87 0.000 Number of households 0.15447 0.13658 1.13 0.258 Uttaranchal 2.17152 0.49538 4.38 0.000 CBO-GI 1.07657 0.20235 5.32 0.000 Subfunction #18 dummy 0.67245 0.14348 4.69 0.000 Subfunction #19 dummy 0.07906 0.12174 0.65 0.516 Constant: lower boundary 3.22976 0.90582 3.57 0.000 Constant: upper boundary 5.02269 0.91275 5.50 0.000 Monitoring and evaluation (N 741) Human assets 0.67824 0.15207 4.46 0.000 Material assets 0.38161 0.15222 2.51 0.012 Financial assets 1.20563 0.15707 7.68 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.11008 0.11623 0.95 0.344 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.52986 0.17285 3.07 0.002 Members aware of objectives 0.05749 0.17311 0.33 0.740 Members aware of rules 0.37631 0.20761 1.81 0.070 Representatives aware of rules 0.14069 0.11277 1.25 0.212 Meeting minutes read 0.22833 0.13249 1.72 0.085 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.35059 0.20434 1.72 0.086 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.21638 0.12763 1.70 0.090 ANNEX 159 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.20871 0.32673 0.64 0.523 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 0.36453 0.21481 1.70 0.090 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.04136 0.20769 0.20 0.842 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 1.49668 0.23591 6.34 0.000 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.45377 0.27570 1.65 0.100 Linkages with line department (UA) 0.72565 0.19826 3.66 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.38673 0.22479 1.72 0.085 Caste: backward caste 0.12135 0.22194 0.55 0.585 Caste: forward caste 0.23607 0.16843 1.40 0.161 Caste: minority 1.10862 0.29038 3.82 0.000 Poverty ranking: poor 0.03848 0.15757 0.24 0.807 Poverty ranking: middle 0.00256 0.14697 0.02 0.986 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.11447 0.15630 0.73 0.464 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.45166 0.21853 2.07 0.039 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.27321 0.22348 1.22 0.222 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.30581 0.21907 1.40 0.163 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.27359 0.23230 1.18 0.239 Landholding: 10 acres 0.31370 0.23391 1.34 0.180 Woman-headed household 0.01026 0.14879 0.07 0.945 Distance to market 0.36319 0.08656 4.20 0.000 Irrigated land 0.03733 0.02755 1.35 0.175 Number of households 0.51033 0.13428 3.80 0.000 Uttaranchal 0.77264 0.47250 1.64 0.102 CBO-GI 0.99916 0.18374 5.44 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 2.45021 0.87846 2.79 0.005 Constant: upper boundary 4.56176 0.89222 5.11 0.000 Conflict resolution and accountability (N 1,162) Human assets 0.37585 0.11377 3.30 0.001 Material assets 0.24448 0.10980 2.23 0.026 (Table continues on the following pages.) 160 ANNEX Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Financial assets 1.26928 0.12181 10.42 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.05842 0.08456 0.69 0.490 Always conducts self-monitoring 1.14068 0.13956 8.17 0.000 Members aware of objectives 0.92391 0.15376 6.01 0.000 Members aware of rules 0.35331 0.15409 2.29 0.022 Representatives aware of rules 0.03690 0.09500 0.39 0.698 Meeting minutes read 0.09632 0.10070 0.96 0.339 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.41642 0.15002 2.78 0.006 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.08220 0.10953 0.75 0.453 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.13305 0.18677 0.71 0.476 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 0.53037 0.18383 2.89 0.004 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.21224 0.13617 1.56 0.119 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 0.47290 0.19627 2.41 0.016 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.18290 0.17546 1.04 0.297 Linkages with line department (UA) 0.65181 0.15962 4.08 0.000 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.34844 0.14093 2.47 0.013 Caste: backward caste 0.38706 0.15210 2.54 0.011 Caste: forward caste 0.42673 0.11714 3.64 0.000 Caste: minority 0.89148 0.30843 2.89 0.004 Poverty ranking: poor 0.11733 0.11255 1.04 0.297 Poverty ranking: middle 0.08025 0.11019 0.73 0.466 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.07964 0.12601 0.63 0.527 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.56606 0.19506 2.90 0.004 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.19027 0.20196 0.94 0.346 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.21331 0.18722 1.14 0.255 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.18051 0.18728 0.96 0.335 Landholding: 10 acres 0.04383 0.17887 0.25 0.806 ANNEX 161 Table A32 (continued) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Woman-headed household 0.06546 0.11746 0.56 0.577 Distance to market 0.07536 0.06453 1.17 0.243 Irrigated land 0.00863 0.01969 0.44 0.661 Number of households 0.64101 0.08821 7.27 0.000 Uttaranchal 1.38194 0.34967 3.95 0.000 CBO-GI 0.87446 0.13501 6.48 0.000 Subfunction #22 dummy 0.66770 0.12341 5.41 0.000 Subfunction #23 dummy 1.33745 0.10760 12.43 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 2.50161 0.60654 4.12 0.000 Constant: upper boundary 4.05436 0.61164 6.63 0.000 Information sharing and dissemination (N 515) Human assets 0.24885 0.20128 1.24 0.216 Material assets 0.67804 0.19625 3.45 0.001 Financial assets 1.29035 0.18408 7.01 0.000 Households attend meetings 0.34065 0.14323 2.38 0.017 Always conducts self-monitoring 0.93085 0.20894 4.46 0.000 Members aware of objectives 0.18161 0.22909 0.79 0.428 Members aware of rules 0.71368 0.24713 2.89 0.004 Representatives aware of rules 0.72671 0.15930 4.56 0.000 Meeting minutes read 0.19948 0.17777 1.12 0.262 Meeting minutes orally informed 0.24109 0.25893 0.93 0.352 Meeting minutes available upon request 0.10854 0.19423 0.56 0.576 Linkages with gram panchayats (KA) 0.92248 0.33016 2.79 0.005 Linkages with gram panchayats (UA) 1.12885 0.29252 3.86 0.000 Linkages with other local organizations (KA) 0.56761 0.25763 2.20 0.028 Linkages with other local organizations (UA) 0.16040 0.28617 0.56 0.575 Linkages with line department (KA) 0.67436 0.33051 2.04 0.041 (Table continues on the following pages.) 162 ANNEX Table A32 (concluded) Robust standard Function Variable Coefficient error z-value p-value Linkages with line department (UA) 0.28903 0.21023 1.37 0.169 Caste: scheduled tribe 0.34452 0.28955 1.19 0.234 Caste: backward caste 0.26820 0.29597 0.91 0.365 Caste: forward caste 0.21983 0.21797 1.01 0.313 Caste: minority 0.35515 0.48386 0.73 0.463 Poverty ranking: poor 0.14112 0.17840 0.79 0.429 Poverty ranking: middle 0.21068 0.17122 1.23 0.219 Poverty ranking: wealthy 0.09503 0.19592 0.49 0.628 Landholding: 0­1 acre 0.59299 0.39155 1.51 0.130 Landholding: 1­2.5 acres 0.42044 0.41462 1.01 0.311 Landholding: 2.5­5 acres 0.21206 0.40370 0.53 0.599 Landholding: 5­10 acres 0.08008 0.40529 0.20 0.843 Landholding: 10 acres 0.25278 0.40023 0.63 0.528 Woman-headed household 0.39589 0.16455 2.41 0.016 Distance to market 0.62479 0.11064 5.65 0.000 Irrigated land 0.04303 0.05978 0.72 0.472 Number of households 0.46997 0.12159 3.87 0.000 Uttaranchal 2.70109 0.59029 4.58 0.000 CBO-GI 1.11496 0.24136 4.62 0.000 Constant: lower boundary 3.45804 1.06337 3.25 0.001 Constant: upper boundary 5.37734 1.08219 4.97 0.000 Sources: Household questionnaire, local organization officials questionnaire, and GP elected functionaries questionnaire. Note: CBO-GI community-based organization (government-initiated); CBO-NI community-based organization (NGO-initiated); KA Karnataka; MP Madhya Pradesh; UA Uttaranchal. Index administrative local government See also assets; context; organizations, 1, 3, 6b linkages; processes continuing importance of, 77 community-based organizations linkages with, 52­53, 53t (CBOs), 1, 3, 6b mandated functions, 10­11 linkages, 51 age of organization, 69, 81, 126t mandated functions, 10, 78 agricultural productivity and conceptual framework of study, watershed development, 1, 2, 2, 5­8 67, 122­125t constitutional amendments anganawadi workers, 39b, prioritizing decentralization, 42b, 61b 1, 4 assets, 3, 7f, 8, 27­34 context, 3, 7f, 8, 59­64 financial assets, 3, 30, 31t, 82 caste/religious group, 59, human assets, 27­30, 28t, 33b, 82 60t, 61b material assets, 27­30, 29t, 82 external environment (village quality of organizational characteristics), 60­63, 62t, 84 performance as related internal environment to adequacy of, (household characteristics), 30­33, 32t 59­60, 60t, 61b, 84, 112­114t summary of findings, 82, 127t poverty ranking, 59, 84, 112t availability and transparency of summary of findings regarding, information, 38­42, 39b, 63­64, 84, 127t 40­41t, 42b awareness of rules, 35­38, 36­37t, decentralization. See local 81­82 organizations and decentralization benefits decision-making equity/fairness in delivery of, equity/fairness in, 65­66 66­68, 67t, 68t, 79­80, 122­125t involvement in, 81, 111t, sustainability of, 68­69, 69t 115­119t procedures, 42­43, 43b, 44­46t caste/religious group, 59, 60t, 61b Department for International causal factors in organizational Development (DFID)-aided performance, 3, 7f, 8, 127t. projects, 8, 9, 63, 64, 84 163 164 INDEX design issues, 85­86 quality of organizational perfor- drinking water and sanitation mance of, 21­25, 22­24t, 79, projects used in study, 1, 2, 105­110t 121­122t relative functions of different local organizations, 2­3 effectiveness of local organiza- subsidiarity, 14­17, 15t, 79 tions, 1, 2­3, 7f summary of findings regarding, assets, adequacy of, 30­33, 32t 78­79 context, 59­64 transference, 14­17, 16t linkages, 56­59, 57­58t, 63 type of organization and, 10­11, processes and, 43­50, 48­49t 17­21, 98­110t elected local government organiza- typology of, 1­2, 4­7, 92­93t tions, 1, 3, 6b, 20b variety in frequency of difficulties in working with, 20b performance of, 78­79 linkages with, 51­52, 52t mandated vs. actual functions, geographic distribution of study 11, 17­21, 18­19t, 22t, 99­101t organizations, 2 elites' participation in decision- government organizations making procedures, 42, 43b administrative (See administra- equity/fairness, 1, 7f, 65­68 tive local government benefits delivery, 66­68, 67t, 68t, organizations) 79­80, 122­125t elected (See elected local in decision-making, 65­66, government organizations) 115­119t gram panchayats (GPs). summary of findings, 75, See elected local government 79­80, 120t organizations evaluation of local organizations. See quality of organizational household characteristics, context, performance and organizational external environment, context, and performance, 59­60, 60t, 61b, organizational performance, 84, 112­114t 60­63, 62t, 84 human assets, 27­30, 28t, 33b, 82 fairness. See equity/fairness India financial assets, 3, 30, 31t, 82 applicability of study findings to financial sustainability, 70­74, countries other than, 3 71­72t, 82 constitutional amendments functions, 10­26 prioritizing decentralization, actual functions, 11­21, 98­104t 1, 4 elected local government geographic distribution of study organizations, 11, 17­21, organizations throughout, 2 18­19t, 22t, 99­101t information availability and mandated functions, 10­11, transparency, 38­42, 39b, 12­13t, 78­79 40­41t, 42b INDEX 165 internal environment, context, and meetings organizational performance, gender, attendance, and organi- 59­60, 60t, 61b, 84, 112­114t zational performance, 114t internal/external environment, Jal Sansthan, 21 context, and attendance at, 60, 84 landholdings, effect of, 59, 68, 113t, minutes, reading of, 38, 40t 123­124t sustainability of organization length of time organization has and attendance at, 69, 70t, 81 been established, 69, 81, 126t word of mouth, information line departments (LDs). spread via, 38, 41t See administrative local methodology of study, 1­2, 8 government organizations functions and subfunctions, linkages, 3, 7f, 8, 51­59 typology of, 1­2, 4­7, 92­93t importance of, 54b sectors and projects used, quality of organizational perfor- 1, 2, 94t mance and, 56­59, 57­58t, 63 typology of local organizations sectors, linkages within, used in study, 1, 5, 6b, 91t 54­56, 55t village-level instruments summary of findings regarding, used, 95t 54b, 63, 83, 127t minutes, reading of, 38, 40t with administrative local government organizations, nongovernmental organizations 52­53, 53t (NGOs) with elected local government CBOs initiated by organizations, 51­52, 52t (See community-based local organizations and decentrali- organizations) zation, 1­5 low level of local involvement age of organization, 69, 81, 126t of, 78 conceptual framework of study private organizations, 1, 3, 6b of, 2, 5­8 project organizations, 1, 3, 6b, constitutional amendments 10­11, 78 prioritizing, 1, 4 number of organizations used in design issues, 85­86 study, 2, 96t methodology of study of, 1­2, 8 number of organizations used in panchayat raj. See elected local study, 2, 96t government organizations typology of organizations, 1, 5, performance of local organiza- 6b, 91t tions, assessing. See quality of organizational performance management of organization, poverty ranking 70, 71t benefits, equity/fairness in mandated functions, 10­11, 12­13t delivery of, 67­68, 67t, 68t, material assets, 27­30, 29t, 82 122­123t 166 INDEX poverty ranking (continued) relative functions of different local context and organizational organizations, 2­3 performance, 59, 84, 112t religious group/caste, 59, 60t, 61b participation in decision-making rules, awareness of, 35­38, 36­37t, and, 116t 81­82 soil erosion, agricultural produc- rural drinking water and sanita- tivity, and watershed develop- tion projects used in study, 1, ment, 67­68, 67t, 68t, 122­123t 2, 121­122t private organizations, 1, 3, 6b rural women's development processes, 3, 7f, 8, 35­50 projects used in study, 1, 2 awareness of rules, 35­38, 36­37t, 81­82 sanitation and drinking water decision-making, 42­43, 43b, projects used in study, 44­46t 1, 2, 121­122t defined, 35 sectors quality of organizational drinking water and sanitation performance and, 43­50, 48­49t projects, 1, 2, 121­122t sector involvement, significance equity/fairness in delivery of of, 47­50 benefits, 80 summary of findings, 82­83, 127t functions, performance of, 79 transparency and information linkages within, 54­56, 55t availability, 38­42, 39b, study program sectors and 40­41t, 42b projects, 1, 2, 94t types of local organization, watershed development effect of, 47­50 projects, 1, 2, 67, 122­125t project organizations, 1, 3, 6b, women's development projects 10­11, 78 used in study, 1, 2 self-help groups (SHGs), 47, 59, 67, quality of organizational 78­80, 105­106t performance soil erosion and watershed causal factors, 3, 7f, 8, 127t development, 1, 2, 67, (See also assets; context; 122­125t linkages; processes) subsidiarity, 14­17, 15t, 79 effectiveness as factor sustainability, 1, 7f, 68­76 (See effectiveness of local benefits, 68­69, 69t organizations) financial, 70­74, 71­72t equity/fairness as factor length of time organization has (See equity/fairness) been established, 69, 81, 126t functions, mandated and actual, managerial, 70, 71t 21­25, 22­24t, 79 organizational, 69­74, 70t, 80­82 measuring, 7­8 summary factors and figures, sustainability as factor 75t, 80­82 (See sustainability) Swajal, 21 INDEX 167 taluk panchayats (TPs). See watershed development projects elected local government used in study, 1, 2, 67, organizations 122­125t transference, 14­17, 16t women transparency and information gender, attendance, and availability, 38­42, 39b, organizational performance, 40­41t, 42b 114t typology of local organizations rural women's development and used in study, 1, 5, 6b, 91t empowerment projects used in study, 1, 2 village characteristics, context, and SHGs (self-help groups), 47, 59, organizational performance, 67, 78­80, 105­106t 60­63, 62t, 84 word of mouth, meeting informa- village-level elected governments. tion spread via, 38, 41t See elected local government World Bank-aided projects, 8, 9, organizations 63, 64, 84 village-level instruments used in study, 95t zilla panchayats (ZPs). See village-level organizations, reasons elected local government for increase in number of, 78 organizations Local organizations have become key mechanisms in effective, fair, and sustainable resource management in India. Two debates dominate discourse on the roles of local organizations in decentralized development: first, on how to ensure they function effectively, fairly, and sustainably; and second, on the relative roles of different organizations--including elected local governments, administrative line departments, and non-government organizations. This book adds empirical evidence to these debates and suggests that in practice they can- not be separated. Based on research in three sectors in three states in India, the authors' findings indicate that the design of and support for local organizations are often little more than rudimentary, resulting in less than adequate performance and raising serious sustain- ability concerns. The study further indicates that sector-specific configurations of a plural organizational landscape, in which government, non-government, and private organiza- tions are an integral part, are required for effective and sustainable development. Local Organizations in Decentralized Development: Their Functions and Performance in India will be an invaluable resource for those concerned with the implementation and analysis of development initiatives seeking to further decentralized governance. "This is an important study...relying on rich new data and rigorously collected informa- tion. It asks the right questions and analyzes the data in meticulous detail." -- Dr. Dana Weist, Lead Public Sector Specialist, Poverty Reduction Group, World Bank "A very good report, using a unique high quality database and sophisticated statistical tech- niques." -- Professor François Vaillancourt, Economics Department, Université de Montréal "...one of the most comprehensive and balanced studies of the performance of local orga- nizations in the context of decentralization programs..." -- Dr. Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC "I found the material unbelievably enlightening... This report should be required reading for task managers in South Asia." -- Grant Milne, Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist, World Bank ISBN 0-8213-6312-3