Download
poorest areas civil society pacs programme four years of small grants n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
POOREST AREAS CIVIL SOCIETY (PACS) PROGRAMME - Four Years of “Small” Grants PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
POOREST AREAS CIVIL SOCIETY (PACS) PROGRAMME - Four Years of “Small” Grants

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

151 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. POOREST AREAS CIVIL SOCIETY (PACS) PROGRAMME- Four Years of “Small” Grants Funding from DFID Management by Development Alternatives and PriceWaterhouse Coopers August, 2005

  2. Operations in 6 States UTTAR PRADESH(20/70) BIHAR(35/38) JHARKHAND(19/22) MADHYA PRADESH(20/45) CHHATTISGARH(4/16) Legend MAHARASHTRA(11/35) State Boundary District Boundary Note : - Map not to Scale (108/225) PACS Districts / Total Districts

  3. PACS Projects Status- as on January 2005 24 31 21 15 126 UTTAR PRADESH BIHAR 24 JHARKHAND MADHYA PRADESH 9 2 Cumulative CHHATTISGARH OTHERS MAHARASHTRA • Note: • 33 projects approved (awaitingDEA’s approval) Note : - Map not to Scale

  4. % Distribution of Funds across StatesCumulative till July 2005 Total Commitment Rs. 118 Crores

  5. Achievement Against Targets – Project GrantCumulative till July 2005 Amount in Rs. Lakhs *17 proposals valuing Rs. 1421 lakhs are subject to approval of 14 PSC

  6. SOS - PACS Scale of Operation

  7. Programme Reach – Running Projects • Highest number of network projects in Jharkhand (81%) • Highest number of CSOs involved in PACS in Maharashtra (100) • Highest number of projects in UP (31)

  8. Programme Reach - Geographical Number of Villages

  9. Programme Reach: CBOs • Jharkhand has almost 44% of all PACS CBOs (16,817) • Women SHGs are main vehicle of project delivery • CBOs have total of 237,774 members

  10. Effective model for attack on poverty Balanced approach to development support Outsourced model of support to CSOs (state based resource organizations) Intensive, supported interventions in clusters Thematic Geographic Communication and advocacy initiatives Learning system (MEAL) for a large program PACS – Some Breakthroughs

  11. Disbursed: Rs 103 cr Overhead Costs: 8% Entitlements realized: Rs 1,000+ cr (Est.) SHG Funds Saved: Rs 30+ cr Other Funds Mobilised: Rs 100+ cr Project locations: Poorest and Remotest villages; in MP avg. road is 5+ Km PACS: Cost-effectiveness

  12. Quotes from UK Government’s Annual Reviews of PACS “A Giant Step Forward for the Marginalised and the Very Poor” “A rigorous and principled governance structure founded upon peer respect and recognition” “PACS financial systems are strong and are based upon uncompromising integrity” “Monitoring of finances is systematic and regular and subject to numerous checks and balances” “MEAL also effectively completes the transfer of power to meso levels in the project”

  13. Goal To empower the poor to exercise their entitlements Strategy By strengthening civil society’s capacity Outputs Successful interventions Governance, Livelihoods, Women’s Empowerment Self-help to meet basic needs, etc Effective partnerships of civil society Lessons learnt and disseminated PACS Mandate

  14. Budget £ 25 Million (Rs 200 Crores) over 7 years Region 100 Poorest Districts – in UP, Bihar, MP, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh Activities Fundable Capacity Building: Training, Institutional Dev’t Participatory, Knowledge Sharing, Advocacy But NO Service Delivery PACS – Basic Givens

  15. DFID: Nil (Reps in NAB and PSC) NAB: Overalll Policy PSC: Project Selection DA: Day-to-day Operations PwC: Financial Accountability PACS – Decision Structure

  16. National Advisory Board Policy advice & guidance Programme Oversight DFID India / UK Project Selection & Progress Review Project Selection Committee Communication Advise & Guidance CAP Impact Assessment Consultants External Monitoring & Assessment DA-PWC PACS Programme Management Team DA PwC (Technical) (Financial) PACS Management & administration Overseen the MEAL Implementation MEAL Core Group DA Support Systems Outreach and Information dissemination, Capacity building Category (A) Category (C) Category (D) Category (B) Programme implementation PACS – Programme Structure and Functions

  17. Development Alternatives: 8 Professionals PriceWaterhouse & Coopers: 6 Professionals Partners in Each of 6 States: 6 Resource Org’s (Each State has about 16 development consultants to provide CSOs with Project Development, Supportive Supervision, MEAL and Communication) PACS – Management Structure

  18. Provides for Grant-making Process Basic Design of Entire System Data Systems for Managing Projects GIS Support for Tracking and Reporting Provides to PACS Management: Infrastructure and Intellectual Supports SubstantiveProject Appraisal Services Concept and Design of MEAL System Development Alternatives

  19. Provides to Projects in the Field Technical Support Livelihood Options Network Connections for Governance Projects Inclusion-oriented Projects Training and Capacity Building Development Alternatives

  20. PACS – State Level Structure and Functions Management Consultants State Anchor (MC) State Core Group Programme Support Team (PST) • Strategic direction • Capacity building • Regional/ state level initiatives • Plan, monitor • Research, innovation • State level liaison • Advocacy and networking CSO • MEAL Implementation l • Analysis and synthesis • Feedback and communication • Co-ordination at State level

  21. Programme reach and coverage Effectiveness of programme strategies Innovations in programme systems Programme innovations and best practices Achievement of stated objectives Programme impact and cost effectiveness New ideas for developmentpraxis Achievements shown by…

  22. 21 vibrant State based resource organizations strengthened to: Provide effective support system for CSOs Be constructively flexible in its own work Identify core developmental issues in the State and align PACS objectives with them Conduct rigorous monitoring & evaluation Spearhead advocacy efforts at State Level Model for Outsourcing Management

  23. Uniqueness and Strength of PACS Strategies

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

  25. Integrated Cross-cutting, multi-faceted, result-oriented Flexible Responsive to community needs No constraint by pre-conceived budget lines Encourages innovation and risk-taking Process-oriented Wide range of methodologies Self-monitoring PACS Supports Unorthodox Projects

  26. Integrity and Accountability Substantive and Financial Accountability built integrally into systems Transparency Encourage sharing of successes and failures Actively permits mid-course redesign of projects based on experiences and learning Respect Putting the last first Incorporate local knowledge and perceptions Participative programme and project design PACS - A Value based Programme

  27. An integrated methodolgy: An integral part of every intervention At all levels: Process, Program, Project and Activity A systemic method to improve: Reflection and learning within and externally Generation and management of decision information Adapted for PACS from DA Group’s systems MEAL – The Cutting-Edge Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning System

  28. Donor flexibility and acceptance of innovative grantmaking process 1st year allowed for planning and system design Long-term commitment (no FY lapsing of funds) Large Provision for Capacity Building of Partners Rigorous but User Friendly Procedures Clear and Detailed Documentation Competent Project Selection Committees Key Success FactorsProgramme Design

  29. Concept Papers – Mobilisation and Appraisal 05

  30. Highly Responsive Grant-making Processes Focused Project Mobilisation Strategy Decentralised Project Management Systems Highly Transparent Processes Programme Management Highly Accessible Rigorous Monitoring and Accountability Low Overhead Costs, High Level Support Key Success FactorsProgramme Delivery