[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]

Report

Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation

Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme

Disaster Management Department Government of

Sector 3 Social Infrastructure and Welfare

Part 3 Education Department

May 2012

(Formerly Centre for Taxation Studies) Government of Kerala Thiruvananthapuram 695018 Kerala www.gift.kerala.gov.in

Education Department BME-TRP

Evaluation Team

Dr. C.S. Venkiteswaran Associate Professor, GIFT

Dr. N. Ramalingam Associate Professor, GIFT

P Rajesh Kumar Social Development Specialist (Consultant)

2

Education Department BME-TRP

Contents

Preface 4

Acknowledgments 5

Abbreviations 6

Evaluation at a Glance 7

Chapter 1 Introduction 8

Chapter 2 Education Department : Evaluation of Schemes 21

3

Education Department BME-TRP

Preface

sunami was one of the worst and most devastating of tragedies to str ike the Indian coast in recent times. Governments and several agencies immediately rose to the occasion to take up Tthe task of rehabilitation and resettlement of people affected by the disaster. Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) that was implemented b y the Disaster Management Department of Government of Kerala is one of the largest and the most comprehensive of such interventions in terms of its size, scope and reach. Funded by the Planning Commission, Government of India, an amount of Rs.1148 Crores were spent for various livelihood, infrastructure, rehabilitation and resettlement programmes. It was implemented through 16 Departments and several government agencies and Self Help Groups, spread across the coastal region of the state. The Programme was l aunched in 2007 and is nearing completion.

The Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation (BME) of TRP was entrusted to Gulati Institute of Finance & Taxation (GIFT). To conduct the study, an Evaluation Team was formed consisting of two faculty members from GIFT, D r C S Venkiteswaran and Dr N Ramalingam, and a Social Development Specialist, P Rajesh Kumar as consultant.

This Report was prepared as part of BME -TRP, and relates to the Project implemented by Education Department under this programme. During the study, we received overwhelming support from the officials of TRP Section and Cell, State and district level offices of Education Department and the representatives and officials of Local Self Governments.

We are happy to submit this draft report to the Disaster Management Department, Government of Kerala.

Thiruvananthapuram Dr. D. Narayana 30 May 2012 Director, GIFT

4

Education Department BME-TRP

Acknowledgments

The Evaluation Team of Gulati Institute of Finance & Taxation gratefully acknowledges the help and support extended by the following individuals and institutions:

• Dr Nivedita P Haran, IAS, Former Project Director, Tsun ami Rehabilitation Programme & Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala. • Smt. K.B. Valasalakumari, Project Director TRP & Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. • Sri. Suman Billa IAS, Former Director, GIFT & Commissioner, Comme rcial Taxes, Government of Kerala • Dr. D Narayana, Director, GIFT • Staff of TRP Section and Cell, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram • Sri. A Shajahan, Director of Public Instructions, Kerala • Smt. Hameeda Beevi, Deputy Director Education (QIP), Directorate of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram • Sri. Anil UD clerk, Directorate of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram • Sri. Sahji V.S UDC, Office of the Deputy Director Education, • Sri. Shaji Mathew LDC, Office of the Deputy Dir ector Education, Kollam • Sri. Joseph Alex , LDC, Office of the Deputy Director Education, Malappuram • Sri Sreevasudeva Bhattathiri (Cover Layout & Design) • Academic & Non-academic Staff of GIFT

Thiruvananthapuram Dr. C. S. Venkiteswaran & Dr. N. Ramalingam 30 May 2012 Associate Professors, GIFT

5

Education Department BME-TRP

Abbreviations

ADB : Asian Development Bank AE : Assistant Engineer BME : Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation CBO : Community Based Organisation DDE : Deputy Director Education DGD&D : Director General of Supplies and Disposals DLMC : District Level Monitoring Committee DPI : Directorate of Public Instructions FGD : Focus Group Discussion GHS : Government High School GP : Grama Panchayat KSEB : Kerala State Electricity Board LP : Lower Primary LSGD : Local Self Government Department LSGs : Local Self Governments MLA : Member of Legislative Assembly NGO : Non-Governmental Organisation PCC : Plain Cement Concrete PIU : Project Implementation Unit PMU : Project Management Unit PRA : Participatory Rural Appraisal PTA : Parent-Teacher Association QIP : Quality Improvement Programme RCC : Reinfo rced Cement Concrete SHG : Self Help Group SLEC : State Level Empowered Committee SLSC : State Level Steering Committee SNDP : Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam SoR : Schedule of Rates TEAP : Tsunami Emergency Assistance Project. TRP : Tsun ami Rehabilitation Programme

6

Education Department BME-TRP

Evaluation at a Glance

Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme Education Department

Areas of Performance Score (Maximum Score -20 for each )

1 Project Concept and Planning 10

2 Project Monitoring and Achievem ent of Core Objectives 10

3 Co-ordination within and between Departments/Agencies 7

4 Beneficiary Satisfaction, Participation and Community Mobilization 10

5 Innovations and Sustainability 10

Total Score 47

Grade Average *Poor = 20 and Below; Below Average = 21 -40; Average = 41-60; Good = 61-80; Excellent = 81 and Above

7

Education Department BME-TRP

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Disaster

sunami that hit the costal arc of Kerala on 26 December 2004 inflic ted colossal damages to the infrastructure, ports, harbors, fishing jetties, electricity transmission systems, fishing vessels and Tother assets along the coast, and above all, the lives, human settlements and livelihood of the coastal community.

Table No 1.1 An Overview of Damages Caused by Tsunami in Kerala

Component Initial Revised after Assessment In-depth assessment

Coastal length prone to sea erosion (Km) 250 590 Penetration of water into the main land (Km) 1-2 5 Average height of tidal waves (Mts) 3-5 5-10 No of Villages affected 187 226 Population affected (In Lakhs) 4.25 10 Human lives lost (Nos) 171 238 Persons moved to safer places (Nos) 24978 24978 Dwelling places destroyed 2919 2919 Live stock lost (Exc. Poultry) 883 883 Cropped are a affected (Ha) Including River Banks near the seashore 949 2151 Boats destroyed (Nos) 10882 3989 Source: Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Kerala

8

Education Department BME-TRP

The fact that the population density along the entire coastline is the highest and the people inhab iting the coasts are among the poorest, amplify the intensity of the impact of the calamity on the lives of the people. It has borne the maximum brunt of devastation in terms of loss of lives, inflicting of injuries, loss of houses and properties. Even bef ore tsunami, the fish catch from the sea was on the decline, which was further worsened by its impact upon their income levels and livelihood.

The State, NGOs, UN agencies, and the world community responded quickly with relief and rehabilitation measures. Tsunami Emergency Assistance Programme (TEAP) funded by Asian Development Bank, Prime Minister’s Natural Calamity Relief Fund (PMNRF) and Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) as additional central assistance by Planning Commission of India were the maj or projects implemented by the Government of Kerala as part of its rehabilitation and resettlement efforts.

1.2 Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme – National Approach

Looking at the extent of damage, Planning Commission had drawn up the Tsunami Rehabilit ation Programme for reconstruction of damaged physical and social infrastructure and revival of impaired livelihoods of the coastal communities. A Core Group in the Planning Commission was set up under the direction of Honb’le Prime Minister to coordinate and manage the National Tsunami Reconstruction effort (PMO UO No. 100/61/C/42/04 -ES-II). The Core Group has representation from Central Ministries/Departments, State Governments, Research Institutions and the Planning Commission. The objective of TRP is to restore the livelihood and economic activities of the affected population, accelerate poverty alleviation in the tsunami -affected areas that are vulnerable to high incidence of poverty, and rehabilitate and reconstruct public and community -based infrast ructure that are vulnerable to natural disasters.

Guiding Principles of Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme

The mandate of the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation program me for Tsunami affected areas goes beyond the immediate priorities or Tsunami reconstruc tion, and pursues broader social and economic issues that impact upon the household and community-level development and empowerment. The Programme emphasizes improving quality of life, using replacement and up -gradation of assets as means to achieve it. Th is is in consonance with the Prime Minister’s appeal of “converting the disaster into an opportunity to rebuild and modernize the fishing and coastal economy.” The program also focuses on reduction of susceptibility of the coastal communities to Tsunami li ke disasters by increasing the efficacy of prediction and response mechanisms. The overarching principles, which will govern the Programme implementation, include the following: i. Good Environment Management Practices: Attention will be paid to ensure t hat all programmes/sub programmes emanating from this Programme do not have any adverse - environmental impacts and that they conform with the Environment and Coastal Regulation .

9

Education Department BME-TRP

ii. Participatory Approach: Under the Programme Implementation Framework, peo ple and representative institutions would be involved in the decision making process during programme/sub programme design and execution. This would ensure that community priorities and aspirations are reflected in programme deliverables . iii. Egalitarian Approach: The Program would in all its initiatives apply principles of equity to ensure, that the most disadvantaged amongst the victims are not bypassed iv. Private Sector and Non Profit Sector Participation: It is proposed to encourage participation of private sector, NGOs and expert institutions in the program me so that they are an integral part of the rehabilitation planning process. This will expand the ownership and knowledge base of the programme. v. Gender Sensitivity: A disaster is often more de bilitating for women. The program me will ensure that special consideration is provided for women in special circumstances that include women headed households, widows and destitute women. The programme would ensure that women and women groups are involved in all stages of program me design and implementation so that special needs of women are incorporated vi. Concern for children: Nutrition, health and education needs are factors , which directly impact welfare of children. The program me will make provisio ns for building up the necessary infrastructure through which these services can be delivered to children affected by Tsunami . Special provisions would be made for children rendered orphan due to Tsunami vii. Need Based Approach: The program me would take into cognizance the special needs of tribal and coastal communities affected by the Tsunami. The program me designs under the program me would stay sensitive to region specific culture, climate, life style and economic vocations of the beneficiaries. The norms an d standards would be accordingly defined. viii. Transparency & Accountability: The programme will institute appropriate institutional and procedural mechanisms to ensure the transparen cy and accountability . It is every citizen’s right to know the rel ief available to him/her in the event of disasters and what has actually been distributed. Transparency in rehabilitation and reconstruction operations also ensures that distributive justice is done and reduces complaints and counter complaints. ix. Objec tives and Outcomes: Planning for each sector would carry clearly identified objectives and outcomes so that at the completion of reconstruction phase, clear achievements and deliverables can be quantified.

1. 3 Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme in Kerala

Government of India announced additional central assistance of Rs 1148 Crores for Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme (TRP) in Kerala . To accelerate the economic recovery in affected areas rehabilitation programmes wer e implemented by the Department of Disast er Management in nine coastal districts of the state through 16 line departments and agencies viz; Department of Fisheries,

10

Education Department BME-TRP

Kerala Water Authority, Public Works Department, Harbour Engineering Department, Kerala State Electricity Board, Health Department, Education Department, Social Welfare Department, Animal Husbandry Department, Dairy Development Department, Agriculture Department, Irrigation Department, Forest Department, Tourism Department, Science & Technology Departmen t, Co- operative Department. In a ddition the Coastal Housing and Resettlement Programme is directly implemented by the Revenue Department. The total allocation for Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme (Additional Central Assistance) is Rs.1148 Crores. This inc ludes a Special Package of Rs.10 0 crores being implemented through the District Collectors in four badly affected pockets: (Rs.42.50 crore), Arattupuzha (Rs.40.00 crores), Edavanakkad (Rs.12.50 crores) and Andhakaranazhy (Rs.5.00 crores).

Government of Kerala for the speedy and effective implementation of the programme created the following administrative arrangements

I. State Level Steering Committee (SLSC) II. State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) III. Project Management Unit (PMU) IV. Project Implementation Unit (PIU) V. District Level Mon itoring Committees VI. TRP Cell

I. State Level Steering Committee (SLSC)

A State Level Steering Committee was constituted with the Chief Minister as Chairman, Minister (Revenue) as Vice-Chairman, Head of Department of the Disaster Management Department as convener and with the following members. Minister for Finance, Minister for Transport, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Local Self Government, Minister for Fisheries, Minister for Water Resources, Minister for Ports, Minister for Electricity, Minist er for Agriculture, Minister for Forest, Minister for Housing, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Industries, Minister for Social Welfare, Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary/Secretary, Finance, Transport, Public Works, Local Self Government, Fisheries, W ater Resources, Ports, Electricity, STED, Agriculture, Forest, Housing, Tourism, Industries and Social Welfare.

Duties & functions of State Level Steering Committee (SLSC)

´ The SLSC would act as an advisory body to provide overall guidance for the ef fective implementation of the project and to monitor its progress from time to time. ´ The Committee will meet at least once in six months. ´ The Committee can co-opt any other Ministers or Officers of State Government or any expert in the field as member.

11

Education Department BME-TRP

II. State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC)

Government also constituted a State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) for Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme with the Chief Secretary as Chairman and Principal Secretary/Secretary of Disaster Management Depar tment as convener and with Principal Secretary/Secretary of the following departments as members:- Finance, Transport, Public Works, Local Self Government, Fisheries, Water Resources, Ports, Electricity, STED, Agriculture, Forest, Housing, Tourism, Indu stries and Social Welfare.

Duties & functions of State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC)

´ The Committee will have the powers to grant requisite approvals/sanctions for various projects/schemes submitted by the implementing agency based on the recommen dations of the Project Management Unit. ´ The Committee will also monitor and supervise the effective implementation of the project. ´ The Committee will meet at regular intervals as per need and at least once in three months to review the overall progress. ´ The Committee will have powers to co -opt any other officers of the State Government as Member.

III. Project Management Unit (PMU)

In addition a Project Management Unit constituted in the following pattern.

Project Director : Additional Chief Secr etary/Principal Secretary/ Secretary of Disaster Management Department

Members : Executive Director, Kudumbas hree, Director of Fisheries, MD, Kerala Water Authority, Member (Distribution), KSEB Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads & Bridges) Chief Engineer, Harbour Engineering Dept. Director, STED Director of Agriculture, Director of Panchayats Director of Social Welfare Chief Conservator of Forests, Secretary, State Housing Board.

Member Secretary : Head of the TRP Cell in Disaste r Management Department. & Convener

The Unit will have the powers to co-opt any other Officer of the implementing agency if consider it necessary.

12

Education Department BME-TRP

Duties & functions of Project Management Unit (PMU)

PMU is responsible for: ´ Providing day-to-day assistance and guidance to implementing agencies. ´ Review of sub projects/proposals from implementing agencies for approval for SLEC/ADB and issuance of requisite administrative sanctions. ´ Disbursement and accounting of funds aga inst review of financial reports provided by implementing agencies. ´ Consolidation and submission of Progress reports to the SLEC. ´ Quality control and transparency requirements to be followed by the implementing agencies. ´ Such other related matters for the effective implementation of the Project.

IV. Project Implementation Unit (PIU)

All the departments involved in Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme have constituted Project Implementation Units in the respective departments .

The Project Imple mentation Unit (PIUs) will be responsible for: - ´ Detailed assessment, surveys and planning of reconstruction including public consultation and input from recipient’s local entities and beneficiaries. ´ Preparing and presenting sub project proposals to the respective Executing Agencies. ´ Prioritizi ng works, preparing detailed designs, specification, schedule of quantity, contacts and related bid documents, issuing requisite technical sanction. ´ Day to day implementation, supervision and quality control of reconstruction activities, approving pay ments to contractors. ´ Maintaining progress report, records and accounts for sub projects. ´ Such other day to day matters relating to the execution of their schemes/projects.

V. District Level Monitoring Committee

District Level Monitoring Committee was formed for the effective monitoring of the project implementation and for taking the course correction actions and for avoiding bottlenecks in field level implementation in the following pattern

Chairman : President of the District Panchayat concer ned

Members : Head of District Offices of Public Works, Water Resources, Agriculture, Tourism, Social Welfare, Industries, Ports and Electricity, Presidents of Block and Grama Panchayats in the district concerned who are implementing the Tsunami Rehabili tation Programme

Member Secretary : District Collector of the districts concerned & Convener

13

Education Department BME-TRP

VI. TRP Cell

Government formed TRP Cell in the Disaster Management Department under an IAS Officer in the rank of Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary/ Deputy Secretary with an Under Secretary, one Section Officer, Two Assistants, one Stenographer, one Typist and two peons.

1.4 Terms of Reference

Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation (GIFT) was entrusted to conduct the Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation ( BME) of the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme implemented by the Disaster Management Department, Government of Kerala.

Objectives of the Evaluation

The final project evaluation is intended to provide an objective and independent assessment of the impact of project strategies and interventions. The objectives of the final evaluation are: ´ To assess the quantitative and qualitative output / outcome of the programs on the target groups vis-a-vis the stated objectives in key -result areas namely (a) poverty reduction, (b) institutional strengthening and community empowerment, (c) strengthenin g social capital, and (d) rebuilding social and physical infrastructure . ´ To map the process elements as envisaged in the project document and undertake process monitoring to supplement the evaluation results. ´ To document the best practices and the les sons learned for the benefit of on course correction and future planning and guidance. ´ To critically examine the issues related to the sustainability of the gains of the project after its withdrawal. ´ To assess the SHG activities for livelihood developm ent and the benefits derived by the State in post-tsunami operations.

Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation will cover the projects implemented under tsunami rehabilitation programme completed upto 31st July 2011. The evaluation will cover a represen tative sample of nine districts of Kerala (location specific) where the Tsunami rehabilitation programme is being implemented and the activities of 16 departments (Sector specific). Appropriate sampling design is to be worked out for the selection of the v illages and the households. The family should be taken as the basic unit of study at the micro level. For data collection, suitable interview guides and interview schedules could be used along with focus group discussions, case studies and observation tech niques. The whole exercise of evaluation is to be participatory, using PRA methods, stakeholder analysis etc.

14

Education Department BME-TRP

Furthermore, relevant data from records and reports have to be gone through. Facts and figures collected from various sources should be triangulated for ensuring their validity and reliability. The progress and achievements of the project will be tested against the following standard evaluation criteria:

Relevance:

The main focus will be on the appropriateness of the project’s concept and design to the overall situation of the project area, in particular, the: ´ Extent to which the stated objectives correctly and adequately address the problems and real needs of the target groups ´ Relevance of the project design within the framework of Government policy guidelines

Efficiency:

The main focus will be to ascertain how well the project activities achieved the intended results in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness including:

´ Whether similar or better results c ould have been achieved by other means at lower cost in the same time. ´ Whether project activities were done right i.e. on time, in expected quantity and quality. ´ General implementation and management of the project in terms of quantity, quality, and timeliness of inputs and activities, adherence to work -plans, action-plans, and budgets. ´ Extent to which internal factors (interventions, structures, culture, systems) influenced (both positively and negatively) achievement of program impact. ´ Adequacy of monitoring and evaluation, technical support given to the project by all stakeholders ´ Responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment in which the project operates; ´ Co-operation among project partners and other key stakeholders in achieving project results.

Effectiveness:

The main focus will be on the extent to wh ich the project achieved its stated results and purpose in a sustainable way, including:

´ The progress made in achieving the results of the project at all levels ´ Efforts made in capacity building of the local project stakeholders for the projects imple mented with community participation and whether the strategies are working or not and why. ´ Project’s management of risks taking into account the stated risks and assumptions.

15

Education Department BME-TRP

Impact:

The main focus will be on whether the project’s overall objective s have been achieved or are likely to be achieved, specific changes that the project has brought about in the lives of target groups, and impacts realized or likely to be realized, including: ´ Extent to which expected change has been achieved in the indic ators against the baseline levels. ´ Extent to which the project has impacted on the target communities in bringing about the desired changes. ´ Assess the extent to which the external factors have affected the achievement of the project impact. Sustainability:

The main focus will be on whether the impact, outcomes or changes brought about by the project are likely to continue after the end of the project and whether they can be sustained, including:

´ Extent to which the target groups and key stakehol ders own the objectives and achievement of the project. ´ Policy support/Resource support available to the project from the relevant Government departments of the State for the continuance/ operation/maintenance of the programme. ´ Assess the capacity of t he communities/Govt. departments and the key stakeholders to continue the project activities after the end of the project, including financial and technical capacities. ´ Extent to which program activities are sustainable by communities without the support from the project.

Specific Tasks

The consultant will be responsible for developing the evaluation design, methods, sample size and tools, with overall coordination from the Project Director or from the designated staff in the PMU. All of this informatio n will be presented to the Project Director/Designated staff in the PMU and concurrence will be given to the consultant before the evaluation begins. Given the objectives, the final evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods for collec ting the required information. The proposed methods include key informant interviews, focus group discussions, document reviews and surveys. The consultant will undertake the following tasks: Develop an evaluation framework and methodology in consultation with PMU. The methodology for the evaluation will include sample size selection and a mix of quantitative and qualitative tools;

´ Develop an evaluation plan in consultation with PMU; ´ Undertake extensive document review to familiarize with the project; ´ Develop a list of output/outcome ind icators for each type of scheme.

16

Education Department BME-TRP

´ Develop evaluation tools in consultation with PMU and co nduct validation and field testing of the same; ´ Undertake data collection, tabulation and analysis exercise; ´ Share draft findings prior to preparation of draft report; ´ Prepare the recommendations and guidelines for strengthening/ revival/ correction of the scheme which are found achieved the declared objectives and outcomes ´ Prepare report; ´ Revise the report based on feedback from PMU, if any;

1.5 Methodology of Evaluation

Evaluation Team

GIFT constituted an Evaluation Team to conduct the above study and the Team worked out the following methodology.

Desk review and analysis of secondary data

In order to get familiarized with the project activities, the evaluation team carried out extensive document review of sub project plans and impleme ntation modalities. Facts and figures collected from various sources like PMU, PIU and PIOs were subjected to a triangulation for ensuring their validity and consistency. After having an in -depth understanding of the project and the assignment, the Team pr epared an evaluation plan.

17

Education Department BME-TRP

Categorization

For organizing the evaluation process and convenience of sampling, and on the basis of the nature of the intervention, the projects implemented by various departments under TRP were categorized by the evaluati on team into five sectors as detailed below:

No Sector No Implementing Organisations

1 Fisheries Department

2 Animal Husbandry Department Restoration and Development of 1 livelihoods 3 Dairy Development Department

4 Agriculture Department

5 Public Works Department

6 Kerala Water Authority Infrastructure Development (Roads and 2 Bridges, Water supply & Sewerage, Ports & Jetties, 7 Kerala State Electricity Board Power and ICT and Tourism Infrastructure) 8 Harbour Engineering Department

9 Tourism Department

10 Health Department

11 Social Welfare Department 3 Social Infrastructure and Welfare 12 Education Department

13 Cooperative Department

14 Irrigation Department

15 Forest Department 4 Environment and Coastal Protection 16 Science and Technology Department

17 Kerala State Inland Navigation Corporation

Coastal Housing and Resettlement Project* 5 18 District Administrations Special Package*

*The Coastal Housing and resettlement project comes under the Environ ment and coastal protection sector and special package addresses the issues of all sectors in the four worst affected villages. However, these two projects which are implemented by the Revenue Department are taken as a separate sector for the study.

18

Education Department BME-TRP

Sectoral Allocation Details

Others Livelihood Special package 2.88% 3.62% 8.71% Infrastructure 28.48%

Coastal Housing & Resettlement 27.68% Social Infrastructure Environment & & Welfare Coastal Protection 14.08% 14.55%

Allocation – Social infrastructure and Welfare sector

Debt Relief 9%

Education 39% Education Anganwadis Health 46% Health Debt Reelif

Anganwadis 6%

Sampling Strata & Selection

For sampling purposes, a stratified random sampling method was adopted. The different strata are:

Stratum 1. Education Department Stratum 2. Two top ranking districts in terms of fund allocation were Kollam and Alappuzha Districts. (Refer Table 2.1 of Chapter 2) But in order to ensure regional representation, the northern district of Malappuram was selected in the place of Alappuzha. Stratum 3. Schools from Government and Aided Sectors Stratum 4. Selection of Schools (Basis: Random selection)

19

Education Department BME-TRP

In the case of the Education Department , the sample districts were selected on the basis of the funds allocated under TRP to each district for i mplementation of Sub Project . From the nine districts, two top ranking districts in terms of fund allocation were Kollam and Alappuzha Districts. But in order to ensure regional representation in TRP evaluation, the northern district of Malappuram was sele cted in the place of Alappuzha. All other project districts were figured in the evaluation plan for one or the other department while sampling on the above stated criteria. In this circumstance the project implemented by Education Department in Malappuram District was purposively included as the project outlay of education department figured top ranking in the district among the 18 departments that implemented TRP .

Methods Adopted & Evaluation Tools

The projects for development of educational infrastr ucture implemented by the Education Department in the coastline of the state under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme is evaluated using four methods viz; i) Focus Group Discussions (FGD) ii) Structured Field Observation iii) Informal Interviews with Stakeh olders and iv) Case studies. As evaluation tools, customized checklists and interview schedules were prepared.

Grading of Schemes Based on primary and secondary data, structured observations and focus group discussions with all the stakeholders like the representatives of PMU, PIU, Departments, Agencies, NGOs and CBOs the Team identified a set of five performance areas are listed below:

Five areas of Performance 1. Project Concept and Planning 2. Project Monitoring and Achievement of Core Ob jectives 3. Co-ordination within and between Departments/Agencies 4. Beneficiary Satisfaction, Participation and Community Mobilization 5. Innovations and Sustainability

The Grading was done in the following manner The Scheme was evaluated on the basis of each area of performance with a maximum score of 20 marks each. On the basis of the aggregate score received, the scheme was graded on a five point scale ranging from Poor to Excellent as shown below. The Maximum Score is 100 (20 marks x 5) .

Grade Score Poor 20 and Below Below Average Between 21 – 40 Average Between 41 – 60 Good Between 61 – 80 Excellent Above 80

20

Education Department BME-TRP

CHAPTER II

Education Department : Evaluation of Schemes

2.1. The Scheme

Development of physical infrastru cture in the schools of the coastal belt in the state was given due importance under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. Accordingly, t he project aimed at improving the infrastructure facilities in government as well as aided schools. The project implemente d by the Education Department was sanctioned in two phases. In the first phase an amount of ` 6410 Lakhs was sanctioned during January 2008 , for the development of general infrastructure in selected schools. Original allocation for the department was ` 415 0 Lakhs and was revised later. Revised administrative sanction for this project was issued on 14 February 2008. Later, in February 2011 , an additional project was sanctioned for the construction of toilet blocks in schools .

Project activities a. Deve lopment of General Infrastructure Construction of class rooms, administrative blocks, compound walls, playground s, toilets, urinals, water supply arrangements etc were carried out under the civil construction component of the project. Procurement of furn iture, computers, books, equipments and supplies for science laboratories etc were also undertaken in the project in selected schools. 719 schools in the coastal areas across the nine districts of the state were covered in under this project . This includes 381 Government schools and 330 aided schools. b. Construction of Toilet Blocks Under Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme , a separate project was planned in February 2011 for constructing toilets blocks in government as well as aided schools in the coastal a reas of the state. An amount of ` 50,000 per toilet block was estimated as cost . Though government sanctioned an

21

Education Department BME-TRP

additional allocation of ` 1250 Lakhs for this project, the Department was able to identify only 1734 units for an outlay of ` 867 Lakhs. The selection process for identifying the beneficiary institution s was completed by February and the administrative sanction was issued on 21 February 2011 The project implementation was targeted to be completed by 15 th of March 2011. Later , due to the inabili ty of the beneficiary institutions and local bodies to commence and complete the work in such a short time span, the project plan was once again revised to limit the number of units to 1295. Consequently, the project outlay further limited to ` 647.50 Lakh s. In May 2011, the schools which failed to commence construction of the toilet blocks were removed from the list.

Table No2.1 Project Outlay -Development of Infrastructure in Schools Project No of AS Amount % of No Name of District Expenditure Schools (` in Lakhs) Utilisation (``` in Lakhs) 1 Thiruvananthapuram 69 450 390.96 86.88 2 Kollam 197 1666.6 1427.18 85.63 3 Alappuzha 129 1290.2 1140.05 88.36 4 Ernakulam 47 450 361.76 80.39 5 Thrissur 73 823.61 663.64 80.58 6 Malappuram 88 439.43 403 .63 91.85 7 Kozhikode 44 450 390.58 86.80 8 Kannur 20 390.73 378.98 96.99 9 Kasaragod 52 450 434.86 96.64 Total 719 6410.57 5591.64 87.23 (Source: PIU, Directorate of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram)

Implementation arrangements

Dir ectorate of Public Instruction (DPI) was in charge of project implementation and the Project Implementation Unit functioned deploying the existing staff at DPI. The identification of target schools in the coastal areas was done by Director of Public Instru ctions through the Deputy Directors of Education Department at the district level . The selection of schools at the local level was done in consultation with the respective local bodies. Engineering wing of the local bodies was assigned with the preparation of design, estimation of costs, supervision of work and valuation of the civil constructions. Fund from DPI was transferred to the Deputy Directors at the district level , which in turn was released to the local bodies on the basis of receipt of the stage completion/ project completion certificates. Separate bank accounts were opened at all levels to handle TRP funds.

22

Education Department BME-TRP

For procurement of equipment s, a committee was formed at the district level with the District Panchayat President, District Collector and th e Deputy Director of Education as members. To avoid procedural delays, wherever possible, the p rocurements were arranged at DGS&D rates and through government agencies.

Education Department accorded administrative sanction in February 2008 for the pro jects of the 719 schools selected as mentioned above .

Table No. 2.2 Project Outlay - Toilet Blocks

No of Toilet No of Toilet Project Out lay- % of No Name of District Units Units Revised Decrease (Original Plan) (Revised Plan) (``` in Lakhs) 1 Thiruvananthapuram 110 72 34 36.00

2 Kollam 180 0 100 0.00

3 Alappuzha 243 232 5 116.00

4 Ernakulam 179 136 24 68.00

5 Thrissur 351 289 18 144.50

6 Malappuram 210 179 15 89.50

7 Kozhikode 288 267 7 133.50

8 Kannur 66 37 44 18.50

9 Kasaragod 107 83 22 41.50

Total 1734 1295 647.50 (Source: PIU, Directorate of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram)

2.2. Observations

State level Implementation Status There was much delay in implementation of th is project. At the time of evaluation, out of the 719 schools, 700 have been completed and the works in 19 schools were held up (Refer Table No.2.2). Significantly, all these nineteen schools belong to the government sector, whereas all the aided schools have completed the project, though there were delays.

The c onstruction of 1734 toilet blocks was originally planned but it was later limited to 1295. A t the time of evaluation, it was found that only 143 units are completed (Refer table No. 2.4). An amount of ` 410 Lakhs was released to the nine district offices for project implementation. The district

23

Education Department BME-TRP

offices in turn released it to the local bodies as advance and as subsequent installments on the basis of the stage/valuation certificate submitted by the LSGs. During the field visit to Kollam and Malappuram district, it was found that the first installment of fund s received from DPI has been exhausted and the district offices need further funds for meeting the request of the institutions that have initiated the construction .

Table No. 2.3. Status of infrastructure development in schools Targeted No of No of Schools Sl. % of Completion Name of District Schools Completed No Govt. Aided Total Govt. Aided Total Govt. Aided Total

1 Thiruvananthapuram 37 32 69 37 32 69 100 100 100 2 Kollam 103 94 197 93 94 187 90 100 95 3 Alappuzha 51 78 129 47 78 125 92 100 97 4 Ernakulam 15 32 47 13 32 45 87 100 96 5 Thrissur 51 22 73 48 22 70 94 100 96 6 Malappuram 45 43 88 45 43 88 100 100 100 7 Kozhikode 16 28 44 16 28 44 100 100 100 8 Kannur 18 2 20 18 2 20 100 100 100 9 Kasaragod 52 - 52 52 - 52 100 100 Total 389 330 719 370 330 700 95 100 97 (Source: PIU, Directorate of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram)

Table No 2.4 Status of Construction of Toilet Blocks

Sl. No of Toilet Units No of Toilet Units No of Units % Name of District No (Original Plan) (Revised Plan) Completed Completed 1 Thiruvananthapuram 110 72 0 0 2 Kollam 180 - - - 3 Alappuzha 243 232 64 28 4 Ernakulam 179 136 26 19 5 Thrissur 351 289 0 0 6 Malappuram 210 179 21 12 7 Kozhikode 288 267 30 11 8 Kannur 66 37 0 0 9 Kasaragod 107 83 2 2 Total 1734 1295 143 11 (Source: PIU, Directorate of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram)

24

Education Department BME-TRP

The Sample Districts The Evaluation Team selected Kollam and Malappuram districts for in-depth evaluation of the schemes implemented by Education Department. Allocation to these two districts constitute one- third of the amount earmarked for the educational sector under TRP. The team visited the project sites a nd interacted with the district officials, PTA representatives, elected representatives of the local bodies and the school authorities.

Kollam District

An amount of ` 1666.66 Lakhs was allocated for the development of infrastructure in schools of . The allocation to the district constitutes 26 percentage of the total allocation for the education sector in the state. The Department, in consultation with the local bodies planned development activities in 197 schools (103 Govt. Schools and 94 aided schools) in the coastal area of the district. Out of these 197 institutions, ten of them are yet to complete the activities , all of which are from the government sector. So far the Department has utilized ` 1346.29 Lakhs (81%) out of ` 1666.66 Lakhs of the allocation to Kollam district.

Five schools that received assistance under TRP in the District were selected as case studies for evaluation . Institutions were selected on random basis from the list of schools, both completed and held up. Schools in government as well as aided sector were subjected for evaluation.

The list of schools visited by the Evaluation Team

1. Government Model H igh School for Boys Kollam 2. Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam High School, Neeravil Kollam 3. Government High School, West Kollam 4. Vimalahridhaya Girls H igher Secondary School Kollam 5. Government Lower Primary School, East Kollam Civil works in all the schools were carried out by the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) where as the procurement of equip ments was done at the district level in a centralized mode. As the allocated outlay for civil up-gradation works in almost all the schools were above five lakhs, the local bodies made an attempt to invite tenders for the work. But the cold response of the contractors due to the unattractive rates necessitated assigning the responsibility to the PTAs in the form of beneficiary committees.

Lack of coordination between the PTAs and the Engineering Wing of LSGs was the major issue in project implementation in the District. There was delay in getting supervisory services, and also in issuance of valuation certificate s, all of which led to delay in the release of installments. The private school managements were able to manage the issue , by executing the work by making advance payments from their own funds without waiting for the grant assistance. In contrast, the work in the government schools were affected due to delay in getting the valuation of the works done by the LSG engineers and it resulted in scarci ty of funds from the very beginning.

25

Education Department BME-TRP

Procurement was made in almost all the in schools in a similar mode, arranging the same from government institutions or procurement following DGS & D rates. The procurement was arranged at district level and the payme nt was made by the concerned schools. In all the schools the Lab equipments and supplies were procured on the basis of a standard list of items prepared at the district level. So, apart from civil works which forms a major share of the project activity , there was not much difficulty in the execution of the other project components.

The original allocation for the district was `1675.65, which was later revised to 1666.66 Lakhs. Out of the total allocation of `1675.65 Lakhs to the district under TRP, ` 107 1.25 Lakhs was earmarked for the government schools and ` 604.40 to the aided sector. Out of this allocation, government schools have utilized an amount of ` 841.76 Lakhs (79%) and the aided schools ` 504.53 Lakhs (83%).

Project Outlay - Kollam District

Aided Schools 36% Govt. Schools Govt. Schools 64% Aided Schools

Table No. 2.5 Details of proj ect implemented in Government Schools of Kollam District

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total Works Works 1 GHS, Azheekal 1600000 170000 1770000 956377 170000 1126377 2 GFHS, 3150000 120000 3270000 1400823 120000 1520823 3 GHS, 1510000 220000 1730000 1410649 220000 1630649 4 GGHS 2000000 120000 2120000 1808016 120000 1928016 5 RFTHS Karunagappally 0 120000 120000 0 120000 120000 6 SBVVHS Panmanamanayil 1500000 120000 1620000 1457009 120000 1577009 7 GHS 2660000 270000 2930000 2556805 250223 2807028 8 GVHS Karunagappally 700000 170000 870000 613875 170000 783875 9 GHSS Anchalummoodu 1230000 150000 1380000 1163197 150000 1313197

26

Education Department BME-TRP

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total Works Works 10 GHS Ashtamudi 700000 225000 925000 655901 224036 879937 11 GHSS Ashtamudi 3400000 300000 3700000 3367954 299036 3666990 12 GHSS Perungalam 2750000 150000 2900000 666123 150000 816123 13 GBHS Chavara 2070000 170000 2240000 1990032 170000 2160032 14 GHS Panayil 3200000 650000 3850000 2999450 611410 3610860 15 GHS 3330000 320000 3650000 3072938 312597 3385535 16 GHS Kottankulangara 1560000 170000 1730000 1358707 170000 1528707 17 GHS 2500000 290000 2790000 2470006 290000 2760006 18 Govt.Boys HS Kollam 1850000 290000 2140000 1637057 290000 1927057 19 Govt.HS Koickal 1250000 170000 1420000 983851 170000 1153851 20 GHS West Kollam 1250000 120000 1370000 319221 120000 439221 21 TKDMHS Uliyacovil 2900000 120000 3020000 2194777 120000 2314777 22 GHS 1000000 130000 1130000 477920 130000 607920 23 GHS 1550000 120000 1670000 1445511 120000 1565511 24 GHS Paravoor 2500000 1680000 2680000 100000 180000 280000 25 GGHS Kollam 1400000 100000 1500000 178041 100000 278041 26 GLPS Pandarathuruth 1530000 35000 1565000 1529985 35000 1564985 27 GLPS Cheriazheekkal 550000 35000 585000 547253 35000 582253 28 GHWLPS Srayikkad Dropped 0 0 0 29 G AS UPS Puthenthura 1350000 120000 1470000 1148347 120000 1268347 30 GLPS 1025000 35000 1060000 225217 35000 260217 31 GUPS Paravoor 1000000 120000 1120000 193415 279036 472451 32 GLPS Kottappuram 900000 35000 935000 839268 35000 874268 33 GLPS Kottamppally 1000000 35000 1035000 945101 35000 980101 34 GUPS 1425000 165000 1590000 1341297 240000 1581297 35 GLPS Neeravil 1090000 40000 1090000 1080218 0 1080218 36 GLPS North 75000 90000 165000 140000 115000 255000 37 GLPS Murunthaveli 265000 35000 300000 94779 167849 262628 38 GLPS 590000 200000 790000 485168 111662 596830 39 GLPS Anchalummoodu 20000 90000 110000 26435 76662 103097 40 GLPS Perinad 800000 130000 930000 994678 129036 1123714 41 GLPS 585000 0 585000 563413 0 563413

27

Education Department BME-TRP

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total Works Works 42 GLPS East 285000 0 285000 200648 0 200648 43 GLPS Kuzhiyam 50000 90000 140000 49451 92849 142300 44 GUPS Mukkoodu 250000 120000 370000 0 120000 120000 45 GLPS Mundroe Island 0 60000 60000 0 46662 46662 46 Town UPS Kollam 1400000 120000 1520000 1031418 70000 1101418 47 GLPS Mundakkal East 1000000 35000 1035000 100000 35000 135000 48 GLPS Mundakkal 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 49 GSNDPUPS 780000 120000 900000 597071 120000 717071 50 HSLPS West Kollam 1000000 35000 1035000 993528 35000 1028528 51 GLPS Kamankulangara 70000 35000 110000 100000 10000 110000 52 GUPS Anuvelil 575000 145000 720000 616866 85000 701866 53 GUPS Chittoor 1025000 120000 1145000 992809 120000 1112809 54 GMLPS Kuttivattom 25000 35000 60000 24378 35000 59378 55 GUPS 750000 120000 870000 221205 120000 341205 56 HSLPS Mangad 940000 35000 975000 241027 35000 276027 57 GLPS Mulavana 40000 35000 75000 0 55000 55000 58 GWLPS Perinad 675000 35000 710000 670687 35000 705687 59 GUPS 650000 130000 780000 648132 130000 778132 60 GWUPS Pada South 410000 85000 495000 374841 85000 459841 61 GWUPS Nambaruvikala 425000 85000 510000 367064 85000 452064 62 UPGS Karunagappally 700000 110000 810000 637256 110000 747256 63 GLPS 1000000 35000 1035000 841662 35000 876662 64 GLPGS Kolloorvila 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 65 GLPBS Kolloorvila 500000 35000 535000 424735 35000 459735 66 GLPS Varavila 1100000 35000 1135000 1048465 35000 1083465 67 KV Prayar LPS Alumpeedika 400000 35000 435000 360000 35000 395000 68 GUPS Adinadu 250000 145000 395000 395000 145000 540000 69 SKV Govt UPS Kozhikode 1650000 35000 1685000 1460829 135000 1595829 70 GLPS Alappadu 150000 35000 185000 127117 35000 162117 71 GLPS 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 72 Town LPS Karunagappally 500000 35000 535000 434428 35000 469428 73 GMLPS Karunagappally 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000

28

Education Department BME-TRP

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total Works Works 74 WLPS Kulasekharapuram 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 75 GLPS Kozhikode 400000 35000 435000 395265 35000 430265 76 GLPS Madathilkarazhma 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000

77 AVGLPS 1120000 35000 1155000 1018440 35000 1053440 78 GLPS Valiyakulangara 110000 35000 145000 119880 22500 142380 79 Memana MLPS 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 80 GLPS Kuthirapanthy 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 81 GLPS Thazhava North 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 82 Koonayil GLPS 1250000 0 1250000 1130165 0 1130165 83 Kurumandal GUPS 850000 150000 1000000 92000 149036 241036 84 GWLPS Ozhukupara 1000000 0 1000000 900885 0 900885 85 Kurumandal GLPS 1000000 0 1000000 694189 0 694189 86 Sasthamcovil GLPS 300000 200000 500000 278179 189036 467215 87 Kakkottumoola GLPS 1000000 0 1000000 855161 0 855161 88 Mukkuthode LPS 1000000 0 1000000 982141 0 982141 89 Vengara GLPS 1000000 0 1000000 983397 0 983397 90 SNTVUPS Punnakulam 1250000 0 1250000 1248034 0 1248034 91 Puthukkad GUPS 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 92 Muslim GLPS Karunagappally 0 50000 50000 0 50000 50000 93 GHS Vellamanal 750000 0 750000 750000 0 750000 94 GHS Valathungal 750000 0 750000 841662 0 841662 95 VHSS Valathungal 750000 0 750000 248804 0 248804 96 GVHSS 1000000 0 1000000 610309 0 610309 97 G H S Cheriyazheekal 3000000 0 3000000 546802 0 546802 98 G L PS Padappakara 585000 585000 582000 0 582000 99 Govt TTI Kollam 1275000 0 1275000 1115274 0 1115274 100 Govt.WLPS Vengara 585000 366437 99036 465473 101 Govt.DV LPSVadakkumthala 0 50000 50000 0 50000 50000 102 Govt.UPS Chavara South 550000 0 550000 544953 0 544953 103 Govt.MLPS Mukundapuram 550000 0 550000 550000 0 550000 104 GLPS Maruthoorkulangara 630000 150000 780000 617652 136662 754314 Grand Total 97485000 10590000 107125000 74869060 9307328 84176388

29

Education Department BME-TRP

Table No. 2.6 Details of projects implemented in Aided Schools of Kollam District

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total works works 1 St.Johns HS Eravipuram 850000 100000 950000 850000 86662 936662 2 JFKMHS 700000 400000 1100000 762171 299874 1062045 3 St. Joseph HS 900000 400000 1300000 777343 398910 1176253 4 St.Aloysious HS Kollam 1150000 0 1150000 1041423 0 1041423 5 SVHS 1000000 100000 1100000 921112 100114 1021226 6 St.Agnes HS Neendakara 300000 400000 700000 195775 398910 594685 7 Boys HS Karunagappally 1250000 400000 1650000 1405000 398910 1803910 8 Girls HS Karunagappally 1350000 0 1350000 1327241 0 1327241 9 Guhanandapuram HS Chavara 800000 225111 1025111 843884 225111 1068995 10 Kristraj HS Kollam 1300000 0 1300000 871994 0 871994 11 Vimala Hridaya HS Kollam 3400000 0 3400000 3400000 0 3400000 12 Kottappuram HS Paravur 1600000 200000 1800000 1096632 199874 1296506 13 HSS 500000 0 500000 475533 0 475533 14 SNDPYHS Neeravil 1500000 50000 1550000 1499951 50000 1549951 15 SNVGHS Paravur 600000 300000 900000 545,669 266932 812601 16 RCELPS Azheekkal 170000 25000 195000 120000 25168 145168 17 Alappaduthura LPS 1125000 25000 1150000 357000 25168 382168 18 KVKVMUPS Cheriazheekkal 1075000 95000 1170000 982152 95096 1077248 19 Puthenthuruthru Al-Syed LPS 75000 85000 160000 160000 0 160000 20 St.Johns UPS 1180000 175114 1355114 856897 175114 1032011 21 St.Leons LPS Sakthikulangara 905000 35000 940000 271788 306956 578744 22 St.Antonys UPS Vaddy 860000 130000 990000 744211 116593 860804 23 SNLPS Sakthikulangara 875000 60000 935000 458368 60158 518526 24 HFLPS Mukkad 850000 50000 900000 586372 50158 636530 25 St.Josephs LPS Valiyakada 550000 120000 670000 330502 106593 437095 26 DBLPS Thirumullavaram 585000 25000 610000 575000 25168 600168 27 Panchayath LPS Prakkulam 1355000 160000 1515000 1086927 159981 1246908 28 IJLPS 150000 495000 645000 111585 443753 555338

29 St.Legorious LPS Kovilthottam 325000 30000 355000 325000 30093 355093 30 St.Sebastians LPS Neendakara 555000 55000 610000 232698 0 232698

30

Education Department BME-TRP

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total works works 31 LVLPS Neendakara 390000 25000 415000 225217 19826 245043 Mount Carmel Covent, 800000 35168 835168 32 Thangassery 825000 35000 860000 33 St.Patrick LPS Thangassery 100000 60000 160000 87648 34839 122487 34 CVMLPS Thanny 565000 40000 605000 565000 40093 605093 35 St.Joseph UPS Clappana 50000 30000 80000 0 54986 54986 36 Kulasekharapuram UPS 820000 110000 930000 813000 110219 923219 37 Njakkanal UPS 815000 120000 935000 814510 119979 934489 38 CMLPS Njakkanal 65000 30000 95000 57569 29826 87395 39 Adinadu South Muslim LPS 550000 60000 610000 523610 59733 583343 40 CMLPS Clappana 50000 30000 80000 24510 54986 79496 41 CMSLPS Kannetty 550000 40000 590000 549200 40093 589293 42 St. Joseph LPS Karithura 275000 20000 295000 275000 19953 294953 43 St.Joseph LPS Mamukil 55000 20000 75000 74000 0 74000 44 St.Joseph LPS Aravila 305000 20000 325000 231841 19953 251794 45 SNVUPS Kozhikode 930000 40000 970000 924038 40220 964258 46 SRVUPS Changankulangara 820000 70000 890000 816855 56798 873653 47 SN UPS Maruthoorkulangara 1000000 35000 1035000 700000 34870 734870 48 LV UPS Muzhangodi 500000 25000 525000 476000 24870 500870 49 AVKMLPS, Muzhangodi 500000 35000 535000 500000 34870 534870 50 KANICHERY LPS 150000 50000 200000 185525 0 185525 51 LMSLPS 175000 50000 225000 163895 49860 213755 52 Vazhappally LPS 500000 0 500000 327875 67849 395724 53 AVLPS Kannimelcheri 700000 0 700000 661237 0 661237 54 LMSLPS Mayyanadu 750000 0 750000 546134 0 546134 55 Muncipal UPS Ayiravalli Paravur 1750000 300000 2050000 100000 300166 400166 56 LPS 100000 10000 110000 46505 10000 56505 57 St.George UPS Kadavoor 50000 200000 250000 216662 0 216662 58 Kavara LPS Perinad 170000 0 170000 119991 49906 169897 59 Holy family Tuet Kollam 0 0 0 0 60 Balikamariyam LPS Kollam 1900000 50000 1950000 1439168 49860 1489028

61 KUPS Kottukad Chavara 1100000 150000 1250000 1100000 149860 1249860

31

Education Department BME-TRP

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total works works 62 VSUPS Mundrothuruthu 550000 0 550000 550000 0 550000 63 SNVSHS (Njarackal) 300000 100000 400000 266141 36662 302803 64 Vellimon UPS 100000 50000 150000 99990 36662 136652 65 VellimonVHSS 100000 0 100000 95369 0 95369 66 LF LPS Chemmakkad 200000 100000 300000 199999 0 199999 67 LMS LPS Edavattom 200000 100000 300000 199947 49860 249807 LPS Pezhum 71606 0 71606 68 thuruthu 100000 0 100000 69 Bethel LPS Mundrothuruthu 50000 20000 70000 61130 0 61130 70 CFHS 220000 0 220000 200376 0 200376 71 NSMGHS Kottiyam 275000 0 275000 263172 0 263172 72 MM HS Uppood 200000 0 200000 173270 0 173270 73 SVPM HS 25000 0 25000 23851 0 23851 74 Craven LMS HS Kollam 1035000 0 1035000 720121 0 720121 75 Cantonment LMS LPS Kollam 35000 0 35000 29117 0 29117 76 LMS LPS Pattathanam 25000 10000 35000 18596 9984 28580 77 Sacret Heart LPS Eravipuram 875000 25000 900000 442423 24870 467293 78 ST.Joseph'sConvent LPS TUET 270000 25000 295000 249909 24870 274779 79 MohammadansLPS Jonakappuram 280000 0 280000 0 9984 9984 80 VM LPSMaruthady 160000 0 160000 0 131938 131938 81 PKPM NSSUPS Thekkevila 160000 0 160000 218101 125163 343264 82 St.Antony's LPS Thillery 275000 0 275000 218101 0 218101 83 St. Joseph's LPS Mangad 0 25000 25000 0 25015 25015 84 LF LPS 1275000 0 1275000 1000000 0 1000000 85 Njarackal LPS Perinad 75000 0 75000 71516 0 71516 86 PMNM UPS Mundakkal 1185000 250000 1435000 910251 235572 1145823 87 Perinad Inchavila UPS 200000 0 200000 138922 0 138922 88 St.George UPS Arinalloor 285000 0 285000 285000 0 285000 89 St.Antony's LPS Koivila 285000 0 285000 285000 0 285000 90 NSS LPS Vadakkumbhagom 270000 0 270000 248737 0 248737 91 SNVLPS 175000 100000 275000 175000 85959 260959 92 SS UPS Thodiyoor 250000 0 250000 250000 0 250000

32

Education Department BME-TRP

Project Allocation (```) Utilisation (```) Sl. Name Of School Civil Civil No Purchase Total Purchase Total works works 93 ThodiyoorUPS Kallelibhagom 0 35000 35000 0 35000 35000 94 St.Mary's LPS Pullichira 0 25000 25000 0 25000 25000 Total 53780000 6660225 60440225 44042863 6410618 50453481

Case 1 Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam High School, Neeravil, Kollam

This is a higher secondary school with a strength about nine hundred students. Students in the coastal area of Kollam Corporation largely depend on thi s aided school. Government sanctioned an amount of ` 15.50 Lakhs under TRP for the infrastructure development works in this school . As per the project plan ` 15 Lakhs was sanctioned for civil works and ` 0.50 Lakhs for procurement of equipments and supplies for science lab. Under the civil works component, construction of three class rooms was proposed.

Procurement of equipments and supplies was arranged at the district level and according to the teachers such an intervention in the form of a package of lab items was really useful to students. The construction of class rooms was executed by the PTA with the support of the corporate management of SNDP. The technical sanction for the work was issued by the Kollam Corporation .

The Building Constructed under TRP in SNDPHS, Kollam

33

Education Department BME-TRP

An old building was demolished for clearing the site for the new construction. The work was completed in March 2009. This institution has utilised the entire amount allocated for them under TRP and the corporation has already set tled the project accounts. The work was executed by employing a contractor. Funds required for the project implementation was advanced by the contractor and at some stages by the management, so that the scho ol did not have to wait for release of installme nts by the Kollam Corporation.

The newly constructed building is now used as an administrative block with one room occupied by the Head Master of the High School and another room by the principal of the Higher Secondary school, and the remaining one room used as a class room. The management is planning to construct another floor above the new building with their own funds.

Case 2 Government Lower Primary School, Mundakkal East

Majority of the students in this school which was established in 1961 belongs to the economically backward families. Total 101 students are studying in this school. Discussions with authorities and teachers reveal that most of the parents are not very much involved or interested in matters related to the development of the school. As a result, the PTA of the school is not very active. This institution has limited infrastructural facilities, and the building of the school does not have sufficient space to accommodate all the divisions. The class rooms are partitioned with temporary panels, and so the available space is shared to accommodate the required number of class rooms.

Obviously, ` 10.35 lakhs that was allocated for this school under TRP for the construction of three class rooms was very much necessary and timely. Technical sanction for the construction was also issued by the end of 2009 by the Kollam Corporation. As the PTA was largely dysfunctional, the head teacher was reluctant to take up the work. Her retirement being imminent in March 2010, she had apprehensions about t he completion of the work before that time. In such an event, the receipt of advance for civil work could become her personal liability which may also affect her terminal benefits like pension. Moreover she had also learned from the experience of her coun terparts in the nearby schools with the contractors, who were hesitant to take -up the work due to unattractive and unrevised rates. So she didn’t take any initiative to receive the advance amount or to initiate project implementation. Despite that, in a h igh level meeting convened at the district level, she was forced to take up the work in order to meet the acute infrastructural needs of the school and also to avoid lapse of the already allocated funds. People’s representatives present at the meeting prom ised their support for project implementation.

Thus with the assistance of the corporation councilor, a contractor was identified and he was entrusted with the execution of the work on behalf of PTA. The committee received ` 1 Lakh as mobilization advance which in turn was passed on to the contractor. The contractor completed the first stage of work - that of constructing the foundation and basement. After completion of first stage of the work the school approached the Corporation for getting the valuatio n done for the release of the second installment of funds. But the Assistant Engineer of the Corporation raised

34

Education Department BME-TRP

queries about the quality of the cement mortar used for the random rubble masonry of the basement. They were directed to demolish the basement a nd reconstruct as per specifications. The teachers of the school believe that the objection raised by the engineer regarding the cement mortar was groundless. They said that the engineer was indifferent from the beginning and never helpful at any stage. Ev entually, the contractor demolished the basement and reconstructed it as per the direction of the engineer. By this time the Assistant Engineer was transferred to another office. As the remark of the former AE was recorded in the documents, the new AE was also hesitant to take up the responsibility. Though they approached the Corporation many times, they never received any clear directions from the authorities for the completion of the work or for settlement of accounts.

Foundation for new block constru cted under TRP in abandoned condition Thus the foundation constructed for the TRP -assisted building is at present lying unattended. The Education Department or the Kollam Corporation has no definite plans about resolving this deadlock and to complete the w ork. The implementation period permitted for TRP in the state is already over, with the winding up process of the project in progress. Therefore, unless funds are allotted immediately by the local body or by the Education Department, this work is sure to r emain in the same condition. Even to initiative anything in that direction, the accounts and valuation of the current project has to be settled.

Case 3 Government High School, West Kollam Students from the fishermen community in the locality largely depend on this school. This civil work of adding a block of additional class rooms was built in the place of o ne of the old blocks in the school which became unfit for occupation and conduct of classes . Two class rooms, a science lab and a conference hall were functioning in the old block. Though this building became unusable

35

Education Department BME-TRP

there was no urgent need for building a new block. There were enough rooms available in the other blocks in case of such a need., which was improbable in the context of acute division fall every year due to the decrease in the number of students.

Still, the Department sanctioned ` 12.50 Lakhs for the construction of a new building in place of the old block. Most probably, the intention of the school authorities and PTA was to expand the in frastructure facilities of the school when a rare and hassle -free opportunity for the same came in the form of TRP funds. The Kollam Corporation prepared the design and estimate for construction of the new building with a Kitchen, Dining hall and two class rooms. There was no dire need for a kitchen in this school as the existing kitchen was in a good condition. So the school authorities requested the corporation to alter the plan with a conference hall and three class rooms. The estimate was thus revised in line with the request made by the school authorities.

At the planning stage, it was decided to tender the work, as procedural requirements of the local bodies prescribed that the implementation of works above ` 5 Lakhs was not to be entrusted to the beneficiary committees. It took a long time for the preparation of estimates, issuance of technical sanction and the consequent revision of the estimates due to escalation in the cost of construction materials. Corporation authorities thought of various opti ons and eventually decided to entrust the work to the PTA committee. So the estimate was modified by removing the portion of contractor profit and the work was entrusted to PTA Committee. The Head Teacher of the school, who was one of the signatories of t he committee, was doubtful of executing that work at the rates prescribed as it was considered unattractive by the contractors during the first attempt by the Corporation to entrust it to them. Still, the corporation councilor along with the district autho rities of Education Department insisted that the Committee should go ahead with the work.

The PTA committee, in turn, assigned the work to a contractor in February 2009. But the contractor was not able to start the work immediately as it was necessary to demolish the old building that existed in the proposed site.

This hurdle triggered another set of procedures. So the corporation engineering wing initiated the procedures like valuation, auctioning etc for demolishing the old building. This process and demolishing of the existing building took almost one year to complete. The contractor completed the work up to the column level under the supervision of an AE of Kollam Corporation. The PTA received mobilization advance and later, the first installment on completion of the foundatio n and basement. Meanwhile the A E was transferred, and according to the PTA and the Head Teacher, the new AE in office was not supportive enough for continuance of the work, and informed them that as he is preoccup ied with the works relating to EMS housing scheme, he will not be able to supervise the works of TRP. Thus the work got held up and construction materials like cement, sand, steel etc. lying unattended and with no security, were gradually moved out from the site by antisocial elements. Meanwhile there again was a steep escalation in the cost of the construction materials. In these circumstances, the contractor finally abandoned the work in September 2010. Due to the delay, cost escalation and non coopera tion of

36

Education Department BME-TRP

the Engineering wing of the Corporation, the Committee found it difficult to make any other alternate arrangement for the completion of the work. The change of office bearers of the PTA committee and the retirement of the head teacher further com plicated the issue. Thus the TRP project intervention in this school that is largely caters to the children of the fishermen in the locality is left abandoned. Both the Kollam Corporation and the district authorities of Education Department do not have any definite road map regarding the way ahead.

Foundation Constructed under TRP Scheme left unfinished in GHS West Kollam Valuation of the work so far executed falls short by a margin of ` 15000 compared to the amount released by the Corporation as advance. As there is no o ther practical option in sight, the head teacher has conveyed her readiness to pay the excess amount from her pocket. But the authorities have not initiated any steps so far to settle this issue.

Case 4 Vimalahridhaya Girls Higher Secondary School, Koll am

Vimalahridhaya GHS in Kollam city, is an aided school under the corporate management of Quilon Diocese. It is a reputed institution in the city which has good infrastructure facilities with student strength of 5650. An amount of ` 34 Lakhs was sanction ed to this school for the civil up -gradation works. Construction of eight class rooms, toilet block and heightening of the school play ground were proposed under the project.

Kollam Corporation issued the technical sanction and the School received the fir st installment of project funds on 06 March 2009. There was delay in getting the building permit from Kollam

37

Education Department BME-TRP

Corporation, but the management started the work without waiting for the permit which resulted in the corporation imposing a fine. However this iss ue was later settled through the interventions of the higher ups in the government.

The work was started on 18 March 2009 and completed within 9 months, that is on 16 December 2009. According to the school authorities, there was a delay in getting the val uation done by the Engineering wing of the Corporation and also in the release of funds. Still, the management went on with the work and completed it in time, without waiting for TRP funds.

When the TRP scheme was proposed, the corporate management was al ready on the verge of executing a development plan for improving the facilities in the school by constructing eighteen additional class rooms. In the same, the cost of constructing six class rooms, toilet blocks and the development work of the play ground were included under TRP. One major advantage was that the School did not face any fund constraints for the execution of the work.

Portion of Building constructed under TRP at Vimalahridhaya Girls HS, Kollam

According to them, it took more than seven mo nths after completing the works in all respects to receive TRP funds from the Kollam Corporation. However the institution has utilized entire TRP allocation of ` 34 Lakhs for the development works.

38

Education Department BME-TRP

Malappuram District

General infrastructure An amount of ` 439.43 Lakhs (Later revised to ` 424.41 Lakhs) was sanctioned for development of infrastructure in the schools under government as well as private sector in the district. Civil up - gradation works and procurement of equipments were planned in 88 sch ools in the district, out of which 45 were government schools and the rest (43) aided schools. ` 277.38 Lakhs was allocated to the government schools out of which ` 224.25 Lakhs (81%) has been utilised. Where as an amount of ` 153.47 Lakhs was allocated to the aided school in the district and their expenditure is at ` 152.24 Lakhs (99 %)

Works in all the schools are completed. Final settlement is pending in case of 5 schools as the completion certificates are yet to be issued by the local bodies. So far, an amount of ` 403.63 have been utilized under TRP in this district. Government schools were given preference during the needs assessment and planning process.

Project allocation – Malappuram District

Aided Schools 36% Govt. Schools Govt. Schools 64% Aided Schools

Table No. 2.7. Details of project implemented in Government Schools of Malappuram District

Sanctioned Project cost ( ```) Expenditure Incurred (```) Sl Name of School Civil Civil No Equipments Total Equipments Total Works Works 2 GUPS Purathur 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 3 GMUPS Edakkanadu 800000 0 800000 800000 0 800000

4 GMUPS Paravanna 690000 110000 800000 690000 110000 800000 5 GWLPS Purathur 585000 150000 735000 585000 150000 735000 6 GMLPS Muttannur 300000 0 300000 300000 0 300000 7 GMLPS Mangalam 300000 0 300000 300000 0 300000

39

Education Department BME-TRP

Sanctioned Project cost ( ```) Expenditure Incurred (```) Sl Name of School Civil Civil No Equipments Total Equipments Total Works Works 8 GMLPS Kuttayi South 530000 70000 600000 530000 70000 600000 9 GMLPS Pachattiri 325000 0 325000 325000 0 325000 10 GMLPS Kuttayi North 0 65000 65000 0 65000 65000 11 GFUPS Palappetti 1000000 0 1000000 900000 0 900000 12 GFUPS Kadavanadu 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 13 GMUPS Veliyaqncode South 1000000 0 1000000 900000 0 900000 14 GLPS Velleeri 33000 72000 105000 33000 72000 105000 15 GLPS Veliyancode 150000 135000 285000 150000 135000 285000 16 GLPS Veliyancode New 165000 160000 325000 165000 160000 325000 17 GLPS Veliyancode Gramam 220000 0 220000 220000 0 220000 18 GMLPS Veliyancode 60000 100000 160000 60000 100000 160000 19 GUPS Cheruvaikkara 15000 55000 70000 15000 55000 70000 20 GMLPS Ponnani Town 0 39000 39000 0 34050 34050 21 GFLPS Ponnanni 0 38000 38000 0 34269 34269 22 GFLPS Parappanangadi 300000 0 300000 300000 0 300000 23 GFLPS Kadalundi 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 24 GLPS Vallikunnu 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 25 GMLPS Parappannagadi 900000 0 900000 900000 0 900000 26 GMLPS Puthankadappuram 900000 0 900000 900000 0 900000 27 GLPS Parappanangadi 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 28 GUPS Ariyallur 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 GMLPS Parappanangadi 29 Town 151000 0 151000 151000 0 151000 30 GMLPS Puthiyakadappuram 570000 0 570000 570000 0 570000 31 GMLPS Edakkadappuram 600000 0 600000 600000 0 600000 32 GMUPS Cheerankadappuram 500000 0 500000 500000 0 500000 33 GMUPS Tannur Town 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 34 GMLPS Tannur North 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 35 GLPS Rayirimangalam 67850 442150 510000 67850 442150 510000 36 GMLPS Rayirimangalam 1000000 0 1000000 900000 0 900000 37 GMLPS Rayirimangalam East 0 240000 240000 0 240000 240000 38 GLPS Tannur 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000

40

Education Department BME-TRP

Sanctioned Project cost ( ```) Expenditure Incurred (```) Sl Name of School Civil Civil No Equipments Total Equipments Total Works Works 39 GLPS Pariyappuram 100000 0 100000 100000 0 100000 40 GHSS Paleppatty 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 41 GHSS Veliyankode 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 42 GHSS Paravanna 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 43 GHSS Purathur 1000000 0 1000000 1000000 0 1000000 44 GFHS Tannur 800000 0 800000 600000 0 600000 45 GHSS Niramaruthur 425000 575000 1000000 412336 575000 987336 TOTAL 25486850 2251150 27738000 24974186 2242469 27216655

Table No. 2.8. Details of project implemented in Aided Schools of Malappuram District

Sanctioned Project cost ( ```) Expenditure Incurred (```) Sl Name of School Civil Equipme Civil Equipme No Total Total Works nts Works nts 1 Badal School Pandazhi 450000 0 450000 450000 0 450000 2 SHMUPS Kuttayi 85000 0 85000 85000 85000 3 PKBTBM UPS Kuttayi 258698 241302 500000 258698 241302 500000 4 Kuttiyil UPS Vettom 75000 425000 500000 75000 425000 500000 5 VVUPS Chennara 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 6 PANMSAUPS Pachattiri 100000 100000 200000 100000 100000 200000 7 VAUPS Mangalam 350000 50000 400000 350000 50000 400000 8 AMUPS Vettom 500000 0 500000 500000 0 500000 9 TIMLPS Vettom 260000 40000 300000 260000 40000 300000 10 AMLPS Vakkad Kadappuram 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 11 IIMLPS Kuttayi North 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 12 AMLPS Pariyappuram 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 13 AMLPS Mangalam 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 14 DVALPS Purathur 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 15 AMLPS Chennara 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 16 Sastha ALPS Puthuppally 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 17 ALPS Kaloor 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 18 ALPS Mangalam 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000

41

Education Department BME-TRP

Sanctioned Project cost ( ```) Expenditure Incurred (```) Sl Name of School Civil Equipme Civil Equipme No Total Total Works nts Works nts 19 MMLPS Kuttayi 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 20 AHMLPS Vettom 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 21 SEMLPS Paravanna 400000 0 400000 400000 0 400000 22 AMLPS Cheruvatthur South 15000 62000 77000 15000 62000 77000 23 MARLPS Perumpadappa 25000 75000 100000 25000 75000 100000 24 AMLPS Pathururthy 85000 90000 175000 85000 90000 175000 25 AMLPS Paleppatty South 80000 70000 150000 80000 70000 150000 26 AMLPS Paleppatty 10000 65000 75000 10000 65000 75000 27 New LPS Ponnani 10000 90000 100000 10000 90000 100000 28 ALPS Puthuponnanni 20000 80000 100000 20000 80000 100000 29 AMLPS Pallapuram 120000 45000 165000 120000 45000 165000 30 AUPS Puthuponnanni 330000 0 330000 297000 0 297000 31 MIUPS Ponnanni 0 175000 175000 0 175000 175000 32 TIUPS Ponnanni 65000 100000 165000 65000 100000 165000 33 AUMPS Kadalundi Nagaram 500000 0 500000 450000 0 450000 34 AUPS Chiramangalam 500000 0 500000 500000 0 500000 35 MVALPS Ariyallur 300000 0 300000 300000 0 300000 36 ALPS Paruthikkad 350000 0 350000 350000 0 350000 37 ALPS Ariyallor East 180000 170000 350000 180000 170000 350000 38 AMLPS Kormanthala 0 400000 400000 270000 90000 360000 39 AMLPS Cheerankadappuram 400000 0 400000 370000 30000 400000 40 SNMHSS Parappannagadi 700000 0 700000 700000 0 700000 41 MVHSS Ariyallur 700000 0 700000 700000 700000 42 SSMHSS Rayirimangalam 300000 400000 700000 300000 400000 700000 43 MMHSS Kuttayi 400000 300000 700000 400000 300000 700000 TOTAL 12368698 2978302 15347000 12525698 2698302 15224000

Toilet Blocks As per the allocation, 212 units of toilet blocks were sanctioned in 62 schools in the District. Four of the schools were not interested in taking up the work in such a short time span. Thus the plan was downsized to 200 toilet units in 58 Schools. Again, 8 more schools were excluded from the list as per another order issued in July 2011 by the government to drop works that have not yet obtained

42

Education Department BME-TRP

techni cal sanction from the local bodies. Advance released to these schools have been retu rned subsequently. Thus the revised target was 172 units in 50 schools.

Out of these 50 schools, only 14 schools have completed construction, and final settlement has been done in case of six schools. Settlement of accounts for the remaining eight schools is in progress. The construction works in the remaining 36 school s except a few are nearing completion. As of now, in order to complete the works of toilet blocks which ar e in different stages of completion at the district level, there is a shortage of ` 36 Lakhs. According to the district officials the work is fast progressing in almost all the schools as it was vacation time, which is the most convenient time for civil work in schools.

The Evaluation Team visited five Schools in the district for an in -depth evaluation of project interventions of the Education Department in the district under TRP . The team visited the project sites and held informal interviews with the district authorities of the Education Department, School authorities, office bearers of PTA, and the elected representatives of the local bodies. List of schools visited 1. Govt. Mappila Upper Primary School, Cheeran Kadappuram 2. Govt. Mappila Lower Primar y School, Edakadappuram 3. Govt. Mappila Lower Primary School, Thanur 4. Sooppykutty Naha Memorial Higher Secondary School Parappanangadi 5. Govt. Lower Primary School Puthan Kadappuram The situation in Malappuram district was entirely different from what was found in Kollam district. The school authorities have received proactive support from the local bodies for the execution of the project and the elected representatives took the initiative to act as coordinators between the PTA and the engineering wing of the local bodies in order to facilitate speedy implementation as well as timely fund disbursement. In some of the schools in the coastal belt of the District where parents were not very much involved in development activities in the school, the elected representatives took a lead role in project implementation and offered effective support to the head teachers for project execution.

In this District, the disbursements of funds were also made simple to avoid delays in stage payments which was a major pote ntial hurdle to the timely completion of the project. On receiving the stage certificate from the LSG Engineers, the next installment was promptly released to the account of the PTA. The final settlement also was done in the same way after getting completi on certificate from the concerned local body along with the request of PTA. The District Level Monitoring Committee headed by the District Collector also tried to arrange the execution of the project through District Nirmithy Kendra in those schools where the PTA was not active and was not interested to take up the work.

In many cases, the time of estimate preparation, the LSGs made the estimates at current schedule of rates. This was done on the basis of the wordings in the circular issued by the Educatio n Department which was not particular about the rates as it only stated that -“ideally 2007 schedule of

43

Education Department BME-TRP

rates should be followed”. Likewise, District Nirmithy Kendras also have followed their own rates for project implementation.

Case 5 Government Mappil a Upper Primary School, Cheeran Kadappuram

This upper primary schoo l in the coastal area largely caters to the children of fishermen community in the locality. This government school was in acute need of infrastructural facilities for its smooth function ing. The students of this school belong to the economically backward sections and so, the PTA was not in a position to mobilize any funds even for the much needed maintenance, leave alone any development activity. In such a situation, an amount of ` 5 lakh s was sanctioned under TRP to this school for civil up-gradation works.

Detailed estimate for the work was prepared by the engineering wing of the Panchayat, and the technical sanction issued by the block level technical sanction committee. As per the cir cular of the education department the estimate was prepared on the basis of 2007 schedule of the rates. But at the time of execution during the end of 2008, the committee found that the rates were low compared to the existing market rates and anticipated t hat the execution would be difficult. At that juncture, through the intervention of the local MLA, the estimate was revised on the basis of current rates and revised TS obtained before starting the work. Thus using project funds two class rooms were const ructed on the first floor of the existing building.

Building for Computer Lab Constructed under TRP in GMLPS Cheeran Kadappuram , Malappuram District

One of the newly constructed rooms is used as computer lab and another as a regular class room. The pro ject implementation was done by the PTA of the school by arranging labour on contract basis; the construction materials were supplied by the Committee on need basis. One of the PTA executive members conversant with civil works was given charge of project i mplementation. The Committee also availed the services of the Assistant Engineer of the local Panchayat for supervision and valuation.

44

Education Department BME-TRP

The committee received the entire estimated amount on completion of the work on the basis of the completion certificate issued by the GP Engineer. The local member of the Grama Panchayat provided all possible assistance to the Committee for getting the services of the Panchayat Engineering wing at all stages.

Case 6 Government Mappila Lower Primary School, Edakadappura m Government Mappila Lower Primary School, Edakadappuram was functioning with very limited amenities. The school was situated very near to the sea shore and majority of the students were from the fishermen community. Some of the divisions in this school we re functioning in semi permanent structures.

The building at GMLPS, Edakkadappuram

Under TRP, an amount of ` 6 Lakhs was sanctioned to this school for construction of class rooms. As majority parents of the children studying in this school come from eco nomically backward sections, they were not capable of carrying out civil works on their own. In this circumstance, the local Panchayat member and the school head teacher made an attempt to entrust the work to private civil contractors. But the local contra ctors were reluctant to take up the work due to unattractive rates. District Level Project Monitoring Committee intervened in the matter and arranged the project execution through District Nirmithy Kendra. They executed the work as per their estimates and it was started in July 2009 and completed in March 2010 . The valuation of the work also was done by the executing agency themselves and it came to ` 6, 25,064. But the Deputy Director Education released the payment limiting it to the committed amount of ` 6 Lakhs after deducting tax and other levies. This additional claim of the Nirmithy Kendra for ` 25000 still remains unsettled. But the construction has been completed, and that too in a good manner; as such, the school authorities and parents are satisfie d with the TRP intervention.

45

Education Department BME-TRP

Case 7 Government Mappila Lower Primary School, Puthan Kadappuram Construction of four class rooms and a meeting hall was proposed in this school for which the government issued administrative sanction for ` 9 lakhs unde r Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. The construction was planned on the first floor of an existing building. While the detailed estimate was prepared by the local GP, it was found that the sanctioned amount was not sufficient to complete all these works. T he existing building was not fit enough to bear the weight of the RCC roof, and so, the building on the first floor was designed with sheeted roof. In addition , provision for outside plastering, flooring of building and windows and doors of the meeting hal l etc were excluded from the TRP funded project so as to limit the expenses within the sanctioned amount. Later, an additional estimate was pre pared by the GP for these works by earmarking an amount of ` 3.37 lakhs in principle from their fund s.

Hall constructed in I Floor of GMLPS Puthan Kadappuram The construction was carried out by the PTA by entrusting it to a Panchayat contractor. There was no problem in availing the services of the GP engineer for construction, supervision or for issuing completio n certificates. The entire amount of ` 9 Lakhs sanctioned under TRP has been released to the PTA, which, in turn, has been given to the contractor. The remaining project cost of ` 3.37 earmarked for the project under GP funds has not yet been released.

The building still remains unoccupied as the school at present can accommodate all its students in the already existing buildings and does not need any additional classrooms. The construction was done so as not to let the available fund lapse. Moreover ther e were minor leakages in some portions of the existing single-storied building. Sheet roof of the first floor was also thought of as a solution to this issue.

46

Education Department BME-TRP

Case 8 Government Lower Primary School, Thanur Under TRP, c onstruction of four class rooms we re proposed in this school, for which administrative sanction for ` 10 Lakhs was given by the General Education Department. Plastering, flooring windows and doors were not included in the detailed estimate as the sanctioned amount was not sufficient enoug h to meet all those expenses. The project was executed by the PTA, by arranging a Panchayat contractor. The work was executed under the supervision of the AE of Tanur Panchayat. The work was completed by the end of 2010 as per the approve d design. Though the windows and the doors were not included in the estimate, the contractor has provided an economy type iron door, doorframe and windows for this building at his own cost. The floor remains unfinished with Plain Cement Concrete (PCC) surf ace.

Class rooms constructed at Govt. LPS, Thanur The Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat has issued the completion certificate and the Department released the entire amount to the bank account of PTA opened for this purpose. During this time, office be arers of the PTA committee had changed. The newly elected committee held the opinion that work executed is of inferior quality. As a result, the last installment of ` 49600 released from the Education Department has not yet been passed on to the contractor . But the contractor and the head teacher of the school pointed out that the windows, doors and doorframe are of low quality which was provided by the contractor at his own cost; moreover these items were not included in the project estimate also. Likewise the floor of the building was kept unfinished, as flooring also was not included in the original project estimate. They pointed out that the allegation of the present PTA regarding the reinforcement of the columns is not justified as it was executed under the strict supervision of the Assistant Engineer of LSGD. Amidst all these issues, the building was occupied immediately after the completion of the work.

47

Education Department BME-TRP

Case 9 Sooppykutty Naha Memorial Higher Secondary School, Parappanan gadi

In this aided school con struction of three class rooms and drinking water supply system were planned under TRP. The high school and the higher secondary school are functioning in a single campus. The school management committee executed the works without delay and managed to get the stage certificates and the final valuation by the engineering wing of GP in time. The clerical staff of the school was in charge of coordinating with the Panchayat and the Deputy Director office. The staff did continuous follow up with these agencies t o get the funds in time and to arrange for the supervisory services of the Engineering wing of GP. A t the same time, the managing committee of the School executed the work by advancing funds from their own account. Thus the work was executed in time and is also of good quality. The additional amount required for completing the work was borne by the Managing Committee of the school.

SNMHS Parappanangadi An amount of ` 7 Lakhs was sanctioned to the school and the entire amount has been released after deduc ting the obligatory levies to the account opened for the TRP project implementation. There are adequate class rooms in this school, and the newly constructed block is planned to be used for new courses and new divisions.

48

Education Department BME-TRP

2.3. Analysis and Suggestions

The Project Idea The government schools in the coastal areas are struggling to function with limited infrastructural facilities and lack of funds to carry out even the maintenance of existing facilities due to limited grant assistance. Generally t he chil dren from the fishermen community still largely depend on the schools under government/aided sector. Members of the fishermen community being economically backward and dependant on unstable income are often unable to access schooling under the unaided scho ols. This is reflected in student strength in government schools in coastal areas not declining compared to other regions of the state. The situation in most of the fisheries schools which were started for promoting education among the fishermen communit y is also not different. In this context, the project idea of earmarking 39% of the project resources available under social infrastructure sector of TRP, for the development of educational infrastructure is well justified.

Need-driven or Fund-driven?

There is no doubt about the acute need for infrastructure development in government schools . The aided schools, in contrast, enjoy better facilities with the school authorities and PTA exhibiting a greater sense of ownership. During the field visit the evaluation team found that many schools, especially aided schools, had constructed the building under TRP not to meet any existing requirements but in anticipation of infrastructure facility in future for starting new courses or accommodate more batches. At th e same time, many of the government schools in the co astal belt are functioning in semi permanent structures. Most probably, these schools were left out due to the absence of any proactive approach on their part to grab this opportunity.

Vimalahridhaya Hig her Secondary School in Kollam district was constructing a new block with ten class rooms in the school for starting new courses and batches with their own funds. It was at this juncture that they received the TRP allocation for infrastructure development. The management took this opportunity to account the construction cost of four class room of this new block under TRP. The management of SNMHSS Parappanangadi also constructed three class rooms by anticipating their future needs for starting new courses. At present, they have adequate infrastructure for conducting ongoing classes/courses.

A few of the government schools in the urban areas also started the constr uction only because of the fund was available under TRP. In these schools there are excess cl ass rooms lying unused due to division fall. The case of Government High School, Kollam west is an instance coming under this category.

Monitoring Civil Works – ‘Out of Syllabus’

Education department does not have an engineering wing to plan , supervise or monitor civil constructions. Functionally, t he local bodies like Grama Panchayat, District Panchayat, Municipalities and the Corporation are in charge of the schools. So, the civil construction in the

49

Education Department BME-TRP

schools is generally executed by the local bodies either with their own funds or with the funds from specific projects. In addition, the PTAs are supposed to function in tandem with the local bodies with the active involvement of the elected members of the local bodies. But in the case of TRP project, the sense of ownership on the part of local bodies was nil or very low, and it created hurdles to the Education Department in their coordination with the local bodies, whose engineering wing has to issue stage certificates and offer necessary help to the scho ols for planning, supervision and valuation. Obviously, the Deputy Director (Education) could not effectively influence the Engineering Wing of the LSGD and prompt them to take proactive steps for implementation of the projects. Instead, the entire respo nsibility was vested with the clerical staff; they could not even present the limitations faced at the ground level before forums like the DLMC. The head teachers were also in a similar situation as they were unfamiliar with the procedural complexity of ci vil works execution. As a result, in many cases the head teacher who was one among the signatory of the beneficiary committee for project execution was forced to be a silent witness to the financial and technical dealings with the contractors and LSG engin eers. But as government employees, the head teachers were responsible for any financial liability, which put even more stress on them as many of them were nearing retirement age.

In some cases, lacking any sense of ownership, the LSG engineers prepared th e estimates in very mechanical manner without considering issues at the execution level.

Education Department officials at the lower level felt that government should have implemented the project though the local bodies without involving the Education Dep artment in the release of funds. In their opinion, this has only resulted in creating delays.

The Spectre of Retirement

Many of the head teachers were reluctant to take up the responsibility of civil work execution , which was an activity they were no t familiar with. Those teachers who were nearing retirement age were very hesitant to take up a work like this that involved financial and procedural responsibilities. In some cases even the newly appointed teachers were reluctant to get involved in project implementation . In many cases, the project execution was done after repeated interventions from the DLMC and pressure from the district collectors. This led to undue delay in many cases. Chandrika Devi, who retired on 31.03.2010 from Government LP Schoo l Mundakkal East in Kollam district was one head teacher who dared to take the step. But the project got into several tangles and was left in the middle due to procedural complications in project execution which are yet to be settled. As a result, she has not yet received her pension and other emoluments; nor have any of the higher authorities suggested any practical solution to settle the project accounts

The Rates – ‘Actual’ vs ‘Ideal’

While issuing the Administrative Sanction for the works in the State vide GO (Rt.) No 835/08 dated 14.02.2008 the General Education Department has given directions to prepare the estimates ‘ ideally’ as per 2007 schedule of rates. The LSG engineers in majority of the cases followed this direction literally even in 2009 as t hey were not burdened with the responsibility of project execution. They

50

Education Department BME-TRP

never used their discretion in this regard, nor could the Department or the school authorities influence them to estimate at current rates. The officials in Education Department also could not foresee the problems.

Tender Excess Bar

All those depa rtments that were well versed with the infrastructure project implementation like HED, PWD and KWA who executed works under TRP had executed TRP works with a tender excess up to 67 % above the schedule of rates. But in the case of Education Department tender excess was not permitted for the estimates prepared as per SoR 2007 and executed in 2009. In many cases the project implementation had to be assigned to the PTAs after the tendering proce ss failed due to the cold response of contractors who found the rates unattractive.

Government Schools & the Issue of Advance Payments

It is not a coincidence that all the nineteen schools in the state where works were held up, belongs to the government sector. Some of the PTAs of government schools implemented the project directly by arranging labourers on contract. But wherever the valuation and issuance of stage certificates from LSGs were delayed , the work was held up due to want of funds. In contrast , the aided school managements could raise adequate funds of their own for advance payments in the event of delay in fund release by the Department. They were also able to supplement any amounts that were required over and above the government rate. .

In addition the issues related to inadequate rates did not seem to have received the attention it deserved in the review meetings of DLMC and the PMU nor were there any attempts to share the experience of other districts/schools in this regard.

Local Bodies – The Most Crucial S takeholder

The attitude and involvement of the local bodies played a decisive factor in the implementation of this project. Both the elected representatives and the engineers of the local bodies ha d a major role in the execution of the project. But in some cases the local bodies had little ownership feeling in the project which resulted in unnecessary complexities and avoidable delays. There was delay in valuation of the project and also in the release of funds. Malappuram district presents a picture in contrast, where the funds were released directly to the TRP account of the schools in order to avoid delay.

Kollam Phenomena

Ten out of the nineteen works abandoned half way are in Kollam district and among them, the majority are situated in Kollam Corporation. Same was the situation in case of construction of buildings for Anganwadis also. The Evaluation Team felt that the non-cooperation of the Engineering Wing of the Corporation with regard to the execution of work was the major fa ctor that contributed to complexity and delays. The elected representatives in Kollam took little effort to coordinate with the committees and the local body engineers as was done in other parts of the state.

51

Education Department BME-TRP

Kasaragod District

In Kasaragod district, as per the revised decision , the TRP fund was allocated only for 52 government schools. In the original list, all the 51 schools proposed for project implementation were from the aided sector. The ca binet subcommittee that met on 6August 2008 promptly intervene d in the matter and the ineligible schools were excluded from the list. The PMU, instead of simply accepting the list prepared by the General Education Department, could have replicated such an exercise in all the other districts to make a proper assessmen t of needs at the ground level.

Assistance to the Aided Sector

Assistance to the aided sector for infrastructure development was made on the basis of a state level policy decision of the government. But many of the schools under corporate management s which already possess better infrastructure facilities ha ve al so managed to get project assistance . In some cases, like Vimala Hridhaya School in Kollam, even tarring and storm water drainage works are found to be executed by utili sing the TRP fu nds. There are also cases where buildings were constructed anticipating not present but future needs, and also for accommodating administrative block and not class rooms. In rare cases new buildings have been constructed after demolishing a functional one as seen in SN DP HS Kollam . This has to be viewed seriously, as many of the government schools in the coastal belt of the sta te are facing severe financial crunch and are conducting classes in semi permanent structures.

Role of Elected Representatives

In Malappuram district, the elected representatives have played a very proactive role in coordinating PTA of the school and the Engineering wing of the local bodies and also in providing necessary support to the PTA. In the case of some schools in the coastal belt, th e parents and as a corollary, the PTAs, were not very much involved in school matters. In such situations, the interventions of the elected representatives were all the more relevant as they took the leading role and offered effective assistance for projec t execution. In almost all the cases in this District, the engineering wing of the local bodies provided effective backing and technical support to the school teachers and the PTA, both of whom were not very conversant with civil works. The elected represe ntatives of the local bodies affectively played their role in building such enabling relations between them. Contrary to this, in Kollam district especially Kollam Corporation, the elected representatives were passive and never took the lead or offered pro per support to the head teacher for project execution.

Procurement Arrangements

Procurement of equipments and supplies under the project was arranged through government agencies and also at DGS & D rates. As a result, there were no procedural delays in executing this component in the project.

52

Education Department BME-TRP

Absence of Clear Guidelines from DPI The intervention on the part of the DPI for sorting out procedural and other problems was nominal. Though there were many crises during the course of implementation of the pro ject the PIU in the DPI, did not give proper and timely guidelines to address them. There was an obvious lack of a fully functional PIU in Education Department., as a result of which the officials limited their role only to the release the funds to the district offices. For instance, the circular issued along with the administrative sanction which states that “ideally 2007 schedule of the rates should be followed” created confusion at the implementation level. This most probably happened due to absence of an engineering wing in the Department that could have foreseen the complications and also provided timely solutions to problems arising in the execution of civil works.

Toilet Blocks - Blocked by Unrealistic Planning

The timeframe fixed for the completion of toilet blocks was totally unrealistic. Administrative sanction for the construction of toilet blocks was given on 22 February 2011 , which was forwarded along with the list of selected school s on same date to the districts concerned . The first installment of funds was also released in due course . The Deputy Directors in the districts were urged to complete the work by 15 March 20 11 vide letter No QIP/19369/2010/DPI dated 22.02.2011 which was issued to the deputy directors of all the nine districts. At this tim e in many of the schools, the civil works were held up due to procedural complexity and rate issues. The intention of the Departm ent to construct toilet blocks within 21 days by releasing funds though LSGs seems to be totally unrealistic. It is obvious tha t the lessons learned by the Education Department from TRP implementation were not applied in planning another project in a similar setting.

Toilet Puzzle

As mentioned above, for toilet block construction work, the time given for completion of the project was 21 days. Most of the district offices as well as the school authorities initiated the construction of toilet blocks anticipating an extension of project period as was the routine practice , while some others were skeptical about the unrealistic project period and kept away from opting for it.

Even after one year, only a nominal portion (11% of the revised target) of this project is completed. As per records 40 per cent of the project cost has been released to the beneficia ry schools as advance and the remaining amount released only to those school that have completed the project. PMU has limited the allocation to ` 410 Lakhs and it is almost certain that this amount will not be sufficient even for the completion of all the units started so far. The implementation is indefinitely delayed and no one knows how many of them will be completed. Many of the schools have stopped the work half the way as they are uncertain about the release of funds, even if they complete it. In thi s situation even the authorities are not in a position to realistically assess the actual requirement of funds and the way forward. The district authorities of the Education Department, after utilizing the advance they received, are now waiting for the sec ond installment. Absence of timely decisions and accurate information has put the stakeholders in a tight spot.

53

Education Department BME-TRP

Seasonal Disadvantage

The timeline prescribed for the construction of toilet b locks, which was planned in February 2011 and targeted to be co mpleted by the middle of March, was launched in an adverse season. Some of the head teachers were about to retire from the service and were reluctant to take up such a responsibility due to the fear of financial liability during retirement. The general el ection to the state assembly also has adversely affected the project implementation.

DLMC Intervention

The DLMC headed by District collector had spent a lot of time to sort out issues relating to this project, as many issues which should have been solved at the field level and by lower level functionaries were brought to DLMC for deliberation. This itself is indicative of the absence of a monitoring mechanism at the department level for addressing issues at the appropria te levels during the course of implementation of the project. It should be noted that the intervention of DLMC did help to clear certain bottleneck in some cases and to achieve the targets.

54

Education Department BME-TRP

2.4. Grading of Schemes

Table No. 2.9. Grading of Scheme

Areas of Performance Score (Maximum Score -20 for each )

1 Project Concept and Planning 10

2 Project Monitoring and Achievement of Core Objectives 10

3 Co-ordination within and between Departments/Agencies 7

4 Beneficiary Satisfaction, Par ticipation and Community Mobilization 10

5 Innovations and Sustainability 10 Total Score 47 Grade Average *Poor = 20 and Below; Below Average = 21 -40; Average = 41-60; Good = 61-80; Excellent = 81 and above

Project Concept and Planning

Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme has given due importance for development of educational infrastructure in the coastal area of the State . The needs of the government schools were given due weightage during the process of selection beneficiary schools. In Kollam as well as Malappuram districts 64 per cent of the total allocation has been channeled to the government schools whereas only 36 per cent of the schools in the state belong to government sector . In addition , more priority has been given to the regions affected by tsunami. In Kasaragod district, the entire project fund was routed for the development of government schools.

But in some instances, lack of planning and improper prioritisation has affected the implementation process. In som e schools, the new blocks built under TRP are left unused as they were built in order to utilize funds when it became available and not to meet real needs. Construction of toilet blocks is another case in point; the timeframe set for its implementation was too short and unrealistic, and as a result, many schools did not or had apprehensions about taking up that project. The implementation arrangement s envisaged under the project too were often not clear or practical at the ground level.

Project Monitoring and Achievement of Core Objectives

The monitoring system put in place by the Department was not very receptive to the issues at the field level that emerged during implementation. The responsibility of monitoring was put on the shoulders of DLMC which was overburdened with their own tasks. However in majority of the cases the PTAs and the elected representative s of the local bodies took proactive role in project

55

Education Department BME-TRP

implementation , as a result of which 97 percentage of the state level target has been achieved . Wherever the above two stakehold ing groups took a constructive role, the core objectives of the project were achieved and better quality infrastructure created. In contrast to the aided schools, most of the government schools could not garner enough fin ancial and moral support from the parent community or representatives of the local body as a result of which they had to face a lot of hurdles in the project.

Coordination within and between Departments

Education department was not able to perform their ideal role in coordination and facilitation for project implementation. The role of the PIU at the state level was limited to the transfer of funds to the district offices. The district offices, in turn, also transferred funds on the basis of stage certifi cates issued by the local bodies. In the absence of effective mechanism for coordination , there were frictions between departments and agencies . Lack of knowledge in civil work implementation and inability to coordinate with LSG engineers were the major hu rdles faced by the Department. In cases where the school authorities had good rapport with the local representatives or had influential members in PTA, they could manage to implement the project effectively.

Beneficiary satisfaction, Participation and Com munity Mobilisation

In majority of the cases, the PTAs and the elected representatives of the local bodie s took lead roles in project implementation. In most such cases, better quality infrastructure was crated to the satisfaction of a ll the stakeholders . But there were no serious attempts on the part of Education Department to mobilize the community , especially in some urban areas where voluntary participation was not forthcoming.

Innovation and Sustainability

There is little scope for innovation in the civil works component of the projects implemented by the Department. But , that was not the case with regard to implementation. Taking into account the fact that TRP project was meant to benefit the most underprivileged of communities in the State, t he Department could have taken more efforts to develop innovative methods for smooth and speedy implementation of the project.

There is no room for any apprehension about the sustainability of the assets created or about their future maintenance and repairs , for which there are established mechanisms .

56