SELF-EMPLOYMENT
A Framework for Implementation
National Rural Livelihood Mission Ministry of Rural Development
Government of India
SELF-EMPLOYMENT A Framework for Implementation
National Rural Livelihood Mission Ministry of Rural Development Government of India
June 22, 2016
Executive Summary
MoRD has been thinking about a strategy to systematically bring panchayats out of poverty within a clear timeline. Given that 51% of the rural workforce is self-employed, there is a need to create a policy framework for holistically improving self-employment opportunities for the rural poor.
In the light of the above, a framework document titled Self-Employment–A Framework for Implementation (No.J-11060/1/2016-RL) dated June 22nd, 2016 has been prepared after a consultation with state representatives in NIRD&PR in Hyderabad on January 9, 2016 and a national consultation in Delhi at Vigyan Bhawan on January 14, 2016. Before the document is taken up for formal consideration at the GoI level, it was thought necessary to seek the opinion of State governments. Accordingly, a copy of the framework document is hereby attached for your comments.
The framework proposes a new scheme within the NRLM framework called the Grameen Swarozghar Yojana (GSY) that would be implemented through inter-departmental collaboration. The proposal is to ensure that self-employment, skill up-gradation, and efficient delivery of government schemes and entitlements lead to poverty-free panchayats within a definite timeline. The new scheme is proposed on 7 key principles:
1. Build on the strengths of previous efforts while avoiding it weaknesses 2. Build on the recent success of establishing high quality SHGs through the CRP strategy 3. Establish institutional arrangements that can realize convergence at all levels - national, state and implementing agency 4. Work with a range of implementation partners both for-profit and non-profit 5. Allow for a diversity of approaches that account for an area’s ecological and economic resources as well as a household’s poverty and capabilities 6. Craft a special strategy for the ultra-poor who tend to get left out 7. Put in place a financial management arrangement that makes it easy for partners to work with government
The proposed GSY is anchored in four distinct approaches that together have the ability to cover the seven principles enunciated above. The four approaches are:
1. A Graduated Approach, in 2532 blocks that were identified in consultation with the states as being the most backward. The list of backward blocks were finalised while launching the Intensive Participatory Planning Exercise (IPPE) under MGNREGS. Within this approach, PIAs will first identify all households that are poor and ultra-poor using the SECC data and wealth ranking techniques under PRA, and create a targeted plan to ensure that these households will be brought out of poverty over the course of 8 years. PIAs will also ensure that all the poor and ultra-poor households in the assigned geography begin to benefit from all government schemes that they are eligible for. 2. An Ultra-Poor Approach, in the remaining blocks with a focus on providing a unique package of assistance to those who face the highest form of deprivation due to poverty. This approach will have the following features: a one-time productive asset transfer, technical skills training, consumption support, savings support, health services and coaching and monitoring with a special focus on socio-psychological support. All ultra- poor households must additionally be enrolled in all eligible government schemes. After the household has come out of ultra-poverty through interventions described above, the PIA will adopt a graduated approach (detailed above) to ensure that the household comes out of poverty. 3. A Sector-Based Approach, in all blocks which will work with corporate value chains. Through this, large corporate entities that already have successful and rapidly growing value chains will be supported to provide training and talent acquisition aimed at the rural poor who they will bring on board as associates (not employees). 4. An RSETI Approach with Satellite Centres, which will draw upon the existing Rural Self- Employment Training Institutes (RSETI) to upgrade and expand their training outreach in rural areas and their ability to ensure that trainees receive better self-employment opportunities. Under this approach, PIAs will partner with the National Centre for Excellence in RSETIs (NACER) to set up satellite centres. Existing RSETI’s will install CCTV cameras, Iris based biometric attendance, provide on line content, virtual classrooms and track beneficiaries for 3 years with income certification.
Given that India’s GDP growth rate is averaging approximately 7% per year, the SECC is complete and can enable the identification of the poor, and India now has a network of good quality self-help groups, we have the basic building blocks for poverty-free panchayats.
However, we feel that for poverty-free panchayats to work sustainably, we need an institutional arrangement through which funding abilities of different programs can be converged in such a manner that the implementing agency can be freed from anxieties around sourcing of finances for projects that are funded through multiple sources. The proposed institution for convergence across departments in a new vertical for GSY under the National Rural Livelhoods Promotion Society (NRLPS).
Table of Contents Table Of Figures 2 Abbreviations 3 Preface 6 Chapter 1: Rationale 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 What is GSY? 10 1.3 History of self-employment in rural India 11 1.4 Current self-employment schemes 12 Chapter 2: Evidence 16 2.1.1 Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) 18 2.1.2 Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) 21 2.1.3 National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) 24 2.2 Institutional Partnerships for Poverty Alleviation 25 2.2.1 Case Study: BAIF-EU Project in India 28 2.2.2 Case Study: Rural Poverty Alleviation Program in Brazil 30 2.2.3 Case Study: The Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) 32 2.3. Evidence on Differentiated Approaches 33 2.3.1 A Territorial Approach 34 2.3.2 Evidence on Targeting the Ultra-Poor 34 Chapter 3: Design for a New Program 38 3.1 Need for a new program 38 3.2 Need for a new institutional architecture 40 3.3 GSY Board 41 3.3.1 Roles of the GSY Board 41 3.3.2 GSY Board Finances 44 3.4. Regional Hubs 44 3.5 State ECs and SRLM Units 45 3.5.1 Role of State ECs and SRLM Units 45 3.5.2 GSY SRLM Unit Finances 46 Chapter 4: Program Approach 47 Chapter 5: Institutional Architecture 52 5.1 The GSY Board 52 5.1.1 The Organisational Structure 52 5.1.2 The functions of the Governing Board 54 5.1.3 Management Unit of GSY Board 54 5.2 State Empowered Committee (EC) 55 5.2.1 The functions of the EC 56 5.3 GSY Unit in SRLM 56 Chapter 6: Program Administration 58 6.1 Project Application, Appraisal, and Monitoring 58 6.1.1 Application process 58 6.1.2. Minimum Eligibility Requirements 64 6.1.3 Project Appraisal Scoring 67 6.1.4 Awarding projects 68 6.2 Mobilization and selection of program beneficiaries 68 6.3 Budget 70 6.4 Criteria for success 79 6.5 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) 82 6.5.1 The MEL Architecture 83 6.6 Yearly Plan (YP) and Annual Plan (AP) States 86 6.7 Fund release 86 6.8 Closure 89 Annexure 1: Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups as of February 2016 91 Annexure 2: List of Backward Blocks 94 Annexure 3: Office Memorandum for Development of Framework for Self- Employment Initiatives 158 Annexure 4: Vigyan Bhavan Consultation Attendees 159 Annexure 5: NIRD&PR Consultation Attendees 161
1 Table Of Figures
Figure 1: Approaches Under GSY 50
Figure 2: Organogram for GSY 53
Figure 3: Potentiality Score Criteria — Graduated and Ultra-Poor Approaches 62
Figure 4: Potentiality Score Criteria — RSETI & Satellite Approach 63
Figure 5: Potentiality Score Criteria — Sector Approach 64
Figure 6: Additional Applicant PIA Criteria for GSY Approaches 66
Figure 7: Estimated Budget for GSY, by Approach 72
Figure 8: Estimated Ultra-Poor Approach Budget for GSY 73
Figure 9: Estimated Graduated Approach Budget for GSY 75
Figure 10: Estimated RSETI & Satellite Approach Budget Budget for GSY 77
Figure 11: Estimated Sector Approach Budget for GSY 79
Figure 12: Milestones for Fund Release Authorisation, Graduated & Ultra-Poor Approaches 87
Figure 13: Milestones for Fund Release Authorisation, RSETI & Satellite Approach 88
Figure 14: Milestones for Fund Release Authorisation, Sector Approach 89
2 Abbreviations
AP Annual Plan API Application Program Interface ARI Agro and Rural Industry ATMA Agricultural Technology Management Agency BIMARU Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh BMMU Block Mission Management Unit BPL Below Poverty Line BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee Committee to Review the Existing Administrative Arrangements for Rural CAARD Development and Poverty Alleviation Programmes CCTV Closed Circuit Television CEO Chief Executive Officer CEO Chief Executive Officer CNC Common Norms Committee COO Chief Operating Officer CSB Central Silk Board CRP Community Resource Persons DAHD Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries DEDS Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme DMMU District Mission Management Unit DPSU District Plan Support Unit DRDA District Rural Development Agency DWCRA Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas EC Empowered Committee EU European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product GKY Ganga Kalya Yojana GSY Grameen Swarozgar Yojana GoI Government of India GP Gram Panchayat IGVGD Income Generation for Vulnerable Group Development IPPE Intensive Participatory Planning Exercise IRDP Integrated Rural Development Program JAM Jan Dhan, Aadhaar and Mobile KVIC Khadi and Village Industries Commission KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra MEL Monitoring, evaluation and learning MGIRI Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization MGNREGS Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme MIS Management Information System MKSP Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana
3 MLP Micro Level Planning MoAFW Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare MoPR Ministry of Panchayati Raj MoRD Ministry of Rural Development MoU Memorandum of Understanding MSDE Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship MSME Micro, small and medium enterprises MSMED Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act MSME-DO Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Organisation NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development NDDB National Dairy Development Board NGO Non Governmental Organisation NIOS National Institute of Open Schooling NP National Portal NRLM National Rural Livelihoods Mission NRLPS National Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society NSIC National Small Industries Corporation NSSO National Sample Survey Office NSQF National Skills Qualification Framework OBC Other Backward Class PAC Public Accounts Committee PEO Programme Evaluation Organisation PIA Project Implementing Agency PKSF Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation PMEGP Prime Minister’s Employment Guarantee Programme PMGSY Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana PMU Project Management Unit PSNP Productive Safety Net Program PVTG Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group RSETI Rural Self Employment Training Institute SC Scheduled Caste SCA Special Central Assistance SECC Socio-Economic Caste Census SGSY Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana SHG Self Help Group SITRA Supply of Improved Toolkits to Rural Artisans SME Small and medium enterprises SRLM State Rural Livelihoods Mission ST Scheduled Tribe STDFC State Tribal Development and Finance Corporations SVEP Startup Village Entrepreneurship Programme TRYSEM Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment TUP Targeting the Ultra-Poor
4 UN United Nations VLW Village Level Worker WFP World Food Programme YP Yearly Plan
5
Preface
Between 1994 and 2015, India halved its incidence of extreme poverty from 49.4% to 24.7%.1 Despite impressive reduction in poverty and strong economic growth during this time period, income inequality has risen and disparities based on gender, social group, age, migrant status and location still persist. Moreover, an increase in rural-urban migration suggests that there is a persistent lack of viable economic opportunities in rural areas.2 Given that India’s labour force growth at approximately 2.2%-2.3% exceeds employment growth at approximately 1.5%, opportunity creation is crucial in order to further reduce the poverty rate, especially in rural India.3
In order to take advantage of India’s demographic dividend, the Government of India has undertaken various initiatives to provide wage employment, most notably the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), and skills training to promote wage employment, specifically under the Ministry of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship. However, given that 51% of the rural workforce is self-employed4 and 25.7% of the rural population lives below the poverty line,5 there is a dire need to create a holistic framework for self-employment generation.
This is the motivation for this framework document. It makes the case for a new scheme within the NRLM framework but implemented through a new institutional framework that can work across the silos that plague current functioning in Government. at all levels. The proposed name for this new initiative is Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (GSY). The framework document proposes methods for generating sustainable self-employment opportunities amongst the rural poor, with a specific focus on the poorest of the poor—called the ultra-poor. Existing evidence highlights the need for poverty alleviation programs to create diverse approaches to promote self-employment generation, catered both to a geographic area’s natural and economic resources and a household’s poverty level and abilities. In light of this evidence, GSY proposes four approaches to self-employment generation:
1 Millennium Development Goals: India Country Report 2015, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 24 February 2015. 2 India: Decent Work Country Programme 2013-2017, International Labour Organization. 3 Economic Survey, 2014-2015, The Ministry of Finance 4 For an analysis of the results of the 2011 NSSO survey, see, for example, “Over Half of India’s Workforce Self-Employed: NSSO” 5 From “Table 162: Number and Percentage of the Population Below Poverty Line,” Reserve Bank of India, 16 September 2013.
6 1. An Ultra-Poor Approach in economically well-off areas to cater to households who may be excluded from existing economic opportunities or government entitlements due to extreme poverty. 2. A Graduated Approach in economically backward blocks that undertakes a household- specific strategy to get every individual, both poor and ultra-poor, out of poverty and enrolled in government entitlements. 3. A Sector-Based Approach in all blocks throughout the country to promote pro-poor, corporate value chains. 4. An RSETI with Satellite centers approach to reform and promote the National Rural Livelihood Mission’s existing program for Rural Self-Employment Training Institutes throughout the country.
These various approaches will allow for area-specific and household-specific opportunities for self-employment while ensuring outreach to the ultra-poor.
In order to make such a diverse task possible, GSY proposes a new vertical within NRLPS, the GSY Board, to align the visions, priorities, and resources of all Government Departments and Ministries that need to come together to promote self-employment for the rural poor. Furthermore, GSY will be implemented through a partnership model between the government and non-state actors (both for-profit and non-profit), within central government bodies, within state government bodies, and between the central and state governments. The main implementation of the program will be done through Project Implementation Agencies (PIAs)—both for-profit and non-profit—at the local level. Through such convergence at various levels, GSY will create the institutional architecture necessitated to allow for a nuanced, area- tailored approach to generating self-employment.
In addition to the approaches and convergence models, GSY proposes innovative funding mechanisms to ensure scheme beneficiaries see income outcomes. The framework puts forth the creation of a workflow-based, Internet-enabled IT platform for the scheme, which includes Application Program Interfaces (APIs) for monitoring and evaluation and financial management. Given that such a system would give program managers access to real-time data on project progress, GSY proposes a milestone-based model for fund releases that allows for direct payments to PIAs based on their achievement of predefined targets.
This document serves as a framework to support stakeholders in creating detailed guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the proposed GSY. The framework summarizes the evidence on self-employment and using this evidence, outlines the overall approaches and convergence mechanisms under the proposed scheme. This framework additionally details the program management architecture, the project appraisal processes, monitoring and evaluation criteria, the scheme budget, and fund release criteria.
7 This framework’s inception is rooted in two consultations, one at the Vigyan Bhavan and one with the National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (NIRD&PR) in Hyderabad; list of attendees is available in the annexure. Additionally, the overall strategy has been created through collaboration with various experts, both within and outside the government. I would like to thank each of them for their support. Most notably, I am grateful to Hon. Minister of Rural Development, Panchayati Raj, Drinking Water and Sanitation Shri. Birender Singh, pursuing the agenda for the creation of this framework. I would also like to thank Shri J.K.Mohapatra, Secretary of Rural Development, and Additional Secretary Shri Amarjeet Sinha for pushing me to undertake this task. I am grateful to Joint Secretary (Rural Livelihoods) Shri Atal Dulloo for his inputs in developing this framework. Additionally, key components of this scheme come from the instrumental work of PRADAN and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), and evidence that has come forth from their programs on self-employment and the ultra-poor, respectively. I would like to thank the team from both organisations for providing valuable feedback in the creation of this document. Lastly, the Prime Minister’s Rural Development Fellows Scheme (PMRDF) team and the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushaliya Yojana (DDU-GKY) teams in MoRD have provided crucial support and feedback in the project implementation components of this framework, and I am grateful for their support.
Though this framework outlines the key components of the proposed GSY, framing the policy is an iterative process based on the response from key stakeholders. In that regard, we continue to look forward to suggestions on improving this framework.
A. Santhosh Mathew Joint Secretary (IT & Skills), MoRD
New Delhi, June 22, 2016
8 Chapter 1: Rationale
1.1 Introduction
Between 2011 and 2015, India experienced an impressive 7.3% GDP growth.6 Yet, prevalence of poverty remains a persistent challenge. As of 2013, the World Bank found that 33% of the world’s 1.2 billion poorest, i.e. those living under $1.25 a day, are in India.7 Though poverty has reduced over the last few decades, the percentage of the population living below the poverty line remains significant in rural India at 25.7% compared to 13.7% in urban India.8 Much of the current population, especially in rural India, is engaged in India’s informal sector. According to the 2011 National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) survey, 93% of India’s workforce (i.e. over 430 million out of a total of 470 million workers) contributes to the informal sector.9 Of these, 75% percent work in rural India, while the remainder is in urban India.10 Moreover, approximately 51% of the rural workforce is self-employed.11 Thirty nine percent of the self- employment is in the agricultural sector, while 11.9% is in non-agricultural self-employment. Overall, only 12.9% of the rural survey population earned regular wages or salaries; the rest relied on wages as casual laborers.11
Given that the majority of the population in rural India relies on self-employment for income yet a significant portion remains in poverty, there is a clear need for programs addressing three facets: (1) knowledge enhancement, (2) skill upgradation, particularly in relation to self-employment, and (3) access to capital and value chains that enhance success in self-employment. Through a targeted approach, creating productive and long-term income opportunities through self-employment can be key to alleviating rural poverty and promoting inclusive growth.
Definitionally, self-employment refers to those who earn income from self-generated opportunities by engaging in trade, casual labor, business, etc. Self-employment stands in contrast to wage-employment wherein one is a worker in an enterprise owned by someone else and gets a wage in return for work done. Self-employed groups are typically unable to organize themselves in pursuit of higher returns to labor or wage-employment due to constraints like the casual nature of employment, the nature of industry, or the small and
6 “GDP growth (annual %)”, The World Bank, 2016 7 “Poverty and Equity Data” by the World Bank, 2013 8 From “Table 162: Number and Percentage of the Population Below Poverty Line,” Reserve Bank of India, 16 September 2013. 9 See Breman, Jan. At Work in the Informal Economy of India: A Perspective from the Bottom Up. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013 and the “Report on Fourth Annual Employment and Unemployment Survey: 2013 - 2014”. 10 As indicated in the “Report on Second Annual Employment and Unemployment Survey: 2011 - 2012,” Volume I 11 For an analysis of the results of the 2011 NSSO survey, see, for example, “Over Half of India’s Workforce Self- Employed: NSSO”
9 scattered nature of establishments. Laborers in the unorganized sector further struggle with problems arising from both low productivity and low wages.12 The Ministry of Labor and Employment categorizes unorganized labor into the following four groups on the basis of occupation and nature of employment:
1. Unorganised occupational groups include small and marginal farmers, landless agricultural labourers, sharecroppers, fishermen, those engaged in animal husbandry, beedi rolling, labeling and packing, building and construction workers, leather workers, weavers, artisans, salt workers, workers in brick kilns and stone quarries, workers in saw mills, and workers in oil mills. 2. A second category based on the nature of employment includes attached agricultural labourers, bonded labourers, migrant workers, contract and casual labourers. 3. Another category is dedicated to the distressed unorganised sector and includes toddy tappers, scavengers, carriers of head loads, drivers of animal driven vehicles, loaders and unloaders. 4. The last unorganised labour category includes service workers such as midwives, domestic workers, barbers, vegetable and fruit vendors, newspaper vendors, pavement vendors, hand-cart operators, and the unorganised retail.13
Considering that the unorganized sector is inclusive of all private enterprises that have a total of less than ten workers, workers are often unregulated, low-skilled and poorly paid. There have already been several schemes by the Government of India (GoI) to enhance the prospects of self-employed rural workers, and these are discussed in more detail in the subsequent chapter. This document is designed primarily to put forth the framework for a new scheme, tentatively named the Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (GSY), which is based on significant evidence on the design and implementation shortcomings of previous schemes, as well as on the strengths of successful poverty alleviation interventions both in India and elsewhere. The design and architecture of the scheme are rooted in two key innovations: (1) The convergence of existing institutional resources to ensure effective implementation and wide outreach in rural areas and (2) A diversified approach, both territorially and within differing levels of poverty groups, to make room for a nuanced and context-specific approach to poverty alleviation through self-employment. This framework for GSY will also detail the processes within the proposed convergences and detail a tentative budget.
1.2 What is GSY? The Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (GSY) aims to provide a comprehensive national and state-level support framework for self-employment of the rural poor. In its definition of self-
12 Definition of unorganized labor taken from the National Commission on Labor (1966 - 69) 13 Categories first described in V.V.Giri, Labour Problems in Indian Industry, 114 (1959) and further in 2008 report by the Ministry of Labor and Employment
10 employed, GSY will consider both rural individuals and families who generate their income directly through self-operated trades or businesses outlined by the Ministry of Labor and Employment in Section 1.1, and will not include those who are employees of an enterprise (public or private). Within the scheme, special attention will be given to the 2532 most backward blocks identified through the Intensive Participatory Planning Exercise (IPPE). These blocks were first identified on the basis of the percentage of the population living below the poverty line as identified by the Planning Commission in 2013. Then, a backwardness index was developed by the Planning Commission based on the 2011 Census data on agricultural dependence, female literacy rate, access to electricity, access to drinking water, access to clean latrines, and access to banking facilities. The backwardness index was shared with the States who guided the identification of ‘backward’ blocks. A list of backward blocks by state is available in Annexure 2.
1.3 History of self-employment in rural India
Given that rural development has been a focus for GoI since independence, it is worth examining briefly the history of policy measures. Of the numerous interventions aimed at improving the social and economic conditions of the rural poor in India, this review will primarily focus on schemes aimed at self-employment. Despite the initiation of group-specific and area-specific rural development initiatives during the Fourth Plan period (1969 - 1973), the major push toward rural employment began during the Sixth Plan (1980 - 1984). The Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP) was launched in 1980 with the goal of improving the standard of living of the rural poor on a 50:50 fund-sharing basis between the Center and the States. The District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) was responsible for coordination and planning of the IRDP at the district level, and the Village Level Worker (VLW) was responsible for selecting the beneficiary. The DRDA was set-up as a professional body in charge of scheme planning, monitoring and evaluation, along with coordination with different agencies. The DRDA had the following wings to address holistic implementation: the self-employment wing, women’s wing, wage employment wing, engineering wing watershed wing, accounts wing, monitoring and evaluation wing, and general administrative wing.14 From the IRDP, which fell under the self- employment wing, the Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM) was created with the objective of ending unemployment among rural youth.
Subsequently, from April 1999 onward, IRDP, TRYSEM and other schemes were merged into the Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY). SGSY was planned, monitored and evaluated by the DRDA through Panchayat Samitis and relied on the involvement of Panchayati Raj institutions, banks and NGOs to ensure the smooth functioning of established
14 From Report of the Committee on Restructuring the DRDA, Ministry of Rural Development, January 2012.
11 self-help groups (SHGs). Under SGSY, fund sharing between the Center and the States was done in a 75:25 ratio. However, despite modifications and improvements made under the scheme, it was still noted by several internal and external studies that SGSY was plagued with problems.15 These issues are detailed in Chapter 2.
In 2013, to deal with the shortcomings of SGSY, the program was restructured into the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM). The aim of NRLM is to organise the poor into Self Help Groups (SHGs), federate them and enable poor households who are members of the SHGs to escape poverty by accessing both self-employment and wage employment opportunities. However, as a relatively new structure, NRLM still faces several difficulties in ensuring concerted, coordinated efforts toward reducing rural poverty. GSY is proposed to be incorporated into NRLM but the scheme architecture seeks to overcome the existing limitations of NRLM.
1.4 Current self-employment schemes
Currently, self-employment schemes are undertaken by various Ministries. These efforts have been outlined below, with brief notes on the target population, mode of operation, and approach.
Ministry of Rural Development
One of the foremost initiatives toward self-employment by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is the creation of Rural Self Employment Training Institutes (RSETI). RSETI were set up with an aim to have dedicated infrastructure in each district of the country to impart training and skill upgradation of rural youth in the field of entrepreneurship development. RSETI are managed by banks and supported by the Government of India and State Governments. Training offered is decided on the basis of demand, and is provided after the aptitude of the candidate has been assessed. Training is usually residential and short-term. Through assured credit linkage with banks, RSETI are able to ensure the provision of initial financial support crucial to entrepreneurial ventures. A grant of Rs. 1 crore is provided to the lead bank in each district to set up and run the RSETI with support from the State government and guidance from a Local Advisory Committee.16 Given that RSETI focus on self-employment and fall under NRLM, the scheme will be subsumed under GSY.
15 For a summary review of rural development initiatives in India, see “IRDP to NRLM: A Brief Review of Rural Development Initiatives in India” 16 Sourced from the RSETI website
12 Another initiative focused on self-employment is the Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP), which was launched as a subcomponent of the NRLM in 2010 and aims at improving the capacities of women in agriculture to access the resources of other institutions and schemes within a convergence framework. Aiming to provide extension services and production assets to lessen the marginalization of women, MKSP’s Project Implementing Agencies (PIAs) prioritize women-headed households and women engaged in agriculture to provide end-to-end services by linking farmers with community based organisations. The scheme also emphasizes knowledge dissemination through partnerships and interactions with institutions and individuals, but lacks wider convergence of various strategies employed at the central, state, district and block levels across Ministries.17 Existing MKSP projects will be subsumed under GSY while no new projects will be undertaken as GSY proposes a more holistic approach to self-employment that includes agricultural training for all poor households, not only women.
A third initiative focused on self-employment is the Startup Village Entrepreneurship Program (SVEP), which was launched in 2014 and is currently in its pilot phase. It was conceptualized in 2014 as another mode through which to encourage individuals in starting their own enterprises. In addition, SVEP commits to providing support until enterprises stabilize, particularly in the realm of finance and business skill development. Led by village level community cadres called Community Resource Persons (CRP), this program is proposed to be monitored by the NRLM and SHG federations in each state. In its Guidelines, SVEP also identifies the need for convergence with other Ministries in order to avoid significant overlap.18 As SVEP focuses on beneficiaries who have existing experience with self-employment ventures, SVEP will continue to run as a separate program and will not be subsumed under GSY.
Ministry of Agriculture
The Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) place a special emphasis on the training and education of farmers, entrepreneurs, farm women, rural youth, financial institutions and voluntary organisations. The center focuses on augmenting the socio-economic conditions of farmers, farm owners, and livestock owners. To establish these needs, farm families’ surveys are conducted at the village level. The need-based and skill-oriented training programs of KVKs adopt a learning-by-doing and teaching-by-doing focus.19
Further, in an attempt to decentralize agricultural decision-making to the level of the district, the Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) was given the responsibility for technology dissemination of all activities at the district level. It has linkages with line departments, research organisations, NGOs, and agencies associated with agricultural
17 Sourced from the MKSP website 18 Sourced from Aajeevika’s website 19 Sourced from ICAR’s website
13 development in the district. Research and extension units within projects continue to retain their institutional identities but participate as key stakeholders or constituent members of ATMA. Two hundred and thirty seven ATMAs have been set up at the district level to operationalize extension reforms with the active participation of farmers and farmer groups. Release of funds to ATMAs is based on the preparation of strategic plans by State governments.20
Lastly, the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries (DAHD) oversees the Dairy Entrepreneurship Development Scheme (DEDS). DEDS, a Central scheme, aims to generate self-employment and provide infrastructure for the dairy sector through initiatives in animal breeding and rearing, improved milk production and processing, and structural changes to unorganized sectors to improve village-level production. The scheme provides a 25% subsidy (33.33% for SC/ST farmers) on project costs and credit linkages to ease loan provisions for the remainder of the costs up to Rs. 1 lakh. The scheme operates through the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), which serves as the nodal agency for implementation.21
Ministry of Tribal Affairs
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs supports the socio-economic upliftment of tribal population in several ways. Grants to the States under Article 275 (1) of the Constitution of India and the Special Central Assistance (SCA) are the two most major sources of finance for socio-economic development of tribal people in tribal sub-plan areas. It has constituted the Scheme for Assistance to State Tribal Development and Finance Corporations (STDFCs), which is a centrally sponsored scheme applicable in states with a significant Scheduled Tribe (ST) population. Through this scheme, the economic development of STs is assisted through the generation of credit from financial institutions, the provision of missing inputs by way of margin money loans and the provision of subsidies to target groups. All ST individuals below the poverty line are eligible for assistance under this scheme.22
Additionally, the Ministry has introduced a vocational training scheme to develop the skills of youth in tribal areas by enabling them to gain both wage and self-employment opportunities. This scheme is being implemented through State Government administrations, autonomous bodies, local institutions and NGOs by setting up vocational centers that cater to up to 100 students at a time. Each center caters to five vocational courses in traditional or other skills depending on the employment potential of the area. Following a two - three month training period, the trainee is attached to a Master Craftsman in a semi-urban area for a period
20 Sourced from the TNAU Agritech Portal 21 Sourced from the DAHD website 22 Sourced from Ministry of Tribal Affairs website
14 of six months to gain practical experience. Trainees receive financial assistance in the form of a monthly stipend and the provision of funding for raw material.23
Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises24
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED) was notified in 2006 to address policy issues affecting micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and to increase the coverage of the sector. In addition to facilitating directly the development of enterprises, MSMED provides a legal framework for the definition of an enterprise, calls for a statutory consultative mechanism at the national level and seeks to increase the competitiveness of MSMEs. The primary responsibility for the development and promotion of MSMEs lies with the respective State Governments. However, the Government of India supports State Governments through various initiatives.
Organisationally, the Ministry of MSME is divided into the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) division and the Agro and Rural Industry (ARI) division. The SME division supervises the National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) and three autonomous national level entrepreneurship development/training organisations. SME division also prepares a monitoring and results framework. The ARI division looks after the administration of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), the Coir Board and the Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization (MGIRI). It also supervises the implementation of the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP). The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Organisation (MSME-DO) is headed by the Additional Secretary and the Development Commissioner (MSME). The Office of the Development Commissioner assists the Ministry of MSME in the formulation, coordination, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of all policies relating to the promotion and development of MSMEs in the country.
Conclusion
As this chapter has established, the Government of India, through various ministries and departments, has implemented a number of schemes to address rural poverty through self- employment promotion. Yet, many of these previous programs have been critiqued for being adequately ineffective in reaching their goals. Given that a significant percentage of the population in poverty lives in rural India and relies on self-employment within the informal sector, there is a need to examine evidence on the nature of interventions that effectively address poverty.
23 Sourced from Ministry of Tribal Affairs website 24 Sourced from Ministry of MSME’s website
15 Chapter 2: Evidence
As mentioned in chapter 1, various GoI programs on self-employment have faced challenges in effectively helping poor families escape from poverty. Evidence on self- employment interventions, however, indicates that training combined with assets such as cash grants can help participants increase their income. These outcomes depend on proper implementation and monitoring.
Several studies have examined the impact of packaged interventions for self- employment. One study, conducted in Uganda by Banderia et al., offered vocational and life- skills trainings on a weekly basis through club meetings to adolescent girls.25 The trainings aimed to help adolescent girls launch businesses and educate them about the dangers of engaging in risky behaviors such as early marriage, early pregnancy, etc. After two years into the program, girls in communities where the program was offered were 72% more likely to engage in income-generating activities through self-employment and increased their expenditure on private consumption goods by 38%. They also found that the program led to a reduction in risky behavior, improved sense of empowerment, and raised ambitions among girls in treatment communities. This program, however, was not targeted towards poor youth.
Two alternate studies have focused on programs targeted at the ultra-poor, individuals who face a unique set of challenges. This group is characterized as having very little to no financial or physical assets. Additionally, they face an interrelated set of common challenges: lack of education, skills, and confidence; are predominantly engaged in insecure and fragile sources of income; and are often unable to benefit from traditional credit-based interventions.
One study that focused on a vulnerable group was conducted amongst poor, war- affected women in northern Uganda.26 The study found high returns to a package of US$150 cash, five days of business skills training, and ongoing supervision. Sixteen months after receiving the grants, participants almost doubled incomes (an increase of 98%) driven mainly from petty trading. The study further found that the ultra-poor have too little social capital but group bonds, informal insurance, and cooperative activities could be induced to generate positive returns. Despite these gains, the study found no impact on non-economic effects; women enrolled in the program were not more likely to increase their health spending, increase investments in children’s education or health, or obtain more decision-making power in household spending.
25 “Women’s Empowerment in Action: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Africa” by Banderia et al, 2015 26 “Enterprises for Ultra Poor Women after War: The WINGS Program in Northern Uganda” by Blattman et al., 2015
16
A similar study amongst the ultra-poor ran a randomized controlled trial of a large-scale, government-run Micro-entrepreneurship Support Program in Chile with two components: an in-kind transfer of US$600 as start-up capital and 60 hours of business training over one month, with follow-up mentoring visits within the next three months.27 The study found significant increases in employment by 15% in the short-run and 6% in the long-run. These improvements, however, were not seen for individuals who were already self-employed during the beginning of the program. Moreover, the program had no impact on women’s decision-making power in the household or children’s educational enrollment.
These studies suggest that though self-employment training and capital may help increase short-term employment and assets, they may not be effective in the long-term for the poor who see no changes in health and educational outcomes. Moreover, the interventions require proper capacity to be effective in the short-term. The two interventions in Uganda relied on NGO partners, which inherently limits the scale of the intervention. As Blattman et. al note for their intervention for the ultra-poor, the partner NGO first relied on a lottery system to determine which villages they would work in as reaching over 900 individuals stretched their capacity beyond limit. For the intervention to work at scale, then, further financial support for the NGO or a government partnership would have been necessary. On the opposite end, Martinez et al. note that in the case of their government intervention, measuring training quality at scale was crucial given variation across and within geography in proper implementation. These notes suggest that short-term interventions at a national level require a more strategic partnership to benefit from the strengths of the Central government and local implementation partners. While the former can be crucial in scaling up a program and providing financial and cross-sectorial support, the latter is necessary to tailor programs to local needs and ensure effective implementation.
Even then, short-term interventions may not be enough. Given that the poor, and especially the ultra-poor, face challenges in education, skills, employment and access to government interventions to begin with, they are particularly vulnerable to shocks — food, health, and income — and can therefore remain trapped in poverty. The interventions required to address poverty in the long-term, therefore, must be holistic in nature, long in duration and go beyond training and assets to have impact. Regardless, previous GoI interventions have focused on self-employment training and credit to address rural poverty. They have largely failed to produce the expected results in poverty alleviation given implementation problems at national, state, and local levels.
27 “Micro entrepreneurship support program in Chile: impact evaluation” by Martinez et al., 2015
17 2.1 Evaluations of Previous Self-Employment Schemes of MoRD
The government has introduced various employment schemes that utilize training and/or credit to address rural poverty through self-employment. GSY, the scheme proposed in this framework, builds on learning from two such previous schemes, the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) and the Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY).
2.1.1 Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)
Launched in 1980, the IRDP’s objective was to assist selected families of target groups in rural areas to cross the poverty line by taking up self-employment ventures. The program aimed to achieve the stated objective by providing income-generating assets, access to credit, and employment opportunities for the rural poor. The program sought to target a household of at least 5 members who collectively earned an annual income of less than Rs. 3500. Through IRDP, beneficiaries received a capital subsidy of up to Rs. 3000, bank credit of approximately Rs. 1500 to acquire income-generating assets, and training to upgrade their skills.
There have been many evaluations that examined the impact of IRDP. These evaluations have had the following main critiques:
● Targeting issues: A micro-study in Moradabad district in Western Uttar Pradesh found that the poorest families were largely excluded from the IRDP.28 Similarly, a World Bank study found that 25.8% of the IRDP beneficiaries they surveyed had household incomes higher than Rs. 3500, which violated the scheme guidelines.29 On one side, the poorest families did not make good borrowers and bank officials were reluctant to deal with them. On the other side, many poor families were not interested in taking the loan because they were afraid of being cheated or being unable to repay. The ultra-poor families, who cannot participate in economic activity on account of physical and mental handicaps, age, morbidity, etc. could not be helped merely by providing them with opportunities for self-employment or wage employment and needed further support.30 Traditionally, local advocacy groups — be it non-governmental partners or SHGs — have been used to ensure proper targeting of programs and address inclusion errors.
● Credit linkage issues: The IRDP program sought to promote productive investments by enabling the asset-less poor to access the markets by intervening in the credit market. However, a study undertaken in Tamil Nadu suggested that even in the presence of
28 Jean Dreze, Poverty in India and IRDP Delusion, Sept 29, 1990, EPW 29 World Bank Discussion Paper 58, Making the Poor Credit Worthy, A case study of IRDP in India 30 N J Kurian, IRDP: How relevant it is? December 26, 1987, Economic & Political Weekly
18 abundant credit, it was very difficult to identify productive investment opportunities for the rural poor.31 It was not enough for anti-poverty programs to overcome the barriers to credit availability for the poor. They also needed to assist the poor in identifying productive investments, the difficulties of doing which were severely underestimated in IRDP. This led to number of unviable projects being taken up, which resulted in sub- critical investments that led to the collapse of these micro-enterprises.32
● Lack of capacity building and training: Block-level machinery was very weak; there were no follow-ups and linkages regarding development and maintenance of the assets delivered to beneficiaries. A World Bank study in Uttar Pradesh also found that in absence of support and training, the lowest pre-IRDP income groups were more likely to sell the assets or see them perish/decapitalize than those who were already above the poverty line before the program.33
● Income and consumption effects: In 1984, the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development conducted a survey that found that only 47% of the sampled beneficiaries had been able to increase their family income through the program.34 A microstudy in two blocks of the Sabarkantha District in Gujarat conducted by the Institute of Rural Management found that despite an average investment of Rs. 2,337 per household, only 40% of the beneficiaries were able to surpass the poverty line.35
● Implementation Challenges: In 1988, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament of India, in its recommendations for reshaping IRDP, said, “The Committee deprecate that a program so vital for the uplift of the rural population and involving huge financial outlay was handled in a casual manner.” The Committee further added that, “it is distressed to find that the program was launched in haste without proper preparatory measures.”36 To illustrate the lack of planning, milch animals were the most popular asset under the program. During the sixth plan period alone, IRDP created a demand for roughly 4-5 million milch animals at an all-India level. But there was hardly any scheme for augmentation of supply of milch animals to meet this unprecedented demand either at the macro-level or the regional levels. The IRDP beneficiary ended up paying a significantly higher price for the cow than under normal conditions.
31 Paul Seabright, Failure of Livestock Investments under IRDP, Sept 30, 1989, Economic & Political Weekly 32 C A K Yesudian, Poverty Alleviation Programmes in India: A Social Audit, TISS, July 2007 33 World Bank Discussion Paper 58, Making the Poor Credit Worthy, A case study of IRDP in India 34 From “IRDP to NRLM: A Brief Review of Rural Development Initiatives in India” by Roy, 2014 35 “Impact of Milch Animals Programme of IRDP in Sabarkantha District, Gujarat” by K. Singh et al., Institute of Rural Management, 1985. 36 Indira Hirway, Reshaping IRDP, June 25, 1988, Economic & Political Weekly
19 In addition to planning challenges, a 1985 study by the Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO) of the Ministry of Rural Reconstruction also found that IRDP was fraught with implementation challenges.37 The study highlighted the following problems:
o Districts and States lacked the willingness to implement the scheme. States were hesitant to create a strong administrative set-up, create annual plans for districts and in certain cases, share costs with the Centre. o When the plans were made, supply of inputs, marketing and other infrastructural support needed for successful implementation of program were not adequately spelled out. Additionally, too much emphasis was put on banks for provision of credit and technical extension. There were serious challenges in follow-up and supervision of loans and schemes, and co-ordination between banks & Government administration. A World Bank study in Uttar Pradesh found that only 44% of beneficiaries disadvantaged prior to the inclusion in the program were engaged in sustained self-employment activities and repaid credit.38 o Much of the public criticism of the IRDP was concerned with corruption, malpractices, bribery and other leakages during program implementation.39 To illustrate, the PEO report cited that 52% of scheme recipients reported problems in getting scheme benefits for various reasons, including problems accessing credit with low interest rates from banks.40 Only 24% of the sample households were sanctioned loans.40
As the examples indicate, the implementation challenges were three-fold: (1) As the PAC identified, the program lacked the preparation required to deal with the complexity of the organisational capacity necessitated for proper implementation, even after 8 years of the program’s launch. (2) Even if MoRD had prepared for execution, it lacked the capacity to address them because of the institutional context of departmental silos - different ministries were responsible for differing scheme needs. In the case of milch animals identified earlier, MoRD would have had little control in implementing a scheme that would increase the availability of quality animals because that is the job of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, which currently comes under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Such an institutional architecture likely resulted in the supply and infrastructural failures identified by the PEO, and must be set right while trying to design GSY. (3) An entirely government-led effort did not recognize the nuances of state-to-state and region-to-region differences in economic and political resources, both of which must be accounted for in poverty alleviation strategy. The varying causes and solutions for self-employment, thus, require
37 Evaluation study of Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)”, PEO Study No. 134, 1985 38 World Bank Discussion Paper 58, Making the Poor Credit Worthy, A case study of IRDP in India 39 N J Kurian, IRDP: How relevant it is? December 26, 1987, Economic & Political Weekly 40 Evaluation study of Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)”, PEO Study No. 134, 1985
20 contextualisation to a geography. This requires Government - Non-Government (both non-profit and for-profit) to come together to fill local gaps and harvest local opportunities.
Since its inception in 1980 until 1996-97, IRDP covered 5.09 crore families at an expenditure of Rs.11,434 crore.41 The Ninth Five Year Plan converted IRDP into a holistic program covering all aspects of self-employment through a merger of existing sub-schemes — Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM), Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA), Supply of Improved Toolkits to Rural Artisans (SITRA) and Ganga Kalyan Yojana (GKY). Eventually, IRDP was merged into a larger scheme, the SGSY.
2.1.2 Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)
SGSY was launched in 1999 by consolidating various self-employment programs into a single scheme with the objectives of: (i) focused approach to poverty alleviation, (ii) capitalizing advantages of group lending, and (iii) overcoming problems associated with multiplicity of programs. SGSY sought to bring families above the poverty line through a holistic approach that incorporated all aspects of self-employment — organisation of the rural poor into self-help groups (SHGs), capacity building, planning of activity clusters, infrastructure development, technology, credit, and marketing. Along with these resources, the scheme provided 30%-50% of project costs, depending on whether beneficiaries applied as individuals or SHGs.42
As with IRDP, a number of evaluations were conducted of the SGSY program. Results of evaluation of the SGSY show inadequate infrastructure and insufficient capacity building as main constraints43 44:
● Targeting issues: A Mid-term Appraisal by the Planning Commission suggested that SGSY should place more emphasis on women SHGs, female-headed households, the disabled, families of laborers, destitute persons, and other vulnerable groups.45 Even with SHGs, targeting remained a continual problem for SGSY – this suggests a need to include local non- governmental partners focused on economic and social growth to improve the beneficiary mandates set by government.
● Credit linkage issues: In 2009, Prof Radhakrishnan Committee’s report reviewed the credit flow to SHGs under SGSY.46 The Committee found that out of the nearly 31 lakh
41 9th Five-year Plan (GoI Planning Commission) 42 Planning Commission 43 Results of evaluation of the SGSY, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five Year Plan 2002-07, Government of India, 2005, pp.238- 242 44 Draft background material on National Rural Livelihoods Mission 45 Results of evaluation of the SGSY, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five Year Plan 2002-07, Government of India, 2005, pp.238- 242 46 Prof Radhakrishnan Committee Report on Credit related issues under SGSY, 2009
21 SHGs formed over a period of ten years (1999-00), only 22% of SHGs were taking up economic activities financed by bank credit and supported by the subsidy. The shortfall was attributed to the “failure of public intervention to enhance the credit absorption capacity of SHGs as well as the failure of credit delivery systems to reach the poor”.46 A National Institute of Bank Management-National Institute of Public Finance and Policy report observed the same scenario and said that credit disbursement gained pace only in the fourth quarter of the year, motivated by the aim of fulfilling the target.47 According to the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, less than 50% of the Rs. 25,000 crore credit flow was achieved as of 2007.48 Though SGSY attempted to solve the IRDP problem of credit linkages through SHGs, the institutional set up for credit disbursal and the top-down mandate in a central-state-district-panchayat structure (where each level had differing priorities) led to little improvement.
● Uneven performance: The performance of SGSY was found unsatisfactory in the States with high incidence of poverty like West Bengal, Bihar, Odisha and Jharkhand. In these States, Government functionaries did not have adequate knowledge of the program, banks had little interest in it and line departments were not involved in planning, implementation and monitoring of the program.49 In fact, though planning fell under the DRDA, they lacked capacity building skills and were minimally involved in the planning process. Moreover, DRDA monitoring was solely limited to finances with no joint evaluation programs.50 This same problem existed with IRDP, suggesting that government functionaries may not be the best implementation partners for anti-poverty programs across all states, especially in low-performing states. This also calls for a differentiated approach across regions that have different levels of economic activity or implementation capacity.
● Lack of capacity building and training: Only 6% of the total SGSY funds allocated for training and capacity building were utilized in ten years.51 Moreover, only 14% of the funds for creation of infrastructure were used.51 The mid-term appraisal of Tenth Five Year Plan also found that training for skill development by DRDA was inadequate.52 In some States like Jammu and Kashmir, a 2009 study by PEO, Planning Commission found that most of the beneficiaries had not received any training at all from the government.53 As previous interventions highlighted in this chapter indicate, training—that too high quality training—and handholding are necessary for programs to have impact.
47 National Institute of Bank Management-National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, Action Research Project on Gendering Microfinance under SGSY 48 Planning Commission, Eleventh Five Year Plan, 2007-2012 49 Prof Radhakrishnan Committee Report on Credit related issues under SGSY, 2009 50 From Report of the Committee on Restructuring the DRDA, Ministry of Rural Development, January 2012. 51 Prof Radhakrishnan Committee Report on Credit related issues under SGSY, 2009 52 Concurrent evaluation of SGSY, Planning Commission, Mid-Term Appraisal of 10th Five Year Plan 2002-07, Government of India, 2005, pp.238- 242 53 Evaluation report on SGSY, Jammu and Kashmir, Programme Evaluation Organisation, Planning Commission
22
● Lack of SHG federations: There was high rate of attrition among Grade I and Grade II SHGs indicating that large number of groups fizzled out mid-way after availing the revolving fund. The cluster approach and creation of SHG federations generally remained a non-starter.54 Of the SHGs that cleared the Grade II stage, many waited for long periods before availing themselves of the loan and subsidy. The 2009 study by the PEO, Planning Commission in Jammu and Kashmir found that only 18% of total groups formed passed to Grade II during 2001-07.55 Given these shortcomings, the NRLM has rightly adapted its strategy by focusing on SHG quality through the panch sutras and Community Resource Persons (CRP), as well as by establishing federations.
● Effects on income and consumption: A 2002-2003 study by MoRD found that 46% of SHGs saw income improvements from SGSY activities and 40% reported an increase in savings.56 Conversely, an evaluation of SGSY in Odisha found that sample beneficiaries marginally benefited by having better employment opportunities but did not fare significantly better in terms of real income and expenditure.57 Another study showed that even in the better performing State of Andhra Pradesh, the income gain from enterprise activities under SGSY seen by an SHG member was a mere Rs.1,228 per month.58
● Lack of implementation structure: The 11th Five Year Plan noted a lack of human resources to provide technical support for rural development.59 The SGSY, similar to IRDP, was planned, monitored, and implemented through the DRDA but given the propensity of DRDA staff to be generalists with little access to capacity building trainings, they were poorly involved in the planning, coordination, monitoring and evaluation processes.60
Overall, evaluation studies of SGSY have highlighted the implementation shortfalls of SGSY, and few have evaluated the income effects of the scheme at a national level. Similarly, there is limited data on the impact of SGSY in targeting the ultra-poor. Based on the recommendations of the Prof Radhakrishnan Committee report, it was decided to set up National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM; under which SGSY was subsumed) to incorporate several improvements to increase the impact of SGSY: removing institutional barriers, better
54 Rajaram Dasgupta, SGSY, Need for a paradigm shift, October 24, 2009, Economic & Political Weekly 55 Evaluation report on SGSY, Jammu and Kashmir, Programme Evaluation Organisation, Planning Commission 56 MoRD, Annual Report 2002-03 57 Government-Sponsored Development Programs for Rural India: A Case Study of SGSY in Orissa” by Sanjay Kumar Lenka and Amaresh Samantaraya, 2010 58 P. Purushotham, Institutional Credit for Rural Livelihoods: A Study of SGSY in the Regions of High Poverty, NIRD, 2008. 59 Planning Commission, Eleventh Five Year Plan, 2007-2012 60 From Report of the Committee on Restructuring the DRDA, Ministry of Rural Development, January 2012.
23 information dissemination, provision of basic infrastructure and transportation, and storage and marketing of finished products.
2.1.3 National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM)
The NRLM was designed to address the shortcomings of the earlier programs and emphasized a ‘livelihoods approach’ to eliminating rural poverty. The scheme broadly encompassed four tasks: (i) mobilizing poor households into functionally effective SHGs; (ii) enhancing the access to credit and other financial, technical and marketing services for the poor; (iii) building the capacities and skills of the poor for sustainable livelihoods development; and (iv) converging various schemes for efficient delivery of social and economic support services to the poor. Despite the revamped program, some of the limitations seen in the earlier programs seem to persist in NRLM as well:
● Lack of long-term impact: The program focuses on social mobilisation through self-help groups and facilitating savings and credit. The members use the high-cost loans from the SHGs for their various consumption and investment needs. While NRLM has met its targets for mobilizing the poor into SHGs, State-wise reviews of the program have found that the amount disbursed to the SHGs needs to increase substantially. The current disbursals are most suited for consumption needs or for short-term working capital or small assets and prevent members from investing large livelihood assets.61 Thus the funding available through the SHG route (even after linkage with banks) do not allow for substantive change in livelihoods status for most households. In addition, reviews have found that there is a disparity between the number of SHGs eligible for bank credit and the number of SHGs actually getting bank credit.
● A non-holistic approach: As the evidence in the previous chapters demonstrate, promotion of profitable self-employment for the persons in the unorganized sector requires multiple kinds of investments to happen simultaneously. Investments include creating livelihood opportunities, building capabilities, providing livelihood assets, creating last-mile infrastructure, creating market linkages, and modernizing technology. Some of these investments must be undertaken at the household level, some at the community level and some at the government level.
● Lack of a non-differentiated approach: The nature and kind of finances required may vary from area to area based on existing conditions regarding quality of public infrastructure, quality of natural resources, access to technology and markets, quality of human resources, level of economic vibrancy, etc. In an area that is economically less
61 Unstarred question no. 822, 16th Lok Sabha
24 developed, it is necessary to bring in investments through public resources or coordinated private action to first prime the economy. Then, economic opportunities can be created around which individuals or households can find self-employment.
● Lack of convergence: Addressing the diversity that exists between geographies in the country to promote self-employment requires large-scale convergence of resources among multiple government departments across ministries. This must be done in conjunction with mobilizing resources from the private sector, civic societies and financial institutions. In the NRLM framework for implementation, there are provisions for partnership with other government departments, NGOs and the private sector.62 Despite these guidelines, the NRLM, as part of MoRD, does not have the space, mandate or authority to bring together resources from multiple sources, especially from other ministries.
Overall, the evidence on IRDP, SGSY and NRLM suggest that though the schemes attempt to address rural poverty through a uniform, non-differentiated approach at a national level, as yet they lack the institutional capacity to succeed. For the ultra-poor, they further lack a nuanced, regional strategy to address the varying causes and solutions to address poverty. All three efforts, despite having targeted and concrete impact goals, face the same two overall problems: (1) Their design does not account for state-by-state and region-by-region differences in resource availability, varying levels of government implementation ability, and institutional architecture of departmental silos that prevents resource convergence. (2) They do not address the need for a holistic and differentiated approach for the ultra-poor.
2.2 Institutional Partnerships for Poverty Alleviation
As identified previously, a multidimensional approach to poverty alleviation is necessary for a long-term increase in income. Such an approach, however, is often difficult for individual government departments or government acting on its own to engender. As the analyses of IRDP, SGSY and NRLM have indicated, effective implementation is key to ensuring rural poverty alleviation. A multidimensional approach requires the build-up of social, political, physical and human capital combined with participatory development to avoid risks of capture by local elites or exclusion of the ultra-poor or marginalized groups.63 In order to address the implementation limitations of a solely government-run program; ensure participatory development; and promote long-term, sustainable impact of a scheme, scholars and
62 From the NRLM Framework for Implementation 63 A. Shepard, “Governance, good government and poverty reduction,” 2000, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(2): 269-284
25 international organisations have increasingly called for a partnership approach to government programming for poverty reduction.
Partnership models consist of government commitment to work with non-government partners, both for-profit and non-profit, to implement programs within frameworks that are mutually agreed upon — scheme guidelines in this case. Such partnership models allow each actor to bring unique strengths and capacity to program implementation. Non-profits for instance, can be crucial in ensuring that marginalized groups are included in public programming while allowing for a continued monitoring of proper implementation through local field officers and community members. Similarly, for-profit agencies can provide opportunities for the poor to integrate with value chains, thereby providing self-employment sources and creating a larger or differentiated market in the local economy. Such initiatives have successfully been implemented in the case of KOTO in Vietnam (an internationally accredited hospitality training and job placement program) or the global Shell LiveWIRE Initiative to provide entrepreneurship training for youth. These initiatives by private players require co-sponsorship and co-ownership at the local level, therefore requiring government support as an “operational necessity”.64
As identified through previous scheme critiques, however, partnership definitions must extend beyond simply governmental and non-governmental collaboration. In an institutional structure wherein each department across various ministries operates in its own silo, partnership models must include cross-departmental and cross-ministry collaboration, especially if they are to holistically approach poverty alleviation. In 1985, the Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Administrative Arrangements for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation Programmes (CAARD) by the Planning Commission, upon reviewing various rural development programs, called for such a partnership.65 Given implementation problems at the time, CAARD called for a district-level planning agency that could coordinate activities of all implementing agencies, thereby forming a network to handle rural development programs which required a wide operating environment. The DRDA was to serve this purpose, but it needs greater professionalisation and resources if it is to be effective. The Report of the Committee on Restructuring of DRDA set up by MoRD has advocated the establishment of a District Plan Support Unit (DPSU) in this regard.66 This needs to be implemented to take care of district-level issues. Such reforms must come in conjunction with coordination efforts at the State and national levels. The framework to accomplish such designs is discussed in later chapters.
64 “Partnerships for Youth Employment: A review of selected community-based initiatives” by P. Kenyon, ILO, 2009. 65 Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Administrative Arrangements for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation Programmes (CAARD)” by the Planning Commission, 1985 66 Report of the Committee on Restructuring the DRDA, Ministry of Rural Development, January 2012.
26 Partnership models can have several benefits over the traditional single-department, public-sector approach to poverty alleviation, as identified by Vermeulen in relation to partnerships for the forestry sector.67 These benefits, however, are applicable across all sectors:
1. Managing risk and vulnerability: Poverty reduction requires strategies for poverty prevention, enabling poor people to be more resilient in the face of environmental, economic and political insecurity. 2. Raising returns to investment and capital: Increasing income is a key dimension of development among poor communities—a strategic approach emphasises efficient and long-term capital gains. 3. Supplying indirect benefits to infrastructure and environment: Sustainable gains to local livelihoods depend on a nexus of benefits to infrastructural and natural capital as well as financial rewards. 4. Facilitating community empowerment: Improved local livelihoods require not only better access to material income and capital, but also more equitable access to decision-making processes and systems of justice.
Additionally, Stephen Osbourne, author of Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspectives, adds that “the nature of the problems facing local economies are multifaceted requiring a combative response from a number of private and public key actors in order to be effective and efficient.” In relation to poverty alleviation, Osbourne adds:
The economic, social and environmental and other problems faced by urban areas, particularly those areas suffering from multiple deprivation, are often interrelated, overlapping and mutually reinforcing. Hence solutions aimed at one part of the system are unlikely to be fully successful because of the counteracting impacts of other factors. Partnerships between key actors are therefore essential in order to tackle the various causes (in so far as these can be tackled locally) as well as the symptoms of the problems of the local economy. Also formal and informal joint working or partnerships are important mechanisms to achieve complementarity and avoid wasteful duplication of effort.68
67 Quoted from “Rural poverty reduction through business partnerships? Examples of experience from the forestry sector” by Vermeulen, S. et. al, 2006 in Environ Dev Sustain (2008) 10:1–18
68 Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspectives by Stephen Osbourne, pg. 19
27 “Given the overwhelming Osbourne cites the Third Programme to Combat Poverty by the EU, which called for schemes requesting evidence, both from assistance to be “…managed by a Steering Committee design or implementation composed of representatives of all bodies involved in shortcomings of previous carrying out the scheme…who will undertake to schemes and from complete a joint program to combat all facets of academic literature, there poverty in their…town.”69 is a need to re-envision the effectiveness of the Furthermore, Osbourne argues that partnerships create more effectiveness and efficiency of current one-department, programs by reducing the confusion people face in publicly led model for identifying the concerned department or agency to rural poverty alleviation approach for various problems. By removing through self- redundancy and increasing trust in programs through employment.” the coordination of various partners, partnerships can ultimately improve participation.
Given the overwhelming evidence, both from design or implementation shortcomings of previous schemes and from academic literature, there is a need to re-envision the effectiveness of the current one-department, publicly led model for rural poverty alleviation through self- employment. A partnership model to address rural poverty has already worked in other contexts and has been recommended for many years. In the following segment, we review three case studies which have the following key features: (1) An international or national funding agency comprised of various departments, (2) A local, non-governmental implementation partner which creates a unique poverty action plan for an area, and (3) Continued partner-governmental collaboration for monitoring to ensure proper implementation.
2.2.1 Case Study: BAIF-EU Project in India
In 1999, BAIF, a Public Charitable Trust in India with headquarters in Pune, launched a BAIF-European Union project called “Transfer of Technologies for Sustainable Development” across 5 States and 11 districts in India.70 Working with the Government of India and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), BAIF came to call its work the Jana Utthan Approach. The approach ensures a better quality of life for the poorest of the
69 Establishing a Medium Term Community Action Programme to Foster the Economic and Social Integration of the Least Privileged Groups by Commission of the European Communities, 1988 70 “The Jana Utthan Approach: BAIF’s Approach to Poverty Alleviation in Rural Areas” by Anil P. Tambay and I.P. Bhagwat in Sustainable Development and Earthcare: Searching for Policy Initiatives by K. V. Sundaram, Prem and Shankar Tiwari (eds), 2009
28 poor through a multi-sectorial engagement addressing livelihood, health, literacy and moral development. N.G. Hegde describes the program in detail71:
Under this approach, the Extension Workers interact with the local community with an open mind and to bring them together to identify the local problems. The community is then encouraged to interact closely and identify the members into 3-4 economic categories based on their income and the access to various resources. Then the local groups identify the resources and the opportunities for the individual families belonging to different categories with an objective of bringing all the sections above poverty. In this process while the marginally poor get smaller support through 1 or 2 development intervention, to come out of poverty, the poorest families having limited resources are given opportunity to participate in multiple activities. Thus the poor have scope to earn their income from several sources and the chances of failure are low. This approach is helpful to maintain transparency of the program and promotes harmony among the members of different economic categories.
Within this planning process, called Micro Level Planning (MLP), BAIF not only creates a differentiated approach based on a household’s poverty level, but also creates criteria for working with the community. These include: availability of resources such as land, water, human resources, livestock, etc.; agriculture production and income assessment; gap estimation between a household’s current status and the poverty line; household needs; capacity building; and formation of People’s Institutions and Federations72. Using the MLP, BAIF creates a package of intervention for each household that includes food security, gender equity, health, education and improvements in quality of life. These interventions include trainings, community health support, and People’s Organisations, akin to SHGs, which ensure community participation in activities.
The BAIF-EU project has in large part succeeded in reaching over 34,000 poor rural families, over 65% of whom are SC/ST or OBC, due to its varied approach in addressing local community needs and due to its partnership model. The project allows community members to take ownership of economic development and collaborate with BAIF in creating an action plan for interventions. BAIF was able to use its successful model at scale due to the financial support provided by the EU of approximately Rs. 95 crore over 8 years, from 1996-2004. These funds were disbursed through NABARD, another partner, who not only directly received the funds but monitored the project, developed strategies for project implementation along with EU and
71 “Challenges of Rural Development and Opportunities for providing Sustainable Livelihood: BAIF’s Approach” by N.G. Hegde, International Forum on Frontier Technology for the 21st Century and Potential Collaboration with Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. May 30-31, 2002. 72 From Rajasthan Rural Institute of Development Management, an associate organisation of BAIF.
29 BAIF, and disseminated lessons learned.73 This top-level convergence with the EU, NABARD and BAIF allowed for long-term sustainability through financing and strategic vision.
At the same time, BAIF partnered with government, other NGOs and banks at the implementation level to ensure that project activities were supplemented rather than duplicated within villages. For example, rather than duplicating governmental efforts to create a community health centres, BAIF partnered with the Health Department to provide health support.73 By working across health, education, and other departments, BAIF successfully worked across government silos to maintain its strength in community-based, participatory development.
Through top-level and grassroots-level collaboration, the BAIF-EU project provides strong evidence that a rural development project requires multi-stakeholder financial and implementation partnerships that allow for differentiated approaches to poverty alleviation for various communities. These partnerships address the financial constraints of grassroots organisations that prevent them to scale, while simultaneously providing strong human resource capacity that may be absent in certain governmental branches. These combined strengths allow the focus to be rural poverty alleviation rather than financial, administrative or capacity constraints.
2.2.2 Case Study: Rural Poverty Alleviation Program in Brazil74
Over the last 25 years, Brazil has made significant strides in addressing rural poverty in the Northeast part of the nation, which has 12 million people living in extreme poverty—the most living in rural poverty in Latin America. Between the 1970s to the 1980s, however, poverty reduction was treated through sector-specific strategies such as irrigation, rural transport, etc. or through the Integrated Rural Development Programme. Similar to previous schemes in India, however, these programs were laden with administrative complexity and delivery problems,75 so much so that only approximately 44% of the funds reached the rural poor.76
Following various pilots in the 1980s, the World Bank and the government launched the Rural Poverty Alleviation Program for the Northeast in 1995. The new program aimed to give
73 From a 2002 Business Wire Article, “European Union Team Visits Rural Development Project in Udaipur District” 74 “Empowering the Poor through Decentralization : Brazil Rural Poverty Alleviation Program” by K. Kuehnast, 2001, World Bank unless otherwise stated. 75 From a Policy Dialogue Presentation in South Africa titled “Rural Poverty Reduction Program: Experiences from Community-Driven Development Projects” by R. Caminha, February 2011 76 From “Brazil’s Northeast Rural Poverty Alleviation Program” by L. Coirolo and S. Quinn, Social Investment Funds Case Study, 1998.
30 autonomy and flexibility to community organisations in poverty alleviation planning. The decentralized program starts with a problem-solving process that allows local associations to write investment proposals and submit them to the local Municipal Councils. In order to ensure community-based participation, 80% of the council’s members are from poor rural communities and organisations. In cases where communities cannot create Municipal Councils, proposals go directly to the State. Upon a proposal’s approval, the State Technical Unit directly transfers the funds into the community association’s bank account, allowing it to operate and implement the project.
In most cases, approximately 90% of the funds are directly released to the community association to decrease corruption, increase community involvement and commitment, and provide financial sustainability. The World Bank provides 60% of the total project funds, which can go up to US$50,000, on loan to the State unit who then transfers it to the community association. The State and municipal governments finance 30% of the project and beneficiaries contribute 10% in infrastructure and labor.75 Approximately 10% of the funds are used for technical assistance, administration, and monitoring and evaluation. The projects are administered and supervised collaboratively by the states, municipalities and community associations involved in the program. The World Bank conducts evaluations to ensure impact.
Overall, the project has been a success. The locally-rooted interventions not only build local capacity but remove burdensome and costly tasks from the hands of the local government. The program has also made significant strides in reducing poverty. With the decentralized funding mechanisms, approximately 93% of the funds reached targeted beneficiaries.76 So far, approximately 38% of rural Northeast families have benefited from at least one implemented subproject. In the State of Sergipe, “22,000 homes, 1,200 small businesses, approximately 200 public and community buildings, 100 health posts, and 400 rural schools/daycare centers were electrified by rural investments financed by the project.”
Similar to the BIAF-EU Project, Brazil’s program maximized community-level autonomy and ownership of both poverty alleviation project design and operation. The partnership with the World Bank, state and municipal governments ensured that financing and administrative needs were met while the community-based proposals combined with community-provided labor and infrastructure ensure that implementation was done at the grassroots level. Moreover, because the projects need not be sector-specific or department-specific, they are able to pool resources from multiple departments or ministries. Such collaborative efforts again showcase the potential of partnerships to maximize poverty alleviation.
31 2.2.3 Case Study: The Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC)
In 1986, BRAC created the Income Generation for Vulnerable Group Development (IGVGD) scheme from two realities: (1) Completely community-led projects did not improve outcomes for the ultra-poor, who lacked both livelihood or credit opportunities, and (2) In 1986, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) had offered food aid which assisted the ultra- poor’s cash constraints. BRAC’s IGVGD program thus used a combination of food aid, savings and trainings, low-cost capital requirements through credit, skills training and health interventions to provide self-employment and a holistic care package for the rural ultra-poor.77 As described in the next chapter, the program was extremely successful in bringing the ultra- poor above the poverty line and has since been expanded globally through various organisations as detailed in Section 2.3.
The initial launch of the 1986 program, however, was achievable due to a joint agreement with the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation, the Government of Bangladesh, WFP, and BRAC to provide each participant with a monthly ration of 30 kg of wheat for a period of 18 months.78 Since its inception, IGVGD has worked with over 6,50,000 households across Bangladesh and reached over 1.4 million women. The current functioning of the program at scale, however, requires a diverse network of stakeholders, each with a unique role79:
● The Ministry of Women’s and Children’s Affairs selects IGVGD households, arranges training funds, and provides both administrative and monitoring support.
● The Directorate of Relief and Rehabilitation allocates and distributes food aid.
● WFP, in addition to providing food aid, funds trainings, monitors the program, and conducts research and evaluation.
● PKSF, a funder set up by the Government of Bangladesh, in conjunction with other banking associations provide credit for the microfinance aspects of IGVGD.
Along with these partnerships, BRAC oversees IGVGD strategy, programming and implementation. As with the BAIF-EU Project and the program in Brazil, IGVGD’s success is rooted in a larger funding agency, in this case the Government of Bangladesh and WFP, coming to an agreement to provide part of the funds. At scale, this support continues but requires coordination with multiple ministries and lending organisations. In the meantime, BRAC
77 “Working with the ultra-poor: learning from BRAC experiences” by S.R. Halder and P. Mosley, Journal of International Development, 2004 78 “Bangladesh: Scaling Up a Program for the Poorest—BRAC’s IGVGD Program” by the World Bank 79 “Challenges of Scaling-Up a Program for the Poorest: BRAC’s IGVGD Program” by I. Matin and R. Yasmin, 2004.
32 maintains a local, community-focused outreach model for implementation that adapts needs to particular households.
Overall, the three case studies detailed above prove that a new approach, one that diverges from the previous government-led models of IRDP, SGSY and NRLM, is required for GSY to be a success. The poverty alleviation policies must have the following key features:
1. They must allow for a differentiated approach based on the status of economic development of a geographical area, a community’s particular needs, the level of household poverty, and the special support needed for the ultra-poor.
2. This differentiated approach can be achieved through the establishment of a partnership model wherein a professionally-managed Central government agency that is owned by multiple ministries and other stake-holders agree to fund GSY and take responsibility for its success.
3. Local implementation partners (for-profit or not-for-profit) must submit proposals based on GSY-defined approaches that tap into self-employment opportunities suited to a community.
4. The local implementation partners must ensure that GSY guidelines are goals are met.
5. The Central Agency, called the GSY Board, tasked with the implementation of GSY must provide administrative as well as monitoring and evaluation support to ensure proper functioning and impact.
Specifications for such a partnership model are outlined in Chapter 3. Even if this new partnership model is achieved, however, there must be a unique approach to address poverty across regions and for the ultra-poor; evidence suggests that strategies that work for those who are moderately poor may not reach the most marginalized and vulnerable communities.
2.3. Evidence on Differentiated Approaches
Previous successes on poverty alleviation have relied on a nuanced, differentiated approach in increasing household incomes. These approaches are two-fold: (1) They must recognize that different regions require different interventions and (2) They must recognize that the moderately poor require different interventions than the ultra-poor.
33 2.3.1 A Territorial Approach Some of the biggest critiques of IRDP and SGSY focus on their inability to recognize state-to-state differences in both the form of poverty and state implementation capacity. Similar problems exist across many nations, particularly in Mexico. There, the government has recognized the need for a territorial approach to rural development, which aims to achieve local economic development and reduce poverty through territorially based economic coordination. Through programs like Microrregiones, Microcuencas and the Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable, the Mexican government has gradually fine-tuned this approach. The main tenets are80: (1) multi-sectorial development to account for differing needs, (2) linkages between rural and urban areas, (3) the use of participatory territorial planning as instrument for economic coordination and to organize the demand for development interventions, (4) the structuring of interventions around a long-term strategic plan for the territory, (5) the exploitation of economic potential of territorial assets, and (6) the recognition of the mobilizing capacity of a shared territorial identity.
Rather than being sector-based, the territorial approach focuses on territorial equitability rather than equality. A similar approach is required within the diverse geographies of India, something that was recognized by the Report of the Committee on Restructuring the DRDA. In it, the Committee stressed that rural development strategies ought to be envisaged such that they address three forms of divides: (1) Spatial divides, both urban-rural and intra- rural, (2) Social divides including gender, class, caste, and community, and (3) Economic divides both within and among communities.81
Such careful planning, combined with adequate funding and robust evaluations, can overcome challenges in state implementation capacity which has frequently been blamed for programmatic failures. In a comparison of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), N.C. Saxena finds that the former scheme has succeeded in BIMARU states due to these factors.82 If state implementation capacity varies, robust program design, adequate funding, and frequent evaluations can ensure scheme success.
2.3.2 Evidence on Targeting the Ultra-Poor
For policymakers, effectively reaching the ultra-poor presents a serious challenge as it requires enabling the poorest families, often the most marginalized within their communities, to
80 A Study of Rural Poverty in Mexico in Income Generation and Social Protection for the Poor, The World Bank 81 Report of the Committee on Restructuring the DRDA, Ministry of Rural Development, January 2012. 82 “Why PMGSY has performed better than MGNREGS” by NC Saxena, Skoch Development Foundation, 02 February 2016.
34 shift from very insecure sources of income to more sustainable livelihoods. Traditional social interventions are often introduced as single instruments, such as food aid or cash transfers, which tend to deliver poverty reduction and food security benefits as long as the intervention lasts. As seen with IRDP and SGSY, previous efforts to encourage this transition from single instruments to more integrated, comprehensive social protection systems have been plagued by implementation problems and have had disappointing results. The implementation of GSY must thus be based on a partnership model as detailed above. Even with this model, however, a unique approach will be required for the ultra-poor.
One promising approach pioneered by BRAC in Bangladesh, fosters basic entrepreneurship among the ultra-poor women. This approach (also known as the Graduation program or Targeting the Ultra-Poor (TUP) program) helps the ultra-poor women in rural areas attain sustainable livelihoods by providing them a combination of carefully sequenced services including transfer of a productive asset, with the ultimate goal of empowering and helping them “graduate” out of extreme poverty.83
With the aim of evaluating BRAC’s approach in varying contexts, a series of nine pilot projects were implemented in seven countries84 involving a broad range of partners. These programs consisted of the following key criteria85:
● Productive asset transfer: One-time transfer of productive assets helps participants jump- start a sustainable economic activity, and is a critical element of the graduation model. The goal is to match the right activity to the interest and skills sets of participants. The most common assets transferred are livestock, supplies for petty trades like sewing machines, and stock of commodities to start small shops.
● Technical skills training: Participants are provided training by the implementing organisation staff to manage the productive asset provided to them. The trainings are specialized based on the different kinds of the assets.
● Consumption support: A major premise of the graduation model is that food insecurity causes significant stress that reduces one’s ability to take advantage of immediate opportunities or plan for the future. Consumption support, either as cash or directly as food, is meant to create some peace of mind for participants as they are selected into the program. This support helps participants and their families stabilize their food consumption levels until they start earning income from the productive asset they receive as part of the program.
83 “Can Basic Entrepreneurship Transform the Economic Lives of the Poor?” by Bandiera et al., 2013. 84 Countries included Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Pakistan, and Peru 85 “From Extreme Poverty to Sustainable Livelihoods: A Technical Guide to the Graduation Approach” by Montesquiou et al., 2014
35
● Savings: Participants are given access to a savings account, or are encouraged to save. Savings help poor people manage risks, build resilience, and reduce the likelihood of having to sell assets when faced with a shock. Although many poor people save informally, saving regularly in a formal way helps program participants build financial discipline and become familiar with financial service providers.
● Home visits: Frequent home visits by implementing partner staff provide accountability, coaching, and encouragement. During these visits, staff monitor the progress, address problems, and provide coaching over the 18 to 24 months of the program.
● Health: Implementing organisation staff provides health education, health care access, and/or life skills training to the participants.
The studies across seven countries found that the targeted program for the ultra-poor helped households shift into more stable self-employment. This increased their standard of living both two years and three years after the productive asset transfer—a year or more after all program activities ended. The pooled results from six sites Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras86, India87, Pakistan, and Peru show the following88:
● The TUP approach caused broad and lasting economic impacts. TUP households’ consumption increased 5.8% relative to the comparison group two years after the asset transfer. TUP households’ consumption increased the most in India, by 13.6%. Households experienced similar improvements in food security, asset holdings, and savings.
● The improvements in well-being were mostly the result of increases in self-employment income. Injecting a combination of productive assets and relevant skills training led to an increase in basic entrepreneurial activities, primarily concentrated on livestock and activities like petty trade.
● These effects were consistent across multiple contexts and implementing partners.
86 Karlan, Dean and Bram Thuysbaert. “Targeting Ultra-Poor Households in Honduras and Peru.” NBER Working Paper No. 19646, November 2013. doi:10.3386/w19646. 87 “Targeting the Hard-Core Poor: An Impact Assessment” by Banerjee et al., November 2011 Working Paper 88“A Multi-faceted Program Causes Lasting Progress for the Very Poor: Evidence from Six Countries” by Banerjee et al., 2015
36 Replications of the TUP Model
Since BRAC designed and implemented the TUP Model in Bangladesh in 2001-02, it has scaled up the model to reach over 6,50,000 households in the country. Moreover, a scale-up of the TUP program is underway in Pakistan and several other countries with non-profit implementing partners (and in many cases, in conjunction with corporate donors). In several countries, these scale-ups are being conducted through the government. The Ethiopian government is incorporating the TUP approach into the national Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), the largest social safety net program in Sub-Saharan Africa. Countries in Latin America, like Colombia, Peru and Brazil are also integrating graduation program into their respective social safety net programs.
In India, Bandhan-Konnagar has scaled up the TUP program from Murshidabad district in West Bengal to 28 districts across six states: Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Tripura, and West Bengal. As of September 2015, Bandhan-Konnagar had reached over 32,500 beneficiaries across these six states. In 2016, Bandhan-Konnagar is looking to take the model to new states, such as Jharkhand, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Meghalaya, and Maharashtra.
Conclusion
Overall, previous efforts at poverty reduction through self-employment have had limited success because: (1) Institutionally, they have been embedded in the existing institutional architecture, which follows a department-specific, government-led model. This architecture does not allow scheme managers to converge resources across departments, something that is necessary to holistically approach poverty interventions. (2) Previous programs have been designed such that interventions are uniform across poverty levels and geographies. Successful poverty alleviation efforts through self-employment require a region-specific response given the diversity of resources across the country, further differentiated for the ultra-poor. Based on the evidence specified, there is a need for a new program that addresses these shortcomings.
37 Chapter 3: Design for a New Program
Based on the evidence presented in chapter 2, this chapter proposes the design for a new scheme, the Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (GSY). Specifically, GSY’s design seeks to address the shortcomings of previous self-employment programs. While this chapter identifies the basic tenants of GSY, the subsequent chapters detail specifics. In order to ensure the program can access institutional resources of various ministries working on self-employment, the chapter proposes a new vertical under the National Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (NRLPS) in order to converge such resources, and outlines its role in program implementation.
3.1 Need for a new program
GSY has been designed based on the lessons learned from various self-employment programs implemented over the last three decades. Similar to the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) which deals with wage employment under the skills vertical of the NRLPS, GSY will be subsumed under an entirely new vertical of the NRLPS. NRLPS is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Rural Development and is registered under the Societies Registration Act. It acts as the technical support from the NRLM programme. GSY will:
A. Focus on sustainable livelihoods, primarily through self-employment. B. Identify the poor and ultra-poor based on the SECC data, which will be confirmed through participatory community-based methods. C. Follow a differentiated strategy for the ultra-poor (including differently-able, destitute, aged etc.) in all blocks, nationally. The ultra-poor will be identified based on the following criteria in the SECC, which will be determined by a combination of SECC data and a household survey led by the Project Implementation Agency (PIA). Ultra-poor will be defined as individuals who fall into one of the following categories: a. Households who suffer from at least two SECC-defined deprivation indicators as identified by SECC data; indicators are89: 1. Households with only one room, kucha walls, and kucha roof 2. No adult members between the ages of 16 and 59 3. Female-headed households with no adult male member between 16 and 59 4. Households with disabled member and no able-bodied member 5. SC/ST household
89 “Provisional Data of Socio Economic Caste Census (SECC) 2011 for Rural India Released” Press Information Bureau, 3 July 2015
38 6. Households with no literate adult above 25 years 7. Landless households deriving a major part of their income from manual, casual labour b. In addition, the following will be automatically included as ultra-poor: 1. Individuals or households who depend on begging, charity or alms OR foraging/rag picking as a primary source of income, as determined by both the SECC data and the household survey 2. All families belonging to Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) (see Annexure 1 for a list of groups) 3. Individuals or households belonging to groups classified as ‘Maha-Dalits’ as defined by a State
D. Be aimed at sustainably settling up a household or an individual by providing knowledge, skills, attitudinal training and accompaniment support. E. Adopt diverse approaches according to the state of the local economy in a given geographical area. a. In non-backward blocks, i.e. defined as blocks that do not fall under the ‘backward blocks’ category under the Planning Commission and later modified by the Intensive Participatory Planning Exercise (IPPE), an Ultra-Poor Approach will be adopted to account for their needs, including access to government entitlements. b. In areas defined as ‘backward blocks’ by the Planning Commission, a Graduated Approach will be undertaken to enable every poor person, including the ultra- poor, in a contiguous cluster of villages to come out of poverty through a multi- pronged strategy, which, among other interventions, includes self-employment and access to all government entitlements. i. In these backward blocks, PIAs undertaking a Graduated Approach will be required to work with ultra-poor through strategies that suit their needs. c. In all blocks, a Sector Approach will be undertaken wherein a set of pro-poor value-chains will be identified to enable a facilitating environment for large-scale self-employment. d. In all blocks, the National Rural Livelihood Mission’s Rural Self-Employment Training Institutes (RSETI) program will be subsumed into GSY. Under GSY, RSETI satellite training centers will be opened to cater to specific catchment areas. F. Bring together multiple ministries and other funding agencies (from within and outside government at the Central and State level) that have relevance to rural self-employment, and converge resources around the household.
39 G. Use rigorous criteria to select and fund Project Implementing Agencies (PIAs), and enforce high quality standards by linking payments to clearly defined deliverables and benchmarks.
Through such a model, detailed in the subsequent chapters, GSY seeks to ensure that weaknesses from previous self-employment programs are not repeated and appropriate features are built in to ensure that households are not constrained in their attempts to escape from poverty.
3.2 Need for a new institutional architecture
As the previous chapter has emphasized, the convergence of efforts and resources at all levels is a “While there has been no must to tackle the daunting challenge of self- dearth of efforts among employment creation. Thus far, even though ministries and straightjacketed and uniform approaches have made departments to create some dent in poverty alleviation in economically strong areas, they have had lesser impact in economically convergence and facilitate weak areas—particularly for the ultra-poor who rely diverse approaches to on largely self-employment. While there has been no poverty alleviation, the dearth of efforts among ministries and departments to structural problems that create convergence and facilitate diverse approaches prevent a unified, national to poverty alleviation, the structural problems that effort have yet to be prevent a unified, national effort have yet to be addressed.” addressed. Currently, convergence occurs but in limited ways. Today, departments working jointly on projects separately release funds that are pooled at the local level, creating uncertainty, delays and infrequency of payments. Convergence not only requires right intentions at various levels, it also requires an institutional structure to convert intention into systems and processes through strategic action. The institutional structure must include the pooling together of financial resources at the national and state levels to allow for a united, streamlined fund flow to local levels. Professional competencies that are required to facilitate large-scale convergence are best housed in an entity that is designed for it.
We therefore propose establishment of a new vertical co-owned by various ministries for GSY under NRLPS, which we call the GSY Board. The Board will draw the requisite mandate from the highest level and have the professional competencies to adequately address the challenges of convergence, differentiated approach, and multi-stakeholder partnership. The GSY Board will be headquartered in Delhi and will have an office in each region or in some
40 cases, particular states. These regional/State offices, called Regional Hubs, can be manned by GSY staff or via outsourced Project Management Units (PMUs). Regional Hubs will provide technical support. Furthermore, each state will have an Empowered Committee (EC) chaired by the Chief Secretary or Development Commissioner with contributing departments as members and a dedicated implementation wing in the State Rural Livelihood Mission (SRLM). The GSY Board and the SRLM’s GSY unit will be the two main implementation arms. The final implementation arm will be the Project Implementation Agency (PIA) for each geography or sector.
3.3 GSY Board
The GSY Board in NRLPS will: (1) Focus on augmenting and strengthening rural self- employment through inter-departmental convergence, (2) enable a diversity of approaches to achieve self-employment targets that cater to local needs, and (3) work through multi- stakeholder mobilization. The GSY Board, which is proposed as a jointly-owned agency by Central Ministries and other stakeholders, seeks to address the gap of partnership models identified in Chapter 2.2, namely the inability of for-profit and non-profit entities or individual governmental departments to address poverty alleviation through self-employment on their own. For instance, in order for an organisation to establish an agro-processing value chain, it will need to coordinate with banks for credit; the Department of Agriculture and the State Horticulture Mission for access to seeds, fertilisers, and best local practices; and the Ministry of Rural Development to improve road linkages for transporting inputs and produce. The Ministry of Rural Development or the Department of Agriculture cannot get this done on its own, nor can local implementation partners without government help. Such projects require partnerships across departments and between non-governmental and governmental partners. To address this need, the GSY Board is being proposed as an agency jointly owned by Central Ministries and other funding agencies, akin to the Sagarmala model recently undertaken by the Ministry of Shipping, the National Fisheries Development Board undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, or the National Horticulture Board overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture.
3.3.1 Roles of the GSY Board
Broadly, the GSY will fulfill the following roles; further duties are defined in Chapter 5:
1. Converge resources
Promoting self-employment across the country requires the convergence of multiple government departments at the Central and State level. Based on the evidence provided
41 in Chapter 2.2, schemes housed in one ministry or department has limited influence on the spending decisions of another ministry and often replicate similar schemes to overcome this limitation. Even then, these schemes are limited in their ability to approach poverty interventions in a holistic manner. Therefore, the GSY Board within NRLPS will serve as an Inter-Departmental Board to ensure that multiple ministries and departments and other agencies come together to strategize and support grassroots- level projects for rural self-employment. Primarily, these ministries and departments are as follows: the Department of Rural Development, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agricultural Research, the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, the Ministry of Textiles, the Department of Financial Services, The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. However, as GSY is designed on a partnership model between the government and a variety of actors, the Board will also include members from non-state actors, primarily from corporate organisations, civil society organisations, commercial and public banks or financial services, and sector specific organisations.90 The composition of the GSY Board is defined in Chapter 5, and subgrouped by the Governing Board (in charge of overall strategy) and the Management Unit (in charge of core implementing functions of the Board).
Such convergence will require the GSY Board within NRLPS and its members to develop a shared vision, agree upon the challenges of promoting self-employment, and evolve a jointly-funded strategy for the scheme. Through its structure, the Board will converge the priorities of the different Ministries and evolve a common action agenda. The GSY Board will also pool together capacity building and financial resources of these Ministries and other agencies in order to initiate large-scale, rural self-employment programs.
Convergence can improve the quality of implementation and build efficiency through two channels: (1) By enhancing the quantum of resources available and (2) by connecting similar schemes and providing coherence in services provided to beneficiaries. Convergence has already received high-level policy attention in the Government. A recent circular dated 28-10-2015 signed by both the Secretary MoRD and Secretary, MoA&FW, calls for convergence between various programs of the said two ministries and provides a framework. The IPPE 2 currently underway in states brings together the MoRD programs of NRLM, MGNREGS, the MoPR, and the different departments at the state level.
90 The National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and the Central Silk Board (CSB) are two examples of sector specific organisations.
42 2. Approve and Sanction projects in Yearly Plan (YP) States
The GSY Board will fund and monitor large self-employment programs implemented by Project Implementation Agencies (PIAs) at the grassroots-level. In order to be eligible, a PIA must be a for-profit or non-profit organisation registered under at least one of the following acts: the Indian Trust Acts, any State Society Registration Act, any State Cooperative Societies or Multi-State Cooperative Acts, the Companies Act 2013, or the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2008. The PIA can also be a government department or institution. The GSY Board will be in charge of determining eligibility conditions for PIAs that can implement GSY. It will develop these based on the project appraisal strategy identified in Chapter 6 of this framework document. Prior to project implementation, extreme care will be exercised in selection of PIAs for their track record and quality. Subsequently, implementation guidelines will be clearly stated and communicated to ensure smooth project implementation.
Within the GSY state-structures, there will be two types of states: Year Plan (YP) states, and Annual Plan (AP) states. AP states are in a better position to undertake GSY implementation by identifying deserving poor candidates, assessing local skill gaps, proposing suitable self employment programs, monitoring training and other support for the trainees, providing technical support to PIAs, etc. YP states are those who currently lack implementation capacity and are transitioning into full-fledged involvement as and AP state. While all states will have an state-level convergence body called an Empowered Committee (EC), YP states will not have project implementation capacity within the GSY unit in the SRLM, nor a dedicated team at various levels to support the implementation of the program. In YP states, the GSY Board within NRLPS, upon recommendation by the YP state where the project is to take place, will approve and sanction projects. In view of low oversight capacity at the state level, the GSY Board will be responsible for overseeing monitoring and evaluation of YP states’ PIAs. However, in an AP state, the approval and sanctioning of projects will be done by the State EC, along with monitoring and evaluation.
3. Oversee knowledge management
The GSY Board will oversee the creation of a repository of knowledge regarding the opportunities, scope, and nature of self-employment in varying parts of the country. To do so, the Board may take up documentation and research studies, as well as bring on knowledge and technology resource institutions to enable data collection and management. The knowledge resource thus garnered will be used to initiate projects and support the PIAs in improving project design and implementation. Digital information and communication technology will be used to assimilate, organize, and disseminate knowledge as far as possible.
43
4. Oversee Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)
Monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) will be an important function of the GSY Board to assist in its mandate to promote large-scale, rural self-employment through PIAs. The objective of MEL is to ensure the continuous measurement of progress for each project, understand project impact, and integrate key findings for continuous project development and improvement. The GSY Board will be responsible for overseeing MEL for PIAs in YP states, and overseeing general MEL quality in AP states. In order to ensure MEL is conducted efficiently, the GSY Board should use digital information and communication technology when possible. In all states, the GSY Board will also carry out various events, both at the Central and regional levels, to facilitate cross-organisational learning and policy improvement. Lastly, the GSY Board will strategize and oversee quality audits for PIAs to ensure their compliance to GSY guidelines and targets.
3.3.2 GSY Board Finances
The GSY Board will be a separate vertical under NRLPS, which is an autonomous society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. This new vertical will be co-owned by the governmental ministries and departments represented in its membership. The membership composition is detailed in Chapter 5. The government ministries and departments represented within the GSY Board will jointly fund GSY. GSY will be the self-employment initiative under the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), similar to DDU-GKY being the wage-employment component of NRLM. Based on the NRLM structure, the funding will be 60:40 by the centre and states in all states except the Northeast and Himalayan states, where it will be 90:10. The composition of funding from each ministry or department is to be jointly decided upon by GSY Board members. GSY Board members will also have the authority to jointly decide on fund expenditure as outlined by the budget in Chapter 6. GSY Board members may modifications on GSY budget and expenditures as needs arise.
3.4. Regional Hubs
Apart from the central GSY Board, GSY will establish state level or regional level offices, depending on the size of the region and as decided by the Board. These offices may be manned by GSY’s own staff or outsourced to PMUs. The Board will provide technical support to SRLM GSY units in the form of knowledge support, expertise, troubleshooting support, and other needs as they arise.
44 3.5 State ECs and SRLM Units
Each state will have an Empowered Committee (EC) chaired by the Chief Secretary or Development Commissioner with representatives from contributing ministries and departments as members. The EC may also have the head of the corresponding Regional Hub as a member of the committee to ensure GSY goals are aligned with state goals. Furthermore, a Member Secretary of the EC may be from the SRLM to ensure EC strategy and SRLM unit goals are well-aligned. This Member Secretary may be the Chief Operating Officer of GSY unit in SRLM when possible. Furthermore, to the extent possible, the composition of the EC should mirror the departmental representation in the GSY Board as is defined in Chapter 5. The EC will serve the role of converging resources and providing strategic support to GSY at the state level. Additionally, there will be a dedicated implementation wing for GSY in the State Rural Livelihood Mission (SRLM) in AP states.
3.5.1 Role of State ECs and SRLM Units
The State ECs shall have the following roles: 1. The EC shall converge resources at the state level by pooling together capacity building and financial resources of multiple ministries and departments in order to initiate large- scale, rural self-employment programs. The EC will further need to jointly strategize the committee’s mission, vision and values. 2. State ECs will sanction projects and oversee project implementation in Annual Plan (AP) States.
In all states, there will be a dedicated GSY unit within the SRLM. In all states, the GSY unit will have the following responsibilities: 1. The GSY unit will act as the secretariat of the EC. 2. The GSY unit will provide support to the Regional Hub as requested, specifically in the form of field visits, troubleshooting, and handholding of PIAs. 3. The unit will assist with data entry for administrative and financial functions for state projects, in addition to MEL data entry as needed. 4. The unit will assist in converging resources at the state level based on the State EC’s strategy and needs
In AP States, the GSY unit will have additional responsibilities: 5. The unit will recommend projects to the State EC and process approved projects to ensure implementation. They will further assist PIAs in project implementation as needed.
45 6. The GSY SRLM unit will undertake MEL responsibilities for all PIAs approved by the State EC.
3.5.2 GSY SRLM Unit Finances
At the state level, GSY programs will be funded in the same ratio as the NRLM. Akin to NRLM, GSY state units will receive 6% of project costs for administrative matters to set up implementation capacity or outsource operational/administrative requirements. In addition to funds assigned to the state by the GSY Board, the EC shall converge jointly-agreed upon funds from the represented ministries or department at the state level for additional financial needs. The Secretary of Rural Development shall be a member of the EC, and will be responsible for creating a cell within the State MoRD for GSY finances. This cell will serve as the repository for fund management and be used to fulfill the responsibilities of both the state and the GSY unit in the SRLM.
Conclusion
As detailed in this chapter, GSY’s design seeks to account for shortcomings observed in previous rural self-employment programs. Specifically, GSY seeks to (1) converge resources of various ministries and departments working on self-employment programs, (2) create a differentiated policy for the ultra-poor in all blocks in the country, (3) develop a holistic and area-based approach for poverty alleviation through self-employment in the list of backward blocks in Annexure 2, (3) develop a sectorial and value-chain-based approach for blocks that are not classified as backward in Annexure 2, and (4) rely on Project Implementation Partners, both for-profit and non-profit, to implement projects.
These goals will be fulfilled through a new institutional architecture wherein a new vertical within NRLSP, the GSY Board, will approve projects in YP States, oversee project monitoring and evaluation, and ensure knowledge management and dissemination. The GSY Board will have a Regional Hub, which will oversee technical support management. In order to support the Board in state-level convergence, each state will form an EC and a GSY unit in the SRLM. In AP States, the EC will also be responsible for approving PIAs for projects. This new institutional architecture will assist GSY stakeholders in ensuring that the scheme fulfills its strategic vision to decrease poverty through self-employment in a differentiated manner–across territories, various levels of poverty, and through sectors.
46 Chapter 4: Program Approach
In order to converge resources for poverty alleviation through rural self-employment promotion, GSY will undertake a variety of approaches. These approaches—which include the Ultra-Poor Approach, the Graduated Approach, the Sector Approach, and the RSETI route— are not necessarily mutually exclusive but are conceptually different. It may be required that two or more of these approaches need to be deployed within a Block or a District by multiple Project Implementation Agencies (PIAs). This chapter outlines the objectives of these approaches.
The four streams are as follows:
1. The Ultra-Poor Strategy (Non-Backward Blocks)
Though poverty is often described as a uniform state, i.e. one is either poor or non-poor, there is significant diversity within poverty. Within groups that are below the poverty line, individuals may be moderately poor, extremely poor or ultra-poor depending on how far their income and/or consumption levels divert from the poverty line. As detailed in chapter 2, the ultra-poor—those who face the highest forms of poverty deprivation— require a unique package of assistance in order to ensure they see long-term income effects from anti-poverty programs. According to evidence, this package ought to have the following features: a one-time productive asset transfer, technical skills training, consumption support, savings support, health services, and coaching and monitoring with a special focus on socio-psychological support. Additionally, the ultra-poor must be enrolled in all government entitlements they are eligible for to ensure they get the necessary social protection. Such an approach will thus require one-time cost provisions from the program. Additionally, the time-frame for an ultra-poor household’s participation in the program would have to be at least 2 years to ensure the household comes out of ultra-poverty, and an additional 2 years to ensure the household comes out of poverty. Once the household has come out of ultra-poverty, the PIA may adopt a Graduated Approach catered to household needs to ensure the household comes above the poverty line.
2. The Graduated Approach (Backward Blocks)
This approach seeks to build an overall economic prosperity in an area through convergence of resources from multiple sources—namely different government departments, the private sector, financial institutions, and GSY investments. Within the Graduated Approach, PIAs must first identify all households below the poverty line, including the ultra-poor, and create a graduated plan based on a variety of strategies to
47 ensure targeted measures are undertaken to bring them out of poverty. This strategy shall be adopted in the 2532 backward blocks outlined in Annexure 2.
The objectives for the Graduated Approach will be to:
I. Identify poor households, including ultra-poor households and individuals, through SECC data as published for these blocks, followed by household surveys undertaken by PIAs. II. Identify natural resource endowments, market linkages, and value chains that can potentially boost self-employment opportunities in the area III. Adopt a graduated approach that is tailored to the identified household or individual’s poverty level to ensure that each of them is taken comprehensively out of poverty over a maximum time period of 8 years. The support provided could range from mobilizing groups, ensuring social assistance, making available wage employment, building skills for self-employment, and setting up other linkages. The persons who are identified may be helped to move into any occupation/set of occupations of their choice which provides them full and gainful employment through various means, including training, credit, inclusion in eligible schemes, etc. IV. Ensure that all households are enrolled in government schemes and entitlements they are eligible for. V. Build on existing work already being conducted by NRLM, MGNREGS, other departments, and civil society organisations. VI. Converge resources of the different programs and ensure there are funds available according to one’s poverty status for social assistance, capacity building, livelihoods asset creation, working capital, value chain development, viability gap funding for self-employment, market linkages, etc. The Graduated Approach will use established SHGs where possible. Additionally, it will incorporate existing projects that operate under the Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP), a sub-component of the NRLM. MKSP projects support capacity building through training and financial support to female beneficiaries who are particularly interested in self- employment in the field of agriculture. Upon integration, MKSP will fall under the administrative framework of GSY. No new projects will be undertaken for MKSP and the scheme’s mission will broadly be captured within the Graduated Approach and broad based to all groups in poverty, not just female beneficiaries with an interest in agricultural self-employment.
3. Sector Approach (All Blocks)
The Sector Approach seeks to build pro-poor, sectorial value chains to integrate individuals below the poverty-line into self-employment opportunities. This approach will be adopted in all blocks throughout the country. Through in-depth value chain studies, PIAs will be asked to fill the critical gaps to grow sub-sectors that are identified in the
48 region. These sub-sectors will prioritize 11 thematic areas: integrated natural resource management, dairy, small ruminants, poultry, fisheries, non-timber forest products, non- farm industries, textile, horticulture, commercial crops, and rural services. Such a sectorial approach will also work through the convergence of resources between governmental and non-governmental partners. Such a value chain approach will require structured resources for logistics, operations, marketing and sales, production, and services to ensure a scale of economy. The area of operation shall be developed as a production or processing cluster around which an economic upsurge is created, leading to large-scale employment opportunities.
4. The RSETI Satellite Route (All Blocks)
The Rural Self-Employment Training Institutes (RSETI) under the MoRD already work towards training and settling rural youth for self-employment. Similar to the MKSP being subsumed by GSY, RSETI will fall under GSY. Currently, the RSETIs operate under two limitations: (1) Their training rate far exceeds their ability to ensure trainees set-up self- employment opportunities91, and (2) they are located at the District headquarters and thus have little training outreach in more remote areas. Under GSY, PIAs can partner with GSY to set-up RSETI satellites in areas that currently lack the institutes. In order to do this, GSY will first have to define the existing catchment area and trades undertaken by current RSETI. Doing so will highlight the gaps, both geographically and in terms of trainings, to be filled by new PIAs. Thereafter, PIAs may apply so long as they ensure that:
I. They are able to set up satellite centres in a district with an existing RSETI, but not necessarily in the catchment area. II. They abide by RSETI guidelines published by the NRLM. III. They can ensure that individuals who are trained are provided accompaniment support, sustained on-job training, and other assistance to set up and profitably run their enterprises. Moreover, both new PIAs and existing RSETI will have to undertake the following reforms to maximize impact from the program:
I. Cost norms for the skilling component of RSETI will be based upon those set by the Common Norms Committee for Skills Development Schemes under the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship. Cost norms include support for components like mobilisation of candidates, trainers’ training, placement expenses, post-placement tracking/monitoring and infrastructure costs.
91 “Labour Market Impacts and Effectiveness of Skills Development Programs in 5 States in India: Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Rajasthan” by the World Bank’s Education Global Practice, April 2015.
49 II. RSETI (both existing and new) will undertake de-duplicated IRIS-based attendance and CCTV recording (both audio and video) of all classes. Lab work will additionally be incorporated into classes to ensure comprehension. III. The duration of courses will be in sync with the National Institute of Open Schooling courses for each job role. Upon course completion, certification by a National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF) authorized agency will be required. IV. Upon course completion, each trainee will be tracked for 36 months to understand settlement, which will be defined as Rs. 36,000 incremental income in any 12 months over a 36-month period. A. The tracking results will be verified by a third party using random sampling methods. These third parties will be selected through a tendering process. All RSETI PIAs will be financed under the GSY for all additional costs they incur to meet these objectives.
Under all the above approaches, the RSETI and MKSP under the NRLM will be subsumed within GSY. However, GSY will not include Startup Village Entrepreneurship Program (SVEP) that supports the Micro-Enterprise Consultant model at the block level. Currently, the SVEP is aimed at helping potential entrepreneurs set up viable enterprises that allow them to employ other people. However, the primary goal of GSY is to enable individuals first to be gainfully and sustainably self-employed, and is thus targeted at individuals who may not have the means to take advantage of SVEP. Once beneficiaries have been able to sustain their own self-employment initiatives for a defined period through GSY, they may then turn to the SVEP structure for further support.
Conclusion
Overall, the following diagram details the approaches undertaken in various blocks throughout the country:
Figure 1: Approaches Under GSY
50 The above-defined approaches will ensure that all individuals below the poverty line, including the ultra-poor, have access to self-employment opportunities given the resources in a particular geography. The Graduated Approach will allow for household-specific methods to generate self-employment in backward blocks among the poor and ultra-poor. Similarly, the Ultra-Poor Approach in non-backward blocks will use the existing evidence (see chapter 2) to generate tailored self-employment opportunities. In all blocks, RSETI and RSETI Satellites along with the Sector Approach will bring forth value chains and sectorial training to promote self- employment. Together, these approaches will allow for nuanced, geography-specific solutions to poverty alleviation through self-employment in a way that converge resources across departments or sectors.
51 Chapter 5: Institutional Architecture The GSY Board will be a separate vertical under NRLPS with the purpose of enhancing the wellbeing of rural, poor communities through the means of sustainable and profitable self- employment. The organogram is detailed in Figure 2.
5.1 The GSY Board The Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (GSY) Board will be the flag bearer for the new national program on rural self-employment, GSY.
5.1.1 The Organisational Structure The GSY Board will be a new vertical within NRLPS with a Governing Board consisting of Secretaries of relevant Ministries and Departments. The Minister, Rural Development will be the Chairperson of the Governing Board. The Governing Board’s composition will be as follows:
1. Minister, Ministry of Rural Development (Chairperson) 2. CEO of GSY Board (Member Secretary) 3. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare 4. Secretary, Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises 5. Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs 6. Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj 7. Secretary, Ministry of Textiles 8. Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship 9. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 10. Secretary, Department of Financial Services 11. Representative, NITI Aayog 12. Representative, NABARD 13. 2 Representatives from Corporate Sector (co-opted by the GSY Governing Board) 14. 2 Representative from Civil Society Organisations (co-opted by the GSY Governing Board) 15. Subject Matter Specialists 16. Representative, Commercial Banks 17. 1 Representative each from organisations such as National Dairy Development Board, Central Silk Board, Rubber Board, Coconut Board, Spices Board, National Fisheries Development Board, National Horticulture Board, etc.
52
Figure 2: Organogram for GSY
53 The Governing Board will consist of the above-identified members so that it is able to mobilize funds and technical support from each of these departments. Additionally, the mix of persons on the Governing Board ensures that the larger developmental goals pursued by each of the department are left uncompromised. The presence of non-governmental institutions ensures that the decision-making is inclusive, objective, and consists of varied perspectives, including that of the community.
5.1.2 The functions of the Governing Board 1. Provide vision and strategic direction 2. Define and uphold basic values and non-negotiables 3. Approve projects for Yearly Plan (YP) States with recommendation from the state 4. De-bottleneck fund release from various departments in Central ministries 5. Bring in beneficial partnerships to build knowledge and capacity in the organisation 6. Assist in policy discussions and formulate policies beneficial to rural poor in relation to self-employment 7. Conduct recruitment, appointment and review of CEO for the Management Unit 8. Renew itself
5.1.3 Management Unit of GSY Board The Management Unit will consist of the CEO and a group of subject matter specialists (thematic experts). There will be eight Unit heads for managing four program-verticals (Ultra- Poor, Graduated, Sector and RSETI Approaches) and four other verticals (HR and Personnel, Finance and Accounts, Monitoring-Evaluation-Learning, and IT).
The CEO is to be recruited from the market through a search process by a committee headed by the Chairperson and with at least two more members from the Governing Board. All other recruitment will be undertaken by a committee headed by the CEO.
The functions of the Management Unit are to:
1. Adhere to the founding vision and values 2. Prepare medium-term perspective plans and annual action plans for training and settling identified rural poor families 3. Recruit, select and contract projects for the different program verticals in YP States based on YP States’ recommendations 4. Prepare and disseminate guidelines and standard operating procedures 5. Create a National Portal for PIAs to apply through with project proposals 6. Create scoring and selection criteria for the Project Appraisal process 7. Create a GSY workflow-driven, Internet-enabled IT platform 8. Undertake monitoring, evaluation, learning and quality assurance
54 9. Support and trouble-shoot operations on the ground through the regional chapters 10. Mobilize support and finances from different Central ministries and other partners (corporates, donors, CSR, anyone else) for the annual action plans 11. Build and nurture partnerships 12. Help convergence of resources from various departments 13. Oversee knowledge management through sectorial studies, value chain appraisals, resource institutions, documentation and dissemination of good practices, and research on relevant policy issues 14. Conduct policy discussions 15. Ensure self-renewal through review and reflection, and in accordance with time as required
Beyond the GSY Governing Board and Management Units, the GSY Board will have Regional Hubs consisting of technical experts in to assist with technical management of projects. These technical experts can consist of staff members of the GSY Board or be outsourced through Project Management Units (PMUs). The head of the Regional Hub may be a member of the State Empowered Committees (ECs) that fall under the Regional Hub to ensure Board goals are aligned with state goals.
5.2 State Empowered Committee (EC)
Each state will from an EC to resemble certain functions of the GSY Board at the state level. The EC will consist of Secretaries of relevant Ministries and Departments. The suggested composition of the EC is as follows:
1. Chief Secretary/Development Commissioner (Chairperson) 2. Secretary, Rural Development (Member Secretary) 3. Secretary, Agriculture 4. Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries 5. Secretary, Tribal Affairs 6. Secretary, Panchayati Raj 7. Secretary, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship 8. Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings 9. Lead, Regional Hub of GSY Board 10. COO, GSY Unit in SRLM 11. Representative, Finance 12. Representatives from Corporate Sector 13. Representative from Civil Society Organisations 14. Representatives from Producer Organisations
55 15. Subject Matter Specialists 16. Representative, NABARD 17. Representative, Commercial Banks 18. Representatives from NDDB, National Fisheries Development Board, National Horticulture Board, and other similar sectorial organisations
5.2.1 The functions of the EC
1. Provide vision and strategic direction 2. Define and uphold basic values and non-negotiables 3. Sanction projects for Annual Plan (AP) States 4. Ensure that state share from relevant departments are made available to GSY unit of SRLM 5. De-bottleneck fund release from various departments in state ministries 6. Assist in policy discussions and formulate policies beneficial to rural poor in relation to self-employment at the state level
5.3 GSY Unit in SRLM In all states, there will be a GSY unit within the SRLM that serve as the secretariat for the EC. In AP states, these units will additional be in charge of project management, finances, and monitoring and evaluation. The unit will headed by the COO who is to be recruited from the market through a search process.
The functions of the GSY Unit in SRLM in all states are to:
1. Adhere to the founding vision and values 2. Act as the secretariat for the State EC 3. Support and trouble-shoot operations on the ground for PIAs and on behalf of Regional Hubs 4. Help the State EC converge resources from various state departments 5. Ensure data entry is conducted on GSY’s workflow-based, Internet-enabled IT platform in a timely manner to ensure smooth operations 6. In AP states, the unit will have the following additional responsibilities: a. Recruit, select, and contract PIAs for the different program verticals in AP States b. Support PIAs in program implementation, including providing direction in administrative and financial guidelines c. Oversee monitoring, evaluation, learning and quality assurance
56 Conclusion
The above-defined architecture and functions of the GSY Governing Board, Management Unit, and the Regional Hub; the State EC; and the GSY Unit in the SRLM will govern the overall strategy and functioning of GSY. The architecture is designed to maximize convergence at Central and state levels, which will allow for varied and diverse approaches to self-employment for poverty alleviation.
57 Chapter 6: Program Administration
This chapter describes the project administration framework. It details the project application, appraisal and monitoring process, the mobilization and selection process for program beneficiaries, and budget and funding norms for PIAs.
6.1 Project Application, Appraisal, and Monitoring
GSY will follow a partnership model for implementation. The implementation partners—called Project Implementation Agencies (PIAs)—may come from a wide spectrum of organisations as defined in chapter 3. PIAs who seek to partner with GSY will be required to have the following standards, which are detailed later in this chapter: ● Demonstrate commitment to work with the rural poor through self-employment; ● Have a history of delivering large projects around rural livelihoods; ● Use transparent systems and processes with all stakeholders, including beneficiaries; and ● Adhere to the values and principles espoused by the GSY.
The GSY Board itself will only play the role of a facilitator and maintain oversight, intervening only when required to smoothen fund flow or improve project quality and outcomes. As long as a proposed project delivers the results of sustainable and dignified self-employment for the rural poor and the budget and scheme guidelines are adhered to, the GSY Board will remain agnostic to the type of PIA, the sector of employment, and the implementation process.
6.1.1 Application process
The GSY Board and State Governments will play a central role in funding and providing implementation support to PIAs, who will implement GSY projects at the local level. Given that GSY will focus on the creation of a new institutional architecture that augments a self-employed individual or family’s prospects through the facilitation of inter-departmental convergence, it is necessary to provide sustained support to beneficiaries for a period that extends well beyond the duration of training. Setting guidelines and financial norms for such extended work is thus crucial to its success. It is also crucial to create a robust system for the monitoring and evaluation of both inputs and outputs without killing the ability for locally relevant innovation is important for constant project improvements.
The first step in ensuring project success is the creation of a robust, two-step application process with the following steps:
58
1. The application for projects by interested parties for short-listing through a potentiality score a. Scoring of those applications based on the basis of pre-defined weights and transparent criteria 2. Project appraisal based on a detailed application upon short-listing, which will include two components—document verification and field visit—to understand three aspects: a. whether the organisation is set up to succeed in delivering performance excellence in meeting strategic objectives of GSY and those of its own; b. whether the organisation actually succeeds in its own strategic objectives; and c. whether the proposed project creates and adheres to a mitigation strategy for risks identified during the appraisal process.
Part I: Potentiality Score and Shortlisting Process
The Project Application Process will be coordinated through a National Portal (NP) for GSY. The NP will be anchored at the GSY Board’s Head Office, MEL Division. The Project Application Process will be open through the year and will be available online 24x7 for all aspiring PIAs. Applicant PIAs can apply as a single applicant or as a consortium with a lead applicant who would be responsible for project finances and for monitoring performance and reporting; the details of partner responsibilities in the consortium are outlined under Part II below. Applicant PIAs will then be asked to identify which GSY approach (defined in Chapter 4) they are applying for. The details and scoring in the application may vary based on the approach. As the first step in the application process, applicant PIAs will be required to provide information to obtain a Potentiality Score, a short-listing process used to identify the suitability of the applicant PIA. This process will require the applicant organisation to furnish a detailed account of the organisation, the work it has done till now, its structure, systems and processes, ability to handle large projects, and its commitment to those below the poverty line, among other things. The exact requirements are outlined in the subsequent tables in this section.
On filing of these details on the prescribed structure, the applicant will be automatically given a Potentiality Score. Any applicant PIA that gets 15 points or more in the Potentiality Score will be allowed to move on to part II of the application, the project appraisal. Those who get 10 to 14 points will be allowed to apply within three months with modifications and those who get less than 10 will be discouraged from applying for the next 12 months. In the case of application or re-application, payment of an application fee will be required. The application fee will be used to meet the cost of an agency that will be tasked with conducting due diligence on applications; the agency will be selected through a tender process.
59 The Potentiality Score will be a composite score comprising of objective parameters for the following criteria:
1. Existing outreach of clients or beneficiaries 2. Depth of outreach a. Extent of presence in the proposed State b. Extent of vulnerable communities such as ultra poor, SECC deprivation list households, women, or households below the poverty line in the existing portfolio (for Graduated and Ultra-Poor Approaches) c. Number of professionally trained staff on permanent rolls in the team designated to the project
Those applicants who get 15 points or more will be encouraged to go to Part II of the application. The criteria for the Potentiality Score process for the Graduated and Ultra-Poor Approaches is defined in Figure 3. Figure 4 states the criteria for the Potentiality Score process for the RSETI Approach and Figure 5 for the Sector Approach.
Part II: Project Appraisal
Once a PIA qualifies in the shortlisting stage, it will undergo the Project Appraisal stage, which will include three processes:
1. Scoring of the Project Appraisal, conducted automatically based on the information provided in the National Portal 2. Verification of the documents submitted a. If all the documents submitted by the PIA are found to correspond to the claims made in the application, then the National Portal score will stand. If it does not the score will change in accordance with the extent to which the documents are accepted or rejected. 3. Field visit and assessment of the organisation/consortium
Project appraisal is a crucial component. It tries to determine whether the applicant PIA has the potential to bring people out of poverty through self employment. The process minimizes or mitigates the risks involved with the investments in promoting self-employment, especially for an extended period of time. organisations applying for the Sector Approach will be expected to work for 3 years on a GSY project, whereas PIAs applying for other approaches (Graduated - backward blocks and Ultra-Poor and RSETI) will be expected to work for 8 years. It is thus essential that the PIA remains committed for the full period. The process of project appraisal will evaluate the risks associated with the PIA and the likelihood of the PIA continuing operations over a 3-year or 8-year period
60 Figure 3: Potentiality Score Criteria — Graduated and Ultra-Poor Approaches
Basic Information Organisation Name: Organisation Type (Legal Type): Organisation’s Description (Mission/Vision/Etc.): Proposed Project Brief (1 page maximum): Proposed Approach: Ultra-Poor/Graduated Approach/RSETI INDICATIVE SUPPORTING PARAMETERS SCORE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS General Management Reduces dependency on [1-20]: 0 - Payroll and list of external resources and No. of people employed/size of [21-50]: 1 staff increases commitment to the team timely and efficient completion [51-100]: 2 - CV of key staff of the mandate [101+]: 3 [0]: 0 No. of people on permanent Ensures implementation ability [1-3]: 1 - List of proposed payroll who would be assigned at scale staff to proposed GSY project [4-10]: 2 [11+]: 3 Operations details
Overall coverage of the [0-15%]: 0 Scale of the projects organisation in proposed - Annual reports implemented to understand [16-30%]: 1 Block(s), determined by - List of programs at ability to work at scale with beneficiaries reached compared [31-50%]: 2 each level GSY projects to Block population [51-100%]: 3 Reach of the organisation in Area of operations in [0-15%]: 0 the state. Wide work area - Annual reports concerned state: Number of [16-30%]: 1 shows understanding of - List of programs at districts covered out of total [31-50%]: 2 cultural and geographical each level districts context. [51-100%]: 3 Credibility and recognition [0-1 year]: 0 Number of years organisation among the local communities, - Annual reports has worked in the proposed [2-3 years]: 1 acquaintance with the local - List of programs at state on rural livelihoods or culture and administrative [4-5 years]: 2 each level rural value-chains processes [8+years]: 3 [0-10%]: 0 Percent of current Establishes experience and [11-20%]: 1 - Annual reports beneficiaries/clients who are credibility in working with - List of programs at below the poverty line low-income groups [21-40%]: 2 each level [41%+]: 3
61 Percent of current [0-5%]: 0 beneficiaries/clients who are Exemplifies ability of applicant - Annual reports ‘vulnerable,’ i.e. BPL AND [6-15%]: 1 PIA to work with the ultra- - List of programs at SC/ST, women-headed poor [16-25%]: 2 each level households, differently-abled, or elderly [25%+]: 3
Figure 4: Potentiality Score Criteria — RSETI & Satellite Approach Basic Information Organisation Name: Organisation Type (Legal Type): Organisation’s Description (Mission/Vision/Etc.): Proposed Project Brief (1 page maximum): Proposed Approach: RSETI INDICATIVE SUPPORTING PARAMETERS SCORE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS General Management Reduces dependency on [1-20]: 0 - Payroll and list of external resources and No. of people employed/size of [21-50]: 1 staff increases commitment to the team timely and efficient completion [51-100]: 2 - CV of key staff of the mandate [101+]: 3 [0]: 0 No. of people on permanent Ensures implementation ability [1-3]: 1 - List of proposed payroll who would be assigned at scale staff to proposed GSY project [4-10]: 2 [11+]: 3 Operations details
Overall coverage of the [0-15%]: 0 Scale of the projects - Annual reports organisation in proposed implemented to understand [16-30%]: 1 Block(s), determined by ability to work at scale with - List of programs at beneficiaries reached compared [31-50%]: 2 GSY projects each level to Block population [51-100%]: 3 Reach of the organisation in Area of operations in [0-15%]: 0 - Annual reports the state. Wide work area concerned state: Number of [16-30%]: 1 shows understanding of districts covered out of total [31-50%]: 2 - List of programs at cultural and geographical districts each level context. [51-100%]: 3 Credibility and recognition [0-1 year]: 0 Number of years organisation - Annual reports among the local communities, has worked in the proposed [2-3 years]: 1 acquaintance with the local state on rural livelihoods or - List of programs at culture and administrative [4-5 years]: 2 rural value-chains each level processes [8+years]: 3
62 [0-10%]: 0 - Annual reports Percent of current Establishes experience and [11-20%]: 1 beneficiaries/clients who are credibility in working with - List of programs at below the poverty line low-income groups [21-40%]: 2 [41%+]: 3 each level Number of years the [0-1 year]: 0 - Annual reports organisation has experience in Acquaintance with the [2-3 years]: 1 training for livelihoods or proposed approach [4-5 years]: 2 - List of programs at value-chains [8+years]: 3 each level
Figure 5: Potentiality Score Criteria — Sector Approach Basic Information Organisation Name: Organisation Type (Legal Type): Organisation’s Description (Mission/Vision/Etc.): Proposed Project Brief (1 page maximum): Proposed Approach: Sector INDICATIVE SUPPORTING PARAMETERS SCORE INFORMATION DOCUMENTS General Management Reduces dependency on [1-20]: 0 - Payroll and list of external resources and No. of people employed/size of [21-50]: 1 staff increases commitment to the team timely and efficient completion [51-100]: 2 - CV of key staff of the mandate [101+]: 3 [0]: 0 No. of people on permanent Ensures implementation ability [1-3]: 1 - List of proposed payroll who would be assigned at scale staff to proposed GSY project [4-10]: 2 [11+]: 3 Operations Details Reach of the organisation in Area of operations in [0-15%]: 0 - Annual reports the state. Wide work area concerned state: Number of [16-30%]: 1 shows understanding of districts covered out of total [31-50%]: 2 - List of programs at cultural and geographical districts each level context. [51-100%]: 3 Reach of the organisation in [Less than 2]: 0 - Annual reports Number of states with areas of the country. Establishes [2]: 1 operation organisational scale and [3-4]: 2 - List of programs at credibility. [5 or more]: 3 each level Global reach of the [Less than 2]: 0 - Annual reports Number of countries outside of organisation in. Establishes [2]: 1 India with areas of operation organisational scale and [3-4]: 2 - List of programs at credibility. [5 or more]: 3 each level
63 [0-1 year]: 0 - Annual reports Number of years organisation Acquaintance with the [2-3 years]: 1 has worked on livelihoods or approach - List of programs at value-chains [4-5 years]: 2 [8+years]: 3 each level Financial Management Establishes market strength [< 1 crore]: 0 Average turnover of the and suggests ability to [1 to 1.5 crore]: 1 - Financial company in the previous 2 undertake large-scale value- Statements years [1.5 to 2 crore]: 2 chain projects [> 2 crore]: 3
Specifically, the purpose of the project appraisal process in its initial phases is to provide a score that will form the basis of recommending a PIA to the State EC (or in cases where states do not have adequate implementation capacity, the GSY Board), as well as to identify the risks that need to be mitigated for the project proposal to be recommended and approved. As a part of the qualitative appraisal, the risks identified and the mitigation strategy offered by the organisation will be detailed in the initial project appraisal report prepared. The identification of risks is a key component in understanding the likelihood of success of the PIA.
6.1.2. Minimum Eligibility Requirements
All applicant PIAs shall be scored on the basis of criteria and weights as approved by the GSY Board and configured into the National Portal. The process will vary according to the approach the applicant PIA seeks to undertake. Overall, the appraisal process involves four parameters below:
I. Organisation strength — this will include sub-parameters like previous experience of the applicant PIA, the experience of the senior leadership team, the robustness of internal organisational policies, and the capacity of lower-level staff to undertake the project A. Self-employment track record — this will include the past performance of applicant PIAs on both government and privately funded projects, as evidenced though the number and size of self-employment generating projects undertaken, their completion reports, and evaluation reports. II. Sector experience — this will include the past experience of the applicant PIA in conducting training and providing resources (e.g. assets or health resources for Ultra- Poor Approach or value-chain analysis for sectorial approach) in the proposed area/sector and the proposed methodology/approach for promoting self-employment A. Experience in the proposed State/District — this will include the applicant PIA’s past experience in working in a particular area in the proposed state, including any
64 work done towards building linkages, and the applicant PIA’s experience with mapping of candidates and responding to their needs III. Financials — this will include a physical verification of the documents attached by the applicant PIA as a part of the project application IV. Field visits — these will be made to the headquarters and field areas of every applicant PIA
All applicant PIAs must meet the following criteria:
a. The applicant PIA must be more than 3 years old at the time the application is submitted on the GSY national portal. b. The applicant PIA must have at least 2 years of operational experience in the state they seek to work in under GSY. c. The applicant PIA’s annual turnover in the previous two years should be at least 25% of the size of the proposed project.
Additionally, PIAs will be held to the criteria in Figure 6 based on their approach.
In cases where a consortium of two or more PIAs apply for a project, the PIAs must meet the following minimum conditions:
a. The consortium shall be based on a legal agreement between the PIAs where the lead member of the consortium is clearly stated. The lead member of the consortium need not be the applicant PIA for the project b. The lead member of the consortium shall bear entire financial responsibility for the project, including fulfilment of demand/recovery by the Government in case of any default or deviations in the project or for which work has not been completed as per the sanction c. The lead member of the consortium cannot walk out after the project is approved. All the commitments as per the sanction order for project delivery have to be met by the lead member in case the applicant PIA fails to do so d. The lead member shall fulfill all financial eligibility criteria in terms of the Guidelines e. The applicant PIA shall be responsible for delivery of the project as per sanction f. All the PIAs in the consortium shall fulfill all non-financial eligibility criteria stated in the Guidelines g. The project shall be sanctioned in the name of the applicant PIA, and it shall be clearly mentioned that the project is being undertaken as a consortium. h. There should be a clear division of responsibilities between the Members in the consortium i. All the members of consortium may claim credit for the work done under a consortium for categorization in future projects
65 Figure 6. Additional Applicant PIA Criteria for GSY Approaches
Approach Additional Criteria Project Budget PIA has at least 3 years of experience working on poverty alleviation projects with vulnerable groups a. below the poverty line in rural areas (women, children, elderly, differently abled, ultra-poor, etc.) PIA has worked with at least 500 individuals from Up to Rs. 54,000 Ultra Poor vulnerable groups below the poverty line in rural areas b. per candidate Approach (women, children, elderly, differently abled, ultra-poor, (total approved etc.) over the last 2 years 1 cost). (Non- PIA has at least 2 years of operational experience in the c. Backward district they seek to work in under GSY Project period is 8 Blocks) PIA’s executive head has at least 5 years of experience d. years. in the development sector PIA has at least 1 year of experience converging resources in 5 areas: asset transfers, technical skills e. training, consumption support, savings support, health services, and monitoring household poverty PIA has at least 2 years of experience working on poverty alleviation projects with vulnerable groups a. below the poverty line in rural areas (women, children, Up to Rs. 24,000 Graduated elderly, differently abled, ultra-poor, etc.) per candidate Approach (total approved PIA’s executive head has at least 3 years of experience 2 b. cost). in the development sector (Backward Blocks) PIA has at least 1 year of experience converging Project period is 8 resources in 4 areas: skills training, self-employment, c. years. government services, human development services (e.g. health, education, etc.) PIA has at least 3 years of experience in the sector it a. seeks to develop through GSY PIA has a value chain analysis conducted not older than b. 6 months before the project application in the proposed area for GSY project Up to Rs. 24,000 The proposed self-employment enterprise the PIA seeks per candidate Sector c. to engage has an annual turnover of 400% of the project (total approved Approach 3 cost cost).
(All Blocks) Beneficiaries of the proposed self-employment venture d. can potentially earn a profit (or income net of expenses) Project period is 3 of at least Rs. 72,000 in an year years.
The proposed self-employment enterprise the PIA seeks e. to engage has had an CAGR92 of 15% over the previous 2 years prior to the date of application.
92 Compound Annual Growth Rate
66 For new PIAs: PIA has at least 3 years of experience with at least 500 a. beneficiaries in self-employment training and self- Up to Rs. 19,000 employment settling per candidate RSETI PIA has provided job settlement for at least 50% of the (total approved Satellites b. 4 beneficiaries it has previously trained in self-employment cost).
Settled beneficiaries have earned at least Rs. 50,000 on (All Blocks) c. an annual basis through self-employment Project period is 8 years. Proposed catchment area for RSETI must be a d. rural area that is not adequately covered by an existing RSETI.
Additionally, PIAs may work through the franchisee/outsourcing arrangement for certain parts of the project. If the project applicant or lead member of a consortium plans to operate projects through a franchisee arrangement, this should be clearly mentioned in the application and in the project sanction order. If the application mentions franchise or outsource arrangements and the sanction order does not, then the franchising/outsourcing cannot be done. The details of the partner organisation (to whom work is being outsourced) including the name, legal status, details of main employees for the project, turnover, net worth and balance sheet has to be submitted along with the application. All the details of the financial arrangement between consortium partners as well as franchise/outsource entities for the project have to be submitted. The bank details of these organisation also have to be provided.
6.1.3 Project Appraisal Scoring
Aside from the minimum eligibility requirements, an additional framework will be developed to assist with project appraisal guidelines for the purpose of scoring applicant PIAs. The framework will detail the project appraisal framework to help the GSY Board/State EC to understand which questions need to be asked, what data needs to be collected, what areas need to be explored and understood so as to be able to score each of the sub-parameters, and to identify risks associated with the sub-parameter that may be present in the applicant PIA. The framework also serves the purpose of identifying which questions are to be asked to which of the applicant PIAs. This framework will contain a matrix, which will be used for scoring each of the sub-parameters. The matrix for each sub-parameter will contain questions that guide the provision of detailed information by the appraisers to explain why they chose a certain score. In addition to qualitative information, the matrix will allow for the appraisers to enter a simultaneous numerical score. The matrices will provide appraisers from the GSY Board / SRLM GSY unit with information on how to fit the findings of their appraisal to a particular score -- for instance, the matrix will indicate to an appraiser the kind of evidence that would count toward a score of 1, as against a score of 4 or 10. However, this guidance provided will
67 not serve as a complete list of possible evidence, and will remain indicative in order to allow appraisers to apply further their own observations.
Subsequent to the completion of the project appraisal and scoring, the GSY Board/SRLM GSY unit shall submit the final report with their considered view on whether a project should be approved on the basis of the appraisal scorecard. The scorecard will have equally divided scores for the four above-mentioned parameters and their sub-components on a scale of 1 - 10. In order to determine which projects will be forwarded for approval, the score cards will be color coded in the following manner: ● projects that are green will be those that have scored 8 - 10, ● projects that are yellow will be those that have scored between 4 - 7 and ● projects that are red will be those that have scored between 1 - 3. The score for each parameter will be based on the weighted average of each of the matrices as they correspond to the sub-parameters. If two or more parameters have received a score of red, then the project shall not be recommended for approval.
6.1.4 Awarding projects
Subsequent to the appraisal, the organisations that are identified will be asked to present a detailed project proposal to a panel of experts notified by the GSY Board/State EC. Rural self- employment projects are long-term, with sectorial approach projects spanning 3 years and the others, 8 years. Therefore, the PIA is expected to lay out a clear roadmap of how, with GSY support and other accompanying investments through convergence, the rural poor will settle into successful self-employment ventures. The PIA will make necessary changes in the proposal if needed and the project will be sanctioned based on the advice of the expert committee.
6.2 Mobilization and selection of program beneficiaries
The success of GSY will depend in large part on the efforts of PIAs toward careful mobilization and selection of beneficiaries, especially for the ultra-poor. An initial investment of time and resources in developing a mobilization strategy will have a significant impact on later retention within the program. In this regard, the SRLM, which works with District Mission Management Units (DMMUs) and Block Mission Management Units (BMMUs), have a crucial role in sensitizing local communities to improve the effectiveness and quality of the mobilization undertaken by PIAs.
The process of mobilization can be done through one of the following approaches:
68 I. In AP States, the SRLM can help in identifying an area where it wants to implement a project, and can invite PIAs to formulate projects in the area. The SRLM will then be required to sensitize the community, including Gram Panchayats (GPs), regarding GSY. The process for selection of PIAs has to be clarified to all stakeholders and will be done through the national GSY portal and appraisal process detailed earlier. All the steps should be transparent to ensure all round understanding of the work being undertaken, as well as its rationale. II. In all states, the PIA can select an area and approach, and suggest this in an application on the GSY national application portal. Based on the assessment of the EC of the need for this project, it will either sanction it or make a recommendation to GSY Board. Once the project is approved various steps will be undertaken—including awareness generation, mobilization from within the community, and identification of beneficiaries. III. A hybrid approach combining the elements from both the above approaches can also be used.
The actual work of mobilization must be done by the PIA. The PIA should involve institutions working toward poverty alleviation as well as GPs, which will play an important role in ensuring that the needs and interests of the beneficiary are matched to the opportunities provided under the project. Further, the PIA must ascertain the willingness of the candidate identified after mobilization to participate in GSY. The selection process for identifying beneficiaries has to remain transparent and open to all stakeholders. Especially in the case of beneficiaries from the 2532 backward blocks and for the Ultra-Poor Approach, it is necessary for PIAs to consider all candidates on an inclusive basis for training and subsequent support.
PIAs shall give priority in mobilizing and selecting candidates identified as special groups (SC/ST/OBC/minorities/ultra-poor). While mobilizing, PIAs should make every effort to reach out to all ultra-poor candidates for the Ultra-Poor Approach and all candidates below the poverty line for the Graduated Approach. For the Sector and RSETI Satellite approaches, PIAs should prioritize mobilization of all those who have the ability and inclination to be trained in a particular sector, while taking steps to ensure that these individuals fall under the poverty line. The adoption of these methods will ensure first that none of the residents who are desirous of being skilled and placed are left out from being considered, and provide families the opportunity to continue to support candidates through the program.
Following mobilization, PIAs are required to counsel prospective beneficiaries by providing information on the nature of work in the sector, future employment prospects, growth prospects, entitlements from the scheme, and risks involved. This is aimed at helping candidates make informed choices and match aptitude with aspirations. PIAs may seek the assistance of the SRLM in developing frameworks for counselling, including the creation of on- job counselling sources.
69 For the Ultra-Poor and Graduated Approaches, the PIA will undertake the responsibility of identifying all poor and/or ultra-poor candidates in the community using SECC data and household surveys and work to bring each one out of poverty. For the RSETI and Sector Approaches, the following process will be followed. Subsequent to the provision of counselling to potential beneficiaries, the process of selection will begin. A list of those selected on the basis of aptitude, interest demonstrated, and counselling will be prepared and maintained by PIAs. It may be the case that not all candidates who are mobilized attend counselling and not all those who attend counselling are finally selected.
6.3 Budget
The tables in this section detail the estimated budget for GSY. Figure 7 shows an estimated budget for GSY for each of the four approaches. Figure 8 details the budget for the Ultra-Poor Approach for one project with 6,000 beneficiaries. Figure 9 details the budget for the Graduated Approach for one project with 12,000 beneficiaries, Figure 10 details the budget for the RSETI & Satellite Approach, and Figure 11 details the budget for the Sector Approach. With the Ultra-Poor, Sector, Graduated and RSETI Approaches, GSY is proposed to reach 1 million beneficiaries per year by 2018-2019. The total cost per beneficiary varies depending on the approach. The cost of training includes not only the expenditure on the training of the beneficiary but also the room/board arrangements should the program structure require it, as well as additional costs for capacity building marked to support the beneficiary after the training period of the program has completed. However, it is to be noted that the cost per beneficiary will not provide for the development of critical infrastructure, and is therefore essential that partnerships and linkages are established with other Ministries/Departments and funding agencies in order to ensure that the beneficiary gains access to the assets and support necessary for his/her success.
The Ultra-Poor budget estimates a cost of Rs. 53,789 per beneficiary for a typical 8-year project with 6,000 beneficiaries. The Ultra-Poor Approach budgets for a two-step process to identify beneficiaries, beginning with a Participatory Rural Appraisal and ending with staff visits to shortlisted households to verify their ultra-poor status. After the identification of beneficiaries, the following sequenced support is provided: (i) Enterprise selection, (ii) Enterprise Management Training, (iii) Asset Transfer, (iv) Consumption Support/Temporary Financial Support, (v) Access to Savings Services, and (vi) Weekly Skills Development and Mentoring Services over the 18-month duration of the program. Following the intensive support provided to each beneficiary over the first two years, additional graduated support is provided for the third and fourth years. A total of Rs. 32.27 crore is estimated under this approach for a typical 8-year project. Around 90 such projects are estimated to be sanctioned in the first year.
70 The Graduated Approach budget estimates a cost of Rs. 23,762 per beneficiary for a typical 8-year project with 12,000 beneficiaries. An additional Rs. 16,300 is budgeted per beneficiary who is ultra-poor. The Graduated Approach will begin with a baseline survey of the population, as well as subsequent sub-sector/area studies. The approach will work from the assumption that the targeted households are provided with the knowledge and support necessary for initiating livelihoods. This approach also works from the assumption that SHGs already exist in areas where the approach is being deployed currently. Further, under this approach, necessary resources and convergence mechanisms will be organized by the PIA. A total of Rs. 31.77 crore is estimated under this approach for a typical 8-year project. Around 90 such projects are estimated to be sanctioned in the first year.
The Sector Approach budget estimates a cost of Rs. 24,000 per beneficiary. This is assuming that Rs. 800 is given to the PIA per beneficiary per day, and that this amount is available in total for 30 days for each beneficiary. The Common Norms under the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship provide hourly rates under which people will be trained for each trade. Under the Sector Approach, the PIA will pick a sector they are working on, and use the Common Norms Committee’s guidelines to determine the amount of money they will receive from GSY. Assuming a Common Norms cost of Rs. 500 per beneficiary per day (plus Rs. 300 for 3 year tracking and income certification) are trained for 30 days, the total of Rs. 612 crore is estimated under this approach for the three-year duration.
The RSETI Approach will include a one-time induction training (ITP) program for two weeks for every staff member, and a Refresher Training Program (RTP) for each staff member in year two and year 4. The per-beneficiary cost of Rs. 800 per day is inclusive of boarding, lodging, training, support for three years after training, monthly remuneration of staff and the maintenance of center facilities. Under this approach, it is assumed that a total of 200 satellite centers will be set up, with 1200 beneficiary being trained and supported per center per year. The average duration of training is 23 days. It is also assumed that 8 batches of 150 will be trained in a training center each year. The National Center for Excellence of RSETI will also be upgraded to take on training and supervision of this additional work. The total project cost for 200 centers is estimated to be Rs. 3,642 crore over 8 years, with a cost of Rs. 18,971 per beneficiary.
71 Figure 7: Estimated Budget for GSY, by Approach GSY Budget Summary 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 1 Ultra-Poor Approach Beneficiaries benefited from Sanctions in Year 1 45000 135000 180000 Beneficiaries benefited from Sanctions in Year 2 45000 135000 Beneficiaries benefited from Sanctions in Year 3 45000 Total project budget for sanctions made in the year 29,045,965,185 29,045,965,185 29,045,965,185 25% release authorisation 7,261,491,296 7,261,491,296 7,261,491,296 50% release authorisation 14,522,982,593 Outflow from 25% release authorization in 2016-17 952,294,500 3,451,690,463 2,857,506,334 Outflow from 25% release authorization in 2017-18 952,294,500 3,451,690,463 Outflow from 25% release authorization in 2018-19 952,294,500 Outflow from 50% release authorization in 2018-19 3,197,426,254 Total Cost 952,294,500 4,403,984,963 10,458,917,550 2 Graduated Approach Beneficiaries benefited from Sanctions in Year 1 45000 90000 180000 Beneficiaries benefited from Sanctions in Year 2 45000 90000 Beneficiaries benefited from Sanctions in Year 3 45000 Total project budget for sanctions made in the year 28,597,017,830 28,597,017,830 28,597,017,830 25% release authorisation 7,149,254,457 7,149,254,457 7,149,254,457 50% release authorisation 14,298,508,915 Outflow from 25% release authorization in 2016-17 1,100,250,000 2,426,310,000 3,622,694,457 Outflow from 25% release authorization in 2017-18 1,100,250,000 2,426,310,000 Outflow from 25% release authorization in 2018-19 1,100,250,000 Outflow from 50% release authorization in 2018-19 650,555,943 Total Cost 1,100,250,000 3,526,560,000 7,799,810,400 3 Sector Approach Beneficiaries benefitted from sanctions in Year 1 85000 85000 85000 Total project budget for sanctions made in the year 6,120,000,000 25% release authorisation 1,530,000,000 50% release authorisation 3,060,000,000 15% release authorisation 918,000,000 Outflow from the above authorizations 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 Total Cost 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 4 RSETI & Satellites Approach Beneficiaries benefitted from sanctions in Year 1 240,000 240,000 240,000 Total project budget for training costs to PIAs 36,424,720,000 25% release authorisation 9,106,180,000 50% release authorisation 18,212,360,000 Outflow from 25% release authorization in 2016-17 4,464,000,000 4,464,000,000 178,180,000 Outflow from 50% release authorization in 2017-18 4,285,820,000 Trainer Development and Supervision costs 121,490,000 102,290,000 70,290,000 Total Cost 4,585,490,000 4,566,290,000 4,534,290,000 Total beneficiaries 415,000 640,000 1,000,000 Total outflow (Rs.) 8,678,034,500 14,536,834,963 24,833,017,950
72 Figure 8: Estimated Ultra-Poor Approach Budget for GSY for One Project
(Years 1-4)
Ultra-Poor Approach Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Number of beneficiaries selected to join programme 500 1,500 2,000 2,000 Number of cululative beneficiaties (after counting 500 2,000 4,000 6,000 graduation) Number of cululative beneficiaries in programme in 2 500 2000 3500 4000 year program Number of Branches (at 1:150 households) 3 13 23 27 Number of new branches set up (at 1:150 households) 3 7 10 4 Number of Community Organisers (at 1:50 households) 10 40 70 80 Number of Branch Managers (at 1:1 branch) 3 13 23 27 Number of Area Managers (at 1:3 branches) 1 5 8 9 Operations Asset distribution (Rs.13,500: 70% year 1, 30% year 2) 4,725,000 16,200,000 24,975,000 27,000,000 Temporary Consumption Allowance (Rs. 140 for 10 700,000 2,100,000 2,800,000 2,800,000 weeks) Staff Training (Rs. 500 per 27 days) 189,000 787,500 1,327,500 1,561,500 Beneficiary Training (Rs. 200 per day for 12 days) 1,200,000 4,800,000 8,400,000 9,600,000 Community Organiser Salary (Rs. 10,000/month) 1,200,000 4,800,000 8,400,000 9,600,000 Branch Manager Salary (Rs. 12,000/month) 432,000 1,920,000 3,360,000 3,840,000 Area Manager Salary (Rs. 15000/month) 180,000 900,000 1,440,000 1,620,000 Branch Office set up cost Branch Office running costs (Rs. 12000/month; rent, 760,000 3,040,000 5,320,000 6,080,000 travel etc.) Miscellaneous Inflation (7%) 2418325 3921575 4347105 Organisation Overheads (5%) 195050 886291.25 1482453.75 1668430.25 Total Project Cost (Excluding Ultra-Poor) 9,581,050 37,852,116 61,426,529 68,117,035 Cost Per Beneficiary (Excluding Ultra-Poor) Monitoring and Evaluation Research/Studies/Documentation 1,000,000 500,000 100,000 100,000 Graduated Approach After Year 2 # Livelihood Trainees per year 500 1,500 Total Livelihoods Training Cost 5,750,000 17,250,000 Gap Filling Fund for Critical Infrastructure 10,000,000 Start-Up Capital for Producers Org. 5,000,000 Total Project Cost 10,581,050 38,352,116 67,277,029 100,468,535
73 (Years 5-8)
Ultra-Poor Approach Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 TOTAL Number of beneficiaries selected to join programme 6,000 Number of cululative beneficiaties (after counting 5,500 4,000 2,000 graduation) Number of cululative beneficiaries in programme in 2 2000 year program Number of Branches (at 1:150 households) 13 10 5 Number of new branches set up (at 1:150 households) - Number of Community Organisers (at 1:50 40 30 15 households) Number of Branch Managers (at 1:1 branch) 13 10 5 Number of Area Managers (at 1:3 branches) 5 4 2 Operations Asset distribution (Rs.13,500: 70% year 1, 30% year 8,100,000 2) Temporary Consumption Allowance (Rs. 140 for 10 weeks) Staff Training (Rs. 500 per 27 days) 787,500 Beneficiary Training (Rs. 200 per day for 12 days) 9,600,000 Community Organiser Salary (Rs. 10,000/month) 4,800,000 3,600,000 1,800,000 Branch Manager Salary (Rs. 12,000/month) 1,920,000 1,440,000 720,000 Area Manager Salary (Rs. 15000/month) 900,000 720,000 360,000 Branch Office set up cost Branch Office running costs (Rs. 12000/month; rent, 3,040,000 2,280,000 1,140,000 travel etc.) Miscellaneous Inflation (7%) 2040325 Organisation Overheads (5%) 1002391.25 Total Project Cost (Excluding Ultra-Poor) 32,190,216 8,040,000 4,020,000 221,226,947 Cost Per Beneficiary (Excluding Ultra- 36,871 Poor) Monitoring and Evaluation Research/Studies/Documentation 100,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 2,500,000 Graduated Approach After Year 2 # Livelihood Trainees per year 2,000 2,000 6,000 Total Livelihoods Training Cost 23,000,000 23,000,000 69,000,000 Gap Filling Fund for Critical Infrastructure 10,000,000 20,000,000 Start-Up Capital for Producers Org. 5,000,000 10,000,000 Total Project Cost 55,292,216 46,242,000 4,220,000 300,000 322,732,947 Cost Per Beneficiary 53,789
74 Figure 9: Estimated Graduated Approach Budget for GSY for One Project
(Years 1-4)
Graduated Approach Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Household Progression in Program each year 500 1,000 2,000 3,500 # Graduating from Program earning Rs. 36,000/yr 500 1,000 Development Support
1 5 Professionals (Including Salary, Travel, Admin.) 6,000,000 6,420,000 6,869,400 7,350,258 Total # of Community Professionals (CPs) per 10 30 70 140 year CP Salary @ Rs. 60,000/yr, indexed 60,000 60,000 64,200 68,694
2 Total Salary for CPs 600,000 1,800,000 4,494,000 9,617,160 Studies
3 Baseline Survey of Population 1,000,000 4 Sub-Sector / Area Studies 1,000,000 1,000,000 5 MIS Entry of Swarozgari information @ Rs. 50/- 25,000 50,000 100,000 175,000 Training
Producers Org.(PO) Mobilization costs per person 1,200 1,284 1,374 1,470
6 Total PO Mobilization Cost 600,000 1,284,000 2,747,760 5,145,181 Beneficiaries trained for Livelihoods per year 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Livelihoods Training Costs/Candidate 4,000 4,280 4,580 4,900
7 Total Livelihoods Training Cost 2,000,000 4,280,000 6,869,400 9,800,344 8 Gap Filling Fund for Critical Infrastructure 5,000,000 15,000,000 9 Start-Up Capital for PO 5,000,000 5,000,000 10 Miscellaneous 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Project Cost (Excluding Ultra-Poor) 12,225,000 20,834,000 27,080,560 53,087,943
Cost Per Beneficiary (Excluding Ultra-Poor)
Additional Support for Ultra-Poor Households Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Household Progression in Program each year 0 500 1,500
Asset distribution (Rs.13,500: 70% for year 1, 30% for year 11 4,725,000 16,200,000 6,075,000 2) 12 Temporary Consumption Allowance 1,400,000 4,200,000 Project Cost (Ultra-Poor Only) 6,125,000 20,400,000 6,075,000
75 (Years 5-8)
Budget for Graduated Approach (excluding Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 TOTAL Ultra-Poor) Household Progression in Program each year 5,000 12,000
# Graduating from Program earning Rs. 36,000/yr 1,500 2,000 3,000 4,000 12,000
Development Support
1 5 Professionals (Including Salary, Travel, Admin.) 7,864,776 8,415,310 9,004,382 9,634,689 61,558,815 Total # of Community Professionals (CPs) 240 240 240 240 per year CP Salary @ Rs. 60,000/yr, indexed 73,503 78,648 84,153 90,044
2 Total Salary for CPs 17,640,619 18,875,463 20,196,745 73,223,987 Studies
3 Baseline Survey of Population 1,000,000 4 Sub-Sector / Area Studies 2,000,000 5 MIS Entry of Swarozgari information @ Rs 50/- 250,000 600,000 Training
Producers Org.(PO) Mobilization costs per person 1,573
6 Total PO Mobilization Cost 7,864,776 17,641,717 Beneficiaries trained for Livelihoods per year 3,000 4,000
Livelihoods Training Costs/Candidate 5,243 5,610
7 Total Livelihoods Training Cost 15,729,552 22,440,828 8 Gap Filling Fund for Critical Infrastructure 20,000,000 40,000,000 9 Start-Up Capital for PO 5000000 5000000 20,000,000 10 Miscellaneous 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 8,000,000 Project Cost (Excluding Ultra-Poor) 55,349,723 75,731,601 30,201,127 10,634,689 285,144,643
Cost Per Beneficiary (Excluding Ultra-Poor) 23,762
Additional Support for Ultra-Poor Households Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 TOTAL
Household Progression in Program each year 2,000
Asset distribution (Rs.13,500: 70% for year 1, 30% for
11 year 2) 12 Temporary Consumption Allowance Project Cost (Ultra-Poor Only) 32,600,000
Cost Per Beneficiary (Ultra-Poor Only) 16,300
Total Project Cost 317,744,643
76 Figure 10: Estimated RSETI & Satellite Approach Budget for GSY
(Years 1-3)
Budget for RSETI & Satellite Approach Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total trainees per year with 200 centers with 1200 trainees/center 240,000 240,000 240,000 Trainer Development and Supervision cost (payable to NDR-
NACER) TTP at NAR Bengaluru for induction training of 8 Directors & 7 faculties for all 1 Training centers @ Rs. 50,000/trainee 80,000,000 2 RTPs at 2 year-interval covering 4 years of duration each at NAR Bengaluru 2 for induction training of 8 Directors & 7 faculties of all the Training centers @ 32,000,000 Rs. 20,000/trainee TTP at NAR Bengaluru for induction training of 8 Director/faculties of all the 3 Training centers @ Rs. 50,000/trainee considering an attrition rate of 20 % 28,800,000 28,800,000 Mentoring & Monitoring under NACER, Regional Director required for every 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 4 20 centers 1 Nodal Project Coordinator for GSY Board and NDR-NACER coordination 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 5 @ Rs. 1,25,000 per month 10 Subject Matter Specialists for NDR @ Rs. 80,000 per month each, 02 6 attenders @ Rs. 15000 per month each, 4 IT professionals @ Rs. 40,000 per 990,000 990,000 990,000 month each One Software Engineer - IT Head- for maintenence of MIS and all other issues 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 7 realated to IT @ Rs. 150000 per month NDR-NACER Office set-up cost @ Rs. 100,000/month 8 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 Travel expenses for the NDR-NACER for overall supervision of the project @ 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 9 Rs. 100,000 per month
Studies
Cost of Random Sample Verification (to be outsourced to external agency) of 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 10 10% of the entire trainees @ Rs. 1000 per trainee Training cost (payable to PIA) 200 projects will be sanctions, each project will be 8 years, and will train 1200 people each every year 11 Cost of Rs. 800/trainee for 23 days/trainee 4,416,000,000 4,416,000,000 4,416,000,000
12 One-time transportation cost to trainee 48,000,000 48,000,000 48,000,000
Total Project Cost 4,585,490,000 4,566,290,000 4,534,290,000
Notes: Budget for RSETI for each center/project: Training cost: Rs. 800 per person x 23 days x 150 people in batch x 8 batches in a year x 8 years 176,640,000 Plus transportation: Rs. 200 x 150 people x 8 batches x 8 years 1,920,000 Total cost of each project/center: 178,560,000
Aggregate cost of RSETI for 200 centers 35,712,000,000 Release of first installment of 25% to 200 centers 8,928,000,000
77
(Years 4-8)
Budget for RSETI & Satellite Approach Years 4-8 TOTAL
Total trainees per year with 200 centers with 1200 trainees/center 1,200,000 1,920,000 Trainer Development and Supervision cost (payable to NDR-NACER) TTP at NAR Bengaluru for induction training of 8 Directors & 7 faculties for all Training 80,000,000 centers @ Rs. 50,000/trainee 2 RTPs at 2 year-interval covering 4 years of duration each at NAR Bengaluru for induction training of 8 Directors & 7 faculties of all the Training centers @ Rs. 96,000,000 128,000,000 20,000/trainee TTP at NAR Bengaluru for induction training of 8 Director/faculties of all the Training 115,200,000 172,800,000 centers @ Rs. 50,000/trainee considering an attrition rate of 20 % Mentoring & Monitoring under NACER, Regional Director required for every 20 76,800,000 centers 48,000,000 1 Nodal Project Coordinator for GSY Board and NDR-NACER coordination @ Rs. 7,500,000 12,000,000 1,25,000 per month 10 Subject Matter Specialists for NDR @ Rs 80,000 per month each, 02 attenders @ 4,950,000 7,920,000 Rs. 15000 per month each, 4 IT professionals @ Rs. 40,000 per month each One Software Engineer - IT Head- for maintenence of MIS and all other issues realated 9,000,000 14,400,000 to IT @ Rs. 150000 per month NDR-NACER Office set-up cost @ Rs. 100,000/month 12,000,000 19,200,000 Travel expenses for the NDR-NACER for overall supervision of the project @ Rs. 6,000,000 9,600,000 100,000 per month
Studies - - Cost of Random Sample Verification (to be outsourced to external agency) of 10% of 120,000,000 192,000,000 the entire trainees @ Rs. 1000 per trainee Training cost (payable to PIA) 200 projects will be sanctions, each - - project will be 8 years, and will train 1200 people each every year
Cost of Rs. 800/trainee for 23 days/trainee 35,328,000,000 22,080,000,000 One-time transportation cost to trainee 240,000,000 384,000,000
Total Project Cost 22,738,650,000 36,424,720,000
Cost Per Beneficiary 18,971
78
Figure 11: Estimated Sector Approach Budget for GSY
Budget for Sector Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Approach Total trainees per year 85,000 85,000 85,000 255,000
Training
Cost of Rs. 800/trainee for 30 1 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 6,120,000,000 days/trainee Total Project Cost 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 2,040,000,000 6,120,000,000
Cost Per Beneficiary 24,000
6.4 Criteria for success
GSY aims to reach out to the poor and Ultra-Poor communities in a given geographical area and bring them out of poverty deploying a variety of strategies. Different actors and factors have to align in a systematic and predictable manner for addressing poverty. Poverty and its causes are also complex and therefore it is not possible to address it through a single or simplistic strategy. It also follows therefore that the indicators for success in an endeavor to reduce or remove poverty also cannot be simplistic. The indicators of success, however, must at the same time be measurable and easy to understand, both for the program staff as well as the PIA field staff and beneficiaries.
The success criteria for PIAs can be summarized as having the following objectives:
1. To build capabilities for life and livelihood skills of the rural poor by providing sufficient accompaniment support along with financial and technical assistance for settling them into dignified self-employment 2. Assure a substantial additional income outcome for beneficiaries as a result of GSY projects 3. For sectorial and graduated approaches, to ensure a cohesive environment for value- chains which includes service providers, enabling infrastructure, market linkages, and producer collectives 4. For Graduated and Ultra-Poor Approaches, to ensure access to social security programs and other entitlements from the government, to promote inclusion in these programs and entitlements, and maximize outcomes
79 In order to measure these outcomes, PIAs must first conduct a baseline survey that is conducted at least 3 months prior to the start of a GSY project. The baseline should include the following information, which is already mostly provided in the SECC; given existing data, PIAs should obtain the SECC data and update it within the GSY reporting system. In addition to the information provided below, the PIA must also collect baseline data required for the monitoring and evaluation of the project (#16 onwards):
1. Current location 2. Domicile and demographic data 3. SHG/VO/Federation membership information 4. BPL/Aadhaar card/PDS/Job Card/SECC TIN information 5. Picture of the target swarozgari 6. Occupation 7. All sources of income 8. Income earned through all sources in the past year 9. Quality of dwelling house 10. Types of trainings received from any source till now 11. Political participation (to understand if an individual is an elected representative) 12. Category of the swarozgari on the basis of SECC deprivation 13. Ultra-poor status 14. Status of education for children in the household 15. Status of participation in existing government entitlement programs vis-a-vis assessment of each individual’s eligibility for government entitlement programs
After the baseline, PIAs must conduct monitoring and evaluation surveys which include data on the following indicators:
16. Additional income (as added by the new activity/ set of activities, or the improved activity/set of activities measured against the baseline) the swarozgari has initiated after being part of GSY a. For successful graduation of the swarozgari, GSY expects that the added income in a period of any 12 continuous months, to happen within 36 months of the enrollment of the swarozgari in the system. The additional income will be based according to the approach and geography: i. For RSETI and Satellite Approach in non-backward blocks: at least Rs. 50,000 (in 2015 prices)93 in a period of any 12 continuous months over a 36-month time period within the enrollment of the swarozgari, for at
93 The income criteria listed in subsection 16a are based on 2015 prices and will be indexed to the year of payment.
80 least 60% of a project’s participants (of which 50% of participants must have gained bank credit linkage) 1. For RSETI and Satellite Approach in backward blocks: at least Rs. 36,000 (in 2015 prices)94 in a period of any 12 continuous months over a 36-month time period within the enrollment of the swarozgari, for at least 60% of a project’s participants (of which 50% of participants must have gained bank credit linkage) ii. For Sector Approach in non-backward blocks: at least Rs. 36,000 (in 2015 prices) in a period of any 12 continuous months over a 36-month time period within the enrollment of the swarozgari, for at least 70% of a project’s participants 1. For Sector Approach in backward blocks: at least Rs. 50,000 (in 2015 prices) in a period of any 12 continuous months over a 36- month time period within the enrollment of the swarozgari, for at least 70% of a project’s participants iii. For Ultra-Poor Approach in non-backward blocks and ultra-poor beneficiaries within the Graduated Approach in backward blocks: at least Rs. 36,000 (in 2015 prices) in a period of any 12 continuous months over a 48-month time period within the enrollment of the swarozgari, for at least 70% of a project’s participants iv. For Graduated Approach (excluding ultra-poor beneficiaries) in backward blocks: at least Rs. 36,000 (in 2015 prices) in a period of any 12 continuous months over a 36-month time period within the enrollment of the swarozgari, for at least 70% of a project’s participants 17. Engagement in new/improved activity/set of activities for the swarozgari for at least 12 month over a course of 36 months as monitored by MEL agents during annual checks 18. For Ultra-Poor and Graduated Approaches, at least 75% of a project’s participants must be enrolled in all government entitlements they are eligible to receive 19. Additionally, the following data will be collected as a proxy and be unrelated to payments for projects: a. Increase in household assets as measured against the baseline (e.g. improvements in the number of rooms with pucca walls, proper (un-thatched) roof, cemented floor, household-level access to safe drinking water, TV, Refrigerator, motor cycle). Physical assets are easier to recall than consumption habits but can still indicate consumption or income capabilities.
94 The income criteria listed in subsection 16a are based on 2015 prices and will be indexed to the year of payment.
81 At the village or panchayat level, the following outcomes will be measured, both in the baseline and subsequent MEL surveys. The following outcomes are to understand proxy effects and will not be used to determine payment eligibility for PIAs:
1. Extent of economic activities (no. of shops, no. of service providers, access to fair markets, increase in presence of mainstream institutions – banks, traders, companies compared to the baseline) 2. Quality of roads, basic amenities, private schools, qualified medical practitioners compared to the baseline 3. Attendance in Gram Sabha meetings – especially women and youth -- compared to the baseline
At the program level, the following outcomes will be measured at an aggregated level to measure the overall impact of GSY; the following data will not be used to influence PIA payments:
1. Percentage of swarozgari earning Rs. 50,000 (or Rs. 36,000 in Backwards Blocks or for Ultra-Poor Approach), sub-analyzed by: a. Percentage of women b. Percentage of ultra-poor households/individuals c. Percentage of youth (16-35 years) 2. Percentage increase in income for households participating in the program 3. Total financial resources mobilised, sub-analyzed by financial year: a. Through convergence at Central level and at State level b. Credit mobilized from financial institutions for self-employment
6.5 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Monitoring and evaluation is a critical component of GSY, especially given the number of partners involved in ensuring the success of each self-employed beneficiary. In this regard, monitoring is to be understood as separate from evaluation. Monitoring can be considered as a continuous measurement of progress during and after training. Evaluation is necessary to understand the quality of support provided by PIAs and other stakeholders to beneficiaries of GSY. Through evaluation, it is possible to approach issues within GSY not only from the perspective of looking for short-term solutions, but also with a view to understanding the long- term progress and sustained growth of the program.
Monitoring in GSY will be understood as a continuous measurement of progress over the duration of the project. This will include an ongoing measurement of progress, analyzing
82 achievement against proposed targets and readjusting activities on the basis of noted challenges and growth. The objectives of monitoring are:
I. Keeping track of performance against the overall goals of GSY II. Using the knowledge gained to inform decision-making III. Identifying any course corrections needed at the level of the GSY Board, state EC/state GSY unit, and the PIAs to improve outcomes IV. Informing GSY’s future strategy and policy choices V. Supporting PIAs and state ECs in course correction in a prioritized manner
The GSY team, together with the SRLM, will act as the knowledge platform for developing an effective monitoring framework and enabling state ECs to build effective review systems for the convergence. This will involve interventions to:
I. Establish high-level monitoring objectives across levels II. Determine the key performance indicators for each process (mobilization, training, post-training support) III. Specify who and what needs to be monitored (PIA performance, program performance, quality of internal systems and processes, performance of state ECs)
Evaluation of GSY projects serves two purposes: (1) The improvement of systems and processes for program delivery, and (2) Providing support for learning among stakeholders, including PIAs. Evaluation by reputed external agencies brings in newer perspectives and will help improve efficiency and effectiveness. Additionally, independent evaluation studies of GSY should be conducted in order to understand what works, what does not, and why. This learning will contribute to improving program effectiveness and will help to hold all stakeholders accountable for results.
6.5.1 The MEL Architecture
In an AP state, given the dedicated staff team, monitoring of PIA progress is now carried out by the GSY team at the SRLM. An additional level of monitoring is carried out in the case of AP states, where the GSY Board will monitor and get quality audits done on the performance of the each project from time to time.
The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) in GSY will be done via an integrated work-flow driven, Internet-enabled IT platform where raw data on a variety of indicators will be fed in from the field through hand-held devices and a series of reports will be generated for use of different levels of stakeholders. Moreover set of data will be collected regularly at a
83 shorter time frame and at census level for generating operational and input level reports as part of an online MIS. Thus, the MEL system being envisaged is a composite input-output-outcome data housed in an elaborate IT based architecture. The system has to capture the complexity of the interventions. Yet the system has to be simple and user friendly. The overarching IT system for managing the program and monitoring and evaluating progress will have to be designed and tested before GSY is launched.
The system will function as below:
1. The MIS The GSY Board will develop and deploy a workflow-driven, Internet-enabled IT platform that deals with all aspects of the program. All data entry to this platform, including by both states and PIAs, will be through Applications that communicate through the published Application Program Interface (API) of the platform.
The PIAs will need to report information on each of the swarozgari who becomes part of the system. At the time of enrollment, the PIA will be responsible for collecting baseline data on pre-defined indicators in section 6.4, among any other relevant information, on each individual or set of swarozgari.
The PIA will be provided a prescribed format in a master data system, which will be created prior to the launch of GSY, to enter the baseline information at the initiation of the project.
The database will be linked to the SECC and Aadhaar numbers such that it does not require duplication of data entry for pre-measured indicators. The GSY MIS data will also be synchronised with other large MIS systems, thereby minimizing duplication efforts; these systems include those for the NRLM, NSAP, IAY, DDU-GKY and MGNREGS. Standard APIs of such existing MIS systems can be used to develop the MIS for GSY to ensure smooth integration and cross-collaboration.95
2. Monitoring The progress of the program will be monitored by the Management Unit of the GSY Board and the GSY unit of the SRLM based on whether the Board or State EC has sanctioned the project for a PIA. The progress monitoring will happen based on the information updated on GSY’s workflow-driven, Internet-enabled IT platform by the PIA. The number of persons reached out to, processes followed, training provided,
95 MoRD programs that do not have API protocols will have to develop them using DeITY notified protocols so that GSY can pull and push data from them.
84 program assistance provided and other relevant information will be updated by the PIA and will be tallied against targets by the relevant monitoring agency.
All reports required will be generated from the workflow-driven, Internet-enabled IT platform given that PIAs will update data in real-time. The monitoring agency may from time to time engage in dialogue with the PIA based on the progress reports and also assist as per need expressed on troubleshooting, de-bottlenecking, capacity building or reprimanding, as per status or extent of variance.
Once in 6 months, the monitoring agency will send a team of MEL officers to collect progress/outcome/impact related information in detail. This team will collect the said information from a pre-decided random sample of 200 to 350 swarozgari. The PIA will need to facilitate local logistics in order to allow for data collection. This random-survey will be done on digital, handheld devices, e.g. tablets, to allow for the real-time upload of information onto the master data system, which can then be studied by the MEL officer at the monitoring agency. The indicators thus measured at the 6-month time interval will be compared to short-term progress of the program, in terms of inputs provided and the bottlenecks faced.
3. Evaluation Once a year, the MEL Officers will survey a freshly randomized set of swarozgari from a population of the swarozgari who have completed at least one year in the program. The survey will focus on the outcomes defined in section 6.4.
4. Learning Facilitating learning at all levels is an important role of the GSY Board and the State Unit. The GSY Board in all states and the State SRLM unit in AP states will carry out various learning events, drawing from the monitoring and outcome evaluations. They will arrange for documentation of the good practices being demonstrated by the different PIAs and showcase them for replication and adoption. These practices will also be shared through national-level policy workshops organized by GSY Board. To further facilitate learning, the monitoring agency will arrange for cross-visits among PIAs so as to enable learning from each other. The overall spirit of the MEL function will be to facilitate interventions, learn from successes and failures, disseminate information, and promote innovations based on evidence.
85 6.6 Yearly Plan (YP) and Annual Plan (AP) States
Given that implementation of projects will be “GSY will follow global overseen by the GSY Board in YP states and by the best practice in financial State EC in AP states, MEL responsibilities will fall management by deploying under the corresponding institutional levels. In YP states, MEL will be overseen by the GSY Board. In AP the power of Jan Dhan, states, MEL will be undertaken by the GSY unit in the Aadhaar and Mobiles SRLM. In all states, the GSY Board will conduct quality (JAM) to drive financial audits with the help of reputed agencies. In all cases, management in MEL can be undertaken either in-house or through a Government.” reputed evaluation agency.
6.7 Fund release
GSY will follow global best practice in financial management by deploying the power of Jan Dhan, Aadhaar and Mobiles (JAM) to drive financial management in Government. This will be done by mating JAM with the workflow-driven, Internet-enabled IT platform that GSY will deploy. This will enable GSY to work on a target-based system for fund releases. Upon fulfillment of designated milestones, the PIA will be given a withdrawal authorisation on the GSY IT platform by both the GSY Board and SRLM. These milestones are defined in Figure 12 for the Graduate and Ultra-Poor Approaches, Figure 13 for the RSETI and Satellite Approach, and Figure 14 for the Sector Approach. The PIA will then be able to make payments to its staff and service providers directly from the SRLM and GSY Board account by uploading the voucher and payment order on to the GSY IT platform. After machine validations on the GSY IT system, payment will be made from the GSY Board and SRLM accounts directly to the bank account of the payee authorized to receive the payment by the PIA.
86 Figure 12: Milestones for Fund Release Authorisation, Graduated & Ultra-Poor Approaches
Graduated & Ultra-Poor Approaches Fund Release Milestone Authorisation a. Signing of MoU with GSY Submission of Prospective Work Schedule (PWS) and receipt of State 25% b. Share by SRLM 10% of the total target ultra-poor beneficiaries in the project geography a. should have received consumption support 30% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 30% of the ultra-poor b. total target beneficiaries, in the project geography should have accessed their entitlements from Government programs 25% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 25% of the ultra-poor c. total target beneficiaries, in the project geography should have finished the first round of training 25% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 25% of the ultra-poor 50% d. total target beneficiaries, in the project geography should have started earning additional income from activities for which they received training 5% of the total targeted ultra-poor beneficiaries in project geography have e. received assets required in the project for subsistence 10% of the total poor target beneficiaries in project geography should have f. created assets required in the project for undertaking self-employment (not applicable to Ultra-Poor Approach) g. Spending of 75% of the previously authorised funds 100% of the ultra-poor total target beneficiaries in project geography a. should have received consumption support and subsistence asset 75% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 75% of the ultra-poor b. total target beneficiaries, in the project geography should have accessed their entitlements from Government programs 90% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 90% of the ultra-poor c. total target beneficiaries, in the project geography should have completed training and received continuing support 80% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 80% of the ultra-poor d. total target beneficiaries, in the project geography should have created 15% necessary assets required to undertake self-employment activities 80% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 80% of the ultra-poor total target beneficiaries, in the project geography should have started e. earning additional income from activities for which they received capacity building support 40% of the total poor target beneficiaries, including 40% of the ultra-poor f. total target beneficiaries in project geography should have achieved additional income of Rs. 36,000 per year g. Spending of 75% of the previously authorised funds a. Spending of 75% of the previously authorised funds Completion of all project activities and acceptance of closure report by 10% b. the SRLM or GSY Board
87 Figure 13: Milestones for Fund Release Authorisation, RSETI & Satellite Approach
RSETI and Satellite Approach
Fund Release Milestone Authorisation a. Signing of MoU with GSY Submission of Prospective Work Schedule (PWS) and receipt of State 25% b. Share by SRLM 10% of total target beneficiaries have started the self-employment activity a. in the trade for which they were trained 8% of total target beneficiaries have obtained bank credit for starting a b. 50% self-employment activity in the trade for which they were trained c. Spending of 75% of the previously uthorized funds 60% of total target beneficiaries have started the self-employment activity a. in the trade for which they were trained 33% of total target beneficiaries have obtained bank credit for starting a b. self-employment activity in the trade for which they were trained 20% of total target beneficiaries should have achieved additional income of 15% Rs. 36,000 per year in backward blocks and Rs. 50,000 in non-backward c. blocks through self-employment activity in the trade for which they were trained d. Spending of 75% of the previously authorized funds a. Spending of 75% of the previously authorized funds Completion of all project activities and acceptance of closure report by 10% b. the SRLM or GSY Board
88 Figure 14: Milestones for Fund Release Authorisation, Sector Approach
Sector Approach
Fund Release Milestone Authorisation a. Signing of MoU with GSY Submission of Prospective Work Schedule (PWS) and receipt of State 25% b. Share by SRLM 20% of total target beneficiaries should have started the self-employment a. activity in the trade for which they were trained 15% of total target beneficiaries should have additional income in a continuous period of 3 months of Rs. 6,000 in backward blocks and Rs. b. 50% 8,000 in non-backward blocks through self-employment activity in the trade for which they were trained c. Spending of 75% of the previously authorised funds 25% of total target beneficiaries should have achieved additional income of Rs. 36,000 per year in backward blocks and Rs. 50,000 in non-backward a. blocks through self-employment activity in the trade for which they were 15% trained b. Spending of 75% of the previously authorised funds a. Spending of 75% of the previously authorised funds Completion of all project activities and acceptance of closure report by b. 10% the SRLM or GSY Board
By project completion, if the PIA does not deliver on the milestone of achieving an income increase of Rs. 36,000 (Rs. 50,000 in the non-backward blocks for RSETI and Sector Approaches) for at least 70% of the project participants (60% for RSETI Approach), fund recoveries will be made. Recoveries will use the per person rate for the project and multiply the total with the shortfall from the 70% project (60% for RSETI Approach) participant target for additional income. Recoveries will be made using the Public Demand Recovery Act in case the PIA fails to return the money.
6.8 Closure
Unless there are extensions due to any mutually agreed upon arrangement, the project closure process will start in the last semester of the project timeline. During closure proceedings, fund transfers to the PIA will be limited to an amount which both the PIA and GSY Board agree will be consumed by project termination. Any amount of money pending with the
89 PIA will be returned to the GSY Board if the project is not extended. Similarly, any pending balance with the GSY Board will be released to the PIA with immediate effect if the project is not extended.
During closure, the PIA will prepare a final report detailing the project experiences, outcomes, learning, and targets. The GSY Board will additionally send reviewers, researchers etc., to visit and study the project even after the project period is over. These post-facto studies will help build knowledge on the project and draw lessons for future improvements. Similarly, auditors from the Government of India also may visit the PIA office and make field visits in order to verify the project claims and vouch for expenses claimed.
Conclusion The above-defined overall framework details procedures for the following: project application process for PIAs—which includes potentiality score shortlisting and project appraisal with document verification and a field visit, minimum eligibility requirements for PIAs based on the approach they seek to undertake, fund release guidelines and monitoring, evaluation and learning procedures. These components ought to serve as the framework for the creation of detailed guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the operations of GSY.
90 Annexure 1: Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups as of February 201696
Name of the State or Name of PTGs Union Territory
Andhra Pradesh 1. Bodo Gadaba 2. Bondo Poroja 3. Chenchu 4. Dongria Khond 5. Gutob Gadaba 6. Khond Poroja 7. Kolam 8. Kondareddis 9. Konda Savaras 10. Kutia Khond 11. Parengi Poroja 12. Thoti
Bihar 13. Asurs (including Jharkhand) 14. Birhor 15. Birjia 16. Hill Kharia 17. Korwas 18. Mal Paharia 19. Parhaiyas 20. Sauria Paharia 21. Savar
Gujarat 22. Kathodi 23. Kotwalia 24. Padhar 25. Siddi 26. Kolgha
Karnataka 27. Jenu Kuruba 28. Koraga
Kerala 29. Cholanaikayan (a section of Kattunaickans) 30. Kadar 31. Kattunayakan 32. Kurumbas 33. Koraga
96 “Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups(PTGs) (Earlier called Primitive Tribal Group)”, as of 11 Feb 2016, Ministry of Tribal Affairs
91 Madhya Pradesh 34. Abujh Marias (including Chhattisgarh) 35. Baigas 36. Bharias 37. Hill Korbas 38. Kamars 39. Saharias 40. Birhor
Maharashtra 41. Katkaria (Kathodia) 42. Kolam 43. Maria Gond
Manipur 44. Marram Nagas
Orissa 45. Birhor 46. Bondo 47. Didayi 48. Dongria-Khond 49. Juangs 50. Kharias 51. Kutia Kondh 52. Lanjia Sauras 53. Lodhas 54. Mankidias 55. Paudi Bhuyans 56. Soura 57. Chuktia Bhunjia
Rajasthan 58. Seharias
Tamil Nadu 59. Kattu Nayakans 60. Kotas 61. Kurumbas 62. Irulas 63. Paniyans 64. Todas
Tripura 65. Reangs
Uttar Pradesh 66. Buxas (including Uttarakhand) 67. Rajis
West Bengal 68. Birhor 69. Lodhas 70. Totos
Andaman & Nicobar Islands 71. Great Andamanese
92 72. Jarawas 73. Onges 74. Sentinelese 75. Shom Pens
93 Annexure 2: List of Backward Blocks97
State Name District Name Block Name Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Bommanahal Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Brahmasamudram Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Gummagatta Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Kanekal Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Nambulipulikunta Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Rayadurg Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Vajrakarur Andhra Pradesh Anantapur Vidapanakal Andhra Pradesh Chittoor K V B Puram Andhra Pradesh Chittoor Peddamandyam Andhra Pradesh Chittoor Rama Kuppam Andhra Pradesh Cuddapah B Kodur Andhra Pradesh Cuddapah Badvel Andhra Pradesh Cuddapah Chakrayapet Andhra Pradesh Cuddapah Sambepalle Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Addateegala Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Devipatnam Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Gangavaram Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Kotananduru Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Maredumilli Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Prathipadu Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Rajavommangi Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Rampachodavaram Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Rowthulapudi Andhra Pradesh East Godavari Y Ramavaram Andhra Pradesh Guntur Achampeta Andhra Pradesh Guntur Bellamkonda Andhra Pradesh Guntur Bollapalle Andhra Pradesh Guntur Durgi Andhra Pradesh Guntur Ipuru Andhra Pradesh Guntur Krosuru Andhra Pradesh Guntur Machavaram Andhra Pradesh Guntur Nuzendla Andhra Pradesh Guntur Rompicherla Andhra Pradesh Guntur Veldurthi Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Adoni
97 Obtained from Ministry of Rural Development website
94 State Name District Name Block Name Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Aspari Andhra Pradesh Kurnool C.Belagal Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Chippagiri Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Devanakonda Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Gonegandla Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Gudur Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Halaharvi Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Holagunda Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Kosigi Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Kowthalam Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Krishnagiri Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Mantralayam Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Nandavaram Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Peapally Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Pedda Kadubur Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Rudravaram Andhra Pradesh Kurnool Tuggali Andhra Pradesh Nellore Chittamur Andhra Pradesh Nellore Dakkili Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Bestavaripeta Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Donakonda Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Hanumanthunipadu Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Konakanamitla Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Kurichedu Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Marripudi Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Mundlamuru Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Pedaaraveedu Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Pullalacheruvu Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Santhamaguluru Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Tarlapadu Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Tripuranthakam Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Veligandla Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Voletivaripalem Andhra Pradesh Prakasam Yerragondapalem Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Bhamini Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Ganguvari Singadam Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Kothuru Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Laveru Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Laxminarsupeta Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Nandigam
95 State Name District Name Block Name Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Polaki Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Regidiamadalavalasa Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Santhabommali Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Santhakaviti Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Saravakota Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Sarubujjili Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Seethampeta Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Vangara Andhra Pradesh Srikakulam Veeraghattam Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Ananthagiri Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Araku Valley Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Butchayyapeta Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Cheedikada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Chintapalle Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Devarapalle Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Dumbriguda Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Gangaraju Madugula Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Golugonda Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Gudem Kothaveedhi Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Hukumpeta Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Koyyuru Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Makavarapalem Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Munchingiputtu Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Nathavaram Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Paderu Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Padmanabham Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Pedabayalu Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Ravikamatham Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatanam Rolugunta Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Badangi Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Balajipeta Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Dattirajeru Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Gummalakshmipuram Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Gurla Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Jiyyamma Valasa Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Komarada Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Kurupam Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Makkuva Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Mentada Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Merakamudidam
96 State Name District Name Block Name Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Pachipenta Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Ramabhadrapuram Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Seethanagaram Andhra Pradesh Vizianagaram Therlam Arunachal Pradesh Anjaw Chaglagam Arunachal Pradesh Anjaw Hayuliang Arunachal Pradesh Anjaw Manchal Arunachal Pradesh Changlang Khimiyang Arunachal Pradesh Changlang Manmao Arunachal Pradesh Changlang Vijaynagar Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Bameng Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Bana Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Chayangtajo Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Khenewa Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Pakke-Kessang Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Pipu Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Seijosa Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Seppa Arunachal Pradesh East Siang Pangin Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Chambang Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Damin Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Gangte Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Koloriang Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Nyapin Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Palin Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Parsi Parlo Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Pip Sorang Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Sangram Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Sarli Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Tali Arunachal Pradesh Kurung Kumey Yangte Arunachal Pradesh Lohit Wakro Arunachal Pradesh Longding Pongchau Arunachal Pradesh Longding Wakka Arunachal Pradesh Lower Dibang Valley Hunli-Desali Arunachal Pradesh Lower Subansiri Pistana Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare Balijan Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare Borum Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare Kimin Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare Kimin-Doimukh
97 State Name District Name Block Name Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare Mengio Arunachal Pradesh Papum Pare Sagalee Arunachal Pradesh Tawang Lumla-Zemithang Arunachal Pradesh Tawang Mukto-Thingbu Arunachal Pradesh Tawang Zemithang-Dudunghar Arunachal Pradesh Tirap Lazu Arunachal Pradesh Tirap Niausa Arunachal Pradesh Upper Dibang Valley Anelih-Arzu Arunachal Pradesh Upper Dibang Valley Anini-Alinye-Mipi Arunachal Pradesh Upper Dibang Valley Etalin-Malinye Arunachal Pradesh Upper Siang Singa-Gelling Arunachal Pradesh Upper Siang Tuting Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Baririjo Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Chetam Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Daporijo Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Dumporijo Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Giba Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Nacho Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Payeng Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Puchigeku Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Siyum Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Taksing Arunachal Pradesh Upper Subansiri Taliha Arunachal Pradesh West Kameng Nafra Arunachal Pradesh West Kameng Thrizino Arunachal Pradesh West Siang Kaying Arunachal Pradesh West Siang Mechukha Arunachal Pradesh West Siang Monigong Assam Baksa Barama Assam Baksa Baska Assam Baksa Dhamdhama Assam Baksa Goreswar Assam Baksa Jalah(Btc) Assam Baksa Nagrijuli Assam Baksa Tamulpur Assam Barpeta Bajali Assam Barpeta Bhawanipur Assam Barpeta Chakchaka Assam Barpeta Chenga Assam Barpeta Pakabetbari
98 State Name District Name Block Name Assam Barpeta Rupshi Assam Barpeta Sarukhetri Assam Bongaigaon Boitamari Assam Bongaigaon Dangtol Assam Bongaigaon Manikpur Assam Bongaigaon Srijangram Assam Cachar Lakhipur Assam Cachar Silchar Assam Cachar Sonai Assam Cachar Udharbond Assam Chirang Borobazar Assam Chirang Sidli-Chirang Assam Darrang Dalgaon-Sialmari Assam Darrang Kalaigaon Assam Darrang Pub-Mangaldai Assam Darrang Sipajhar Assam Dhemaji Machkhowa Assam Dhemaji Murkongselek Assam Dhemaji Sissiborgaon Assam Dhubri Agomoni Assam Dhubri Bilasipara Assam Dhubri Chapor Salkocha Assam Dhubri Gauripur Assam Dhubri Golokganj Assam Dhubri Mahamaya Assam Dhubri Mankachar Assam Dhubri South Salmara Assam Dibrugarh Borboruah Assam Dibrugarh Joypur Assam Dibrugarh Khowang Assam Dibrugarh Panitola Assam Dibrugarh Tengakhat Assam Dibrugarh Tingkhong Assam Dima Hasao Diyung Valley Assam Dima Hasao Jatinga Valley Assam Dima Hasao New Sangbar Assam Goalpara Balijana Assam Goalpara Jaleswar Assam Goalpara Kushdhowa Assam Goalpara Matia
99 State Name District Name Block Name Assam Goalpara Rongjuli Assam Golaghat Golaghat Central Assam Golaghat Golaghat East Assam Golaghat Golaghat South Assam Golaghat Golaghat West Assam Golaghat Kakodonga Assam Golaghat Morongi Assam Hailakandi Algapur Assam Hailakandi Hailakandi Assam Hailakandi Lala Assam Hailakandi South Hailakandi Assam Jorhat Jorhat East Assam Jorhat Kaliapani Assam Jorhat Titabor Assam Jorhat Ujani Majuli Assam Kamrup Boko Assam Kamrup Chamaria Assam Kamrup Chayani Barduar (Part) Assam Kamrup Chaygaon Assam Kamrup Goroimari Assam Kamrup Hajo Assam Kamrup Rangia(Part) Assam Kamrup (Metro) Chandrapur Assam Kamrup (Metro) Dimoria Assam Karbi Anglong Lumbajong Assam Karbi Anglong Rangmongwe Assam Karbi Anglong Rongkhang Assam Karbi Anglong Samelangso Assam Karimganj Badarpur Assam Karimganj Dullavcherra Assam Karimganj Lowairpoa Assam Karimganj North Karimgjanj Assam Karimganj South Karimganj Assam Kokrajhar Debitola-Btc Assam Kokrajhar Dotoma Assam Kokrajhar Gossaigaon Assam Kokrajhar Kokrajhar Assam Lakhimpur Boginadi Assam Lakhimpur Dhakuakhana Assam Lakhimpur Ghilamara
100 State Name District Name Block Name Assam Lakhimpur Karunabari Assam Lakhimpur Lakhimpur Assam Lakhimpur Narayanpur Assam Lakhimpur Nowboicha Assam Morigaon Bhurbandha Assam Morigaon Kapili Assam Morigaon Laharighat Assam Morigaon Mayong Assam Nagaon Bajiagaon Assam Nagaon Batadraba Assam Nagaon Binakandi Assam Nagaon Jugijan Assam Nagaon Juria Assam Nagaon Kaliabor Assam Nagaon Kathiatoli Assam Nagaon Lumding Assam Nagaon Raha Assam Nalbari Barigog Banbhag Assam Nalbari Barkhetri Assam Nalbari Madhupur Assam Sivasagar Demow Assam Sivasagar Gaurisagar Assam Sivasagar Nazira Assam Sivasagar Pachim Abhaipur Assam Sivasagar Sonari Assam Sonitpur Biswanath Assam Sonitpur Chaiduar Assam Sonitpur Dhekiajuli Assam Sonitpur Pub Chaiduar Assam Sonitpur Rangapara Assam Sonitpur Sootea Assam Tinsukia Guijan Assam Tinsukia Kakopathar Assam Tinsukia Margherita Assam Tinsukia Sadiya Assam Udalguri Mazbat Assam Udalguri Rowta Assam Udalguri Udalguri Bihar Araria Araria Bihar Araria Bhargama
101 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Araria Forbesganj Bihar Araria Jokihat Bihar Araria Kursakanta Bihar Araria Narpatganj Bihar Araria Palasi Bihar Araria Raniganj Bihar Araria Sikty Bihar Arwal Karpi Bihar Arwal Sonbhadra Bansi Suryapur Bihar Auranagabad Goh Bihar Banka Banka Bihar Banka Barahat Bihar Banka Bausi Bihar Banka Belhar Bihar Banka Chanan Bihar Banka Dhuraiya Bihar Banka Fullidumar Bihar Banka Katoria Bihar Banka Rajaun Bihar Banka Shambhuganj Bihar Begusarai Chhaurahi Bihar Begusarai Dandari Bihar Begusarai Garhpura Bihar Begusarai Nawkothi Bihar Begusarai Shamho Akha Bihar Bhagalpur Goradih Bihar Bhagalpur Ismailpur Bihar Bhagalpur Kharik Bihar Bhagalpur Pirpainti Bihar Bhagalpur Rangrachowk Bihar Bhagalpur Sonhaula Bihar Darbhanga Alinagar Bihar Darbhanga Baheri Bihar Darbhanga Benipur Bihar Darbhanga Biraul Bihar Darbhanga Gaurabauram Bihar Darbhanga Ghanshyampur Bihar Darbhanga Hanuman Nagar Bihar Darbhanga Jale Bihar Darbhanga Keotirunway
102 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Darbhanga Kiratpur Bihar Darbhanga Kusheshwar Asthan Bihar Darbhanga Kusheswar Asthan East Bihar Darbhanga Manigachhi Bihar Darbhanga Singhwara Bihar Darbhanga Tardih Bihar Gaya Atri Bihar Gaya Bankey Bazar Bihar Gaya Barachatti Bihar Gaya Bathani Bihar Gaya Bodhgaya Bihar Gaya Dobhi Bihar Gaya Dumaria Bihar Gaya Fatehpur Bihar Gaya Gurua Bihar Gaya Imamganj Bihar Gaya Khizarsarai Bihar Gaya Manpur Bihar Gaya Mohanpur Bihar Gaya Mohra Bihar Gaya Paraiya Bihar Gaya Tankuppa Bihar Gaya Wazirgang Bihar Gopalganj Baikunthpur Bihar Gopalganj Sidhwalia Bihar Jamui Barhat Bihar Jamui Chakai Bihar Jamui Islamnagar Aliganj Bihar Jamui Khaira Bihar Jamui Laxmipur Bihar Jamui Sikandra Bihar Jamui Sono Bihar Jehanabad Makhdumpur Bihar Kaimur (Bhabua) Adhaura Bihar Kaimur (Bhabua) Bhagwanpur Bihar Kaimur (Bhabua) Chainpur Bihar Kaimur (Bhabua) Chand Bihar Kaimur (Bhabua) Rampur Bihar Katihar Amdabad Bihar Katihar Azamnagar
103 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Katihar Balrampur Bihar Katihar Barari Bihar Katihar Barsoi Bihar Katihar Dandkhora Bihar Katihar Falka Bihar Katihar Hasanganj Bihar Katihar Kadwa Bihar Katihar Korha Bihar Katihar Kursela Bihar Katihar Manihari Bihar Katihar Mansahi Bihar Katihar Pranpur Bihar Katihar Sameli Bihar Khagaria Allouri Bihar Khagaria Beldaur Bihar Khagaria Chautham Bihar Khagaria Khagaria Bihar Kishanganj Bahadurganj Bihar Kishanganj Dighalbank Bihar Kishanganj Kochadhaman Bihar Kishanganj Pothia Bihar Kishanganj Terhagachh Bihar Kishanganj Thakurganj Bihar Lakhisarai Chanan Bihar Lakhisarai Halsi Bihar Lakhisarai Pipariya Bihar Lakhisarai Ramagarh Bihar Madhepura Alamnagar Bihar Madhepura Bihariganj Bihar Madhepura Chausa Bihar Madhepura Gamhariya Bihar Madhepura Ghelarh Bihar Madhepura Gwalpara Bihar Madhepura Kumarkhand Bihar Madhepura Madhepura Bihar Madhepura Murliganj Bihar Madhepura Purani Bihar Madhepura Shankarpur Bihar Madhepura Singheshwar Bihar Madhepura Uda Kishanganj
104 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Madhubani Andhratharhi Bihar Madhubani Babu Barhi Bihar Madhubani Basopatti Bihar Madhubani Benipatti Bihar Madhubani Bisfi Bihar Madhubani Ghoghardiha Bihar Madhubani Harlakhi Bihar Madhubani Jainagar Bihar Madhubani Jhanjharpur Bihar Madhubani Kaluahi Bihar Madhubani Khajauli Bihar Madhubani Ladania Bihar Madhubani Lakhnaur Bihar Madhubani Laukaha (Khutauna) Bihar Madhubani Laukahi Bihar Madhubani Madhepur Bihar Madhubani Madhwapur Bihar Madhubani Pandaul Bihar Madhubani Phulparas Bihar Madhubani Rajnagar Bihar Muzaffarpur Aurai Bihar Muzaffarpur Bandra Bihar Muzaffarpur Bochahan Bihar Muzaffarpur Gaighat Bihar Muzaffarpur Katra Bihar Muzaffarpur Kurhani Bihar Muzaffarpur Minapur Bihar Muzaffarpur Motipur Bihar Muzaffarpur Mushahari Bihar Muzaffarpur Sahebganj Bihar Muzaffarpur Saraiya Bihar Nalanda Asthawan Block Bihar Nalanda Ben Bihar Nalanda Bind Block Bihar Nalanda Chandi Block Bihar Nalanda Harnaut Block Bihar Nalanda Karaiparsurai Bihar Nalanda Katrisarai Bihar Nalanda Nagarnausa Bihar Nalanda Noorsarai
105 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Nalanda Rahui Block Bihar Nalanda Rajgir Block Bihar Nalanda Sarmera Block Bihar Nalanda Tharthari Block Bihar Nawada Akbarpur Bihar Nawada Govindpur Block Bihar Nawada Hasua Block Bihar Nawada Kashichak Block Bihar Nawada Kowakole Block Bihar Nawada Meskaur Block Bihar Nawada Nardiganj Block Bihar Nawada Narhat Block Bihar Nawada Pakaribarawan Bihar Nawada Rajauli Block Bihar Nawada Roh Block Bihar Nawada Sirdala Bihar Nawada Warsaliganj Bihar Pashchim Champaran Bagaha-I Bihar Pashchim Champaran Bagaha-Ii Bihar Pashchim Champaran Bairia Bihar Pashchim Champaran Bhitaha Bihar Pashchim Champaran Chanpatia Bihar Pashchim Champaran Gaunaha Bihar Pashchim Champaran Jogapatti Bihar Pashchim Champaran Lauriya Bihar Pashchim Champaran Madhubani Bihar Pashchim Champaran Mainatand Bihar Pashchim Champaran Majhaulia Bihar Pashchim Champaran Narkatiaganj Bihar Pashchim Champaran Nautan Bihar Pashchim Champaran Piprasi Bihar Pashchim Champaran Ramnagar Bihar Pashchim Champaran Sikta Bihar Pashchim Champaran Thakrahan Bihar Patna Belchhi Bihar Patna Dhanarua Bihar Patna Ghoswari Bihar Patna Punpun Bihar Purbi Champaran Adapur Bihar Purbi Champaran Banjariya
106 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Purbi Champaran Bankatwa Bihar Purbi Champaran Chakia (Pipra) Bihar Purbi Champaran Chawradano Bihar Purbi Champaran Chiraiya Bihar Purbi Champaran Dhaka Bihar Purbi Champaran Ghorasahan Bihar Purbi Champaran Harsidhi Bihar Purbi Champaran Kalyanpur Bihar Purbi Champaran Kesaria Bihar Purbi Champaran Kotwa Bihar Purbi Champaran Madhuban Bihar Purbi Champaran Mehsi Bihar Purbi Champaran Paharpur Bihar Purbi Champaran Pakridayal Bihar Purbi Champaran Patahi Bihar Purbi Champaran Phenhara Bihar Purbi Champaran Pipra Kothi Bihar Purbi Champaran Ramgarhwa Bihar Purbi Champaran Raxaul Bihar Purbi Champaran Sangrampur Bihar Purbi Champaran Sugauli Bihar Purbi Champaran Tetariya Bihar Purbi Champaran Turkaulia Bihar Purnia Amour Bihar Purnia Baisa Bihar Purnia Baisi Bihar Purnia Banmankhi Bihar Purnia Barhara Bihar Purnia Bhawanipur Bihar Purnia Dagraua Bihar Purnia Dhamdaha Bihar Purnia Jalalgarh Bihar Purnia Kasba Bihar Purnia Krityanand Nagar Bihar Purnia Rupouli Bihar Purnia Srinagar Bihar Rohtas Nauhatta Bihar Saharsa Banma Itahari Bihar Saharsa Mahishi Bihar Saharsa Nauhatta
107 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Saharsa Patarghat Bihar Saharsa Salkhua Bihar Saharsa Sattar Kattaiya Bihar Saharsa Simri Bakhtiarpur Bihar Saharsa Sonbarsa Bihar Saharsa Sour Bazar Bihar Samastipur Bithan Bihar Samastipur Bubhutipur Bihar Samastipur Hasanpura Bihar Samastipur Khanpur Bihar Samastipur Klayanpur Bihar Samastipur Mohan Pur Bihar Samastipur Mohiuddin Nagar Bihar Samastipur Morwa Bihar Samastipur Sarairanjan Bihar Samastipur Singhia Bihar Samastipur Sivajee Nagar Bihar Samastipur Vidyapati Nagar Bihar Saran Dariapur Bihar Saran Maker Bihar Saran Panapur Bihar Saran Parsa Bihar Sheikhpura Ariari Bihar Sheikhpura Chewara Bihar Sheikhpura Ghat Khusumbaha Bihar Sheohar Dumrikatsari Bihar Sheohar Piprahi Bihar Sheohar Punrahia Bihar Sheohar Tariyani Bihar Sitamarhi Bairgania Bihar Sitamarhi Bajpatti Bihar Sitamarhi Bathnaha Bihar Sitamarhi Belsand Bihar Sitamarhi Bokhra Bihar Sitamarhi Choraut Bihar Sitamarhi Majorganj Bihar Sitamarhi Nanpur Bihar Sitamarhi Parihar Bihar Sitamarhi Parsauni Bihar Sitamarhi Pupri
108 State Name District Name Block Name Bihar Sitamarhi Riga Bihar Sitamarhi Runnisaidpur Bihar Sitamarhi Sonbarsa Bihar Sitamarhi Suppi Bihar Sitamarhi Sursand Bihar Supaul Basantpur Bihar Supaul Chhatapur Bihar Supaul Kishanpur Bihar Supaul Marauna Bihar Supaul Nirmali Bihar Supaul Pipra Bihar Supaul Pratapganj Bihar Supaul Raghopur Bihar Supaul Saraigarh Bihar Supaul Supaul Bihar Supaul Triveniganj Bihar Vaishali Patepur Bihar Vaishali Raghopur Chhattisgarh Balod Dondilohara Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Kasdol Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Palari Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Simga Chhattisgarh Balrampur Balrampur Chhattisgarh Balrampur Kusami Chhattisgarh Balrampur Rajpur Chhattisgarh Balrampur Ramchandrapur Chhattisgarh Balrampur Shankargarh Chhattisgarh Balrampur Wadrafnagar Chhattisgarh Bastar Bakawand Chhattisgarh Bastar Bastanar Chhattisgarh Bastar Bastar Chhattisgarh Bastar Darbha Chhattisgarh Bastar Lohandiguda Chhattisgarh Bastar Tokapal Chhattisgarh Bemetara Bemetara Chhattisgarh Bemetara Berla Chhattisgarh Bemetara Nawagarh
109 State Name District Name Block Name Chhattisgarh Bemetara Saja Chhattisgarh Bijapur Bhairamgarh Chhattisgarh Bijapur Bijapur Chhattisgarh Bijapur Usur Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Belha Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Gaurella-1 Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Gaurella-2 Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Kota Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Marwahi Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Masturi Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Takhatpur Chhattisgarh Dakshin Bastar Dantewada Katekalyan Dakshin Bastar Dantewada (Now In Sukma Chhattisgarh District) Chhindgarh Dakshin Bastar Dantewada (Now In Sukma Chhattisgarh District) Konta Chhattisgarh Dantewada Dantewada Chhattisgarh Dantewada Geedam Chhattisgarh Dhamtari Kurud Chhattisgarh Dhamtari Magarlod Chhattisgarh Dhamtari Nagari Chhattisgarh Gariyaband Chhurra Chhattisgarh Gariyaband Deobhog Chhattisgarh Gariyaband Fingeshwar Chhattisgarh Gariyaband Gariyaband Chhattisgarh Gariyaband Mainpur Chhattisgarh Janjgir-Champa Akaltara Chhattisgarh Janjgir-Champa Balauda Chhattisgarh Janjgir-Champa Jaijaipur Chhattisgarh Janjgir-Champa Malkharauda Chhattisgarh Janjgir-Champa Nawagarh Chhattisgarh Janjgir-Champa Pamgarh Chhattisgarh Janjgir-Champa Sakti Chhattisgarh Jashpur Bagicha Chhattisgarh Jashpur Duldula Chhattisgarh Jashpur Kansabel Chhattisgarh Jashpur Kunkuri Chhattisgarh Jashpur Manora Chhattisgarh Jashpur Patthalgaon Chhattisgarh Jashpur Pharsabahar
110 State Name District Name Block Name Chhattisgarh Kanker Bhanupratappur Chhattisgarh Kanker Durgukondal Chhattisgarh Kanker Narharpur Chhattisgarh Kawardha Bodla Chhattisgarh Kawardha Kawardha Chhattisgarh Kawardha Pandariya Chhattisgarh Kawardha S.Lohara Chhattisgarh Kondagaon Baderajpur Chhattisgarh Kondagaon Keshkal Chhattisgarh Kondagaon Kondagaon Chhattisgarh Kondagaon Makdi Chhattisgarh Kondagaon Pharasgaon Chhattisgarh Korba Kartala Chhattisgarh Korba Pali Chhattisgarh Korba Podi Uparoda Chhattisgarh Korea Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh Korea Bharatpur Chhattisgarh Korea Sonhat Chhattisgarh Mahasamund Bagbahara Chhattisgarh Mahasamund Basna Chhattisgarh Mahasamund Pithora Chhattisgarh Mungeli Lormi Chhattisgarh Mungeli Mungeli Chhattisgarh Mungeli Pathariya Chhattisgarh Narayanpur Narayanpur Chhattisgarh Narayanpur Orchha Chhattisgarh Raigarh Baramkela Chhattisgarh Raigarh Dharamjaigarh Chhattisgarh Raigarh Ghargoda Chhattisgarh Raigarh Lailunga Chhattisgarh Raigarh Pusore Chhattisgarh Raigarh Sarangarh Chhattisgarh Raigarh Tamnar Chhattisgarh Raipur Abhanpur Chhattisgarh Raipur Arang Chhattisgarh Rajnandagon Chhuikhadan Chhattisgarh Rajnandagon Khairagarh Chhattisgarh Rajnandagon Manpur Chhattisgarh Sukma Sukma Chhattisgarh Surajpur Bhaiyathan
111 State Name District Name Block Name Chhattisgarh Surajpur Odagi Chhattisgarh Surajpur Pratappur Chhattisgarh Surajpur Premnagar Chhattisgarh Surajpur Ramanujnagar Chhattisgarh Surajpur Surajpur Chhattisgarh Surguja Batauli Chhattisgarh Surguja Lakhanpur Chhattisgarh Surguja Lundra Chhattisgarh Surguja Mainpat Chhattisgarh Surguja Sitapur Chhattisgarh Surguja Udaipur Gujarat Banas Kantha Amirgadh Gujarat Banas Kantha Bhabhar Gujarat Banas Kantha Danta Gujarat Banas Kantha Deodar Gujarat Banas Kantha Kankrej Gujarat Banas Kantha Suigam Gujarat Banas Kantha Tharad Gujarat Banas Kantha Vav Gujarat Bharuch Valia Gujarat Bhavnagar Ghogha Gujarat Botad Barwala Gujarat Chhotaudepur Bodeli Gujarat Chhotaudepur Jetpur Pavi Gujarat Chhotaudepur Kawant Gujarat Chhotaudepur Nasvadi Gujarat Dang Ahwa Gujarat Dang Subir Gujarat Dang Waghai Gujarat Devbhumi Dwarka Kalyanpur Gujarat Dohad Devgad Bariya Gujarat Dohad Dhanpur Gujarat Dohad Fatepura Gujarat Dohad Garbada Gujarat Dohad Jhalod Gujarat Dohad Limkheda Gujarat Dohad Sanjeli Gujarat Kachchh Lakhpat Gujarat Kachchh Rapar Gujarat Mahisagar Kadana
112 State Name District Name Block Name Gujarat Mahisagar Khanpur Gujarat Mahisagar Santrampur Gujarat Narmada Dediyapada Gujarat Narmada Sagbara Gujarat Panch Mahals Ghoghamba Gujarat Panch Mahals Jambughoda Gujarat Panch Mahals Morvahadaf Gujarat Panch Mahals Shehera Gujarat Patan Sami Gujarat Patan Santalpur Gujarat Patan Shankheswar Gujarat Surat Umarpada Gujarat Surendranagar Chotila Gujarat Surendranagar Sayla Gujarat Surendranagar Thangadh Gujarat Tapi Nizar Gujarat Tapi Songadh Gujarat Tapi Uchchhal Gujarat Valsad Kaprada Haryana Bhiwani Badhra Haryana Bhiwani Bawani Khera Haryana Bhiwani Loharu Haryana Bhiwani Siwani Haryana Bhiwani Tosham Haryana Fatehabad Bhuna Haryana Fatehabad Ratia Haryana Hisar Adampur Haryana Hisar Hansi-Ii Haryana Hisar Narnaund Haryana Jind Julana Haryana Jind Uchana Haryana Kaithal Kalayat Haryana Mahendragarh Nizampur Haryana Mewat Ferozepur Jhirka Haryana Mewat Nuh Haryana Mewat Punahana Haryana Mewat Taoru Haryana Palwal Hathin Haryana Palwal Hodal Haryana Panchkula Morni
113 State Name District Name Block Name Haryana Sirsa Nathusari Chopta Haryana Sirsa Rania Himachal Pradesh Chamba Mehla Himachal Pradesh Chamba Salooni Himachal Pradesh Chamba Tissa Himachal Pradesh Kullu Anni Himachal Pradesh Kullu Nirmand Himachal Pradesh Mandi Dharampur Himachal Pradesh Mandi Drang Himachal Pradesh Mandi Seraj Himachal Pradesh Shimla Chauhara Himachal Pradesh Shimla Rampur Himachal Pradesh Sirmaur Sangrah Jammu And Kashmir Badgam Badgam Jammu And Kashmir Badgam Khag Jammu And Kashmir Badgam Khan-Sahib Jammu And Kashmir Bandipora Gurez Jammu And Kashmir Bandipora Tulial Jammu And Kashmir Doda Bhaderwah Jammu And Kashmir Doda Bhalessa(Gandoh) Jammu And Kashmir Doda Thathri Jammu And Kashmir Kargil Zanskar Jammu And Kashmir Kishtwar Inderwal Jammu And Kashmir Kishtwar Kishtwar Jammu And Kashmir Kishtwar Padder Jammu And Kashmir Kulgam D.H.Pora Jammu And Kashmir Kulgam Pahloo Jammu And Kashmir Kupwara Kupwara Jammu And Kashmir Kupwara Tangdar Jammu And Kashmir Kupwara Teethwal Jammu And Kashmir Leh (Ladakh) Khaltsi Jammu And Kashmir Leh (Ladakh) Nubra Jammu And Kashmir Poonch Balakote Jammu And Kashmir Poonch Mandi Jammu And Kashmir Poonch Mendhar Jammu And Kashmir Rajauri Budhal Jammu And Kashmir Rajauri Darhal Jammu And Kashmir Rajauri Kalakote Jammu And Kashmir Rajauri Manjakote Jammu And Kashmir Rajauri Thanamandi
114 State Name District Name Block Name Jharkhand Bokaro Kasmar Jharkhand Bokaro Peterwar Jharkhand Chatra Giddhor Jharkhand Chatra Hunterganj Jharkhand Chatra Kanhachatti Jharkhand Chatra Kunda Jharkhand Chatra Lawalong Jharkhand Chatra Mayurhand Jharkhand Chatra Pathalgada Jharkhand Chatra Pratappur Jharkhand Chatra Simaria Jharkhand Chatra Tandwa Jharkhand Deoghar Devipur Jharkhand Deoghar Karown Jharkhand Deoghar Margomunda Jharkhand Deoghar Mohanpur Jharkhand Deoghar Palojori Jharkhand Deoghar Sarath Jharkhand Deoghar Sarwan Jharkhand Deoghar Sonaraithari Jharkhand Dhanbad Purvi Tundi Jharkhand Dhanbad Topchanchi Jharkhand Dhanbad Tundi Jharkhand Dumka Gopikander Jharkhand Dumka Jama Jharkhand Dumka Jarmundi Jharkhand Dumka Kathikund Jharkhand Dumka Masaliya Jharkhand Dumka Ramgarh Jharkhand Dumka Ranishwar Jharkhand Dumka Saraiyahat Jharkhand Dumka Sikaripara Jharkhand East Singhbum Boram Jharkhand East Singhbum Chakulia Jharkhand East Singhbum Dhalbhumgarh Jharkhand East Singhbum Dumaria Jharkhand East Singhbum Ghatshila Jharkhand East Singhbum Gurabanda Jharkhand East Singhbum Patamda Jharkhand East Singhbum Potka
115 State Name District Name Block Name Jharkhand Garhwa Bardiha Jharkhand Garhwa Bhandaria Jharkhand Garhwa Bhawnathpur Jharkhand Garhwa Bishunpura Jharkhand Garhwa Chinia Jharkhand Garhwa Danda Jharkhand Garhwa Dandai Jharkhand Garhwa Dhurki Jharkhand Garhwa Kandi Jharkhand Garhwa Ketar Jharkhand Garhwa Kharaundhi Jharkhand Garhwa Manjhiaon Jharkhand Garhwa Meral Jharkhand Garhwa Nagar Untari Jharkhand Garhwa Ramkanda Jharkhand Garhwa Ramna Jharkhand Garhwa Ranka Jharkhand Garhwa Sagma Jharkhand Giridih Bengabad Jharkhand Giridih Birni Jharkhand Giridih Deori Jharkhand Giridih Dhanwar Jharkhand Giridih Gandey Jharkhand Giridih Gawan Jharkhand Giridih Jamua Jharkhand Giridih Pirtand Jharkhand Giridih Tisri Jharkhand Godda Basantray Jharkhand Godda Boarijore Jharkhand Godda Godda Jharkhand Godda Mahagama Jharkhand Godda Meharma Jharkhand Godda Pathergama Jharkhand Godda Poraiyahat Jharkhand Godda Sunderpahari Jharkhand Godda Thakurgangti Jharkhand Gumla Albert Ekka Jharkhand Gumla Basia Jharkhand Gumla Bharno Jharkhand Gumla Bishunpur
116 State Name District Name Block Name Jharkhand Gumla Chainpur Jharkhand Gumla Dumri Jharkhand Gumla Ghaghra Jharkhand Gumla Gumla Jharkhand Gumla Kamdara Jharkhand Gumla Palkot Jharkhand Gumla Raidih Jharkhand Gumla Sisai Jharkhand Hazaribagh Barkatha Jharkhand Hazaribagh Churchu Jharkhand Hazaribagh Dadi Jharkhand Hazaribagh Ichak Jharkhand Hazaribagh Keredari Jharkhand Hazaribagh Tatijhariya Jharkhand Jamtara Fatehpur Jharkhand Jamtara Karmatanr Vidyasagar Jharkhand Jamtara Kundhit Jharkhand Jamtara Nala Jharkhand Jamtara Narayanpur Jharkhand Khunti Arki Jharkhand Khunti Karra Jharkhand Khunti Khunti Jharkhand Khunti Murhu Jharkhand Khunti Rania Jharkhand Khunti Torpa Jharkhand Koderma Domchanch Jharkhand Koderma Markacho Jharkhand Koderma Satgawan Jharkhand Latehar Balumath Jharkhand Latehar Bariyatu Jharkhand Latehar Barwadih Jharkhand Latehar Chandwa Jharkhand Latehar Garu Jharkhand Latehar Herhanj Jharkhand Latehar Latehar Jharkhand Latehar Mahuadanr Jharkhand Latehar Manika Jharkhand Lohardaga Bhandra Jharkhand Lohardaga Kairo Jharkhand Lohardaga Kisko
117 State Name District Name Block Name Jharkhand Lohardaga Kuru Jharkhand Lohardaga Lohardaga Jharkhand Lohardaga Peshrar Jharkhand Lohardaga Senha Jharkhand Pakur Amrapara Jharkhand Pakur Hiranpur Jharkhand Pakur Littipara Jharkhand Pakur Maheshpur Jharkhand Pakur Pakuria Jharkhand Palamu Chainpur Jharkhand Palamu Chhatarpur Jharkhand Palamu Daltonganj Jharkhand Palamu Hariharganj Jharkhand Palamu Lesliganj Jharkhand Palamu Manatu Jharkhand Palamu Naudiha Bazar Jharkhand Palamu Nawa Bazar Jharkhand Palamu Pandu Jharkhand Palamu Pandwa Jharkhand Palamu Panki Jharkhand Palamu Patan Jharkhand Palamu Pipra Jharkhand Palamu Satbarwa Jharkhand Palamu Tarhasi Jharkhand Palamu Utari Road Jharkhand Ramgarh Mandu Jharkhand Ranchi Angara Jharkhand Ranchi Bero Jharkhand Ranchi Bundu Jharkhand Ranchi Burmu Jharkhand Ranchi Chanho Jharkhand Ranchi Lapung Jharkhand Ranchi Namkum Jharkhand Ranchi Ormanjhi Jharkhand Ranchi Rahe Jharkhand Ranchi Silli Jharkhand Ranchi Sonahatu Jharkhand Ranchi Tamar Jharkhand Sahebganj Barhait Jharkhand Sahebganj Borio
118 State Name District Name Block Name Jharkhand Sahebganj Mandro Jharkhand Sahebganj Pathna Jharkhand Sahebganj Rajmahal Jharkhand Sahebganj Taljhari Jharkhand Sahebganj Udhwa Jharkhand Saraikela Kharsawan Ichagarh Jharkhand Saraikela Kharsawan Kharsawan Jharkhand Saraikela Kharsawan Kuchai Jharkhand Saraikela Kharsawan Kukru Jharkhand Saraikela Kharsawan Nimdeeh Jharkhand Saraikela Kharsawan Rajnagar Jharkhand Simdega Bano Jharkhand Simdega Bansjore Jharkhand Simdega Bolba Jharkhand Simdega Jaldega Jharkhand Simdega Kersai Jharkhand Simdega Kurdeg Jharkhand Simdega Pakartanr Jharkhand Simdega Thethaitangar Jharkhand West Singhbhum Anandpur Jharkhand West Singhbhum Bandgaon Jharkhand West Singhbhum Chakardharpur Jharkhand West Singhbhum Goelkera Jharkhand West Singhbhum Gudri Jharkhand West Singhbhum Hat Gamharia Jharkhand West Singhbhum Jagannathpur Jharkhand West Singhbhum Jhinkpani Jharkhand West Singhbhum Khutpani Jharkhand West Singhbhum Kumardungi Jharkhand West Singhbhum Manjhari Jharkhand West Singhbhum Manjhgaon Jharkhand West Singhbhum Manoharpur Jharkhand West Singhbhum Sonua Jharkhand West Singhbhum Tantnagar Jharkhand West Singhbhum Tonto Karnataka Bagalkote Bilagi Karnataka Bagalkote Hungund Karnataka Bellary Hadagalli Karnataka Bellary Kudligi Karnataka Bellary Sandur
119 State Name District Name Block Name Karnataka Bidar Aurad Karnataka Bidar Basavakalyan Karnataka Bidar Bhalki Karnataka Bidar Humnabad Karnataka Bijapur Basavana Bagevadi Karnataka Bijapur Indi Karnataka Bijapur Muddebihal Karnataka Bijapur Sindgi Karnataka Chamaraja Nagara Chamarajanagar Karnataka Chamaraja Nagara Gundlupet Karnataka Chamaraja Nagara Kollegala Karnataka Chikkaballapura Bagepalli Karnataka Chikkaballapura Gauribidanur Karnataka Chikkaballapura Gudibanda Karnataka Chikmagalur Kadur Karnataka Chitradurga Challakere Karnataka Chitradurga Chitradurga Karnataka Chitradurga Hiriyur Karnataka Chitradurga Holalkere Karnataka Chitradurga Hosdurga Karnataka Chitradurga Molakalmuru Karnataka Davanagere Channagiri Karnataka Davanagere Harappanahalli Karnataka Davanagere Jagalur Karnataka Dharwar Kalghatgi Karnataka Gadag Gadag Karnataka Gadag Mundaragi Karnataka Gulbarga Afzalpur Karnataka Gulbarga Aland Karnataka Gulbarga Chincholi Karnataka Gulbarga Chitapur Karnataka Gulbarga Jevargi Karnataka Gulbarga Sedam Karnataka Hassan Arkalgud Karnataka Haveri Hirekerur Karnataka Haveri Savanur Karnataka Haveri Shiggaon Karnataka Kolar Mulbagal Karnataka Kolar Srinivaspur Karnataka Koppal Koppal
120 State Name District Name Block Name Karnataka Koppal Kushtagi Karnataka Koppal Yelburga Karnataka Mandya Nagamangala Karnataka Mysore Heggadadevankote Karnataka Mysore Hunsur Karnataka Mysore Nanjangud Karnataka Raichur Devadurga Karnataka Raichur Lingsugur Karnataka Raichur Manvi Karnataka Raichur Raichur Karnataka Raichur Sindhnur Karnataka Ramanagara Kanakapura Karnataka Ramanagara Magadi Karnataka Tumkur Chiknayakanhalli Karnataka Tumkur Gubbi Karnataka Tumkur Koratagere Karnataka Tumkur Kunigal Karnataka Tumkur Madhugiri Karnataka Tumkur Pavagada Karnataka Tumkur Sira Karnataka Tumkur Turuvekere Karnataka Yadgir Shahpur Karnataka Yadgir Shorapur Karnataka Yadgir Yadgir Kerala Idukki Adimali Kerala Idukki Azhutha Kerala Idukki Devikulam Kerala Kasargod Kanhangad Kerala Kasargod Parappa Kerala Malappuram Areacode Kerala Malappuram Nilambur Kerala Malappuram Wandoor Kerala Palakkad Alathur Kerala Palakkad Attappadi Kerala Palakkad Chittur Kerala Palakkad Kollengode Kerala Palakkad Kuzhalmannam Kerala Palakkad Mannarkad Kerala Palakkad Nemmara Kerala Palakkad Ottappalam
121 State Name District Name Block Name Kerala Palakkad Palakkad Kerala Thrissur Pazhayannur Kerala Wayanad Kalpetta Kerala Wayanad Mananthavady Kerala Wayanad Panamaram Kerala Wayanad Sulthan Bathery Madhya Pradesh Agar-Malwa Badod Madhya Pradesh Agar-Malwa Nalkheda Madhya Pradesh Agar-Malwa Susner Madhya Pradesh Alirajpur Alirajpur Madhya Pradesh Alirajpur Bhabra Madhya Pradesh Alirajpur Jobat Madhya Pradesh Alirajpur Katthiwada Madhya Pradesh Alirajpur Sondwa Madhya Pradesh Alirajpur Udaigarh Madhya Pradesh Anuppur Anuppur Madhya Pradesh Anuppur Jaithari Madhya Pradesh Anuppur Kotma Madhya Pradesh Anuppur Pushprajgarh Madhya Pradesh Ashok Nagar Isagarh Madhya Pradesh Ashok Nagar Mungaoli Madhya Pradesh Balaghat Baihar Madhya Pradesh Balaghat Balaghat Madhya Pradesh Balaghat Birsa Madhya Pradesh Balaghat Khairlanji Madhya Pradesh Balaghat Lanji Madhya Pradesh Balaghat Paraswada Madhya Pradesh Barwani Barwani Madhya Pradesh Barwani Newali Madhya Pradesh Barwani Pansemal Madhya Pradesh Barwani Pati Madhya Pradesh Barwani Rajpur Madhya Pradesh Barwani Sendhawa Madhya Pradesh Barwani Thikri Madhya Pradesh Betul Athner Madhya Pradesh Betul Betul Madhya Pradesh Betul Bhainsdehi Madhya Pradesh Betul Bhimpur Madhya Pradesh Betul Chicholi Madhya Pradesh Betul Ghora Dongri
122 State Name District Name Block Name Madhya Pradesh Betul Shahpur Madhya Pradesh Bhind Ron Madhya Pradesh Bhopal Berasia Madhya Pradesh Burhanpur Khaknar Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Bada Malehara Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Bijawar Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Buxwaha Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Chhatarpur Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Gaurihar Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Laundi Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Nowgoan Madhya Pradesh Chhatarpur Rajnagar Madhya Pradesh Chhindwara Bichhua Madhya Pradesh Chhindwara Harai Madhya Pradesh Chhindwara Tamia Madhya Pradesh Damoh Batiyagarh Madhya Pradesh Damoh Hatta Madhya Pradesh Damoh Jabera Madhya Pradesh Damoh Patera Madhya Pradesh Damoh Pathariya Madhya Pradesh Damoh Tendukheda Madhya Pradesh Datia Seondha Madhya Pradesh Dewas Bagli Madhya Pradesh Dewas Kannod Madhya Pradesh Dhar Bagh Madhya Pradesh Dhar Dahi Madhya Pradesh Dhar Dhar Madhya Pradesh Dhar Dharampuri Madhya Pradesh Dhar Gandhwani Madhya Pradesh Dhar Kukshi Madhya Pradesh Dhar Manawar Madhya Pradesh Dhar Nalchha Madhya Pradesh Dhar Nisarpur Madhya Pradesh Dhar Sardarpur Madhya Pradesh Dhar Tirla Madhya Pradesh Dhar Umarban Madhya Pradesh Dindori Amarpur Madhya Pradesh Dindori Bajag Madhya Pradesh Dindori Dindori Madhya Pradesh Dindori Karanjiya
123 State Name District Name Block Name Madhya Pradesh Dindori Mehandwani Madhya Pradesh Dindori Samnapur Madhya Pradesh Dindori Shahpura Madhya Pradesh Guna Bamori Madhya Pradesh Guna Chanchoda Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bhitarwar Madhya Pradesh Harda Khirkiya Madhya Pradesh Hoshangabad Kesla Madhya Pradesh Indore Depalpur Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Kundam Madhya Pradesh Jhabua Jhabua Madhya Pradesh Jhabua Meghnagar Madhya Pradesh Jhabua Petlawad Madhya Pradesh Jhabua Rama Madhya Pradesh Jhabua Ranapur Madhya Pradesh Jhabua Thandla Madhya Pradesh Katni Badwara Madhya Pradesh Khandwa Baladi Madhya Pradesh Khandwa Chhaigaon Makhan Madhya Pradesh Khandwa Harsud Madhya Pradesh Khandwa Khalawa Madhya Pradesh Khandwa Pandhana Madhya Pradesh Khandwa Punasa Madhya Pradesh Khargone Bhagvanpura Madhya Pradesh Khargone Bhikangaon Madhya Pradesh Khargone Goganwa Madhya Pradesh Khargone Kasrawad Madhya Pradesh Khargone Khargone Madhya Pradesh Khargone Maheshwar Madhya Pradesh Khargone Segaon Madhya Pradesh Khargone Ziranya Madhya Pradesh Mandla Bichhiya Madhya Pradesh Mandla Bijadandi Madhya Pradesh Mandla Ghughri Madhya Pradesh Mandla Mandla Madhya Pradesh Mandla Mawai Madhya Pradesh Mandla Mohgaon Madhya Pradesh Mandla Nainpur Madhya Pradesh Mandla Narayanganj Madhya Pradesh Mandla Niwas
124 State Name District Name Block Name Madhya Pradesh Mandsaur Sitamau Madhya Pradesh Morena Joura Madhya Pradesh Narsinghpur Chawarpatha Madhya Pradesh Neemuch Manasa Madhya Pradesh Panna Ajaigarh Madhya Pradesh Panna Gunor Madhya Pradesh Panna Panna Madhya Pradesh Panna Pawai Madhya Pradesh Panna Shahnagar Madhya Pradesh Raisen Silwani Madhya Pradesh Rajgarh Khilchipur Madhya Pradesh Rajgarh Rajgarh Madhya Pradesh Rajgarh Zirapur Madhya Pradesh Ratlam Alot Madhya Pradesh Ratlam Bajna Madhya Pradesh Ratlam Sailana Madhya Pradesh Rewa Hanumana Madhya Pradesh Sagar Banda Madhya Pradesh Sagar Deori Madhya Pradesh Sagar Jaisinagar Madhya Pradesh Sagar Kesli Madhya Pradesh Sagar Khurai Madhya Pradesh Sagar Malthone Madhya Pradesh Sagar Rehli Madhya Pradesh Sagar Shahgarh Madhya Pradesh Satna Amarpatan Madhya Pradesh Satna Majhgawan Madhya Pradesh Sehore Ichhawar Madhya Pradesh Seoni Chhapara Madhya Pradesh Seoni Dhanaura Madhya Pradesh Seoni Kahnapas(Ghansaur) Madhya Pradesh Seoni Kurai Madhya Pradesh Seoni Lakhnadon Madhya Pradesh Shahdol Beohari Madhya Pradesh Shahdol Burhar Madhya Pradesh Shahdol Gohparu Madhya Pradesh Shahdol Jaisinghnagar Madhya Pradesh Shahdol Sohagpur Madhya Pradesh Shajapur Moman Badodiya Madhya Pradesh Sheopur Bijeypur
125 State Name District Name Block Name Madhya Pradesh Sheopur Karahal Madhya Pradesh Sheopur Sheopur Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Badarwas Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Karera Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Khaniyadhana Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Kolaras Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Narwar Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Pichhore Madhya Pradesh Shivpuri Pohri Madhya Pradesh Sidhi Kusmi Madhya Pradesh Sidhi Majhauli Madhya Pradesh Sidhi Rampur Naikin Madhya Pradesh Sidhi Sidhi Madhya Pradesh Sidhi Sihawal Madhya Pradesh Singrauli Chitrangi Madhya Pradesh Singrauli Deosar Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh Baldeogarh Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh Jatara Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh Niwari Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh Palera Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh Prithvipur Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh Tikamgarh Madhya Pradesh Ujjain Mahidpur Madhya Pradesh Umaria Karkeli Madhya Pradesh Umaria Manpur Madhya Pradesh Umaria Pali Madhya Pradesh Vidisha Lateri Madhya Pradesh Vidisha Nateran Maharashtra Ahmednagar Karjat Maharashtra Ahmednagar Parner Maharashtra Ahmednagar Pathardi Maharashtra Ahmednagar Shevgaon Maharashtra Amravati Achalpur Maharashtra Amravati Chandurbazar Maharashtra Amravati Chikhaldara Maharashtra Amravati Dharni Maharashtra Amravati Morshi Maharashtra Aurangabad Kannad Maharashtra Aurangabad Paithan Maharashtra Aurangabad Phulambri
126 State Name District Name Block Name Maharashtra Aurangabad Sillod Maharashtra Aurangabad Soegaon Maharashtra Aurangabad Vaijapur Maharashtra Beed Ashti Maharashtra Beed Bid Maharashtra Beed Dharur Maharashtra Beed Georai Maharashtra Beed Patoda Maharashtra Beed Shirur Kasar Maharashtra Beed Wadwani Maharashtra Bhandara Bhandara Maharashtra Bhandara Lakhandur Maharashtra Bhandara Lakhani Maharashtra Bhandara Mohadi Maharashtra Bhandara Pauni Maharashtra Bhandara Sakoli Maharashtra Bhandara Tumsar Maharashtra Chandrapur Brahmapuri Maharashtra Chandrapur Chimur Maharashtra Chandrapur Gondpipri Maharashtra Chandrapur Jivti Maharashtra Chandrapur Mul Maharashtra Chandrapur Nagbhir Maharashtra Chandrapur Pombhurna Maharashtra Chandrapur Saoli Maharashtra Chandrapur Sindewahi Maharashtra Dhule Dhule Maharashtra Dhule Sakri Maharashtra Dhule Shirpur Maharashtra Gadchiroli Armori Maharashtra Gadchiroli Bhamaragad Maharashtra Gadchiroli Chamorshi Maharashtra Gadchiroli Desaiganj Maharashtra Gadchiroli Dhanora Maharashtra Gadchiroli Etapalli Maharashtra Gadchiroli Gadchiroli Maharashtra Gadchiroli Korchi Maharashtra Gadchiroli Kurkheda Maharashtra Gadchiroli Sironcha Maharashtra Gondia Amgaon
127 State Name District Name Block Name Maharashtra Gondia Arjuni Morgaon Maharashtra Gondia Deori Maharashtra Gondia Gondia Maharashtra Gondia Goregaon Maharashtra Gondia Sadak Arjuni Maharashtra Gondia Salekasa Maharashtra Gondia Tiroda Maharashtra Hingoli Aundha Maharashtra Hingoli Sengaon Maharashtra Jalgaon Bodwad Maharashtra Jalgaon Chalisgaon Maharashtra Jalgaon Chopda Maharashtra Jalgaon Erandol Maharashtra Jalgaon Jamner Maharashtra Jalgaon Muktainagar Maharashtra Jalgaon Parola Maharashtra Jalna Ambad Maharashtra Jalna Badnapur Maharashtra Jalna Bhokardan Maharashtra Jalna Ghansavangi Maharashtra Jalna Jafrabad Maharashtra Jalna Mantha Maharashtra Jalna Partur Maharashtra Latur Ausa Maharashtra Latur Deoni Maharashtra Latur Jalkot Maharashtra Nanded Bhokar Maharashtra Nanded Biloli Maharashtra Nanded Deglur Maharashtra Nanded Dharmabad Maharashtra Nanded Hadgaon Maharashtra Nanded Himayatnagar Maharashtra Nanded Kandhar Maharashtra Nanded Kinwat Maharashtra Nanded Loha Maharashtra Nanded Mahur Maharashtra Nanded Mudkhed Maharashtra Nanded Mukhed Maharashtra Nanded Naigaon (Kh) Maharashtra Nanded Umri
128 State Name District Name Block Name Maharashtra Nandurbar Akkalkuwa Maharashtra Nandurbar Akrani Maharashtra Nandurbar Nandurbar Maharashtra Nandurbar Navapur Maharashtra Nandurbar Shahada Maharashtra Nandurbar Taloda Maharashtra Nashik Dindori Maharashtra Nashik Kalwan Maharashtra Nashik Peint Maharashtra Nashik Sinnar Maharashtra Nashik Surgana Maharashtra Nashik Trimbakeshwar Maharashtra Osmanabad Bhoom Maharashtra Osmanabad Kalamb Maharashtra Osmanabad Tuljapur Maharashtra Osmanabad Washi Maharashtra Palghar Dahanu Maharashtra Palghar Jawhar Maharashtra Palghar Mokhada Maharashtra Palghar Talasari Maharashtra Palghar Vikramgad Maharashtra Palghar Wada Maharashtra Parbhani Gangakhed Maharashtra Parbhani Jintur Maharashtra Parbhani Manwath Maharashtra Parbhani Palam Maharashtra Parbhani Pathri Maharashtra Parbhani Purna Maharashtra Parbhani Selu Maharashtra Parbhani Sonpeth Maharashtra Sangli Jath Maharashtra Solapur Akkalkot Maharashtra Solapur Madha Maharashtra Solapur Mangalvedhe Maharashtra Solapur Solapur South Maharashtra Wardha Karanja Maharashtra Washim Karanja Maharashtra Washim Mangrulpir Maharashtra Washim Manora Maharashtra Yavatmal Arni
129 State Name District Name Block Name Maharashtra Yavatmal Babulgaon Maharashtra Yavatmal Ghatanji Maharashtra Yavatmal Kalamb Maharashtra Yavatmal Mahagaon Maharashtra Yavatmal Ralegaon Maharashtra Yavatmal Zari Jamni Manipur Bishnupur Moirang Manipur Chandel Chakpikarong Manipur Chandel Khangbarol Manipur Chandel Machi Manipur Chandel Tengnoupal Manipur Churachandpur Samulamlan Manipur Churachandpur Singngat Manipur Churachandpur Thanlon Manipur Churachandpur Tipaimukh Manipur Churachandpur Tuiboung Manipur Imphal East Imphal East Ii Manipur Imphal East Jiribam Manipur Senapati Kangpokpi Manipur Senapati Saikul Manipur Senapati Saitu Gamphazol Manipur Tamenglong Nungba Manipur Tamenglong Tamei Manipur Tamenglong Tamenglong Manipur Tamenglong Tousem Manipur Thoubal Kakching Manipur Thoubal Thoubal Manipur Ukhrul Chingai Manipur Ukhrul Kamjong Manipur Ukhrul Kasom Khullen Manipur Ukhrul Phungyar Manipur Ukhrul Ukhrul Meghalaya East Garo Hills Songsak Meghalaya East Jaintia Hills Saipung Meghalaya Ri Bhoi Jirang Meghalaya South Garo Hills Chokpot Meghalaya South West Garo Hills Zikzak Meghalaya South West Khasi Hills Mawkyrwat Meghalaya West Garo Hills Dadenggre Meghalaya West Khasi Hills Mawshynrut
130 State Name District Name Block Name Mizoram Aizawl Darlawn Mizoram Aizawl Phullen Mizoram Champhai Khawzawl Mizoram Champhai Ngopa Mizoram Lawngtlai Bungtlang S Mizoram Lawngtlai Chawngte Mizoram Lawngtlai Lawngtlai Mizoram Lawngtlai Sangau Mizoram Lunglei Bunghmun Mizoram Lunglei Hnahthial Mizoram Lunglei Lungsen Mizoram Mamit Reiek Mizoram Mamit West Phaileng Mizoram Mamit Zawlnuam Mizoram Saiha Tuipang Nagaland Dimapur Aqhunaqa Nagaland Kiphire Khonsa Nagaland Kiphire Pungro Nagaland Kiphire Sitimi Nagaland Kohima Tseminyu Nagaland Longleng Sakshi Nagaland Longleng Tamlu Nagaland Mokokchung Longchem Nagaland Mon Aboi Nagaland Mon Angjangyang Nagaland Mon Chen Nagaland Mon Mon Nagaland Mon Phomching Nagaland Mon Tizit Nagaland Mon Tobu Nagaland Peren Athibung Nagaland Peren Tenning Nagaland Phek Weziho Nagaland Tuensang Noklak Nagaland Tuensang Panso Nagaland Tuensang Shamator Nagaland Tuensang Thonoknyu Nagaland Wokha Ralan Nagaland Zunheboto Ghathashi Nagaland Zunheboto Satoi
131 State Name District Name Block Name Nagaland Zunheboto Tokiye Odisha Angul Chhendipada Odisha Angul Palalahada Odisha Baleshwar Nilgiri Odisha Bargarh Bijepur Odisha Bargarh Gaisilet Odisha Bargarh Jharbandh Odisha Bargarh Padampur Odisha Bargarh Paikmal Odisha Bargarh Sohella Odisha Bolangir Agalpur Odisha Bolangir Balangir Odisha Bolangir Bangomunda Odisha Bolangir Belpara Odisha Bolangir Deogaon Odisha Bolangir Gudvella Odisha Bolangir Khaprakhol Odisha Bolangir Loisinga Odisha Bolangir Muribahal Odisha Bolangir Patnagarh Odisha Bolangir Puintala Odisha Bolangir Saintala Odisha Bolangir Titlagarh Odisha Bolangir Turekela Odisha Boudh Boudh Odisha Boudh Harabhanga Odisha Boudh Kantamal Odisha Deogarh Barkote Odisha Deogarh Reamal Odisha Deogarh Tileibani Odisha Dhenkanal Dhenkanal Sadar Odisha Dhenkanal Kankada Had Odisha Dhenkanal Odapada Odisha Gajapati Gosani Odisha Gajapati Gumma Odisha Gajapati Kasinagar Odisha Gajapati Mohona Odisha Gajapati Nuagada Odisha Gajapati R.Udayagiri Odisha Gajapati Rayagada
132 State Name District Name Block Name Odisha Ganjam Jagannathprasad Odisha Ganjam Sheragada Odisha Ganjam Surada Odisha Jajpur Sukinda Odisha Kalahandi Bhawanipatna Odisha Kalahandi Dharamagarh Odisha Kalahandi Golamunda Odisha Kalahandi Jayapatna Odisha Kalahandi Junagarh Odisha Kalahandi Kalampur Odisha Kalahandi Karlamunda Odisha Kalahandi Kesinga Odisha Kalahandi Kokasara Odisha Kalahandi Lanjigarh Odisha Kalahandi Madanpur Rampur Odisha Kalahandi Narala Odisha Kalahandi Thuamul Ram Pur Odisha Kandhamal Baliguda Odisha Kandhamal Chakapad Odisha Kandhamal Daringibadi Odisha Kandhamal G.Udayagiri Odisha Kandhamal K.Nuagan Odisha Kandhamal Khajuripada Odisha Kandhamal Kotagarh Odisha Kandhamal Phiringia Odisha Kandhamal Phulbani Odisha Kandhamal Raikia Odisha Kandhamal Tikabali Odisha Kandhamal Tumudibandh Odisha Kendujhar Bansapal Odisha Kendujhar Champua Odisha Kendujhar Ghatgaon Odisha Kendujhar Harichadanpur Odisha Kendujhar Jhumpura Odisha Kendujhar Joda Odisha Kendujhar Kendujhar Sadar Odisha Kendujhar Patana Odisha Kendujhar Saharapada Odisha Kendujhar Telkoi Odisha Koraput Bandhugaon
133 State Name District Name Block Name Odisha Koraput Boipariguda Odisha Koraput Borigumma Odisha Koraput Dasamantapur Odisha Koraput Jeypore Odisha Koraput Koraput Odisha Koraput Kotpad Odisha Koraput Kundura Odisha Koraput Lamtaput Odisha Koraput Laxmipur Odisha Koraput Nandapur Odisha Koraput Narayan Patana Odisha Koraput Pottangi Odisha Koraput Semiliguda Odisha Malkangiri Kalimela Odisha Malkangiri Khairaput Odisha Malkangiri Korukonda Odisha Malkangiri Kudumulugumma Odisha Malkangiri Malkangiri Odisha Malkangiri Mathili Odisha Malkangiri Podia Odisha Mayurbhanj Badasahi Odisha Mayurbhanj Bahalda Odisha Mayurbhanj Bangriposi Odisha Mayurbhanj Baripada Odisha Mayurbhanj Betnoti Odisha Mayurbhanj Bijatala Odisha Mayurbhanj Bisoi Odisha Mayurbhanj Gopabandhunagar Odisha Mayurbhanj Jamda Odisha Mayurbhanj Joshipur Odisha Mayurbhanj Kaptipada Odisha Mayurbhanj Karanjia Odisha Mayurbhanj Khunta Odisha Mayurbhanj Kuliana Odisha Mayurbhanj Kusumi Odisha Mayurbhanj Morada Odisha Mayurbhanj Rairangpur Odisha Mayurbhanj Raruan Odisha Mayurbhanj Rasgovindpur Odisha Mayurbhanj Samakhunta
134 State Name District Name Block Name Odisha Mayurbhanj Saraskana Odisha Mayurbhanj Sukruli Odisha Mayurbhanj Suliapada Odisha Mayurbhanj Thakurmunda Odisha Mayurbhanj Tiring Odisha Mayurbhanj Udala Odisha Nabarangapur Chandahandi Odisha Nabarangapur Dabugam Odisha Nabarangapur Jhorigam Odisha Nabarangapur Kosagumuda Odisha Nabarangapur Nabarangpur Odisha Nabarangapur Nandahandi Odisha Nabarangapur Papadahandi Odisha Nabarangapur Raighar Odisha Nabarangapur Tentulikhunti Odisha Nabarangapur Umerkote Odisha Nayagarh Dasapalla Odisha Nayagarh Gania Odisha Nuapada Boden Odisha Nuapada Khariar Odisha Nuapada Komna Odisha Nuapada Nuapada Odisha Nuapada Sinapali Odisha Rayagada Bissamcuttack Odisha Rayagada Chandrapur Odisha Rayagada Gudari Odisha Rayagada Gunupur Odisha Rayagada Kalyansingpur Odisha Rayagada Kasipur Odisha Rayagada Kolnara Odisha Rayagada Muniguda Odisha Rayagada Padmapur Odisha Rayagada Ramanaguda Odisha Rayagada Rayagada Odisha Sambalpur Bamra Odisha Sambalpur Jamankira Odisha Sambalpur Jujomura Odisha Sambalpur Kuchinda Odisha Sambalpur Naktideul Odisha Sonepur Binka
135 State Name District Name Block Name Odisha Sonepur Biramaharajpur Odisha Sonepur Dunguripali Odisha Sonepur Sonepur Odisha Sonepur Tarbha Odisha Sonepur Ullunda Odisha Sundargarh Balisankara Odisha Sundargarh Bargaon Odisha Sundargarh Bisra Odisha Sundargarh Bonaigarh Odisha Sundargarh Gurundia Odisha Sundargarh Hemgir Odisha Sundargarh Koida Odisha Sundargarh Kuarmunda Odisha Sundargarh Kutra Odisha Sundargarh Lahunipara Odisha Sundargarh Lathikata Odisha Sundargarh Lephripara Odisha Sundargarh Nuagaon Odisha Sundargarh Rajgangpur Odisha Sundargarh Subdega Odisha Sundargarh Sundargarh Odisha Sundargarh Tangarpali Punjab Amritsar Ajnala-1 Punjab Bhatinda Sangat Punjab Bhatinda Talwandi Sabo Punjab Fazilka Jalalabad Punjab Ferozepur Zira Punjab Mansa Bhikhi Punjab Mansa Budhlada Punjab Mansa Jhunir Punjab Mansa Sardulgarh Punjab Mukatsar Gidderbaha Punjab Mukatsar Lambi Punjab Mukatsar Malout Punjab Patiala Patran Punjab Sangrur Andana Punjab Sangrur Lehragaga Punjab Tarn Taran Bhikhi Wind-13 Punjab Tarn Taran Patti-14 Punjab Tarn Taran Valtoha-15
136 State Name District Name Block Name Rajasthan Ajmer केंकडी Rajasthan Ajmer जवाजा Rajasthan Ajmer भीनाय Rajasthan Banswara Choti Sarvan Rajasthan Banswara आनन्दपुरी Rajasthan Banswara कुशलगढ़ Rajasthan Banswara गढी Rajasthan Banswara घाटोल Rajasthan Banswara बांसवाड़ा Rajasthan Banswara बागीदौरा Rajasthan Banswara सज्जनगढ़ Rajasthan Baran किशनगंज Rajasthan Baran छीपाबडौद Rajasthan Baran शाहाबाद Rajasthan Barmer चौहटन Rajasthan Barmer धोरीमन्ना Rajasthan Barmer बाड़मेर Rajasthan Barmer बायतू Rajasthan Barmer शिव Rajasthan Bhilwara आसीन्द Rajasthan Bhilwara कोटडी Rajasthan Bhilwara जहाजपुर Rajasthan Bhilwara रायपुर Rajasthan Bhilwara शाहपुरा Rajasthan Chittorgarh डूँगला Rajasthan Chittorgarh बेगूँ Rajasthan Chittorgarh भैसरोड़गढ Rajasthan Chittorgarh राशमी Rajasthan Churu चूरु Rajasthan Dungarpur Jhonthari Rajasthan Dungarpur आसपुर Rajasthan Dungarpur डूंगरपुर Rajasthan Dungarpur बिछीवाडा Rajasthan Dungarpur सागवाडा Rajasthan Dungarpur सीमलवाडा Rajasthan Jaisalmer जैसलमेर Rajasthan Jaisalmer सम Rajasthan Jaisalmer सांकडा Rajasthan Jalore आहोर Rajasthan Jalore जसवंतपुरा
137 State Name District Name Block Name Rajasthan Jalore भीनमाल Rajasthan Jalore रानीवाडा Rajasthan Jalore सायला Rajasthan Jhalawar डग Rajasthan Jhalawar पिडावा Rajasthan Jhalawar बकानी Rajasthan Jhalawar मनोहरथाना Rajasthan Jodhpur बालेसर Rajasthan Karauli टोडाभीम Rajasthan Karauli सपोटरा Rajasthan Kota सांगोद Rajasthan Nagaur जायल Rajasthan Nagaur डेगाना Rajasthan Pali पाली Rajasthan Pratapgarh अरनोद Rajasthan Pratapgarh धरियावद Rajasthan Pratapgarh पीपलखूंट Rajasthan Pratapgarh प्रतापगढ Rajasthan Rajsamand कुम्भलगढ Rajasthan Rajsamand देवगढ Rajasthan Sawai Madhopur खण्डार Rajasthan Sawai Madhopur बामनवास Rajasthan Sawai Madhopur बौंली Rajasthan Sirohi आबुरोड Rajasthan Sirohi पिण्डवाडा Rajasthan Sirohi रेवदर Rajasthan Tonk उनियारा Rajasthan Tonk टोंक Rajasthan Tonk निवाई Rajasthan Udaipur Lasadia Rajasthan Udaipur कोटड़ा Rajasthan Udaipur खेरवाड़ा Rajasthan Udaipur गोगुन्दा Rajasthan Udaipur झाड़ोल Rajasthan Udaipur सराड़ा Rajasthan Udaipur सलुम्बर Sikkim East District Regu Sikkim North District Dzongu Sikkim South District Ravong Sikkim West District Daramdin
138 State Name District Name Block Name Sikkim West District Dentam Tamil Nadu Ariyalur Ariyalur Tamil Nadu Ariyalur Jayamkondam Tamil Nadu Ariyalur Sendurai Tamil Nadu Ariyalur T.Palur Tamil Nadu Cuddalore Kattumannar Koil Tamil Nadu Cuddalore Mangalur Tamil Nadu Cuddalore Nallur Tamil Nadu Cuddalore Vridhachalam Tamil Nadu Dharmapuri Harur Tamil Nadu Dharmapuri Karimangalam Tamil Nadu Dharmapuri Morappur Tamil Nadu Dharmapuri Pappireddipatti Tamil Nadu Dharmapuri Pennagaram Tamil Nadu Dindigul Guziliamparai Tamil Nadu Dindigul Nilakottai Tamil Nadu Dindigul Shanarpatti Tamil Nadu Dindigul Thoppampatty Tamil Nadu Dindigul Vedasandur Tamil Nadu Erode Ammapet Tamil Nadu Erode Nambiyur Tamil Nadu Erode Thalavadi Tamil Nadu Kanchipuram Madurantakam Tamil Nadu Karur K.Paramathi Tamil Nadu Karur Kadavur Tamil Nadu Karur Thogamalai Tamil Nadu Krishnagiri Kelamangalam Tamil Nadu Krishnagiri Mathur Tamil Nadu Krishnagiri Thally Tamil Nadu Krishnagiri Uthangarai Tamil Nadu Krishnagiri Veppanapalli Tamil Nadu Madurai Chellampatti Tamil Nadu Madurai Kottampatti Tamil Nadu Madurai Sedapatti Tamil Nadu Nagapattinam Thalainayar Tamil Nadu Namakkal Paramathy Tamil Nadu Namakkal Vennandur Tamil Nadu Perambalur Veppanthattai Tamil Nadu Perambalur Veppur Tamil Nadu Pudukkottai Annavasal
139 State Name District Name Block Name Tamil Nadu Pudukkottai Arantangi Tamil Nadu Pudukkottai Arimalam Tamil Nadu Pudukkottai Avudayarkoil Tamil Nadu Pudukkottai Karambakkudi Tamil Nadu Pudukkottai Kunnandarkoil Tamil Nadu Pudukkottai Viralimalai Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram Kadaladi Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram Kamuthi Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram Mudukulathur Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram R.S. Mangalam Tamil Nadu Salem Gangavalli Tamil Nadu Salem Kadayaampatti Tamil Nadu Salem Kolathur Tamil Nadu Salem Konganapuram Tamil Nadu Salem Mac. Choultry Tamil Nadu Salem P.N.Palayam Tamil Nadu Salem Valapady Tamil Nadu Sivagangai Ilayangudi Tamil Nadu Sivagangai Kannangudi Tamil Nadu Sivagangai S.Pudur Tamil Nadu Thanjavur Sethubavachatram Tamil Nadu The Nilgiris Coonoor Tamil Nadu The Nilgiris Gudalur Tamil Nadu The Nilgiris Kotagiri Tamil Nadu The Nilgiris Udhagai Tamil Nadu Theni Andipatti Tamil Nadu Theni K Myladumparai Tamil Nadu Thoothukkudi Pudur Tamil Nadu Thoothukkudi Vilathikulam Tamil Nadu Tiruchirappalli T.Pet Tamil Nadu Tiruchirappalli Thuraiyur Tamil Nadu Tiruchirappalli Uppiliyapuram Tamil Nadu Tiruchirappalli Vaiyampatty Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli Kuruvikulam Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli Melaneelithanallur Tamil Nadu Tirunelveli Sankarankoil Tamil Nadu Tiruppur Kundadam Tamil Nadu Tiruppur Madathukulam Tamil Nadu Tiruvallur Tiruvalangadu Tamil Nadu Tiruvannamalai Chengam
140 State Name District Name Block Name Tamil Nadu Tiruvannamalai Chetpet Tamil Nadu Tiruvannamalai Jawadhu Hills Tamil Nadu Tiruvannamalai Thandarampet Tamil Nadu Tiruvannamalai Thellar Tamil Nadu Tiruvarur Thiruthuraipoondi Tamil Nadu Vellore Alangayam Tamil Nadu Vellore Kandhili Tamil Nadu Vellore Natrampalli Tamil Nadu Vellore Thimiri Tamil Nadu Villupuram Gingee Tamil Nadu Villupuram Kallakurichi Tamil Nadu Villupuram Kalrayan Hills Tamil Nadu Villupuram Kandamangalam Tamil Nadu Villupuram Merkanam Tamil Nadu Villupuram Mugaiyur Tamil Nadu Villupuram Ulundurpet Tamil Nadu Virudhunagar Kariapatti Tamil Nadu Virudhunagar Narikudi Tamil Nadu Virudhunagar Tiruchuli Telangana Adilabad Bejjur Telangana Adilabad Bheemini Telangana Adilabad Dahegaon Telangana Adilabad Inderavelly Telangana Adilabad Kerameri Telangana Adilabad Kouthala Telangana Adilabad Neradigonda Telangana Adilabad Sirpur (U) Telangana Adilabad Tiryani Telangana Adilabad Vemanpalle Telangana Karimnagar Kataram Telangana Karimnagar Mahadevpur Telangana Karimnagar Malharrao Telangana Karimnagar Mutharam Mahadevpur Telangana Karimnagar Saidapur Telangana Karimnagar Sarangapur Telangana Karimnagar Srirampur Telangana Karimnagar Velgatoor Telangana Khammam Cherla Telangana Khammam Dummugudem Telangana Khammam Gundala
141 State Name District Name Block Name Telangana Khammam Kamepalle Telangana Khammam Mulakalapalle Telangana Khammam Pinapaka Telangana Khammam Tekulapalle Telangana Khammam Venkatapuram Telangana Khammam Wazeed Telangana Mahbubnagar Aiza Telangana Mahbubnagar Damaragidda Telangana Mahbubnagar Dharur Telangana Mahbubnagar Doulatabad Telangana Mahbubnagar Ghattu Telangana Mahbubnagar Itikyal Telangana Mahbubnagar Maddur Telangana Mahbubnagar Maganoor Telangana Mahbubnagar Maldakal Telangana Mahbubnagar Narva Telangana Medak Alladurg Telangana Medak Kalher Telangana Medak Kangti Telangana Medak Manoor Telangana Medak Papannapet Telangana Medak Shankarampet(A) Telangana Medak Shankarampet(R) Telangana Medak Tekmal Telangana Nalgonda Atmakur (S) Telangana Nalgonda Chandam Pet Telangana Nalgonda Chintha Palle Telangana Nalgonda Dameracherla Telangana Nalgonda Marri Guda Telangana Nalgonda Mattampalle Telangana Nalgonda Mothey Telangana Nalgonda Nampalle Telangana Nalgonda Nuthankal Telangana Nalgonda Pedda Adiserlapalle Telangana Nizamabad Bichkunda Telangana Nizamabad Gandhari Telangana Nizamabad Jukkal Telangana Nizamabad Lingampet Telangana Nizamabad Naga Reddipet Telangana Nizamabad Nizam Sagar
142 State Name District Name Block Name Telangana Nizamabad Pitlam Telangana Nizamabad Tadwai Telangana Rangareddi Bantaram Telangana Rangareddi Basheerabad Telangana Rangareddi Doma Telangana Rangareddi Kulkacharla Telangana Rangareddi Peddemul Telangana Rangareddi Yelal Telangana Warangal Chennaraopet Telangana Warangal Duggondi Telangana Warangal Gudur Telangana Warangal Khanapur Telangana Warangal Kodakandla Telangana Warangal Kothaguda Telangana Warangal Maripeda Telangana Warangal Narmetta Telangana Warangal Regonda Telangana Warangal Venkatapur Tripura Dhalai Chawmanu Tripura Dhalai Dumburnagar Tripura Dhalai Manu Tripura Gomati Karbook Tripura Gomati Ompi Tripura Khowai Mungiakami Tripura Khowai Padmabil Tripura Khowai Tulasikhar Tripura North Tripura Damcherra Tripura North Tripura Dasda Tripura Sepahijala Jampuijala Tripura South Tripura Rupaichari Tripura Unakoti Pecharthal Tripura West Tripura Hezamara Tripura West Tripura Mandai Uttar Pradesh Agra Fatehabad Uttar Pradesh Agra Shamsabad Uttar Pradesh Aligarh Atrauli Uttar Pradesh Aligarh Bijauli Uttar Pradesh Aligarh Gangiri Uttar Pradesh Allahabad Dhanupur Uttar Pradesh Allahabad Jasra
143 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Allahabad Kaudhiyara Uttar Pradesh Allahabad Koraon Uttar Pradesh Allahabad Manda Uttar Pradesh Allahabad Shankargarh Uttar Pradesh Ambedkar Nagar Bhiti Uttar Pradesh Ambedkar Nagar Katehari Uttar Pradesh Amethi Bahadurpur Uttar Pradesh Amethi Gauriganj Uttar Pradesh Amethi Jamo Uttar Pradesh Amethi Shahgarh Uttar Pradesh Amethi Singhpur Uttar Pradesh Amethi Tiloi Uttar Pradesh Amroha Gangeshwari Uttar Pradesh Amroha Hasanpur Uttar Pradesh Auraiya Achchalda Uttar Pradesh Auraiya Bidhuna Uttar Pradesh Auraiya Erwa Katra Uttar Pradesh Auraiya Sahar Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh Ahiraula Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh Atraulia Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh Koilsa Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh Mehnagar Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh Mohammadpur Uttar Pradesh Azamgarh Palhana Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Balaha Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Chitaura Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Huzoorpur Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Jarwal Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Kaisarganj Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Mahasi Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Mihinpurwa Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Nawabganj Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Phakharpur Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Prayagpur Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Risia Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Shivpur Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Tajwapur Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Visheshwarganj Uttar Pradesh Ballia Bansdih Uttar Pradesh Ballia Beruarbari
144 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Ballia Maniar Uttar Pradesh Ballia Reoti Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Balrampur Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Gaindas Bujurg Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Gaisri Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Harya Satgharwa Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Pachpedwa Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Rehera Bazar Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Shriduttganj Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Tulsipur Uttar Pradesh Balrampur Utraula Uttar Pradesh Banda Baberu Uttar Pradesh Banda Bisanda Uttar Pradesh Banda Kamasin Uttar Pradesh Banda Mahuva Uttar Pradesh Banda Naraini Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Bani Kodar Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Dariyabad Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Fatehpur Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Haidargarh Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Nindura Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Puredalai Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Ramnagar Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Siddhaur Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Sirauli Gauspur Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Suratganj Uttar Pradesh Barabanki Trivediganj Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Aalampur Jafarabad Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Baheri Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Bhuta Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Faridpur Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Fatehganj West Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Majhgawan Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Mirganj Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Ramnagar Uttar Pradesh Bareilly Shergarh Uttar Pradesh Basti Dubauliya Uttar Pradesh Basti Gaur Uttar Pradesh Basti Harraiya Uttar Pradesh Basti Kaptanganj
145 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Basti Kudaraha Uttar Pradesh Basti Paras Rampur Uttar Pradesh Basti Ramnagar Uttar Pradesh Basti Rudauli Uttar Pradesh Basti Saltaua Gopal Pur Uttar Pradesh Basti Vikram Jot Uttar Pradesh Budaun Ambiapur Uttar Pradesh Budaun Asafpur Uttar Pradesh Budaun Bisauli Uttar Pradesh Budaun Dataganj Uttar Pradesh Budaun Dehgawan Uttar Pradesh Budaun Islamnagar Uttar Pradesh Budaun Jagat Uttar Pradesh Budaun Mion Uttar Pradesh Budaun Qadar Chowk Uttar Pradesh Budaun Sahaswan Uttar Pradesh Budaun Salarpur Uttar Pradesh Budaun Samrer Uttar Pradesh Budaun Ujhani Uttar Pradesh Budaun Usawan Uttar Pradesh Budaun Wazirganj Uttar Pradesh Bulandshahr Danpur Uttar Pradesh Bulandshahr Dibai Uttar Pradesh Chandauli Chakiya Uttar Pradesh Chandauli Naugarh Uttar Pradesh Chandauli Sahabganj Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot Karwi Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot Manikpur Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot Mau Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot Pahari Uttar Pradesh Chitrakoot Ramnagar Uttar Pradesh Deoria Baitalpur Uttar Pradesh Deoria Barhaj Uttar Pradesh Deoria Gauri Bazar Uttar Pradesh Deoria Rudrapur Uttar Pradesh Etah Aliganj Uttar Pradesh Etah Awagarh Uttar Pradesh Etah Jaithara Uttar Pradesh Etah Jalesar Uttar Pradesh Etah Marehra
146 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Etawah Chakarnagar Uttar Pradesh Etawah Mahewa Uttar Pradesh Etawah Sefai Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Amaniganj Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Bikapur Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Hastinganj Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Masodha Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Mawai Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Maya Bazar Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Milkipur Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Pura Bazar Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Rudauli Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Sohawal Uttar Pradesh Faizabad Tarun Uttar Pradesh Farrukhabad Kaimganj Uttar Pradesh Farrukhabad Nawabganj Uttar Pradesh Farrukhabad Rajepur Uttar Pradesh Farrukhabad Shamsabad Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur Airaya Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur Bhitaura Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur Dhata Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur Haswa Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur Hathgaon Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur Telyani Uttar Pradesh Fatehpur Vijayipur Uttar Pradesh Firozabad Eka Uttar Pradesh Firozabad Jasrana Uttar Pradesh Firozabad Khergarh Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Bhanwarkol Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Devkali Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Jakhania Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Kasimabad Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Manihari Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Mohammadabad Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Sadat Uttar Pradesh Ghazipur Varachakwar Uttar Pradesh Gonda Babhanjot Uttar Pradesh Gonda Belsar Uttar Pradesh Gonda Chhapia Uttar Pradesh Gonda Colonelganj
147 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Gonda Haldharmau Uttar Pradesh Gonda Itiathok Uttar Pradesh Gonda Jhanjhari Uttar Pradesh Gonda Katra Bazar Uttar Pradesh Gonda Mankapur Uttar Pradesh Gonda Mujehana Uttar Pradesh Gonda Nawabganj Uttar Pradesh Gonda Pandri Kripal Uttar Pradesh Gonda Paraspur Uttar Pradesh Gonda Rupaideeh Uttar Pradesh Gonda Tarabganj Uttar Pradesh Gonda Wazirganj Uttar Pradesh Gorakhpur Campierganj Uttar Pradesh Gorakhpur Jangal Kodia Uttar Pradesh Hamirpur Maudaha Uttar Pradesh Hamirpur Muskara Uttar Pradesh Hamirpur Sarila Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Ahrori Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Bawan Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Behadar Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Bharawan Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Bharkhani Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Bilgram Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Hariyawan Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Harpalpur Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Kachhauna Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Kothwan Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Madhoganj Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Mallawan Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Pihani Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Sandi Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Sandila Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Shahabad Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Sursa Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Tadiyawan Uttar Pradesh Hardoi Tondarpur Uttar Pradesh Hathras Hasayan Uttar Pradesh Hathras Sikandrarao Uttar Pradesh Jalaun Kadaura Uttar Pradesh Jalaun Madhogarh
148 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Jalaun Maheva Uttar Pradesh Jalaun Rampura Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Badla Pur Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Baksha Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Barasathi Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Khuthan Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Machchali Shahar Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Maharaj Ganj Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Mariyahu Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Mungra Badshah Pur Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Ram Nagar Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Ram Pur Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Shah Ganj Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Suitha Kala Uttar Pradesh Jaunpur Sujan Ganj Uttar Pradesh Jhansi Bamaur Uttar Pradesh Jhansi Bangra Uttar Pradesh Jhansi Chirgaon Uttar Pradesh Jhansi Gursarai Uttar Pradesh Jhansi Mauranipur Uttar Pradesh Kannauj Haseran Uttar Pradesh Kannauj Umarda Uttar Pradesh Kanpur Dehat Jhinjhak Uttar Pradesh Kanpur Dehat Rasulabad Uttar Pradesh Kanpur Dehat Sandalpur Uttar Pradesh Kashganj Amanpur Uttar Pradesh Kashganj Ganj Dundwara Uttar Pradesh Kashganj Kasganj Uttar Pradesh Kashganj Patiyali Uttar Pradesh Kashganj Sahawar Uttar Pradesh Kashganj Soron Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi Chail Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi Kara Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi Kaushambi Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi Manjhanpur Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi Nevada Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi Sarsawan Uttar Pradesh Kaushambi Sirathu Uttar Pradesh Kheri Bankeyganj Uttar Pradesh Kheri Isanagar
149 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Kheri Kumbhigola Uttar Pradesh Kheri Mohammadi Uttar Pradesh Kheri Nighasan Uttar Pradesh Kheri Palia Uttar Pradesh Kheri Pasgawan Uttar Pradesh Kheri Ramia Behar Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Dudhahi Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Hata Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Kaptainganj Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Khadda Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Motichak Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Nebua Naurangia Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Padrauna Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Seorahi Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Sukrauli Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Tamkuhiraj Uttar Pradesh Kushi Nagar Vishunpura Uttar Pradesh Lalitpur Bar Uttar Pradesh Lalitpur Birdha Uttar Pradesh Lalitpur Jakhaura Uttar Pradesh Lalitpur Madawara Uttar Pradesh Lalitpur Mehrauni Uttar Pradesh Lalitpur Talbehat Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Gosaiganj Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Mal Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Malihabad Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Mohanlalganj Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Bridgemanganj Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Dhani Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Ghughuli Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Lakshmipur Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Mahrajganj Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Mithaura Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Nautanwa Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Nichlaul Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Paniyara Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Partawal Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Pharenda Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj Siswa Uttar Pradesh Mahoba Charkhari
150 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Mahoba Jaitpur Uttar Pradesh Mahoba Panwari Uttar Pradesh Mainpuri Barnahal Uttar Pradesh Mainpuri Kuraoli Uttar Pradesh Mirzapur Hallia Uttar Pradesh Mirzapur Lalganj Uttar Pradesh Mirzapur Patehra Kala Uttar Pradesh Mirzapur Rajgarh Uttar Pradesh Moradabad Bilari Uttar Pradesh Moradabad Dingarpur Uttar Pradesh Pilibhit Barkhera Uttar Pradesh Pilibhit Bilsanda Uttar Pradesh Pilibhit Bisalpur Uttar Pradesh Pilibhit Puranpur Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Babaganj Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Bihar Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Kalakankar Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Kunda Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Lakshamanpur Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Lalganj Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Rampur Sanramgarh Uttar Pradesh Pratapgarh Sangipur Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Bachhrawan Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Chhatoh Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Dih Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Jagatpur Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Mahrajganj Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Rohania Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Salon Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Shivgarh Uttar Pradesh Rae Bareli Unchahar Uttar Pradesh Rampur Milak Uttar Pradesh Rampur Saidnagar Uttar Pradesh Rampur Shahabad Uttar Pradesh Rampur Suar Uttar Pradesh Sambhal Asmauli Uttar Pradesh Sambhal Bahjoi Uttar Pradesh Sambhal Baniyakhera Uttar Pradesh Sambhal Panwasa Uttar Pradesh Sambhal Sambhal
151 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Sant Kabeer Nagar Belhar Kala Uttar Pradesh Sant Kabeer Nagar Haisar Bazar Uttar Pradesh Sant Kabeer Nagar Mehdawal Uttar Pradesh Sant Kabeer Nagar Nath Nagar Uttar Pradesh Sant Kabeer Nagar Pauli Uttar Pradesh Sant Kabeer Nagar Santha Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Banda Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Jaitpur Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Jalalabad Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Kalan Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Khudaganj Katra Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Khutar Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Nigohi Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Powayan Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Sindhauli Uttar Pradesh Shahjahanpur Tilhar Uttar Pradesh Shamli Kairana Uttar Pradesh Shamli Kandhla Uttar Pradesh Shamli Un Uttar Pradesh Shravasti Ekona Uttar Pradesh Shravasti Gilaula Uttar Pradesh Shravasti Hariharpur Rani Uttar Pradesh Shravasti Jamunaha Uttar Pradesh Shravasti Sirsiya Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Bansi Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Barhni Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Bhanwapur Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Birdpur Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Domariyaganj Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Itwa Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Jogia Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Khesraha Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Khuniyaon Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Lotan Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Mithwal Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Naugarh Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Shoharatgarh Uttar Pradesh Siddharth Nagar Uska Bazar Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Behta
152 State Name District Name Block Name Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Biswan Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Gondlamau Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Hargaon Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Kasmanda Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Laharpur Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Machhrehta Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Mahmudabad Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Misrikh Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Pahala Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Parsendi Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Pisawan Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Rampur Mathura Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Reusa Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Sakran Uttar Pradesh Sitapur Sidhauli Uttar Pradesh Sonbhadra Chatra Uttar Pradesh Sonbhadra Chopan Uttar Pradesh Sonbhadra Ghorawal Uttar Pradesh Sonbhadra Nagwa Uttar Pradesh Sonbhadra Robertsganj Uttar Pradesh Sultanpur Akhand Nagar Uttar Pradesh Sultanpur Jaisinghpur Uttar Pradesh Sultanpur Motigarpur Uttar Pradesh Unnao Asoha Uttar Pradesh Unnao Auras Uttar Pradesh Unnao Bangarmau Uttar Pradesh Unnao Bighapur Uttar Pradesh Unnao Fatehpur Chaurasi Uttar Pradesh Unnao Ganj Moradabad Uttar Pradesh Unnao Hasanganj Uttar Pradesh Unnao Hilauli Uttar Pradesh Unnao Mianganj Uttar Pradesh Unnao Nawabganj Uttar Pradesh Unnao Purwa Uttar Pradesh Unnao Safipur Uttar Pradesh Unnao Sumerpur Uttarakhand Almora Bhikiasain Uttarakhand Bageshwar Bageshwar Uttarakhand Bageshwar Kapkote Uttarakhand Chamoli Gairsain
153 State Name District Name Block Name Uttarakhand Chamoli Joshimath Uttarakhand Champawat Champawat Uttarakhand Champawat Pati Uttarakhand Dehradun Chakrata Uttarakhand Haridwar Laksar Uttarakhand Nainital Betalghat Uttarakhand Pauri Garhwal Nainidanda Uttarakhand Pithoragarh Berinag Uttarakhand Pithoragarh Didihat Uttarakhand Rudra Prayag Ukhimath Uttarakhand Tehri Garhwal Deoprayag Uttarakhand Udam Singh Nagar Khatima Uttarakhand Uttar Kashi Dunda Uttarakhand Uttar Kashi Purola West Bengal 24 Parganas (North) Hingalganj West Bengal 24 Parganas (North) Sandeshkhali-I West Bengal 24 Parganas (North) Sandeshkhali-Ii West Bengal 24 Parganas South Basanti West Bengal 24 Parganas South Canning-Ii West Bengal 24 Parganas South Gosaba West Bengal 24 Parganas South Jaynagar-Ii West Bengal 24 Parganas South Kultali West Bengal Alipurduar Alipurduar-I West Bengal Alipurduar Kalchini West Bengal Alipurduar Kumargram West Bengal Bankura Bankura-I West Bengal Bankura Chhatna West Bengal Bankura Gangajal Ghati West Bengal Bankura Hirbandh West Bengal Bankura Indpur West Bengal Bankura Indus West Bengal Bankura Joypur West Bengal Bankura Khatra West Bengal Bankura Onda West Bengal Bankura Patrasayer West Bengal Bankura Raipur West Bengal Bankura Ranibundh West Bengal Bankura Saltora West Bengal Bankura Sarenga West Bengal Bankura Simlapal
154 State Name District Name Block Name West Bengal Bankura Sonamukhi West Bengal Bankura Taldangra West Bengal Bankura Vishnupur West Bengal Birbhum Dubrajpur West Bengal Birbhum Illambazar West Bengal Birbhum Khoyrasol West Bengal Birbhum Labpur West Bengal Birbhum Mayureswar-I West Bengal Birbhum Mayureswar-Ii West Bengal Birbhum Mohammad Bazar West Bengal Birbhum Murarai-Ii West Bengal Birbhum Rajnagar West Bengal Birbhum Rampurhat-Ii West Bengal Burdwan Ausgram-Ii West Bengal Burdwan Ketugram-Ii West Bengal Burdwan Mongolkote West Bengal Coochbehar Haldibari West Bengal Coochbehar Mathabhanga-I West Bengal Coochbehar Mekliganj West Bengal Coochbehar Sitai West Bengal Coochbehar Sitalkuchi West Bengal Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (Dghc) Darjeeling Pulbazar West Bengal Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (Dghc) Garubathan West Bengal Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (Dghc) Rongli Rongliot West Bengal Dinajpur Dakshin Bansihari West Bengal Dinajpur Dakshin Gangarampur West Bengal Dinajpur Dakshin Harirampur West Bengal Dinajpur Dakshin Kushmandi West Bengal Dinajpur Dakshin Tapan West Bengal Dinajpur Uttar Goalpokhar Ii West Bengal Dinajpur Uttar Goalpokhar-I West Bengal Dinajpur Uttar Hemtabad West Bengal Dinajpur Uttar Itahar West Bengal Dinajpur Uttar Kaliaganj West Bengal Dinajpur Uttar Karandighi West Bengal Hooghly Dhaniakhali West Bengal Hooghly Pandua West Bengal Hooghly Polba-Dadpur West Bengal Howrah Amta-Ii West Bengal Howrah Shyampur-Ii West Bengal Howrah Uluberia-Ii
155 State Name District Name Block Name West Bengal Jalpaiguri Dhupguri West Bengal Jalpaiguri Nagrakata West Bengal Maldah Bamongola West Bengal Maldah Gazole West Bengal Maldah Habibpur West Bengal Maldah Manikchak West Bengal Maldah Old Malda West Bengal Murshidabad Bhagawangola-Ii West Bengal Murshidabad Bharatpur-I West Bengal Murshidabad Burwan West Bengal Murshidabad Domkal West Bengal Murshidabad Khargram West Bengal Murshidabad Nabagram West Bengal Murshidabad Nawda West Bengal Murshidabad Raninagar-I West Bengal Murshidabad Raninagar-Ii West Bengal Murshidabad Suti-I West Bengal Nadia Kaliganj West Bengal Nadia Karimpur-Ii West Bengal Nadia Nakashipara West Bengal Nadia Tehatta-Ii West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Binpur-I West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Binpur-Ii West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Chandrakona-Ii West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Gopiballav Pur -Ii West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Gopiballavpur-I West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Jambani West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Jhargram West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Keshiary West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Kharagpur-Ii West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Midnapore West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Nayagram West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Salbani West Bengal Paschim Medinipur Sankrail West Bengal Purba Medinipur Bhagwanpur-I West Bengal Purba Medinipur Khejuri-Ii West Bengal Purba Medinipur Moyna West Bengal Purba Medinipur Panskura-I West Bengal Purulia Arsha West Bengal Purulia Bagmundi
156 State Name District Name Block Name West Bengal Purulia Balarampur West Bengal Purulia Barabazar West Bengal Purulia Bundwan West Bengal Purulia Hura West Bengal Purulia Jaipur West Bengal Purulia Jhalda-I West Bengal Purulia Jhalda-Ii West Bengal Purulia Kashipur West Bengal Purulia Manbazar-I West Bengal Purulia Manbazar-Ii West Bengal Purulia Para West Bengal Purulia Puncha West Bengal Purulia Purulia-I West Bengal Purulia Purulia-Ii West Bengal Purulia Santuri West Bengal Siliguri Mahakuma Parisad Khoribari West Bengal Siliguri Mahakuma Parisad Phansidewa
157 Annexure 3: Office Memorandum for Development of Framework for Self-Employment Initiatives
158 Annexure 4: Vigyan Bhavan Consultation Attendees
Name Designation/Organization 1 Ramchandra Kowligi MSRLM 2 Mumtaz Masood SRF Ltd 3 R S Verma Under Secy, MoRD 4 Manas Satpathy Pradan 5 Sushil Ramola BeAble 6 R. Anita RD, Telngana 7 Dhirendra Singh SRLM, MP 8 Ved Arya SRIJAN 9 G Muralidhar NRLM 10 Majoor Alam ASCI 11 Soumyajit Auddy Seva Mandir 12 Rajeev T Centum Learning 13 Sandeep Panwar MCRS 14 D. K. Taneja State Bank of India 15 Tanmoy Chatterjee VSO India 16 Hemant Kumar SUPPORT 17 Pawan Kumar Udyogini 18 Vanita Viswanath Independent Professional 19 Poulami B. Magic Bus 20 Jitendra Kumar BRLPS 21 Rahul Jain NSFI 22 Rashmi Ranjan Dash PRAGATI 23 P Durga Prasad REDOX LAB 24 D Narendra Nath PRADAN 25 Soumen Biswas MoRD 26 Sanjay Choudhary VP-ICICI Foundation 27 Ashok Kr. Kamra DGM-SBM 28 S. Palanivel GM-Bank of India 29 Shivananda S. DGM-Corporation Bank 30 Sanjay Aggarwal Chairman-UGB 31 S. Prasad DGM-State Bank of Travancore 32 V. Murugan DGM-Bank of Baroda 33 KN Janardhana NACER-NDER 34 Jogender Singh Chief Manager 35 Debashis Maitri Chief Manager-United Bank of India 36 Pradeep Chauhan GM-OBC 37 NK Goyal GM-OBC 38 RB Gupta GM-Central Bank of India 39 R. Manimaran GM-Indian Bank 40 Rita Sengupta EX-Director-NIESBUD 41 P. Khan Associate Social Devp. Officer(Gender)
159 Name Designation/Organization 42 Swami Sarvagananda Secretary-Ram Krishna Mission 43 Nalini Gangadharan CAP Foundation 44 Dr. RK Singh STO (T) 45 Kushan Jindal CEO-NABCONS 46 AK Mohanty GM-NABARD 47 P. Ekka SRLM, Chhattisgarh 48 Shyamal G. Lok Kalyan Parishad 49 Ranveer Singh AISECT 50 Nitin Gupta GMR Foundation 51 P. Upadhyay Sp. Secy RD, Jharkhand 52 Vinita Kumar E&Y 53 K. P. Rajendran NRLM 54 Murari M. Choudhry NEEDS 55 Azizur Rehman Asian Development Bank 56 Vivek Kumar CIPET 57 Pronuj K. Pegu IDBI Bank 58 Kavita Bhatia Deepak Foundation 59 Smriti Iyer Tata Strive 60 Sanjay Mathur Wadhvani Foundation 61 Ashwini Yadav SRIJAN 62 C. Sathish Vijaya Bank 63 R. Seetharama UCO Bank 64 V. K. Pandey RDD, Jharkhand 65 N. K. Mittal Punjab National Bank 66 R. K. Sharma UCO Bank
160 Annexure 5: NIRD&PR Consultation Attendees
Name of the Designation Organization State Participants 1 Atul Dullo Joint Secretary MoRD New Delhi 2 Santhosh Mathew Joint Secretary MoRD New Delhi 3 Choten Lama CEO & SMD WBSRLM West Bengal 4 Dr. S. F. H. Rizvi Joint Mission Director UPSRLM Uttar Pradesh 5 R. K. Anil LEAD - LH CGSRLM Chhattisgarh 6 G. Muralidhar LEAD - CB NMMU New Delhi 7 R. S. Rekhi LEAD - Non-Farm NMMU New Delhi 8 Alok De LEAD - FL NMMU New Delhi 9 Dr. Rakesh Malhotra LEAD - FL & CB NMMU New Delhi 10 S. Rajan Babu NMM - FI NMMU New Delhi 11 Philip Mathew NMM- NRLM NMMU New Delhi 12 Suhita Roychowdhury Con - LH NMMU New Delhi 13 B. Sireesha NMM NMMU New Delhi 14 Ishaprasad Bhagwat LEAD - HN NMMU New Delhi 15 Dhruv J Sengupta NMM NMMU New Delhi 16 K. P. Rajendran Lead - SI NMMU New Delhi 17 Arnab Bose PE UNDP - NRLM New Delhi 18 D. V. Raidu Advisor - FL NRLM NIRD&PR 19 P. K. Singh SPM JSLPS Jharkhand 20 Kumar DD Singh DLM JSLPS Jharkhand 21 Khalid Hussain PE JSLPS Jharkhand 22 Dr. B. C. Dubey SPM - LH MPSRLM Madhya Pradesh 23 Vivek Chouhan PMRDF MPSRLM Madhya Pradesh 24 Mona Dave Sr. Specialist RGAVP Rajasthan 25 Kirit Patel SPM RGAVP Rajasthan 26 Niket Kolhe YP RGAVP Rajasthan 27 Sisir Pradhan Team Lead OLM Odisha 28 Keshaw Jha DPM OLM Odisha 29 Bajranga Pattnaik EP OLM Odisha 30 Janardan Rout PE OLM Odisha 31 Neelima Mishra YP OLM Odisha 32 P. Ekka SPM CGSRLM Chhattisgarh 33 Sukdev Yadav ASPM - Jobs CGSRLM Chhattisgarh 34 Ajay Ekka PE CGSRLM Chhattisgarh 35 N. Kiran Kumar SAP CGSRLM Chhattisgarh 36 M. Sudarshan SPM KSRLM Karnataka 37 Sarafraz Ahmad SPM JKSRLM Jammu & Kashmir
161 Name of the Designation Organization State Participants 38 Murad Ali SPM UPSRLM Uttar Pradesh 39 Nishi Kant Dixit Lead - LH UPSRLM Uttar Pradesh 40 N. C. Manna SPM WBSRLM West Bengal 41 Satinath Das Consultant WBSRLM West Bengal 42 Manoj Kumar SPM - LH BRLPS Bihar 43 Anil Kumar Yadav PM - LH BRLPS Bihar 44 Pankaj Kumar Singh PM - M&E BRLPS Bihar 45 M. Vani Easwari Joint Director TNSRLM Tamil Nadu 46 D. Subramanan PE TNSRLM Tamil Nadu 47 Amit Asnikar MM MSRLM Maharashtra 48 Yogesh J Bhamove DM MSRLM Maharashtra 49 Habibulla Ahmed DPM ASRLM Assam 50 Dr. Himadri Konch SPM - FI ASRLM Assam 51 Dr. Vinod Jam Advisor GLPC Gujarat 52 K. Ramachandram Resource Person NRLM NIRD&PR 53 Bharath Varma Resource Person NRLM NIRD&PR 54 M. Rajeshwar Resource Person NRLM NIRD&PR
162