THE programme of communitisation is about substantially improving the quality and delivery of public services such as the elementary school, the rural health centre, power distribution at the grass roots and so on by harnessing the social capital available in the community. It is a partnership between the government and the community, and involves empowerment and capacitybuilding in a legislative framework. It has been implemented successfully in Nagaland with the enactment of the Nagaland Communitisation of Public Services and Institutions Act, 2002.
A vast network of institutions and services exist in India but in a moribund state. The reason is poor management. The huge infrastructure is marked by non-functioning equipment and employees without commitment or motivation. Power theft, estimated at over 50 per cent, is the prime reason for the poor financial health of State Electricity Corporations or Undertakings.
One option is to launch an efficiency drive. The experience, however, has been that even in well-governed states the situation is unsatisfactory. Officers and ministers have suspended absent employees on the spot. But results are transient and localized.
Another option is privatization. However, the poor suffer in this situation. The poor are dependent on the government-provided set up. Large-scale privatization would also affect a large number of government employees.
There is a third option – to combine government funds, expertise and regulatory powers with the social capital of the user community. If the empowered are not motivated, why not empower the motivated? This is communitisation – in which the government shares ownership of its institutions and service delivery infrastructure with the user community and transfers day-to-day management responsibilities to the user community. It is not just empowerment but involves a variety of concepts such as decentralization, delegation, building capacity, and so on. Hence the need for a new word, “communitisation”.
The triple T Approach
Communitisation is based on the triple T approach: Trust the user community; Train it to discharge its newfound responsibilities; Transfer governmental powers and resources in respect of management. It is a new approach to governance, different both from governmental management and from privatization. It is a kind of privatization, but in the hands of the user community.
Nagaland has been in difficulty for over five decades because of the conflict situation which also leads to cynicism. An exercise, “Imagine Nagaland”, was undertaken in 2000 in which the young, the adult, the retired and the old – from government as well as from civil society – discussed the vision of Nagaland. A list of priorities emerged. One was to improve the delivery system of government services. Naga society is rich in social capital: strong tribal and village community bonds exist in traditional institutions which are organized, effective and participatory.
The concept of communitisation was mooted in mid2001 among officials and civil society leaders. Feedback was obtained by December. The state Cabinet adopted the proposal in January 2002 and an Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor. In March, the Assembly passed the Nagaland Communitisation of Public Institutions and Services Act, which is the first of its kind in India and perhaps in the world.
Salient features of the Act
The Act provided for Boards/Committees to represent the user communities. The members were to be representatives of real stakeholders, right agents and personnel having expertise. Strong social capital and strong agents show strong results. If either the social capital or the agent is weak, the result is weak. If both are weak, the social capital remains dormant. The quality of functioning of the committee will depend on the quality of its members and this essentially explains why the programme has not worked uniformly. Certain powers were to be transferred to the Board/Committee, including disbursement of salary and the power to exercise “no work, no pay”. Government assets were to be transferred to the community through an MoU.A fund was to be created for each Committee/Board to credit salaries or grants and contributions from different sources. The government was to undertake an assisting, monitoring and regulatory role.
Third Party Assessment
Impact assessment of the programme was carried out by Organizations Development and Excellence Consultants (ODEL), Chennai during June-July 2004, funded by UNICEF.
These were their findings:
◗ Communitisation is welcomed by the village community.
◗ VHCS/VECS improved conditions of health centres/schools by galvanizing voluntary contribution of material, labour and funds.
◗ Improved staff and teacher attendance and attitude to work was noticed.
◗ Enrolment showed steady improvement in all communitised schools with 0% drop-out rate in 23 of the 28 sample villages.
◗ Teacher attendance improved to more than 90% in 18 out of 28 sample schools.
◗Unauthorized absence was eliminated in 17 of 28 sample villages.
◗ Improved attendance of teachers reflected in improved attendance of children in the range of 70-100%, passing rates improved from 75-100% in 24 out of 28 sample schools; 100% passing percentage recorded in some sample villages.
◗ Clear trend of children shifting from private schools to government schools in 17 out of 28 sample villages; private school closed in 1 village.
◗ Improved availability of textbooks with 100 schools receiving textbook grants in time. Health sector
◗ Increased number of patients and availability of medicines in health centres.
◗ Attendance of health functionaries improved to over 90% in all sample villages.
◗ Unauthorised absence reduced to 3-5% in all sample villages.
◗ Improved absence of good quality medicines in almost all sample villages.
◗ Patients coming to government health centres from private doctors in all villages of 3 districts. Power sector
◗ Definite improvement in quality and continuity of power in all sample villages.
◗ Dramatic increase in revenues of Power Department.
◗ Successfully tackled the problem of power theft.
Elementary education was taken up first, followed by grass-roots healthcare and power management. Sectorwise rules were framed to implement the Act. The rules reflected specific variations across sectors.
Also, being a new programme in the government, a variety of procedural issues had to be tackled. For instance, provisions of the Treasury Rules and the Financial and Cognate Power Rules, 1964, were amended.
The politics of reform
Some people said the government was “passing the buck” to the community. Through active involvement of political leadership, influential members of the bureaucracy, civil society and the church, apprehensions and misconceptions were taken care of and the programme got going.
Within six months, proxy employees were weeded out, expenditure on pay and allowances stood reduced; employees were paid on time; there was improved attendance and commitment of employees was evident. In the healthcare sector, a higher proportion of employees stayed on in postings; availability of medicines improved; jurisdiction of each health centre was worked out for the first time; regular cleaning of health centre premises and villages was a new feature, among other things.
The programme has been extended to other sectors such as rural water supply, rural roads and rural tourism also
