Community Participation for Growth The BNVs way………. K.CHANDRAMOULI, IAS AMR-APARD

 Yawing gaps in implementing programs  Affects delivery benefits  Gram Panchayats – grass roots level PRIs  Expected to plan  Raise resources  Coordinate  Monitor  Evaluate  Influence  But they are poorly equipped  Inadequate knowledge about programs

 64 years of post independent era  Eventful journey  Our plans guided the development trajectory of many developing countries  But we are grappling with  Rs. 800,000 crs. Of MoRD’s annual outlays  Rs.800,000 crs. Of States & Uts outlays  Only to improve Quality of life of rural areas and outcomes ? Result :

People don’t participate Community doesn’t involve in planning Leakages Allocations are not spent Deliverables not measured Outcomes don’t sustain People don’t own Flagship programmes don’t converge

 PRA  PLA  PUA  PALM and many Tried and failed again Community involvement through :

Now, the community engagement through the youth called BNVs Young men and women Above 18 years From the same village Purely voluntary Made aware of issues / possibilities 40 households attached to each BNV Delivery of services facilitated Act as a bridge between the service delivery dept and service demanding community Nation Building Service One more / last approach

One year old Effecting change in the households attached Enable the benefits to reach the unreached Flagship programs converge HENSGDEE became popular Working towards MDGs Villages accessing Social audit Impact :

o Liquor banned o Panparag / Ghutka o No smoking o Plastics banned o 100% enrolment o 100% institutional deliveries o Total Sanitation o Clean potable drinking water o Roads, electricity o Solar energy For what good ?

o Long pending issues / Land / ration cards resolved o No police / court cases o No diarrhoeal episodes o Gender related good o Environmental sustainability And many more !

Thank you