This document discusses a study on integration of planning and budgeting in Odisha's Panchayati Raj system. The objectives were to examine existing planning and fund flow processes across three tiers of Panchayats and their integration with state plans. Data was collected through surveys, case studies and discussions. Key findings include lack of awareness about 73rd amendment and PESA provisions, issues in planning and budgeting processes across levels, and lack of coordination between departments and elected representatives. Recommendations focus on strengthening participation, planning and budgeting processes, and coordination across departments and tiers of governance.

1. Integration of Planning and
Budgeting in Odisha
A Study by Centre for World Solidarity
(CWS) and Centre for Youth and Social
Development (CYSD), Bhubaneswar

2. Objectives of the study
• To study the existing processes of formulation of annual
plans and their upward integration across the three tiers
of Panchayat as also in the State Plan vis-a-vis the norms
suggested by the Planning Commission and the 73rd
Amendment and the GP Act ;
• To examine the actual magnitude of fund flow – how much
exactly reaches the Panchayats to enable them to deliver
the 29 earmarked functions;
• To examine the adequacy of functionaries available for
providing facilitative support in developing plans for each
of the 29 subjects;
• To identify bottlenecks and implementation gaps and
suggest advocacy issues and suggest way-outs to improve
the status of devolution of power to three tiers and ensure
actual decentralised planning.

3. DISTRICT
BLOCK
GP
TWO SCHEDULE
DISTRICTS OF ODISHA
SUNDARGARH KORAPUT
HEMGIR LAMTAPUT
KUCHEDEG
A
KENDUDIH
I
KUMARGAN
DHANA
TIKARPADA
STUDY AREA

4. Sampling techniques
• Participatory and consultative
• Primary Evidence based
• Qualitative and quantitative
• Case studies
• Focussed Group Discussions

5. DATA SOURCES
The documents that were collected from the
Panchayats were Annual Financial Statements
(AFS) of 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012 – 13
depending on their availability, Annual plans,
resolution documents of panchayat annual plan
meeting, other meetings, perspective plans and
panchayat resolutions of latest years available
and the latest budget documents are collected
for detailed analysis

6. Sample coverage
Coverage No
s
Coverage Nos
Household survey 356 Ex Zila president 2
Ward member 46 PD DRDA 2
Ex ward member 46 DPO 2
Sarpanch 4 DPC 2
Ex-Sarpanch 4 Collectors 2
Block Chairman 2 Technical Support Institutions 2
Ex-Block Chairman 2 DPMU 1
GPO 2 Director (Planning, Panchayat
raj, Finance)
3
BDO 2 Special Secretary (Planning,
panchayat raj, finance)
3

7. GENERAL FINDINGS

8. Awareness about the provisions of
73rd Amendment Act
• 96.5% of the total household representatives are not
aware of the provisions of 73rd Amendment Act
• 93.9% of the total GP level representatives were not aware
of the provisions of 73rd Amendment Act
• Majorities 66.67% of the block and district level
representatives are unaware regarding the provisions of
the 73rd Amendment Act
• Out of 33.33% respondents of the total block and district
level representatives who were able to express their
awareness on the provisions of 73rd Amendment Act

9. Awareness on provisions of PESA
• 99% of the Household respondents do not know about the provisions of PESA
Act.
• 70% of the total block and district level representative’s respondents are not
aware about the provisions in the PESA Act.
61.11
55.55
44.44
38.9
33.33
22.22
100 percent reservation for post of sarpanch,chairman for adivasis in tribal area
Prevention of tribal land alienation/ acquisition by non tribals, prior approval etc
required
33 percent reservation of posts in PRIs for women as provision under PESA
Sarpanch/ Chairman is male then Naib-sarpanch/ Vice- Chairman have to be
female as a provision under PESA
NTFP ownership, promotion & marketing facility as a provision under PESA
protection of indigenous tribal culture (customs and tradition as a provision
under PESA
Perception about PESA

10. Whether Households attend Palli Sabha Meetings
• A majority 71% of the HH respondents attended Palli Sabha
• 29 % of the respondents could not attended Palli Sabha meetings because
they were either not aware or were not informed.
• 33% of the HH respondents came to know about Palli Sabha meeting from the
public by word of mouth compared to 18% of the respondents who receive
information from the panchayat offices where the notice is put on the office
wall.
• 91% of the HH respondents know about Palli Sabha within 7 days before the
PS meeting.
 42% of the HH respondents who have participated in Palli Sabha meetings
said that the Gram Panchayat mostly accepted their views
 22% said they were accepted or rejected on merit.
 On the other hand, nearly 31% of such respondents were of the view that the
GP either rejected their proposal or was unresponsive and showed mere
sympathy without taking any action.

11. Issues discussed in Palli Sabha
• While a majority 68% of the HH respondents opined that most of the
discussion in PS revolved around activities of different line departments.
• Only 30% said that discussion on crucial issues of health and education
were held in PS.
• There is hardly any discussion on revenue generation and infrastructure
development.
 A majority 58% of the respondents believed that discriminatory
practices were being followed in beneficiary selection process whereas
42 % remained inconclusive.
 77% of such respondents felt that most of the times benefits went to
rich people and relatives of Sarpanch and Ward member or to those who
bribed the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary.

12. Is the beneficiary list of the Palli Sabha
changed in gram Sabha?
• One-third of the house-hold respondents felt that beneficiaries recommended
by Palli Sabha got changed in gram Sabha.
• Another one-third house-hold respondents said that it was not changed
• And the rest one-third house-hold respondents expressed their ignorance.
• 30% of the house-hold respondents felt that PS list were not at all presented
in the gram Sabha.
• 22% of the house-hold respondents believed that lists were changed due to
pressure from govt. officials.
• 47.78% of the GP level representative respondents felt that the decisions of the
gram Sabha, Palli Sabha changed at higher tiers
• 76%of the GP level representative respondents felt that it was changed by the
block level officials
• Collector supersedes the decisions made by the GP / PS was felt by 20.37% of
the GP level representative respondents
• 18.52% of the GP level representative respondents think it is because PS and
ZP impose their own mandate in planning

13. Issues on Power delegation to PRIs,
Coordination etc
• 71.7% of the block/district level respondents feel that the powers delegated
are sufficient for the successful functioning of GPs.
• 60%of the block/district level respondents think that co-ordination between
the ZP/PS and GPs is not all right. Reasons are-Party feelings, Overlapping
of functions, ZP does not function as apex body, PRI members lack of
knowledge on their role and responsibilities.
• According to 78.3% respondents there is no co-ordination between
executives and elected representatives. Due to non-cooperation of
executives, Devolution of power is not followed by Admn., Executives ignore
the PRI’s recommendations, party feelings
• Problems faced in the meeting session by block/district level representatives
• ZP President/PS Chairman Acts as a nominal head -48.84% respondents.
• Line dept. authorities monopolize the meeting session according to
23.26%respondents
• Govt. officials handle the meeting session in their own way according to
20.83% respondents
• Line department staffs do not attend meeting instead send extension officers
this creates problems according to 18.75% respondents

14. Functioning of DPC
• 63.33% respondents have knowledge of the formation
of DPC at district
• DPC is only partially functional-73.81% respondents
• DPC functions more like an information base for the
government -44.83% respondent .
• 89.66% respondents said meetings are called
irregularly.
• 51.72% PRI respondents said even a ZP member
does not receive notice for meetings.

15. SPECIFIC FINDINGS

16. Ward panchayat - Planning
• There is no resolution/record made at the ward
panchayat level
• Planning is largely done in a informal list of
beneficiaries to be provided to the panchayat
• Information about panchayat meeting mainly
given on word of mouth, very few cases of VLW
getting resolution book signed for notice etc.
• Provision of sitting fee in ward panchayat
meeting, capacity of ward panchayat and line
department’s presence makes it almost
impossible for any kind of planning at ward level.

17. Ward panchayat – Budgeting
• In the absence of any formal planning process at the
ward panchayat there is no budgeting which can
then be analysed for any kind of integration etc.
• There is no financial flow to ward panchayat for any
kind of schemes etc, it is just the monitoring role
that is played by the ward panchayat members for
implementation of schemes like IAY, Mo Kudia etc.
• Further capacity for financial management and flow
of resources is not mandated to ward panchayat in
existing provisions of PESA Act.

18. Gram Sabha – Planning
• Decentralised planning is facilitated by TSIs at panchayat level and specified
format is used for recording the wish list. TSIs organize meeting at panchayat
level with sarpanch,ward members, and people but resolutions/formats were
not found. For Kumargandhana panchayat at Lamataput there is one resolution
facilitated and written by TSIs for five year perspective plan during 2009-10 and
the same has been signed by the people after duly reading it out in meeting.
• Annual planning meeting resolution is formally not recorded in the panchayat
resolution book.
• Aggregation of wish list from panchayat is again the responsibility of TSIs.
• Line departments plan which is mainly based on schemes and existing
criterions are also aggregated and presented at the block level for further
approval and escalation
• It is not mandatory for line departments to be a part of annual planning
meeting at panchayat level
• Panchayat plan is not necessarily required for the fund to be made available to
panchayat

19. Gram Sabha – Budgeting
• Capacity of panchayat for managing finance is a
major area of concern.
• Resource envelope for panchayat is not known to any
of the Local Self Governance Institution s members.
• There is a fixed criteria for budgeting, for activities
which are undertaken previously and some increase
in amount .
• Documents to such budgeting is also not available at
panchayat level
• Devolution of more resources should certainly be
backed by functionaries for finance to be available at
panchayat level

20. Block Panchayat - Planning
• Collation of wish list and planning of line
departments remains the responsibility of the TSIs,
which is responsible for getting it approved and
presented in the zilla parishad for timely completion
of decentralised planning exercise;
• Line departments and all the sarpanch remain the
part of the block annual planning meeting
• The collated plan is approved and escalated to the
zilla parishad in a time bound manner.
• Line department plan also goes to DRDA and nodal
officer at district level separately.
• No exclusion only inclusion from line departments
and block level representatives

21. Block Panchayat - Budgeting
• Budgeting at block panchayat is done based on
feedback and technical persons from the line
departments, all the wish list also gets a budget as
this is the mandate and facilitated by TSIs.
• Resource envelope at the block panchayat level is
also not known to the stakeholders.
• Schematic, thematic and criteria based budgeting is
included for finalisation of annual plan at Panchayat
Samiti level and further escalation.
• Block level representatives and executive officers are
responsible for escalating the plan and budget but it
is facilitated by TSIs.

22. District Panchayat – Planning
• Collation and presentation for meeting at district
level is mainly done by TSIs in coordination with the
DPC.
• No major exclusion only inclusion of projects which
are mainly prioritized by MP representatives, MLA
representatives and District specific plans;
• Budgeting is done based on what has been given for
such projects last year and the comprehensive plan
is approved by ZP/DM and moves to state in a time
bound manner.
• All the line department plans are collated hence in all
probability there is no exclusion at district level

23. District Panchayat – Budgeting
• District plans are not a basis for budgeting at the
state level by finance department
• Budgeting is done based on the schemes and plan
available and utilisation for previous year as per the
criteria which is fixed during the formulation of plan.
• MGNREGA is the flagship programme which is
planned and implemented as per the planning done
at the panchayat level .
• Scheme wise budget are prepared and sanctioned
from state which then gets implemented through
line departments

24. Planning and budgeting integration
• Finance department is not mandated to
budget as per the plans submitted from
panchayats.
• Scheme wise and resource availability is the
major criteria for budgeting;
• Every scheme and plan has their fixed criteria
for selection of beneficiaries and amount to be
sanctioned and according to same budgeting
and sanction of activities takes place;

25. Recommendations
• All the line departments to be a part of panchayat level gram Sabha
meetings and they should present panchayat specific plans and get it
recommended in meeting with due entry into panchayat resolution
books, before submission to block and DRDA;
• A consolidated annual plan covering Central/State schemes and GP
programmes should be prepared and approved by elected body so
also annual accounts prepared and discussed in general body
meeting;
• Annual Accounts should be prepared by the PRIs regularly and timely
in prescribed format;
• Data base on finances are maintained in all levels of PRIs and made
accessible to users;
• Continuous monitoring and evaluation of performance of the PRIs
should be made through specific and regular returns and reports;
•

26. Recommendations
• Administrative restructuring of the departments of the Government
should be made to devolve functions, functionaries and institutions
to bring them under control of PRIs to ensure and evolve their
autonomy;
• Further devolution of 8 more subjects with the inter departmental
coordination mechanism to be ensured by the government;
• DPC should be strengthened to replace TSIs and departmental
secretaries to provide attention to the plan generated from ground
by including these plans into schemes and providing budget
accordingly as intended in Constitution and the Act enacted there for
separately;
• Share of state revenue and grant in aid to local bodies and transfer of
funds should match the responsibility & functions devolved upon
PRIs;

27. Recommendations
• Monitoring and evaluation of performance of
PRIs by DPCs need to be strengthened;
• System of preparation of budgets and
maintenance of accounts in prescribed
formats along with indicated amount per unit
need to be supplied and followed.