The document discusses social audits, which involve jointly examining government programs and activities by government officials and the intended beneficiaries. Social audits aim to increase transparency and accountability. They allow people to scrutinize programs and ask questions about performance. The document outlines the need for social audits due to gaps between desired and actual impacts of development programs. Social audits can help strengthen demand from beneficiaries and make programs more effective. The scope of social audits includes assessing resource gaps, increasing awareness, and promoting transparency and public participation.

1. SOCIAL AUDIT
DR.AMANDEEP KAUR
JUNIOR RESIDENT
COMMUNI TY MEDICINE
PT.B.D.SHARMA PGIMS, ROHTAK

2. CONTENTS
 Introduction
 Need of social audit
 Scope of social audit
 Salient features of social audit
 Methodology
 Tools of social audit initiatives
 Uses & advantages of social audit
 Some audit stories
 Scenario in Haryana

3. INTRODUCTION
AS PER THE CONSTITUTION,
THE GOVERNMENT IS OF THE PEOPLE,
FOR THE PEOPLE AND
BY THE PEOPLE,
MEANING THEREBY, THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE ARE
ONE.
BUT IN PRACTICE,
THE PEOPLE ST I L L CARRY THE MINDSET OF BEING RULED AND
THE GOVERNMENT CARRIES THE MINDSET OF RULER.
HUGE GAP BETWEEN THE TWO
PEOPLE HAVE NOT GOT A CHANCE AND ABI L ITY TO
HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR NON -
PERFORMANCE/ ASK QUESTIONS.

4.  AUDIT
 The word 'Audit' originated from the Latin word
'audire' which means 'to hear‘
 It is an unbiased examination and evaluation of a
person, organization, system, process, enterprise,
project or product.
Can be done internally (by employees of the
organization) or externally (by an outside firm)

5. TYPES OF AUDITS
 Government or institutional audit is one that is
conducted in-house or through external, professional, auditing
institutions, and is ordinarily conducted without the
significant involvement of the affected people and/or the
intended beneficiaries.
 Social audit is one that is conducted jointly by the
government and the people, especially by those people who
are affected by, or are the intended beneficiaries of, the
activity being audited.
 People’s/Public audit is one that is conducted by the
people themselves, including those who are directly affected
or are the intended beneficiaries, sometimes with the
assistance of movements and NGOs.

6. THE IDEAL OPTION
 Government audit remains the basic audit.
 Social audit conducted in addition for certain types of
schemes and activities, especially those involving huge
and/or disaggregated expenditure.
 Public audit selectively where the auditing process
seems to have failed.

7. Comptroller & Auditor General of India
Supreme Audit Institution Of India
 Over the last decades, CAG has been conducting
performance audits of socio‐economic developmental
programmes of the Central and State Governments, e.g.
 National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS),
 National Rural Health Mission (NRHM),
 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA),
 Mid‐day Meals Scheme,
 Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP),
 Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY).
 CAG’s audit is an external audit on behalf of tax payers.
 In a broad theoretical sense, therefore, CAG’s audit itself is a
social audit.

8. Comptroller & Auditor General of India
Supreme Audit Institution Of India
 Yet, in commonly perceived sense, CAG audit remains a
Government process largely confined to Government officials
and auditors.
 Social audit, on the other hand, seeks to make the audit
process more transparent and take audit findings to a wider
public domain of stakeholders.
 The demand for social audit has grown in recent years due to
the steady shift in devolution of Central funds and functions
relating to socio‐economic schemes to the local tiers of
Government – Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), Urban Local
Bodies (ULBs) and other special purpose agencies.

9. THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL AUDIT
 Emerged in the 1940’s when academic Theodore Kreps
called on companies to acknowledge their responsibilities to
citizens.
 1960-70’s , a fresh wave of interest in Social and Ethical
Accounting, Auditing and Reporting (SEAAR). Concept of
‘stakeholders’ emerged.
 1980s, the social audit concept travelled from the private to
the public sector in response to new emerging democratic
governance trends.

10.  Lately, social media (facebook, twitter, wikileaks) are playing
an important role to channel citizen’s initiatives to uncover
corrupt practices and mismanagement, as well as to hold
governments accountable.
 Social audit has become a key component of any democratic
governance and anti-corruption strategy.

11.  The concept of “Social Audit” has been linked to “Corporate
Social Responsibility” (CSR)
 CSR is essentially a concept, whereby companies integrate
social and environmental concerns in their business
operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a
voluntary basis.
 For Example,
 Microsoft has created a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for
Research & Development work on HIV / AIDS
 McDonald’s outlets take care of its surroundings by maintaining
cleanliness and hygiene.
 In India, Infosys has created an NGO to work for development of
society

12. DEFINITIONS
 “Social Accounting and Auditing is a way of measuring and
reporting on an organization’s social and ethical performance.
An organization which takes on an audit is transparent and
makes itself accountable to its stakeholders.”
InterPraxis
 “Social Accounting and Audit is a process to create a flexible
framework which enables the organization to account fully for
its social, environmental and economic impact, to report on its
performance, and to provide the information essential for
planning future action and improving performance.”
Social Audit
Network

13. DEFINITION
 "Social Audit is a process in which, details of the resource,
both financial and non-financial, used by public agencies
for development initiatives are shared with the people, often
through a public platform. Social Audits allow people to
enforce accountability and transparency, providing the
ultimate users an opportunity to scrutinize development
initiatives.”
VISION FOUNDATION
What globally is known as “People’s Audit or Public Audit” , in
India we call it “Social Audit”.

14.  Broadly, this process of Social Audit involves, the following
components, i.e.,
a) Availability of information / details of the resource,
financial and non-financial, used by public agencies for
development initiatives,
b) Organising the ultimate users / beneficiaries / people,
c) Scrutiny of the information by the end users.
• Foundation of Social Audit is INFORMATION AVAILABILITY-
--- as people can ask questions only when they possess the
requisite information regarding the subject

15. Our Fundamental Right
 Freedom of speech & expression is protected in Article
19 of the Constitution of India: All citizens shall have
the right to freedom of speech and expression.
 In 1982, the Supreme Court of India ruled that access
to government information was an essential part of the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression.

16. SOCIAL AUDIT & RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
2005
 Allows any one to access information regarding the
functioning of a scheme or project, by filing a specific
request.
 Made people aware that the right is legally enforceable
 Universal access
 Suo moto disclosures
 Guarantees the people that they can conduct a social
audit of any scheme or programme that they think
needs their scrutiny, even if the concerned public
authority has not organised a social audit.

17. SOCIAL AUDIT & RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
2005
PROCESS OF ACCESS :
 Public authority must appoint a Public Information Officer
(PIO), who accepts requisitions and provides information.
 The PIO must ordinarily respond to a requisition within 30
days
 Information relating to the life or liberty of a person must,
nevertheless, be provided in 48 hours.
PENALTIES are prescribed for illegitimate delay or
refusal
 For unreasonable delay-- Rs. 250 per day
 For destruction of information, knowingly giving false
information etc., with an upper limit of Rs. 25,000

19. NEED OF SOCIAL AUDIT
 The investment of thousands of crores of rupees made by the
Government of India and various national and international
agencies, since independence in social development
programmes, has not been justified by the impact it has
made.
 Huge gap between the desired impact and the actual impact
takes anyone within the Govt. or otherwise to think deeply
about the failures.

20. The dominant reason for the failure of Programme Delivery
Systems lies in the WEAK DEMAND SIDE as compared to the
SUPPLY SIDE.
DEMAND SIDE
(Problems)
SUPPLY SIDE (Problems)
Weak, unorganized
Beneficiaries, unable to
create DEMAND for QUALITY
and EFFECTIVE programme
Delivery.
Gram Sabhas not being
effective to the extent desired.
Vested interest groups
want Beneficiaries to remain
unorganized and Gram
Sabhas in- effective.
Programme design, not need based.
Even when need based, it is not designed
to be practical in implementation.
Even when need based and well
designed, it is not managed by competent
managers with a result oriented approach.
Failure to achieve results does not lead to
any accountability being fixed, leading to
poor programme performance.
Failure in controlling the interference of
vested interest groups.

21. THE MISSING LINKS
PROGRAMME
PLANNER &
IMPLEMENTERS
SOCIAL AUDIT
For flow of information
(THE MISSING LINK)
BENEFICIARIES
D
E
M
A
N
D
S
U
P
P
L
Y
Flow of
information
(THE
MISSING
LINK)
Supply of
development
inputs
WEAK
STRON
G

22. SCOPE OF SOCIAL AUDIT
 Assessing the physical and financial gaps between needs
and resources available for local development.
 Creating awareness among beneficiaries and providers of
local social and productive services.
 Increasing efficacy and effectiveness of local development
programmes.
 Scrutiny of various policy decisions, keeping in view
stakeholder interests and priorities, particularly of rural poor.
 Estimation of the opportunity cost for stakeholders

23. SCOPE OF SOCIAL AUDIT
 Allow people to enforce transparency & accountability.
 Promote dialogue and deliberation to promote public-private
partnership.
 Increase public participation at all stages of public policy &
budget cycle.
 Identify, control and report irregularities & prevent abuse of
funds and power.
 Measure the impact of policies/programs.
 Enable citizens to exercise their rights.

24. SALIENT FEATURES
 MultiPerspective/Polyvocal. Aims to reflect the views
(voices) of all those people (stakeholders) involved with or
affected by the organisation/department/programme.
 Comprehensive. Aims to (eventually) report on all aspe
cts of the organisation's work and performance.
 Participatory. Encourages participation of stakeholders &
sharing of their values.
 Multidirectional. Stakeholders share and give feedback o
n multiple aspects

25. SALIENT FEATURES
 Regular. So that the concept and the practice becomes
embedded in the culture of organisation
 Comparative. The organisation can compare its own
performance each year & with organisations doing similar
work
 Verification. Ensures that the social accounts are audited b
y a
suitably experienced person or agency with no vested interest
in the organisation.
 Disclosure. To stakeholders and the wider community in
the interests of accountability and transparency

26. PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL AUDIT & UNIVERSAL
VALUES

27. THE SOCIAL AUDITOR
(Assurance Provider)
 The social auditor is responsible for carrying out the
social audit, either alone or with other social auditors
as part of a social audit team.
Characteristics:
 Unbiased and independent.
 Expertise in social auditing.
 Inquisitiveness coupled with a healthy skepticism
 Ability to understand programs and their wider social
context.

28. METHODOLOGY

29. When can social audit be
performed?
A social audit is conducted over the life span of a
scheme or programme, and not just in one go or at
one stage.

30. ILLUSTRATIVE STEP BY STEP PROCESS OF
SOCIAL AUDITS

31. SOCIAL AUDIT OF
MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES
IN UTTARANCHAL

32. SOCIAL AUDIT TOWARDS …
 Creating a demand for
maternal health
services from the
community
 Increasing
responsiveness to
community needs in
health providers and
managers

33. SCOPE OF SOCIAL AUDIT
Area – 2 blocks in two districts of Uttaranchal state
Within each block,
- 10 villages
- 2 Sub-Centres
- 1 PHC
TEAM: Included Panchayat members, women’s
group leaders and NGO staff

34. Steps of the Social Audit – Preparations
(July 04)
 Obtained accurate information about available
maternal health services and facilities from the
government
 Capacity building of team through training
programme, field visit and PHC visit
 Developing Social Audit tools, field testing
 Taking permission from district CMO
 Taking permission of village Panchayats

35. Information gathering by team
 Conducting interviews and observations in 2 PHCs
 Conducting interviews and observations in 4 ANM
Sub-centres
 Conducting group discussions in 20 villages
 Documenting 17 case studies of maternal deaths
and experiences of family planning services in
RCH camps

36. Sharing
 Collated findings and shared with audit team for
internal checking
 Shared with community in 20 villages for consent
 Shared separately with CMOs, MOICs and ANMs
for consent
 Printed the Audit Report in Hindi

37. Sharing of Audit findings
 Shared with the
community, media
and Panchayat
leaders in a Public
Gathering (March
2005)
JAN AUDIT MANCH

38. Outcomes of the Social Audit: Gaps
Emerging
 No document defining what services women are
entitled to
 Lack of material or staff for health education and
public awareness
 Information given only regarding female sterilization
 No involvement of Panchayats in maternal health
activities
 Lack of women doctors in PHCs/CHCs – poor system
of referral in emergencies
 Very limited range of services despite ‘RCH camps’
 Lack of essential equipment in Sub centres for ante-natal
check-ups, delivery and post-partum care; gaps
in supply and maintenance/ repair

39. Success with service providers
 Health department supported entire audit process – for the
first time ‘reminded of their responsibility by the community’
 The PHC has 3 doctors including a woman doctor
 ANM:
 community level work improved, gives more information
about health programmes; comes when called home for
deliveries and does not charge money for home deliveries
 better relations with women’s group, keeps up contact,
attends meetings
 staying in the SCs with community support, women help her
during immunization camps
 provide improved ANC and cover remote villages now

40. Success with community
 Panchayats at village and block level are actively involved in
the issue of maternal health services
 Women have created a pressure so that Panchayats are now
taking up health issues as an agenda in meetings
 Women are now clear about their entitlements when they
seek health services
 Women’s groups monitor the quality of care in RCH camps

41. FUTURE COMMUNITY ACTION
 Formation of a group
with Panchayat
representatives,
women leaders,
government health
managers to take the
audit process forward

42. CHALLENGES FACED
 Not easy for an NGO to facilitate an audit process while
maintaining a relationship with the government
 Not easy to create a relationship with the Panchayat leaders
on a ‘women’s issue’
 Informants were hesitant to provide accurate information
about the actual state of maternal health services
 Making the audit report was difficult – to maintain accuracy
while not alienating the health providers - to ensure that the
audit report was accepted by all stakeholders
 Public sharing of audit report had to be fact-based, not fault-finding
or accusation

43. CONCLUSION
The experience shows it is possible to ~
 Impartially audit quality of maternal health services with the
cooperation of the health department and the community
 Make Panchayats actively involved in maternal health and
make them a ‘voice’ that demands accountability from the
health system
 Change the client-provider relationship to empower even
illiterate rural dalit women users to exercise their rights in
health services

44. COSTS OF SOCIAL AUDIT
 For the NGO to facilitate the Social Audit in 2 districts in 2
blocks (1 PHC, 2 Sub-Centres and 10 villages) cost was Rs
2 lakhs.
 This includes preparation, training, audit activities, sharings
and publication of audit report
 This does not cover the NGO’s costs of building rapport
with the Panchayats and community women for the
previous three years

45. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN
RATAKHANDI GRAM PANCHAYAT OF
LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR, ORISSA-
2007

46. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 Done in 12 villages
 PREPARATORY MEETING OF PEOPLES’
ORGANISATION:
 On 20th May 2007 the Anchalik Vikas Samiti, Loisingha
Block decided to conduct the Social Audit of ICDS
programme of Ratakhandi Gram Panchayat
 The Sarapanch was requested to convene the Gram
Sabha… Sarapanch was reluctant
 Chose the alternative option for the Gram Sabha
 This was an example of alternative way of Gram
Sabha as per the Gram Panchayat rule when
Sarapanch refused to convene the Gram Sabha

47. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 FORMATION OF SAMAJIK SAMIKSHYA MANCH(SOCIAL
AUDIT FORUM):
 With the prime objective to
• make people aware,
• sensitize,
• build confidence among the people,
• analyze the information and situation,
• facilitation of village level Social Audit Manch,
• coordinate the process at the Gram Panchayat level

48. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 COLLECTION OF INFORMATION & APPLICATION OF RTI:
 requested the Anganwadi workers for the required
information…they denied.
 went to the CDPO on 12th June 2007… applied for the
required information under RTI
 CDPO told to give the information after 30 days… misusing
RTI Act
 Went to the office of the District Social welfare Officer
(DSWO)… found long absent, then denied information.
 name of the PIO is not displayed….so could not be
contacted.
 Met the Collector….. APPRECIATED THE INITIATIVE…..
instructed the DSWO to supply all required information and
also advised DWSO to issue necessary instruction to the
concerned CDPO to cooperate.

49. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 SORTING & FILING OF INFORMATION:
 Documents/ records in side the file were: Referral Support
Status, Attendance of Children (Pre-School), Monthly
Progress Report of ICDS Worker, Special Nutrition Status,
Emergency Feeding Register from April 2006 to March
2007.
 ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION AND
REDISTRIBUTION:
 Conversion of the information to understandable local
dialect and measurement was redistributed to the villages
for analysis at their levels

50. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 SHARING OF INFORMATION AND VERIFICATION
AT FIELD:
 Sharing of the collected/analysed information with the
villagers
 Social Audit Manch members went to the villages to verify
the information with the participation of various stake
holders like beneficiaries, PRI members and other
Community members
 Included holding of meeting, physical verification and
case analysis

51. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 MEASURES TO BUILD CONFIDENCE:
 By a team staying in the village itself
 By a moving team to control the external threat
In a bureaucratic structure of Government, where people
have not dreamt of a peoples’ action, has certainly given rise
to many questions like “Are we really powerful? Can we
question the Government officials?? Do we have right to
inspect government offices??? Can our decision be
implemented????..............

52. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 CONDUCTING THE SOCIAL AUDIT:
 On 18th June 2007, 1400 out of 3500 Gram Sabha Members
assembled
 Bal Panchayat Sarapanch was also among the panel
 Testimonies on non functioning of village ICDS
committees, emergency feeding, SNP, Pre-schooling and
referral support presented by the individual victimized
beneficiaries
 Supervisor of ICDS tried to clarify issues and faced the
agony of people when tried suppress the people voice
and analysis of community

53. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 Findings :
 SNP not benefiting to the real beneficiaries & appropriate
quantity not maintained
 Irregularities in immunisation programme
 Children and pregnant women not getting in time health
check-up
 Malnourished children not identified properly
 Pre-schooling centre not functioning except one centre
 Hardly one training programme for adolescent girls in 3
centres organised by the ICDS in last 3 year
 Only 2 centres providing cooked food, rests are
distributing rations
 When only 10 children in one Anganwadi centres attend,
the official records show it as 21children.

54. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007
 Decision:
 Confirm findings at village level and action taken in
consultation with the higher authority of administration
 WAY FORWARD:
 The Collector was presented with signed resolution of the
Gram Sabha who in turn assured administrative action on the
findings
 Various dimensions and dynamics of the ICDS were analysed
 Peoples’ centric model of streamlining process was chalked
out for effective implementation of the schemes

55. SOCIAL AUDIT OF ICDS PROGRAMME IN RATAKHANDI
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF LOISINGHA BLOCK DIST-BOLANGIR,
ORISSA-2007

56. TOOLS OF SOCIAL AUDIT

57. CITIZEN REPORT CARDS
 Entail a participatory survey that solicits users/clients
feedback on the performance of specific public
services, combining qualitative and quantitative
methods to collect useful demand-side data.
 Two related elements:
 “scientific” element: requires defining the scope of the problem,
selecting a sample, designing a questionnaire, collecting the
data, analyzing it and writing a report.
 “socializing” element: designing a media campaign to
disseminate the results of the study, building awareness,
mobilizing broad social coalitions, advocating for reform,
negotiating with government authorities and engaging in
constructive discussions or public hearings

58. CITIZEN REPORT CARDS
 In 2000, the Public Affairs Centre (PAC) in Bangalore, India
pioneered it
 Provided an assessment of citizens’ level of satisfaction with
regard to the city’s public services and ranked public service
agencies (water, power, municipal services, transport,
housing, telephones, banks and hospitals) in terms of their
service performance
 Indicated low patient satisfaction, poorly maintained facilities,
and wide-spread corruption in the form of bribes
 Reported--
 only 43% of patients had access to usable toilets
 less than 40% had access to free medicines
 Bangalore Municipal Corporation contacted..Reforms
implemented
 Evaluation in 2004 found that services had significantly

59. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
(PETS)
 1996, the World Bank introduced PETS in Uganda to examine
leakages in the allocated education budget
 Citizen groups track spending trends to identify how much of the
allocated resources reach their targets and, in the process, identify
whether there are leakages and/or bottlenecks on the way
 Involves triangulating of information received from disbursement
records of finance ministries, accounts submitted by line agencies
and information obtained from independent research to identify
point of leakage
 While schools on average still did not receive the full amount,
leakage was reduced from 87% in 1996 to 18% in 2001

60. Citizen Charters
 Instrument to close gap between citizens’ demands and the
public institutions’ structures and processes in charge of
fulfilling them
 Defines what services will be rendered, how and when they
will be provided and who is responsible for the project
 Naga City’s Citizen’s Charter(Philipines):
 standardizing the service delivery times
 diverse commitments stipulated in the Charter are known as
Performance Pledges. For example, the time required to
repair a street light was 24 hours
 Charter available in two versions: a printed leaflet, sent to all
households, and online through city website

61. OTHER TOOLS FOR SOCIAL AUDIT
INITIATIVES
 Social Media Initiatives
 Service Delivery Surveys
 Household Surveys for Social Audit
 Community Based Monitoring

62. USES & ADVANTAGES

63. USES
 Monitors the social and ethical impact and performance of the
organization
 Provides a basis for shaping management strategy in a
socially responsible and accountable way
 Identify potential problems before they arise.
 Facilitates organizational learning on how to improve social
performance.
 Informs the community, public, and other organizations about
the allocation of their resources (time and money)
 Increases the organization’s accountability to the groups it
serves and on which it depends.

64. ADVANTAGES
 Organization gains an improved understanding of community
needs, esp. marginalized groups, and the extent of
satisfaction of those needs
 Enables the organization to get a clearer idea of people’s
‘perceptions’ and levels of satisfaction on services
 Trains the community on participatory planning of
programmes with a development organization
 Community / clients become closely involved in organizational
planning and review processes leading to greater trust
 Promotes collective decision making and sharing
responsibilities
 Develops human resources and social capital
 Encourages local democracy

65. SOME AUDIT STORIES

66. HAMARA PAISA, HAMARA HISAAB:
RAJASTHAN:1994
 Initiated by Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)
 People had difficulty getting paid the minimum wage
 MKSS brought people together and simply read out official
documents procured either through surreptitious means or from
officials who had no idea of their import
 Records... contained false information.
 E.g., transport bills of over 6 km when the real distance was only 1 km, or
people listed on the muster rolls who lived in other cities or were dead.
 Proved that corrupt officials and others were siphoning money and
minimum wages were being paid only on paper
 idea of a Jan Sunwai or ‘public hearing’ was introduced
 RESULTS: Brought people together
People found their own platform
Change in panchayat act
National movement led by Ms Aruna Roy… RTI Act 2005

67. SOCIAL AUDIT in Delhi by PARIVARTAN:
2000
 Parivartan, a voluntary organisation, started as people’s
movement in June 2000, to provide relief to taxpayers from
corruption in the income tax department
 The organisation began to use the Delhi Right to Information
Act 2001 to resolve public grievances
 RESULTS:
 Social audit conducted by Parivartan, along with local residents of
Sundernagri and New Seemapuri - for development works
undertaken by the Engineering Department of the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
 Ration shopkeepers won't divulge their records, Food Department
officials won’t file complaints, and the police won’t act on their
own or accept complaints from the public. After the initiatives of
Parivartan, a number of people from different parts of Delhi filed
applications under the Delhi Right to Information Act and sought
the records of their ration shopkeepers.

68. Social Audit of the Mid Day Meal Scheme
in Andhra Pradesh: 2008
 Initiated by the state government & facilitated by
M.V.Foundation
 In Adilabad and Kurnool districts; in 111 schools
 RESULTS:
 While about 70-80 children attend school everyday, attendance
was marked for about 100 children and bills for mid day meal are
presented accordingly
 Only in 45 out of 111 schools was the rice stored in the school
kitchen shed; 21 out of 111 schools was the cooking done in the
kitchen shed
 Cooking agency is with the Sarpanch’s family and the ration dealer
is also related to them. The rice is stored with them and they cook
in their own house
 In some schools the quality of the meal was so poor that many
children did not eat

69. HARYANA SCENARIO

70. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NREGS IN
SIRSA: 2009
 Two blocks, one better performing & one poor performing,
were selected on the basis of performance indicators like, Job
cards, person-days generation and utilization of funds
 Two GPs selected from each block
 RESULTS:
 62.50 % Gram Panchayats formed a social audit committee
 About half of the selected Gram Panchayats were aware about RTI
act
 Delay in receiving of funds (62.5 percent Gram Panchayats)
 Banks far away and bank staff not cooperative (50%)
 Supervision of work and lack of awareness (37.50%)
 Corruption (12.50%)
 Assessment of work delayed because one J.E in whole block
(50%)

71. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NREGS IN
SIRSA: 2009
 RESULTS:
 Muster roll was not available at any of the worksites, reason given
being- MR filled only after the completion of work
 Child care facility was not available at any of the worksites
 First aid kit was available at half worksites
 Drinking water facility was available at all the work site
 More then 82 percent of the workers reported considerable
increase in their income

76. REFERENCES
 A practical guide to social audit as a participatory tool to strengthen
democratic governance, transparency, and accountability, UNDP
 Social Audit Gram Sabha & Panchayati Raj, Final Report to Planning
Commission, VISION FOUNDATION
 Social Audit A Peoples Manual by NIRD
 Social Audit of the Mid Day Meal Scheme in Andhra Pradesh(report)
 Social Audit by Kurian Thomas
 Report on Gram Sabha for social audit of ICDS Programme in Ratakhandi
Gram Panchayat Of Loisingha Block Dist-bolangir
 Appraisal of impact assessment of nregs in selected districts of Himachal
Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana. Districts: Hoshiarpur, Sirsa, Sirmaur, period
july-august 2009, Sponsored by United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) India

77. .THANK YOU.