A Comparative Study of 5 State Guarantees of [Right to] Public Services- RTPS- Feb 2012

1. !"#"$!%
Transparency, Accountability &
Timeliness in Right to Public
Services
An Overview of
5 States
Why Service Guarantees - Broad
• Changes in Political Thought & Agenda –
What [also] gets Votes
! Good Governance
! Development – Provision of Basic Essential
Services
! Open, Transparent Government
! Anti-corruption Measures
! Acceptance by State of Civil Society
movements for rights
Why Service Guarantees- Specific
• Failure of Citizen Charters
• Precedence of Rights-based Laws : RTI,
MNREGS, RTE
• Increasing Bad Publicity on Grievances
related to poor Public Service Delivery
• Top-down Push for systems that holds front-
line service providers accountable
• Simultaneously empowering citizens
$%

2. !"#"$!%
RTPS Acts: Highlights
• Transparency
• Accountability
• Timeliness
RTPS Acts: Highlights
• Transparency- making public service
delivery processes & procedures open and
visible
• Transparency – Information to citizens
on:
! Reasons [in writing] why an application
is rejected or a service delayed or
denied
! Status of Applications
RTPS Acts: Highlights
• Accountability - by identifying the
responsible authorities within the system
• Accountability - Penalizing wilful non-
performance
• Accountability - Put Citizen First:
mechanism for redress of grievance;
compensation
!%

3. !"#"$!%
RTPS Acts: Highlights
• Timeliness - Imposes a legally
enforceable timeframe for service
delivery
• Timeliness: Imposes legally enforceable
timeframe for addressing grievances
through the mechanisms of Appeals and
Reviews
Comparative Overview
• Sample: 5 States
• Methodology
! Review of Documents
! Limited field visits
! A Quick Review of Major
Elements
Comparative Overview
• Madhya Pradesh- PIONEER- first to pass and
implement Act
• Bihar- RTPS NO. 1 on its ‘SUSHSAN’ Good
Governance Agenda
• Rajasthan- maximum number of services
guaranteed
• Delhi- An entirely different approach – e-SLA
• Uttar Pradesh- quick to follow MP, but least
number of services under Act
&%

4. !"#"$!%
Key Highlights
TRANSPARENCY -Public Awareness
• Awareness drives through
! Special Gram Sabhas in MP;
! TV, Radio, Print media in Bihar,
! Nukkad Nataks, Village Pracharaks, Schools in
Rajasthan
• Notice Boards in all States
• Clear instructions for citizens on application
process and services coming under RTPS
• Bihar BRTPS Rules (sec.18) specifically
mention Dissemination and Training
Transparency
• Online application tracking and monitoring systems
in MP, Bihar, Delhi, UP; final stages of software
readiness in Rajasthan
• Jigyasa and Samadhan helpline in Bihar for queries
related to RTPS
• e-SLA monitoring and tracking system in Delhi
[compensatory cost for delay is calculated through e-
SLA software]
• SMS based reminder system in MP for officials
regarding pending services; application status
through SMS in Bihar
'%

5. !"#"$!%
Accountability – Fixing Responsibility
• Designated Authorities/Competent
Officer, Appellate Authorities, Reviewing
Authority identified in all 5 States
• Penalties have been notified in case of
failure to comply by time stipulations;
compensation fixed in MP, UP, Rajasthan
and Delhi
• Delhi - Incentives for Good Performance
Accountability – Monitoring
Performance
• Monitoring and tracking at the level of applications –
! Offices to maintain Register of applications accepted or
rejected AND services delivered, delayed or denied
! Software-driven such as Adhikar, e-District and e-SLA
• Monitoring also done through
! nodal officials,
! inspections,
! monthly meetings at which disposal, pendency of
applications & appeals is done
! Video conferences
Timeliness – Regular Systems
• In all five states, Notified Services have to unambiguously
state the TIME LIMIT within which services will be
delivered
• In all states [except Uttar Pradesh] acknowledgement slips
show the Date on or before which the service would be
delivered
• Delhi : an automatically generated Time Limit through the
e-SLA system; Bihar: through Adhikar
• Single window systems in Revenue Department – all 5
States
• MP and Rajasthan - in addition - 1-day Governance
(%

6. !"#"$!%
Timeliness – Some Field Observations
• Most services – reported to have been delivered before
time: especially, mutation, caste/income/residence
certificates
• MP, Bihar, UP, Rajasthan and Delhi have used IT for
process efficiency.
! Noteworthy that online application system introduced in MP,
Bihar, Delhi & Rajasthan
! In Rajasthan for certain services (caste, domicile and birth)
certificates issued online with digital signature
• In MP and UP: where connectivity a problem, applications
accepted, verified on paper and entries made into
computer later to save time
Timeliness- Issues
• Too much time has been stipulated for
services in the RTPS Acts
! Citizens: Earlier the process was faster.
! Governments: A safety mechanism since
penalties are involved; does provide
flexibility to set better standards locally
• Delays: Very few appeals so far- MP,
Bihar and Rajasthan have reported a few
Overarching Challenges
• Overall implementation mechanisms robust
! rules framed
! process simplification on-going
! citizen awareness campaigns on-going
! capacity building on-going
• Shortages of Staff in Front-line Institutions: seems to be
nearly universal
! In urban: due to high demand for services
! In rural – vacancies not filled for years
! Staffing situation needs re-assessment
• Shortage of funds has been reported: extra costs
incurred for computer stationery; electricity supply, etc.
)%

7. !"#"$!%
Overarching Challenges
• Service Delivery staff need further capacity building
! Mindset change
• Infrastructure: Frontline institutions require more
space and better working conditions
• Service guarantee to reach the illiterate, people
living in remote areas: How to enable?
• Important that citizens understand what is
guaranteed: NOT acceptance of Application alone!
! in some cases even where citizens were not eligible,
perception was that the service was still guaranteed
Overarching Challenges
• A competitive spirit amongst states for
increasing number of services under RTPS Acts
! Good when notification of more services is well-
thought out
! Danger in playing number games
Overall Picture So Far
• States-led: Ownership Very High
• State Specific Strategies the Norm
! Notified Services – local demand-pull; supply-push
! Multi-modal Delivery: Paper and Electronic
! Choice: Punishment or Mutual Understanding
[Delhi-developing culture for timely service
delivery]
! Modes of Monitoring
! Procedures for Appeals/Complaints
• Self-generated Competitive Spirit amongst states
*%

8. !"#"$!%
Overall Picture So Far
• An enabling law for citizens rights that has
received largely positive feedback from all,
including government staff
• Pressure of service delivery on the
designated officials as more people applying
for services after learning about the
guarantee
• Change in citizen perceptions: no longer
need the services of middlemen or bribe to
get services
Thank You
#%