Probationary Period watersheds evaluation- Nalgonda by exo11713


									Assessment of Short Probation Period Achievements
 In New Watershed Programs in Nalgonda District

       A Study Commissioned by DWMA, Nalgonda

                      November, 2003

      Watershed Support Services and Activities Network
       12-13-452, Street No.1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500 017
        Ph: 040- 7015295 / 96, 7018581 email :

We sincerely acknowledge the support of PIAs, WDTs and the members from various CBOs – SHGs
and VOs in organising the study. The study team drawn from various organisations and individuals
drawn from other districts has also done a very good job with in the time constraints. Special thanks to
DWMA, Mahabubnagar for sparing the three Young Livelihoods Professionals for the study.

The study was conceptualised by WASSAN along with the DCBC team of Nalgonda DWMA, Ms.
Sharan Rabecca and Ms.Nefa in particular. The DCBC team has provided excellent support throughout
the study. Special thanks to Dr. N.K. Sanghi of MANAGE for providing critical inputs in developing
the methodology.

The job of an evaluation study always brings along with several apprehensions and hard feelings. The
complexity of a qualitative process evaluation study within a limited time and budget frame makes it
an arduous task. We could cope with all these and hoped to do our best. Request the readers/ users to
carefully study Sections 4 & 5 on the limitations of the study and How to Use the Results respectively.

We thank Sri. Kishan Das, Project Director, DWMA for his support and for commissioning this study

Poorna Chandrika
07, November, 2003.
          Evaluation of Short Probation Period Achievements in
               New Watershed Programs in Nalgonda District
                       A Study Commissioned by DWMA, Nalgonda.


With the AP Rural Livelihoods Project the DWMA, Nalgonda has been experimenting with
several process improvement measures. One among such efforts is a short probation period of
3 months for the PIAs and new watersheds.

As a part of the MOU, DPAP and PIAs have mutually agreed to achieve the outputs listed
below by the end of the third month of the project period. These outputs are detailed in a small
easy to read brochure in Telugu that DPAP has circulated. WASSAN has developed this along
with DCBC team and the Project Director. Further it was agreed that at the end of the first
quarter there would be an assessment of the process and outputs agreed upon before continuing
further. This study would form the basis for taking a decision for continuance of the PIAs and
watersheds; and also to identify any gaps that need to be filled in.

As per the MOU the PIAs are expected to achieve the following by the end of 3 months i.e.
November, 02 – January, 03).

              It is expected that about 40% of the people in the watershed know about the
               objectives of APRLP. Various communication programs are a means to achieve
              Identifying poorest of the poor and organizing them into new groups and
               strengthening at least 3 of the existing groups.
              Mobilising Shramdanam for at least two days from each household
              PIAs to establish their office with minimum facilities and update the basic

After completion of the probation period, WASSAN has taken up the study at the request of
the District Water Management Agency. The study would be used in the following ways:
             To make a decision for continuance of PIAs and watersheds
             To identify PIAs and watersheds with performance levels below the
               expectations so as to provide special inputs
             To help in identifying the capacity building needs

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                       1
Objectives of the study

          To assess the achievement of outputs expected during the probation period at the
           watershed level and at PIA level
          To suggest the areas for improvement based on the assessment


118 watersheds have been allotted to 16 NGO PIAs in four Mandals in the district. Due to
various reasons DWMA has dropped 12 watersheds from this assessment and in total 106
watersheds have been taken for assessment in this study.

Though this is mainly an external assessment, the study methodology was so designed to be
non-threatening and involve PIAs in identifying the achievements on the ground. The
methodology comprises of the following steps:


              An indicative format was developed based on the activities and outputs in the
               MOU. The PIAs were asked to send a report based on this format on the list of
               activities and outputs achieved at the watershed level and at PIA level. They are
               also asked to indicate the possible evidence on the outputs in their report which
               can be seen by the external team members in the field (see Annexure .1 for the
              An external team comprising of 12 persons who have working experience in
               watersheds and groups have been selected by WASSAN for this study.
               (Annexure- 2 for names of the study team members)
              The PIAs and watersheds are marked on the district map. The external team was
               divided into six teams of two members each. Each team was allotted 3-4 PIAs
               to be visited.
              The team members were given a one-day orientation on the study methodology
               as well as the formats by WASSAN and DCBC team. Changes suggested by
               them were incorporated into the formats to strengthen it further.

Field Exercises:
              The methodology was field-tested by the survey team, WASSAN and DCBC
               together and necessary changes were made in the formats. The final formats are
               in Annexure 3 (enclosed as a separate file).
              The initial information given by PIAs was incomplete and wasn’t according to
               the format. The external teams were therefore, asked to get the formats filled up
               by the PIA coordinator first and then visit the field to validate the information

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                       2
             External assessment team reviewed the activities and outputs by visiting the
              watershed and PIA office. The teams banked on the evidence/ facts, provided by
              the PIA in the formats and verified those in the field.
             The external team presented the filled in formats and the team’s assessment
              report indicating the strengths and the field realities for each PIA and
             Format was tabulated based on the output indicators stated in the brochure. The
              tabulated information was consolidated.

Performance Grades:

   1. There are 6 outputs against which 12 indicators were developed in all. Indicators and
      performance grades (from A to C) for each indicator were developed for the expected
      outputs. (The indicators and performance grades are in Annexure-4).
   2. Analysing the data from the tabulated datasheet, performance grades were given for
      each indicator. The performance grades are mostly based on the data given by the PIAs
      and validated by the survey team.
   3. There are more than one watershed in some villages. In such villages the village is
      considered as a unit as most of the analysis relates to the village level.
   4. Arriving at overall score for each watershed:
         a. All the grades (for the 12 indicators) are brought to one sheet
         b. The number of occurrences of A, B and C grades are counted for each
         c. The total number of indicators were counted – as information may be missing/
             incomplete on some indicators in some cases.
         d. Weightages were assigned as follows: A = 10, B=5, C=1
         e. The total score was computed by multiplying number of occurrences of A,B and
             C with respective weights.
         f. The percentage scores were calculated by dividing the total score with number
             of indicators multiplied by 10 (the maximum possible) multiplied by 100.
   5. Arriving at overall score for each PIA:
          a. The total score and total number of indicators were aggregated for all the
             watersheds implemented by a PIA
          b. The PIA-watershed score was computed as a percentage of the total score in the
             maximum possible score (ie. Total score/ (total indicators*10) x 100)
          c. The PIA table also indicates the grades under the three variables viz., office
             establishment, books and WDT turnover along with the PIA –watershed score.
   6. The grades, scoring process and methodology were developed and reviewed along with
      the DCBC team.

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                    3
The detailed tabulation and data analysis sheets are submitted in the file << Final Analysis -
Nalgonda probationary period evaluation.xls >> in the enclosed CD-ROM. The first three
worksheets present the details of the compiled grades. The Village-wise compiled Performance
grades are given in Annexure 5.

Limitations of the study:

              This is a quick extensive study taken up in about 10 days involving number of
               resource persons from other districts. All these resource persons are field
               practitioners. Though the methodology offsets any possible deficiencies, the
               field level observations are limited to the skills of the surveyors.
              There are some data gaps owing to the PIAs not filling in the data format
               completely. Data on some indicators is missing in some of the PIAs. To avoid
               any bias only those indicators for which data is available are considered for
               scoring for that PIA/ watershed.
              As the study is mainly a qualitative assessment, there would be some problems
               in interpretation at times.
              The study does not look at or analyse the reasons for the levels of performance.
              The study looked at standard processes envisaged in community organisation.
               But in some cases the PIAs might have followed different systems, which may
               be effective but would not be captured. In some other cases the PIAs may be
               very effective and occupied in doing other interesting and needful things.

However, the methodology and quality of the study is rigorous enough to offset these

How to Use the Results:

As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this assessment is to improvise the quality of the program.
The following steps are suggested:

   1. In a workshop mode the study methodology needs to be shared with all the PIAs
   2. The percentage scores may be categorized into Desirable, Acceptable and Unacceptable
      ranges for example >70%, 50 to 70% and <50% score as above categories respectively.
   3. DWMA may call for a meeting with the PIAs implementing these watersheds where
      the score is below 50%. In this meeting the following can be attempted
          a. Enlist the reasons for low performance along with the PIA
          b. Analyse these reasons for arriving at the potential for improving of the situation.
              Three situations may emerge viz.,
                   i. Performance can not be improved due to factors beyond the control of
                      the DWMA or PIA or watershed – take a decision to drop the watershed
                      or the PIA

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                       4
                   ii. Performance may be improved – redefine the probation phase and
                       provide intensive capacity building inputs.
                  iii. Performance can be improved with some capacity building inputs –
                       develop an action plan and implement the same.
    4. The spirit with which the data will be taken is important. The performance at the
       village/ watershed level is a cumulative result of
           a. efforts (or lack of it) by all secondary stakeholders i.e., PIA, DWMA, support
               organisations etc.,
           b. the situational factors with in the village that may hinder participation
           c. the policy and procedural gaps (lack of clarity, ambiguious policies etc.)
       Considering this, it may not be the PIA alone who is responsible for the state of affairs
       – whether good or bad.
    5. We suggest that DWMA take this study results as indicative, appreciate the performers
       and probe into the reasons for non-performance followed by an action plan to improve
       performance. Inevitably, some of the villages and PIAs if in the analysis prove to be
       disinterested need to be dropped.


This section makes a broad analysis of the district level aggregated and presents suggestions
for improvement if any.

1. Awareness Generation

Table 1. Indicators on awareness
S.No      Category & Indicators of       % of villages in the category
          awareness                      A        B        C     Total

A         SHG Members & VO
1         Element of focus               20      60      20     100
2         understanding             on
          contribution                   5       40      55     100
3         Understanding on the roles     29      45      25     100

B         Farmers in 50 ha
1         Element of focus               13      71      16     100
2         understanding             on
          contribution                   4       41      55     100
3         Understanding on the roles     24      49      28     100

C         Labour
1         Element of focus               11      61      29     100
2         understanding             on
          contribution                   2       39      59     100
3         Understanding on the roles     29      42      29     100

Element of focus refers to the basic understanding on the watershed program and APRLP.
Understanding on contribution refers to the quantum, mode and who has to pay contribution.

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                       5
 The understanding on roles refers to a preliminary understanding of who has to implement the
 program. Answers to the set of questions (table xx to xx in Appendix xx) in the questionnaire
 are interpreted to arrive at the performance grade under the indicators presented in Table 1.

   1. The awareness programs could achieve a relatively better preliminary understanding of
       who has to implement the program (roles) and of the focus of the program. However,
       the message was that the ‘VO would do everything’. Though this is a good
       achievement in itself, the role of others and other institutions also need to be
   2. But the awareness on who has to contribute, how much, in what mode etc., is relatively
       poor across all the groups interacted. In more than 50% of the villages sample
       respondents across all groups still feel that contribution will come from labour.
   3. Awareness on the focus of the program also need to be improved. The initial focus
       seems to be more on the SHGs and VOs.

    1. More inputs needed on improving the awareness on contribution.
    2. Awareness on the focus of the program is still not very clear and needs further
    3. More awareness inputs to labour and farmers needed (presently concentrated highly on
       SHGs and VOs). Need to re-look at the place and time of conducting the awareness
       events for enhancing the participation from labour and farmers.
    4. Next rounds of communication should also emphasise on the roles of institutions other
       than VO and farmers.

 2. Identification of Poor, organizing new groups & strengthening existing groups

 Table 2: Indicators for community organisation
  S.No   Indicator                                             % of villages in the category
                                                               %A          %B        %C      total
  1      Availability of data on the poor (Identification of
         poor)                                                 84          3         13      100
  2      New Groups Regularity of meetings                     57          5         38      100
  3      Facilitation by the PIA in strengthening new
         groups                                                15          65        20      100
  4      Strength Regularity of Meetings of SHGs               64          1         35      100
  5      Facilitation by the PIA in strengthening existing
         groups                                                12          52        36      100
  6      Representation of SHGs in the VO                      78          8         14      100
  7      Regularity of meetings of the VO                      70          8         14      100

2.1. Identification of the Poor

 Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                                  6

   1. High performance level in identifying the poor and enlisting their households. Systematic
      planning of the PRA and PSA events centrally by DCBC and taken up seriously by the
      PIAs have helped in completion of this basic task.
   2. Poor have been identified in 66 watershed villages whereas data is not available for two
      villages. In ten watershed villages the data on the poor households was not available. It is
      either because of political / social problems in the village and in some cases the
      watershed villages have been changed due to different reasons and the intimation was
      received recently and hence, the process of identification has been delayed in those


   1. Availability of the list of identified poor households is basic to APRLP. It has a direct
      implication on the formation new groups hence this needs to be followed up in about
      16% of the villages

 2.2. Formation of New Groups and strengthening existing groups:


    1. This is another area of good performance. The basic functioning of the new groups
       formed from those left out earlier has been good in about 60% of the villages.
    2. This needs to be improved in about 35-40% of the villages
    3. The facilitation from PIAs need to be improved, particularly in providing intensive
       field support.
    4. Poor facilitation from PIAs might be a reason in about 20% (new groups) and 36%
       (strengthening of existing ones) of villages for poor performance in group building. The
       exact reasons however, need to be ascertained from the PIAs with low performance


 Though, there has been a good achievement on the group building front, what systems are in
 place to continue such momentum is important – an area that needs attention while the
 program moves towards planning and implementation after the community organisation phase.

 Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                        7
    1. Field support from PIA is one area that needs improvement and it is crucial in
       sustaining the momentum of group building. Clear policy on the ‘book-keepers’/
       animators, ensuring their placement in the field and their training are important in this
    2. Since group building is a core area for APRLP, 35% of villages not having adequate
       functional groups is still a cause for concern. There should be a specific action plan for
       these villages on group strengthening and forming new groups with poor.
    3. The study has looked at the very basis of group building. There may be a second
       assessment on their overall functioning that looks critically at the regularity of savings,
       livelihood plans, rotation & repayments, maintaining books of accounts etc.

2.3. Functioning of Village Organisations from SHGs:


    1. The high performance grades reflect the efforts of teams on forming and strengthening
    2. The SHG representation is good in 78% of the villages.
    3. In 70% of the villages the meetings are very regular.


    1. Having achieved something, keeping the same momentum becomes an arduous tasks.
       DWMA should now focus on stabilizing and on establishing appropriate local support
       systems for VOs functioning.
    2. There should be an action plan for the 14 villages in which VO performance is poor,
       after due consultations with the PIAs.

3. Sharamdan

Table.3.: Indicators for shramdan
 Indicator         %A   %B   %C        Total
 Quality       &
 Utility           61   15   25        100
 Participation     41   30   29        100

  1. In majority number of villages shramadan has been taken up. In spite of clear
      instructions, in about 40% of the villages non-measurable works related to ‘cleaning’
      are taken up.
  2. Most of the shramdan was done on tank desiltation.
  3. By and large the participation is good in more than 50% villages. In about 29% villages
      the participation is poor. But there are limitations in assessing the participation levels as
      there is no way of cross-checking the data given by PIAs; to this extent the analysis
      may not capture the reality.

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                         8
    4. Most of the relevant groups have participated in the shramdan – those missing are the
       rich and employees.

   1. As shramdan is an indicator of people’s commitment towards the program, the same
      need to be ascertained in about 40% of the villages where it may not be done properly.
   2. It is more important in the 25% villages where shramdan has not been done. DWMA
      should assess the level of preparedness in these villages and take a decision; else, these
      villages may prove to be a drag on the program later on.

4. Overall Village Level Performance:
The following table presents the overall percentage scores of each village and aggregated
village scores of each PIA.

Table. 4. : Percentage scores of villages
 Total Percentage Grade           Number          of Number of PIAs
                                  villages           in different grades
 >70%               A             11 (13%)           3 (17%)
 >50 to < 70%       B             51 (59%)           4 (22%)
 < 50               C             24 (28%)           11 (61%)

If the above classification is adopted (>70% as A grade, 50 to 70% score as B and <50% as C)
there are about 13%, 59% and 28% villages in A, B and C grades respectively. In about 61% of
the PIAs the aggregate scores are poor. The DWMA may assess the appropriate ranges of
scores for the above grading and reinterpret the results if necessary.

5. Ranking of PIAs

PIAs were ranked based on two sets of indicators viz., the aggregated scores of their watershed
villages and the other set having three indicators -WDT turnover, maintenance of records and
establishing office systems. These are taken from the expected outputs as indicated in the
initial MOU. Following Table presents the PIA-wise grades for the two sets of indicators.

Table.5.: Ranking of PIAs
                                                                   Grading based on
         Name    of   the Proper           WDT      Aggregated
Sl.No.                             Books                           aggregated
         PIA              office           Turnover percentage
                                                                   percentage (column 6)
1        2               3         4       5          6            7

         Jana   Jagruthi
1                        A         B       C          57.77        B

2        PASS            A         A       B          61.67        B
3        ATF             A         A       A          44.28        C
4        SARP            A         B       B          72.22        A
5        SEERD           B         A       A          74           A

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                       9
                                                                     Grading based on
         Name    of     the Proper           WDT      Aggregated
Sl.No.                               Books                           aggregated
         PIA                office           Turnover percentage
                                                                     percentage (column 6)

6        HOMOSAPIENS A               B       B         32.63

         GREEN CROSS
7                    A               A       A         54.44

8        GREEN CROSS A               A       A         57.79
9        ADARSHA              A      A       A         46.57         C
10       ANKITA               A      B       A         60            B
11       SHARRP               B      B       A         35.41         C
12       SWEET                B      B       B         57.55         B
13       WHAT                 B      B       B         58.55         B
14       MIWD                 B      B       B         55.27         B
         Abbas        Youth
15                            A      B       B         56.66         B
16       VAIBHAV              A      B       A         64.72         B
17       SHARP                A      B       B         70.55         A
18       CYA                  A      B       A         69.4          B
19                            A      A       B         0             Not studied
         Youth Club

Maintenance of books, facilities in the PIA office and WDT turnover have been taken
independently since these need to be addressed separately. Overall scores are not computed for
each PIA.

It is important to reiterate the spirit with which the above analysis is taken. These study results
should be taken as indicative and as a basis for probing deeper into the reasons. The short
timeframe and qualitative interpretation would impose constraints and qualifications on the
results. We suggest that the DWMA should use these results to appreciate the performers and
probe into the reasons for non-performance followed by an action plan to improve
performance. Inevitably, some of the villages and PIAs if in the analysis prove to be
disinterested need to be dropped.

6. Issues and Concerns Raised by PIAs:

The survey has also briefly touched upon the issues and concerns as expressed by the PIAs.
The following is the inventory:

Administration/ Project Management Related:
           Need for increase in the WDT salaries, particularly that of technical persons
           Support for an accountant and office infrastructure
           Need for PIA coordinators’ honorarium as the work is consuming full time
           Need for training in project management and office systems

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                        10
              Allotting other watersheds in place of those stopped due to several reasons (in
               one PIA)
              Sudden calls for meetings disrupting the programs
              Burden on WDT as the team is also managing the accounts

Capacity Building Related:
           More and frequent trainings needed
           Improving WDT’s understanding on APRLP
           Training on records (PIA level and watershed level)
           Trainings to Sangabandham leaders & farmers
           Trainings on low cost structures & accounts
           Training programs could not be taken up as per the capacity building calendar
              due to constraints at DWMA level
           Communication problems regarding training workbooks

          women social mobilisers and Animators should be recruited as early as possible
             as there is need to strengthening SHGs.
          SHGs should be supplied with Books of accounts at the earliest
          Political interference hindering the processes

The external study team also stressed the urgent need for finalising records/ books of accounts
for SHGs, VOs and training on the same.

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                     11
ANNEXURE -1: Format to be filled in by the PIAs before the study

The PIAs need to provide the following details:

Name of the PIA :                                    Mandal:

Watershed Name :
       Areas                                 Output                          Remarks
       Poor identified                       List of poor households
       New groups promoted                   List of new groups formed
                                             (the best 4 groups) -&
                                             Functioning of these groups
                                             as per PSA chart
        Group strengthening                  List of groups taken up for
                                             strengthening (3 groups) &
                                             Functioning of these groups
                                             as per PSA chart – before
                                             and after
        Awareness generation                   List    of activities in     The team will
                                                awareness campaign           interview people
                                               Communication message        randomly to know
                                                in each activity             about           the
                                                                             coverage       and
                                                                             extent          the
                                                                             message        has
        Shramdan                               Copy of the (pages in)       Team will assess
                                                Shramdan register with         the coverage
                                                list     of     households      of households
                                                participated & days of         quality of work
                                                labour of each household,      ownership
        Data collection                        Indicate the subjects on
                                                which data is generated

At PIA Level:
Name of the PIA:                            PIA Coordinator Name:
       Areas                                 Outputs                      Remarks
1      PIA Office                             Office address
                                              Rented/ owned/ others – if
                                               rented name of the house
                                              Facilities available
2       PIA Team                              Name       of    the   PIA
                                               coordinator              –
                                               qualifications/ background
                                              Names of the WDT

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                    12
        Areas                               Outputs                         Remarks
                                              members        &        their
3       Books/ records maintained            Audit reports for the last 3
                                              years –available (yes/no)
                                             List of books maintained
4       capacity building Support from       List the capacity building
        DPAP                                  support received from
                                              DPAP and their –a) utility
                                              b) timeliness c) quality

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                13
ANNEXURE 2: Field Survey Team:

S.No.    Name                      Organisation       District
1.       Neelima                   Freelancer         Kurnool
2.       Vijaya                    Freelancer         Hyderabad
3.       Jaya                      WASSAN             Ranga Reddy
4.       Balaiah                   YLP, DWMA          Mahabubnagar
5        Gangadhar                 SIDS               Nizamabad
6.       Shanker                                      Nizamabad
7.       Parmesh                                      Mahabubnagar
8.       Narsimhulu                                   Mahabubnagar
9.       Satish                    YLP, DWMA          Mahabubnagar
10.      Srinivasulu                                  Anantapur
11       Rajesh                    YLP, DWMA          Mahabubnagar
12.      Basawaraj                                    Mahabubnagar

The above team was accompanaid by …

Study Coordinated by : Poorna Chandrika & Janaki Ram, WASSAN

Field Testing the Data Format : at ANKITA- Ravi and the WDTs of Ankita, Mythili,
Prasanti & Chandrika from WASSAN, Sharan Rabecca and Nefa from DCBC team.

Orientation to Study Team: Jointly organized by WASSAN and DCBC team

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                       14
Annexure – 3 : Indicators and Performance Grades

       Area                   Indicator                    Performance Level                     Grade

                                                           Know clearly about watersheds         A
                                  1. Understanding on
                                     watershed        Not clear about watersheds                 B

                                                           Vague                                 C

                                                           Shramdanam        and     financial
       Perceptions of the                                                                        A
       SHG     members,           2. Understanding on
       Farmers       and             contribution     Only Shramdanam/               financial
1.                                                                                               B
       Labour      group                              contribution
       about watershed
                                                           Collecting from labour                C

                                  3. Clarity on       the Total village                          A
                                     roles              in
                                                           Only       community          based
                                     watershed                                                   B
                                                           Not clear/vague                       C

                                                           Identified and data available         A
       Identification    of
2.     Poorest of       the 1. Availability of data        Identified and data not available     B
                                                           Identification not done               C

                                                           Two meetings in the last two
                                                           One meeting in the last two
                              1. Regularity of meetings                                B

       Formation of new                                    None in the last two months           C

                                                           Trainings and field support           A
                              2. Facilitation by the PIA
                                                           Only trainings                        B
                                                           None                                  C

                                                           3/3 meetings (all 3 meetings
                              1. Regularity of meetings                                 A
       Strengthening     of                                conducted)
       the groups                                          2/3 meetings (only 2)        B
                                                           1/3 meetings (only 1)        C

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                                   15
       Area                Indicator                          Performance Level                   Grade

                                                              Trainings and field support         A
                           2. Facilitation by the PIA
                                                              Only trainings                      B
                                                              None                                C

                           1. Regularity of meetings 2/2 meetings                                 A
                                                     1/2 meetings                                 B
                                                     None                                         C
       Organisations                                          Above 50%                           A
                           2. Representation             of
                                                              40- 50%                             B
                                                              Less than 40%                       C

                                                              Works         related          to
                           1. Quality and Utility                                                 A
                                                              watersheds/natural resources

                                                              Work related to cleaning            B
6.     Shramdanam                                             None                                C

                           2. Participation                   Above 150 households                A
                                                              50-149 households                   B
                                                              Less than 50 households             C
                                                              office building, meeting hall and
       PIA                 1. Facilities in the office                                          A

                                                              Office building without amenities B

                                                              No Office                           C

                                                              Audit reports, cash book, ledger,
                           2. Maintenance of books                                              A
                                                              WDT works register

                                                              Cash book, ledger, audit reports B

                                                              Audit reports                       C

                           3. WDT turnover                    None                                A
                                                              one                                 B
                                                              two or more                         C

                           For arriving at grades for groups - 3 groups are analysed. The score for
       Rating for groups   overall groups is arrived at taking the rank of any two occurrences. For
                           eg., a,a, b is considered as ‘a’ and b,b,c is taken as b

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                                    16
Annexure : 4 Compiled Village/ Watershed-wise Performance Grades

                                                                                             Total                     Village
                                 No.of                                                       No. of                    level   %
                                 waters                          Count     Count     Count   Indicat           %       aggregate
 S.NO.        Name of the PIA    heds     Name of the village    A         B         C       ors       Score   Score   d Score
                                                                  (score    (Score   (Scor
                                                                 10)       5)        e 1)
              Jana    Jagruthi
1             Sangham            1        Namatpally             7         8         3       18        113     62.78   57.78
              Jana    Jagruthi
2             Sangham            1        Nandanam               5         9         4       18        99      55.00
              Jana    Jagruthi
3             Sangham            1        Nagireddypalem         6         7         5       18        100     55.56
4             PASS               1        Singaram               9         6         3       18        123     68.33   61.67
5             PASS               1        Jala                   8         6         4       18        114     63.33
6             PASS               1        Bondugula              8         4         6       18        106     58.89
7             PASS               1        Kurraram               6         7         5       18        100     55.56
8             PASS               1                               6         10        2       18        112     62.22
                                          Cherla       Thanda,
9             ATF                1        Neredugomma            6         3         5       14        80      57.14   44.29
10            ATF                1        Chandampet             3         4         8       15        58      38.67
11            ATF                1        village                3         3         9       15        54      36.00
12            ATF                1        Padamati thanda        5         5         8       18        83      46.11
13            ATF                1        Pandirigundu thanda    3         6         6       15        66      44.00
14            SEERD              1        Kotamarthi             8         6         1       15        111     74.00   74.00
15            SEERD              1        Addagudoor             8         6         1       15        111     74.00
16            HOMOSAPIENS        1        (hamlet).              0         0         18      18        18      10.00   32.64
17            HOMOSAPIENS        1        Tunikinutala           2         3         10      15        45      30.00
18            HOMOSAPIENS        1        Nellikal -1            2         2         5       9         35      38.89
19            HOMOSAPIENS        3        Nellikal-2       (PG   3         5         7       15        62      41.33

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                   17
                                                                                         Total                     Village
                                 No.of                                                   No. of                    level   %
                                 waters                          Count   Count   Count   Indicat           %       aggregate
 S.NO.        Name of the PIA    heds     Name of the village    A       B       C       ors       Score   Score   d Score
20            HOMOSAPIENS        3        thanda)                4       6       5       15        75      50.00
              GREEN CROSS
21            SOCIETY            1        Peddamula              4       8       6       18        86      47.78   54.44
              GREEN CROSS                 Chithriyala (Buddoni
22            SOCIETY            1        thanda)                5       5       8       18        83      46.11
              GREEN CROSS
23            SOCIETY            2        Chithriyala            7       11      0       18        125     69.44
24            GREEN CROSS        1        Achampent Patti        4       9       5       18        90      50.00   57.79
25            GREEN CROSS        2        Megavat tanda          5       8       5       18        95      52.78
26            GREEN CROSS        1        Kothapalli             8       7       3       18        118     65.56
27            GREEN CROSS        1        Mududandla             4       11      3       18        98      54.44
28            GREEN CROSS        1        Bollaram               6       7       1       14        96      68.57
29            ADARSHA            1        Inupamula              5       8       5       18        95      52.78   46.57
30            ADARSHA            1        Kondakindigudem        7       3       8       18        93      51.67
31            ADARSHA            1        Bandapalem             6       3       9       18        84      46.67
32            ADARSHA            1        Impalagudem            3       11      4       18        89      49.44
33            ADARSHA            1        Korlapahad             6       0       10      16        70      43.75
34            ADARSHA            1        colony                 5       1       10      16        65      40.63
35            ADARSHA            2        Gudivada-1&2           4       7       7       18        82      45.56
36            ADARSHA            1        Rayapoor               4       5       9       18        74      41.11
37            ANKITA             2        Bommakal               5       8       5       18        95      52.78   60.00
38            ANKITA             2        Chirumarthy            4       10      4       18        94      52.22
39            ANKITA             3        Agamothkur             9       9       0       18        135     75.00
40            SHARRP             1        Kadilabavi             4       10      4       18        94      52.22   35.42
41            SHARRP             1        Rachakonda             1       7       10      18        55      30.56
42            SHARRP             1        Thumbai Thanda         2       7       9       18        64      35.56
43            SHARRP             1        IDU Donala Tanda       0       6       12      18        42      23.33

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                               18
                                                                                        Total                     Village
                                 No.of                                                  No. of                    level   %
                                 waters                         Count   Count   Count   Indicat           %       aggregate
 S.NO.        Name of the PIA    heds     Name of the village   A       B       C       ors       Score   Score   d Score
44            SWEET              1        Gudi Malkapur         9       4       5       18        115     63.89   57.56
45            SWEET              1        Gujja                 7       6       5       18        105     58.33
46            SWEET              1        Kotuklapuram.         8       5       5       18        110     61.11
47            SWEET              1        Chimiryala            9       3       6       18        111     61.67
48            SWEET              2        Puttapaka             3       8       7       18        77      42.78
50            WHAT               1        Repala-2              10      4       4       18        124     68.89   56.22
49            WHAT               1        Repala-1              8       6       4       18        114     63.33
51            WHAT               1        Madhavaram            5       7       6       18        91      50.56
52            WHAT               1        Neelamarri            6       7       5       18        100     55.56
53            WHAT               2        Narasimhuluguda       8       2       8       18        98      54.44
54            MIWD               1        Anojipuram            9       5       4       18        119     66.11   55.28
55            MIWD               2        Anantharam            8       4       6       18        106     58.89
56            MIWD               2        Dharmapuram.          9       7       2       18        127     70.56
57            MIWD               1        Bhagkalapuram.        5       6       7       18        87      48.33
58            MIWD               1        Mukundapuram.         4       1       13      18        58      32.22
59            MIWD               1        Sungareddy Palem      6       7       5       18        100     55.56
60            Abbas Youth Club   1        Chintala Palem.       7       8       3       18        113     62.78   56.67
61            Abbas Youth Club   1        Chintala Palem.       7       6       5       18        105     58.33
62            Abbas Youth Club   1        Thimmai Palem.        8       7       3       18        118     65.56
                                          Nayakuni Thanda /
63            Abbas Youth Club   1        Chintalapalem.        11      4       3       18        133     73.89
                                          Nummanayak Tanda
64            Abbas Youth Club   1        / Chalakurthy         5       2       11      18        71      39.44
65            Abbas Youth Club   1        Chalakurthy           2       2       8       12        38      31.67
66            VAIBHAV            3        Akkanna Pally         8       4       6       18        106     58.89   64.72
67            VAIBHAV            1        Chinna Thummala       10      3       5       18        120     66.67
68            VAIBHAV            2        A.P Lingotam.         10      7       1       18        136     75.56
69            VAIBHAV            3        B.Vellamla            6       8       4       18        104     57.78
70            CYA                1        Mamidala              10      7       1       18        136     75.56   69.44
71            CYA                1        Bandla Palli          6       8       4       18        104     57.78
72            CYA                2        Valishala             10      7       1       18        136     75.56

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                              19
                                                                                           Total                     Village
                                 No.of                                                     No. of                    level   %
                                 waters                            Count   Count   Count   Indicat           %       aggregate
 S.NO.        Name of the PIA    heds     Name of the village      A       B       C       ors       Score   Score   d Score
73            CYA                1        Malipuram.               10      4       4       18        124     68.89
74            SHARP              2        Maripadaga               9       9       0       18        135     75.00   70.56
75            SHARP              1        Gangapuram.              9       8       1       18        131     72.78
76            SHARP              2        Masan Palli              5       13      0       18        115     63.89
77            SARP               4        Thonda                   8       10      0       18        130     72.22   72.22
78            Youth Club         1        Kacharajupally           0       0       0       0
79            Youth Club         2        Peddamunagala            0       0       0       0

                                                                ** ** **

Probation Period Assessment Study – DWMA, Nalgonda                                 20

To top