Q1

What kind of information is collected ?

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Livelihoods Resource Centers are not just training centers. These centers provide numerous capacity building services including information services. For doing this, it is important to collect information on related themes and make them available to the users. This agenda also helps to improve the image of the resource centers, among its clients. The staff at resource centers could engage in several action research studies to generate information related to their field of operation. The compiled resource material and processes information should be made available to user in the resource centers. These are essential activities for making these resource centers a vibrant support system to the development process in the neighborhood.

• The diversity of themes on which information is collected has a wide range. The NGO anchored CLRCS have much longer list of themes on which information is collected (36 themes) while the NGO anchored DRCS have the lowest number of themes on which information is collected (9). The CLRC have a large compilation of information compared to that of DLRC. The Independent Resource Organizations have collected information on several themes, which are relevant to their clients (such as list of training programs, service providers and so on). All D CLRC have basic details of watershed projects attached to their center (except in one case). These centers also compiled details of programs of several line departments (as many as 31 themes) and programs of Rural Development (23 themes). Themes like SRI Paddy cultivation, NPM practices are some of the themes on which basic information is available in all centers. In case of Independent Resource Organizations and NGO anchored D LRCS, information about the programs that they are engaged are also available at these centers.

• Similarly, each center collected capacity building modules from different sources. The list of themes on which modules are available at these centers is a long one (34 themes all put together). Majority of these themes revolve around programs of Commissionerate, Rural Development (Watershed Projects, CLDP, AP REGS and so on). Other themes relate to forestry, thrift and credit, institution development, health, globalization and so on. The main agenda of anchor organization also influenced this collection of modules. The NGO anchored LRCS and Independent Resource Organizations have largest compilation of modules (24 and 23 Themes respectively), while the DLRC have lowest number of themes (11 Themes). The NGO anchored D CLRCs have collected much higher number of modules, compared to DWMA anchored D CLRCs. This is a clear indicator, which shows what are the advantages of partnership between GO and NGO for the ultimate benefit of the community.

• NGO CLRC and Independent Resource Organizations have accessed more number of sources to collect modules compared to any other resource centers (13 and 11 respectively). This indicates the flexibility and out reach these centers have in mobilizing knowledge resources. Both NGO and GO DLRC have accessed equal number of sources for modules (8 nos). The line departments and several resource organizations provided large number of modules (16 and 15 respectively). But most these material are in the form of resource material, not in the form of a module. The modules of watershed and related themes are largely collected from WASSAN (10 Nos) and APARD (6 Nos). Modules on other themes (institution development and so on) produced by IKP and APMAS are accessed by LRC. Role of DCBC seems to be minimum in this regard.

• Engagement of D LRCs in knowledge generation process has variety of experiences. About 36% of centers did not engage in this process at all. These are largely from DWMA anchored centers (80% of such centers, which are not engaged in this process). The district level teams are completely out of this agenda, which is an important requirement of a resource centers. These teams are engaged in all sorts of administrative aspects of several other projects of DWMA. This is a gross waste and misuse of human resources. In case of NGO Anchored CLRS, the anchor organization is involved in several studies (64% of total number of centers). But CLRC teams are involved only 36% cases. In remaining 29% cases, CLRC teams are not involved in the process of knowledge generation, even when the anchor NGO is engaged with the agenda. It is important to find out ways and means of engaging the D CLRCs in knowledge generation processes apart from knowledge dissemination processes.

• The resource material (in the form of audio visual material, library and so on) at Resource Centers is an important indicator of its functionality. It is interesting to see that the majority of NGO anchored centers at district and cluster level these facilities. When the material is available, there are several users of these resource material/ library. Mainly course director, resource persons, interested participants dominate this list. The associated PFA and other institutions need to find interest in the services at the center including library services. However, in case of DWMA anchored DLRC, these efforts are not made. There is no collection of resource material or a library. This could be linked to the infrastructure related problems at district level.