|
Status
Report of ALMs in Mumbai
Period of Study:
1st to 10th April 2006
Prepared
by
DOCC Team, S. P. Jain Institute
of Management & Research, Mumbai
Ashwini Kanade, Deepanand G C, Prachi Patnaik, Santosh Dwivedi
Introduction:
The
Charter for Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) – Local
Area Citizens Group (LACG) Partnership-2006 has come into effect
from 1st April 2006 and for the next two months citizens
/ citizen groups are invited to come together to form LACGs for
their respective areas.
One
of the key objectives of the Charter is to establish an institutionalized
mechanism with the MCGM to resolve various civic issues. Citizens
who become part of LACGs should have the required capabilities and
the ‘right’ attitude of welfare of the society as their foremost
concern. Thus existing ALMs, already involved in cleanliness drive
and other civic issues in their area, may presently be the most
appropriate groups to start with. In our study, we collected the
list of ALMs from MCGM, contacted them personally to verify their
contact details and to inform them about the LACG concept. The list
had 648 ALMs across 24 wards of Mumbai.
In
the course of our study, it was apparent that the available list
of ALM was anything but representative of Mumbai as a whole. Furthermore,
the list itself was not complete with respect to the contact details.
The
Data Speaks!
The
findings and observations are summarised below (Refer Table-1):
1.
The MCGM
list does not include the contact numbers for 35% of the listed
ALMs.
2.
25% of the
entire available contact numbers were incorrect as indicated by
the column “Telephone number does not exist/Wrong no.”
3.
We could
finally contact only 26% ALMs across various wards
4.
Around 50%
of the ALMs that we could contact had e-mail ids. This translates
to a low 13% of the total number of listed ALMs. Moreover such ALMs
are more concentrated in K (West) ward.
Table
1 – Summary Status of ALMs
(as on 11th April 2006)
Admin Ward
|
Number
of Councillor Wards
|
Total
Number of ALMs
(A=B+F)
|
Could
Contact
(B)
|
Phone
no. not available
(C)
|
No
answer
(D)
|
Phone
no. does not exist/ Wrong no.
(E)
|
Couldn't
contact
(F=C+D+E)
|
Email
id available
(G)
|
A
|
4
|
47
|
5
|
25
|
12
|
5
|
41
|
2
|
|
B
|
3
|
11
|
2
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
9
|
1
|
|
C
|
4
|
20
|
2
|
10
|
1
|
7
|
18
|
0
|
|
D
|
9
|
35
|
10
|
7
|
7
|
11
|
25
|
11
|
|
E
|
9
|
12
|
4
|
0
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
2
|
|
F-South
|
9
|
16
|
2
|
8
|
4
|
2
|
14
|
1
|
|
F-North
|
10
|
59
|
13
|
22
|
10
|
14
|
46
|
2
|
|
G-South
|
12
|
22
|
1
|
18
|
1
|
2
|
22
|
0
|
|
G-North
|
13
|
23
|
10
|
13
|
0
|
0
|
13
|
5
|
|
H-East
|
11
|
14
|
7
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
7
|
1
|
|
H-West
|
8
|
56
|
24
|
12
|
9
|
11
|
32
|
7
|
|
K-East
|
15
|
19
|
5
|
2
|
3
|
9
|
14
|
2
|
|
K-West
|
13
|
63
|
25
|
9
|
12
|
17
|
38
|
24
|
|
L
|
14
|
5
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
|
M-West
|
8
|
19
|
5
|
0
|
6
|
8
|
14
|
0
|
|
M-East
|
11
|
25
|
16
|
0
|
1
|
8
|
9
|
6
|
|
N
|
12
|
65
|
16
|
18
|
3
|
28
|
49
|
11
|
|
P-South
|
8
|
12
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
11
|
0
|
|
P-North
|
15
|
24
|
2
|
18
|
2
|
2
|
22
|
0
|
|
R-Central
|
9
|
13
|
3
|
9
|
1
|
0
|
10
|
1
|
|
R-North
|
6
|
10
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
5
|
8
|
0
|
|
R-South
|
8
|
27
|
7
|
6
|
4
|
10
|
20
|
4
|
|
S
|
13
|
32
|
2
|
26
|
1
|
3
|
30
|
1
|
|
T
|
7
|
19
|
4
|
7
|
3
|
5
|
15
|
2
|
Total=24
|
227
|
648
|
168
|
228
|
93
|
159
|
480
|
83
|
Percentage
|
|
100%
|
26%
|
35%
|
14%
|
25%
|
74%
|
13%
|
Experiences and
Conclusions
- Absence
of Contact Details
In
the absence of complete and accurate contact details of several
ALMs, disseminating information or carrying out new initiatives
for disaster management, etc. will be extremely difficult for MCGM.
Many
of the active ALMs do not have emails ids, which might be a constraint
towards effective communication speed in future.
- Functioning
of ALMs
Approximately
half of the ALMs contacted (168 nos.) informed that they are functional
in their area and implementing cleanliness related activities.
Some
of the ALMs stated that only one or two individuals are active in
their ALMs.
- Coordination
with BMC
In
certain areas, e.g. A-Ward, citizens are satisfied with the MCGM’s
response towards their civic needs. However, ALM members also mentioned
that the existing LACC meetings are neither regular nor effective.
- Declining
interest in ALM activities
Some
of those contacted were senior citizens and housewives who mentioned
that they are no longer interested in ALM activities due to reasons
of health, lack of time or disinterest shown by other members.
- Alarming
trend across ALMs
Few
of the individuals are no longer part of the ALM or don’t want to
be associated with ALMs and therefore wanted their contacts to be
removed from the list! Some of them even mentioned that they are
unaware of any such ALM and somebody might have put their name by
mistake! (It seems that people doing composting and segregation
of garbage has been made an ALM in the MCGM list.)
- Response
to the LACG concept
Most
people were receptive to the LACG concept and expressed their willingness
to support and become part of this drive.
Some
people although interested, expressed their difficulty in garnering
adequate support from others within the locality.
Some
Wards, e.g. N-Ward, have some key members who pioneered the ALMs
in their locality. Although receptive to the new concept of LACG,
these people were apprehensive of the MCGM’s support even in the
new system.
Disclaimer:
This exercise was carried out on weekdays, during office hours by
contacting ALM representatives at the numbers available in the ALM
list with MCGM. However, we do realize that there may be some contact
persons, who were not available at the time and hence could not
be counted in the list. Such cases have been categorized as “No
Answer”.
|
