AIDS programme infected: ‘Bribes for contracts, dubious NGOs, political strings’

At the national level, the programme is administered by National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) while its implementation at the state level is decentralized to State AIDS Control Societies (SACS).

The programme was meant to reduce HIV rates and $72.5 million was allocated to activities like workshops and targeted interventions. Of this, 78% was carried out by NGOs who were called the “engines of the entire programme.” The review studied 76 of the 103 NGOs.

“I am not sure if the situation is as bleak as it is made out in the report. However, I will look at all findings with an open mind and start an internal inquiry. The World Bank has been involved in every step and I am surprised they have found so much fraud,” said Sujatha Rao, director, NACO, when contacted by The Indian Express.

The key findings of the Bank’s review of the AIDS programme:

• State AIDS Control Society (SACS) officials demanded and received bribes in exchange for awarding contracts and disbursing funds. Witnesses said officials required bribes of 10 to 15 per cent of the grant amount before they reimbursed NGOs for project expenditure.

• In Chhattisgarh, the Bank interviewed a prominent local politician — not named — who claimed he had been approached by several NGOs to be a middleman to facilitate bribe payments. During the interview, the politician called the director of one of the NGOs and let the DIR team listen in on the conversation. The NGO head states that he paid 25 per cent bribe to the SACS official.

• An NGO representative in Karnataka said officials would make site visits to NGOs applying for contracts. If the NGO did not comply with NACO guidelines, officials would tell the NGO that they would “arrange compliance” if the NGO was willing to pay between 25 to 30 per cent of the value of the contract.

• In Mumbai, bribes were requested and paid through the use of middlemen who approached the NGOs and offered to prepare and gain approval of grant proposals in exchange for 10 to 20 per cent of the value of the grant.

• SACS awarded contracts to non-existent NGOs, who performed no services or had no experience in HIV prevention. This despite NACO guidelines that NGOs should have an established track record in community development.

• One witness who conducted training programme for NGOs in Mumbai informed the review team that the staff of at least three NGOs that received funding were unable to describe or discuss anything regarding their projects during training sessions. In another cases, MSACS awarded several grants to an NGO when its work was planting trees and distribution of school uniform.

• In Maharashtra, when the staff visited the supposed address of an NGO, it found a large residence instead.

• Eight NGOs in Chhattisgarh that received about Rs 170,000 in funding from SACS appeared to be selected via political connections.

• Similarly in Karnataka, the Bank review found that an NGO with no experience in HIV/AIDS prevention, that was not legally registered and had no financial management structure, was selected in the state because of the director’s political connections.

• NGOs were required to submit documentation such as utilisation certificates. Instead, the review found incomplete and fraudulent reporting and accounting by NGOs to SACS offices.

• There are several examples of fraud — ranging from claims for an office that was non-existent, payment of salaries to fictitious people and claims to possess a mobile clinic when none was in place.

• In Karnataka, all accounts were incomplete or missing. In Chhattisgarh, the same individual served as training coordinator, finance officer and NGO advisor for the programme.