With the plethora of schemes doing the rounds, wouldn’t it be simpler if we could refer to the whole enterprise of making schemes as “scheme-ing”. Consider this –  the enviable act of making schemes could be termed scheme-ing, the people who engage in scheme-ing and those with the covetous role of implementing the schemes could be jointly consecrated as scheme-ers, while the people with the not so desirable task of analyzing schemes could be labelled scheme analysts.  Sounds about right?  I shall assume you agree with me and hasten forward to share some real life examples of how it all pans out in practice.

Last week a colleague and I sat down to do some ‘scheme analysis’, of  the Prime Ministers New 15 Point Programme. The scheme-ing of the scheme as the name suggests was done by the Central Government in response to the Sachar Committee Report ,  which pointed out that despite the various programmes, minorities continue to lag behind the general population on most indicators. Those enjoined as the scheme-ers of the plan were the state and district administrations who as per the plan were required to, 1) make a Multi Sectoral Plan Development Plan (MSDP) in minority concentrated districts (MCD’s) to improve the status of minorities and bring them at par with the national average, 2) Earmark 15% of total outlays in central government schemes for minorities and locate a certain proportion of projects in minority concentrated districts (MCD’s).

In a nutshell then; a report is released, the government responds with alacrity and a new scheme is born, which seems to (at least in theory) address the problem.  Sounds fairly simple? As keen ‘scheme analysts’ however we were not to be dissuaded so easily,  we were convinced scheme-ing was a more complicated exercise. The scheme-ers of the fifteen point programme were also of the same opinion. In their attempt to ensure that the programme remain a pan Indian exercise rather than specifically target minorities, the guidelines of the MSDP specify that interventions proposed under the plan should be limited to only those which are infrastructure oriented. Thus in a certain sense, the MSDP attempted to address the development deficits of minorities which are not being met through existing programmes, by proposing infrastructure projects which apply to the population as a whole rather than adopting a targeted approach.

Having discovered the first caveat, we probed further and tried to understand how the programme had been implemented at the ground level and whether it had been successful in achieving its desired impact. Time constraints however impelled us to analyze the plan in only one district- Darbhanga in Bihar and focus our analysis on one particular sector- elementary education.  After spending several days, gleaning through two reports, the Annual work plan of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and MSDP of Darbhanga District we discovered that the scheme which had been introduced to address minority specific concerns was riddled with several limitations, principal amongst these were:

a) Lack of effective targeting of minorities: Muslim girls appear to benefit less from hostel facilities (Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalay (KGBV’s) in comparison to girls from SC and ST backgrounds.  In 2009-10, the total enrolment in KGBV’s in the district was 1370, of which SC’s account for 602 (44%), while the representation of ST’s was 404 (29%) and that of Muslims was as low as 364 (27%).

b) Inability to match interventions with needs on the ground: The MSDP identifies lack of infrastructure facilities in schools as one of the primary reasons contributing towards high rates of drop outs. In response to this issue, the annual work plan proposes the construction of new primary school building and construction of additional classrooms. Such proposals however appear to be incommensurate with needs at the ground level on two counts. One, amongst the various infrastructure facilities missing in schools the plan prioritizes the construction of a school building which is lacking only in 12% of primary schools as opposed to facilities such as toilets and boundary wall which are missing in a larger number of schools. Second, though the plan does not specify the kinds of facilities which are insufficient and are contributing to children dropping out of school, it nevertheless prioritizes two types of interventions which in the absence of such information may be disproportionate.

c) Ineffective achievement in physical/ financial targets: Despite this excessive focus on infrastructure to address minority specific deficits, progress on the ground, even towards fulfilling these targets is slow. Out of the total approved outlay of Rs 706 lakh for establishing KGBV’s in Darbhanga district for 2009-10, only 28% of the funds were utilized as on 31^st January 2010. The physical target for the construction of new Madras’s for financial year 2009-10 in Darbhanga was 5,942 and financial target was Rs. 91.21 lakh. Till January 31st 2010, neither the physical nor financial targets were achieved. Measures to provide teaching Urdu is another example. In Darbhanga district however, while a total of 1214 Urdu teachers were sanctioned till 2006, only 855 (equivalent to 70% of the target) were appointed till 2006. In 2008-09, of the sanctioned 527 post, only 52 Urdu teachers were appointed (10%). Since 2008, no new teachers have been recruited.

In conclusion then, scheme-ing is a confounding exercise for both the schemer-s and scheme analysts. Schemes such as the new fifteen point programme try to solve the problem by means which they themselves recognize is the cause of the problem in the first instance.

 Gayatri Sahgal is a Research Analyst with the Accountability Initiative.