This report analyses education resourcing in Himachal Pradesh; and examines fund flows, entitlements, infrastructure and governance of schools in Kangra.
Publication Type: Reports
PAISA District Study: Maharashtra
This report analyses education resourcing in Maharashtra; and examines fund flows, entitlements, infrastructure and governance of schools in Satara.
PAISA District Study: Madhya Pradesh
This report analyses education resourcing in Madhya Pradesh; and examines fund flows, entitlements, infrastructure and governance of schools in Sagar
PAISA District Study: Rajasthan
This report analyses education resourcing in Rajasthan; and examines fund flows, entitlements, infrastructure and governance of schools in Jaipur and Udaipur.
Rural Local Body Core Functions and Finances
In 2013-14, Accountability Initiative(AI) was tasked by the Fourteenth Central 14th Finance Commission (FFC) to examine several aspects of the structure of devolution of powers, responsibilities and finances by states to rural local bodies (RLBs), based on the data provided by them to the FFC. Our study covered all decentralization models, namely, the panchayat system, the extension of the panchayat system to the 5th Scheduled Areas, Autonomous District Councils under the Sixth Schedule and other state specific arrangements.
While ascertaining the status of actual devolution of tasks and responsibilities relating to the basic civic functions of water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, drainage, roads, streetlights, community assets such as parks, burial and cremation grounds, and other means of communication such as waterways to rural local bodies, it was discovered that most states had legally endowed village level RLBs such as Gram Panchayats with regulatory and implementation powers to provide core public services. However, wide variations existed between states in the range of powers devolved upon intermediate and district level RLBs, with some states narrowing their ambit to merely undertake planning or providing advice.
The report analyses the fiscal transfers from states to RLBs by studying the frameworks governing them, and assesses the strength of the systems of public financial accountability applicable to RLBs. It particularly looks at whether states subsumed earlier Central Finance Commission grants into their own state level transfers or treated these as additional grants; an important input for the FFC. Trends, performance and efficiency of all RLB revenue sources (Tax and non-tax revenues, and transfers from State and Central governments) were analysed by looking at the financial flow data provided by states. Trends of expenditure incurred by RLBs on core functions-were covered in detail in the study of their finances.
The study was hampered by inconsistent and incomplete data received from states, in spite of follow ups alongside the FFC staff. Though the researchers attempted to check the data for consistency and normalize it, in the case of some states, regular procedures could not be followed and the data considered the most consistent was studied.
The report estimates the gap in resources for delivering core services by RLBs for 2015-2020, using benchmarks set by the state and the union Government. It ends with AI’s suggestions on strategy options, including tax and non-tax measures, for bridging the gap between core function expenditure needs and available revenues. The suggestions include that a greater proportion of central grants and shares of buoyant state and central revenues ought to be provided to RLBs, so that they can close the fiscal gap and provide local core services that meet benchmarked standards. Concurrently, local revenue collection must be incentivised. In particular, property taxes remain largely untapped by RLBs.
AI’s report was a critical input that was relied upon by the FFC to recommend increasing the amounts allocated to local governments from the divisible pool of taxes from Rs. 86161 crore to Rs. 287436 crore, an increase of 234 percent over the grants recommended by the 13th FC. This amounts to a 344 percent increase in the allocation of basic grants, from Rs. 56335 crore to Rs. 249978 crore. In the case of performance grants, which, as a proportion of the total grants has been brought down to 10 percent and 20 percent in the case of rural local governments and urban local governments respectively, the increase is relatively modest; from Rs. 29826 crore to Rs. 37458 crore. All in all, this amounts to an increase in the FFC grant to local governments, from 2.28 percent to 4 percent of the central divisible pool of taxes. This is big money, translating at the Gram Panchayat level for instance, to an increase from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs per year, depending upon the size of the Panchayat concerned.
How Much Does India Spend Per Student on Education?
Recent years have seen significant changes in the landscape of elementary education (EE) in India. Yet, updated estimates on public and private expenditure on EE are not available. This paper fills the gap by providing a methodology and estimates of per student public expenditure on children enrolled in government schools, and per student private expenditure on children enrolled in private unaided schools, for major states in India for the year 2011-12. The paper also provides estimates of total (public and private) expenditure on EE.
Our findings indicate that India spent 1.75% of the GDP (centre and states combined) on EE, while private expenditure was at least 0.71% of the GDP in 2011-12. Richer states spent less on EE as a % of their GDP but more in terms of absolute amounts, compared to the poorer states. Preliminary analysis indicates a strong relationship between per student public expenditure and learning levels. But this does not mean that more expenditure is needed to improve learning levels because government expenditure on EE is highly inefficient. It produces low levels of outcomes at high expenditure.
Changing this requires prioritising learning outcomes and demanding accountability toward learning outcomes from all officials, above everything else.
Do Schools Get their Money? PAISA 2012
Between October and November 2012, PAISA went to 14,591 government run elementary schools across India to ask the following questions: Did you get your money? When did you get your money? Did you spend the money? And if so, what was the output of that expenditure? The PAISA survey is conducted as part of the annual ASER survey that tracks learning outcomes and is implemented entirely by citizen volunteers and civil society organizations. This makes it the first and only citizen led effort to track development funds. “Do Schools Get Their Money? (PAISA 2012)” offers a snapshot of findings from the 2012 survey.
From Outlays to Outcomes
In 2012, the Government of India rechristened the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA), this was accompanied by a significant increase in allocations.
The launch of the NBA has reignited the debate on a more outcomes focused delivery model for rural sanitation. However, this move comes in the wake of Census 2011 findings that only 30.7 percent of rural households in India have access to any toilets. In contrast, the TSC’s own data reported achievement rates of close to 80 percent.
This raises some important questions regarding the current planning and budgeting structures for sanitation delivery.
Through a detailed analysis of Government of India (GOI) planning and budgeting documents, and analysis of the online monitoring system, this report focuses on the data from TSC in order to identify implementation challenges and lessons that can be learnt for the NBA.
Further, the report undertakes a comparison of Census 2011 data on rural sanitation with the online monitoring system of TSC to understand the reasons for the differences and also estimate the additional funds required to achieve universal coverage of household toilets.
This research was carried out for the State of Sanitation Project. The project was supported by Arghyam.
PAISA District Surveys: Mid-Day Meals
The Mid Day Meal (MDM) scheme is the world’s largest school based feeding program covering around 12 crores children in over 12.65 lakhs elementary schools across the country. Since its launch, MDM has been rigorously evaluated by academics and policy practitioners from the perspective of its impact on key parameters such as student enrolment and attendance and on student nutrition levels.However; there is relatively little rigorous empirical work on the day to day governance of the scheme.
This PAISA study is an attempt to fill this gap. It examines governance questions with a focus on the budgeting and financing system in MDM. Through a combination of primary survey work and secondary analysis of government documents, this study tracks releases, grain and fund flows and expenditures from Government of India all the way down the schools for the financial year 2011-12. The study is based on data collected from two districts each in Uttar Pradesh (Hardoi and Jaunpur) and Bihar (Nalanda and Purnea).
Do Schools Get their Money? PAISA 2011
The PAISA survey is conducted annually through the Annual Survey of Education Report–Rural. This is the third PAISA report. In 2009, the survey covered a total of 14,231 Primary and Upper Primary Schools in rural India. The 2010 survey covered 14,240 schools and the PAISA 2011 survey covered 14,283 schools across rural India To contextualise school level expenditures and provide a flavour of the larger planning and budgeting process, PAISA 2011 also reports on overall trends in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) allocations and expenditures across three years from 2009-10 and 2011-12.

