ICDS: Fifth Report of the Commissioners to the Supreme Court

The order of November 2001 called for one Anganwadi centre (AWC) in every settlement and complete coverage of all children till they attained the age of six years, all pregnant and nursing mothers and all adolescent girls.  As far reaching as the order proved to be, inaction on the part of the centre and states has meant that both geographical coverage and the number of beneficiaries serviced is grossly inadequate. 

1.1 Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Orders: Geographical Coverage

 As it stands today the ICDS is being implemented in 5111 out of the 5652 sanctioned projects (blocks) across 6 lakh centers around the country.  This is not enough to cover all the settlements as directed by the court.  If the survey conducted by the Ministry of Rural Development is used as a benchmark, the number of AWC’s required is close to 14 lakh against the 6 lakh currently providing service.  Moreover while the central ministry continues to argue its inability to implement the scheme as per the courts orders, it has made little attempt to comply even with its own norms.  The “central norm” given to states is one Anganwadi per 1,000 population (700 in the case of tribal areas).  Using census 2001, estimates would show that more than 11 lakh Anganwadi’s should currently be in operation.

Leaving aside the issue of required coverage at the habitation level, for some states the centre has failed to ensure the accepted norm of one ICDS project for every block at least in poorer states.  The number of projects sanctioned, has shown no increase since 1997, despite an increase in population, with major shortfalls occurring in states of Chattisgarh (66% blocks covered), Bihar (74% blocks covered), Assam (89% blocks covered) and Madhya Pradesh (74% blocks covered).  At the very minimum the centre should have ensured that there is a sanctioned project for every block in these states.     

Further, the central norm of one per 1000 only applies within the existing ‘sanctioned’ project areas and not everywhere.  Even if all projects are made fully operational they will each have at best 120 AWC’s under their authority.    This is insufficient to ensure an AWC for a population of 1000 or one in every habitation, which the order calls for.  This distinction is important because it dispels all claims of ‘universalization’ made by the centre, which only calls for operationalising the existing number of sanctioned projects. 

A recent survey conducted by the Commissioners research team has shown that one of the primary reasons for poor coverage of needy groups under the scheme is the location of the AWC.   Access to services by deprived communities like the SC & ST’s, is restricted if the centre is located in upper caste predominated hamlets.  Field visits have also shown what appears to be a glaring lack of any proper method to assess the need and requirement as a result of which many of the SC/ST hamlets have been excluded.  This not only reinforces the need for implementation of the order calling for a functional Anganwadi in every habitation, but also suggests that priority must be given to initially cover the SC/ST populated habitations followed by others.

1.2 Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Orders: Coverage of Beneficiaries

As far as provision of nutrition is concerned, returns filed by the states show that only 3.4 crores children are enrolled which forms just 21% of the total population under the age of six.  This is not close to either the number that are eligible (over 15 crores), or those that are malnourished (approx 8.5 crore) or even the number belonging to families below the poverty line (approx 6 crores).  It is noteworthy to add that 3 crore is in fact an over estimate because many of the children who are nominally “enrolled” in ICDS centres are not actually getting supplementary nutrition for many months of the year. (See section 1.3.1 for accounts of disruption in supplementary feeding in many states)

Further in a community of a 1,000, there would be around 150 children aged 0-6.  As against this, an ICDS centre takes care of just 57 children on average and a maximum of 80 if the indicative figure provided by the centre is used.  However most states use this as a ceiling for the number of children to be enrolled at each centre.  In a letter regarding registration of beneficiaries, the centre clarified that “the norms are based on average population coverage in an average AWC and were indicated in 1982 (based on the 1981 census).  By the very nature they would vary and are but indicative and cannot be construed to imply either an upper limit or a lower limit for registration.”   Thus neither is the coverage of habitations universal, nor is the coverage of eligible beneficiaries complete, even by central norms.

Leaving aside theoretical coverage, the actual enrollment of children under supplementary nutrition is even lower.  Only in eight states were the number of children enrolled equal or more than 80.  As can be seen in Table 1 actual enrollment per centre in the states of Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Uttaranchal, is only 30, 57 and 46 per centre respectively on an average. 

The outreach to other beneficiary groups is particularly poor.  Only 6.8 million pregnant and nursing mothers have been enrolled across 6 lakh Anganwadi’s, or an average of 12 per centre.  As can be seen from Table 1 against the central norm of 20 per centre, the average number of women provided with nutrition in Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal was just 7, 10, 14 and 11.  A report given by the DM (Jalpaiguri, WB) shows coverage of pregnant and lactating mothers in starvation-ridden tea gardens to be very low.  For e.g. 10 mothers in Kathalguri, 17 in Ramjhora and 13 in Mujnai tea estates are provided with nutrition.   

As far as coverage of adolescent girls is concerned, sanction was given for only 2000 blocks in the year 2001-2002 or 36% of the total number of projects sanctioned under ICDS.  However the number of blocks covered under the Kishori Shakti Yojana which provides the supplementary nutrition for this age group, is lower still and even absent in some states.  Of the 201 projects sanctioned in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand, not a single project provides SNP to adolescent girls.  In Karnataka though the scheme is in operation, coverage is extremely limited with only 38 Anganwadi centres covered under the scheme.  For Delhi as a whole only 1826 girls have been enrolled under the scheme.  However what is important to remember is that even within an Anganwadi, nutrition is supplied at best to three girls, which is far below current requirements.  In Ramjhora (Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal) all efforts to secure more foodgrains from higher authorities had failed.  Identification of 143 and 72 adolescent girls who were below 35 kgs of weight under ICDS Centre No. 87 and 88, and thus eligible for a special nutrition programme, had not led to increased allocations by the authorities. 

To conclude many state governments have written to the Commissioners that implementation of the Courts orders would be possible once the decision and approval is given by the centre.  In the words of the GoUP, “Every settlement and village could be provided ICDS services only after the decision is taken by the GoI.  The state govt. could make budgetary arrangements for supplementary nutrition only when the GoI takes the decision.” However meetings with the centre have not been very successful, with the department citing “neither the resources nor the mandate,” to universalise ICDS.  While the increase in the number of Anganwadi’s to cover all habitations needs financial sanctions and the approval of the centre, coverage under supplementary feeding is the sole responsibility of the states.  Therefore states too need to be pulled up for not covering all children, pregnant and nursing mothers and adolescent girls in the existing centres.  Given the above, implementation of the courts orders requires prompt action by both the centre and the states.  

1.3 Poor Utilization of Funds under ICDS

The problem of poor coverage and inadequate resources is compounded by indifferent implementation and indefensible surrender of available funds.  This was confirmed by the centre according to whom Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal remain “trouble states” which require more attention. 

The expenditure for running the ICDS programme is currently met from three broad sources.  First are the funds provided by the centre under ‘general ICDS; used to meet expenses on account of infrastructure, salaries and honorarium for ICDS staff, training, basic medical equipment including medicines, play school learning kits etc.  Second is what the state allocates to provide supplementary nutrition to beneficiaries.  Third is the fund provided under the Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya Yojna (PMGY-nutrition) as additional central assistance, technically to be used to provide monthly take home rations to those children (age group 0 to 3 years) living below the poverty line and in need of additional supplementation.   Analysis of the funds allocated and released under all three heads indicates the following:

1.3.1 Non-Utilization of funds allocated under state plan:  The worst performance of the three is utilization of resources set aside in the state budget.  First of all, highly insufficient funds are allocated under this head in the budget. Then, non-utilization of funds has been a continuing trend with little proof of states taking any measures to improve the situation.  As can be seen in Table 2, while some states like Manipur have not allocated a single rupee under the state plan, others like Uttaranchal have used only 46% of the amount allocated in 2003-2004.  The situation was no different in Jharkhand which reported expenditure of only 1.92 crores when the state government had released 7.51 crores for supplementary nutrition in 2002-03.  This trend continued in the following years as well.  In the year 2003-2004, the state government released 11.56 crores, but expenditure was reported to be only 3.17 crores.  This effectively meant that 80 per cent of the allocation was surrendered, because financial sanctions could not be given on time.  This resulted in the denial of nutrition to about 12 lakh children.  Bihar was not much better with the state surrendering more than 24 crores over the last two financial years!

1.3.2 Non-Utilization of funds allocated under PMGY: What is most shocking is the fact that though GoI had allocated Rs 37.3 crores out of PMGY funds for ICDS feeding to Jharkhand, not a single paisa had been released till March 2004, because financial sanctions could not be issued in time!  In the case of Maharashtra, while the state was unable to utilize 78% of the funds allocated, it asked for contributions to help meet a ‘lean budget’. A survey conducted in Mulshi block of Pune district in June 2004, revealed instances of parents being asked to contribute money to help meet expenses arising under the programme, for services that are supposed to be provided free.   The districts in Bihar, were able to spend only 6.32 out of 41.32 crores, i.e. 16% of the allotted funds under PMGY in 2002-03, because of administrative delay’s in issuing sanctions.  This continued in the next year as well with financial sanctions for the year 2003-2004 being issued only in August 2003, which caused disruption in the provision of nutrition for more than five months of the year.   As can be seen from Table 3, while Manipur did not allocate a single rupee under the state plan, PMGY utilization of 26% of available funds has meant that hardly any feeding activity took place under the scheme.   In the case of Uttaranchal, utilization of PMGY funds in the year 2003-2004 for nutrition was less than 1% of the funds allocated and just a little over 3% over the last three financial years.  In 2002-2003, 8.27 crores was surrendered, money that was allotted for supplementary nutrition.

Non-utilization of funds under both heads has implications for the timely and regular delivery of supplementary food, regarded by most to be the most important service provided under the programme.  Disruptions in the supply of nutrition can reduce incentive levels for families to attend the AWC.  The Commissioners received several complaints of feeding being disrupted for months, often on account of administrative complacency and with no remedial action forthcoming from the authorities. 

In Uttaranchal, of a total of 13 districts, feeding in the month of February took place in only three districts.  It would be relevant to add that these three districts of Chamoli, Tehri and Uttarkashi are those in which nutrition is supplied by the World Food Programme.  “For the other districts supply under PMGY is expected to commence from May 2004 onwards.”  The report of the Advisor to the Commissioners in West Bengal has attributed irregular and insufficient supply of supplementary nutrition to be one of the primary reasons for the starvation deaths of children in the now closed tea estates.  In Ramjhora tea estate (Jalpaiguri district), no food had been distributed in the ICDS centres for 254 days out of the stipulated 300 days or for 85% of the year (2003).   

In the case of Bihar allocations for the FY 2002-03 were issued only in November 2003.  This meant that no feeding took place in the earlier months of the year, which resulted in huge amounts being surrendered.  At a recent meeting with Dr Saxena the State Government admitted that there is no feeding of children in the first few months of the financial year.  Discussion with the Field officers and Project Director ICDS revealed that actual feeding takes place for hardly two to four months in a year, and that too for a limited number of children, just 25 per centre.  All because sanctions are not be issued in time!  

The case of Jharkhand is even more distressing.  The withdrawal of CARE in July 2002, responsible for supplying nutrition to the entire state, was not accompanied with the provision of any alternative.  Thereafter the first budget allotment was issued only in January 2003.  As it took time for district authorities to invite tenders, allotments were finally issued only in November 2003.  As a result there was no feeding between May and December 2003.  

Irregular opening of Anganwadi’s appears to be a common phenomenon in Uttar Pradesh, the cause being long disruptions in the supply of food, often for periods longer than six months.  No supplementary food (Panjiree) was distributed between the months of November’03-February’04 in 387 state projects and November’03-May’04 in 233 former CARE & WFP run projects.  In the words of the state authorities, “none other alternative arrangement could be made in this period.”  Even when the supply is available it is irregular.  A visit made in September 2003 to Barabanki district revealed the delays in the supply of Panjiree to be a regular occurrence.  A visit by the Commissioners team showed a total of 1125 bags in storage at the block office.  Delays had meant that this supply meant for the month of May had not been dispatched till July 2003.  Regular delays on account of floating and accepting of tenders, is reported to be the primary cause of these disruptions.  This is a very serious finding and must be corrected immediately.  It is important to keep in place alternative arrangements that can be activated in times of unforeseen disruptions in supply.

A major reason for the frequent delay’s and irregularity of service is the use of a state level contractor for supply of supplementary nutrition.  This also leads to widespread corruption as revealed in informal discussions with the concerned staff, because of which the administration is unwilling to change to a system of decentralized procurement, like the one used in Andhra Pradesh.  The state gets the grain from the FCI at BPL prices which considerably reduces costs and has decentralized the purchase of pulses and vegetables to the districts or villages.  Thus not only is a fresh cooked meal provided (which has never happened in Uttar Pradesh in the entire history of ICDS), but at lower costs and without the attending problems of delay’s affecting supplies in the entire state for months at end. 

Non-Utilization of funds must be reviewed in light of the fact that current allocations are much below requirements given the need to deliver quality ICDS services.  In such a scenario beneficiaries in states surrendering funds need to be compensated incase supply of services is disrupted due to administrative negligence as has been illustrated above in the case of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.  This is particularly so in a situation where money was available but authorities were slow to use the money at the expense of legal entitlements.

There are three main reasons why even the meagre amounts sanctioned by the state governments are either not drawn or not spent in the field:

(a) Procedure for issue of financial sanctions is time consuming due to antiquated financial rules and practices used, which causes delay in the access of funds from the central government and delays in their disbursal;

A visit to Bihar and Jharkhand by Dr Saxena revealed a failure on the part of the administration to delegate secretariat powers to the field to be the reason for failure of provision of SNP for many months of the year.  Rather than decentralize further the state government in Jharkhand seems to be under pressure to centralize the purchase system through state-level contractor! This obviously is the worst option, as it will lead to massive state-level corruption, besides resulting in delays and poor quality of food.

These funds are best spent in a decentralized manner by making village committees (self-help groups, Mahila Mandals, etc.) buy grain etc. and prepare meals for the village children.  The success of such groups in other programmes in several districts of Jharkhand, such as East Singhbhum and Lohardaga has clearly demonstrated that decentralization is the best option. This will also enable the state of Jharkhand to properly utilize free oil from CARE worth about Rs 9 crores.  

(b) Poor expenditure further reduces the quantum of future central assistance establishing a vicious cycle

(c) Poor supervision and lack of monitoring by the Centre and states:  An important reason for irregularities in implementation is the lack of an effective monitoring mechanism which is the responsibility of the Department of Women and Child Development at the MoHRD.  A study commissioned by the World Bank highlights the issue for the case of Uttar Pradesh where there was no feeding in any centre of the state between September 2003 and June 2004.  “The data on supply of SNP to AWCs given in the Quarterly Progress Report reports 100 percent AWCs receiving SNP supply in the quarter ending September 2003.  While this was indeed the case according to AWC records (the last time SNP was supplied was in August 2003), the reality was that there has been no supply since then.  

Even the existing one is not used to monitor state performance, with progress reports filed monthly and quarterly not being submitted, analysed or available for public verification.  Bihar and Assam for eg have submitted no report since 30 September 2002.  It is for the centre to identify erring states like Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh where no feeding has taken place for months at end.  Additionally it is imperative that the data is made available for public viewing through department websites.

1.4 Substitution of State funds with PMGY: 

A disturbing trend is the decrease and in some cases a complete substitution of state funds with funds provided under central PMGY.  This additional central assistance is provided for children under the age of 3 years and falling below the poverty line.  The idea is not to substitute states’ own plan outlays but to provide an additional source of funds for nutrition.  However many states are using these funds alone to source the needs for the nutrition component of the programme.  According to the centre, this trend is common among many of the north-eastern states who do not make any allocations from the state budget, but rely completely on PMGY funds.   Manipur is a case in point. However as mentioned above what is cause for greater worry is the fact that even this meagre allotment from the PMGY is not fully utilised.  This means that even less funds are available for disbursement to meet the nutrition needs of children under six.  (See section 1.3 above) 

The Commissioners also recommend a change in the guidelines to allow for children enrolled under the PMGY to be provided food (preferably cooked) at the centre itself.  While the policy of take home rations may not be totally abolished, keeping in view the high rate of migration in Jharkhand, Bihar and other states, efforts must be made to persuade small children to come to the centre with their elder siblings and given feed appropriate to their age.

1.5 Inadequate Allocation by States for Supplementary Feeding:

The allocations made by state governments for nutrition has shown little or no increase in recent years.  The prescribed financial norm indicated by the centre is Rs 1 per beneficiary per day on an average, which is to include the cost of food, transport, administration, fuel and condiments.  However as Table 4 illustrates many states have effective expenditure of less than a rupee a day which is obviously too little to provide good quality and nutritious food.  In Bihar the state government is spending just 15 paise per day per child on the cost of grain and its conversion to a cooked meal!  In West Bengal the district officials (Jalpaiguri) cited a meager budget of 80 paise per child, to be the reason why adequate standards could not be maintained.  According to them it would require 60-70 gms of rice and 20-25 gms of pulses to provide each child with the stipulated calories.  However budget restrictions has meant that they are able to procure only 40-45 gms of rice and 15-20 gms of pulses in the allocated amounts.  In Uttaranchal allocations are even less with a provisions of just 67 paise per child per day.  Once again it is for the central ministry to monitor the performance of the states to ensure that atleast the minimal norms laid down are complied with.

Even when compared with estimations made by the Planning Commission, current allocations are meager in most states.  Only a handful of states including Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan have kept aside more resources than was estimated would be required.  As Table 4 illustrates in others, allocations are far lower.  For West Bengal, against an estimated requirement of more than 140 crores, allocation for SNP was just 56 crores in 2002-2003.  Similar is the case of Maharashtra with corresponding figures of 174 and 45 crores respectively.  This is the case when estimates have not accounted for nutrition costs of children in the age group 4-6, adolescent girls and for universalizing it to all groups as directed by the court.  Given this, current allocations for supplementary nutrition would be even more insufficient. 

What clearly emerges from this desk review and field studies conducted is the stark inter state differences in the quality of services delivered.  In Tamil Nadu for instance against an estimated requirement of 89 crores, the state allocated more than 150 crores for SNP.  The allocation per beneficiary per day is also the highest at Rs 1.69.  Clearly higher allocations and greater utilization means a higher quality programme.

The norm of Rs 1 per child per day was set in 1991 and has shown no revision thereafter.  The centre has also admitted to the need for a review in these norms.  In a letter sent to all the states, they indicated that “the financial norm needs review in view of price escalation over the years.”  There is thus an urgent need to revise these norms and to increase it to Rs 2 per child per day at the very least.  This must be implemented by all states/ UT’s in the current year itself.

1.6 Use of BPL as eligibility criteria: 

A disturbing finding has been the use of ‘BPL” as eligibility criteria for families enrolling their children in the Anganwadi.  This has happened because the ICDS was in operation much before the system of targeted public distribution when the consequent use of the term ‘BPL’, came into operation.   However now the latter with all its proven inadequacies and errors is being used to identify and target potential beneficiaries.  While this is clearly against the concept of universalisation as interpreted in the Supreme Court Order, the immediate need is to issue revised guidelines to the contrary, so that those inadvertently excluded from the BPL lists are not made to suffer similarly under the ICDS.  This holds for PMGY as well which explicitly requires families to be identified as ‘below poverty line’ to be entitled to take home rations.  The guidelines under both schemes need to be revised immediately and disseminated so that field officers are well aware of the change.

1.7 Lack of attention to the needs of children under three: 

Infant feeding practices have significant effects both on mothers and children. Proper infant feeding, starting from the time of birth, is important for the physical and mental development of the child.  According to the NFHS (98-99), 47% of children under the age of three are malnourished (weight for age).  The proportion of children who are undernourished increases rapidly with the child’s age through 12–23 months, where it peaks at 22 per cent for wasting and 58–59 per cent for underweight and stunting. Only 33% of children are introduced with semisolid food at six months.  While the tenth plan on the one hand seeks to increase this to 75%, little effort is made to use available instruments like the ICDS to do so. 

This age group gets little attention from state authorities.  According to GoI guidelines, the allocation under PMGY is essentially meant as additionality for providing enhanced nutrition requirement to children under the age of 3 years.  In many states including Bihar, the state government does not provide any funds from its resources for this age group, and depends entirely on PMGY.  In most impoverished states the meal in the AWC substitutes what the child might get at home. The take home rations for young children (provided under PMGY) is often merged into the general household food kitty.  The case therefore for supplementing these dry rations with suitable food for the age group 6 months to 3 years at the centre only becomes stronger and is supported by field studies.  AWW’s in Rajasthan “admitted that the weekly rations given to children and pregnant / lactating mothers were often consumed by the entire household in very poor families”. 

Even where special food is available it often does not reach the intended group.  According to AWWs in Bahraich district of UP, “the Supervisors had asked them to distribute the weaning food among the 3-6 year olds to ensure regular attendance at the centre. However in the stock register, the entries were against distribution to 0-3 years olds!”

Despite numerous studies and mention in the ICDS guidelines on the need for special/weaning food for this age group, no effort has been made to ensure that theory is reflected in practice.  A cursory look at the menu provided in some states would show that the rations provided are inappropriate for children that age.  In some states like Rajasthan discontinuance of food by CARE has meant that the ‘Babymix’ provided to infants has not been replaced by special weaning food.  In Uttaranchal, ‘India mix’ a mixture of wheat and soyabean is given to all age groups irrespective of their age.  In Uttar Pradesh weaning food is being supplied only in state funded schemes.  In the rest WFP programmes and CARE assisted schemes, Panjiree is provided to all beneficiaries because nutrition supply is not covered under the PMGY.  Thus in a total of 116 projects weaning food is not being supplied to young children.  There is an urgent need for states to ensure that the needs of children aged 3 and under are identified and met with immediately.

1.8 Un-Operational Sanctioned Projects/ AWC’s: 

While many states like Himachal Pradesh and Chattisgarh have been using the Supreme Court orders to request the centre to sanction more projects, others like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Jharkhand are unable to do so.   This is because the state authorities have made little effort to make operational many of the existing sanctioned projects.  The state governments of Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh have 145, 52 and 183 un-operational projects, or 37%, 25% and 22% of the number sanctioned.  Since each project covers approximately more than a 100 Anganwadi’s, delay in operationalising projects excludes a large number of potential beneficiaries.  To illustrate of the over 1 lakh Anganwadi’s sanctioned by the GoI in Uttar Pradesh, about 28,000 or 27% of those approved are yet to be made functional.   

The Supreme Court in an order dated 27^th April 2004 has ordered all states to ensure that sanctioned projects start providing services by 30^th June 2004.  Before the hearing, the centre had given erring states a deadline of 31^st May 2004.  A subsequent visit to Uttar Pradesh in June 2004 however, shows that little effort has been made in this regard.  In Meerut district for instance, nine out of the twelve sanctioned blocks have no operational AWC!   It would be useful to have states submit affidavits specifying the time frame within which they plan to implement this order, otherwise compliance might be further delayed.

1.9 Lack of Infrastructure:

A qualitative study commissioned by the World Bank identified two positive inputs seen in better performing Anganwadi’s; location of the centre and ownership of own building.  “Where the AWC was located in a public space (Primary School, Panchayat) the community leaders and women were aware of its timings and the services they provided. Such AWCs presented a safe and secure place where mothers could leave their children for a few hours every day, even when there was no regular supply of nutrition supplements (Uttar Pradesh is a case in point). The rapport between the AWW and the ANM, schoolteacher and panchayat made considerable difference – in communicating with women, ensuring repair and maintenance of the centre (through the panchayat) and, most importantly, in facilitating immunisation, referrals and school enrolment.” The recent announcement by the GoUP of shifting all centres currently housed in worker/ helpers home to the primary schools is encouraging and similar steps need to be taken by other states as well.

While a separate space is required, what is also important is to ensure that the centre is supplied with all necessary equipment and infrastruture.  The same study cited above found the presence of a hand pump and drinking water source on the premises; clean, painted and attractive structures; cooking and storage utensils along with adequate space for storage and cooking and the availability of PSE/IEC material, to be positive inputs required to retain children’s interest and for the general success of the programme. 

In a visit to Bihar and Jharkhand, Dr Saxena found that many centres had no utensils either for cooking or for feeding. Although orders were issued in Bihar on the 15^th January, 2004 to buy new utensils for Rs 1200 per centre (this was an administrative order but without financial sanction), not much has happened because of lack of budget.  There was no arrangement for potable drinking water or hygienic sanitation facilities in most of the centres.  Similar was the case in Uttar Pradesh, where only 25% of the AWCs have permanent brick structures with ample space for cleaning, packaging and roasting of foodgrains or a source of safe drinking water. Basic facilities required for running SNP such as utensils, stove/chulha, serving utensils etc were also not available at the AWC’s not sponsored by the World Bank.  Further, many centres are being run in very tiny kuchha huts where barely 20 children could sit. Only 28 out of 129 centres in the project visited were in a cemented building, the rest were in huts.  This was because of a measly rent allowance of Rs 25 per month in Bihar and Rs 50 in Jharkhand. This needs to be immediately enhanced to atleast Rs 100 per month.  Although rented buildings for AWC should be promoted with caution as they tend to be in the area dominated by the rich and upper castes, giving little opportunity for dalit and poor children to benefit from the centres, except those whose families work for the rich. This perpetuates dependency.  Contrast this with the situation in Turichi district of Tamil Nadu, where most centres are permanent structures provided with separate rooms for cooking and storage.  There is an immediate need for quality safeguards to be put in place and guidelines issued for the purpose by all states with adequate monitoring by the centre. 

1.10 Shortage of manpower:

A common reason for irregularities and implementation is caused due to shortage of staff both at the project level and the field level.  In Jharkhand for instance while the GoI has sanctioned another 161 projects these are not yet operational, as procedure for filling up vacant posts of CDPOs and Lady Supervisors has still not been finalised.   A successful experiment to increase speed of appointment used in Bihar has been the delegation of selection to the Gram Panchayats.  However considerable vacancies still remain.  Even where they are appointed it is often as additional charge, which dilutes the attention given to monitoring the programme.  In Bihar of the 249 CDPO’s appointed, 208 have been given it as ‘additional charge’, rendering them incapable of doing a good job.  Dr Saxena was told in November 2003 that the proposal for filling up these posts in Bihar on a contract basis through PRIs is under active consideration of State Govt.  However it has remained under ‘active consideration’ since then.  The establishment costs of staff salaries, etc are cent per cent borne by GoI, and therefore there is no justification for such substantial shortages to continue.  As can be seen in Table 5 given below, the states of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, HP, Harayana and Andhra Pradesh also have high proportion of vacancies of staff at the project level. 

1.11 Disruption in Provision of Measles Vaccines:  

The provision of measles vaccines is a vital component of the immunization services provided under the ICDS.  The supply of measles vaccine was however stopped in September 2003 throughout the country and resumed only in February 2004.  Thus for almost six months no vaccines were distributed in any state.  The disruption has been traced to delay’s in procurement just as the effect of such callousness continues to be reported in the media.  According to an article in the Indian Express the outbreak has claimed the lives of more than 50 children across the district of Shivpuri in MP.  There is also a danger of it spreading from Madhya Pradesh to Chattisgarh and Rajasthan.  What is ironic is that despite there being only one supplier for the last two decades, the Government delayed the floating of tenders and orders were placed in October instead of in April last year.  Even the supply of medicines, Vitamin A, folic acid tablets and iron tablets has been irregular or disrupted in several places including Chattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh.