Evaluation of Old Age Pension Schemes in Karnatakades.kar.nic.in/docs/Evaluation of Old Age Pension...

Evaluation of Old Age Pension Schemes in Karnataka

(Revenue Department)

Phase I ‐ Final Report

Submitted to The Director

Directorate of Economics and Statist ics Government of Karnataka

MS Building, Bangalore

Evaluation of Old Age Pension schemes in Karnataka – Final Report

GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative

Study Team

Project Director

Dr. R. Balasubramaniam Executive Director, GRAAM

Principal Evaluator

Sham N Kashyap Coordinator, Action Research and Implementation, GRAAM

Basavaraju R

Deputy Director, GRAAM

Lead Statistician

Narasimhaih K., GRAAM

Evaluation of Old Age Pension schemes in Karnataka – Draft Final Report

GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Sri. Sanjiv Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Planning, Programme Monitoring and Statistics for his continuous involvement and support throughout the evaluation study. We would like to thank Sri. Rajashekarappa, The Director of Department of Statistics for his continuous encouragement and support We would like to appreciate the involvement, and interest of the officers in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. The support and guidance of Mr. C. Charles, Deputy Director is unflinching and invaluable. The critical comments and timely suggestions of Mr. K. C. Salapur, Joint Director, Mr. B. S. Hiremath, Project Director, KSSDA and Mr. K. V. Subramaniam, Joint Director has been invaluable in completing this report. We would like to thank Prof. S. Madheswaran, the Advisor to Department of Planning, Programme Monitoring and Statistics and Chief Evaluation Officer, Karnataka Evaluation Authority. His support and suggestions have helped the evaluation team to complete the study effectively.

We would like to thank the Director and the personnel of Directorate of Social Security and Pensions for providing the data and field insights, crucial in completing this study. We earnestly thank Ms. Kathyayini, Desk Officer, DSSP for her valuable support which made this is study to be completed within the stipulated time.


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐i‐

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ VI

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

2. NEED FOR THE STUDY .................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Objectives of phase 1 of the project ...................................................................................................... 3

3. DESCRIPTION OF OLD AGE PENSION SCHEMES ................................................. 4

3.1 Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme ........................................................................... 4

3.2 Sandhya Suraksha Yojane (SSY) ........................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Procedures for availing pension under the two schemes .............................................................. 10 3.3.1 Eligibility criterion for the schemes ................................................................................................. 10 3.3.2 Procedure of Sanction and Payment of Pension ............................................................................ 11 3.3.3 Payment Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 11

4. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Summary of literature review .............................................................................................................. 17

5. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .................................... 20

5.1 Requirement analysis and consultation ............................................................................................ 20

5.2 Secondary data collection ..................................................................................................................... 20

5.3 Limitations of the secondary data ....................................................................................................... 20

5.4 Data analysis methodology .................................................................................................................. 22 5.4.1 Analysis of beneficiary demographic details ................................................................................. 22 5.4.2 Allotment of new beneficiaries (taluk/district) .............................................................................. 22 5.4.3 Average duration of pensions for beneficiaries ............................................................................. 23 5.4.4 Analysis of delay between beneficiary approval and first pension delivery ............................ 23 5.4.5 Identification and comparison of high beneficiary density taluks and their population densities. ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 5.4.6 Identification of Un‐natural trends in scheme enrolment and duration of pensions .............. 24

6. DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 27

6.1 Descriptive statistics of IGNOAPS and SSY beneficiaries in Karnataka .................................. 27

6.2 Analysis of demographic details of the schemes ............................................................................. 30


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐ii‐

6.3 Analysis of yearly allotment of new beneficiaries .......................................................................... 31

6.4 Analysis of duration of pensions being received ............................................................................ 34

6.5 Analysis of delay between beneficiary approval and first pension delivery ........................... 37

6.6 Analysis of beneficiary coverage ........................................................................................................ 37 6.6.1 Analysis of trends in coverage of pensions .................................................................................... 40

6.7 Identification of Un‐natural trends .................................................................................................... 43

7. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS AND DEVISING SAMPLING METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 45

7.1 Interpretation of results of data analysis ........................................................................................... 45

7.2 Developing detailed sampling strategy for the second phase of the study .............................. 47

7.3 Objectives of the second phase of the study .................................................................................... 48

7.4 Sampling and analysis framework ..................................................................................................... 48 7.4.1 Analysis methodology ........................................................................................................................ 48 7.4.2 Sampling strategy ................................................................................................................................ 49

7.5 Recommendations based on the findings from phase 1 of the study ......................................... 50

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 51

ANNEXURE A ........................................................................................................................... 53

ANNEXURE B ............................................................................................................................ 56

ANNEXURE C ........................................................................................................................... 78


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐iii‐

List of Figures Figure 1. Percentage of expenditures of different schemes under NSAP in 2009‐10 .... 5 Figure 2. Percentage of beneficiaries of different schemes under NSAP in 2009‐10 ..... 5 Figure 3. Growth in individual pension amounts in IGNOAPS ...................................... 6 Figure 4. Percentage share of beneficiaries in major social welfare schemes in Karnataka in 2010‐11 .............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5. Process of application for pension under IGNOAPS and SSY ...................... 11 Figure 6. Pension delivery mechanism .............................................................................. 12 Figure 7. Growth of IGNOAPS beneficiaries in Karnataka ............................................ 29 Figure 8. Growth of SSY beneficiaries in Karnataka ........................................................ 29 Figure 9. Gender distribution of beneficiaries in pension schemes ............................... 30 Figure 10. Average annual growth rates in beneficiaries across different periods ..... 32 Figure 11. Average annual growth rates in selected districts of Karnataka – IGNOAPS (2006‐10) .............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 12. Average annual growth rates in selected districts of Karnataka – SSY (2008‐10).................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 13. Duration of active pensions in Karnataka ...................................................... 35 Figure 14. Delay between beneficiary approval and first pension delivery ................. 37 Figure 15. Districts with high and low coverage of pension beneficiaries ................... 40 Figure 16. Comparison of coverage of pensions with district per capita incomes (2007‐08).................................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 17. Elderly population coverage in taluks of Karnataka (arranged based on their CDI) ................................................................................................................................ 42


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐iv‐

List of Tables Table 1 Evolution of IGNOAPS ............................................................................................. 6 Table 2. IGNOAPS Beneficiaries and Expenditures ........................................................... 7 Table 3. Profile of states containing more than 1,00,000 IGNOAPS beneficiaries ......... 8 Table 4. Annual growth in SSY beneficiaries ...................................................................... 9 Table 5. Projections of aged population in India .............................................................. 13 Table 6. Details of data in the beneficiary data set ........................................................... 20 Table 7. Objectives of the study ........................................................................................... 21 Table 8. Indicators for analysis of beneficiary data .......................................................... 24 Table 9. Criteria for recognizing districts and taluks for second phase ........................ 26 Table 10. District wise distribution of beneficiaries (till 2010) ........................................ 27 Table 11. Gender distribution of pension beneficiaries ................................................... 30 Table 12. Temporal gender distribution of pension beneficiaries .................................. 31 Table 13. Mode of pension delivery .................................................................................... 31 Table 14. Districts with high numbers of pensioners receiving pension for more than 25 years ................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 15. Taluks with high numbers of pensioners receiving pension for more than 25 years ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Table 16. Correlation analysis .............................................................................................. 38 Table 17. District‐wise correlation between pension beneficiaries related variables .. 38 Table 18. Taluk‐wise correlation between pension beneficiaries related variables ..... 39 Table 19. Districts having high share of pension beneficiaries ....................................... 39 Table 20. Districts which have less share of pension beneficiaries ................................ 39 Table 21. Taluks with high and low coverage of pensions in elderly population ....... 41 Table 22. Trends and mapped districts and taluks ........................................................... 43 Table 23. Identified districts and taluks ............................................................................. 47 Table 24. Sampling framework ............................................................................................ 50 Table 25. Rural and Urban IGNOAPS beneficiaries in India .......................................... 53 Table 26. Gaps in Beneficiary data reported in IGNOAPS .............................................. 54 Table 27. State and Centreʹs contribution in IGNOAPS pension (2009) ....................... 55 Table 28. Taluk‐wise Beneficiary details ............................................................................ 56 Table 29. Gender analysis of beneficiaries in IGNOAPS and SSY ................................. 60 Table 30. Growth of beneficiaries in IGNOAPS and SSY ................................................ 61 Table 31. Average annual growth rates of beneficiaries districts ................................... 61 Table 32. District‐wise beneficiaries under different durations ‐ IGNOAPS ............... 62 Table 33. Taluk‐wise beneficiaries under different durations ‐ IGNOAPS ................... 63 Table 34. District‐wise coverage under pension schemes ............................................... 67 Table 35. Comparison between pension coverage of elderly population and taluk ranking based on HPCRRI ................................................................................................... 68 Table 36. Average delay (in months) in beneficiary approval and first pension delivery ................................................................................................................................... 72 Table 37. Selection of districts and taluks for the secondary study ............................... 73


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐v‐

Abbreviations Abbreviation Expansion BPL Below Poverty Line DSSP Directorate of Social Security and Pensions GOI Government of India GOK Government of Karnataka HDI Human Development Index HPCRRI High Power Commission for Redressal of Regional

Imbalances (Nanjundappa Committee) IGNDPS Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme IGNOAPS Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme IGNWPS Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme MIS Management Information System MO Money Order NFBS National Family Benefit Scheme NSAP National Social Assistance Programme PO Post Office SSY Sandhya Suraksha Yojane STO Sub‐Treasury Office


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐vi‐

Executive Summary The Directorate of Social Security and Pensions (DSSP), Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, implements two old age pension schemes, namely Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS), a centrally sponsored scheme and Sandhya Surakshay Yojana (SSY), a fully state funded scheme, aimed to help eligible elderly citizens by providing them with direct cash pensions. Considerable budgetary allocation is involved in running these schemes. Of the several government interventions in creating a welfare state, the Pension schemes are thought to be the most successful and literature has cited that the model developed in Karnataka for the delivery of social pension schemes is worth replicating in other states. Hence, it is important to identify crucial issues that shape the success and the efficacy of the implementation of these schemes. This evaluation is carried out in two phases. In phase 1, the review of literature, analysis of secondary data including web based MIS of revenue department has been completed. Based on its results, the design, sampling methodology and locations of field validation in phase 2 are framed. IGNOAPS a centrally sponsored scheme has been in existence since 1964, and is implemented as a part of National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). NSAP implements several schemes for the socially vulnerable and under it, IGNOAPS is the largest social assistance scheme of NSAP. SSY, with similar features to IGNOAPS intends to cover the larger section of poor elderly who may not be covered through IGNOAPS. At present, almost 2/3rd of the 22 lakh old age pensioners in Karnataka are covered under SSY. Literature review suggests that pension schemes have a huge opportunity to impact the lives of the elderly in a positive way. Application processing, monitoring the eligibility criterion, delivery of pensions on time (including budgetary and fiscal planning) are all crucial factors on which the effectiveness of the schemes depend. In this phase of the study, the analysis of the full population of existing beneficiaries (rather than sampling) in the pension schemes, based on data disaggregated up to the level of the individual beneficiary (rather than aggregated data at the taluk/district levels) was carried out. The emphasis of the analysis was on inter‐


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐vii‐

district/taluk growth rate in enrolment to the schemes, duration of pensions, delay in first pension delivery and coverage of elderly population. Results of beneficiary data analysis The gender trends of beneficiaries show that female beneficiaries across the state and across IGNOAPS and SSY are more than male beneficiaries. The growth rates in beneficiary enrolments to IGNOAPS and SSY show in general, a rising trend and trend analysis shows that the beneficiary numbers are extremely responsive to changes in policies. This indicates that pension schemes (and direct cash disbursements through the schemes) are in high demand in the state. The analysis of mode of pension delivery reveals that although 75% of the pensions are being delivered through Post Offices, share of the Bank channel for delivery of pensions is increasing in the recent years. There are inter‐district and intra‐district variations in the enrolment patterns of the scheme. In general, the enrolment is low in Malnad and Costal taluks which have better HDI values. However, it is difficult to generalize that districts with high HDIs have low enrolments and the vice‐versa. The trends in enrolment are more related to elderly population than development status. The comparison of IGNOAPS and SSY shows that growth in SSY across districts and taluks is higher than that of IGNOAPS. Also, the positive correlation of SSY with district/taluk populations is more in comparison with IGNOAPS. When the pensions being delivered for more than 25 years (which technically means that the beneficiaries are 90+ years old) are mapped to districts and taluks, it is revealed that most of these beneficiaries are mapped to a few districts (namely Ramanagara, Mysore and Tumkur). Kanakapura taluk in Ramanagara district has a high incidence of this phenomenon. Coverage of elderly population through the pension schemes shows a marked inverse relationship between pension coverage and district per capita income. Similarly, there is a general inverse relationship between beneficiary coverage and taluk development status as determined by HPCRRI. However, in many districts and taluks, beneficiary coverage shows large variations, not directly related to district/taluk income levels and development status. For example, there are marked differences of over‐coverage in districts of Bijapur, Gadag and Ramanagara.


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative ‐viii‐

The quality of beneficiary dataset that exists at the state level in digital format should be thoroughly verified (this activity in process by the DSSP), with all the different demographics related fields filled. This allows specific analysis of age/class groups of interest which could trigger future policy changes. Objectives of the second phase of the study Based on the analysis of beneficiary data, a non‐probabilistic, purposive, deviant case sampling methodology of taluks and districts was conducted to select 12 districts (and 26 taluks) which displayed a range of varied, un‐natural trends in spatio‐temporal spread of pension beneficiaries. The table below presents the taluks and districts suggested for field validation in phase 2 of the study. The table captures the results of mapping of important variations in beneficiary data with districts and taluks where these variations are visible. The list contains taluks that show un‐natural trends with the specific criterion as well as few taluks that display normal trends. Criterion District Taluks

Gender distribution

No significant variations in gender distribution of scheme beneficiaries was found at the district and taluk level

Growth rates in enrolment

Ramanagara, Belgaum, Raichur, Mysore, Koppal, Gadag, Chamarajanagar, Bijapur, Davanagere, Shimoga

Ramanagar, Kanakapura, Chikkodi, Gokak, Mysore, T Narasipura, Koppal, Kushtagi, Gadag, Ron, Chamarajanagar, Gundlupet, Indi, Bijapur,, Davanagere, Shimoga

Duration of active pensions

Ramanagara, Mysore, Shimoga Kanakapura, Mysore, Shikaripura

Elderly population coverage

Ramnagara, Bijapur, Chamarajanagar, Gadag, Koppal, Gulbarga, Yadgir, Raichur, Mysore, Shimoga Davanagere

Kanakapura, Magadi, Indi, Gundlupet Ron, Shirahatti, Koppal, Kushtagi, Chincholi, Chittapur , Shahpur, Lingsugur, Manvi, T. Narsipura, Mysore, Sagar, Shimoga, Jagalur

The main objective of the second phase of the study is to identify causal patterns for variations in deviant taluks and districts (representative of all deviant cases) thereby enabling the government to understand and respond to the specific issues of concern found in these districts. The detailed sampling methodology within each Taluk, and the sampling strategy has been formulated.


GRAAM – An SVYM Initiative 1

1. Introduction India today is caught between a rapidly changing demographic profile, emerging economic opportunities, an amalgamation of global and local socio‐economic systems, and changing value systems and ideologies, both at the personal level as well as at the societal level. Thus, in India’s development context, the management of safety nets for the ageing population of the country is crucial because senior citizens require social, economic, moral and physical support, which may be rapidly eroded due to various social changes brought in by rapid economic development. There are multiple problems of old age including inequality of opportunity for employment; inadequate income; unsuitable housing; lack of social services and of provisions for sustaining physical and mental health; stresses and strains produced by changing family patterns and family relations; and lack of meaningful activities in retirement. Further, the well being of the elder people is mandated by the Constitution of India, Article 41. It deals with the Stateʹs role in providing social security to the aged. According to this article, ʺthe State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in case of unemployment, OLD AGE, sickness and disablement and in other cases of undeserved wantʺ. Thus, the State is directed to make effective provision for securing the right of public assistance in cases of old age. There are other provisions, too, which direct the State to improve the quality of life of its citizens. Right to equality has been guaranteed by the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. These provisions apply equally to older persons. Thus, Social security has been made the concurrent responsibility of the Central and State Governments. The Directorate of Social Security and Pensions (DSSP), Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, implements two old age pension schemes, namely Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS), a centrally sponsored scheme and Sandhya Surakshay Yojana (SSY), a fully state funded scheme, aimed to help eligible elderly citizens by providing them with direct cash pensions.



2. Need for the study The study of socio‐economic dimensions of old age is gaining popularity in India as the size of the aged population is projected to grow at an accelerated pace in the next decades. The population of elder persons has increased form nearly 2 crores in 1951 to 7.2 crores in 2001. In other words about 8% of the total population is above 60 years. The figure will cross 18 % mark by 2025. This, together with the rapid economic progress that the nation is foreseeing mainly in its urban and peri‐urban centers, has the mixed effect of generating economic surplus, but at the cost of eroded social security systems due to processes like rural‐urban migration, shift from agrarian economies and vertically linked production mechanisms. If proper support systems are not in place, this chain of events may leave the vulnerable groups like the elderly population of the country in jeopardy. Hence, significant policy initiatives have been taken to create safety nets for the elderly in the country. The two pension schemes mentioned above are part of the larger structures being built to provide safety net mechanisms to the elderly citizens of the country. Considerable budgetary allocation is involved in running these schemes. Of the several government interventions in creating a welfare state, the Pension schemes are thought to be the most successful (Kumar and Anand, 2006). Further, there are reasons to believe that the model developed in Karnataka for the delivery of social pension schemes is worth replicating (Rajashekar D et al. 2009) in other areas. Hence, it is important to identify crucial issues that shape the success and the efficacy of the implementation of these schemes. This project attempts to evaluate the implementation of these two schemes in Karnataka, looking at critical issues including pension disbursement, selection patterns of beneficiaries, spatio‐temporal patterns in fund utilization across the state, the socio‐economic conditions of the beneficiaries and the relative importance of the pension to the beneficiaries. This evaluation is carried out in two phases. In phase 1, the review of literature, analysis of secondary data and data of the web based MIS of revenue department has been completed. Based on its results, the design, sampling methodology and locations of field validation in phase 2 are framed.



2.1 Objectives of phase 1 of the project 1. Literature and secondary information review

a. Compilation of findings of different studies b. Recognition of important issues c. Budgetary allocation and financial indicators for the scheme

2. Secondary data collection and analysis a. Identification and comparison of taluk/district trends in

• Analysis of beneficiary demographic status • Allotment of new beneficiaries: taluk / district wise • Average duration of pensions for beneficiaries • The trend of accepted and rejected number of applications based on

available scheme data b. Identifying issues of concern

• Identification and comparison of high beneficiary density taluks and their population densities.

• Un‐natural trends in scheme enrolment and duration of pensions • Suggesting suitable sampling methodology and sample sites for the

Phase 2 to conduct field evaluation



3. Description of old age pension schemes Article 41 in the Directive Principles of the State, Constitution of India states that “The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want“. Further, there are other provisions also within the Constitution, which direct the State to improve the quality of life of all its citizens. For example, the Right to equality has been guaranteed by the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. These provisions apply equally to older persons. Thus, Social security has been made the concurrent responsibility of the Central and State Governments (“National Policy on Older Persons”, GOI 1999). Based on these principles, both the Center and the state governments have introduced welfare schemes, specially designed for creating safety nets and economic support for the elderly people of the country. In this regard, the Directorate of Social Security and Pensions, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, implements two old age pension scheme namely: The centrally sponsored scheme Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS) and the state government funded scheme Sandhya Suraksha Yojane (SSY). The main purpose of both these schemes is to help old age persons by providing direct cash pensions to them. This section explains the two schemes, with scheme description, physical and financial indicators of the scheme, scheme procedures and process diagrams.

3.1 Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme GOI has been implementing IGNOAPS since 1964, as old age pension scheme. The scheme has been, however, modified as National Old Age Pension on August 15, 1995 and is implemented as a part of National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). NSAP came into effect from 15th August, 1995 and represents a significant step towards the fulfillment of the Directive Principles in Article 41 of the Constitution. The programme introduced a National Policy for Social Assistance for the poor and aims at ensuring minimum national standard for social assistance in addition to the benefits that states are currently providing or might provide in future. NSAP at present comprises of IGNOAPS, Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme (IGNWPS), Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme (IGNDPS), National



Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS) and Annapurna scheme. Figure 1 presents the share of different schemes under NSAP in GOI’s expenditures Figure 2 presents the share of beneficiaries in these schemes at the national level. It is evident that under NSAP, IGNOAPS is the largest social assistance scheme both in terms of number of beneficiaries and expenditures.

Figure 1. Percentage of expenditures of different schemes under NSAP in 2009‐10

IGNOAPS81%

NFBS7%

Annapurna1%

IGNWPS10%

IGNDWPS1%

Expenditures in different schemes in NSAP

Figure 2. Percentage of beneficiaries of different schemes under NSAP in 2009‐10

IGNOAPS81%

NFBS1%

Annapurna4%

IGNWPS12%

IGNDWPS2%

Beneficiaries in different schemes in NSAP

In its initial form, IGNOAPS provided pensions only to destitute belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) households, earning less than Rs. 6,000 per annum. The scheme has undergone various changes since its inception in 1964. Notable changes include the increase in end benefits received by the beneficiary and the changes in the eligibility criterion for selection of beneficiaries. The table below summarizes major changes brought out in the scheme.



Table 1 Evolution of IGNOAPS

Year

1964 1979 1995 (under NSAP) 1

2007 (IGNOAPS) 2

20113

Eligibility Destitute Destitute Destitute All eligible elderly

All eligible elderly

Age 70 (65 if incapacitated)

65 (60 if incapacitated)

65 65 60

Financial benefit

Rs 15/month Rs 40/month Rs 100/month Rs 400/month NA

Figure 3. Growth in individual pension amounts in IGNOAPS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Pension Amount in Rupees

Growth in individual pension Amounts under IGNOAPS

Nominal Pension Amount

Real Pension Amount

Figure 3 presents the growth of individual pension amounts provided by IGNOAPS (both nominal and real). The real growth of individual pension amounts was calculated based on deflating the nominal pension amounts per beneficiary with Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers (CPI ‐ AL), keeping the year 1960 as the base year (CPI: 100)4. From the figure, it can be seen that while nominal pensions have grown from Rs 15/beneficiary in 1964 to Rs 400/beneficiary in 2010, there has been no increase in the real value of pensions provided to elderly citizens. As on January 2012, IGNOAPS covers 1,46,53,842 beneficiaries across India. The

1 Centre: Rs 75, State: Rs 25 2 Center: Rs 200, State: Rs 200 3 The eligibility criterion for IGNOAPS has changed substantially based on the Official Memorandum (Letter:J‐11015/1/2011‐NSAP) from GOI, dated June 30, 2011. Age limit for the scheme has been relaxed to 60 Years and for beneficiaries above 80 years, Central government’s assistance in pension is increased from Rs 200 to Rs 500. 4 Source: “Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy”, Reserve Bank of India



states of Uttar Pradesh (36,90,774), Bihar (1505705), Maharashtra (1074886), Tamil Nadu (1021489) and Karnataka (1017320) together constitute more than 56% of the total IGNOAPS beneficiaries in the country. (based on NSAP MIS data, 2012). At the national level, 83% of the beneficiaries in IGNOAPS are of rural background while in Karnataka, almost 90% of the beneficiaries are rural. The detailed state‐wise break up of rural and urban beneficiaries in India is given in Table 25, Annexure A.

Table 2. IGNOAPS Beneficiaries and Expenditures

Year

India KarnatakaBeneficiaries (in Lakhs)

Expenditure in Rs

(Crores)

Beneficiaries (in Lakhs)

Expenditure in Rs

(Crores) 2005‐06 80.03 856.31 4.88 52.08 2006‐07 87.09 1726.21 5.33 84.29 2007‐08 115.14 2894.61 6.87 175.51 2008‐09 150.21 3546.91 8.22 195.24 2009‐10 156.95 1651.02 8.34 82.68 Source: NSAP Annual reports, 2005 – 2009. (2010‐11 annual report not available)

However, there are considerable data gaps between the beneficiary numbers reported in the NSAP MIS and the reported number of beneficiaries by individual states5. The current state‐level beneficiary abstract of report of IGNOAPS according to the NSAP MIS is reported in Annexure A. Table 2 presents the patterns in beneficiary and expenditure growth of IGNOAPS in India and Karnataka. From the table, it can be seen that Karnataka’s share in both the total number of beneficiaries as well as total expenditures under IGNOAPS is roughly between 5% ‐ 7% of the national figures. Further, on an average (over the 5 years) Karnataka’s expenditure on IGNOAPS has increased by 31% Further, since IGNOAPS is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS), each individual state in India contributes different shares to the final pension amount reaching to the beneficiary. The contribution of individual states to IGNOAPS pensions to individual beneficiaries is presented in Annexure A. Karnataka contributes an equal share to the pension received by the individual beneficiary which in total is Rs. 400 per month. Thus, the financial expenditure incurred by the state is equal to that of GOI in providing the IGNOAPS pension amount to the beneficiary. 5 Karnataka’s reported number of beneficiaries is 817753 whereas, the number of beneficiaries listed on NSAP’s MIS is 1017320. The state level data gaps in number of beneficiaries are also presented in A.



Table 3. Profile of states containing more than 1,00,000 IGNOAPS beneficiaries

State

Contribution to pension (per beneficiary)

Total pension

received by beneficiary (in Rs)

Total number of IGNOAPS

beneficiaries in the state

Projected monthly

expenditure incurred by the

State Government (in Crores of Rs)

Centre State

Uttar Pradesh 200 100 300 3300260 33.00Bihar 200 0 200 2654193 0.00

West Bengal 200 200 400 1252795 25.06 Maharashtra 200 300 500 1086027 32.58

Madhya Pradesh 200 75 275 1061033 7.96 Tamil Nadu 200 200 400 1014172 20.28

Andhra Pradesh 200 0 200 1011153 0.00 Karnataka 200 200 400 817753 16.36Jharkhand 200 200 400 676003 13.52 Orissa 200 0 200 643400 0.00 Assam 200 50 250 628949 3.14

Chhattisgarh 200 100 300 551562 5.52Rajasthan 200 200 400 550173 11.00 Gujarat 200 200 400 291081 5.82 Delhi 200 800 1000 200778 16.06

Uttarakhand 200 200 400 187147 3.74 Kerala 200 50 250 176064 0.88 Punjab 200 250 450 159792 3.99Haryana 200 500 700 137666 6.88Tripura 200 200 400 136592 2.73

Jammu And Kashmir

200 125 325 129000 1.61

Source: Annual Report, 2009‐10, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India

Table 3 presents the states with significant number of IGNOAPS beneficiaries, arranged in ascending order of beneficiaries. The expenditure of states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh is comparatively large towards IGNOAPS due to the large number of beneficiaries. However, states like Maharashtra, Haryana and Delhi contribute more than GOI towards individual IGNOAPS pension amounts. Karnataka, with high number of beneficiaries and the additional Rs 200 contribution per pension beneficiary also incurs substantial expenditure in implementing the scheme. Based on the 2009‐10 list of IGNOAPS beneficiaries in the state, it can be estimated that Karnataka incurs an expenditure of Rs 16.35 Crores every month on the pension component of IGNOAPS. In 2011, the budget earmarked for IGNOAPS in Karnataka is Rs 394 Crores.



3.2 Sandhya Suraksha Yojane (SSY) Together with schemes in NSAP, the Government of Karnataka (GOK) also implements other social welfare schemes like the Sandhya Suraksha Yojane (SSY) Destitute Widow Pension scheme (DWP), and Physically Handicapped Pension scheme (PHP). Of these schemes, SSY, with similar features to IGNOAPS intends to cover the larger section of poor elderly who may not be covered through IGNOAPS. It is entirely funded by GOK. While the benefit amount and age criterion have been the same as in the case of IGNOAPS, the difference lies in income eligibility. Benefits under SSY can be availed by elderly persons earning up to Rs. 20,000 per annum and those who were not availing any other benefits like family pension, widow pension, physically handicapped pension and old age pension. As on May 2011, there were 14,14,216 beneficiaries spread over the state availing benefits of SSY. Table 4 shows the annual growth in number of beneficiaries of SSY in Karnataka. It can be seen from this table that, within the short time frame of 4 years, the beneficiary list has grown rapidly.

Table 4. Annual growth in SSY beneficiaries

Year Beneficiary growth in SSY 2007 26231 2008 549642 2009 5468312010 289874

Total Running as of 2011 1414216Source: Beneficiary Data provided by DSSP (discarding outliers)

Figure 4 shows the percentage share of beneficiaries in major social welfare schemes in Karnataka. In comparison to other important social welfare schemes in Karnataka, the number of beneficiaries covered and the expenditure incurred on SSY are higher under SSY. Further, as on 2011, almost 2/3rds of the 22 lakh old age pensioners in Karnataka, are covered under SSY. In 2011, the budget earmarked for SSY in Karnataka is Rs 521 Crores.

Figure 4. Percentage share of beneficiaries in major social welfare schemes in Karnataka in 2010‐11

OAP20%

DWP29%PHP

17%

SSY34%

Share of beneficiaries in welfare schemes



3.3 Procedures for availing pension under the two schemes

3.3.1 Eligibility criterion for the schemes Sl No Indira Gandhi National Old Age

Pension Sandhya Suraksha Yojane

Demographic Criteria 1 Age > =65 years (M/F) Age > =65 years (M/F) Income Criteria 2 Below poverty line as per criteria

of Government of India (equal or less than 26 points out of 52 points criteria as fixed by Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department). As per the existing criteria pension is granted to a destitute person with little or no regular means of subsistence from his / her own sources of income or through financial support from family members or other sources

Annual Income of the husband or wife or both should not exceed Rs . 20, 000 as certified by the local revenue authority and the total value of combined deposited amount held by the pensioner and his / her spouse should not exceed Rs. 10,000. If the income is declared by beneficiary himself / herself, the income of children will not be counted for calculation of the income of the proposed social security pensioner

Residential Criteria 3 He/She should be a resident of

Karnataka for 10 Years or more He/She should be a resident of Karnataka for 10 Years or more

Amount of Pension 4 A sum of Rs. 400 will be disbursed

every month, equally shared by the Central and the State Governments.

A sum of Rs. 400 will be disbursed every month, with 100% contribution from the State Government

Type of Beneficiaries 5 BPL is the Criteria for selection of

beneficiaries. Such of the persons availing widow pension, physically handicapped pension, Sandhya Suraksha Yojane pension or any form of pension from public / private sources are not eligible for this scheme

Beneficiaries are selected from among small farmers, marginal farmers, Agricultural farmers, weavers and unorganized workers. Such of the persons availing old age pension, destitute widow pension, physically handicapped pension or any form of pension from public / private sources are not eligible for this scheme

Mode of Payment 6 Post office, Bank Post office, Bank



3.3.2 Procedure of Sanction and Payment of Pension

Figure 5 displays the process of application for pension from a prospective beneficiary. Potential beneficiaries are expected to submit applications to the Tahasildar of the taluk, for which an acknowledgement is issued to the applicant. The application is submitted along with supporting documents such as (i) A certificate for proof of age which can be a birth certificate or a statement from a registered medical practitioner of any government hospital (ii) Declaration of income by the applicant (iii) Declaration of duration of stay in the state (iv) Certificate of recommendation from prominent persons. On the receipt of the application, applicant’s age, native place, domicile place and economic status will be verified on the basis of Identity Card issued by the Indian Electoral Commission. Tahsildar verifies the details either personally or through his sub ordinates, not less than Revenue Inspector Cadre. After the verification of details, the inspecting authority submits the application along with the report in schedule III of IGNOP / SSY. The Tahasildar sanctions the pension, once convinced about the applicants’ condition. In case the application is rejected, it should be intimated to the applicant along with reasons thereof within a week.

3.3.3 Payment Procedure Once a pension has been sanctioned, the District Treasury Officer or Sub‐Treasury Officer is responsible for payment of pensions. Every month pension is credited to the S/B Account of the Post Office / Bank of the beneficiary before the 7th of the

Through Nemmadi Kendra Application

received at the Taluk Office

Acknowledgement sent

Application with supporting documents sent

to the Tahsildar

Verification of

documents

Inspecting officer’s report to Tahsildar

Verified application and documentsPension

sanctioned

Beneficiary sanction details submitted to

District Treasury Officer

Monthly pension credited to SB account of the beneficiary or delivered through MO

Figure 5. Process of application for pension under IGNOAPS and SSY



month. The process of pension delivery is explained in Figure 6. One of the notable features of the payment procedures of pension is that, when money is credited through the post office the pension is delivered at the door step of the beneficiary. According to the NSAP monthly progress report for September 2010 of Karnataka, in the IGNOAPS scheme, 88% of the beneficiaries receive their pensions through MOs and the remaining 12% of the beneficiaries use their bank accounts for receiving their pension.

Thus, an elaborate process is followed implement this feature. Based on the running list of beneficiaries under each scheme, at every month, a sanction order is sent to the respective treasury, for payment of pension to the beneficiaries. The Sub‐Treasury Office (STO) prints the money orders and issues one cheque per 100 money orders to the respective post offices along with 100 money orders in one bundle manually. If MOs are unclaimed or if the pensions are not drawn from the bank within three months, the MO/money is returned to the treasury and will be kept under suspension for three months. After this period the pension account is stopped. Post offices disburse the pension as per the address printed on the money order. The money reaches the door‐step. Overhead costs in this disbursement procedure include the 5% commission to the Postal department and the cost of printing and stationeries involved each month for distributing the money orders.

Beneficiaries draw pension from bank

Sanction order for monthly payment of

pensions

Database of running beneficiaries within the Treasury limit

PO1 PO2 PO3

Cheque and MO Bundles distributed to Post Offices

Money transferred to SB accounts of bank beneficiaries

MO delivered at the doorstep

Money orders for post office beneficiaries and Cheque bundles to Post Offices prepared at STO

Unclaimed accounts sent back after 3 months

Figure 6. Pension delivery mechanism



4. Literature review As part of the first phase of the evaluation, a detailed review of academic publications, evaluation reports and available departmental reports related to old age and pension schemes was undertaken. Topics covered in this literature review are: the changing demographics of India and the need for old age pension, review of evaluations and studies related to old age pension schemes in India, studies on the Karnataka experience in old age pension policy and implementation and summary of main issues and concerns related to the topic. Steering Committee Reports for Five Year Plans India’s population and growth in its demographic profile have been subjects of constant interest for research and planning personnel. The Steering Committees for successive five year plans discuss at length about the demographic transition India is going through and its effect on policies concerning social welfare and health of elderly. The Steering Committee Report for the Tenth Five Year Plan (2001) on Social Welfare presents the population projections of different age groups based on 2001 census reports. Based on the figures from this report, population of aged population (above 65) can be tabulated as follows.

Table 5. Projections of aged population in India

Year Population (in Crores)

65 & above(in Crores)

%

2001 102.702 4.62 5%

2011 118.675 6.17 5%

2021 134.524 8.61 5%

2031 146.323 12.44 6%

2041 155.997 17.32 9%

2051 162.796 23.77 11%Source: Steering Committee, 2001

The report highlights the impacts of increasing longevity of the Indian population on the socio‐economic status of the elderly. It states that inevitably, safeguarding the health of the increasing population of the elderly will be a major challenge and the cost of providing socio‐economic security and health care to this population has to be met through innovative culture‐specific interventions like reversal in the breakup of joint‐family systems. Further, the report provides insightful statistics that emphasise the importance of providing safety nets to aged population of the country. Some of them are presented below.



• As many as 70 per cent of the aged depend on others for their day‐to‐day maintenance. More than 74% of them depend on their children.

• Among elderly women, about 85% to 87% were economically dependent either partially or fully

• The common problems of old age include hypertension, cataract, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, diabetes, benign prostatic hypertrophy, gastrointestinal motility disorders, depression, osteoporosis, dementia, cerebro‐vascular disease and cancer.

The Steering Committee Report for the Eleventh Five Year Plan (Steering Committee 2006) describes the various regional variations in population growth in the country and the corresponding implications. It states that the northern states are going to witness a population increase of around 40%‐50% in the years 2001 – 2026 and the southern states would see a population increase by 15% ‐ 25% only. Thus, these documents not only suggest innovative approaches based on the aged population percentage in Sathyendra Prakash, 2007, discusses the demographic trends in India’s population growth from other perspectives like gender and rural‐urban divide perspectives. The analysis of population projections in this paper concludes that the percentage share of women in the elderly population of the country will be much higher than that of men6. The dependency ratio of the elderly population will also be significantly higher due to migration of the younger population towards urban areas. With this background, the study stresses the need for socio‐economic security and access to health systems as the major challenges for senior citizen centric policies. In Kumar and Anand, 2006, the authors emphasize on the importance of changes in demographic profiles and their impact on the concept of welfare state in India. They point out that a large population of the elderly population will continue to live in poverty, or at the subsistence level, and will also remain illiterate. This, together with fact that nearly 50% of the elderly are completely dependent on others can substantiate reasons to strengthen pension programs for the elderly in India today. Further, the paper envisages bigger challenges for India when its project working population begins to retire, since nearly 90% of the working population is in the unorganized sector. Hence, creating policy space to enable safety nets for this

6 This result is echoed in other studies like (Programme Evaluation Organziation, 2009), (Datta), (Rajashekar D et al.) and (Kumar & Anand 2006)



growing elderly population is going to be huge challenge. Commenting on the increased budgetary allocations to NOAPS, the authors opine that the scheme has successfully given space for political engagement at the grassroots level wherein being attentive to the economic situation of the elderly also means political support. Citing other evaluation studies, the authors conclude that NOAPS has been an effective scheme in that, it has reached out to rural elderly with minimal difficulty. The authors conclude with the recommendations to a) popularize the scheme so that all eligible elderly persons are covered with the pension scheme, b) to streamline the fund disbursement mechanism to avoid delays in delivering pensions, c) to minimize bureaucratic delays in sanctioning the pension and d) stringently follow the eligibility criterion for selection of beneficiaries. Datta, 2008 looks at the implementation of IGNOAPS in Rajasthan, after the important changes brought into the scheme in 2007. The paper, although evaluates IGNOAPS in Rajasthan has very many applicable issues to Karnataka as well. The paper notes that in Rajasthan, in comparison to other schemes, OAP schemes have less incidence of corruption once the beneficiaries are enrolled into the scheme, the pension disbarment schedule is largely timely, the satisfaction levels of beneficiaries is high and there is less leakage of funds. In comparison to other schemes, the study found that eligible beneficiaries had more awareness about the pension schemes, although the full details were not known. Further, the study also describes the Joint OAP scheme, which is a novel adaptation of the OAP scheme for elderly couples, implemented in Rajasthan7. However, the paper also notes that transaction costs are high in the application and validation process of beneficiary enrolment in the scheme. Further, the study notes that inter‐district variation in the performance of the scheme is large and hence, the benefits received by the elderly in these districts are not similar. The study notes under‐coverage of the scheme in some areas due to flaws in targeting strategies. Other problems include lack of proper record keeping and documentation, non‐standardized ways of pension sanctions and disbursement (beneficiaries may receive pension directly from the treasury, some through post offices and some through banks). The study stresses a single mode of fund disbursal to address fake and duplicate beneficiaries. A useful qualitative observation of the study was that, in

7 Under normal circumstances, the beneficiary receives Rs 200 per month, where as in the Joint OAP scheme, the couple receive Rs 300 per month.



many cases the criteria of selection of beneficiaries were largely followed although, the selection criteria themselves were unnecessarily stringent and instrumental in excluding the beneficiaries. The authors quote that experiences in other states were similar, based on studies in other states including that in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Rajashekar D et al.2009 undertook a baseline survey on the delivery mechanisms in three districts of Karnataka namely Bellary, Chitradurga and Gulbarga. This was also a precursor to try out a different delivery mechanism (through smart cards) for delivering pension amounts to the beneficiaries. According to this report, the major financial hurdle in the delivery mechanism of pensions is the additional cost of Rs 40 crores incurred since most of the pensions are sent through Money Order (MOs) to the beneficiaries. The authors explain in detail the logistics at the field level for the implementation of the scheme, ranging from how the application for pension is applied and verified to how the money is delivered through the post office or through banks. Further, the problem of fund disbursal from the district level to the beneficiaries due to shortage of human resources and infrastructure is highlighted. The authors comment that selection of beneficiaries in these districts is correct in principle, although many beneficiaries would become ineligible if the eligibility criterion for the schemes is strictly followed. A specific example is that of household income. Household income although higher than the selection criterion cannot be looked in isolation since overall indebtedness, necessary expenditures on health, education and other issues play a significant role in deciding the economic well‐being of a household This detailed study in many ways complements the opinions and findings of other studies reviewed here. The findings include the fact that although leakage exists, it exists in small amounts, the beneficiary selection is largely based on actual need although, not strictly adhering to the selection criterion of the scheme and although not on schedule, the pension remittance to the beneficiary is still dependable. The study finds that there is upward mobility for the beneficiaries of the different welfare schemes and satisfaction levels among the beneficiaries are high. Further, as policy advocacy, the study suggests a single mode of pension disbursal (through banks), computerization and better record keeping at the Sub‐Treasury Office level for expedited pension delivery.



The web‐magazine article Supriya Khandekar, 2011, captures the various problematic issues in implementing the scheme. The authors capture various experiences of beneficiaries and highlight issues like urban poor and elderly being left out of the scheme, delays in monthly payment and the insufficiency of the pension amount. While the article is largely based on individual case studies, it is successful in bringing major issues related to amount of pension to the individual beneficiary, the lack of true penetration of the scheme in urban areas and in general, the lack of accountability in the disbursement procedure. However, the article does not offer conclusive recommendations for these transactional challenges of the scheme. HelpAge International, 2008 is a participatory study by an NGO (Helpage International) to see the impact of pension on poverty reduction and the role that can be played by local monitoring groups. The study is participatory and qualitative in approach and uses narratives to capture beneficiary and stakeholder groups’ views on the use of the pension scheme. The important conclusions from the study are: a) although the amount is small, it helps older persons living alone with a sense of dignity and confidence and for persons who live with families, helps them to improve their quality of life. However the study suggests that monitoring groups are necessary not only in helping the elderly with the application process, but also help in creating awareness about the scheme, advocating elderly persons’ rights and entitlements and in supporting the administration when logistic help is needed.

4.1 Summary of literature review Based on these and other related literature survey including the National Policy on Older Persons (1999) and the draft National Policy for Senior Citizens (2011), the following issues can be summarized.

• The changing demographic situation of the country means that in the years to come, ensuring safety nets to elderly citizens will be a challenge. Further, catering to the health needs of the elderly citizens will be a major issue. Hence, a systematic policy to create socio‐economic and health related safety nets need to be evolved.

• In the changing demographic scenario, 3 important issues emerge: a) most elderly in India will continue to be substantially dependent on others for economic as well as social needs b) the female elderly population is much more vulnerable and susceptible, and hence, direct financial assistance to this group is crucial and c) the rural – urban divide and regional variations in demographic profiles



will create additional dependency issues, with some regions (like North Indian state) requiring much more budgetary allocation for social assistance. Hence, in the case of Karnataka too, it would be plausible to look for inter‐regional variation in degrees of dependency as well as prepare for higher budgetary allocations for social assistance.

• Looking at the demographic projections, the evolution of direct financial assistance in the form of pensions to senior citizens and the recent trends in increased coverage (both at the national level and the state level) are in the right direction.

• Innovative ways of increasing the coverage of pension schemes need to explored. As noted in (Kumar & Anand 2006), political motivations at the grassroots level, voluntary monitoring groups (HelpAge International), technological interventions like smartcards (Rajashekar D et al.) and other culture‐specific interventions (Steering Committee 2001) can help increase the reach, efficiency and usefulness of the scheme.

• Initial transactional costs (application process, validation of applications) and enrolment in the scheme are the major bottle‐necks in the implementation of the scheme.

• There are large inter‐district variations in performance when it comes to operationalising pension schemes (Datta 2008).

• In terms of comparative efficiency, OAP schemes in general have much better performance indicators (Nayak, Saxena, and Farrington; Rajashekar D et al.; Srivastava) than other poverty targeting programmes.

• Record keeping, single window disbursal mechanism, monitoring and tracking are the crucial operational factors that guarantee the effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme.

• Although major incidences of duplication and fake beneficiaries are low, it is important to recognize that the different parameters of eligibility to be verified for enrolment of pensioners cannot be looked in isolation(Rajashekar D et al.; Datta; Srivastava; HelpAge International). Hence, literature suggests that although the beneficiaries covered under the scheme are genuinely disadvantaged, they may not be strictly eligible if scheme guidelines are adhered to in its strict sense. Hence, a lot of issues in the secondary analysis of beneficiary data may not give the true picture of the situation.

In summary, while pension schemes have a huge opportunity to impact the lives of the elderly in a positive way, there are systemic, logistic and infrastructural



challenges that have to be overcome to achieve the expected results. However, the important aspects of the scheme: application processing, monitoring the eligibility criterion, delivery of pensions on time (including budgetary and fiscal planning) are all crucial factors on which the success of the schemes depend. Most of the previous studies reviewed her have focussed on evaluating the process of old age pension delivery from the taluk level to the individual beneficiary in selected locations. These studies have not looked at the larger trends in utilization of the pension schemes in terms of inter‐district/taluk trends in expenditure, beneficiary growth, and duration of pensions which are crucial in evaluating the utility of the scheme and providing strategic feedback in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the pension schemes. Previous studies have focussed on the reach and spread of pensions in the selected field locations. However, they have not attempted to identify the exact administrative and logistical bottlenecks that result in higher transaction costs and delays in delivery and further suggest possible solutions for the same. Hence, this study is phased out into two stages wherein, at the first stage, the larger state‐wide patterns and trends (keeping the taluk as the unit) are understood and in stage two, the issues and concerns found in stage 1 are studied further based on extensive field validations. Additionally, in the first phase of the study, the focus is on determining whether the issues and concerns raised in previous studies are visible through an analysis of existing beneficiary data. Further, in this phase of the study, not all issues of concern raised from literature review can be addressed. Field validation is required for understanding implementation bottlenecks and utility of the scheme from the perspective of the beneficiaries. Hence, in this phase of the study, effort is made to identify suitable field locations where all the identified issues of concern can be observed and validated. With these broad inputs, the data analysis during the secondary study phase has been prepared.



5. Data collection and Analysis methodology

5.1 Requirement analysis and consultation Based on the project objectives, the requirement analysis for the study was conducted by meeting with the officials of the Directorate of Social Security and Pensions (DSSP), Revenue Department, Bangalore. The availability of the data, the feasible outputs of the study and the methodology were discussed.

5.2 Secondary data collection The most important source of data for this project is the beneficiary list of the entire state, maintained by the Treasury in soft‐copy format. Details related to financial allocation to the various schemes implemented by the department: expenditure statements for NSAP (2007‐08 to 2011 – 12), state’s budget allocation and expenditure in the financial year of 2011‐12 up to December 2011, and physical progress in these years were given to the project team. Further, another important source of the data is the NSAP MIS maintained by the NSAP division the Ministry of Rural Development. The data extracted from the NSAP MIS includes Annual reports, scheme guidelines and national and inter‐state allocations of budget for IGNOAPS.

5.3 Limitations of the secondary data As mentioned above, the most important data set for the project is the beneficiary list for different schemes being implemented by the DSSP. This data, although comprehensive in capturing individual beneficiary details of different schemes, had crucial limitations.

Table 6. Details of data in the beneficiary data set Variable Explanation

Treasury code and name Name and code of sub‐treasury Category of pension Scheme to which the beneficiary belongs (OAP, SSY, DWP, PHP etc) Pensioner name Name of the beneficiary Pension status Pension active/suspended Pension commencement date Date on which pension was approved Pension start date Date on which pension was first released Residential address Address of the beneficiary Date of Birth Date of birth of the beneficiary Date of Death Date of death of the beneficiary (if deceased) Sex Gender of the beneficiary Bank account Bank account number if the beneficiary receives pension from the bank Post Office code Post office code if the beneficiary receives pension through the Post Office

Table 6 displays the important column headers present in the data set. Although the data set looks comprehensive based on the variables listed in the dataset, most of the crucial information necessary for the study was either not filled for most of the



beneficiaries or was not reliable. • The demographic details of the beneficiary, like date of birth of the pensioner

and date of death were mostly left empty. • The gender variable was filled for approximately 40% of beneficiaries. • Bank account details and post office codes were unreliable to be used for a

state‐wide analysis. • The difference between the pension commencement date and pension start

date would be useful to analyze the fund flow of the schemes and understand the time‐lag between approval of the beneficiary and the first pension release. However, the start‐date for most of the data was after the year 2002, although pension was granted in the 80s and the 90s. Hence, this analysis is done only for the pensions that were granted after the year 2002.

In the discussions with the department officials about the limitations, it was learnt that, at present, although all these details exist in hard copy for all the existing beneficiaries, a majority of the beneficiary information was not entered in the digital format. The department is in the process of physically validating and correcting the beneficiary data and it would take too long to wait for the validation to be over. Further, the department personnel informed the project team that they do not have beneficiary data segregated based on social groups (SC/ST/OBC etc). Further, although the department has the list of suspended beneficiaries, the date of suspension of the beneficiary is not available. Due to these limitations in data availability, secondary data analysis has been able to achieve some of the objectives only partially. The list of objectives from the secondary data analysis as mentioned in the TOR and the accomplished objectives together with the explanation

Table 7. Objectives of the study Objectives Status Explanation

1. Identification and comparison of taluk/district trendsAnalysis of beneficiary demographic details Accomplished

partially Analysis restricted to available gender data and mode of pension delivery

Allotment of new beneficiaries (taluk/district) Accomplished ‐ Average duration of pensions for beneficiaries Accomplished Analysis restricted to active

beneficiaries Trend of accepted and rejected applications Accomplished

partially Application status data not available with the department. However analysis of delay between commencement of pension and the starting date of receiving pension has been accomplished.



2. Identifying issues of concern Identification and comparison of high

beneficiary density taluks and their population densities.

Accomplished

Un‐natural trends in scheme enrolment and duration of pensions

Accomplished

5.4 Data analysis methodology The important feature of this study is the analysis of the full population of existing beneficiaries (rather than sampling) in the pension schemes, based on data disaggregated up to the level of the individual beneficiary (rather than aggregated data at the taluk/district levels). The primary objective of the study is to arrive at trends and variations w.r.t different dimensions of the implementation of the scheme. This enables the visualization of past trends and the existing scenario as captured by the beneficiary data. This allows the targeting of specific issues of concern and locating taluks and districts wherein evidence of such trends are observable. Hence, the methodology adopted here is one of rigorous descriptive analysis rather than extrapolation and inference.

5.4.1 Analysis of beneficiary demographic details Related literature review and secondary information for the pension schemes suggest that women are the majority beneficiaries in the scheme. To verify this hypothesis, the available gender related data was analyzed using descriptive analysis. Further, the variation in percentage of male and female beneficiaries was carried out from 2005‐06 to 2010‐11 for IGNOAPS and from 2007‐08 to 2010‐11 for SSY. Current percentage of male and female beneficiaries, trends in variation of male and female beneficiaries are presented. Literature suggests that most of pensions are delivered through post office accounts. To verify this hypothesis, the available beneficiary data was analyzed to determine mode of pension delivery (either through post offices or through the bank)

5.4.2 Allotment of new beneficiaries (taluk/district) To understand the trends in allotment of new beneficiaries and to see whether the secondary data shows evidence of policy changes brought in the scheme, the annual growth states in total beneficiaries was analyzed from 1990‐91 to 2010‐11 for IGNOAPS and from 2007‐08 to 2010‐11 for SSY. Further, average annual rates in 5 year periods were calculated for the periods ranging from 1980‐81 to 2010‐2011, at



the state and district levels for both the schemes. Trends and comparison in growth rates are presented.

5.4.3 Average duration of pensions for beneficiaries To understand the average duration of pensions, beneficiaries in the district and taluk were split into different duration categories based on date of commencement of pensions. Thus, while age of beneficiaries was not available, the combination of commencement date of the pensions and the duration categories allows the analysis of age groups of active beneficiaries as well as observe variations and unnatural trends at the district and taluk levels. Districts and taluks with high number of pensioners receiving pensions for more than 25 years have been presented.

5.4.4 Analysis of delay between beneficiary approval and first pension delivery

Previous studies suggest that one of the bottlenecks in the implementation of the pension schemes in the high initial transaction costs. One indicator for testing this hypothesis is to measure the delay between beneficiary approval and delivery of the first pension to the beneficiary. The beneficiary data set provided by the DSSP contains two useful columns called “Commencement Date” and “Start Date”. These refer to the date of approval of the beneficiary for receiving pension and date when the first pension was dispatched to the beneficiary8. The difference between these two dates provides a useful indicator to measure the process efficiency of the pension approval and delivery mechanism. However, the provided dataset had a lot of invalid data which prevented a full‐scale analysis of this delay. For example, the “Start Date” column for most beneficiaries begins from the year 2003 although the “Commencement Date” are decades older. However, looking at the usefulness of this analysis, a state/district analysis of delays for the two schemes has been carried out. Never the less, the interpretation of this analysis has to be concurred with field validation.

5.4.5 Identification and comparison of high beneficiary density taluks and their population densities.

To understand whether the pension schemes have reached out to the most needy of the elderly population of the state, the distribution of beneficiaries across the districts and taluks needs to be analyzed. To evaluate whether a particular district/taluk has the acceptable number of beneficiaries within each scheme, 8 Based on interviews with the personnel of DSSP.



correlation analysis was carried out, with district/taluk statistics that are expected to have causal relationships with the beneficiary coverage in the two schemes. While correlation analysis does not establish causality, it helps to visualize whether the causal relationship is expressed through the beneficiary data. Further, the correlation analysis is carried out at both the district and taluk levels to separate out summation effects. The variables that were correlated with beneficiary coverage are: the population of the district/taluk, (and its share in the overall population of the state), the projected population of elderly citizens9 in the district/taluk and development status (through income component of HDI, number of BPL families and number of ration cards. Based on this analysis, different districts and taluks are compared and contrasted. Districts/taluks with high and low beneficiary densities are presented.

5.4.6 Identification of Un‐natural trends in scheme enrolment and duration of pensions

Based on the above discussion on the methodological aspects of the analysis, a set of indicators are developed to analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation processes of the scheme. These are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Indicators for analysis of beneficiary data Indicator Impact Measurement

Gender ratio The % share of male and female beneficiaries provides a broad but useful way of knowing whether the scheme is reaching out to the needy beneficiaries (based on population share of elderly male and female population)

Ratio of female, male beneficiaries

Average annual growth rate in beneficiaries

The growth relates to the importance of pension in the region and has to be comparable to the region’s socio‐economic status, population of elderly and the expected reach of the scheme as directed by the government.

Annual average percentage rise in cumulative number of beneficiaries in a given period

Duration of pensions for beneficiaries

The duration of pensions gives a way to detect if problems like wrong data entry/fake‐duplicate beneficiaries/invalid beneficiaries exist in the given region

Percentage of total beneficiaries within different age categories

Delay in It gives a useful indicator to measure the Average yearly

9 The elderly population (60+ aged population) data for 2011 was not available. Instead, the population share based on 2001 census data was used to project district and taluk elderly population.



receiving first pension

efficiency of implementation of the pension scheme.

difference in months between approval of beneficiary and first pension delivery

Coverage of pensions

Relates to the reach of the pension schemes among the elderly population of the area and together with the socio‐economic status of the region, can be used to decide strategies for increasing/maintaining the reach of the scheme.

% Share of pension beneficiaries in the total elderly population of the area.

The above indicators are formulated and compared with the state trends (treated as normative). Unexpected trends in these indicators are mapped on to different districts and taluks to arrive at specific issues of concern and the districts and taluks wherein such trends are most visible. The overall trends in beneficiary data can be summarized using the criteria listed in Table 9, based on which districts and taluks can be selected for the second phase of the study.



Table 9. Criteria for recognizing districts and taluks for second phase

Criteria Explanation Variation Mapping strategy Gender distribution of scheme beneficiaries

The state averages and impressions from literature review suggest that female beneficiaries are more than male beneficiaries

District/taluks with abnormally high percentage of male beneficiaries (in comparison with state averages) are mapped

Growth rates in enrolment Growth rates in enrolment indicate implementation status and response to policy changes

Districts/taluks with high and low growth rates (in comparison to state averages) are mapped

Duration of active pensions The analysis of duration of pensions indicates incidences of fake/duplicate beneficiaries

Districts/taluks with abnormally high number of pensions with duration of more than 25 years are mapped

Elderly population coverage Literature suggests that a majority of elderly population is economically weak. Hence, coverage rates of the scheme indicate the effectiveness of its implementation. At the same time, abnormally high coverage rates indicate incidences of fake/duplicate beneficiaries

Districts/taluks with high and low coverage rates (in comparison to state averages) are mapped



6. Data Analysis As discussed in the earlier chapters, IGNOAPS and SSY are the major social assistance programmes being implemented by the DSSP. In this chapter, using the state‐wide beneficiary data provided by DSSP and based on the methodology discussed in the earlier chapter, results of the data analysis are presented. The analysis is presented in the order below.

• Descriptive statistics • Demographic details of the schemes • Analysis of yearly allotment of beneficiaries • Analysis of duration of pensions being received • Analysis of beneficiary coverage among districts and taluks • Correlation analysis of beneficiary count at the taluk and district levels • Summary of issues identified

6.1 Descriptive statistics of IGNOAPS and SSY beneficiaries in Karnataka Table 10 presents the district distribution of beneficiaries under the two schemes. Columns 4 and 5 show the district’s percentage share of the total beneficiaries in each scheme. Column 6 shows the district’s percentage share of the total old age pension beneficiaries in Karnataka. Similarly, Taluk distribution of old age pension beneficiaries is presented in Table 28, Annexure B. From the table, it can be seen that the districts of Belgaum, Bangalore Urban, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Mandya, Mysore, Tumkur and Hassan share between them a large percentage of the total pension beneficiaries in the state. These districts together attribute to 45% of the total pension beneficiaries in the state.

Table 10. District wise distribution of beneficiaries (till 2010)

Districts

Number of Beneficiaries Percentage of total scheme beneficiaries

IGNOAPS SSY Total IGNOAPS SSY Total1 2 3 4 5 6

Bagalkot 17052 58227 75279 2.11% 4.12% 3.39%

Bangalore Rural 20676 33602 54278 2.55% 2.38% 2.44%

Bangalore Urban 50191 92262 142453 6.20% 6.52% 6.41%

Belgaum 77700 130673 208373 9.60% 9.24% 9.37%

Bellary 30491 46188 76679 3.77% 3.27% 3.45%

Bidar 21596 66067 87663 2.67% 4.67% 3.94%

Bijapur 53897 61542 115439 6.66% 4.35% 5.19%

Chamarajanagar 42309 23065 65374 5.23% 1.63% 2.94%



Chikkaballapura 16792 35372 52164 2.07% 2.50% 2.35%

Chikkamagalur 6664 25561 32225 0.82% 1.81% 1.45%

Chitradurga 9852 41146 50998 1.22% 2.91% 2.29%

Coorg 3358 11540 14898 0.41% 0.82% 0.67%

Dakshina Kannada 7009 22036 29045 0.87% 1.56% 1.31%

Davanagere 10628 57875 68503 1.31% 4.09% 3.08%

Dharwad 16663 41456 58119 2.06% 2.93% 2.61%

Gadag 28459 29055 57514 3.52% 2.05% 2.59%

Gulbarga 52951 51365 104316 6.54% 3.63% 4.69%

Hassan 60935 35328 96263 7.53% 2.50% 4.33%

Haveri 10572 55090 65662 1.31% 3.90% 2.95%

Kolar 35400 49546 84946 4.37% 3.50% 3.82%

Koppal 16149 43005 59154 2.00% 3.04% 2.66%

Mandya 49662 59960 109622 6.14% 4.24% 4.93%

Mysore 47562 61429 108991 5.88% 4.34% 4.90%

Raichur 32992 31677 64669 4.08% 2.24% 2.91%

Ramanagara 35602 39636 75238 4.40% 2.80% 3.38%

Shimoga 8091 35190 43281 1.00% 2.49% 1.95%

Tumkur 26122 90942 117064 3.23% 6.43% 5.26%

Udupi 2165 34972 37137 0.27% 2.47% 1.67%

Uttara Kannada 5367 23083 28450 0.66% 1.63% 1.28%

Yadgir 12386 27326 39712 1.53% 1.93% 1.79%

Total 809293 1414216 2223509 36.40% 63.60%

Source: Individual Beneficiary details, provided by DSSP

Districts that account for a major share in IGNOAPS are: Belgaum, Bangalore Urban, Bijapur, Chamarajanagar, Mysore, Gulbarga, Hassan and Mandya. These districts together account for about 48% of the total IGNOAPS beneficiaries in the state. However, the spread in SSY is more even than IGNOAPS. Here, other than Belgaum, Bangalore Urban and Tumkur, other districts have a more or less evenly distributed share of beneficiaries. Chamarajanagar and Hassan are the only districts in the state wherein the number of IGNOAPS beneficiaries is significantly larger than that of SSY. In all other districts, number of SSY beneficiaries is either greater or comparable to that of IGNOAPS. Coorg, Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Uttara Kannada, Shimoga, Chikmagalur and Yadgir have low overall share of pension beneficiaries in the state. These 7 districts together account for just 10% of the total pension beneficiaries in Karnataka. Summary

Districts with large percentage of pension beneficiaries: Belgaum, Bangalore Urban, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Mandya, Mysore, Tumkur and Hassan. (Cumulative % ‐ 45%)

Districts with less percentage of pension beneficiaries: Coorg, Dakshina



Kannada, Udupi, Uttara Kannada, Shimoga, Chikmagalur and Yadgir (cumulative % = ~10%)

Figure 7 shows the cumulative growth of IGNOAPS in Karnataka between 1990 and 2010. The graph demonstrates the beneficiary responses to policy changes made in IGNOAPS. In 1995, the pension remuneration was raised from Rs 40 to Rs 100/month and in 2006‐07, the pension was further raised from Rs 100 to Rs 400/month. These stimuli have shown remarkable responses in terms of increased beneficiary enrolment in these years. In 1995‐96, pension enrolment increased by 66% in one year and in 2006‐07, the increase in enrolment was 45%. From 2006 onwards, number of pensioners enrolled in the scheme has increased significantly.

Figure 7. Growth of IGNOAPS beneficiaries in Karnataka

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Benefeciaries in Lakhs

Beneficiary growth in IGNOAPS

Figure 8 shows the growth patterns of SSY beneficiaries in Karnataka. Due to the increased spending by the state government in the social assistance sector, in less than 5 years of its existence, the scheme has enrolled more beneficiaries than IGNOAPS and now has more than 14 lakhs10 beneficiaries being benefitted by the scheme.

Figure 8. Growth of SSY beneficiaries in Karnataka

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2007 2008 2009 2010

Benefeciaries in Lakhs

Beneficiary growth in SSY

10 The graph shows lesser number of beneficiaries enrolled because of erroneous data entry for year of commencement.



6.2 Analysis of demographic details of the schemes Figure 9 presents the distribution of beneficiaries based on their gender. While the graphs show a marked majority of women beneficiaries in the IGNOAPS scheme, the beneficiary distribution in SSY is more even.

Figure 9. Gender distribution of beneficiaries in pension schemes

Female62%

Male38%

IGNOAPS

Female51%

Male49%

SSY

Female54%

Male46%

Total Beneficiaries

Table 11. Gender distribution of pension beneficiaries

As noted earlier, the number of valid beneficiary observations to do an analysis of gender distribution among beneficiaries itself is limited. However, the spread of valid entries across different years and across taluks is evenly distributed. Hence, it is feasible to generalize the gender ratio found in the valid observations to the whole population of beneficiaries. From Table 11, it can be seen that the majority of beneficiaries in both the pension schemes are women. The district‐wise gender distribution in IGNOAPS and SSY is presented in Table 29, Annexure B.

Scheme

Beneficiaries Total (% of valid

observations in total ben.)

Female Male

IGNOAPS 157795 (62%) 94843 (38%) 252638 (31%)

SSY 344490 (51%) 324920 (49%) 669410 (47%) Total Valid Observations

502285 (54%)

419763 (46%)

922048 (41%)



Table 12. Temporal gender distribution of pension beneficiaries

Years IGNOAPS SSYFemale Male Female Male

2005 67% 33%

2006 65% 35%

2007 58% 42% 49.73% 50.27%

2008 56% 44% 51.30% 48.70%

2009 56% 44% 50.76% 49.24%

2010 56% 44% 51.71% 48.29%

Further, a gender analysis of the growth of beneficiaries in the last 5 years also reveals a similar trend as shown in Table 12. Hence, it can be safely said that the gender trends in the growth of beneficiaries in IGNOAPS and SSY are aligned towards addressing the higher dependency ratio of elderly women in the state as well as the higher life expectancy of women11. Literature suggests that most of the beneficiaries receive their pension through post office accounts. The existing beneficiary data was analysed to understand the mode of pension delivery to the beneficiaries12. Table 13 displays the percentage share of the postal and bank mode of pension delivery. While most of the IGNOAPS pensions are delivered through the post offices, 33% of the SSY pensions are delivered through bank accounts. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that while post offices are the major channels of pension disbursal, pensions for newer beneficiaries (through SSY) are being delivered through bank accounts.

Table 13. Mode of pension delivery Pension delivery mechanism IGNOAPS SSY Total

Post Office Accounts 89% 67% 75% Bank Accounts 11% 33% 25%

6.3 Analysis of yearly allotment of new beneficiaries Figure 10 shows the average annual growth rates of pension beneficiaries at the district level. It can be seen that the periods between 1981‐85, 1996 – 2000 and 2006‐2010 have been the years wherein the number of IGNOAPS beneficiaries grew annually at close to 21%.

11 Life expectancy at birth in Karnataka (2001) for men: 64.5, women: 67 (Source: Karnataka Human Development Report, 2005) 12 This analysis of mode of pension delivery is restricted by limited information available from the beneficiary data should be corroborated by field evidence



Figure 10. Average annual growth rates in beneficiaries across different periods13

29.91%

5.81%8.77%

20.02%16.06%

20.85%

59.19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1981‐85 1986‐90 1991‐95 1996‐2000 2001‐2005 2006‐2010

State average annual growth rates in Pension Schemes

IGNOAPS

SSY

However, in the last period (2006‐2010), due to the introduction of SSY, annual growth rates in IGNOAPS has reduced considerably even at the district level. Since its inception in 2006‐07, SSY has grown considerably fast, with the annual average growth rate close to 60%. District level average annual beneficiary enrolment growth rates for the period between 2006 – 10 are presented in Table 31, Annexure B. Districts with high and low average annual growth rates (for the period between 2006 ‐10) together with the state average for enrolment of beneficiaries under the IGNOAPS scheme are presented in Figure 10. The high growth rate districts (Gadag, Belgaum, Dharwad, Koppal, Bagalkot, Bijapur, Raichur, Hassan and Mysore) together attributed for about 2.5 lakh new enrolments under IGNOAPS between 2006 and 2010, roughly accounting to 56% of the total new enrolments in the state during the same period (and almost 1/3rd of the total number of IGNOAPS beneficiaries in the state). While these unusually high growth rates are causes of concern, it is also true that in the districts of Gadag, Dharwad and Bagalkot, more than 80% of the districts’ total IGNOAPS beneficiaries were enrolled from this time period.

13 Average annual growth rates for SSY enrolment is for the period 2008‐10.



Figure 11. Average annual growth rates in selected districts of Karnataka – IGNOAPS (2006‐10)

80%

65%

53%

32% 30% 29% 28% 27% 27%

21%

7% 8% 9% 10% 10% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Comparison of average growth rates of beneficiaries in selected districts ‐ IGNOAPS (2006 ‐ 10)

However, other districts like Gulbarga, Ramanagara, Coorg, Bidar, Shimoga and Udupi showed low average annual growth rates in enrolment to IGNOAPS. This may be a cause of concern, especially in districts which are economically backward, like Gulbarga and Bidar, where the need for such pension schemes may be more.

Figure 12. Average annual growth rates in selected districts of Karnataka – SSY (2008‐10)

174%

147%

109% 101%

59%

25% 25% 33% 36%

0%20%40%60%80%100%120%140%160%180%200%

Comparison of average growth rates of beneficiaries in selected districts ‐ SSY

Figure 12 shows the average annual growth rates in enrolment of beneficiaries to SSY (for the period 2008 – 10) of districts with considerably higher and lower growth rates in comparison to the state average. Nevertheless, as stated in Section 6.1, the spread of beneficiaries across the state is more even when compared to IGNOAPS.



Hence, growth rates in SSY also show lesser variations. From the figure, interesting observations can be made about the growth rates of the two schemes in districts like Ramanagara and Bagalkot. Both districts have contrasting trends in the two schemes. However, Mysore district shows considerably higher growth rates than the state average of enrolment rates in both schemes. Haveri, Davanagere and Bangalore Rural districts show comparatively less growth rates in SSY. Summary

Districts with higher growth rates than state average in IGNOAPS: Belgaum, Raichur, Gadag, Dharwad, Koppal, Bagalkot, Bijapur, Hassan and Mysore (cumulative: ~56% of new enrolment)

Districts with lower growth rates than state average in IGNOAPS: Gulbarga, Ramanagara, Coorg, Bidar, Shimoga and Udupi

Districts with higher growth rates than state average in SSY: Ramanagara, Chitradurga, Mysore, Chamarajanagar

Districts with lower growth rates than state average in SSY: Bagalkot, Haveri, Davanagere, Bangalore Rural

6.4 Analysis of duration of pensions being received In order to understand the nature of assistance provided by the pension schemes, an analysis of existing beneficiaries, w.r.t to duration of pensions was conducted. As mentioned in the earlier chapter, since age of the beneficiary was not available from the beneficiary data, inferential analysis based on year of pension commencement has been done. Further, all observations which had commencement dates prior to 1965 and after 2011 were left out for the purposes of the analysis. Since SSY has been under implementation since 2007, this analysis is restricted to IGNOAPS scheme. Also, the analysis is done only for active beneficiaries since suspended account data did not have year of account suspension details in them. Figure 13 shows the number of beneficiaries in Karnataka in each duration segment of IGNOAPS. It shows that a majority of the pensioners in the scheme (4.45 lakhs, about 60%) have been receiving pensions for less than 5 years. About 2.4 lakh beneficiaries (about 32%) are receiving pensions for more than 5 years (and up to 15 years). This data can also infer on the spread of age groups of beneficiaries, since the age of the beneficiary should be 65 years for being eligible to the scheme. Thus, categorized age‐wise breakup of the beneficiaries can be obtained from this table. An interesting observation is that 30897 beneficiaries in the state have been receiving pensions for the last 25 years. This can be interpreted as “there are 30897 active pensioners who are older than 90 years in the state”.



Figure 13. Duration of active pensions in Karnataka

96629931 31405

238038

443731

050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000

More than 35 Years

More than 25 years

More than 15 years

More than 5 years

Less than 5 years

Duration of pensions being received in the state ‐IGNOAPS

However, since this category of pensioners forms just 4.5% of the total beneficiaries, at the state level, it could be probably true. Further, all other duration categories show plausible trends. However, district/taluk analysis of average duration of

pensions shows that most of the beneficiaries in the 25+ years duration category can be located in particular districts and taluks. The districts with high numbers of

pensioners in this duration category are presented in Table 14. Similarly, taluks with high numbers of pensioners in the category are presented in Table 15. The complete list of districts and taluks with pensioners grouped in these duration categories is

presented in Table 32 and

Table 33, Annexure B. Table 14. Districts with high numbers of pensioners receiving pension for more than 25 years

Districts

Beneficiaries receiving pension for more than 25

years

Total number of beneficiaries

Ramanagara 4734 (13.31%) 35576

Mysore 3015 (6.34%) 47556

Mandya 2770 (5.65%) 49059

Tumkur 2148 (8.25%) 26026

Bijapur 1685 (3.13%) 53828

Raichur 1620 (4.91%) 32992

Chamarajanagar 1452 (3.43%) 42309

Belgaum 1268 (2.12%) 59796

Bangalore Rural 1235 (5.98%) 20669

Gulbarga 1188 (2.44%) 48755

Shimoga 1140 (14.09%) 8091

Karnataka Total 30897 (4%) 744071 The percentages denote the share of this group in the total number of beneficiaries in the district

60% 32%

4% 4%



Ramanagara, Mysore and Mandya districts together constitute 30% of the pensioners in this category with Ramanagara district having 4734 beneficiaries aged above 90 years. Of them, Kanakapura alone has 2597 beneficiaries. Other taluks which have high densities of pensioners aged above 90 are Tumkur and Mysore taluks. Further, in these districts and taluks, the percentage share of 90+ aged beneficiaries is also high as shown in Table 15. Districts which have high percentage share of this category of beneficiaries (although quite small in terms of actual count of beneficiaries) are Tumkur, Coorg, Shimoga, Chitradurga and Uttara Kannada. Taluks which have high percentage share Shikaripura (Shimoga), Madikeri (Coorg), Somwarpet (Coorg) and Sagar (Shimoga).

Table 15. Taluks with high numbers of pensioners receiving pension for more than 25 years

District

Taluk

Beneficiaries receiving pension for more than 25

years

Total

number of beneficiaries

Ramanagar Kanakapura 2597 (22.77%) 11404

Mysore Mysore 1759 (23.45%) 7495

Tumkur Tumkur 1024 (25.39%) 3991

Ramanagar Channapatna 874 (11.79%) 7411

Chamarajanagar Chamarajanagar 870 (5.13%) 16972

Bijapur Bijapur 866 (9.80%) 8838

Mandya Malavalli 825 (8.68%) 9234

Ramanagar Ramanagara 636 (6.58%) 9673

Ramanagar Magadi 627 (8.81%) 7088

Mandya Srirangapatna 589 (17.09%) 3447

Raichur Raichur 500 (6.03%) 8286

Raichur Devadurga 468 (6.68%) 7008

Mysore Nanjangud 454 (10.37%) 4379

Shimoga Shimoga 386 (18.96%) 2036

Bangalore Rural Hosakote 375 (7.17%) 5229

Gulbarga Gulbarga 368 (2.76%) 13308

Chitradurga Chitradurga 359 (16.43%) 2185

State 30897 (4%) 744071 The percentages denote the share of this group in the total number of beneficiaries in the

taluk

Summary

Districts with high share of 90+ aged beneficiaries: Ramanagara, Mysore, Mandya, Tumkur

Taluks with high share of 90+ aged beneficiaries: Kanakapura, Mysore, Tumkur, Channapatna, Chamarajanagar, Bijapur and Malavalli.

Life expectancy of male is 62.8 years and Life expectancy of female is 66.2



years in Karnataka (SRS 2001‐03)

Figure 14. Delay between beneficiary approval and first pension delivery

.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Months

Average delay between pension approval and delivery

IGNOAPS

SSY

6.5 Analysis of delay between beneficiary approval and first pension delivery

Figure 14 shows the state –wide average delay in the delivery of the first pension to the beneficiary, for the two schemes. It can be seen from the figure that on an average, beneficiaries have to wait between 3 – 4 months for receiving their first pension after approval. The delay in pension delivery is slightly less for SSY in comparison to IGNOAPS. The detailed district‐wise delay in pension delivery from 2003‐04 to 2010‐11 for both the pension schemes is presented in Table 36, Annexure B. The table shows that in most districts, the average delay in pension ranges from 2 months to 5 months. However, due to invalid, missing and unauthenticated data, detailed district level analysis does not yield valid dependable results. Nevertheless, deeper, meaningful inter‐district/taluk analysis of such delay can be carried during the next phase of the study.

6.6 Analysis of beneficiary coverage To understand the reach of the pension schemes at the district and taluk levels, the number of beneficiaries in each scheme at the district/taluk levels was correlated to related variables based on the logic explained below.



Table 16. Correlation analysis

Variable

Reason Expected sign

Test level

District/taluk population

Does higher populations correlate to higher beneficiary counts

+ Dist/Taluk

District/taluk elderly population

Does higher elderly populations correlate to higher beneficiary counts

+ Dist/Taluk

HDI of the district Are the district’s development status and number of beneficiaries related

‐ Dist

Income HDI of the district

Are the district’s economic status and number of beneficiaries related

‐ Dist

BPL Families Are beneficiary numbers related to number of poor households

+ Dist

BPL Cards Are beneficiary numbers related to BPL cards Dist

IGNOAPS and SSY Are the beneficiary numbers just related to each other? + Dist/Taluk

Table 17. District‐wise correlation between pension beneficiaries related variables

Correlation Tables IGNOAPS SSY Total Beneficiaries

District Population (2011) 0.485 0.686 0.667

Estimated elderly population (2011) 0.538 0.761 0.740

Income component of HDI ‐0.229* ‐0.144* ‐0.204*

HDI ‐0.256* ‐0.009* ‐0.134*

Number of BPL Families 0.544 0.369 0.502

Total BPL Cards 0.542 0.501 0.667

SSY 0.994 ‐ ‐

rcrit value(n = 30, significance: 0.02) = 0.361* correlation coefficient not statistically significant

Table 17 shows the correlation tables for count of beneficiaries at the district level. As it can be seen, at the district level, count of beneficiaries for the pension schemes is positively correlated with district’s population (and more so with the elderly population) and BPL families and total BPL cards at the district level. Number of SSY beneficiaries at the district level is positively related with population variables. However, the correlation of pension beneficiaries with district HDI indicators did not yield statistically significant result. Table 18 shows the correlation tables for count of beneficiaries at the taluk level. Similar to district level correlation results, the counts of pension schemes’ beneficiaries are positively correlated to population variables. However, at the taluk



level, the correlation is more positive and is expressed strongly in the correlation between SSY beneficiaries and population variables. The results of the correlation analysis are further strengthened by data presented in the tables presented below.

Table 18. Taluk‐wise correlation between pension beneficiaries related variables Correlation Tables

IGNOAPS SSYTotal

Beneficiaries Taluk Population (2011) 0.635 0.828 0.829

Estimated elderly population

0.643 0.845 0.843

SSY 0.603

rcrit value(n = 175, significance: 0.02) = 0.273

Table 19 and Table 20 present for different districts, their respective share of IGNOAPS and SSY beneficiaries in the state and compare it with their respective share of elderly population and their income component of HDI. While district beneficiary percentages are negatively related to the income HDIs of the districts (as expected, but results were not statistically significant), the trends are more aligned with the district elderly population percentages rather than with district development status.

Table 19. Districts having high share of pension beneficiaries

District

Share of district in state’s total beneficiaries

Rank in income

component of HDI

Projected elderly

population (60+)

OAP beneficiaries

SSY beneficiaries

Total beneficiaries

Belgaum 8.24% 9.60% 9.24% 9.37% 13

Bangalore Urban 13.02% 6.20% 6.52% 6.41% 1

Tumkur 5.26% 3.23% 6.43% 5.26% 22

Bijapur 3.42% 6.66% 4.35% 5.19% 23

Mandya 3.56% 6.14% 4.24% 4.93% 20

Mysore 5.22% 5.88% 4.34% 4.90% 7

Gulbarga 3.87% 6.54% 3.63% 4.69% 25

Hassan 3.32% 7.53% 2.50% 4.33% 16

Bidar 2.90% 2.67% 4.67% 3.94% 26

Kolar 2.82% 4.37% 3.50% 3.82% 21

Table 20. Districts which have less share of pension beneficiaries

District

Share of district in state’s overall count

Rank in income

component of HDI

Elderly population (60+)

OAP beneficiaries

SSY beneficiaries

Total beneficiaries

Bangalore Rural 1.90% 2.55% 2.38% 2.44% 4

Chikkaballapura 2.29% 2.07% 2.50% 2.35% ‐



Chitradurga 2.98% 1.22% 2.91% 2.29% 18

Shimoga 2.74% 1.00% 2.49% 1.95% 10

Yadgir 1.77% 1.53% 1.93% 1.79% ‐

Udupi 2.70% 0.27% 2.47% 1.67% 5

Chikmagalur 1.94% 0.82% 1.81% 1.45% 6

Dakshina Kannada 3.72% 0.87% 1.56% 1.31% 2

Uttara Kannada 2.46% 0.66% 1.63% 1.28% 11

Kodagu 0.92% 0.41% 0.82% 0.67% 3

6.6.1 Analysis of trends in coverage of pensions Figure 15 displays the districts with high and low coverage of pensions (w.r.t estimated elderly population in the districts) together with the average coverage of beneficiaries at the state level. It shows that the districts of Ramnagara, Bijapur, Chamarajanagar, Gadag and Koppal display highest coverage rates (more than 65% of projected elderly population in each district). Further, the districts of Dakshina Kannada, Bangalore Urban, Udupi and Shimoga have comparatively low coverage rates. Table 21 displays taluks that have high and low coverage rates.

Figure 15. Districts with high and low coverage of pension beneficiaries

78%73% 73% 71% 68%

48%

17%24% 25%

30%34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Districts with high and low coverage of pensions



The figure below captures the above trends by graphing pension coverage in the districts arranged in increasing order of net district per capita income14.

Figure 16. Comparison of coverage of pensions with district per capita incomes (2007‐08)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Chamarajana…

Bidar

Mandya

Raichur

Koppal

Haveri

Chikkaballap…

Hassan

Gulbarga

Tumkur

Bijapur

Belgaum

Chitradurga

Gadag

Bagalkot

Uttara…

Kolar

Davanagere

Ramanagara

Chikmagalur

Shimoga

Mysore

Dharwad

Udupi

Bellary

Dakshina …

Bangalore …

Kodagu

Bangalore …

Coverage of projected elderly population in districts based on per capita income

The graph shows a marked inverse relationship between pension coverage and district per capita income. However, there are marked differences of over‐coverage in districts of Bijapur, Gadag and Ramanagara. Looking at the list of districts and taluks with high coverage rates reported in Table 21, most of the taluks are located in economically backward districts. Interestingly, Mysore, Raichur and Bellary districts’ taluks (T. Narsipura and Mysore, Lingsagur and Manvi, Kudligi and Bellary) are located on both sides of the table (high and low coverage respectively). Taluks of many developed districts show low coverage of elderly populations.

Table 21. Taluks with high and low coverage of pensions in elderly population District Taluk Coverage District Taluk Coverage

Bijapur Indi 121% Mysore Mysore 28%

Gadag Ron 116% Dakshina Kannada Bhantwala 27%

Raichur Lingsagur 105% Kodagu Madikeri 27%

Gulbarga Chincholi 98% Kodagu Virajpet 27%

Koppal Koppal 93% Udupi Kundapura 27%

Ramanagar Kanakapura 93% Shimoga Sagar 27%

Gulbarga Chittapur 92% Uttara Kannada Karwar 25%

14 Source: Karnataka at a Glance, 2009‐10, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Karnataka



Mandya Nagamangala 89% Bellary Bellary 25%

Davanagere Jagalur 88% Dharwad Dharwad 23%

Chikkaballapura Gudibanda 88% Raichur Manvi 23%

Bidar Basavakalyan 87% Bangalore Urban Bangalore Urban 21%

Ramanagar Magadi 85% Shimoga Shimoga 20%

Mysore T. Narsipura 83% Dakshina Kannada Mangalore 16%

Bellary Kudligi 82% Uttara Kannada Bhatkal 15%

Hassan Hassan 81% Dakshina Kannada Beltangadi 15%

Bidar Bhalki 79% Dakshina Kannada Sulya 15%

Chamarajanagar Gundlupet 79% Uttara Kannada Sirsi 12%

Chamarajanagar Yelandur 79% Uttara Kannada Siddapur 8%

Bagalkote Bilgi 78% Uttara Kannada Haliyal 8%

Mandya Pandavapura 78% Dakshina Kannada Puttur 7%

Taluk coverage together with their HPCRRI rankings15 is presented in Table 35, Annexure B. Comparison of taluks listed in Table 21 with their backwardness (as determined through the HPCRRI) shows that 16 of the 20 taluks that have low pension coverage fall under the ‘relatively developed taluk’ (ranked 1 – 61) category, while 11 taluks out the 20 high pension coverage taluks fall under the ‘backward taluk’ (ranked 62 – 175) categories. 6 of these taluks are from the ‘most backward taluk’ (ranked 137 – 175) categories.

Figure 17. Elderly population coverage in taluks of Karnataka (arranged based on their CDI)

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

140.00%

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103

109

115

121

127

133

139

145

151

157

163

169

175

Coverage of projected elderly population in the taluks of Karnataka

Within the categories of ‘backward’ (ranked 62 – 96), ‘more backward’ (ranked 97 – 136) and most backward’, there are large variations in pension coverage. For example, a comparison of pension coverage in selected taluks listed in Table 21 with

15 HPCRRI: High Power Committee for Redressal of Regional Imbalances (Nanjudappa Committee Report), 2002



taluks with similar CDI scores according to HPCRRI show there are large variations in coverage although the CDI scores are similar. Thus, as shown in Figure 17, it can be concluded that although pension coverage of elderly population is relatively less in ‘relatively developed taluks’ the variations within other categories of taluks cannot be individually related to their development status. Summary

Districts with high coverage of pension schemes: Ramnagara, Bijapur, Chamarajanagar, Gadag and Koppal

Districts with low coverage of pension schemes: Dakshina Kannada, Bangalore Urban, Uttara Kannada, Udupi, Shimoga

Taluks with high coverage of pension schemes: Indi, Ron, Lingsgur, Chincholi, Koppal, Kanakaura, Chittapura, Nagamangala. Jagalur. Gudibanda

Taluks with low coverage of pension schemes: Bangalore Urban, Shimoga, Mangalore, Bhatkal, Beltangadi, Sulya, Sirsi, Siddapur, Haliyal, Puttur

6.7 Identfication of Un‐natural trends Based on the different analysis done in the above sections, variations and un‐natural trends are mapped to districts and taluks in this section. Based on the format used in Table 9, the mapping exercise was carried out, for locating issues of concern identified in the data analysis. Keeping in mind the various field validation of issues of concern (expressed in literature review as well as identified in the data analysis as shown above) to be carried out, Table 22 presents the results of mapping of important variations in beneficiary data with districts and taluks where these variations are visible. The list contains taluks that show un‐natural trends with the specific criterion as well as few taluks that display normal trends. This is done explicitly to get a comparative understanding of the trends observed in the beneficiary dataset.

Table 22. Trends and mapped districts and taluks Criterion District Taluks

Gender distribution

No significant variations in gender distribution of scheme beneficiaries was found at the district and taluk level

Growth rates in enrolment

Ramanagara, Belgaum, Raichur, Mysore, Koppal, Gadag, Chamarajanagar, Bijapur, Davanagere, Shimoga

Ramanagar, Kanakapura, Chikkodi, Gokak, Mysore, T Narasipura, Koppal, Kushtagi, Gadag, Ron, Chamarajanagar, Gundlupet, Indi, Bijapur,, Davanagere, Shimoga

Duration of active pensions

Ramanagara, Mysore, Shimoga Kanakapura, Mysore, Shikaripura

Elderly Ramnagara, Bijapur, Kanakapura, Magadi, Indi, Gundlupet



population coverage

Chamarajanagar, Gadag, Koppal, Gulbarga, Yadgir, Raichur, Mysore, Shimoga Davanagere

Ron, Shirahatti, Koppal, Kushtagi, Chincholi, Chittapur , Shahpur, Lingsugur, Manvi, T. Narsipura, Mysore, Sagar, Shimoga, Jagalur

The selection criterion for all the taluks, mapping their projected population and elderly population in 2011, overall percentage of pension coverage, percentage of

beneficiaries receiving more than 25 years, annual average growth rate in IGNOAPS since 2006 is given in

Table 37, Annexure B.



7. Interpretation of results and devising sampling methodology

7.1 Interpretation of results of data analysis The analysis of the state wide beneficiary data was conducted with the objective of understanding the trends in spatio‐temporal spread of beneficiaries in Karnataka. Many of the results obtained in this analysis are aligned with the major issues identified in the literature survey. Important findings are: The gender trends of beneficiaries show that female beneficiaries across the state and across IGNOAPS and SSY are more than male beneficiaries. This result corroborates with the literature which states that female beneficiaries are more in number and moreover, this statistics indicates that the pension schemes have been addressing the higher dependency ratio of elderly women in the state. Most of the IGNOAPS beneficiaries receive their pensions through the Post Office. However, increasingly, more and more SSY beneficiaries are availing their pensions through the Bank. On the whole, 75% of the beneficiaries receive their pension through the Post Office and 25% of the beneficiaries receive their pension through Banks. The growth rates in beneficiary enrolments to IGNOAPS and SSY show in general, a rising trend and trend analysis shows that the beneficiary numbers are extremely responsive to changes in policies. This indicates that pension schemes (and direct cash disbursements through the schemes) are in high demand in the state. Further, the steady growth in active pensioners in the state is a step in the right direction, since projections of elderly populations and their projected socio‐economic status predict higher dependency ratios for elderly population in the coming years. There are inter‐district and intra‐district variations in the enrolment patterns of the scheme. In general, the enrolment is low in Malnad and Costal taluks which have better HDI values. However, it is difficult to generalize that districts with high HDIs have low enrolments and the vice‐versa. The trends in enrolment are more related to elderly population than development status. This indirectly supports the argument that at the grassroots level, eligibility criteria in their strict sense may not have been followed. Hence, field verification in the districts and taluks showing variations in the trends is required to establish valid reasons for such disparities.



The comparison of IGNOAPS and SSY shows that growth in SSY across districts and taluks is higher than that of IGNOAPS. Also, the positive correlation of SSY with district/taluk populations is more in comparison with IGNOAPS. Further, while inter‐district variation in number of beneficiaries and growth rates in IGNOAPS, the trends show less variance in SSY. This may be however, due to the facts that SSY is still a new scheme in comparison with IGNOAPS and the initial surge of beneficiaries in all districts in the scheme hides the inter‐district variations. The analysis of duration of pensions delivered to beneficiaries at the state level shows a plausible trend but when the pensions being delivered for more than 25 years (which technically means that the beneficiaries are 90+ years old) are mapped to districts and taluks, it is revealed that most of these beneficiaries are mapped to a few districts (namely Ramanagara, Mysore and Tumkur). Kanakapura taluk has a high incidence of this phenomenon. Further, many Malnad districts including Kodagu show in particular that the percentage of 90+ beneficiaries is substantially higher in their taluks in comparison to other districts. The results of this analysis indicate that a thorough field level verification needs to be carried out in critical taluks in order to validate the findings. On an average, the delay between approval of the beneficiary and delivery of the first pension is between 3 to 4 months. District delays vary from 2 months to 5 months. Again, this analysis needs to be corroborated through field validation since the quality of data entered in the beneficiary data set may not be dependable. This also suggests that the quality of beneficiary dataset that exists at the state level in digital format should be thoroughly verified (this activity is in process by the DSSP), with all the different demographics related fields filled. This allows specific analysis of age/class groups of interest which could trigger future policy changes. The analysis of beneficiary coverage within each district and taluk also show interesting results. While relatively developed taluks (based on HPCRRI, 2002) have low pension coverage (of projected elderly populations), inter‐district and intra‐taluk variations within other taluk categories are also large (backward, more backward and most backward taluks). These variations are not directly related to their development status. Hence, many districts show taluks which come under the category of high coverage as well as taluks within the same districts that come under the category of low coverage of pension scheme.



7.2 Developing detailed sampling strategy for the second phase of the study Based on the observations made in the previous section, and using the mapping of issues to districts and taluks shown in Table 22, a consolidated list of districts and the taluks within these districts where field validation of both the pension schemes can be carried out is presented in Table 23. This list is prepared based on issues and variations identified by the analysis of beneficiary data as well as the major points drawn in from the literature survey for the study. The list contains 12 districts within which individual taluks are chosen based on specific criteria (as mentioned in Table 22). The number of taluks selected is 26. Further, the districts and taluks are also spaced to capture 1) intra‐district variations, 2) representative sampling of all regions of Karnataka which show un‐natural variations in the trends in beneficiary distribution and 3) taluks that show normal trends as well.

Table 23. Identified districts and taluks District Taluks

Belgaum Chikkodi, Gokak

Bijapur Bijapur, Indi

Chamarajanagar Chamarajnagar, Gundlupet

Davanagere Davanagere, Jagalur

Gadag Ron, Shirahatti, Gadag

Gulbarga Chincholi, Chittapur

Koppal Koppala, Kushtagi

Mysore Mysore, T Narasipura

Raichur Lingsugur, Manvi

Ramnagara Ramanagara, Kanakapura, Magadi

Shimoga Shimoga, Sagar, Shikaripur

Yadgir Shahpur

The second phase of the study is based on this non‐probabilistic, purposive, deviant case sampling methodology of taluks and districts. Hence, the findings of the second phase, although not suitable for generalizing to the entire state, is made with the objective of identifying causal patterns for variations in deviant taluks and districts (representative of all deviant cases, under the criteria mentioned in Table 9), thereby enabling the government to understand and respond to the specific issues of concern found in these districts. With this background, the objectives of the secondary phase of the study are provided below.



7.3 Objectives of the second phase of the study 1. Validate and understand the reasons for

a. High and low enrolments in pension schemes at the taluk level b. Over‐coverage and under‐coverage of pension schemes c. High occurrence of active pensioners with the duration of pension

above 25 years. 2. Understand the logical bottlenecks in the implementation of the pension

schemes based on grassroots observations. 3. Understand whether there is a need for regional prioritization in

implementation of pension schemes. 4. Capture socio‐economic status of beneficiaries and understand the beneficiary

perspectives on the usefulness of the pension schemes 5. Analyze the socio‐economic benefits across different beneficiary categories

(based on mechanisms of pension delivery, duration of pension, geographic regions, socio‐economic status etc)

6. To create base‐line data that allows for the possibility to measure the impact of the scheme on issues like socio‐economic effectiveness on beneficiaries

7. Evaluate the process of pension delivery, monitoring and grievance mechanisms from the grassroots level, including analysis of performance of functionaries.

8. To explore inter/intra departmental in all phases (beneficiary selection, scheme implementation and grievance mechanism) of scheme implementation.

9. Suggest suitable changes in implementation strategy, monitoring and grievance redress mechanisms if necessary

10. Propose the strategy for implementing the systemic changes (age groups and pension slabs) being envisioned in the implementation of schemes like IGNOAPS16

7.4 Sampling and analysis framework

7.4.1 Analysis methodology As said earlier, the main goal of the second phase of the study is to understand and validate the various un‐natural trends observed through the secondary analysis of beneficiary data through field visits and personal interviews. Hence, the selection of taluks, although representative, is non‐probabilistic in nature and hence the results

16 Based on the Official Memorandum (Letter:J‐11015/1/2011‐NSAP) from GOI, dated June 30, 2011



of the second phase of the study cannot be generalized to the whole state. However, based on the sampling framework, the results of the analysis are representative of the beneficiaries and processes within the selected taluks. Hence, beneficiary population based weights are assigned to individual taluks in the statistical analysis. Proposed analysis tools include both statistical and non‐statistical tools like regression analysis, case‐studies, process evaluation. The interview schedules provided by the tenth round sample check on developmental programmes is a detailed documentation and questionnaire for evaluating existing procedures, beneficiary background and measuring their current socio‐economic status. These schedules will be primarily used in the second phase of the study. Further, the schedule will be suitably modified based on initial field visits and pilot survey. The interview schedules are attached in Annexure C. Validation at the taluk offices, sub‐treasury offices, Nemmadi Kendras, verification of selected records, interviews with key operational personnel and functionaries will be carried out, followed by field survey of beneficiaries. In these interviews and verification exercises, points stated in the objectives will be covered using the detailed schedules listed in Annexure C.

7.4.2 Sampling strategy Table 23 shows the identified districts and taluks wherein the second phase of the study can be carried out. This sample study includes 12 districts and 26 taluks. The selection of taluks for the study as discussed in the previous section is non‐probabilistic, purposive, deviant case sampling. Hence, for the purposes of the study, the taluk is the basic unit of analysis. However, within the taluk, 100 representative samples are selected for which multi‐stage sampling methodology will be followed to select the sample beneficiaries for the personal interviews. In the first stage, 3 villages containing at‐least 50 beneficiaries are selected. Within each village, in the second stage, 10 IGNOAPS beneficiaries and 15 SSY beneficiaries will be selected. Further, within each taluk, from the taluk head quarters 10 IGNOAPS beneficiaries and 15 SSY beneficiaries will be selected. Sampling criteria to be followed while selecting samples within each village are:

1. Representative samples receiving pensions through both post office and banks

2. Representative samples from 3 duration of pension categories (0 – 10 years, 11 – 25 years, more than 25 years)

3. Representative samples to include male and female beneficiaries and different socio‐economic classes.



The suggested sampling framework for the study is presented below. Table 24. Sampling framework

Criteria SamplesNumber of taluks 26 Rural samples from each taluk 75(30 IGNOAPS, 45 SSY)Taluk headquarter samples 25 (10 IGNOAPS, 15 SSY) Sample size in each village 25 (10 IGNOAPS, 15 SSY) Number of villages per taluk 3Total samples per taluk 100 Total samples for the study 2600 Complete enumerations per taluk 1 Total enumerated villages 26Total villages covered 78

Summary of sampling strategy

• In all 12 selected districts and 26 taluks will be covered. • Sampling criteria:

o Two pension schemes o Delivery mechanism o Duration categories o Demographic characteristic (gender, socio‐economic classes etc)

• In each taluk, at 75 rural and 25 taluk headquarters based beneficiaries will be sampled. The rural samples will be taken from three villages, selected at random, covering 25 beneficiaries.

• In the event of non‐availability of the chosen sample beneficiaries (permanent migration, etc.), they will be duly substituted with the reserve sample available.

• In each taluk, one village will be selected for complete enumeration. In the complete enumeration village, rejected applicants will also be included.

7.5 Recommendations based on the findings from phase 1 of the study Based on the observations, discussions and findings of the study, the following recommendations regarding the management of beneficiary database are suggested.

1. DSSP has mentioned that physical verification of records is in process based on which, a large number of ineligible pension beneficiaries are being suspended. Further, the DSSP is also in the process of issuing smart cards for all the beneficiaries under the pension schemes. Both these processes involve large scale verifications of records of existing beneficiaries for the pension schemes.



At the same time, the findings of the study indicate that the coverage of old age population is abnormally high in many taluks. For example, in the case of Ron (Gadag district), Indi (Bijapur District) and Lingsagur (Raichur), the number of pensioners exceeds the projected old age population of the taluks. Hence, we recommend that rigorous verification be carried out, in taluks showing abnormally high coverage rates of elderly populations through the pension schemes, to understand reasons for these abnormal trends. Further, large scale suspension of beneficiary accounts will have considerable socio‐political impacts at the taluk level since pension schemes are well‐known social security initiatives. Hence, we recommend a detailed documentation on the outcomes of such suspension of accounts. If detailed data regarding taluk‐wise cancellations is made available to the project team during phase 2 of the study, an analysis of effects of such cancellations can also be studied in the taluks selected for the study.

2. During the analysis of the socio‐economic profiles of the beneficiaries, it was

noticed that the database did not contain information such as a. The age of the pensioner (current/age at receiving application) b. The social group of the pensioner (SC/ST/BC etc) c. The urban/rural categorization of the pensioner

On enquiry, it was found that while these details exist on the hardcopy files of the individual beneficiaries, they have not been updated on the digital list of beneficiaries. Hence, there is a lack of information at the state level, to conduct analysis of issues like a. Current status and patterns of growth in expenditure details on SCP

component of the schemes, b. Demographic analysis and patterns in growth of beneficiaries of different

social groups c. Analysis of growth rates of urban and rural beneficiaries across taluks and

districts

Considering the probable significant policy implications based such analysis, the study recommends that the DSSP takes up the task of filling these details in the digital database of beneficiaries on a priority basis.



3. On interaction with the DSSP officials, it was found that monthly monitoring data collected from districts and taluks does not contain information pertaining to issues discussed above. Further, the study found large variations between the number of IGNOAPS beneficiaries reported by the state in the NSAP MIS and the number of IGNOAPS beneficiaries as reported in its financial reports. Instead of having to resort to large scale verification and validation processes after long intervals (that has resulted in suspensions of vast amounts of beneficiary accounts, as done recently), the directorate could develop better monitoring formats (based on digitized beneficiary database) that help in creating checks and balances for better periodic monitoring of the implementation of pension schemes in the state. Hence, the study recommends the use of an evolved template for monthly monitoring of the scheme at the district and taluk levels, keeping in mind the needs of different types of analysis that can be carried out to adequately assess the implementation of the scheme at the state level. Based on such templates, data has to be collected periodically at the district/taluk level for the DSSP to better analyze the state level situation in disbursal of social pensions and react to unwanted trends at a faster pace.

Detailed recommendations regarding the planning and implementation of the scheme at the district/taluk level can be made based on the findings of the second phase of the evaluation.



Bibliography 1. Datta, Puja Vasudeva. The Performance of Social Pensions in India:The Case of

Rajasthan. New Delhi: World Bank, 2008. Print. Social Protection and Labour.

2. HelpAge International. The Social Pension in India: A Participatory Study on the

Poverty Reduction Impact and Role of Monitoring Groups. HelpAge International,

2008. Print.

3. Kumar, Anand, and Navneet Anand. Poverty Target Programs for the Elderly in India

(with Special Reference to NOAPS, 1995). Chronic Poverty Research Center, 2006.

Print. Background Paper, Chronic Poverty Report (2008-09).

4. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, GOI. 2011. Draft National Policy for

Senior Citizens.

5. ---. National Policy on Older Persons. 1999. Print.

6. Nayak, Radhika, N. C Saxena, and John Farrington. Reaching the Poor: The Influence

of Policy and Administrative Processes on the Implementation of Government Poverty

Schemes in India. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute, 2002. Print.

Working Paper 175.

7. Programme Evaluation Organziation. Evaluation Report On National Old Age

Pension Scheme (NOAPS) in Jammu & Kashmir. Srinagar: Population Research

Centre,Department of Economics, University of Kashmir, 2009. Print. Evaluation.

8. Rajashekar D et al. Delivery of Social Security and Pension Benefits in Karnataka.

Bangalore: ISEC, 2009. Print.

9. Sathyendra Prakash. “Policies and Programmes on Population Ageing - Indian

Perspective.” Social, Health and Economic Consequences of Population Ageing in the

Context of Changing Families. Bangkok, 2007. Print.

10. Srivastava, Pradeep. Poverty Targeting in Asia: Country Experience of India. New



Delhi: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2004. Print. Discussion Paper: 5.

11. Steering Committee. 2006. Report for Family Welfare, Steering Committee Reports

for the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007 - 2012). Sectorwise Reports. Steering

Committee Reports for the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007 -2012). Delhi: Planning

Commission.

12. ---. Report for Family Welfare, Steering Committee Reports for the Tenth Five Year

Plan (2002 - 2007). Delhi: Planning Commission, 2001. Print. Steering Committee

Reports for the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007).

13. Supriya Khandekar. “Pension for the Poor: The 400 Rupees That Doesn’t Go Far.”

The Alternative 30 June 2011. Web. 4 Jan. 2012.



Annexure A Table 25. Rural and Urban IGNOAPS beneficiaries in India

State Rural Count

Urban Count

No Of Beneficiaries

Andaman And Nicobar 6 0 6

Andhra Pradesh 489952 450198 940150

Arunachal Pradesh 7793 0 7793

Assam 499136 41859 540995

Bihar 1414422 91283 1505705

Chandigarh 513 3851 4364

Chhattisgarh 333959 69484 403443

Dadra & Nagar Haveli 991 33 1024

Daman & Diu 89 0 89

Delhi 0 359841 359841

Goa 99 0 99

Gujarat 127574 86394 213968

Haryana 98170 9516 107686

Himachal Pradesh 85274 2369 87643

Jammu And Kashmir 39369 11564 50933

Jharkhand 507742 32977 540719

Karnataka 914945 102375 1017320

Kerala 156920 0 156920

Lakshadweep 2 0 2

Madhya Pradesh 546937 149027 697447

Maharashtra 903247 171639 1074886

Manipur 56183 4799 60982

Meghalaya 44291 3034 47325

Mizoram 13827 9929 23756

Nagaland 39858 0 39858

Orissa 645777 46008 691785

Pondicherry 13867 0 13867

Punjab 131902 26211 158113

Rajasthan 610660 66689 677349

Sikkim 16677 0 16677

Tamil Nadu 687705 333784 1021489

Tripura 136878 11284 148162

Uttarakhand 162595 7161 169756

Uttar Pradesh 3471080 219694 3690774

West Bengal 0 182916 182916

Total 12158440 2493919 14653842 Source: Beneficiary Abstract National Level Report, National Social Assistance Programme Website (http://nsap.nic.in), accessed on 26‐01‐2012



Table 26. Gaps in Beneficiary data reported in IGNOAPS

State Reported by States to MORD

Available on the NSAP ‐ MIS

Data Gap

Andaman And Nicobar 861 6 855

Andhra Pradesh 1011153 940150 71003

Arunachal Pradesh 14500 7793 6707

Assam 628949 540995 87954

Bihar 2654193 1505705 1148488

Chandigarh 4357 4364 ‐7

Chhattisgarh 551562 403443 148119

Dadra & Nagar Haveli 944 1024 ‐80

Daman & Diu 127 89 38

Delhi 200778 359841 ‐159063

Goa 2734 99 2635

Gujarat 291081 213968 77113

Haryana 137666 107686 29980

Himachal Pradesh 91440 87643 3797

Jammu And Kashmir 129000 50933 78067

Jharkhand 676003 540719 135284

Karnataka 817753 1017320 ‐199567

Kerala 176064 156920 19144

Lakshadweep 36 2 34

Madhya Pradesh 1061033 697447 363586

Maharashtra 1086027 1074886 11141

Manipur 72514 60982 11532

Meghalaya 48112 47325 787

Mizoram 23747 23756 ‐9

Nagaland 40462 39858 604

Orissa 643400 691785 ‐48385

Pondicherry 20757 13867 6890

Punjab 159792 158113 1679

Rajasthan 550173 677349 ‐127176

Sikkim 18531 16677 1854

Tamil Nadu 1014172 1021489 ‐7317

Tripura 136592 148162 ‐11570

Uttar Pradesh 3300260 3690774 ‐390514

Uttarakhand 187147 169756 17391

West Bengal 1252795 182916 1069879

Total 17004715 14653842 3294561 Source: Beneficiary data gap report, National Social Assistance Programme Website (http://nsap.nic.in), accessed on 26‐01‐2012



Table 27. State and Centreʹs contribution in IGNOAPS pension (2009)

Source: Annual Report, 2009‐10, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India



Annexure B Table 28. Taluk‐wise Beneficiary details

District

Taluk

Number of beneficiaries

OAP SSY Total Bangalore Urban Anekal 1833 10131 11964

Bangalore East(K.R.Puram) 4514 9180 13694

Bangalore North 170 0 170

Bangalore Urban 43674 72951 116625 Bangalore Rural Devanahalli 3495 7369 10864

Doddaballapura 6261 9439 15700

Hosakote 5233 9458 14691

Nelamangala 5687 7336 13023 Ramanagara Chanapatna 7411 7539 14950

Kanakapura 11405 17853 29258

Magadi 7113 9021 16134

Ramanagara 9673 5223 14896 Chikkaballapura Bagepalli 1720 8274 9994

Chikkaballapura 3290 5121 8411

Chintamani 6295 8032 14327

Gowribidnur 1317 6787 8104

Gudibande 1768 2433 4201

Shidlaghatta 2402 4725 7127 Kolar Bangarpet 15683 8317 24000

Kolar 7241 13758 20999

Malur 2071 12259 14330

Mulbagal 4671 10229 14900

Srinivasa 5734 4983 10717 Tumkur Chicknayak 1449 5230 6679

Gubbi 1300 11084 12384

Koratagere 3033 4425 7458

Kunigal 3037 13448 16485

Madhugiri 3380 12921 16301

Pavagada 2118 5989 8107

Sira 1893 9589 11482

Tiptur 3825 4556 8381

Tumkur 4033 17938 21971

Turuvekere 2054 5762 7816 Mysore Heggadadevanakote 1832 10108 11940

Hunsur 7785 7573 15358

Krishnaraja Nagar 10179 4698 14877

Mysore 7500 19328 26828

Nanjangud 4379 8515 12894

Periyapatna 1657 4244 5901



T.Narsipura 14230 6963 21193 Chamarajanagar Chamarajanagar 16972 5569 22541

Gundlupet 9047 6651 15698

Kollegal 12987 8437 21424

Yelandur 3303 2408 5711 Mandya K.R.Pet 7513 8796 16309

Maddur 7312 10956 18268

Malaval 9507 9089 18596

Mandya 8761 9967 18728

Nagaman 4373 11608 15981

Pandava 8749 4063 12812

Srirang 3447 5481 8928 Coorg Madikeri 440 2540 2980

Somwarpet 1314 6405 7719

Virajpet 1604 2595 4199 Hassan Alur 2696 1851 4547

Arakalgud 3532 5016 8548

Arasikere 8206 8381 16587

Belur 6004 3691 9695

Channarayapat 11321 5127 16448

Hassan 20406 5736 26142

Holenarasipur 7006 3331 10337

Sakaleshpura 1764 2195 3959 Shimoga Bhadravathi 2936 4912 7848

Hosanagara 363 4292 4655

Sagara 521 3647 4168

Shikaripura 1164 8289 9453

Shimoga 2036 4678 6714

Soraba 673 5254 5927

Thirthahalli 398 4118 4516 Koppal Gangavathi 7711 11071 18782

Koppal 5178 16201 21379

Kustagi 1456 7605 9061

Yelburg 1804 8128 9932 Chitradurga Challakere 1195 9383 10578

Chitradurga 2185 8482 10667

Hiriyur 2080 6168 8248

Holalkere 2379 6773 9152

Hosadurga 1419 6834 8253

Molakalmuru 594 3506 4100 Davanagere Channagiri 2211 10979 13190

Davanagere 3642 15289 18931

Harappanahall 2363 11354 13717

Honnali 1364 10273 11637

Jagalur 1048 9980 11028



Chikkamagalur Chickmagalur 854 7280 8134

Kadur 1589 6377 7966

Koppa 337 2739 3076

Mudigere 1343 2802 4145

Narasimharaja 302 1956 2258

Shringeri 124 1378 1502

Tarikere 2115 3029 5144 Dakshina Kannada

Belthangadi 808 2582 3390

Bhantwala 2749 6165 8914

Mangalore 2695 10532 13227

Puttur 550 1044 1594

Sullia 207 1713 1920 Udupi Karkala 620 7932 8552

Kundapur 773 10652 11425

Udupi 772 16388 17160 Belgaum Athani 2473 16469 18942

Bailahongala 6530 12386 18916

Belgaum 8409 26608 35017

Chikkodi 14211 21266 35477

Gokak 12914 12687 25601

Hukkeri 12945 10499 23444

Khanapu 1278 7925 9203

Raibhag 12013 7352 19365

Ramadur 2453 9102 11555

Saundat 4474 6379 10853 Dharwad Dharwad 3665 15878 19543

Kalghatgi 4423 3479 7902

Kundgol 967 8878 9845

Navalagunda 1612 5549 7161

Hubli 5996 7672 13668 Gadag Gadag 7927 11426 19353

Mundaragi 852 3838 4690

Naragund 764 3079 3843

Ron 17571 6502 24073

Shirahatti 1345 4210 5555 Haveri Byadagi 1004 5452 6456

Hangal 392 9655 10047

Haveri 2465 7971 10436

Hirekerur 2104 6874 8978

Ranibennu 2710 10981 13691

Savanur 1312 6033 7345

Shiggaon 585 8124 8709 Bijapur Bagewadi 9899 8629 18528

Bijapur 8838 11875 20713

Indi 23291 14245 37536



Muddebihal 4446 12474 16920

Sindgi 7423 14319 21742 Bagalkot Badami 5715 9101 14816

Bagalk 884 8935 9819

Biligi 3167 6067 9234

Hungund 2598 9955 12553

Jamkhandi 3309 13653 16962

Mudhol 1379 10516 11895 Uttara Kannada Ankola 208 3521 3729

Bhatkal 268 1659 1927

Dandali 620 678 1298

Haliyal 285 806 1091

Honavar 285 4350 4635

Karwar 528 2587 3115

Kumata 158 3845 4003

Mundagod 945 1357 2302

Siddapur 116 607 723

Sirsi 781 941 1722

Supa (Joyada) 459 1522 1981

Yellapur 714 1210 1924 Gulbarga Afzalpur 4189 3588 7777

Alland 9229 5234 14463

Chinchol 4727 13354 18081

Chittapur 13325 14559 27884

Gulbarga 13314 5109 18423

Jewargi 4981 6050 11031

Sedam 3186 3471 6657 Yadgir Shahapur 2581 6025 8606

Shorapur 7057 10830 17887

Yadgir 2748 10471 13219 Bellary Bellary 4128 8139 12267

Hadagali 4278 4731 9009

Hagaribommana 2850 5835 8685

Hospet 5458 5787 11245

Kudaligi 7756 10022 17778

Sandur 1947 6650 8597

Siriguppa 4074 5024 9098 Raichur Devdurg 7008 3770 10778

Lingasugur 9735 12994 22729

Manvi 2681 2388 5069

Raichur 8286 3281 11567

Sindhanur 5282 9244 14526 Bidar Aurad 3948 8496 12444

Basavakalyan 3395 20060 23455

Bhalki 4521 13665 18186



Bidar 4997 15005 20002

Humnabad 4735 8841 13576

State Averages 809293 1414216 2223509

Table 29. Gender analysis of beneficiaries in IGNOAPS and SSY

District IGNOAPS SSY

Female Male Female Male Bangalore Urban 66% 34% 56% 44%

Bangalore Rural 63% 37% 48% 52%

Ramanagara 67% 33% 41% 59%

Chikkaballapura 54% 46% 44% 56%

Kolar 59% 41% 45% 55%

Tumkur 66% 34% 50% 50%

Mysore 63% 37% 47% 53%

Chamarajanagar 60% 40% 38% 62%

Mandya 57% 43% 43% 57%

Coorg 67% 33% 60% 40%

Hassan 58% 42% 44% 56%

Shimoga

Koppal 69% 31% 55% 45%

Chitradurga 71% 29% 49% 51%

Davanagere

Chikkamagalur 64% 36% 54% 46%

Dakshina Kannada 65% 35% 55% 45%

Udupi 62% 38% 56% 44%

Belgaum 64% 36% 53% 47%

Dharwad 51% 49% 52% 48%

Gadag 60% 40% 53% 47%

Haveri 58% 42% 46% 54%

Bijapur 58% 42% 51% 49%

Bagalkot 60% 40% 57% 43%

Uttara Kannada 59% 41% 52% 48%

Gulbarga 72% 28% 56% 44%

Yadgir 79% 21% 58% 42%

Bellary 66% 34% 51% 49%

Raichur 75% 25% 58% 42%

Bidar 69% 31% 55% 45%

State Total 62% 38% 51% 49%



Table 30. Growth of beneficiaries in IGNOAPS and SSY

Year IGNOAPS SSY1990 40939

1991 43818

1992 47458

1993 51571

1994 56299

1995 62302

1996 103659

1997 108492

1998 117647

1999 130366

2000 143146

2001 158463

2002 177224

2003 216898

2004 259709

2005 300340

2006 383980

2007 555796 16702

2008 683165 566344

2009 726272 1102847

2010 744071 1363659

Table 31. Average annual growth rates of beneficiaries districts

District IGNOAPS(2006‐10)

SSY(2008‐10)

Bangalore Urban 25.68% 41.28%

Bangalore Rural 15.27% 35.73%

Ramanagara 7.72% 173.98%

Chikkaballapura 13.54% 77.92%

Kolar 15.07% 84.64%

Tumkur 18.62% 84.45%

Mysore 27.15% 108.63%

Chamarajanagar 12.93% 101.22%

Mandya 19.57% 86.79%

Coorg 9.28% 68.16%

Hassan 27.38% 59.25%

Shimoga 10.28% 67.66%

Koppal 30.17% 45.59%

Chitradurga 19.18% 146.79%

Davanagere 23.87% 32.77%

Chikmagalur 21.63% 43.99%

Dakshina Kannada

13.48% 53.80%

Udupi 10.81% 57.55%



Belgaum 65.42% 48.31%

Dharwad 53.39% 62.59%

Gadag 79.57% 54.14%

Haveri 23.54% 25.11%

Bijapur 29.46% 59.28%

Bagalkot 31.74% 25.09%

Uttara Kannada 23.87% 65.47%

Gulbarga 6.79% 98.46%

Yadgir 20.93% 68.83%

Bellary 17.94% 53.15%

Raichur 27.96% 59.82%

Bidar 10.21% 53.94%

State Average 20.85% 59.19%

Table 32. District‐wise beneficiaries under different durations ‐ IGNOAPS

Districts More than 35 Years

More than 25 years

More than 15 years

More than 5 years

Less than 5 years

Percentage of beneficiaries in each duration category > 35 > 25 > 15 > 5 < 5

Bangalore Urban 19 255 883 20902 27929 0.04% 0.5% 2% 42% 56%

Bangalore Rural 44 1191 1016 8018 10400 0.21% 5.8% 5% 39% 50%

Ramanagara 107 4627 2635 17391 10816 0.30% 13.0% 7% 49% 30%

Chikkaballapura 16 622 1122 7256 7776 0.10% 3.7% 7% 43% 46%

Kolar 5 644 2938 14107 17704 0.01% 1.8% 8% 40% 50%

Tumkur 40 2108 1859 7524 14495 0.15% 8.1% 7% 29% 55%

Mysore 212 2803 3224 9335 31982 0.45% 5.9% 7% 20% 67%

Chamarajanagar 25 1427 2254 20246 18357 0.06% 3.4% 5% 48% 43%

Mandya 32 2738 3431 15078 27780 0.06% 5.5% 7% 30% 56%

Coorg 11 622 670 867 1187 0.33% 18.5% 20% 26% 35%

Hassan 40 934 262 19458 40237 0.07% 1.5% 0% 32% 66%

Shimoga 31 1109 532 3361 3058 0.38% 13.7% 7% 42% 38%

Koppal 13 455 782 3459 11439 0.08% 2.8% 5% 21% 71%

Chitradurga 14 944 758 2675 5447 0.14% 9.6% 8% 27% 55%

Davanagere 7 156 413 3365 6678 0.07% 1.5% 4% 32% 63%

Chikkamagalur 23 288 200 2189 3964 0.35% 4.3% 3% 33% 59%

Dakshina Kannada 14 279 151 3374 3183 0.20% 4.0% 2% 48% 45%

Udupi 8 118 109 1084 846 0.37% 5.5% 5% 50% 39%

Belgaum 20 1248 1148 4495 52885 0.03% 1.6% 1% 6% 68%

Dharwad 4 234 471 2033 13905 0.04% 2.2% 2% 12% 84%

Gadag 1 212 280 1631 26335 0.00% 0.7% 1% 6% 93%

Haveri 7 181 134 3710 6527 0.07% 1.7% 1% 35% 62%

Bijapur 80 1605 2105 11932 38106 0.15% 3.0% 4% 22% 71%

Bagalkot 16 623 644 3245 12522 0.09% 3.7% 4% 19% 73%

Uttara Kannada 17 314 383 1184 3436 0.32% 5.9% 7% 22% 64%

Gulbarga 68 1120 2370 31683 13514 0.00% 0.0% 4% 12% 83%



Yadgir 42 563 350 4130 7299 0.14% 2.3% 5% 65% 28%

Bellary 20 508 114 13008 16841 0.34% 4.5% 3% 33% 59%

Raichur 14 1606 600 8264 22508 0.07% 1.7% 0% 43% 55%

Bidar 16 397 303 13015 7848 0.04% 4.9% 2% 25% 68%

State total 966 29931 31405 238038 443731 0.07% 1.8% 1% 60% 36%

Table 33. Taluk‐wise beneficiaries under different durations ‐ IGNOAPS

District

Taluk

More than 35 Years

More than 25 years

More than 15 years

More than 5

years

Less than 5

years Bangalore Rural Devanahalli 9 251 182 1273 1780

Doddaballapura 8 325 189 2608 3129

Hosakote 0 375 521 1666 2667

Nelamangala 27 240 124 2471 2824

Ramanagara Chanapatna 36 838 682 2455 3400

Kanakapura 15 2582 1038 5316 2453

Magadi 28 599 499 4716 1246

Ramanagara 28 608 416 4904 3717

Chikkaballapura Bagepalli 0 1 4 668 1047

Chikkaballapura 2 134 305 1183 1666

Chintamani 8 261 356 2677 2993

Gowribidnur 5 60 193 682 377

Gudibande 0 22 76 507 1163

Shidlaghatta 1 144 188 1539 530

Kolar Bangarpet 1 185 1563 6122 7811

Kolar 0 86 182 1697 5275

Malur 0 83 208 1073 707

Mulbagal 3 85 413 2607 1563

Srinivasapura 1 205 572 2608 2348

Tumkur Chicknayak 0 49 58 352 990

Gubbi 3 139 148 395 615

Koratagere 1 124 144 1429 1308

Kunigal 10 272 394 1067 1291

Madhugiri 1 119 314 1376 1569

Pavagada 2 85 88 526 1417

Sira 2 142 141 761 847

Tiptur 3 110 90 419 3203

Tumkur 16 1008 396 939 1632

Turuvekere 2 60 86 260 1623

Mysore Heggadadevanakote 5 121 300 818 587

Hunsur 5 142 793 1017 5828

Krishnaraja Nagar 7 149 196 2434 7393

Mysore 152 1607 1073 1592 3071

Nanjangud 11 443 487 1316 2122



Periyapatna 9 103 143 376 1026

T.Narsipura 23 238 232 1782 11955

Chamarajanagar Chamarajanagar 4 866 1148 9068 5886

Gundlupet 12 237 210 2943 5645

Kollegal 7 276 691 5504 6509

Yelandur 2 48 205 2731 317

Mandya K.R.Pet 0 272 203 1912 4980

Maddur 10 305 512 1388 4913

Malaval 6 819 885 4377 3147

Mandya 7 284 661 3651 4158

Nagaman 0 325 462 1276 2310

Pandavapura 0 153 349 1189 7058

Srirangapatna 9 580 359 1285 1214

Coorg Madikeri 2 92 115 100 131

Somwarpet 7 273 336 389 308

Virajpet 2 257 219 378 748

Hassan Alur 0 3 3 841 1849

Arakalgud 9 180 156 449 2738

Arasikere 3 42 1 3091 5069

Belur 1 89 12 915 4987

Channarayapatna 7 188 0 6759 4364

Hassan 16 338 90 4011 15950

Holenarasipur 4 77 0 2822 4103

Sakaleshpura 0 17 0 570 1177

Shimoga Bhadravathi 5 230 194 1314 1193

Hosanagara 0 16 0 206 141

Sagara 3 101 31 171 215

Shikaripura 1 256 38 516 353

Shimoga 9 377 231 625 794

Soraba 12 101 13 313 234

Thirthahalli 1 28 25 216 128

Koppal Gangavathi 8 192 445 1083 5983

Koppal 1 142 147 1861 3027

Kustagi 0 50 121 315 970

Yelburg 4 71 69 200 1459

Chitradurga Challakere 0 92 171 328 591

Chitradurga 6 353 169 516 1141

Hiriyur 1 125 126 383 1445

Holalkere 5 125 156 628 1465

Hosadurga 2 239 96 581 500

Molakalmuru 0 10 40 239 305

Davanagere Channagiri 0 3 0 745 1463

Davanagere 0 4 266 768 2604

Harappanahall 3 44 17 1181 1118

Honnali 3 52 77 454 778



Jagalur 1 53 53 217 715

Chikkamagalur Chickmagalur 3 46 36 279 490

Kadur 7 68 49 674 791

Koppa 2 5 19 157 154

Mudigere 0 34 12 202 1095

Narasimharajapura 2 5 9 179 107

Shringeri 0 20 25 21 58

Tarikere 9 110 50 677 1269

Dakshina Kannada

Belthangadi 1 15 6 478 308

Bhantwala 2 84 28 1281 1346

Mangalore 10 162 111 1236 1176

Puttur 0 6 3 272 269

Sullia 1 12 3 107 84

Udupi Karkala 2 20 59 368 171

Kundapur 4 54 28 321 366

Udupi 2 44 22 395 309

Belgaum Athani 0 58 93 623 941

Bailahongala 3 297 291 1205 4733

Belgaum 7 225 229 274 7674

Chikkodi 2 99 134 445 9676

Gokak 4 278 172 348 12112

Hukkeri 1 88 51 923 5519

Khanapu 3 95 105 375 700

Raibhag 0 108 73 302 11530

Ramadur 0 0 0 0 0

Saundat 0 0 0 0 0

Dharwad Dharwad 3 154 118 507 2867

Kalghatgi 0 37 67 460 3859

Kundgol 0 22 11 124 810

Navalagunda 1 21 22 193 1375

Hubli 0 0 253 749 4994

Gadag Gadag 0 38 110 597 7182

Mundaragi 0 15 40 296 501

Naragund 0 12 15 105 632

Ron 0 100 68 291 17112

Shirahatti 1 47 47 342 908

Haveri Byadagi 0 5 2 162 835

Hangal 0 6 51 175 160

Haveri 3 35 12 709 1706

Hirekerur 3 65 8 698 1330

Ranibennu 1 28 13 1324 1331

Savanur 0 15 34 385 878

Shiggaon 0 27 14 257 287

Bijapur Bagewadi 2 132 392 4638 4735

Bijapur 64 802 695 1873 5404



Indi 5 354 213 2483 20236

Muddebihal 4 113 552 1416 2361

Sindgi 5 204 253 1522 5370

Bagalkot Badami 0 107 94 838 4674

Bagalk 2 77 62 445 298

Biligi 5 154 204 189 2615

Hungund 5 56 54 630 1853

Jamkhandi 1 182 173 750 2203

Mudhol 3 47 57 393 879

Uttara Kannada Ankola 2 19 32 72 83

Bhatkal 3 31 27 66 141

Haliyal 2 25 49 78 131

Honavar 1 28 31 118 95

Karwar 0 28 13 37 450

Kumata 5 17 19 43 74

Mundagod 0 32 12 106 795

Siddapur 0 17 13 33 53

Sirsi 4 63 78 112 518

Supa (Joyada) 0 7 5 213 234

Yellapur 0 20 68 129 495

Gulbarga Alland 4 209 254 7258 1504

Chinchol 8 77 83 1498 3061

Chittapur 29 260 343 7689 5003

Gulbarga 12 356 1493 10610 837

Jewargi 10 117 113 3565 1176

Sedam 5 101 84 1063 1933

Yadgir Shahapur 11 162 124 1507 776

Shorapur 7 262 101 1458 5229

Yadgir 24 139 125 1165 1294

Bellary Bellary 4 187 39 1358 2540

Hadagali 0 10 4 2152 2112

Hagaribommanahalli 1 108 1 995 1745

Hospet 9 78 57 3084 2230

Kudaligi 2 63 0 2620 5071

Sandur 1 17 0 869 1060

Siriguppa 3 45 13 1930 2083

Raichur Devdurg 0 468 211 1480 4849

Lingasugur 9 175 105 1281 8165

Manvi 2 259 97 1364 959

Raichur 2 498 94 3229 4463

Sindhanur 1 206 93 910 4072

Bidar Aurad 1 33 1 2835 1075

Basavakalyan 0 22 0 2038 1335

Bhalki 0 11 12 2918 1580

Bidar 15 214 290 2585 1879



Humnabad 0 117 0 2639 1979

Table 34. District‐wise coverage under pension schemes

District

Population (2011)

Estimated aged

population#

Coverage under pension schemes

Percentage of coverage of elderly population

IGNOAPS SSY Total IGNOAPS

SSY Total

Bagalkot 1890826 137652 17052 58227 75279 12% 42% 55%

Bangalore Rural 987257 87965 20676 33602 54278 24% 38% 62%

Bangalore Urban 9588910 603334 50191 92262 142453 8% 15% 24%

Belgaum 4778439 381797 77700 130673 208373 20% 34% 55%

Bellary 2532383 162047 30491 46188 76679 19% 29% 47%

Bidar 1700018 134284 21596 66067 87663 16% 49% 65%

Bijapur 2175102 158456 53897 61542 115439 34% 39% 73%

Chamarajanagar 1020962 89967 42309 23065 65374 47% 26% 73%

Chikkaballapura 1254377 106246 16792 35372 52164 16% 33% 49%

Chikmagalur 1137753 89996 6664 25561 32225 7% 28% 36%

Chitradurga 1660378 137977 9852 41146 50998 7% 30% 37%

Dakshina Kannada 2083625 172316 7009 22036 29045 4% 13% 17%

Davanagere 1946905 141151 10628 57875 68503 8% 41% 49%

Dharwad 1846993 135200 16663 41456 58119 12% 31% 43%

Gadag 1065235 81490 28459 29055 57514 35% 36% 71%

Gulbarga 2564892 179542 52951 51365 104316 29% 29% 58%

Hassan 1776221 153998 60935 35328 96263 40% 23% 63%

Haveri 1598506 112215 10572 55090 65662 9% 49% 59%

Kodagu 554762 42439 3358 11540 14898 8% 27% 35%

Kolar 1540231 130458 35400 49546 84946 27% 38% 65%

Koppal 1391292 87234 16149 43005 59154 19% 49% 68%

Mandya 1808680 165132 49662 59960 109622 30% 36% 66%

Mysore 2994744 241975 47562 61429 108991 20% 25% 45%

Raichur 1924773 112984 32992 31677 64669 29% 28% 57%

Ramanagara 1082739 96472 35602 39636 75238 37% 41% 78%

Shimoga 1755512 126748 8091 35190 43281 6% 28% 34%

Tumkur 2681449 243690 26122 90942 117064 11% 37% 48%

Udupi 1177908 124976 2165 34972 37137 2% 28% 30%

Uttara Kannada 1436847 114201 5367 23083 28450 5% 20% 25%

Yadgir 1172985 82109 12386 27326 39712 15% 33% 48%

Karnataka Average 61130704 4634054 809293 1414216 2223509 17% 31% 48% #:Since 2011 aged population (above 60) is not available at the district level, 2001 percentages were used to estimate aged population. Source: Census of India, 2001, Census of India, 2011.



Table 35. Comparison between pension coverage of elderly population and taluk ranking based on HPCRRI

District

Taluk17

Projected population

2011

Projected elderly

population Aged 60+

Total

Coverage

Rank

CDI

Raichur Devdurga 256431 15053 71.60% 175 0.53

Gulbarga Jevargi 277459 19422 56.80% 174 0.57

Gulbarga Chincholi 263768 18464 97.93% 173 0.57

Gulbarga Aland 350442 24531 58.96% 172 0.61

Yadgir Shahpur 360071 25205 34.14% 171 0.62

Gulbarga Afzalpur 212376 14866 52.31% 170 0.62

Raichur Lingsugur 370072 21723 104.63% 169 0.63

Koppal Yelburga 274949 17239 57.61% 168 0.63

Koppal Kushtagi 278390 17455 51.91% 167 0.64

Bijapur Sindgi 393215 28646 75.90% 166 0.64

Gulbarga Chittapur 432606 30282 92.08% 165 0.65

Bidar Aurad 277564 21925 56.76% 164 0.65

Bijapur Indi 426117 31043 120.92% 163 0.66

Yadgir Yadgir 399803 27986 47.23% 162 0.67

Bijapur Bagewadi 365089 26597 69.66% 161 0.69

Raichur Manvi 381227 22378 22.65% 160 0.69

Bijapur Muddebihal 305320 22243 76.07% 159 0.69

Bidar Basavakalyan 339365 26806 87.50% 158 0.69

Yadgir Shorapur 413111 28918 61.85% 157 0.7

Mysore Heggadadevankote 278868 22533 52.99% 156 0.72

Gulbarga Sedam 231344 16194 41.11% 155 0.72

Davanagere Harapanahalli 292199 21184 64.75% 154 0.72

Tumkur Pavagada 255472 23217 34.92% 153 0.72

Tumkur Sira 312756 28423 40.40% 152 0.73

Tumkur Gubbi 266010 24175 51.23% 151 0.73

Bidar Humnabad 333341 26331 51.56% 150 0.73

Tumkur Madhugiri 275835 25068 65.03% 149 0.74

Bellary Kudligi 340022 21758 81.71% 148 0.74

Ramanagara Kanakapura 354286 31567 92.69% 147 0.74

Bidar Bhalki 290857 22975 79.16% 146 0.74

Bellary Sandur 238812 15282 56.26% 145 0.75

Chikkaballapur Bagepalli 185250 15691 63.69% 144 0.76

Bagalkot Bilgi 162535 11833 78.04% 143 0.77

Chitradurga Hosadurga 240044 19948 41.37% 142 0.78

Raichur Sindhnur 415169 24370 59.61% 141 0.78

Chamarajanagar Chamarajanagar 356976 31457 71.66% 140 0.78

Davanagere Channagiri 317978 23053 57.21% 139 0.78

17 Names in bold indicate taluks with high coverage of elderly population , names in grey color indicate taluks with low coverage of elderly population



Tumkur Kunigal 244864 22253 74.08% 138 0.79

Ramanagara Magadi 212669 18949 85.15% 137 0.79

Chamarajanagar Kollegal 356201 31388 68.25% 136 0.8

Mandya K.R. Pet 255807 23355 69.83% 135 0.8

Davanagere Jagalur 172718 12522 88.07% 134 0.8

Chitradurga Challakere 363950 30244 34.98% 133 0.81

Koppal Koppal 365304 22905 93.34% 132 0.81

Chamarajanagar Gundlupet 225331 19856 79.06% 131 0.81

Bellary Hadagalli 210020 13439 67.04% 130 0.81

Chikmagalur Kadur 288606 22829 34.89% 129 0.81

Uttarakannada Bhatkal 158517 12599 15.29% 128 0.82

Bagalkot Badami 334149 24326 60.91% 127 0.82

Shimoga Sorab 198335 14320 41.39% 126 0.82

Chikkaballapur Gowribidunur 295982 25070 32.33% 125 0.83

Tumkur Chiknayakanhalli 217468 19763 33.79% 124 0.83

Mandya Nagamangala 196581 17948 89.04% 123 0.83

Tumkur Koratagere 166976 15175 49.15% 122 0.83

Chitradurga Holalkere 216330 17977 50.91% 121 0.84

Dharwad Kalghatgi 157765 11548 68.42% 120 0.84

Chitradurga Molakalmuru 138639 11521 35.59% 119 0.84

Hassan Arkalgud 206294 17886 47.79% 118 0.84

Haveri Shiggaon 185210 13002 66.98% 117 0.84

Chikkaballapur Gudibanda 56581 4792 87.66% 116 0.84

Bellary Hagaribommanahalli 199736 12781 67.95% 115 0.84

Mandya Malavalli 290394 26513 70.14% 114 0.84

Bagalkot Hungund 328611 23923 52.47% 113 0.85

Belgaum Saundatti 353400 28237 38.44% 112 0.86

Belgaum Gokak 596487 47659 53.72% 111 0.86

Tumkur Turuvekere 180820 16433 47.56% 110 0.86

Bellary Siriguppa 294001 18813 48.36% 109 0.86

Davanagere Honnali 241975 17543 66.33% 108 0.86

Raichur Raichur 501873 29460 39.26% 107 0.87

Uttarakannada Supa 51921 4127 48.01% 106 0.87

Mysore Nanjangud 408468 33004 39.07% 105 0.87

Haveri Savanur 159821 11219 65.47% 104 0.87

Mysore T. Narsipura 316373 25563 82.91% 103 0.87

Chitradurga Hiriyur 289568 24063 34.28% 102 0.87

Mysore Hunsur 287935 23265 66.01% 101 0.88

Kolar Mulbagal 256844 21755 68.49% 100 0.88

Belgaum Athni 523663 41841 45.27% 99 0.88

Gadag Mundargi 127487 9753 48.09% 98 0.88

Haveri Hirekerur 235989 16566 54.19% 97 0.88

Belgaum Hukeri 404988 32359 72.45% 96 0.89

Gadag Shirhatti 200797 15361 36.16% 95 0.89

Chikmagalur Tarikere 223551 17683 29.09% 94 0.89



Gulbarga Gulbarga 796896 55783 33.03% 93 0.89

Belgaum Ramadurg 257842 20602 56.09% 92 0.9

Bangalore(U) Anekal 437969 27557 43.42% 91 0.9

Hassan Arsikere 312646 27106 61.19% 90 0.91

Chikkaballapur Shidlaghatta 211753 17935 39.74% 89 0.91

Bijapur Bijapur 685360 49929 41.49% 88 0.92

Hassan Channarayapatna 286917 24876 66.12% 87 0.92

Shimoga Shikarpur 228280 16482 57.35% 86 0.92

Haveri Hangal 256307 17993 55.84% 85 0.92

Gadag Ron 271445 20766 115.93% 84 0.92

Mysore Krishnarajanagara 271235 21916 67.88% 83 0.92

Uttarakannada Siddapur 107070 8510 8.50% 82 0.92

Koppal Gangawati 472648 29635 63.38% 81 0.93

Kolar Malur 229868 19470 73.60% 80 0.93

Mandya Pandavapura 180340 16465 77.81% 79 0.94

Hassan Belur 189577 16436 58.99% 78 0.94

Dharwad Kundagol 399702 42408 74.01% 77 0.95

Ramanagara Chanapatna 265366 23644 63.23% 76 0.95

Belgaum Bailahongala 403960 32276 58.61% 75 0.95

Mandya Maddur 299641 27357 66.78% 74 0.95

Kolar Bangarapet 467975 39637 60.55% 73 0.96

Bangalore Rural Hosakote 258054 22993 63.89% 72 0.97

Hassan Hole Narsipur 180797 15675 65.95% 71 0.97

Mysore Piriyapatna 254289 20547 28.72% 70 0.97

Haveri Byadgi 142115 9976 64.71% 69 0.97

Belgaum Raibhag 394112 31490 61.50% 68 0.97

Chikkaballapur Chintamani 296162 25085 57.11% 67 0.97

Kolar Srinivaspur 205119 17374 61.69% 66 0.98

Uttarakannada Ankola 107791 8567 43.53% 65 0.98

Mandya Srirangapattana 167949 15334 58.22% 64 0.98

Dharwad Navalgund 203399 14889 48.10% 63 0.99

Haveri Haveri 280296 19677 53.04% 62 0.99

Bidar Bidar 458891 36248 55.18% 61 1

Uttarakannada Haliyal 168923 13426 8.13% 60 1

Belgaum Chikkodi 643550 51420 68.99% 59 1

Ramanagara Ramanagaram 250418 22312 66.76% 58 1

Belgaum Khanapur 275725 22030 41.77% 57 1

Bagalkot Mudhol 314976 22930 51.87% 56 1.01

Bagalkot Jamkhandi 467519 34035 49.84% 55 1.01

Bangalore Rural Nelamangala 202888 18077 72.04% 54 1.01

Chikkaballapur Chikkaballapur 208649 17673 47.59% 53 1.02

Uttarakannada Mundagod 96315 7655 30.07% 52 1.02

Bangalore Rural Devanhalli 215007 19157 56.71% 51 1.03

Bagalkot Bagalkot 283037 20605 47.65% 50 1.05

Tumkur Tiptur 225250 20471 40.94% 49 1.06



Uttarakannada Honavar 170186 13526 34.27% 48 1.07

Shimoga Hosanagara 122909 8874 52.46% 47 1.07

Bangalore Rural Dod Ballapur 311307 27737 56.60% 46 1.07

Dharwad Dharwad 1157170 84705 23.07% 45 1.08

Uttarakannada Sirsi 186340 14810 11.63% 44 1.08

Uttarakannada Kumta 154789 12303 32.54% 43 1.09

Uttarakannada Yellapur 78015 6201 31.03% 42 1.1

Kolar Kolar 380424 32222 65.17% 41 1.11

Chitradurga Chitradurga 411848 34225 31.17% 40 1.13

Chamarajanagar Yelandur 82453 7266 78.60% 39 1.13

Udupi Kundapura 180837 13237 27.37% 38 1.13

Haveri Ranibennur 338769 23782 57.57% 37 1.15

Hassan Alur 88798 7699 59.06% 36 1.15

Bellary Bellary 781392 50001 24.53% 35 1.17

Tumkur Tumkur 535998 48712 45.10% 33 1.18

Gadag Gadag 363920 27840 69.52% 32 1.18

D.Kannada Bhantwala 396971 32829 27.15% 31 1.19

Shimoga Sagar 214819 15510 26.87% 30 1.2

Shimoga Bhadravati 362303 26158 30.00% 29 1.21

Gadag Naragund 101586 7771 49.45% 28 1.22

Hassan Hassan 372590 32304 80.93% 27 1.25

Uttarakannada Karwar 156980 12477 24.97% 26 1.29

Chikmagalur Narasimharajapura 65458 5178 43.61% 25 1.3

D.Kannada Sulya 154542 12781 15.02% 24 1.3

Shimoga Thirthahalli 153056 11051 40.87% 23 1.31

Belgaum Belgaum 924712 73885 47.39% 22 1.31

D.Kannada Beltangadi 270640 22382 15.15% 21 1.32

Mandya Mandya 417968 38160 49.08% 20 1.32

Bellary Hospet 468401 29973 37.52% 19 1.34

Kodagu Somvarpet 208249 15931 48.45% 18 1.37

Chikmagalur Koppa 87537 6924 44.42% 17 1.43

Udupi Udupi 560470 59466 28.86% 16 1.45

D.Kannada Puttur 292135 24160 6.60% 15 1.46

Shimoga Shimoga 475810 34354 19.54% 14 1.46

Hassan Sakleshpur 138602 12017 32.95% 13 1.48

Chikmagalur Mudigere 141024 11155 37.16% 12 1.49

Bangalore(U) Bangalore North 287693 18102 0.94% 11 1.5

Bangalore(U) Bangalore South 87,84,998 5,52,752 21.10% 10 1.51

Udupi Karkal 217736 23102 37.02% 9 1.55

Chikmagalur Chikkamagalur 294748 23315 34.89% 8 1.55

Davanagere Davanagere 654990 47487 39.87% 7 1.56

Mysore Mysore 1177577 95148 28.20% 6 1.58

Kodagu Virajpet 202896 15522 27.05% 5 1.62

D.Kannada Mangalore 969337 80164 16.50% 4 1.75

Dharwad Hubli 147822 5821 62% 3 1.75



Chikmagalur Shringeri 36828 2913 51.56% 2 1.9

Kodagu Madikeri 143617 10987 27.12% 1 1.96

Source: Pension Beneficiary details provided by DSSP, Report of the HPCRRI (Annexure 6.4)

Table 36. Average delay (in months) in beneficiary approval and first pension delivery

District 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

OAP OAP SSY OAP SSY OAP SSY OAP SSY Bagalkot 2.77 2.57 7.60 2.71 3.34 2.78 2.79 4.02 3.16

Bangalore Rural 3.68 4.10 5.33 5.77 6.12 3.41 3.38 4.26 3.50

Bangalore Urban 4.82 5.06 NA 4.60 4.65 4.36 3.16 5.27 3.33

Belgaum 2.90 3.28 5.02 3.65 2.82 2.97 2.58 2.94 2.57

Bellary 3.21 3.43 13.00 3.29 3.98 3.77 4.47 3.05 3.33

Bidar 2.60 2.80 5.49 2.84 3.14 2.36 2.72 2.57 2.35

Bijapur 4.36 3.11 3.93 4.20 4.69 3.82 4.39 4.23 4.02

Chamarajanagar 3.73 3.54 7.13 4.28 3.21 3.85 3.34 4.33 4.06

Chikkaballapura 2.62 2.40 4.00 3.56 3.68 3.29 3.42 2.87 3.42

Chikkamagalur 2.53 2.10 2.53 2.11 2.36 2.04 2.15 2.02 2.12

Chitradurga 2.90 2.86 4.98 2.62 3.67 2.69 3.10 2.76 3.02

Dakshina Kannada

2.83 3.01 4.04 2.91 3.56 3.44 3.18 3.72 3.30

Davanagere 2.90 3.02 6.73 2.63 2.75 2.23 2.76 2.71 3.10

Dharwad 2.50 2.69 3.88 2.74 2.67 2.70 2.84 2.49 2.56

Gadag 2.48 3.18 4.14 2.60 2.63 2.49 2.95 3.04 3.24

Gulbarga 4.31 3.83 8.28 3.70 4.84 3.50 3.63 4.36 3.98

Hassan 4.32 4.00 3.96 4.14 4.09 4.10 3.87 3.75 3.16

Haveri 2.22 2.10 2.75 2.19 2.41 2.34 2.58 2.76 2.81

Kolar 3.51 3.40 14.20 3.48 2.94 3.47 2.73 3.33 2.36

Koppal 3.18 3.74 3.74 2.70 2.47 2.35 2.51 2.23 2.71

Madikeri 2.12 2.13 2.34 2.12 2.28 2.89 2.35 3.06 2.30

Mandya 4.95 3.14 3.97 3.22 3.50 2.41 2.92 2.59 2.69

Mysore 3.46 3.43 6.04 4.05 3.53 3.96 3.58 3.33 3.30

Raichur 3.84 3.75 NA 4.25 4.70 3.28 3.87 4.84 4.59

Ramanagara 3.05 3.15 4.18 4.27 3.92 3.50 3.92 2.65 3.50

Shimoga 2.41 2.65 3.03 2.42 2.77 2.32 2.63 2.55 2.72

Tumkur 3.25 3.01 7.54 3.14 3.89 2.98 3.32 3.15 2.97

Udupi 2.54 2.75 3.28 2.44 3.31 2.71 3.00 2.50 2.67

Uttara Kannada 2.68 3.52 9.81 4.41 3.63 3.91 3.04 3.33 3.05

Yadgir 3.55 3.33 5.57 3.19 3.91 3.82 3.68 3.40 3.42



Table 37. Selection of districts and taluks for the secondary study

District

Taluk

Projected population

2011

Projected elderly

population Aged 60+

% Coverage of elderly population through pensions

% of beneficiaries receiving pensions for more than 25

Years

Average annual growth rate in

IGNOAPS (2006‐10)

Bagalkot Badami 334149 24326 60.91% 2% 26% Bagalkot 283037 20605 47.65% 9% 12%Bilgi 162535 11833 78.04% 5% 95%

Hungund 328611 23923 52.47% 2% 58% Jamkhandi 467519 34035 49.84% 6% 39%Mudhol 314976 22930 51.87% 4% 35%

Bangalore Rural Devanhalli 215007 19157 56.71% 7% 21% Dod Ballapur 311307 27737 56.60% 5% 20% Hosakote 258054 22993 63.89% 7% 21%

Nelamangala 202888 18077 72.04% 5% 20% Bangalore Anekal 437969 27557 43.42% 7% 12%

Bangalore North 287693 18102 0.94% 0% 23%Bangalore South 87,84,998 5,52,752 21.10% 0% 18%

Belgaum Athni 523663 41841 45.27% 2% 24% Bailahongala 403960 32276 58.61% 5% 53% Belgaum 924712 73885 47.39% 3% 209%Chikkodi 643550 51420 68.99% 1% 285% Gokak 596487 47659 53.72% 2% 302% Hukeri 404988 32359 72.45% 1% 104%

Khanapur 275725 22030 41.77% 8% 24%Raibhag 394112 31490 61.50% 1% 47% Ramadurg 257842 20602 56.09% 0% 27% Saundatti 353400 28237 38.44% 0% 97%

Bellary Bellary 781392 50001 24.53% 5% 32% Hadagalli 210020 13439 67.04% 0% 20%

Hagaribommanahalli 199736 12781 67.95% 4% 32%Hospet 468401 29973 37.52% 2% 14%Kudligi 340022 21758 81.71% 1% 38% Sandur 238812 15282 56.26% 1% 24%

Siriguppa 294001 18813 48.36% 1% 21%Bidar Aurad 277564 21925 56.76% 1% 43%

Basavakalyan 339365 26806 87.50% 1% 13% Bhalki 290857 22975 79.16% 0% 11%Bidar 458891 36248 55.18% 5% 12%

Humnabad 333341 26331 51.56% 2% 14% Bijapur Bagewadi 365089 26597 69.66% 1% 31%

Bijapur 685360 49929 41.49% 10% 12%



Indi 426117 31043 120.92% 2% 95%Muddebihal 305320 22243 76.07% 3% 21%

Sindgi 393215 28646 75.90% 3% 52% Chamarajanagar Chamarajanagar 356976 31457 71.66% 5% 11%

Gundlupet 225331 19856 79.06% 3% 75% Kollegal 356201 31388 68.25% 2% 20% Yelandur 82453 7266 78.60% 2% 2%

Chikkaballapura Bagepalli 185250 15691 63.69% 0% 31%Chikkaballapur 208649 17673 47.59% 4% 21% Chintamani 296162 25085 57.11% 4% 18%

Gowribidunur 295982 25070 32.33% 5% 8%Gudibanda 56581 4792 87.66% 1% 38% Shidlaghatta 211753 17935 39.74% 6% 6%

Chikmagalur Chikkamagalur 294748 23315 34.89% 6% 27%Kadur 288606 22829 34.89% 5% 20%Koppa 87537 6924 44.42% 2% 17%

Mudigere 141024 11155 37.16% 3% 88% Narasimharajapura 65458 5178 43.61% 2% 11%

Shringeri 36828 2913 51.56% 16% 18% Tarikere 223551 17683 29.09% 6% 30%

Chitradurga Challakere 363950 30244 34.98% 8% 20%Chitradurga 411848 34225 31.17% 16% 22%Hiriyur 289568 24063 34.28% 6% 46% Holalkere 216330 17977 50.91% 5% 32% Hosadurga 240044 19948 41.37% 17% 11%

Molakalmuru 138639 11521 35.59% 2% 21% D.Kannada Beltangadi 270640 22382 15.15% 2% 12%

Bhantwala 396971 32829 27.15% 3% 19% Mangalore 969337 80164 16.50% 6% 15%Puttur 292135 24160 6.60% 1% 19% Sulya 154542 12781 15.02% 6% 14%

Davanagere Channagiri 317978 23053 57.21% 0% 39%Davanagere 654990 47487 39.87% 0% 50% Harapanahalli 292199 21184 64.75% 2% 18%

Harihara 284300 25587 59.67% 2% 24%Honnali 241975 17543 66.33% 4% 27%Jagalur 172718 12522 88.07% 5% 45%

Dharwad Dharwad 1157170 84705 23.07% 4% 74% Hubli 147822 10821 126.32% 0% 100%

Kalghatgi 157765 11548 68.42% 1% 76% Kundagol 399702 42408 26.94% 2% 103% Navalgund 203399 14889 48.10% 1% 86%

Gadag Gadag 363920 27840 69.52% 0% 193%Mundargi 127487 9753 48.09% 2% 29% Naragund 101586 7771 49.45% 2% 96%



Ron 271445 20766 115.93% 1% 136%Shirhatti 200797 15361 36.16% 4% 45%

Gulbarga Afzalpur 212376 14866 52.31% 1% 35% Aland 350442 24531 58.96% 2% 29%

Chincholi 263768 18464 97.93% 3% 37% Chittapur 432606 30282 92.08% 2% 14% Gulbarga 796896 55783 33.03% 3% 8%Jevargi 277459 19422 56.80% 3% 14%Sedam 231344 16194 41.11% 3% 21%

Hassan Alur 88798 7699 59.06% 0% 44% Arkalgud 206294 17886 47.79% 5% 69%Arsikere 312646 27106 61.19% 1% 32% Belur 189577 16436 58.99% 1% 98%

Channarayapatna 286917 24876 66.12% 2% 13%Hassan 372590 32304 80.93% 2% 72%

Hole Narsipur 180797 15675 65.95% 1% 28% Sakleshpur 138602 12017 32.95% 1% 40%

Haveri Byadgi 142115 9976 64.71% 0% 99%Hangal 256307 17993 55.84% 2% 14% Haveri 280296 19677 53.04% 2% 45%

Hirekerur 235989 16566 54.19% 3% 34%Ranibennur 338769 23782 57.57% 1% 19%Savanur 159821 11219 65.47% 1% 40% Shiggaon 185210 13002 66.98% 5% 19%

Kodagu Madikeri 143617 10987 27.12% 21% 7%Somvarpet 208249 15931 48.45% 21% 8% Virajpet 202896 15522 27.05% 16% 11%

Kolar Bangarapet 467975 39637 60.55% 1% 15% Kolar 380424 32222 65.17% 1% 54%Malur 229868 19470 73.60% 4% 10%

Mulbagal 256844 21755 68.49% 2% 10% Srinivaspur 205119 17374 61.69% 4% 14%

Koppal Gangawati 472648 29635 63.38% 3% 69% Koppal 365304 22905 93.34% 3% 85% Kushtagi 278390 17455 51.91% 3% 12%Yelburga 274949 17239 57.61% 4% 85%

Mandya K.R. Pet 255807 23355 69.83% 4% 43% Maddur 299641 27357 66.78% 4% 46% Malavalli 290394 26513 70.14% 9% 11%Mandya 417968 38160 49.08% 3% 18%

Nagamangala 196581 17948 89.04% 7% 22% Pandavapura 180340 16465 77.81% 2% 83%

Srirangapattana 167949 15334 58.22% 17% 11%Mysore Heggadadevankote 278868 22533 52.99% 7% 9%

Hunsur 287935 23265 66.01% 2% 60%



Krishnarajanagara 271235 21916 67.88% 2% 53%Mysore 1177577 95148 28.20% 23% 14%

Nanjangud 408468 33004 39.07% 10% 19% Piriyapatna 254289 20547 28.72% 7% 33%T. Narsipura 316373 25563 82.91% 2% 105%

Raichur Devdurga 256431 15053 71.60% 7% 45% Lingsugur 370072 21723 104.63% 2% 104%Manvi 381227 22378 22.65% 10% 11%Raichur 501873 29460 39.26% 6% 23% Sindhnur 415169 24370 59.61% 4% 67%

Ramanagara Chanapatna 265366 23644 63.23% 12% 17%Kanakapura 354286 31567 92.69% 23% 5% Magadi 212669 18949 85.15% 9% 4%

Ramanagara 250418 22312 66.76% 7% 8%Shimoga Bhadravati 362303 26158 30.00% 8% 14%

Hosanagara 122909 8874 52.46% 4% 13% Sagar 214819 15510 26.87% 20% 14%

Shikaripur 228280 16482 57.35% 22% 9%Shimoga 475810 34354 19.54% 19% 13% Sorab 198335 14320 41.39% 17% 11%

Thirthahalli 153056 11051 40.87% 7% 9%Tumkur Chiknayakanhalli 217468 19763 33.79% 3% 43%

Gubbi 266010 24175 51.23% 11% 18% Koratagere 166976 15175 49.15% 4% 15% Kunigal 244864 22253 74.08% 9% 15%

Madhugiri 275835 25068 65.03% 4% 17% Pavagada 255472 23217 34.92% 4% 40%

Sira 312756 28423 40.40% 8% 16% Tiptur 225250 20471 40.94% 3% 103%Tumkur 535998 48712 45.10% 25% 14%

Turuvekere 180820 16433 47.56% 3% 75% Udupi Karkal 217736 23102 37.02% 4% 8%

Kundapura 180837 13237 74.37% 8% 19% Udupi 560470 59466 28.86% 6% 11%

Uttarakannada Ankola 107791 8567 43.53% 10% 13%Bhatkal 158517 12599 15.29% 13% 22%Haliyal 168923 13426 8.13% 9% 17% Honavar 170186 13526 34.27% 10% 10% Karwar 156980 12477 24.97% 5% 98%Kumta 154789 12303 32.54% 14% 18%

Mundagod 96315 7655 30.07% 3% 96% Siddapur 107070 8510 8.50% 15% 17%

Sirsi 186340 14810 11.63% 9% 39%Supa 51921 4127 48.01% 2% 21%

Yellapur 78015 6201 31.03% 3% 45%



Yadgir Shahpur 360071 25205 34.14% 7% 9%Shorapur 413111 28918 61.85% 4% 45% Yadgir 399803 27986 47.23% 6% 19%



Annexure C

TENTH ROUND SAMPLE CHECK ON DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES (Reference Year : 2010‐11)

IGNOAPS and SSY Schemes

3) District: ………………………………. 2) Taluk: ………………………

Information to be collected in the selected taluk (Tahsildar’s Office). 1. Total Number of applications received under the scheme during the reference

year: ……… 2. Total Number of applications /beneficiaries sanctioned the benefit:

………………………. 3. Total Number of applications /beneficiaries rejected during the reference year:

………… 4. Whether the relevant Government Orders / Circulars pertaining to the scheme

are maintained. (Yes‐1/No‐2) 5. Whether filled‐in application details are maintained in the Proforma SSY‐II registers. (Yes‐1/No‐2): 6. Whether enquiry officer reports is maintained in the Proforma SSY‐III (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 7. Whether register of the sanctioned beneficiaries is maintained in the Proforma SSY‐V (Yes ‐1 / No ‐2) 8. Whether copies of the pension sanction order of the beneficiaries has been sent to: (Yes ‐1 / No ‐2) 1. Beneficiary 2. Treasury (Proforma SSY‐IV) 3. Village Accountant

4. Accountant General 5. Director, DSSP 6. Deputy Commissioner

7. Assistant Commissioner

9. If yes whether the register is maintained? (Yes ‐1 / No ‐2):

10. Whether any difficulty is faced to implement the scheme. (Yes ‐1 / No ‐2):

11. If Yes, Specify reasons: …………………………………………………………………

12. Whether list of change of address of the beneficiary is being sent to Sub‐Treasury office regularly? (Yes‐1 / No‐2):

SCHEDULE – 5(S1)



13.If yes whether the register is maintained ? (Yes ‐1 / No ‐2): 14. Whether rejected applicants are informed within a week’s time about the reason of rejection? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 15. If yes whether the register is maintained? (Yes ‐1 / No ‐2): 16. Whether the Tahashildar’s office conducts a sample verification about the scheme once in a year ? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 17. If yes whether the register is maintained? (Yes ‐1 / No ‐2): Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:………………………………… Signature:

………………………………………..

Name:…………………………………….. Name:

…………………………………………….

Designation:……………………………… Designation:

……………………………………..

Date:……………………………………… Date:…………………



TENTH ROUND SAMPLE CHECK ON DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES (Reference Year: 2009‐10)


District: ………………………………. Taluk: ………………………

Information to be collected in the selected Sub‐Treasury Office 1. Whether Sub‐Treasury maintains details of Check register pertaining to Pension Payment in Proforma SSY‐IV? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 2. Whether Sub‐Treasury maintains details of Pensioner in Proforma SSY‐ VII details of sanction orders? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 3. Whether concerned Tahashildar Office sending regularly about death / ineligible / rejected beneficiaries list to the Sub‐Treasury Office? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 4. Whether Sub‐Treasury Office maintains registers pertaining the discontinuity of the pension? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 5. Whether Sub‐Treasury is communicating the death/ ineligible / rejected of the beneficiary to Accountant General to discontinue the pension? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 6. Whether list of change of address of the beneficiary sent by Tahsildar effected regularly in the Registers maintained in the Sub‐Treasury Office? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): 7. Whether the sufficient funds available under the scheme during the reference year? (Yes‐1 / No‐2): Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:………………………………… Signature: Name Name: Designation Designation: Date Date

SCHEDULE – 5(S2)





1) District: _________________ 2) Taluk: ___________________

Document verification of selected beneficiaries in the Tahsildar’s office

Name of the Village Accountant Circle – I:

Sl N

o Name of the village

Name & Address of the

Beneficiary

Date

of Re

ceipt

of ap

plica

tion.

Whe

ther a

pplic

ation

is in

pres

cribe

d for

mat (

Yes-1

/No-

2)

If yes

, whe

ther t

he ap

plica

tion c

over

ed al

l the

norm

s of th

e sch

eme(

Yes -

1 / N

o -2)

W

hethe

r enq

uiry r

epor

t in P

rofor

ma S

SY-II

I isma

intain

ed (Y

es -1

/ No -

2)

Date

of Sa

nctio

n.

Whe

ther s

ancti

on or

ders

Profo

rma S

SY-IV

ma

intain

ed (Y

es -1

/ No-

2)

Whe

ther P

ensio

n ide

ntity

card

in P

rofor

ma

SSY-

VIII i

s iss

ued.

(Ye

s -1 /

No -

2)

Whe

ther a

ny di

fficult

y fac

ed in

iden

tifying

the

bene

ficiar

y dur

ing an

d afte

r san

ction

ing of

the

pens

ion: (

Yes -

1/No -

2) Whether the required documents

maintained?

Age p

roof

(Cod

e)

Incom

e Pro

of (<

Rs.20

000)

(Y

es -1

/ No -

2)

Wor

king C

lass S

tatus

(C

ode)

Domi

cile S

tatus

: (Y

es -1

/ No -

2)

Spec

ify an

y othe

r cer

tified

do

cume

nt, if

avail

able

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Code for Col. 12: (School Certificate -1, Voter ID Card -2, Birth Certificate -3, Others Specify -4 …………………………………………. Code for Col. 14:(Working Class: Small farmer-1, Marginal farmer-2, Agricultural labourer-3, Weaver-4, Fishermen-5, Labors of unorganized sector (excluding building and other construction laborers) -6.

Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:………………………………… Signature: ……………………………………….. Name:…………………………………….. Name: Designation:……………………………… Designation: …………………………………….. Date:……………………………………… Date:……………………………………………..

SCHEDULE – 5(S3 )




IGNOAPS and SSY Schemes 1) District: ________________________________________ 2) Taluk: ___________________________________ 3) Name of the Village Accountant Circle: ___________ 4) Name of the Village: _______________________

STATUS OF SELECTED BENEFICIARY & PERCEPTION ABOUT NEMMADI KENDRA

Sl No: Name of the Beneficiary: ___________________________

Sl No. Particulars

Code

Beneficiary Family

1 Whether the beneficiary exists (Yes -1/No-2)

2 If Code – 1 in Item. 1, Age: (45 to 54 -1, 55 to 64 -2, 65 & above -3)

3 Gender : (Male -1 / Female -2)

4 Social group: (SC -1, ST -2, Minority -3, Others -4)

5 Marital Status : (Unmarried -1, Married -2, Widowed -3, Others (Divorced/ Separated/ Deserted) -4.)

6 Whether the beneficiary has earning sons : (Yes -1 / No -2)

If Yes, whether the beneficiary is living with earning son/sons: (Yes -1 / No -2 / Not taking -3)

7 Who take cares the beneficiary? (sons-1, daughters-2, wife-3, Others specify.....................-4

8 Whether the beneficiary belongs to BPL (Yes -1 / No -2)

9 Whether annual income of the person or spouse or jointly exceeds more than Rs.20000/- (Yes -1 / No -2)

10 If yes, whether person belongs to: Small farmer-1, Marginal farmer-2, Agricultural labourer-3, Weaver-4, Fishermen-5, Labors of unorganized sector (excluding building and other construction laborers) -6, Others Specify -7 ………………………………………….

11 Certificate of work regarding category of work issued by the Tahashildar is maintained (Yes -1/ No -2)

12 Whether the fixed deposit of the person and spouse exceeds Rs.10000/- (Yes -1 / No -2)

13 Whether the beneficiary is benefited from any other Govt. Pension scheme (Yes -1 / No -2)

14 If yes, in item-9 : (Widow Pension -1, Physically Handicapped Pension -2, Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension -3, Any other

SCHEDULE – 5(S4)



specify………………..…………-4)

15 Educational Qualification: (Illiterate -1, 5th Passed -2, 8th Passed -3, 10th Passed -4, PUC -5, Degree and above -6.)

16 House of the beneficiary (self owned -1 / family owns-2, Rented -3, Free- 4)

17

Agricultural land (self owned -1 / family owns-2)

If yes, area in acres.

18 If Code-2 in item-13, Status of employment: (Not employed -1, Household work -2, Agricultural Labour -3, Non-Agricultural Labour -4, Self-employed -5, Others specify …………-6.)

19 Whether any of the family members is in receipt of Govt. Pension. (Yes -1 / No -2)

PERCEPTION ABOUT PROCESSING / SANCTIONING OFFICE

20 Whether Nemmadi Kendra assists the applicant in filling up the prescribed application form? (Yes -1 / No -2)

21 If yes, time taken to fill up the application form. (More than 1 hour -1 / Full day -2 / Instructed to come next day -3 / Instructed to come next week -4 / Others …………………………….. 5)

22 How many visits the applicant did to Taluka Office for sanctioning of the pension?

23 How many visits the applicant did to Revenue Inspector for sanctioning of the pension?

24 How many visits the applicant did to Village Accountant for sanctioning of the pension?

25 Total Expenditure incurred for visiting:

26 Bus Charge: ……………..Others (specify):…..…… Total:

27 The attitude of Nemmadi Kendra towards the applicant while filling up and processing the application form. (Cordial-1/ Indifferent-2)

28 For filling-up of application whether any expenditure incurred by the beneficiary? (Yes -1 / No -2) in Nemmadi Kendra

29 The attitude of Tahashildar Office towards the applicant while processing the application form. (Cordial-1/ Indifferent-2)

30 For processing of the pension whether any expenditure incurred by the beneficiary? (Yes -1 / No -2) in Tahashildar Office

31 The attitude of Revenue Inspector towards the applicant while verifying the application form. (Cordial-1/ Indifferent-2)

32 For verifying whether any expenditure incurred by the beneficiary? (Yes -1 / No -2)

Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department

Signature:…………………………………… Signature: Name:………………………………………… Name: Designation:………………………………… Designation: Date:…………………………………………. Date




IGNOAPS and SSY Schemes 1) District: ________________________________________ 2) Taluk: ___________________________________ 3) Name of the Village Accountant Circle: ___________ 4) Name of the Village: _______________________

DISBURSEMENT OF PENSION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Sl. No: Name of the Beneficiary: ___________________________ Sl No. Particulars Code

1 Average date of receipt of pension during the month

2 Monthly Pension (in Rs.) : Sanctioned

3 Actual amount received

4 Past how many years the pension is being received: (0 to 3 years -1. 4 to 6 -2, 7 to 10 -3, 11 to 15 -4, 15 years & above -5)

5 Place of distribution of pension : (Postman -1, Post Office -2, Bank -3, Others specify -4)

6 If Code -1 in Item-5, whether any amount paid for the services (Not Paid -1 / Voluntarily paid -2 / Agency deducts at source -3)

7 Whether pension received regularly. (Yes -1 / No -2)

8 If the pension amount is paid through MO then how many visits are made to collect the pension amount (one time-1,two-three times-2, more then 3times-3)

9 Who collects the pension amount at home (self-1,family members-2)

10 Attitude of pension disbursing agency (Cordial -1, Indifferent -2)

11 Is there any occasion where in pension of a month is not received (Yes -1 / No -2)

12 If delayed, number of months: .( 0 to 2 months -1, 3 to 4 -2, 5 to 6 -3, Above 6 months -4)

13 In case of delay or non-receipt of pension whom do you approach?

14 At last have you got any solution? (Yes – 1 / No -2)

15 If Yes, from whom?

16 If yes, the time taken to readdress:

17 Usage of Pension amount : (Livelihood -1, Medical Treatment -2, Utilized by family members -3, Others Specify…………. -4)

18 After availing the benefit whether social status improved (Yes – 1 / No -2) : In the family

In the society

19 Whether the pension amount is sufficient to make normal livelihood? (Yes -1 / No -2)

20 Level of security attained after receipt of the benefit : (More secured -1, No difference -2, Still insecure -3)

21 Opinion of the inspecting officer about the implementation of the scheme (Good -1, Satisfactory -2, Poor -3)

22 Remarks

Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature: …………………………………… Signature: Name: ………………………………………… Name: Designation: ………………………………… Designation: Date: …………………………………………. Date: ……………………………………………...

SCHEDULE – 5(S5)




IGNOAPS and SSY Schemes 1) District: ________________________________________ 2) Taluk: ___________________________________ 3) Village Accountant Circle : _________________________ 4) Name of the Village : _______________________

REASONS FOR REJECTION OF PENSION APPLICATION

(Questionnaire for Sanctioning Authority)

Sl N

o. Name of the Village

Name & Address of the applicant

Socia

l gro

up

(SC

-1 / S

T -2

/ Othe

rs -3

)

Reasons for Rejection

Lack

of A

ge pr

oof (

Yes-1

/No-

2)

Annu

al inc

ome o

f the p

erso

n or s

pous

e or

joint

ly ex

ceed

s mor

e tha

n Rs.2

0000

/-

(Yes

-1 / N

o -2)

Does

not m

atch t

he ca

tegor

y of w

ork /

- (Y

es -1

/ No -

2) (c

ode)

Certif

icate

of wo

rk re

gard

ing ca

tegor

y of

work

issue

d by t

he Ta

hash

ildar

is

there

(Yes

-1/ N

o -2)

The f

ixed d

epos

it of th

e per

son a

nd

spou

se ex

ceed

s Rs.1

0000

/-

(Yes

-1 / N

o -2)

Alre

ady b

enefi

ciary

has b

enefi

t fro

m oth

er G

ovt. p

ensio

n sc

heme

(Yes

-1/ N

o -2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

2

3

4

5

Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:………………………………… Signature: Name:…………………………………….. Name: Designation:……………………………… Designation: Date:……………………………………… Date

SCHEDULE – 5(S6)




IGNOAPS and SSY Schemes 1) District: ________________________________________ 2) Taluk: ___________________________________ 3) Village Accountant Circle : _________________________ 4) Name of the Village : _______________________

REASONS FOR REJECTION OF PENSION APPLICATION (Questionnaire for Applicant)

Sl N

o. Name of the Village

Name & Address of the applicant

Dura

tion o

f pen

sion b

eing r

eceiv

ed

Socia

l gro

up

(SC

-1 / S

T -2

/ Othe

rs -3

)

Documents available

Age o

f the a

pplic

ant

Annu

al inc

ome o

f the p

erso

n or s

pous

e or

joint

ly ex

ceed

s mor

e tha

n Rs.2

0000

/-

(Yes

-1 / N

o -2)

Menti

on th

e cate

gory

of wo

rk (co

de)

Certif

icate

of wo

rk re

gard

ing ca

tegor

y of

work

issue

d by t

he Ta

hash

ildar

is

there

(Yes

-1/ N

o -2)

Whe

ther t

he fix

ed de

posit

of th

e per

son

and s

pous

e exc

eeds

Rs.1

0000

/- (Y

es -

1 / N

o -2)

Alre

ady b

enefi

ciary

has b

enefi

t fro

m oth

er G

ovt. p

ensio

n sc

heme

(Yes

-1/ N

o -2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1

2

3

4

5

Code for col.7 Small farmer-1, Marginal farmer-2, Agricultural labourer-3, Weaver-4, Fishermen-5, Labors of unorganized sector (excluding building and other construction laborers) -6,

Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:………………………………… Signature: Name:…………………………………….. Name: Designation:……………………………… Designation: Date:……………………………… Date

SCHEDULE – 5(S7)



PROFORMA ‐ II TENTH ROUND SAMPLE CHECK ON DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES

(Reference Year: 2009‐10) IGNOAPS and SSY Schemes

1) District: ________________________________________ 2) Taluk: ___________________________________ 3) Name of the Village Accountant Circle: ___________ 4) Name of the Village: _______________________ VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY OF BPL STATUS OF THE BENEFICIARY Name: ___________________________

§qÀvÀ£À gÉÃSÉVAvÀ PÉ¼ÀVgÀÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀzÀAqÀ (w½¹zÀ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ)

PÀ. ÀA.

«ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

1 C) d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ UÁvÀæ (Size of the land holding) E®è -0, 2.5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 1.25 JPÀgÉVAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ¬ÄgÀÄªÀ vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ) -1, 2.5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ 5 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 1.25-2.5 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ) -2,

5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ 12.5 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 2.5–6.25 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ) -3, 12.5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ eÁ¹Û¬ÄgÀÄªÀ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 6.25 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ -4

2 ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀj (Type of House) ªÀÄ£É E®èzÀªÀgÀÄ -0 PÀZÁÑªÀÄ£É -1 CgÉ ¥ÀPÀÌ -2 ¥ÀPÀÌ -3 Dgï.¹.¹. -4

3 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV zsÀj ÀÄªÀ §mÉÖAiÀÄ ÀgÁ Àj ® sÀåvÉ (Average availability of wearing-clothes) (¥Àæw ªÀåQÛUÉ eÉÆvÉUÀ¼À°è)

2QÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ -0 2 CxÀªÁ 2 QÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ DzÀgÉ 4 QÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ -1 4 CxÀªÁ ºÉZÀÄÑ DzÀgÉ 6 QÌAvÀqÀ PÀrªÉÄ -2 6 CxÀªÁ ºÉZÀÄÑ DzÀgÉ 10 QÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ -3

SCHEDULE – 5(O5)



10 CxÀªÁ CzÀQÌAvÀ eÁ¹Û -4

4 DºÁgÀ sÀzÀvÉæ (Food Security) ªÀµÀðzÀ §ºÀÄvÉÃPÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è MAzÀQÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl -0 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV MAzÀÄ ¢£ÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ Hl DzÀgÉ PÉ®ªÉÇªÉÄä MAzÀQÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl -1 ªÀµÀð¥ÀÆwð ¥Àæw ¢£À MAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl -2 ¥Àæw ¢£À JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl PÉ®ªÉÇªÉÄä PÀrªÉÄ -3

ªÀµÀð¥ÀÆwð ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ DºÁgÀ -4

5 £ÉÊªÀÄð®å (Sanitation) §AiÀÄ®Ä ±ËZÀ -0 C ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀ ¤ÃjgÀÄªÀ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -1 ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀ ¤ÃjgÀÄªÀ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -2 ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀÄvÀ eÁqÀªÀiÁ° EgÀÄªÀ ÀéZÀÒ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -3 SÁ¸ÀV ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -4

6 UÀÈºÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ªÀ ÀÄÛUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀé («zÀÄåvï-nÃ«, ¥sÁå£ï, gÉÃrAiÉÆÃ, CrUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁVæUÀ¼ÀÄ- ¥ÀæµÀgï PÀÄPÀÌgï/vÀgÀºÀ) (Ownership of the household articles) E®è -0, MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ-1, JgÀqÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ-2, ªÀÄÆgÀÄ CxÀªÁ J¯Áè LlA-3, J¯Áè LlA ªÀÄvÀÄÛ /CxÀªÁ PÉ¼ÀV£À MAzÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°PÀvÀé -4, (zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ, UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæ, §tÚzÀ nÃ«, ¦üæqïÓ, ¢é ZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£À, «zÀÄåvï ZÁ°vÀ CrUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁVæ, mÁæPÀÖgï, zÀÄ¨Áj ¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀt £Á®ÄÌ ZÀPÀæUÀ¼À)

7 PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è ºÉZÀÄÑ «zÁåºÀðvÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ÀASÉå (No.of highly qualified persons in the family)

C£ÀPÀëgÀ ÀÜ -0 ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ (5£ÉÃ vÀgÀUÀw) -1 ¥ËæqsÀ ²PÀëtzÀªÀgÉUÉ (ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10£ÉÃ vÀgÀUÀw vÉÃUÀðqÉ) -2 ¥ÀzÀ«/ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ r¥ÉÆèªÀÄ -3 ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀzÀ«/ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀzÀ« -4

8 PÀÄlÄA§zÀ zÀÄrªÉÄAiÀÄ ¹ÜwUÀw (Status of the earnings in the family) fÃvÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ -0



ªÀÄ»¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À zÀÄrªÉÄ -1ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÌ ªÀÄ»¼É ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀvÉ E®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. -2 ªÀAiÀÄ ÀÌ ¥ÀÄgÀÄµÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ -3 EvÀgÉ -4

9 fÃªÀ£ÉÆÃ¥ÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁUÀð ©rUÀÆ° -0 fÃªÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ÉÃ¸ÁAiÀÄ -1 PÀÄ±À®PÀ«Äð -2 ¸ÀA§¼À/ªÉÃvÀ£À -3 EvÀgÉ -4

10 ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£À ( 5 jAzÀ 14 ªÀµÀðzÉÆ¼ÀV£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄUÀÄ) (Status of the Children)

±Á É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ® ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -0 ±Á É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ® ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -1 PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -2 ±Á É ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ® À ªÀiÁqÀ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -3

11 ¸Á®zÀ ºÉÆgÉ (Liability of debt)

¢£ÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV GzÉÝÃ±ÀUÀ½UÁV C£Ë¥ÀZÁjPÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ -0 GvÁàzÀ£À GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV C£Ë¥ÀZÁjPÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ -1 EvÀgÉ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV C£Ë¥ÀZÁjPÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ -2 ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½AzÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ -3

¸Á® E®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. -4

12 PÀÄlÄA§¢AzÀ ªÀ®¸É ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt (Reason for migration from the family)

©r PÉ®¸ÀPÁÌV ¨ÉÃgÉ HjUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -0 IÄvÀÄPÁ°PÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀPÁÌV ÉÃgÉqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. -1 fÃªÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ EvÀgÉ PÉ® ÀPÁÌV ÉÃgÉqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -2 ªÀ®¸É ºÉÆÃV®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -3 EvÀgÉ GzÉÝÃ±À -4

13 AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw ÀºÁAiÀÄ ÉÃPÀÄ (What type of help is required) PÀÆ° PÉ®¸À/¦rJ¸ï(UÀÄj DzÁjvÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ «vÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀzÀÞw) -0 ¸ÀéAiÀÄA GzÉÆåÃUÀ -1 vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PË±À¯Áå©üªÀÈ¢Þ -2 ªÀ¸Àw -3 ¸Á®/ ÀºÁAiÀÄ zsÀ£À MAzÀÄ ®PÀëQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ CxÀªÁ -4 ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ CUÀvÀåvÉ E®è -5



MlÄÖ ¥ÀqÉzÀ CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:…………………………………… Signature: Name:………………………………………… Name: Designation:………………………………… Designation: Date Date



LISTING SCHEDULE ‐1 SAMPLE CHECK ON DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMME

LIST OF PERSONS OF A VILLAGE

1. Scheme ……………… 2. District ………… 3. Taluk ……………… 4. Gram Panchayat. …………………. 5. Village …………… Sl.

No

Names of the family members

of the house hold

Age If the age of the person is 65 or above. Is he/she

benefited by the any Govt

Pension Scheme

(Yes‐1/No‐2)

Whether filled‐up the

SCHEDULE – 5(BT1)-1 or

SCHEDULE – 5(BT2)-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Place: ………………….. Inspecting Officer. Date: ……………………

SCHEDULE – 5(O6)



SAMPE FRAME ‐1 SAMPLE CHECK ON DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMME

SAMPLE FRAME FOR SELECTION OF VILLAGES 1. Scheme …………………………… 2. District …………………………… 3. Taluk …………………………………

Sl.No Name of the Village Random No. Selected

Village Selected ( ކ )

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Place: ………………….. Inspecting Officer. Date: ……………………



TENTH ROUND SAMPLE CHECK ON DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES FOR

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OLD AGE PENSION & SANDHYA SURKHSHA SCHEMES

IN THE MOST BACKWARD TALUKS IN THE STATE Reference Year 2009‐10.

Sl. No. 1) District: ________________________________________ 2) Taluk: 3) Name of the Village Accountant Circle: ___________ 4) Name of the Village:

SOCIO‐ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE PERSON IDENTIFIED WHO HAVE NOT BENEFITED BY THE OAP/SANDHYA SURKSHA SCHEMES

Name: ___________________________

Sl No. Particulars Code

G1 Gender : (Male -1 / Female -2) G2 Social group: (SC -1, ST -2, Minority -3, Others -4)

G3 Marital Status : (Unmarried -1, Married -2, Widowed -3, Others (Divorced/Separated/Deserted) -4.)

G4 Whether the person has earning sons : (Yes -1 / No -2) If Yes, whether the person is living with earning son/sons: (Yes -1 / No -2 / Not taking -3)

G5 Whether any of the family members is in receipt of Govt. Pension. (Yes -1 / No -2) G6 Residential status of the beneficiary (Owned -1 / Rented -2 / Free -3)

SSY1 Whether annual income of the person or spouse or jointly exceeds more than Rs.20000/- (Yes -1 / No -2)

SSY2 If yes, whether person belongs to: Small farmer-1, Marginal farmer-2, Agricultural labourer-3, Weaver-4, Fishermen-5, Labors of unorganized sector (excluding building and other construction laborers) -6, Others Specify -7 ………………………………………….

SSY3 Certificate of work regarding category of work issued by the Tahashildar is maintained (Yes -1/ No -2)

SSY4 Whether the fixed deposit of the person and spouse exceeds Rs.10000/- (Yes -1 / No -2) OAP1 Whether person is possessing BPL card (Yes -1 / No -2) .If OAP2 If code 2 in column 9, fill-up Proforma-II

Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:…………………………………… Signature: ………………………………………..

Name:………………………………………… Name:

Designation:………………………………… Designation: ……………………………………..

Date:…………………………………………. Date:……………………………………………...

SCHEDULE – 5(BT1)



TENTH ROUND SAMPLE CHECK ON DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMMES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES FOR INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OLD AGE PENSION IN THE MOST BACKWARD TALUKS IN THE STATE

Reference Year 2009‐10. Sl. No.

1) District: ________________________________________ 2) Taluk: ___________________________________ 3) Name of the Village Accountant Circle: ___________ 4) Name of the Village: _______________________

TO ASSESS BPL STATUS OF THE PERSON IDENTIFIED WHO HAVE NOT BENEFITED BY

THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OLD AGE PENSION SCHEME Name: ___________________________ §qÀvÀ£À gÉÃSÉVAvÀ PÉ¼ÀVgÀÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀzÀAqÀ (0 ¬ÄAzÀ 4 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ÀAPÉÃvÀÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ)

Sl No.

Particulars Code

1

C) d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ UÁvÀæ (Size of the land holding) E®è -0, 2.5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 1.25 JPÀgÉVAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ¬ÄgÀÄªÀ vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ) -1, 2.5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ 5 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 1.25-2.5 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ) -2,

5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ 12.5 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 2.5–6.25 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ) -3, 12.5 JPÀgÉVAvÀ eÁ¹Û¬ÄgÀÄªÀ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ (CxÀªÁ 6.25 JPÀgÉªÀgÉV£À vÀj d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ -4

2

ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁzÀj (Type of House) ªÀÄ£É E®èzÀªÀgÀÄ -0 PÀZÁÑªÀÄ£É -1 CgÉ ¥ÀPÀÌ -2 ¥ÀPÀÌ -3 Dgï.¹.¹. -4

3

¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV zsÀj ÀÄªÀ §mÉÖAiÀÄ ÀgÁ Àj ® sÀåvÉ (Average availability of wearing-clothes) (¥Àæw ªÀåQÛUÉ eÉÆvÉUÀ¼À°è)

2QÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ -0 2 CxÀªÁ 2 QÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ DzÀgÉ 4 QÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ -1 4 CxÀªÁ ºÉZÀÄÑ DzÀgÉ 6 QÌAvÀqÀ PÀrªÉÄ -2 6 CxÀªÁ ºÉZÀÄÑ DzÀgÉ 10 QÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ -3

10 CxÀªÁ CzÀQÌAvÀ eÁ¹Û -4

4

DºÁgÀ sÀzÀvÉæ (Food Security) ªÀµÀðzÀ §ºÀÄvÉÃPÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è MAzÀQÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl -0 ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV MAzÀÄ ¢£ÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ Hl DzÀgÉ PÉ®ªÉÇªÉÄä MAzÀQÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl -1 ªÀµÀð¥ÀÆwð ¥Àæw ¢£À MAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl -2 ¥Àæw ¢£À JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀÆtð Hl PÉ®ªÉÇªÉÄä PÀrªÉÄ -3

ªÀµÀð¥ÀÆwð ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ DºÁgÀ -4

5

£ÉÊªÀÄð®å (Sanitation) §AiÀÄ®Ä ±ËZÀ -0 C¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀ ¤ÃjgÀÄªÀ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -1 ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀ ¤ÃjgÀÄªÀ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -2

SCHEDULE – 5(BT2)



¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀÄvÀ eÁqÀªÀiÁ° EgÀÄªÀ ÀéZÀÒ ¸ÁªÀÄÆ»PÀ ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -3 SÁ ÀV ±ËZÁ®AiÀÄ -4

6

UÀÈºÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV ªÀ ÀÄÛUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀé («zÀÄåvï-nÃ«, ¥sÁå£ï, gÉÃrAiÉÆÃ, CrUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁVæUÀ¼ÀÄ- ¥ÀæµÀgï PÀÄPÀÌgï/vÀgÀºÀ) (Ownership of the household articles) E®è -0, MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ-1, JgÀqÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ-2, ªÀÄÆgÀÄ CxÀªÁ J¯Áè LlA-3, J¯Áè LlA ªÀÄvÀÄÛ /CxÀªÁ PÉ¼ÀV£À MAzÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°PÀvÀé -4, (zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ, UÀtPÀAiÀÄAvÀæ, §tÚzÀ nÃ«, ¦üæqïÓ, ¢é ZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£À, «zÀÄåvï ZÁ°vÀ CrUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁVæ, mÁæPÀÖgï, zÀÄ¨Áj ¦ÃoÉÆÃ¥ÀPÀgÀt £Á®ÄÌ ZÀPÀæUÀ¼À)

7

PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è ºÉZÀÄÑ «zÁåºÀðvÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ÀASÉå (No.of highly qualified persons in the family) C£ÀPÀëgÀ ÀÜ -0 ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ (5£ÉÃ vÀgÀUÀw) -1 ¥ËæqsÀ ²PÀëtzÀªÀgÉUÉ (ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10£ÉÃ vÀgÀUÀw vÉÃUÀðqÉ) -2 ¥ÀzÀ«/ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ r¥ÉÆèªÀÄ -3 ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀzÀ«/ªÀÈwÛ¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀzÀ« -4

8

PÀÄlÄA§zÀ zÀÄrªÉÄAiÀÄ ¹ÜwUÀw (Status of the earnings in the family) fÃvÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ -0 ªÀÄ»¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À zÀÄrªÉÄ -1 ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÌ ªÀÄ»¼É ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á®PÁ«ÄðPÀvÉ E®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. -2 ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÌ ¥ÀÄgÀÄµÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ -3 EvÀgÉ -4

9

fÃªÀ£ÉÆÃ¥ÁAiÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁUÀð©rUÀÆ° -0 fÃªÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÁ ¨ÉÃ¸ÁAiÀÄ -1 PÀÄ±À®PÀ«Äð -2 ¸ÀA§¼À/ªÉÃvÀ£À -3 EvÀgÉ -4

10

ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£À ( 5 jAzÀ 14 ªÀµÀðzÉÆ¼ÀV£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄUÀÄ) (Status of the Children) ±Á É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ® ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -0 ±Á¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ® ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -1 PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -2 ±Á É ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ® À ªÀiÁqÀ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -3

11

¸Á®zÀ ºÉÆgÉ (Liability of debt) ¢£ÉÆÃ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV GzÉÝÃ±ÀUÀ½UÁV C£Ë¥ÀZÁjPÉ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ -0 GvÁàzÀ£À GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV C£Ë¥ÀZÁjPÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ -1 EvÀgÉ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌV C£Ë¥ÀZÁjPÀ ªÀÄÆ®UÀ½AzÀ -2 ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½AzÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ -3 ¸Á® E®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. -4

12

PÀÄlÄA§¢AzÀ ªÀ® É ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt (Reason for migration from the family) ©r PÉ®¸ÀPÁÌV ÉÃgÉ HjUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -0 IÄvÀÄPÁ°PÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀPÁÌV ÉÃgÉqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. -1 fÃªÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ EvÀgÉ PÉ® ÀPÁÌV ÉÃgÉqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -2 ªÀ® É ºÉÆÃV®è¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ -3 EvÀgÉ GzÉÝÃ±À -4

13

AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw ÀºÁAiÀÄ ÉÃPÀÄ (What type of help is required) PÀÆ° PÉ® À/¦rJ¸ï(UÀÄj DzÁjvÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ «vÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀzÀÞw) ¸ÀéAiÀÄA GzÉÆåÃUÀ vÀgÀ ÉÃw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PË±À Áå©üªÀÈ¢Þ ªÀ Àw ¸Á®/ ÀºÁAiÀÄ zsÀ£À MAzÀÄ ®PÀëQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ CUÀvÀåvÉ E®è

Accompanying official from Programme Inspecting Officer Implementing Department Signature:…………………………………… Signature: Name:………………………………………… Name: Designation:………………………………… Designation: Date:…………………………………………. Date

Evaluation of Old Age Pension Schemes in Karnatakades.kar.nic.in/docs/Evaluation of Old Age Pension...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Old Age Pension Schemes in Karnatakades.kar.nic.in/docs/Evaluation of Old Age Pension...