From Outlays to Outcomes: Unpacking planning, decision making and

governance in education

PAISA

Rising elementary education budget

68853

147059

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

2007-08 2012-13

Per student Allocation FY 2012-13: Rs. 11509

SSA Budget 2012-13

Quality specific inputs: 2% School Grants -2%

Teachers 44%

School 35%

Children 12%

Mgmt 6%

Quality & Misc 3%

…………but outcomes are in a “BIG STUCK”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Std 3 Std 4 Std 5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Children who can read std 2 level text (story level)

79

71 66

48

73

39

60

48

28344

20838

14615

11746 10761

8601 6940

4332

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

HimachalPradesh

Maharashtra AndhraPradesh

Rajasthan Punjab MadhyaPradesh

West Bengal Bihar

Lear

ning

Lev

els

2012

*

Per

Stud

ent a

lloca

tion

(RE)

201

1-12

* Children in std. 3-5 who can read std. 1 text or more

No correlation between per child costs and learning outcomes

No correlation between increased perchild costs and learning outcomes

010

2030

4050

6070

8090

100

% of

stude

nts st

d. (3-

5) wh

o can

read

Std.

1 tex

t or a

bove

0 10000 20000 30000Per Student allocation

Why don’t outlays translate in to outcomes?

• Are we allocating the right resources in the right activities?

• Is money reaching its destination? • Who takes expenditure decisions? • Are these linked to needs on the ground? • In short, is our governance architecture

designed to deliver on expected outputs and outcomes?

Introduction to PAISA PAISA National Report • Survey focuses on 3 core grants that

every school in the country receives • Survey undertaken through ASER • PAISA is now in its 4th year • Over 14,591 schools visited in 2012 • Survey conducted through citizens

groups making PAISA the first and only national effort to track expenditure

• Key questions: • Do schools get their money? • If so, when do schools get their

money? • Do schools get all their money? • How do schools spend their

money?

PAISA District Studies • In depth detailed tracking of the entire

chain of government money and decision making

• 9 Districts in 7 States : AP, Medak, Bihar,

Nalanda & Purnea; Himachal Pradesh, Kangra; Madhya Pradesh, Sagar, Maharashtra, Satara; Rajasthan, Jaipur & Udaipur and West Bengal, Jalpaigudi

• Analysis of State Budget and GOI PAB

minutes • Analysis of district AWPs & Monthly

Expenditure Statements. • School survey: 140 (average) schools per

district. Total sample 1,311

• Second district survey currently underway

PAISA Findings

Unpacking School Financing The Macro story

SSA Budget 2012-13

Quality specific inputs: 2% School Grants -2%

Teachers 44%

School 35%

Children 12%

Mgmt 6%

Quality & Misc 3%

Findings from PAISA surveys The micro story

Findings from PAISA Surveys

• Current planning and budgeting model is centralized and norm driven SMC planning process is largely a “signatory”

exercise with no real participation Schools/ SMC have expenditure control over only

2% (in FY 2012-13) of the budget. That too is ‘tied’ (SMC)

• The result: planning, budgeting and expenditure do

not reflect realities on the ground. Little scope for “community engagement” a key goal of the Right to Education (RTE)

Findings from PAISA surveys

Limited implementation capability Funds arrive late. Just about half of India’s schools

receive their grants by November. (school data) Spending at the local level is not easy– opacity, red tape,

centralized guidelines often create incentives Not to spend! (RTE data)

Overworked and underutilized officials. BRCs/ CRCs

tasked with monitoring and supervising spend most of their day in “mission mode” dealing with last minute queries from senior officers and HR management. No time to focus on doing the job they are “hired” for

Way forward: Building a decentralized, outcomes focused delivery system

• Community ownership. RTE envisages a decentralized delivery mechanism. SMCs mandated to plan and monitor. Building SMC capability requires:

Providing untied block grants to SMCs (moving

away from the norm driven system) Greater impetus on training (spend community

mobilization money!) Build a real time MIS to ensure accountability for

spending

Way forward: Building a decentralized, outcomes focused delivery system

• Large body of empirical work on what CAN be done on pedagogy eg. teaching by level, better monitoring and performance based incentives for teachers. The menu of options needs a serious re-think of current implementation systems. Key principles: Greater autonomy at the district to set goals and

align plans and budgets to these goals (eg. Purnea needs buildings, Nalanda needs remedial teaching) Re-organize workflow at the block to enable

BRC/CRC to provide academic support + greater focus on training to do the job they’ve been hired for

Decision making is top down….an example from Hyderabad

Activity Is SMC

resolution sufficient?

Is any additional approval needed?

From whom? How long will it take?

Who can do the procurement or appointment?

What documents and other things will be needed?

Desks and

Chairs No Yes SSA Planning 2 months SSA Office

Approval of design; Three quotations

from local suppliers

Sintex Water Tank

Yes No 2 weeks SMC Local purchase at PWD rates

Roof Repair No Yes SSA Civil / JE 1 month SMC + SSA

Approval of work and measurements;

Materials bought locally as per PWD rates; vouchers of

payments maintained

Ayah Yes No 1 week SMC Interview Notice with Date and Time

Back

Variation in grant receipts

88

81

85 85

77

84

89

79

87

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

TLM SDG SMG

2009-102010-112011-12

74% schools received all their grants in 2011-12

3% 6%

17%

74%

0123

Money rarely reaches on time…….

61

57

59

53

51

55 55

51

56

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

TLM SDG SMG

2010-112011-122012-13

Last minute rush to devolve funds to districts Monthly Fund flows to Kangra, HP (2010-11)

Last minute rush to spend…….

Sagar, Madhya Pradesh

32%

65%

32%

19%

16%

78%

65%

84%

84%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

School

Teacher Training

Quality

Entitlements

Mainstreaming

Mar-11Dec-10

What explains these trends?

• Paper work – the UC phenomenon, pass books not being updated, incorrect bank out details

• Teething problems – absence of core banking

facilities • Information gaps at every level

Back

Implications of late arrival Stories from schools……

• Schools often use their own monies to meet essential supplies and ‘adjust’ the books accordingly

• Lack of information at all levels results in a blame game

• Expenditures are delayed (eg. 1.5 lakhs SMG money in HP blocks) and there is a disconnect with needs on the ground

• Whitewashing a popular annual activity – 67% schools whitewashed their walls in 2012-13

back

Pace of meeting RTE norms

32

25 25

05

101520253035

2010 2011 2012

% shortfall in availability of girls toilets

Pace of meeting RTE norms Infrastructure norms

46

26

17 18

38

49

37

47

26

16 16

37 46

29

47

27

16 16

39 45

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010

2011

2012

back