ICDS-Common Application Software:What are the Promises & Limitations?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 25, 2020
The Finance Minister, during her recent budget speech claimed that more than 6 lakh Anganwadi workers have been equipped with smartphones to upload data real-time. We look at this fact as well as the promises and limitations this system holds.
The 2020-21 Budget Speech, delivered by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, presented achievements of Poshan Abhiyan. In this article, we fact-check the claim and understand the trajectory of monitoring mechanisms under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) or popularly known as the ‘Anganwadi’ scheme.
Claim (Point 66): To improve the nutritional status of children (0-6 years), adolescent girls, pregnant women and lactating mothers, Prime Minister launched a ‘Poshan Abhiyan’ in 2017-18. More than six lakh Anganwadi workers are equipped with smart phones to upload the nutritional status of more than 10 crore households.
Fact: The claim is TRUE. As on 31 December 2019, 6.08 lakh Anganwadi workers are uploading data on ICDS – Common Application Software (ICDS-CAS). However, numerous challenges exist in making this work.
What is new about monitoring under the Poshan
Abhiyan?
The Poshan Abhiyaan was launched in 2017 as a flagship scheme focussedon tackling the deeply entrenched problem of malnutrition, given the backdropof a National Nutrition Strategy ‘Nourishing
India’ released by NITI Aayog in September 2017. The strategy presented an in-depthanalysis of the 4th round of the National Family Health Survey and identified bottlenecks thatwere hampering the effective delivery of existing health and nutritionprograms.
Under the program, the ICDS- Common Application Software (ICDS-CAS) was rolled out in 2018 to meet thechallenge of time-consuming data management and ensure better monitoring ofprogress. The software is pre-loaded into mobile devices given to the Anganwadiworkers. As per the information shared by the government, the softwaresimplifies and digitizes data management by auto-generating, among otherthings, lists to identify children at-risk and upcoming immunization dates. Itenables data capture, ensures assigned service delivery and prompts forinterventions wherever required.
This data is then available in near real time to the supervisory stafffrom Block, District, State to National level through a Dashboard, formonitoring. The procurement and distribution of mobile devices is a part of theproject.  Interactive videos onappropriate care practices during pregnancies, feeding related information, childcarepractices, disease management have also been in-built within the software. The useof technology is crucial to the monitoringmechanism of the program. For instance, the use of geo-tagging and date/timestamped photos enable a check on the number of visits by the supervisor.
The annual reports of the Ministry of Women & Child Development highlight the use of ICDS-CAS application by Anganwadi workers. The 2018-19 annual report stated that a total of 2.15 Lakh Anganwadis were effectively using the job aid for service delivery and reporting. In 2019-20 report, this number increased to 6.08 lakh Anganwadi workers, as on 31 December 2019. Therefore, the claim made in the budget speech stands TRUE.
However, it is important to understand the genesis of ICDS and themonitoring mechanism that was being followed before the introduction of thetablets.
Challenges associated with monitoring under the
ICDS umbrella
The ICDS was launched as a centrally sponsored scheme on 02 October 1975by Ministry of Women and Child Development. Three major services, namely,supplementary nutrition, pre-school education, health and nutrition education,are delivered by Anganwadi Centres at the village level.
The monitoring and evaluation framework under the scheme is a three-tiersetup: the national, the state, and the community levels. The ICDS Schemeenvisions an in-built system of monitoring through regular reports flowingupwards from the Anganwadi centre to Project Headquarter, State Headquarter andfinally to ministry.
The CAG’s (Comptroller
and Auditor General of India) Performance Audit Report of 2012 about the ICDS highlights that themonitoring and evaluation (M&E) unit was the sole monitor of the schemetill 2006-07. To establish a regular monitoring and supervision mechanism, anautonomous body of the ministry called the National Institute of PublicCo-operation and Child Development (NIPCCD) was set up in the same year. Withthe appointment of one consultant, this body was established in the form of aCentral Monitoring Unit (CMU) in January 2017. While the NIPCCD was responsiblefor hiring a team of six consultants with relevant domain expertise, the auditfound that the operations of CMU were managed with professional consultants formost of the period during 2006-11.
It was only in October 2008 that the monitoring and supervision projectsin states became functional when NIPCCD identified 42 academic institutions asselected institutions in 2008-09. The CAG report identifies administrativelaxity on part of the NIPCCD as the major reason behind the delay inestablishing monitoring practices.
Until March 2012, no concurrent evaluation of ICDS on scheme outcomesand nutritional status were carried out by CMU. Only concurrent evaluationreports on input indicators were prepared, focussing on issues such asinfrastructure of Anganwadi centers, status of supplies, supervision by ChildDevelopment Project Officer (CDPO), status of community participation, and ICDSdelivery status. In addition, the data used for preparing these reports werenot concurrent. For instance, the evaluation report published in January 2012contained data as old as March 2009. Furthermore, audit also found that CMU didnot receive monthly, quarterly and annual progress reports consistently fromstates.
The M&E unit under the ministry also failed in furnishing any impactassessment of the ICDS services. The audit noted that the monitoring wasrestricted to quantitative aspects and qualitative parameters like nutritionalstatus of children and effectiveness of scheme remained neglected even afterthree and a half decades of the scheme’s launch.
In November 2012, the ministry announced that a five-tier monitoring andevaluation scheme and a revised Management Information System (MIS) would takecare of the short comings emerging out of CMU reports. The guidelines mandatedformation of various committees and regular meetings to monitor and review theprogress of scheme. However, the CAG’s Performance Audit Report of
2017 notesthat, between 2011-2016, requirements of the guidelines were not met either dueto non-formation of committees or due to lack of consistent meetings.Therefore, issues such as shortfall in coverage of beneficiaries, delays inconstruction of AWC buildings, and under-utilisation of funds could not beeffectively addressed.
The promise and limitations of ICDS-CAS
NITI Aayog’s Progress Report on
Poshan Abhiyan (September 2019) notes that the ICDS-CAS application intends to ensure better servicedelivery and supervision as well as enable real-time monitoring and data-based decision-making. This ICTleveraged solution is expected to help to improve the nutrition levels ofchildren in the country and help meet nutrition goals. The applicationdigitizes 10 of the 11 registers of the Anganwadi workers, provides asupervisory application for the officials, and a dashboard application toCDPOs, DPOs as well as to officials at the State and at the central level to beable to monitor Anganwadi Centre (AWC) activities
The Report also notes the challenges reported by states in rolling outICDS-CAS.
Otherthan the challenges noted in the NITI Aayog’s report, there are additionalchallenges that lie in the path of bridging the gap in monitoring andsupervision via ICDS-CAS. A paper published by Evidence for Policy Design (EPoD)
India at the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR) in 2019, highlights the classic problem of misalignedincentives problem. Since those who are collecting data are also responsiblefor delivering services and affecting outcomes, this conflict of interestdisincentivizes accurate data reporting, and primarily arises from the enormouspressure on states to present a favourable picture of nutrition in theirjurisdiction. This pressure gets transferred to middle-level officials andfinally trickles down to Anganwadi workers. In their dual role as datacollectors and last-mile service providers, Anganwadi workers hold the power to‘generate’ evidence that speaks well of their performance.
Ina 2019 report, The Hindu Center for
Politics & Public Policy highlights that as of date, there are noassessments of how the ICDS-CAS system has worked in practice and whether ithas enabled those at the field and supervisory levels to get a firm grip on theactual malnutrition situation at the Anganwadi level, enabling early remedialaction.