The Scheme was launched in FY 2016-17 by restructuring the Indira Awaas Yojana. Under the scheme, states determine targets for the number of beneficiaries in the district. Eligible beneficiaries can register themselves with implementing agencies. Once their eligibility has been verified, a house is sanctioned, bank accounts are verified, and the entire amount is deposited in instalments in the bank accounts of beneficiaries.
Figure 1 shows aggregate level indicators for Durg district from the beginning of the scheme (FY 2016-17) till end of financial year 2021-22.

Figure 1: Overview of Beneficiaries from FY 2016-17 till the end of FY 2021-22

• Registrations have exceeded targets, likely indicating that individuals other than eligible beneficiaries also registered themselves or the possibility of duplication.
• There is a gap of 108 beneficiaries between the number of targets and sanctioned houses.
• Of the total number of beneficiaries who were sanctioned houses, bank accounts could not be verified for 1045 beneficiaries. Hence, they could not avail of scheme benefits.
• Of the total number of beneficiaries whose bank accounts were verified, 3408 had not received the first instalment. The number of sanctioned houses in 2020-21 was 3557 indicating that most designated beneficiaries will receive first instalments. It needs to be emphasised that the scheme is experiencing delays since many accounts had not received first instalments even after a year.
• 403 beneficiaries are reported to have completed houses without receiving the third instalment.
• 11,852 beneficiaries completed the house without receiving the fourth instalment. This means less than one-third of beneficiaries who finished building their houses received the fourth instalment which is an add-on to the original scheme. The reason(s) for only a few numbers of beneficiaries receiving their full instalments needs further investigation.

Each year, targets are set by the Centre for the central and the state levels whereas states determine targets at the district level based on the housing deprivation list and priority list. Once selected, beneficiaries can register themselves. After their eligibility has been verified, benefits are sanctioned. 
Figure 2 shows the number of targets and sanctioned beneficiaries. 

Figure 2: Number of Targets, Registrations and Sanctioned Beneficiaries

• No targets were set for the district in 2021-2022. It could mean that either all eligible district beneficiaries have received a house — or that remaining eligible beneficiaries rank lower on the priority list and will receive scheme benefits once higher priority individuals receive their houses.
• During the first four years in which targets were set, registrations fell short of targets during the first two years and exceeded them in the following two years.
• While the number of sanctions exceeded registrations in the first two years, this has fallen short in the last two years. 
• The phenomenon of registrations exceeding targets and sanctions exceeding registrations are most likely a result of delays wherein eligible beneficiaries of earlier years completed registration in later years. It could also be the case that ineligible beneficiaries have registered. 
• In 2019-20 and 2020-21, when registrations exceeded targets, the sanctioned numbers were equal to targets only.
• At the aggregate level, total targets during the last five years were 18702, registrations were 17820 while the total number of sanctioned houses were 18009.

Beneficiaries receive the total amount in instalments depending on the completion of a pre-defined stage of house building. Out of the total number of sanctioned houses for which instalments have been initiated, not all houses are completed for various reasons. Figure 3 shows the number of completed houses of the total number of houses sanctioned in a particular year.

Figure 3: Completed and Incomplete Houses

• While most houses sanctioned in 2017-18 and 2018-19 are complete, the rate of completion for houses sanctioned in 2019-20 and 2020-21 was very low. In fact, the rate of completion for houses sanctioned in 2020-21 is zero percent. 
• Data for analysis was collected in August 2022 by when the stipulated 12-month completion period for houses sanctioned in 2019-20 and 2020-21 was already over. This indicates that for a number of houses, the time taken for completion is more than the 12-month period stipulated by scheme guidelines.
• There were no targets in 2021-22 and houses were also not sanctioned.

Districts receive funds based on targets, unit assistance and utilisation. Given the nature of expenditure, one house can be built over more than one financial year. Figure 4 shows the yearly and cumulative availability and fund expenditure under the scheme between 2017-2022. 

Figure 4: Available funds and Expenditure Incurred (Rs Crore)

• During the five-year period under study, the total allocation has been Rs. 217 crore while utilisation or disbursement was Rs 202 crore.
• In 2017-18, expenditure was 67% more than allocation, most likely indicating disbursements for houses allocated or sanctioned in previous years.
• Similarly, unutilised funds during the last two-three years might be spent in current or future years depending on the stages of houses being built.
• No allocation was made in 2021-22 while funds worth Rs. 21 lakh were utilised for houses sanctioned in earlier years.

In Durg district, the entire amount is paid in four instalments. The first three instalments (Rs. 48000, Rs 48000, and Rs 24000) comprise the total house unit assistance of Rs 1.2 lakh. The fourth instalment is Rs 12,000 for building a toilet under SBM-G.
According to scheme guidelines, the first instalment should be paid with 15 days of being sanctioned.  

Figure 5: Number of Sanctioned Houses vs First Instalments

• In 2017-18, the number of first instalments paid was higher than the number of sanctioned houses by more than 2300. This likely indicates that these payments were delayed from earlier years. 
• In 2020-21, the number of first instalments paid was only 7% of the number of sanctioned houses. In the next year too, only 86 first instalments were paid. This means that roughly 3200 beneficiaries who were sanctioned houses in 2020-21 are yet to receive their first instalments. The reason(s) for the delay need further research.

House ownership is reported under three categories – men, women and joint. Figure 6 below shows the distribution of houses under these categories. 

Figure 6: Gender-wise distribution of sanctioned vs completed houses

• Out of all houses sanctioned in the last five years, 6% are owned by men, 12% by women and 83% are jointly owned.

Figure 7 shows different rates of house completion. 

Figure 7: Rate of House Completion for Different Categories of House Owners (Percent)

• The rate of completion under the ‘joint’ category has been lower compared to the other two categories, especially during 2019-20 and 2020-21.
• The completion rate for houses sanctioned in 2020-21 was zero, even though the stipulated period for completing houses is 12 months.
• No houses were sanctioned in 2021-22.

Given the importance of the scheme in providing safe and liveable houses for large numbers of people, information should be available and easily accessible and accessible to the common masses. 
Figure 8 lists various aspects of required data and whether such data is publicly available. Information regarding PMAY-G is available on the scheme MIS which can be accessed at: https://rhreporting.nic.in/netiay/newreport.aspx (Data accessed on 30h August, 2022).

 Transparency and Accountability Index

Availability of Information and Comprehensiveness

• Information on released funds released
  
  • Yes, district and block-wise targets and allocations are stated.
• Information on utilised funds
  • Yes
• Availability of information on number of houses sanctioned
  • Number of houses registered and number of houses for which instalments have been disbursed.
• Gender-wise disaggregation of beneficiaries’ data
  • Yes, a gender-wise break up of sanctioned and completed houses is provided.
• Caste-wise disaggregation of beneficiaries’ data
  • Yes, caste-wise break up of registrations, sanctions and completion is given.
• Geographical granularity of the fiscal indicator
  • Panchayat

Accessibility

• Language of availability of information
  • English
• Compatibility on devices
  • Laptop and Mobile

Timeliness

• How frequently are data updated
  • Real-Time

Accountability and Citizen’s Participation

• Availability of social audit reports
  • Details of sanctions, instalments and inspection details of some beneficiaries for some years.
• Information on participation of beneficiaries in Gram Sabha meetings related to PMAY-G
  • No
• Availability of information on grievance redressal mechanism for beneficiaries
  • No

Given the importance of NHM in providing affordable healthcare to a large section of the populace, different data/information about the scheme should be readily available and accessible to the common masses. Figure 11 lists essential NHM data points/information that are useful to various stakeholders for Durg. Hence, their availability and accessibility would be useful. The current level of information available has been evaluated as under:

 Transparency and Accountability Index

Availability of Information and Comprehensiveness

Information on funds available

Yes

Information on funds utilized

Yes

Information on eligible beneficiaries under various sub-components of NHM

Yes

Gender-wise disaggregation of beneficiary data

No

Caste-wise disaggregation of beneficiary data

No

Geographical granularity of the fiscal indicator

Fund availability: Available Block-wise and component-wise

Expenditure of funds: Available only Block/PHC-wise and not component-wise

Information on number of PHCs/DH/SDH

Yes

Accessibility

Language in which information is available

English only

Compatibility on devices

Phone, tablet, laptop friendly

Timeliness

How frequently is data updated?

Yearly

Relevance

How relevant would users find it?

(i) Fiscal information pertaining to the budget approved/allocated is extensively available in state/district PIPs and RoPs for various years by components, but it is not aligned with the geographical granularity of the district. Expenditure data for various years is available only by geography and component, making it difficult to arrive at an aggregate picture of health sector spending in the district.

(ii) Data sources pertaining to various health outcomes, such as NFHS and HMIS, are quite extensive in their coverage and in providing adequate information in the public domain.

Reliability

Is the data reliable?

Relevant audit reports are not available on the NHM website. Hence, reliability of data has remained an issue.

Accountability and Citizens' Participation

Availability of information on social audit

Provisions for the same are not available on the NHM website.

Availability of information on grievance redressal

Provisions for the same are not available on the NHM website.

• Budget utilisation under NHM in Durg has stayed constant, around the 60% mark. In absolute terms, while allocation increased, so did expenditure in commensurate terms.
• In spite of an increase in allocation, per capita allocation for the district trails the state figure. So, greater provisioning of resources can be a priority for the district administration.
• Some areas where the district has performed fairly well are the facilitating of institutional deliveries and child immunisation.
• Areas where the district has not performed well, and remain a cause of concern, are high instances of anaemia among women (age group 15-49 years) and a decrease in ANC check-ups of pregnant women during pregnancy. These tend to compromise the overall health of women in the district.
• This is in spite of the fact that overall availability of health infrastructure in Durg is better than the state, as well as adequate provisioning for service delivery-human resources component of NHM. Thus, for Durg, efficient utilisation and channelization of funds where required may be a bigger issue than the adequacy of funds.