Evaluating beneficiary identification processes in Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman, while presenting the Union Budget for 2024-25, announced the construction of 3 crore houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). Further, she also stated that one crore houses will be constructed in urban India (PMAY-Urban). In other words, the remaining two crores will be allocated to rural areas (PMAY-Gramin). Homelessness is the worst form of marginalisation which persists even in developed nations. In this light, PMAY’s aim to provide ‘housing for all’ seems like a tall order task. The PMAY-Urban scheme has been implemented since 2015 & PMAY-Gramin from 2016. As per the latest figures released by the government, the following is the scheme's progress:

PMAY performance (Numbers in lakhs)

Sr No	Scheme	Demand	Sanctioned	Completed	Completion % w.r.t demand
1	PMAY-Urban (PMAY-U)	112.24	118.64	83.67	75%
2	PMAY-Gramin (PMAY-G)	295	294.66	262.23	89%

Source: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)

The scheme performance data showcases that PMAY has performed successfully and provided access to a pucca roof for a large section of society. The government wants to replicate this success, however, certain improvements are required. The scheme's renewal is an opportunity for the government to focus on crucial aspects of beneficiary identification to ensure more comprehensive scheme benefits.

Homelessness is the worst form of marginalisation which persists even in developed nations.

The beneficiary identification process varies for PMAY-G and PMAY-U. PMAY-G relies on Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 data and Awaas+ software to capture the beneficiaries. The PMAY-U guidelines underscore state governments' need to rely on SECC data to assess demand. However, for beneficiary identification, the PMAY-U relies upon housing demand surveys. Both the approaches of beneficiary identification in PMAY-U and PMAY-G have limitations which need to be addressed on priority.

Beneficiary identification under PMAY-G

Primarily, the beneficiary identification under PMAY-G is based on the housing deprivation parameters and exclusion criteria in the SECC 2011 data. Based on these parameters, a priority list of the households is created. Further, to ensure the inclusion of beneficiaries excluded in the 2011 SECC survey, the Ministry of Rural Development has deployed Awaas+ software. The on-ground surveyors use it to include the eligible people. The Gram Sabha verifies the list, and after verification, a permanent waitlist (PWL) is created. A close analysis of the identification process showcases a wide range of loopholes.

Since its launch in 2016, the scheme has relied on SECC data to finalise the beneficiaries. However, the central government has taken a contradictory stand on the reliance on the SECC data. In December 2021, in response to the release of the SECC raw data, the central government stated, “no reliance can be placed on the SECC 2011, not only for reservation but also for employment, education and others.” The government's contradictory stance questions the beneficiary identification carried out under the scheme since its inception. Further, the CAG Performance Audit Report No. 6 of 2022 on the implementation of PMAY-G in Tamil Nadu states, “SECC data, which forms the basis for identification of beneficiary, had a significant number of households with one or more members named 'Unknown'. This weakness of SECC data was misused, and a substantial number of houses were sanctioned in a fraudulent manner.” The above cases highlight the fundamental question of identifying the beneficiaries through SECC data.

The government's contradictory stance questions the beneficiary identification carried out under the scheme since its inception.

As stated earlier, Gram Sabha is responsible for verifying the priority list. This verification process is crucial as it ensures that the most deserving beneficiaries are identified. However, Gram Sabha's adherence to the due process of verification also needs to be revisited. The CAG report on Local Bodies, Government of Madhya Pradesh Report No. 7 of 2023 has made a scathing remark on the non-adherence to the priority list. It reports, “During scrutiny of sanction lists of houses in 60 audited GPs, we noticed that out of total of 18,935 sanctioned cases, 8,226 beneficiaries superseded the more deprived beneficiaries in the priority list and were sanctioned house earlier than them. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the concerned Zilla Panchayat did not adhere to the sequence of priority numbers in PWL in the sanctioning house.” As the government admits, it cannot rely merely on SECC data. Further, the MP CAG audit report states that the priority list was manipulated.

As per the deprivation index, landless poor from marginalised backgrounds should be at the top of the priority list. However, providing affordable housing to people experiencing poverty under PMAY operates on the principle of being a “subsidised house” scheme rather than offering a “free house.” This implies that the beneficiary is supposed to contribute a particular share toward the construction of their house. A household that cannot afford beneficiary shares can't enrol in the scheme. Therefore, landless families, despite being on top of the deprived list, can't get a house unless the land is provided.

Beneficiary identification under PMAY-U

The PMAY-U scheme is based on a demand-driven approach. It includes a demand assessment based on a housing demand survey. As per the policy, the respective urban local bodies must conduct a housing demand survey to identify beneficiaries. The deprivation index used in PMAY-G is not explicitly used in PMAY-U. Instead, in PMAY-U, the assessment is based on housing conditions, income criteria and Aadhaar-based verification.

The CAG Report No. 4 of 2022—Performance Audit of Implementation of Housing Schemes for Urban Poor in Karnataka notes a critical observation on the implementation of the demand survey. It notes-

"The demand survey for assessing the requirement of housing for urban poor was not effective and carried the risk of exclusion of eligible beneficiaries as only 13.72 lakh prospective beneficiaries were identified in the survey as against 20.35 lakh people requiring affordable housing project in KAHP (Karnataka Affordable Housing Policy), 2016. The demand survey was not completed within the prescribed cut-off date and around 49 percent of the beneficiaries were added to the survey list subsequently affecting strategic planning, setting of annual targets and allocation of resources." The questions raised on the demand survey by the CAG also reflect on the sanctioned targets. The table below showcases how the sanctioned houses under the PMAY scheme were slashed for the states below.

Sr No	State/UT	No of Sanctioned houses in 2021	No of Sanctioned houses in 2024*	Difference
1	Bihar	364416	314477	-49939
2	Haryana	286315	115034	-171281
3	Karnataka	693504	638121	-55383
4	Tamil Nadu	719813	680347	-39466
			Total	-316069

Source: Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, GOI

*PMAY-U Progress as of 15 July 2024

Two conclusions can be drawn from the slashing of the sanctioned houses. First, the demand survey identified beneficiaries who did not need a home or were not ready for it. Second, more than 3 lakh identified beneficiaries who needed a house, were not able to get access. The CAG report No. 2 of 2022 - Government of the Union Territory of Puducherry claims, "In respect of selection of beneficiaries, initial scrutiny of applications was not done properly which resulted in the deletion of 2,120 beneficiaries from the approved list. Out of the 12,706 beneficiaries finalised, 5,191 male beneficiaries constituting 40.85 percent who were not eligible were selected for grant or subsidy in violation of the scheme guidelines." 

Conclusion:

One of the most critical features of the PMAY-G is selecting beneficiaries based on the deprivation index. The deprivation score ensures assistance to the most marginalised. The government must develop comprehensive guidelines based on the deprivation index and adhere strictly to them for beneficiary identification. This will help address the scheme's limitations on priority and ensure the scheme's benefits reach the most marginalised. Further, the most critical gap in the scheme implementation is ensuring roof access to the landless poor. The state governments must make provisions to provide land for such potential beneficiaries. It will ensure access to the roof for the most marginalised in the society.

The government must develop comprehensive guidelines based on the deprivation index and adhere strictly to them for beneficiary identification.

In the context of PMAY-U, the central government cannot rely on static demand surveys as demand is a moving number. Separate national portals to capture demand continuously need to be implemented. Since demand is a combination of the household's needs and ability to pay the beneficiary share, a separate categorisation needs to be made accordingly.

The evaluation of the scheme's success in the case of PMAY is based on providing access to those who can afford to pay their share for the subsidised house. The PMAY aims to achieve the ambitious target of ‘housing for all’ when homelessness is a multidimensional and complex issue. The scheme has provided a roof for over 3.45 crore families in India, a marvellous achievement considering the scale and complexity of housing issues in India. Addressing the beneficiary identification process will help India further amplify the scheme's achievements.

---

Akshay Joshi is working as Deputy Manager Chief Ministers Good Governance Associate Program at Ashoka University. 

• Domestic Politics and Governance
• India
• beneficiary identification
• CAG Report
• demand survey
• deprivation index
• homelessness
• PMAY
• SECC 2011
• subsidised housing
• Union Budget 2024-25

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.