For Children, Just a Pittance in the 2016-2017 Budget

 
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
 
Mr. Finance Minister deserves a huge applause when he says, “I have outlined the agenda of our Government to ‘Transform India’ for the benefit of the farmers, the poor and the vulnerable”, but perhaps this is minus children, who are yet to become a priority.
 
Though children constitute 37 percent of the country’s population, this year’s budget speech found no specific mention of children. While there is a slight increase in budgetary allocations up to 3.32 % from last year’s 3.26 %, this in no way compensates for the drastic almost 30 % cut last year, the first full-fledged budget of the Modi government.
 
Progress of a country can be determined by the health of its citizens, especially children. But does this year’s budget (2016-2017) reflect this concern at all?
 
The calculation of children’s share is the budget is based on the figures presented by the Government in Statement 22, Expenditure Budget Volume I 2015-16 and 2016-2017 –Budget Provisions for Schemes for the Welfare of Children.  However, this year’s analysis was challenged by the discrepancies in the figures presented in  Statement 22, which raises concerns not just about the veracity of the numbers presented, but also the seriousness of the government towards its young citizens.
 
Some Good News
 

 
However
Share of children in all sectors except child development has gone down both in the Union Budget and the Budget for Children (BfC). As always health and protection remain the most under-resourced sectors.
 
Child Protection
Not only does the protection sector remain the most under-resourced, the 2016-17 budget clearly does not offer much solace with the allocation for Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) down by 1.3%
 
Example of Discrepancies
The Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley in his budget Speech of 2016-17 mentioned that Plan allocations have been given special attention for sectors like agriculture, irrigation, social security including health and women and child development etc. But if we delve deeper into the document [Statement 22] there are several discrepancies which must be highlighted at the outset:

Discrepancy No. 1
The Statement No. 22 of 2015-16 [ Budget Statement related to the Welfare of Children, Expenditure Budget Vol. I] indicated that a total sum of Rs. 57918.51 Crore was allocated at BE stage for children specific programmes. But, in Statement 22 of 2016-17, the total allocated amount for children at BE stage in 2015-16 has been incorrectly indicated as Rs. 58016.72 Crore. There is a huge difference of Rs. 98 Crore in government’s own documents brought out in two different years with respect to Budget Estimates for the year 2015-16. [See the images below]. This makes it difficult for people undertaking budget analysis to arrive at a final set of calculations and increases scope for unreliability. (Detailed Discrepancies below)
 
Quick Highlights

• The share of children in the Union Budget 2016-17 goes up to 3.32%, a slight increase from 3.26% in the year 2015-16. Although this small increase is welcome after the drastic almost 30% decrease we saw last year, it still does not compensate for the falling share of children in the budget over the years.

 
 
 

• Of the 442 million children of the country, the young child (0-6 years age group) has the most reason to rejoice as there is a substantial increase in the budget for schemes like the ICDS, Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital. This is long overdue and much needed attention to the young child is welcome, but the same should have been paid to the other age groups and sectors as well. We know that ICDS had witnessed drastic cuts in the budget last year, some of which was restored in the supplementary budget. However, it still is not adequate for the targets of universalisation.  

• Despite repeated claims of striving for inclusive growth, the budget fails to live up to it as it is the already marginalised who will bear the brunt of the budget cuts.

• Some critical flagship schemes  have witnessed reduced allocations, including the Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Scheme – the only one that is in this statement for disabled children.

 
SECTORAL HIGHLIGHTS
 
Education

• As share of the Union Budget, education has seen a consistent decline over the last five years, going down from 3.44% in 2012-13 to 02.40% in 2016-17.
• As against a 21.90% decline in the allocations for education last year, this year there has been an increase of 3.75%. However, proportion of Union Budget, it has declined from 2.57% in 2015-16 to 2.40% in 2016-17.

Health

• As against a 21.84% decline in the child health allocations last year, this year witnesses an increase of 3.60%, but as proportion of Union Budget, it has declined from 0.13% in 2015-16 to 0.12% in 2016-17.
• As share of the Union Budget, child health has seen a consistent decline over the last five years, going down from 0.18% in 2012-13 to 0.12% in 2016-17.

Development

• As against a 51.88% decline in the child development allocations last year, this year there has been an increase of 67.60%.
• Even as proportion of Union Budget, the share of child development has improved marginally from 0.51% in 2015-16 to 0.77% in 2016-17.

 
 Protection

• There has been a significant decrease of 14.39% in the share of allocations this year as against an increase of 26.57% in child protection allocations last year. This is particularly worrying that this cut in budget is despite increase in crimes against children as well as number of children coming in conflict with the law. Even as proportion of Union Budget, it has declined from 0.05% in 2015-16 to 0.03% in 2016-17, going back to the situation that existed in 2013-14.
• This reflects the very low priority accorded to protection of children despite all the lip service from the legislators and members of the government. At a time when there is need for increased investment in child protection, a decline is bound to give a major setback to the most vulnerable and unprotected children of India. It also amounts to ignoring the various Supreme Court directions for strengthening the child protection system.

The Devolution Saga

The Statement 22 (a separate budget statement on children related scheme) of 2015-16 Union Budget, explained “the heavy cuts towards children specific Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) on account of enhanced devolution of Union Taxes to States as recommended by the Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC) and to keep the Budget for such programmes unchanged, States are to contribute from their enhanced resources”[1]. The Fourteenth Finance Commission recommended that share of the states in the divisible pool of taxes should be increased to 42% from 32%.
While, in principle, the Devolution of Central taxes to States is an ideal arrangement, there have been various media reporting of States feeling discomfort around the new development[2]. Economists are concerned over the suddenness with which the changed devolution mechanisms have been thrust upon States.

Although, devolution of Central taxes to State governments are expected in increased share of States, but the States’ revenue is not going to increase multiple fold. For example, Tamil Nadu has not gained due to higher devolution of taxes. There is only 1.16% increase for Tamil Nadu State after devolution by the 14^th Finance Commission[3]. Moreover, most of the weaker States are not fully equipped to generate resources on their own and it is feared that children related schemes would not form core of the State agenda. Thus in order to fulfill the National Development Agenda, States cannot be left on their own without significant support from the Central government. The States have raised their inability to adapt to the new fiscal arrangement even in the Sub-Group of Chief Ministers on rationalization of CSS, constituted by NITI Ayog. Thus, the onus of financing the CSS majorly lies on the Central Government through adequate resource allocation in the Union Budget.

At a recent an interface with the government officials and other stakeholders in Assam and Tripura shared similar concerns over poor allocation of ICPS, especially in light of the enactment of the new Juvenile Justice Act which calls for money to meet the additional infrastructural and human resource requirements laid down in it.

Detailed Analysis

• Education

As a proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the expenditure on education was reported in the Economic Survey of 2015-16 to be hovering around 3 per cent during 2008-09 to 2014-15. This despite an age old goal of reaching at least 6% of GDP. The Survey further highlights that during 2013-14, out of the total expenditure on social services, 11.6 per cent was spent on education.
 
Quoting the 2014 ASER Report that showed a declining trends in percentage of enrolment in government schools in rural areas from 72.9 per cent in 2007 to 63.1 per cent in 2014, The Economic Survey 2015-16 states, “In addition to the need to increase the percentage of enrolment substantially to achieve universalization of education, concerns about the decline in enrolment in government schools need to be identified and addressed”.
 
However, the Finance Minister seems to be thinking quite differently as he believes India has achieved universalisation of primary education. In his speech he stressed that “After universalisation of primary education throughout the country, we want to take the next big step forward by focusing on the quality of education. An increasing share of allocation under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan will be allocated for this. Further, 62 new Navodaya Vidyalayas will be opened in the remaining uncovered districts over the next two years”.
 
Indeed the Economic Survey also points out that “Decline in enrolment in government schools and some shift to private schools might be largely related to the poor quality of education offered in government schools, since it is free or offered for a nominal fee”. Finance Minister’s focus on improving quality of education and an allocation of Rs. 22500 for SSA is therefore quite welcome.
 
Can a mere 2.3% increase in the SSA budget from the previous year help address both decline in enrolment in government schools and improved quality of primary education? 
 
And there is yet another side to the story that has been completely ignored. This is about closing down of government schools in the recent past in Karnataka, Rajasthan and other states and how this is affecting the children.[4]  The closure of the government schools leaves no option for parents but to send their children to private schools, or not send them to school at all. It must be remembered that it is the poor children that go to government schools.
 
Can the Finance Minister’s proposal to start 62 new Navodaya Vidyalayas address this problem and that too in a school education system that is highly stratified with parallel systems of government schools in operation? Will these 62 schools cater to the real poor of the country? Is this truly being inclusive? These questions remain unaddressed.
 
Last year the NDA government had announced the “Scheme for Setting up 6000 Model schools at block level as benchmark of excellence” with great pride. It took just a year for the government to revisit its decision and hence no more model schools in 2016-17.
We cannot but wonder if that will also be the fate of the proposal to make 10 public and 10 private higher education institutions world-class institutions.

Here are the following schemes under Department of School Education and Literacy that have seen budget cuts:

• Child Protection

Not only does the protection sector remain the most under-resourced, the 2016-17 budget clearly does not offer much solace with the allocation for Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) down by 1.3%
 

 
The ICPS was designed as a flagship scheme in the Eleventh Five Year Plan to enable the creation of a protective environment for children through the creation of child protection mechanisms at every stage. Some of these structures have even found place in the new Juvenile Justice Law. Moreover, this scheme was designed based on the low allocations in the budget for protection of children. To see it so badly under-resourced is very disheartening.

But what is even more surprising is to see ICPS is subsumed under what is now termed as the “Umbrella ICDS”, only to make child rights activists wonder how one flagship scheme can be subsumed under another. Or is this a deliberate decision to suggest that the Ministry now plans to cut down on its staff and have one and the same division/department handling ICDS and other children related schemes including the ICPS.
 
Both increase in Crimes against Children and by Children make them even more vulnerable, and hence this lack of attention to child protection is very disconcerting. Despite  considerable economic and social progress since independence, a large number of children in India still live in inhuman and pathetic conditions. Unfortunately, with increase in incidence of child abuse, exploitation and violence, the well-being of our 442 million children and that of our country is questionable. Indeed it places every other right under threat.
 

India’s Public Expenditure on Child Protection and Juvenile Justice: A case in point
 
According to the 264^th Report of Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, the percentage share of children’s budget within the Union Budget has been reduced from 4.76% in 2012-13 to 4.64% in 2013-14 [para 3.44, pg.39].
 
Budget for Children analysis undertaken by HAQ: Centre for Child Rights in India also reveals a consistent decline in children’s budget in the last few years, going down from 4.52% in 2014-15 to 3.26% in 2015-16. The dip in the financial year 2015-16 is huge and there are no answers as to how will this improve the children’s condition.
 
Inadequacy in public spending on child protection and juvenile justice is reflected in the fact that on an average, in the last ten years, child protection received only 3 paise out of every 100 Rupees spent by the Union of India. Analysis of flagship programmes like the Integrated Child Protection Scheme, which is the vehicle for implementing juvenile justice and child protection, shows poor financial planning, abysmal funding and huge under spending.

The report further highlights that of all sectors, the budget for child protection has always been the lowest and in 2015-16 it is only 0.04% of the total union budget. This covers juvenile justice system, child labour and provision for orphan and street children. Further, the report says, “These low investments result in different financial outlays in different states. The training support is not uniform and the secretariat support to CWC and JJB is limited and most importantly the investment into developing infrastructure is negligible”.[5]

While there is no separate and distinct budget for implementing the juvenile justice legislation, the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) is the main scheme which provides the financial resources for implementing various child protection laws, including the law on juvenile justice. Although 2015-16 budget allocates 402.23 Crore Indian Rupees for the ICPS, this was only a 0.5% increase from the allocation made in 2014-15 (INR 400 Crore) and was still short of the requirement as per the revised financial norms set out for the scheme. And now, a further decline in the budget for ICPS to 397 Crore Rupees indicates a further dilution in the commitment to child protection, including the commitment to ensuring safety of child victims of sexual abuse, for which ICPS never had any budget.

As per the revised norms, the cost of setting up a State Child Protection Society (SCPS) in the 35 states, and a District Child Protection Unit (DCPU), a Child Welfare Committee (CWC), a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in 675 districts, comes to INR 363.30 Crore.
If the only the recurring costs of other components of ICPS are added, the amount would far exceed the current allocation of 397 Crore, which is less than the allocation of INR 402.23 in the previous year.   These other components include Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), State Adoption Resource Agencies (SARA), Childline mother NGO, Regional Centres of Childline and Childline services on ground, National Institute for Public Cooperation & Child Development (NIPCCD) and its Regional Centres, various institutions for children, non-institutional care other than adoption e.g. foster care and sponsorship, and the Central Project Support Unit located in the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

• Child Health

Unfortunately, child health continues to be largely understood as that for infants and the young child. Adolescent health remains unrecognised largely and unaddressed, except perhaps reproductive and sexual health (ARSH). So the specific child health related programmes are those that fall under the reproductive and child health initiatives.

As share of the Union Budget, child health has seen a consistent decline over the last five years, going down from 0.18% in 2012-13 to 0.12% in 2016-17, showing the low priority accorded to this sector over the years. Right to health as a fundamental right remains a distant dream.

As against a 21.8% decline in the child health allocations last year, this year witnesses an increase of 3.6%. But as proportion of Union Budget, it has declined from 0.13% in 2015-16 to 0.12% in 2016-17. The 2015-16 Economic Survey clearly notes that “While the achievements of the National Health Mission in reaching affordable healthcare services must be applauded, the need of universal healthcare, both in terms of access and quality remains a cause of concern”.

Despite the fast growing economy of the country the health situation of children has not improved adequately. Malnutrition is more common in India than in sub-Saharan African countries where per capita income is much lower than that of India. Although statistics on malnutrition show improvement, about 30% of children below the age of five are reported to be underweight, 38.8% are stunted and 15% wasted. While India had a Millennium Development Goal target of 27 for infant mortality rate, it still remains at 42. India had the highest number of under-five deaths in the world in 2012, with 1.4 million children dying before reaching their fifth birthday. 140,000 children of them are estimated to be dying every year due to diarrhoea. WHO’s Global Analysis tells us that environmental factors contribute to 36% of all deaths of children between 0 to 14 years. Reportedly, 1.3 million deaths occur in India due to environmental pollution every year. Thus children’s well-being in particular and human development in general continues to be a major challenge even in the times of economic growth of the country.
 
The only child health schemes that have seen a consistent increase in the last two years have been the Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital and Child Care Training Centre, Singur.

The largest increase has always been for the Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital despite Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital featuring in media for all the wrong reasons, including the deplorable condition of children in this hospital. The Hindustan Times article dated 09^th July 2015 reported that one of Asia’s biggest hospitals is sitting on infection bomb as filth and biomedical waste lie all around the hospital in open[6].

The Finance Minister has announced provision of health insurance of up to Rs. 1 lakh per family; and a top up of Rs. 30,000 for people above 60 years.

While the plan is a good step, the insurance coverage amount of Rs. 1 lakh and the implication that this may see with respect to reduced public spending on healthcare, raise concerns about slipping on the universal health care goals.
 
Conlcusion
 
The growth of GDP has now accelerated to 7.6%, announced the Finance Minister in his opening remarks of the Budget Speech, 2016-17. Indeed this is something to feel proud of. But what is really being done for children? Mr. Finance Minister seems to have already forgotten the warning from the Economic Survey 2015-16 which stated that “India is already halfway through its demographic dividend, and taking full advantage requires a healthy and educated population”.

What more, the government seems to have forgotten its own commitment to inclusive growth. A mere increase from 3.26% to 3.32% cannot be a call for celebration, when children remain unprotected and uncared for.
 
We forget that children and childhood cannot be divided to focus only on one stage of development in their life. So while, the increased budget for the young child (0-6 years) is appreciated, not much is forthcoming for others. 
 
The glaring blunders in Statement 22 this time only add to confusion with respect to government’s intent and pose questions on reliability of the budget figures.
 
Blunders by the Government in Budget 2016-2017: The Nation Wants to Know!
 
The Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley in his budget Speech of 2016-17 mentioned that Plan allocations have been given special attention for sectors like agriculture, irrigation, social security including health and women and child development etc.
 But if we delve deeper into the document [Statement 22] there are several discrepancies which must be highlighted at the outset:

Discrepancy No. 1
The Statement No. 22 of 2015-16 [ Budget Statement related to the Welfare of Children, Expenditure Budget Vol. I] indicated that a total sum of Rs. 57918.51 Crore was allocated at BE stage for children specific programmes. But, in Statement 22 of 2016-17, the total allocated amount for children at BE stage in 2015-16 has been incorrectly indicated as Rs. 58016.72 Crore. There is a huge difference of Rs. 98 Crore in government’s own documents brought out in two different years with respect to Budget Estimates for the year 2015-16. [See the images below]. This makes it difficult for people undertaking budget analysis to arrive at a final set of calculations and increases scope for unreliability.

Discrepancy No. 2
In Statement 22 of 2015-16 Budget, under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, there were two schemes mentioned, which were:

1. Strengthening of education among ST girls in low literacy districts
2. Umbrella Scheme for education of ST children

Coming to the Statement 22 of 2016-17 Union Budget, we found that this year too, there are two schemes under Ministry of Tribal Affairs, which are:

1. Grant-in-Aid to voluntary organisations working for Welfare of STs
2. Umbrella Scheme for education of ST children

Even though the Grant-in-Aid to voluntary organisations working for Welfare of STs seems to have been introduced only in 2016-17 since there was no such scheme in Statement 22 for the year 2015-16, the Statement 22 of 2016-17 shows allocations made under this scheme in 2015-16 also. In other words, either the 2015-16 Statement 22 was incorrect or the one this year is incorrect, further increasing unreliability of Budget for Children given in Statement 22. [see the images below]
 
Discrepancy No. 3
In Annexure III-B to Part A of Budget Speech of 2016-17, the allocations for ‘Integrated Child Development Scheme (Umbrella ICDS)’ is indicated to be a sum of Rs. 16120 Crore. But if one looks at Statement 22 for 2016-17, even the total allocation for ‘Umbrella ICDS’ comes to only Rs. 15360 Crore, though somehow this umbrella ICDS covers a lot more than ever before with inclusion of the Rajiv Gandhi National Creche Scheme, the ICPS and the scheme for working children in need of care protection in addition to the usual ICDS related programmes. There is a huge discrepancy of Rs. 760 Crore between Statement 22 and Annexure III-B to Part A of the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech. One can only wonder where is the rest of money for ICDS if the Finance Minister’s speech is to be relied upon?

Discrepancy No. 4
 
Further, the figure given for allocations for ‘Kalawati Saran Children’s Hospital’ in the year 2015-16 are different in the in Statement 22 published last year and the one presented this year. This once again puts a question mark on the reliability of budget figures and makes calculations difficult.

 
Discrepancy No. 5

In another blunder, the allocations for Andaman and Nicobar Islands at BE stage have been completely changed in Statement 22 of 2016-17 as compared to Statement 22 of 2015-16. [see images below]

 
Discrepancy No. 6
The allocations for ‘Pre Matric Scholarship’ under Ministry of Minority Affairs appears slightly different in Statement 22 of 2016-17 as compared to Statement 22 of 2015-16. This slight difference amounts to INR 10 lakh in real and absolute terms.