Heavy price of pay first, verify later

Pay first verify laterrdquo seems to have come at a cost Nearly one out of every three beneficiaries of the Maharashtra governmentrsquos Ladki Bahin scheme may turn out to be ineligible This raises important questions about how the scheme was carried outOut of 246 crore beneficiaries over 65 lakh may not meet the eligibility criteria This is not a small gap It suggests that something went wrong in the processThe monthly Rs 1500 assistance intended to support women from weaker sections was designed as a strong welfare measure with direct cash transfers broad reach and a quick rollout While the intent looked positive some basic checks appear to have been missedIn any welfare scheme the simple rule is to verify first and then give benefits Here this order seems to have been reversed and the impact is now visibleWhen farmers face losses due to heavy or low rainfall support is given only after proper checks Officials carry out a panchnama assess the damage and then decide the amount of help This process may take time but it ensures that the right people receive supportIn comparison this scheme followed a different approach This raises a fair question should similar standards be followed across all financial assistance programmes Today digital verification is quite easy With existing systems and databases eligibility can be checked quickly This could have been done soon after people enrolled However verification appears to have begun only months after the scheme started with money already being distributed This delay reduced the effectiveness of the process and may have allowed funds to reach the wrong handsThe financial impact is also significant Even small monthly payments when given over several months to a large number of ineligible people could amount to nearly Rs 15000 crore in public moneyIn its first year the government had indicated an annual outlay of around Rs 45000 crore for the scheme However the budget provision was later set at about R36000 crore There have also been discussions about increasing the monthly assistance to R2100 at an appropriate time This shows that the scheme carries a significant financial commitment making it even more important to ensure that the benefits reach only eligible recipientsWhen verification is delayed proper scrutiny is also delayed Naturally this leads to questions about process and accountability There is also a growing feeling that issues were expected to be corrected laterThat ldquolaterrdquo has now come and the results are being seenPeople may begin to wonder whether such schemes are designed for longterm benefit or shortterm political gain When decisions appear rushed trust can be affectedIn this context the Opposition has been calling this a votebased scheme With many beneficiaries now in question this may give them more reason to raise concerns At the same time they may remain cautious as criticising such schemes could upset beneficiariesIt is also important to understand that governments often face pressure to act quickly Welfare schemes are meant to provide immediate help But speed without proper systems can create risks Large programmes need strong support systems clear rules and proper verificationWhen such a large number of beneficiaries are in question it is not a minor issue It shows the need to review the overall approachAnother concern is recovery Once money is transferred it is very difficult to get it back The process is slow and complicated and in many cases the money may not be recoveredThis shows why the order of steps is important Verification is not just a formality it is necessary for the proper use of public money If this step is delayed or skipped risks increaseThe key lesson is simple Welfare schemes should not focus only on speed They must also ensure accuracy and accountability Technology can help but only when used at the right stageIt is also important to understand where things went wrong whether in planning or execution so that similar issues can be avoided in the futureThis is not just about one scheme It highlights a larger lesson in governance When timelines become too tight processes can sufferIn the end even wellintentioned schemes need careful planning When a large number of beneficiaries turn out to be ineligible an important question remains could things have been done more carefully from the startSanjeev Shivadekar is political editor midday He tweets SanjeevShivadekSend your feedback to mailbagmiddaycomThe views expressed in this column are the individualrsquos and donrsquot represent those of the paper