The document summarizes the findings of a study that evaluated the implementation of India's Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS) in 211 schools in Chittorgarh District of Rajasthan. Key findings included delays of over a month in schools receiving reimbursement for cooking costs, a lack of proper weighing of food grains limiting ability to check for leakage, and most schools lacking proper cooking and storage infrastructure. Despite challenges, teachers were found to be making significant efforts to implement the program, though this took up around 20% of their time. The study highlighted the need to better define roles and responsibilities to improve accountability across different implementing agencies.

1. Presentation on the Key Learnings
Measuring Effectiveness of
Mid Day Meal Scheme in
Rajasthan, India
CUTS Centre for Consumer Action, Research &
Training (CUTS CART)
in partnership with the World Bank
March 13, 2007

2. Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDMS)
 The National Programme of Nutritional Support to
Primary Education, commonly known as the Mid-
Day Meal Scheme (MDMS):
 Launched in August 1995
 Covers all students (class I to V) of schools run by
Government, Government aided, urban and rural
local bodies
 On the 28th
of November 2001, India’s apex court,
the Supreme Court, directed all State Governments
to provide cooked mid day meals instead of raw
food grains.

3. Implementation in Rajasthan
 Implementation since July 2002
 Initially, students were distributed boiled wheat
supplemented with groundnut and Jaggery (Gur)
 Since April 2005, cooked meals according to a
menu:
 based on children’s preferences;
 local availability of raw materials; and
 decided by a district level committee.

4. Provision
Under the scheme:
 Central Government provides 100 grams food
grain (wheat or rice) per child per school day,
free of charge
 To provide a minimum of 300 calories and 8-12
grams of protein per child per school day, for a
minimum of 200 days annually
 Rs.1.00 per student per day towards cooking
conversion cost. The State Government also
contributes Rs. 1.00 per student per day towards
cooking conversion charges.
 Infrastructure for the MDMS is supposed to be
developed by the State Government from funds
available under other schemes

5. Accountability Line
 Panchayati Raj & Rural Development Department is the
nodal dept. for the overall implementation at the state level
 Mid-day Meal Commissioner at state level supervises the
implementation of the scheme
 At the district level, the Zilla Parishad implements the
scheme through a MME (Management, Monitoring and
Evaluation) Committee
 At the village level a committee is responsible for
monitoring and supervising the implementation of the
MDMS in various schools in the Gram Panchayat.
 School Management and Development Committee
(SMDC) is responsible for overall management of school
activities, including MDMS.

6. Pilot Study
 CUTS-CART undertook a pilot project to
evaluate the implementation of the MDMS in 211
schools in Chittorgarh District of Rajasthan.
 The pilot was also expected to develop and test a
methodology that could communicate consumer
voice to service providers, towards better
implementation of the MDMS in the State.
 CART also undertook PETS at different tiers viz
state level, district level, block level and school
level with regard to release of funds and food
grains, and assessed the timeline of such releases
and quality of food grains delivered.

7. Process: Methodology
The pilot study broadly contained the following seven
steps:
 Project scoping
 Finalising survey instruments
 Conducting the actual surveys
 Collecting secondary data on budget allocations
utilizations and fund/grain flows
 Analyzing data
 Conducting stakeholders workshops, and
 Finalizing the report and disseminating results.

8. School Selection and Sampling
 211 primary government/aided schools from 14
blocks were selected.
 A total of 2,110 students, 2,110 parents, 422
teachers and 211 cooks were interviewed.
 The schools were selected on the basis of
parameters such as size, access by road, remoteness
etc.

9. Survey Instruments
 A combination of two social accountability tools,
PETS and the CRC were used in this study
 The PETS was used to gather information regarding
budget allocations, budget transfers and
expenditure
 CRC was used to generate citizen satisfaction
scores (voice) on the management and delivery of

10. Results
The surveys resulted in a massive amount of data,
which yielded interesting insights and
observations. The key observations have been
broadly grouped into three categories as
mentioned Below.
 MDMS Implementation
 Education
 Health & Hygiene

11. MDMS Implementation
 Mid-Day Meal (MDM) Delivery: More than 90%
parents and students were satisfied with the
MDMS.
 Untimely Receipt of Conversion Costs: Each
school is required to send a monthly expenditure
statement and vouchers to the Panchayat Samiti,
which is supposed to reimburse the amount within
15 days
 The study revealed that : Only 21% of the schools
received the funds every month, in time. The rest
got funds in a time ranging from 2 to 6 months
(12% got funds once in 6 months).

12. Quality & Quantity of Food Grains
 97% of the teachers reported receiving acceptable
to good quality of food grains.
 Only 23% of the schools were able to receive food
grains after getting them weighed before delivery.
 The absence of a weighing mechanism in most
schools makes it difficult to measure the quantity of
food grains delivered, implying that the problem of
underweight bags may be a serious problem.

13. Cooking and Storage Infrastructure
 Most schools lack adequate cooking and storage facilities.
 95% of the schools do not have a kitchen shed while only
36% have a separate store room.
 Many teachers reported that they store the food stock in the
class rooms, limiting the already limited class room space
 62% of the cooks interviewed said that the MDM was
cooked in the open, which is unhygienic.
 83% of the cooks confirmed that they have sufficient
utensils for MDM preparation.

14. Fuel Supply
 76% of the cooks used firewood or kanda (dried
cow dung) 14% used gas and 10% used kerosene
for cooking meals.
 8% of the cooks claimed that there were not
provided fuel and made their own arrangements

15. Institutional Responsibilities
 The Gram Panchayats, through its committee/s are
responsible for the implementation of the MDM.
 The survey revealed that 85% of GPs were not
involved in the management of the MDM.
 The school SDMC was only in paper
 In fact the teachers emerged as the de-facto
managers of the MDM.

16. Education
Impact on teaching time
 The MDMS guidelines state that the teaching
process should not be affected by the MDMS.
 Out of a total of 6 hours for which schools are open
for, 30 minutes are allotted for a lunch break. This
is highly insufficient for distributing the MDM to
all students.
 ‘Preparing and distributing MDM to about 60-100
children is like managing a wedding lunch every
day!’, said some teachers

17. Negative Impact on Education
 Teachers assist in the preparation and distribution
of meals. The study reveals that 68% of the total
teachers spend more than 1 hour, i.e. more than
17% of their allotted teaching time, in MDMS
activities.
 Resulting on the overall teaching quality and the
education

18. Quality of Education
 In order to judge the quality of education the
students were asked to read simple sentences and
write simple words and sentences.
 The observation was quantified and it gives a clear
picture of the quality of education.
 53% of the students were able to write and 48%
able to read correctly, while 15% were not able to
write and 18% not able to read at all.

19. Disseminating Results
 The results from the data analysis exercise, along
with recommendations that emerged from the
analysis were documented
 The draft was shared at the district level and state
level and based on the feed back the report was
finalized.
 The final document was presented to the Zilla
Parishad, the State Government, Commissioner to
the Supreme Court and other interested parties.
 The State Government is currently deliberating
over the findings from the pilot and is considering
scaling up the exercise to cover all districts in the
State

20. Key findings
 Despite positive balances at ZP level, more than
three-quarter of schools surveyed did not receive
financial reimbursements relating to the conversion
costs on time – delay was more than one month.
 There is no proper weight measurement system for
food grains delivered at the school, which raises
doubts about possibility of leakages.

21. Key findings…..
 Almost all the schools surveyed lack covered store
and cooking space. The store problem is
compounded when one considers the fact that more
than two thirds of schools use firewood for
cooking. Firewood not only pollutes the school
environment with smoke, it also needs a larger store
area, encroaching on the limited covered space
available in the schools.
 Despite these huge shortcomings in the system the
teachers are making all out efforts to make the
MDMS available in time to the attendant children
in most schools, as conveyed by almost all the
children and parents.

22. Key findings…..
 This level of performance is achieved through a
strict monitoring mechanism from the district level.
The District collector is made responsible for
proper implementation of the MDM and he/she and
the senior officers conduct surprise checks in
schools. If the performance of any teacher is found
not satisfactory, there are severe punishments for
the same.
 On the other hand it was found that teachers are
spending close to 20% of their time or more on
managing MDMS.

23. Critical Issues
The accountability seems to be limited only to the end
point management in the MDMS and this throws a few
critical issues that need to be debated.
 Are the teacher’s right persons to be made accountable for
MDM delivery at the end point? Is making them
responsible for MDMS affecting the overall ‘schooling’?
What should the teachers be accountable to?
 While the local governments (through their committees)
are responsible for implementation of MDMS on paper, in
reality they are absent. Is this a desirable situation?
 What kind of monitoring and accountability systems are
need at the higher levels in order to reduce the delays and
shortcomings in the distribution of ration and conversion
costs?

24. Way forward…..
 There is a need to clearly define the roles of
different actors and make them accountable for
their role.
 There is a need to develop and put in place systems
to track inputs (expenditure, food grains etc) and
outcomes (quality of teaching, enrollment, retention
etc).
 Provide basic infrastructure (kitchens, storerooms,
sanitation facilities, water etc.)

25. Tools used and limitations
 This study started as a means to test CRC and
PETS as tools of Social Accountability and
established that these tools are useful in
understanding a range of issues.
 Due to the design, time and financial limitation this
study could not dwell on all the issues that emerged
and there is a need to dwell deep into these issues
to understand them.

26. Actions resulting from this exercise
 CART has been continuously advocating the
findings at various fora. As a result of the advocacy
there are some improvements undertaken by the
Chtittorgarh Zilla Parishad. The critical action
undertaken by them are given below.
 This is based on discussions the CART team had
with the officers in-charge for the MDMS at district
level and are not validated by any field surveys.

27. Actions…….
 After the survey, arrangements have been made to
release sufficient amount for three months in
advance towards the meal cooking purposes (from
–3 months to + 3 months)
 For maintaining the quality of the meal, food grains
are supplied to the respective schools after thorough
checking, and in case of receiving any complaint,
immediate action is been taken and suitable
directions are issued.
 Efforts are being made to address the issue of
covered store space for food grains and fuel wood.
For this purpose, Zilla Parishad has been given
adequate amount under the School Facility Grant
(SFG).

28. Thank you