Talking about the ICDS program, we often talk about such aspects as coverage and access. However, it seems that we need to ask further – what about quality? What about impact? Clearly, having an ICDS centre is not an achievement in itself unless it produces results and results unfortunately are anything but encouraging.
A report by the World bank titled “India’s Undernourished Children: A Call for Reform and Action” point out that three recent studies estimate the association between having an anganwadi center in a village and the likelihood that a child is underweight, found little or no association between the presence of an ICDS center and child nutritional status. The World Bank also estimates that, for boys, having a local ICDS center is associated with a 5% reduction in the likelihood of being underweight, but that there is no significant association for girls. Similar studies also found little significant effect when children in ICDS villages are compared with children with similar demographic, household and village characteristics in non-ICDS villages except in Kerala. There is also not much evidence that ICDS has been successful in attaining its goal of improving the coverage of specific child health interventions such as de-worming and Vitamin A supplementation, and encouraging mothers to adopt appropriate child care and feeding behaviors (including practices related to breastfeeding, weaning and diet) that have the potential to improve child growth and health outcomes.
There can be various explanations for the gaps from ineffective communication to the challenges to behavior change. However, at the crux is poor accountability to the people services, especially because the main beneficiaries are poor. As the saying goes, the services for the poor end up as being poor services. Where does the buck stop?
For more of such articles visit http://www.csopartners.org.in
- Ipsita Basu
