Twenty years after the Gender Budget Statement (GBS) was introduced, India has built a gender budgeting architecture few others have attempted: A mandated annual statement, a classification system grouping schemes by the share of spending estimated to benefit women, and gender budget cells across ministries. The 2026-27 statement reports ₹5.01 lakh crore for women and girls, 9.37% of the Union Budget.
India has institutionalised gender-responsive budgeting (GRB). The next opportunity is to strengthen the data systems beneath it, so gender budgeting captures reach and informs planning. Take G-RAM-G (formerly MGNREGA). The budget share tells us how much is allocated for women. But to understand reach and impact on women, we need to know how many women get work, how many days of work they receive, and what changes for them. The systems largely exist; departments already maintain these records. What is needed is a field that captures sex disaggregation in the data collection format, not a new system.
Nearly eight out of ten rupees in the 2026–27 Gender Budget go to schemes that benefit both women and men. But how much of that money reaches women? For many such schemes, this is not directly known; the share benefiting women is estimated using available information. Think of a ₹10 lakh family car: We know its cost, but not each person’s share of the benefit unless we know who uses it and how often. The government faces a similar problem when schemes serve women and men.
This challenge is not unique to India, several countries implementing gender budgeting at scale face similar challenges. In India, line departments use programme information and prescribed approaches to estimate the share attributable to women when records do not routinely capture sex-disaggregated information. Reliable, sex-disaggregated administrative data is foundational to evidence-based GRB: It can help governments assess who allocations reach, test the basis for attribution, and use the evidence to shape future spending.
This is why the next phase has to move outward from the centre. Gender budgeting may be designed at 30,000 feet, but its ultimate test is on the ground: whether a panchayat can build a girls’ toilet, or a health programme can reach adolescent girls needing screening. Reform happens where the underlying records are created.
And this is not a new idea for government. A JICA-supported project with the Himachal Pradesh government on forest ecosystems and livelihoods, for instance, collects sex-disaggregated data on participation in project activities and other project outcomes. An ADB-supported human capital project with the Meghalaya government similarly collected and analysed sex-disaggregated data to monitor women’s participation and identify implementation gaps. These examples show that the challenge is not collecting gender data from scratch; it is making this kind of data capture routine across government programmes.
Three practical reforms can turn principle into practice.
First, sex-disaggregated data belongs on the source document. Small changes to existing formats, adding fields to muster rolls, recording beneficiaries by sex, or capturing person-days by sex can make a large difference. Linking this data to expenditure can show who programmes reach and how spending benefits women and men.
Second, every estimate should show its basis. A simple field indicating whether a figure is enumerated or estimated would make this visible. It would help departments identify where estimates are weakest, while nodal authorities could target technical support accordingly.
Third, provide technical support where data is generated. GRB training has often focused on gender focal points; the next step is to support the technical, MIS, accounts and programme staff who create and reconcile these records. The support model used in externally aided projects can be adapted for nodal departments and administrative academies.
Better source data would make the GBS more useful for planning. Verified beneficiary data could inform scheme appraisal, identify gaps in reach, and shape future allocations, turning the statement from annual reporting into an input to budget decisions. For policymakers, this means treating routine records as gender-budgeting infrastructure. For departments, it means manageable changes: revised forms, defined indicators, named officers, and sustained support.
The first 20 years of gender budgeting established that women belong in the Union Budget. The next should make the numbers answerable: who benefits, what changes, what impact, and how we know.
This was first published in Hindustan Times on 2nd November 2026.
India’s annual public procurement market is estimated at around USD 570 billion. The system has evolved from a manual, centralized model under the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D) in the 1950s to the Central Public Procurement Portal (CPPP) in 2012, which increased transparency. Yet established vendors who understood complex tendering procedures, paperwork, and bureaucratic processes dominated procurement for decades. The launch of GeM in 2016 marked a further shift. It created a national digital marketplace where government buyers and suppliers could transact directly. Figure 1 traces this journey from DGS&D to GeM 4.0:
Figure 1: Evolution of India’s public procurement landscape
Since its launch, GeM has expanded in transaction value and seller diversity. Its participants now include micro and small enterprises (MSEs), women-led enterprises, and startups.
These numbers show that GeM has done more than digitize procurement: it has widened access to government markets for MSEs, women-led enterprises, startups, self-help groups (SHGs), artisans, and micro-enterprises. Yet access alone does not deliver inclusion. Smaller sellers must also manage deposits and guarantees, list products, fulfill orders, track approvals, and receive payments predictably. These less visible financial and operational frictions determine whether digital access leads to sustained participation. This blog examines them.
How GeM has expanded access
GeM reimagined public procurement as a single, end-to-end digital journey. The process has five stages. Buyers and sellers first register and complete verification. Sellers then list products, and buyers search the “marketplace”. A buyer defines its requirements, chooses a procurement route, and places an order. “Contracting” establishes payment milestones and other financial requirements. After the seller “fulfills” the order under the agreed terms and service levels, the buyer accepts it and proceeds to “payment processing”. Figure 2 provides a high-level overview of these stages, along with the key stakeholders and interactions involved.
Figure 2: Overview of the GeM system and functionalities
A parallel layer of financial flow supports this journey. At various stages, sellers may pay charges or provide financial instruments. These include business cockpit charges for advanced analytics, earnest money deposits (EMDs) to participate in bids, performance bank guarantees (PBGs) after winning a contract, and annual milestone charges linked to sales. Buyers’ main financial obligation is to pay the seller’s invoice after order fulfillment and acceptance.
But what happens when small sellers join the platform? A set of less visible financial and operational processes then shapes their experience. Deposits, guarantees, product categorization, fulfillment requirements, buyer approvals, and payment flows determine whether access translates into sustained participation. They also define the next phase of inclusion on GeM.
Where participation still breaks down
MSC (MicroSave Consulting) conducted a dipstick diagnostic study in 2024-25 to assess GeM’s end-to-end digital procurement system. It found challenges beyond onboarding that run throughout the procurement journey. A report by SEWA Bharat identified similar constraints, including onboarding difficulties, government-mandated pricing, and process design that remains inaccessible to small sellers. Building on these findings, MSC’s assessment highlights three areas where GeM can strengthen participation and build seller trust, as depicted in Figure 3:
Figure 3: Three identified areas of improvement
First, sellers continue to face friction in providing deposits and platform charges on GeM.
Small businesses encounter several financial processes on GeM, including transaction charges, annual milestone charges, EMDs, and PBGs. Many still rely on manual workflows, offer limited traceability, and operate across disconnected systems. For an EMD, for example, the seller must upload a scanned copy to GeM and submit a hard copy to the buyer. The financial interaction therefore extends beyond the portal.
Second, payment to sellers still involves multiple approval points.
Timely payments are critical for small businesses. GeM has set payment timelines, but the end-to-end journey still spans several systems, stakeholders, and approval processes. After delivery, payment depends on generating CRACs, obtaining buyer approvals, completing verification, and coordinating across GeM, the Public Financial Management System (PFMS), and state-level integrated financial management system (IFMS) platforms. These sequential steps require substantial manual intervention. Sellers therefore have limited visibility into approval status, who is responsible for the next action, and expected payment timelines. A delay at any stage can create a bottleneck that sellers struggle to track and resolve. The process does not earmark funds when government buyers place orders. Even after successful delivery, sellers must wait for downstream approvals and available funds before payment. For MSEs, these delays increase participation costs and weaken trust in the ecosystem.
Third, broader barriers to inclusive procurement remain.
Digital literacy, internet access, language barriers, and complexGeM onboarding continue to affect entrepreneurs in rural and semi-urban areas. Accordingto the MSME Samadhaan portal’s Age-Category Amount Wise Pendency Report, as of 20th October 2026, MSEs have filed 28,503 delayed-payment applications worth USD 1.65 billion. Of these, 54% involve central government buyers. Unclear product categorization and inconsistent enforcement of procurement quotas can also reduce participation by women-owned and micro-enterprises. Inclusionthereforerequiresmorethan opportunities.Enterprises also need the capabilities and support to participate effectively.
Has GeM translated digital access into sustained participation? It has widened the marketplace, but the answer depends on how effectively it removes the frictions that small sellers face across participation and fulfillment through payment.
GeM can take a two-step approach. First, it can make near-term improvements within existing systems and processes to simplify participation and make payments more predictable. Blog 2 in this series examines these practical improvements and the frictions that GeM can address within its existing architecture. The second step is a longer-term shift that extends beyond system-level improvements to address the institutional changes needed to strengthen the broader procurement ecosystem. Blog 3 in this series explores this direction by drawing on global best practices in public procurement and considering future pathways for GeM’s evolution.
MSC’s adaptation finance framework offers a structured yet flexible approach to connect climate adaptation needs with viable sources of finance. Its four modules cover opportunity scanning, locally led diagnosis and prioritization, business-case and financeability assessment, and response design and pilot testing. This framework identifies barriers to investment, assesses when commercial or catalytic finance may be appropriate, and tests solutions in real-world conditions. It also clarifies when grants, public investment, or policy action may offer a more suitable response.
How can an organization help make a major road more resilient to floods if it does not build the road? It can advise planners, train government officials, and involve local communities, while others make the final decisions.
The government makes decisions, a development bank finances the project, engineers develop the design, and local authorities and communities influence what gets built. If the road becomes more resilient to floods, how do we understand one organization’s contribution when many actors shape the result? How did the actors’ decisions interact, and did the support justify the resources used?
MSC faced these questions as we evaluated the Global Center on Adaptation’s (GCA’s) in Bangladesh, supported by Global Affairs Canada (GAC).
GCA intended to influence larger investments rather than directly finance major infrastructure. In Bangladesh, its portfolio included nine projects that span locally led adaptation, resilient infrastructure and urban systems, nature-based solutions (NbS), and climate adaptation finance. Seven of these projects were linked to larger investments supported by multilateral development banks (MDBs) and other international financial institutions (IFIs).
GCA worked with government agencies, MDBs, and IFIs during the early project preparation phase to integrate climate resilience into large-scale infrastructure projects. It conducted climate risk assessments, prepared adaptation solutions, provided technical advice and capacity-building support, and contributed to locally led community planning.
The portfolio’s size created only part of the evaluation challenge. How could MSC assess GCA’s influence in a complex multistakeholder ecosystem? GCA provided only part of the support. Other actors influenced whether that support was used, approved, financed, and implemented. GCA’s theory of change recognized this reliance on other actors in the ecosystem. As a result, MSC customized the evaluation approach and learning questions to GCA’s expected change pathway. The team combined project documents, performance data, and stakeholder perspectives to examine each part of the results pathway.
Why do conventional evaluation designs only tell part of the story?
Climate adaptation and NbS depend heavily on context and can take years to show their full effects. A flood-resilient road, an urban drainage plan, or a nature-based intervention depends on climate conditions, government decisions, financing, maintenance, institutional capacity, and community participation. These factors also interact, as technical advice can shape an investment only if partners use it, decision processes incorporate it, and institutions can carry it forward.
Evaluation literature has long recognized these challenges.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) 2019 research identifies attribution, baseline shifts, and long-term effects as shared challenges in climate adaptation evaluation. This research also states that a comparison of conditions before and after an intervention may be insufficient because climate risks and the wider social and institutional context continue to change.
The same concern appears in the literature on NbS. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions uses broad criteria to assess NbS interventions beyond a single outcome. The standard considers the societal problem alongside ecological integrity, economic feasibility, inclusive governance, trade-offs, adaptive management, and the intervention’s ability to last and scale.
This breadth mattered to GCA because it did not implement standalone NbS activities. It sought to embed climate resilience, including nature-based approaches, within larger investment and planning processes. Its contribution could appear first in a revised design, technical assessment, planning method, stronger institutional capacity, or greater consideration of local priorities. Benefits for communities could come later.
The evaluation, therefore, needed to follow this pathway rather than rely on a single measure of success.
Across all three approaches, MSC triangulated documents, performance data, and stakeholder perspectives. This evidence distinguished verified findings from early signals and outcomes that still depended on future uptake and implementation.
What did this mean in practice?
Each part of GCA’s change pathway required different evidence, so a customized design was essential. GCA had completed some activities, but the investments it sought to influence were still developing. The evaluation, therefore, did not treat future community-level benefits as if they had already occurred. Instead, it examined what could be verified at the time and whether credible signs showed that partners had adopted GCA’s approaches going forward.
The evaluation examined what happened after delivery of a technical product. For example, the value of climate risk assessment depended on what followed: Were its recommendations discussed? Did they enter planning or design decisions? Did the relevant institutions have the ability and incentives to use them?
Context also shaped value. A low-cost study offers little value if the decision-makers cannot use it. Similarly, training may appear efficient when it reaches many participants, but contribute little if they do not apply the knowledge. The evaluation therefore considered resources alongside quality, timeliness, results, and inclusion.
This is where customization becomes important. Complex evaluations rarely require a completely new method. They usually need established approaches, applied to the right questions and at the right point in the results pathway.
Customizing complex evaluations to context
The GCA assignment illustrates a broader principle that applies to many complex, multi-stakeholder programs: Evaluation design should align with how a program expects change to occur.
Programs that work through partnerships, technical assistance, policy influence, institutional change, or larger investment systems often face similar challenges. Multiple actors shape results. Some outcomes appear much later than others. The organization being evaluated may influence decisions without directly controlling implementation.
In such settings, when evaluators first select a standard design and then fit the program into it, important questions can go unanswered.
MSC starts with the program’s change pathway, identifies where evidence can realistically be generated, and customizes the evaluation design accordingly. The established methods can then be combined to address different parts of the problem.
This approach makes the evaluation fit the program without adding unnecessary complexity. These three lessons stand out:
Start with the change pathway: Evaluation questions should reflect how the program expects to influence decisions and results;
Match methods to questions: Performance, contribution, and value are related, but each question may require a different approach;
Keep claims proportionate to the evidence: Separate what can be verified from what still depends on future uptake, financing, or implementation.
Programs can apply these principles beyond climate adaptation wherever they work through several institutions, shape a chain of decisions, and influence the outcome without delivering it directly.
For a program that influences a road without building it, a customized evaluation can answer the question posed at the outset. It can trace how change happened, clarify the program’s role, and show what evidence supports the conclusion.
Nigeria’s tax system plays an increasingly vital role in funding essential public services and supporting the government’s development priorities. Over the past decade, the share of the country’s mineral revenues in total revenues declined from 50% in 2015 to 30% in 2025. Across the country, there is growing recognition of opportunities to build capacity for digital domestic resource mobilisation (DDRM) while addressing challenges such as a narrow tax base, dependence on oil revenue, revenue leakages, and fragmented administration.
This momentum is creating an important opening to strengthen digital revenue administration to support sustainable economic growth. Governments are expanding the use of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), i.e., digital identity, payment, and data-sharing systems, to improve revenue performance, taxpayer support, and service delivery. At the sub-national level, the diversification of revenue sources and the opportunity to make digital tax administration more efficient, inclusive, and responsive have never been more promising. Domestic revenue has grown threefold since 2018, and the share of non-tax revenues has, for the first time, exceeded 37%.
Figure 1: Composition of the Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) of States
The first blog in this series discussed Nigeria’s revenue challenges and the enabling role of DPI in strengthening public finance. This blog focuses on the Intelligent Revenue Authority (IRA) Readiness assessment, drawing attention to the findings, emerging capabilities, and opportunities for States to build smarter, more efficient, and taxpayer-centred revenue administration systems.
In the context of taxation, DPI enables reliable taxpayer identification, efficient payment processing, and effective data exchange across government entities. However, the extent to which these foundational capabilities translate into improved revenue outcomes depends on how they are integrated into the revenue administration system.
The IRA Readiness Assessment is a diagnostic tool that evaluates the digital maturity of State revenue authorities in Nigeria. It is designed to be applied across the taxpayer journey, i.e., the end-to-end experience a taxpayer, whether an individual or a business, has when interacting with a State revenue system, from registration through payment and post-payment services. Drawing on key DPI principles such as interoperability, scalability, security, and user-centric service delivery, the assessment evaluates how effectively revenue authorities leverage digital platforms, data systems, and automated processes throughout the taxpayer journey.
Covering all 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the assessment provides a State-by-State profile of digital maturity in tax administration. It draws on extensive consultations with the heads of Nigeria’s revenue authorities and digital agencies to understand their operating environment and priorities. The tool highlights gaps in automation, interoperability, data quality, and institutional capacity that affect States’ ability to register taxpayers, validate transactions, manage records, and mobilise revenue. It also recommends DPI-targeted actions to strengthen Digital Domestic Revenue Mobilisation (DDRM) and embed Digital Public Financial Management (DPFM) principles across the taxation lifecycle.
How the IRA tool measures digital maturity
The IRA Readiness tool was developed following an extensive review of global literature[1] and discussions with revenue stakeholders. It evaluates digital maturity across nine key indicators of the end-to-end taxpayer journey. These indicators assess the people, process, and platform dimensions of revenue administration to achieve a nuanced evaluation of rules, technological capabilities, operational practices, and institutional readiness that reflect the realities of Nigeria’s tax administration system. The following table elaborates on these indicators.
What the IRA assessment reveals about State readiness
The assessment provides a baseline against which States can track progress over time and measure the impact of future digital investments and reforms. Using composite digital maturity scores,[2] the 36 States and the FCT were categorised into three categories, namely high, medium, and low, to capture their level of digital readiness.
Figure 2: The three types of digital readiness levels
The assessment reveals significant variation in digital readiness across States, driven by differences in digital infrastructure, process automation, interoperability, governance practices, and institutional capacity. While some States have established integrated, highly automated revenue systems, others rely on fragmented or semi-manual processes for taxpayer onboarding, compliance verification, payment reconciliation, and data management.
Figure 2: States with IRA digital maturity scores
The IRA maturity score combines performance across all three payment streams (P2G, B2G, and G2G) to provide a composite measure of a State’s readiness for digital revenue administration. This composite approach will help governments identify strengths and gaps across all taxpayer-type journeys, rather than evaluating each journey in isolation.
Leading States such as Bayelsa, Borno, Kano, Gombe, and Delta deserve recognition for their progress in rolling out fully digital taxpayer onboarding, integrating their identity systems with the National Identification Number (NIN) and Bank Verification Number (BVN), enabling real-time payment validation, and adopting advanced tax compliance mechanisms. Medium-maturity States, on the other hand, can prioritise improvements that advance interoperability, backend automation, and data governance, while low-maturity States can focus on foundational reforms, including digital taxpayer onboarding, single taxpayer databases, standardised security controls, and improved digital skills for staff.
Of the 37 revenue administrations assessed, 18 States scored an aggregate above 70%, reflecting high digital maturity. Others clustered between 60–75%, highlighting moderate integration of digital infrastructure but persistent gaps in interoperability, automation, and comprehensive data security. Five other States scored below 55%, underscoring the prevalence of fragmented, semi-manual, or paper-based processes.
Person-to-government (P2G): strongest in onboarding and payments, weaker in compliance management
P2G systems demonstrate the highest levels of digital maturity in taxpayer onboarding, payment validation, and digital acknowledgments, making it easier for individual taxpayers to register, pay taxes, and receive transaction confirmations. However, progress is less consistent in compliance verification, tax estimation, automated reminders, and grievance resolution. Data management and security practices also vary widely, and limited technical capacity continues to constrain the implementation and maintenance of digital services. Evidently, many P2G platforms prioritise transactions over providing a comprehensive, citizen-focused digital tax experience.
Business-to-government (B2G): stronger compliance systems, but uneven automation and integration
B2G systems exhibit relatively high maturity in business onboarding, compliance verification, payment validation, and data management, all of which are required to support larger and more complex business transactions. However, automation of tax estimation, reminders, grievance resolution, and end-to-end workflow integration lags in most States. While larger businesses generally benefit from more structured digital services, gaps in interoperability, cybersecurity, and technical capacity limit the efficiency and consistency of digital tax administration.
Government-to-government (G2G): progressing slowly due to interoperability and institutional constraints
G2G systems demonstrate the lowest level of digital maturity across the three payment streams. While half of the States have digitised internal payment processing and basic validation workflows, progress is limited in compliance verification, data management, automated reminders, and end-to-end process automation. Weak interoperability among MDAs, inconsistent cybersecurity practices, and limited technical capacity further constrain information sharing and coordinated decision-making. As a result, many States rely on fragmented systems and manual processes for managing intergovernmental fiscal relations.
Charting the path forward: from insights to action
The direction of travel is clearer for States, with the next frontier of digitalising tax coming from linking identity, payment, and data systems into seamless taxpayer journeys and pairing this infrastructure with the institutional capacity required to sustain it. As these building blocks come together, digital readiness will translate into stronger revenue, fairer systems, and greater public trust, giving every State a stronger footing to finance its own development. The IRA tool shows that the key barrier to digital revenue transformation is no longer the absence of digital platforms. Fragmented taxpayer records, limited automation, weak interoperability, inconsistent data governance, and gaps in institutional capacity are the main binding constraints. These gaps span the taxpayer journey, from registration and compliance verification to payments and post-payment services. Addressing them requires a DPI approach that connects systems, enables secure data exchange, and supports integrated revenue administration. The roadmap for States will include the following actions:
Strengthen taxpayer registration and data foundations: Fragmented taxpayer records and limited cross-system verification make it difficult to build a reliable view of taxpayers. A Single Customer Account (SCA) can address this by consolidating taxpayer information and linking it to foundational digital infrastructure, including the National Identification Number (NIN), Bank Verification Number (BVN), the Joint Revenue Board (JRB) Tax Identification Number (TIN), the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), and the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS). A single or integrated source of truth can reduce duplication, improve data quality, and strengthen compliance monitoring.
Automate compliance and service delivery: While digital onboarding and payments have advanced, compliance verification, tax estimation, Tax Clearance Certificate (TCC) processing, grievance redressal, and system reminders are less mature. Rules-based workflows, automated verification, digital TCC issuance, and automated notifications can reduce manual intervention and improve turnaround times. An interoperable payments infrastructure, including bank and fintech platforms, USSD, agent banking, and mobile money, can also expand convenience and make payment options more accessible.
Enable data-driven revenue administration: Revenue authorities are generating increasing volumes of taxpayer data, yet its use for compliance management and decision-making remains limited. Integrated customer relationship management (CRM) platforms, risk-based compliance tools, real-time dashboards, and automated reminders can transform this data into actionable insights. This will help authorities identify compliance risks early, target interventions more effectively, and reduce the high cost of compliance.
Strengthen trust through security and governance: Greater data integration increases the need for stronger safeguards. The roadmap emphasises baseline cybersecurity measures, including multi-factor authentication, encryption, access controls, and incident response protocols, along with clear data governance standards to protect taxpayer information and maintain trust in digital services.
Build institutional capacity to sustain transformation: Digital systems require capable teams to implement, manage, and continuously improve them. The roadmap includes strengthening digital leadership, building dedicated technical capacity, improving staff digital skills, and embedding structured change management within revenue authorities. Targeted taxpayer awareness and inclusion initiatives, particularly for women, youth, and small businesses, can further support adoption and ensure that digital services translate into broader participation in the formal revenue system.
States may structure their path of change into phases based on their level of digital maturity (See Figure 3). This phased approach will help States address foundational gaps before implementing more sophisticated reforms to achieve efficient, transparent, and resilient revenue administration.
Figure 3: The phased roadmap for implementing recommendations in the IRA report
[2] The composite digital maturity score represents the aggregated assessment of dimensions such as digital infrastructure, system automation, data management, interoperability, governance, cybersecurity, and institutional capacity.
What does it take to turn nutrition data into action?
In India, the answer lies not in a single database or survey, but in a connected information ecosystem. Periodic household surveys, routine beneficiary monitoring, health and supply systems, and an extensive frontline network each provide a different piece of the puzzle. Together, they power an integrated decision cycle that answers four critical questions: Where is the burden greatest? Which households need support now? What intervention is most likely to help? And are those efforts delivering results?
Answering these questions requires looking at nutrition through multiple lenses. Each data source has a distinct role at both the population and individual levels. The National Family Health Survey-6 (NFHS-6) provides a population-level view of nutrition outcomes, their distribution, and associated factors. The Poshan Tracker brings the picture closer to real time and offers insights into beneficiary growth patterns and the continuity of program responses. Additional health, supply, entitlement, and community data help explain what lies behind the numbers, which enable decision-makers to identify likely drivers and tailor interventions accordingly.
The NFHS-6 presents a varied picture of progress in child nutrition. Stunting among children under five declined from 35.5% in NFHS-5 to 29.3% in NFHS-6. Severe wasting also fell from 7.7% to 5.2%. However, overall wasting changed only marginally, from 19.3% to 19.0%, while underweight declined from 32.1% to 31.8%. Complementary feeding practices improved, although few children receive an adequate diet.
These findings highlight two priorities. First, India must consolidate gains in reducing chronic undernutrition. Second, it must strengthen responses to acute undernutrition and multiple forms of deprivation. This requires early detection of growth faltering, tailored case management, and closer assessment of service, behavioral, and household factors associated with persistently poor diets.
These findings support strategic prioritization rather than causal attribution. As a cross-sectional survey, the NFHS estimates population patterns at specific points across survey rounds. It does not follow individual children over time or isolate nutrition services from concurrent improvements in health care, sanitation, food security, education, or social protection. Separate evaluation designs are necessary to establish causal links. For program management, the NFHS-6 identifies priority outcomes, geographic areas, and vulnerable groups that require targeted action.
While theNFHS-6 helps establish strategic priorities, the Poshan Tracker supports decisions about individual beneficiaries and service delivery. The two sources answer distinct but complementary operational questions. The NFHS-6 estimates the prevalence and distribution of nutrition outcomes and highlights associated maternal, household, and service factors. The Poshan Tracker records repeated physical measurements and service contacts for registered beneficiaries. When measurement quality and record continuity remain adequate, these observations show whether a child grows as expected, begins to falter, or recovers after support.
Connecting both sources preserves their distinct purposes. The NFHS-6 provides a population benchmark for national, state, and district priority-setting. The Poshan Tracker supports active case management and operational oversight between survey rounds. Decision-makers can assess discrepancies against differences in coverage, definitions, measurement quality, and program reach. This approach helps them interpret each source on its own terms and use the combined evidence appropriately.
Administrative and frontline data complete the decision picture. Health data provide evidence on illness, anemia screening, and referral completion. Supply systems track continuity of supplementary nutrition and equipment functionality. Social protection records confirm whether eligible households access broader entitlements. Frontline observations and community feedback provide essential context on food affordability, care practices, migration, and service delivery. A Poshan Tracker-plus framework combines these sources through structured triangulation to guide targeted action.
Together, these three layers support different decisions: The NFHS-6 informs strategicprioritization, the Poshan Tracker supports beneficiary and service delivery management, and complementary data help identify causes and select responses. An effective operating model must translate these insights into clear responsibilities, standard response protocols, regular reviews, and measurable outcomes at every administrative level.
The Poshan Tracker, launched in 2021, enables near–real-time tracking, dynamic identification of stunting, wasting, and underweight, and last-mile service monitoring. It digitizes anganwadi registers across 24 languages. Its growth-history feature provides a foundation for shifting from activity reporting to beneficiary tracking and program response management.
Programs can realize this potential through designated decision-makers, standard response protocols, regular review schedules, and clear closure criteria at every administrative level:
Initial implementation should target a limited set of high-value decisions. Teams should select use cases based on outcome relevance, geographic concentration, data timeliness, clear ownership, and the potential for actionable responses. Population and real-time data together help identify where problems cluster, who faces the greatest risk, what factors contribute to these problems, and which interventions offer value. Three use cases illustrate this approach:
Childhood growth faltering: Repeated failure to gain weight or a sustained decline in growth signals an urgent need for a structured care pathway. Population data identify geographic areas with elevated risk. Real-time data trigger immediate measurement verification, feeding assessments, illness checks, tailored counseling, entitlement support, and time-bound follow-ups to track growth changes.
Infant and young child feeding (IYCF): The NFHS-6 identifies areas where feeding practices lag, while the Poshan Tracker flags counseling milestones and gaps in contact. Community feedback helps determine whether poor diets stem from limited awareness, food affordability, time constraints, or social norms. These insights guide responses, from stronger counseling to coordination with livelihood programs.
Implementation quality:When service coverage and nutrition outcomes diverge, structured reviews assess measurement quality, service content, supply continuity, and referral completion. Comparisons across administrative levels help distinguish systemic operational bottlenecks from local field constraints. This approach helps teams deliver timely, appropriate, and sufficiently high-quality interventions to improve outcomes.
Effective implementation requires a focused management framework that moves beyond data availability to consistent operational use. Five enablers can support this shift:
Define the decision and supporting indicators: Link each priority measure to a specific decision, designated user, review frequency, action threshold, and expected program response.
Track trajectories and case closure alongside status: Complement static coverage indicators with changes over time, follow-up timeliness, completed referrals, and resolution of the original concern.
Embed data quality in supportive supervision: Use plausibility checks, sequences of missing data, and unusual patterns to guide supervisory coaching, verify measurements, and recalibrate field equipment.
Institutionalize triangulation:Conduct monthly block reviews and quarterly district reviews. Assess the Poshan Tracker indicators alongside health, supply, entitlement, and community evidence through standardized review frameworks.
Assess contribution before scaling: Implement defined response pathways in selected high-burden areas. Evaluate operational feasibility, implementation fidelity, and measurable outcome improvementsbefore expanding the approach nationally.
India has the essential institutional foundations for this approach: periodic population surveys, a national nutrition monitoring platform, extensive frontline networks, and administrative systems. The next opportunity lies not in collecting more data or building more dashboards, but in linking existing evidence to defined decisions and faster program responses.Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled analytics can accelerate this shift. These tools can integrate signals across data sources, identify emerging hotspots, prioritize vulnerable cases, and help managers select effective responses. Human judgment and program ownership must remain central to these decisions.
A mature nutrition information system tracks the entire results chain. It verifies measurements, detects emerging risks, deploys targeted responses, resolves service delivery bottlenecks, and records improvements in nutritional trajectories. By combining population-level evidence from the NFHS-6 with real-time intelligence from the Poshan Tracker, administrators can establish a coherent framework for targeted action, adaptive management, and shared accountability at every level of governance.
Manage Consent
We use cookies to ensure your experience on MSC Global is secure, reliable, and optimized. By continuing to browse www.microsave.net, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie Policy.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Always active
Required for website security, authentication, and essential functionality to provide a secure and optimized experience on Microsave.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Performance and Analytics Cookies
Used to improve website usability and reliability through anonymous analytics and usage insights on Microsave.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Functional Cookies
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
