Policy Update
Khushi
Background
Welfare schemes are designed to address social and economic vulnerabilities, but their effectiveness depends not only on the allocation of public resources but also on whether benefits and services reach the intended beneficiaries. The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment (DoSJE) works primarily for socially, educationally and economically marginalised groups, including Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Senior Citizens, victims of substance abuse, Transgender Persons, persons engaged in begging, De-notified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs), manual scavengers, sewer and septic tank workers, waste pickers, Economically Backward Classes (EBCs) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
The diverse needs and circumstances of these groups mean that welfare delivery often involves multiple administrative levels, implementing agencies and community-based organisations. For example, several programmes for senior citizens, victims of substance abuse and other vulnerable groups are implemented through State Governments, Non-Governmental Organisations and civil-society organisations. This multi-tier delivery structure can create scope for gaps between scheme guidelines, administrative records and actual beneficiary experiences, particularly at the last mile (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2022).
Conventional administrative monitoring can track expenditure and implementation progress, but it may not always capture these ground-level gaps. Social audits provide a participatory mechanism to examine this gap by involving beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the verification of scheme implementation.
The Information-Monitoring, Evaluation and Social Audit (I-MESA) scheme of the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment (DoSJE) seeks to strengthen monitoring, evaluation and accountability across the Department’s schemes. It includes five components: Information Dissemination, Project Monitoring Unit, Central Smart Surveillance Unit, Social Audit, and Evaluation and Studies (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
Under I-MESA, social audits are intended to examine the implementation of welfare schemes at the ground level by comparing official records with actual conditions and beneficiary experiences. The process is supported through State Social Audit Units (SAUs), while the National Resource Centre for Social Audit (NRCSA) provides technical support, training and coordination for strengthening social-audit capacity (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
The approach is particularly relevant to the delivery of social-justice schemes because implementation often involves multiple administrative levels and agencies. Differences in beneficiary identification, service delivery, documentation and local implementation can create gaps between scheme design and actual outcomes. A participatory audit mechanism can help identify such gaps while providing beneficiaries with an avenue to raise concerns about implementation.
I-MESA therefore represents an effort to move welfare monitoring beyond administrative reporting towards participatory accountability. The key policy question is whether social audits can translate beneficiary participation and ground-level verification into greater transparency, corrective action and improved welfare delivery.
Functioning
I-MESA functions as an umbrella monitoring and evaluation framework rather than as a direct benefit-delivery scheme. Its five components-Information Dissemination, Project Monitoring Unit, Central Smart Surveillance Unit, Social Audit, and Evaluation and Studies—are intended to strengthen monitoring, transparency and assessment of schemes implemented by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
1. Social audit as a participatory mechanism
The social-audit component involves examining official records against actual ground-level implementation. Beneficiaries and other stakeholders participate in verifying whether benefits and services have reached the intended recipients and whether implementation corresponds with official records. The findings are documented and subsequently presented through community-level platforms, creating an opportunity for implementing agencies to respond and undertake corrective measures (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
A key element of this process is the Gram Sabha/Public Hearing (Jan Sunwai), where social-audit findings are placed before the community and relevant officials. The I-MESA framework emphasises citizens’ right to be heard (Sunwai) and requires mechanisms through which grievances can be addressed and follow-up action communicated to citizens during subsequent hearings. This provides a public forum for verification of findings and strengthens the link between community participation and administrative accountability (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
2. Role of State Social Audit Units
The implementation of social audits is supported through State Social Audit Units (SAUs). These units provide the institutional mechanism for conducting audits at the State and local levels. Many SAUs were originally established under the Rural Development Departments for social audits of MGNREGA and subsequently brought into the social-audit framework for other schemes, including those of the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
3. Role of the National Resource Centre for Social Audit
The National Resource Centre for Social Audit (NRCSA-DoSJE) was initially established in June 2022 within the Centre for Social Audit, National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR), Hyderabad, to coordinate social audits of DoSJE schemes, provide training and monitor their progress. It was subsequently relocated to the National Institute of Social Defence (NISD), New Delhi, on 27 January 2023, where it now functions as a technical resource agency for State Social Audit Units and States on behalf of the Department (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
NRCSA acts as a bridge between DoSJE and State Social Audit Units, builds the capacity of Social Justice Cells and provides technical assistance, monitoring and implementation support for conducting qualitative and effective social audits.
4. Verification and public accountability
The social-audit process seeks to create a chain of record verification → physical and beneficiary-level verification → community hearing → identification of gaps or irregularities → reporting of findings → corrective action. The public-hearing component is particularly important because it allows findings to be discussed openly with beneficiaries and officials rather than remaining confined to administrative reports.
5. Integration with monitoring and evaluation
Social audit forms one part of the wider I-MESA framework. Its findings can complement project monitoring, surveillance and evaluation mechanisms, allowing the Department to combine administrative information with ground-level evidence. This creates the possibility of identifying not only whether a scheme has been implemented according to official records, but also whether its implementation is consistent with the experiences of its intended beneficiaries.
Overall, I-MESA is designed to combine administrative monitoring with participatory verification. Its effectiveness, however, depends on whether the information generated through social audits is acted upon and whether identified deficiencies lead to measurable improvements in welfare delivery.
Performance
The performance of I-MESA can be assessed through the scale of social-audit coverage, institutional capacity-building and the extent to which audit findings are followed by corrective action. Since the scheme covers multiple components, social-audit performance should not be measured only through expenditure but also through the number of audits conducted, issues identified and actions taken in response.
1. Expansion of social-audit coverage
The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment decided in 2023 to undertake social audits across its schemes. For 2023–24, five schemes were initially selected for the first phase of social-audit implementation, with an overall target of 1,054 social audits. These included selected interventions under the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR), which addresses substance abuse and drug demand reduction; the Atal Vayo Abhyuday Yojana (AVYAY) for the welfare of senior citizens; the Pradhan Mantri Anusuchit Jaati Abhyuday Yojana (PM-AJAY) for the socio-economic empowerment of Scheduled Castes; SHRESHTA (Scheme for Residential Education for Students in High Classes in Targeted Areas); and PM-YASASVI (Prime Minister Young Achievers Scholarship Award Scheme for Vibrant India for OBCs and Others), which supports educational opportunities for eligible students from disadvantaged communities (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
These five schemes represented the initial set selected for the 2023–24 rollout rather than the complete universe of schemes under I-MESA. The Department subsequently envisaged social audits across its schemes, indicating an expansion from an initial phase towards broader institutionalisation of social auditing (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
The Department’s social-audit dashboard, as accessed on 19 September 2026, reports 1,453 audits planned and 1,453 completed, with no audits shown as ongoing or pending. The dashboard also reports 1,695 issues identified. These figures indicate an expansion in reported audit coverage, although they should be understood as dashboard figures observed on the date of access rather than as figures attributable to a single financial year (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
2. Capacity-building of State institutions
The effectiveness of social audits depends significantly on the capacity of State-level institutions to conduct them independently and systematically. As part of the 2023–24 rollout, 274 Social Justice Cell members from State Social Audit Units had completed training, indicating the scale of the Department’s capacity-building effort (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
However, the number of personnel trained represents a capacity-building output rather than direct evidence of institutional effectiveness. Demonstrating whether this training translated into stronger State-level capacity would require evidence on subsequent audit quality, frequency, consistency, compliance with prescribed procedures and follow-up performance. The NRCSA supports this process through training, technical assistance, monitoring and coordination with State Social Audit Units (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
3. Identification and resolution of implementation issues
Social audits are intended to generate evidence on discrepancies between official records and ground-level realities. The Department’s dashboard, as accessed on 19 September 2026, records 1,695 issues identified, of which 1,695 are shown as pending. It records one issue resolved and one Action Taken Report (ATR) submitted (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
These figures demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between audit coverage and corrective-action performance. While the reported number of completed audits indicates that the audit mechanism is generating substantial ground-level scrutiny, the dashboard figures also point to a significant gap between the identification of issues and their documented resolution. The latter therefore remains an important area for strengthening the accountability cycle.
4. Financial commitment
I-MESA has also received dedicated budgetary support as part of the Department’s monitoring, evaluation and social-audit framework. The Union Budget’s expenditure documents recorded ₹6.11 crore as the Budget Estimate for I-MESA in 2025–26, compared with ₹10 crore in 2024–25 and actual expenditure of ₹22.33 crore in 2023–24 (Ministry of Finance, 2025). The variation across years highlights the need to assess I-MESA not only through allocations but also through how effectively resources translate into audit coverage, capacity-building and corrective action.
Overall, the available evidence demonstrates an expansion in reported social-audit coverage and a substantial capacity-building effort under I-MESA. However, the available dashboard does not by itself establish the magnitude of improvement in audit quality or institutional capacity compared with a pre-2023 baseline. More importantly, the reported gap between issues identified and issues resolved highlights the need to strengthen the transition from audit findings to timely and documented corrective action.
Impact
I-MESA’s impact should be understood by distinguishing between observed evidence, potential contributions and the mechanisms through which social audits are expected to improve accountability. As the scheme is still developing its institutional coverage, available evidence is stronger on the accountability mechanisms created by social audits than on long-term changes in welfare outcomes.
1. Greater transparency in welfare delivery
Observed evidence: Social audits create a structured process for comparing official records with ground-level implementation and placing findings before beneficiaries and implementing officials. This can bring discrepancies in beneficiary records, service delivery and implementation practices into public scrutiny (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
Potential contribution: By making scheme-level information available to communities, I-MESA can strengthen transparency beyond conventional administrative reporting.
2. Identifying systemic implementation gaps
Potential contribution: Social audits can identify problems that may remain invisible in routine financial or administrative monitoring. These can include ghost or ineligible beneficiaries, non-functional service-delivery institutions and supply-side bottlenecks, such as de-addiction centres that are not functioning effectively or welfare benefits that have not been credited to beneficiaries’ Direct Benefit Transfer accounts.
Expected mechanism: Ground-level verification can connect discrepancies in official records with the actual experiences of beneficiaries, enabling implementing agencies to identify whether the problem arises from beneficiary identification, institutional functioning, fund transfer, documentation or service delivery.
3. Strengthening beneficiary participation
Observed mechanism: I-MESA gives beneficiaries and other stakeholders an institutional space to participate in the verification of scheme implementation and raise concerns before relevant officials (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
Potential contribution: This can make welfare governance more responsive to local realities by incorporating information that may not be captured through administrative monitoring alone. The democratic value of social audits therefore lies not merely in collecting beneficiary feedback, but in creating a public process through which beneficiaries can question and verify implementation.
4. Linking findings with corrective action
Expected mechanism: The I-MESA framework provides for findings to be consolidated, presented before stakeholders and implementing officials, and followed by appropriate action (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023). This creates an accountability chain from verification → identification of gaps → public disclosure → administrative response → corrective action.
Observed limitation: The available dashboard demonstrates that the system is generating and recording audit findings, but it does not by itself establish that these findings have consistently translated into improved welfare outcomes. This makes follow-up and documented resolution important indicators for assessing the eventual impact of I-MESA.
5. Improving implementation quality
Potential contribution: Repeated identification of similar deficiencies across schemes or locations can provide the Department with evidence of systemic implementation weaknesses. Such evidence can potentially inform changes in beneficiary identification, institutional functioning, service delivery procedures and local implementation practices.
6. Strengthening democratic accountability
Potential contribution: Social audits broaden the meaning of accountability beyond financial compliance. They provide beneficiaries with a structured opportunity to participate in examining how welfare programmes are implemented and to question responsible institutions. This can strengthen the relationship between citizen participation, administrative responsiveness and public accountability.
Thus, the available evidence supports I-MESA’s role in creating mechanisms for transparency, participation and ground-level verification, while its longer-term impact on welfare outcomes remains dependent on the extent to which identified problems are acted upon. The key test of the scheme is therefore whether social audits can move beyond detecting implementation gaps to producing timely corrective action and sustained improvements in the accessibility, quality and effectiveness of welfare services.
Emerging Issues
1. Statutory backing and enforcement deficit
A key institutional limitation of I-MESA is that, unlike social audits under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which are explicitly mandated under Section 17 of the Act, social audits under I-MESA operate through administrative guidelines. The MGNREGA framework gives the Gram Sabha a statutory role in conducting regular social audits and requires the Gram Panchayat to provide relevant records for this purpose (Government of India, 2005).
I-MESA, by contrast, is implemented under scheme guidelines effective from October 2023. While these guidelines provide for recording findings and Action Taken Reports (ATRs), the framework does not create the same statutory enforcement mechanism or specific statutory penalties for non-compliance with audit findings. This can weaken the enforceability of corrective action and makes administrative follow-up particularly important (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
2. From identification to resolution
The effectiveness of a social audit ultimately depends on whether identified deficiencies result in timely corrective action. I-MESA provides for social-audit findings to be uploaded to the monitoring system and for implementing agencies to submit ATRs with supporting evidence. The guidelines also envisage time-bound resolution of identified gaps (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
However, without stronger enforcement and clearly defined consequences for prolonged non-compliance, there remains a risk that social audits could become primarily a reporting and monitoring exercise rather than a mechanism that consistently produces administrative correction.
3. Institutional capacity and operational dependence
Social audits depend on trained personnel, adequate resources and capable State Social Audit Units (SAUs). The Department’s framework recognises SAUs as the institutional mechanism for conducting social audits, while the NRCSA provides technical assistance and capacity-building support (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2026).
A related implementation risk is operational dependence and potential conflict of interest. Where SAUs depend on State administrative arrangements or the timely release of operational funds for conducting audits, delays in resource availability can affect the scheduling and continuity of audits. Such institutional dependence also makes it important to maintain adequate functional autonomy between the auditing mechanism and the departments or agencies whose implementation is being examined.
The I-MESA guidelines themselves recognise the possibility of structural, procedural and other conflicts of interest and provide for NRCSA to examine such issues and conduct test audits of at least 2% of the social audits undertaken by SAUs (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
4. Participation and representation
Although beneficiary participation is central to social auditing, meaningful participation cannot be assumed merely because a public process has been conducted. Vulnerable groups may face barriers related to awareness, documentation, accessibility, social hierarchy or hesitation in approaching authorities. Ensuring that women, persons with disabilities, disadvantaged communities and other intended beneficiaries are adequately represented is therefore essential for making social audits genuinely inclusive.
5. Data quality and verification
The credibility of a social audit depends on the quality of both administrative records and evidence collected from the ground. Incomplete beneficiary records, inconsistent documentation or discrepancies between administrative databases can make verification difficult. I-MESA therefore requires reliable records and standardised procedures for documenting, verifying and classifying audit findings.
The guidelines envisage a dedicated social-audit MIS through which SAUs can access scheme and beneficiary information, record findings and enable implementing agencies to upload ATRs with supporting evidence (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
6. Accountability across multiple implementing agencies
Social-audit findings may require action from different administrative levels and implementing agencies. Without clearly assigned responsibility, defined timelines and systematic ATR monitoring, issues can remain pending even after they have been formally identified. The challenge is therefore not only to generate evidence but also to establish who is responsible for acting on each finding and by when.
7. Measuring actual welfare outcomes
The number of audits conducted or issues identified does not by itself demonstrate an improvement in welfare delivery. I-MESA therefore faces the broader challenge of developing outcome-oriented indicators that assess whether social-audit interventions improve beneficiary access, reduce recurring implementation deficiencies and strengthen service quality.
This distinction is important for determining whether social audits are producing measurable governance outcomes rather than merely procedural outputs. The Department’s own framework recognises the need to analyse social-audit findings to identify trends and implementation gaps and support policy-level intervention (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2023).
Overall, the central challenge for I-MESA is to build a stronger link between participation, institutional independence, evidence, enforceability and outcomes. Expanding audit coverage is important, but the long-term credibility of the mechanism will depend on whether audit findings receive timely administrative attention, whether potential conflicts of interest are effectively managed, and whether corrective actions ultimately improve welfare delivery.
Way Forward
1. Strengthen the audit-to-action mechanism
I-MESA should establish a clearly defined issue-resolution framework linking every identified finding to a responsible implementing agency, corrective-action timeline and closure status. Action Taken Reports (ATRs) should be systematically tracked, with unresolved issues escalated to the appropriate administrative level. This would shift social audits from identifying deficiencies towards ensuring their resolution.
2. Develop measurable outcome indicators
The performance of I-MESA should be assessed through indicators that go beyond the number of audits conducted. These could include issue-resolution rate, average time taken to resolve findings, percentage of ATRs submitted within prescribed timelines, recurrence of previously identified issues and beneficiary satisfaction. Such indicators would help determine whether social audits are producing measurable improvements in welfare delivery.
3. Strengthen State-level capacity
The Department should continue strengthening State Social Audit Units through regular training, technical assistance and adequate human and financial resources. The NRCSA can play a stronger role in developing standardized training modules, supporting weaker States and facilitating the exchange of effective social-audit practices across States.
4. Make participation more inclusive
Social audits should ensure meaningful participation of the intended beneficiaries, particularly vulnerable and marginalised groups. Local-language communication, accessible public forums and targeted awareness activities can help reduce barriers to participation. Greater involvement of beneficiaries can improve the quality of evidence generated and make the audit process more representative.
5. Improve data and digital integration
I-MESA can use digital tools to strengthen the recording, tracking and monitoring of audit findings. A standardised digital system could link audit findings, responsible authorities, ATRs, resolution status and beneficiary feedback, enabling the Department to identify recurring implementation deficiencies across schemes and States. However, such integration should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards for the confidentiality and security of beneficiary information.
6. Strengthen independent evaluation
Periodic independent evaluations should examine whether social audits are actually improving scheme implementation and beneficiary outcomes. Such evaluations could compare audited and non-audited interventions, examine the resolution of findings and assess whether recurring problems decline over time. This would provide stronger evidence on the effectiveness of I-MESA and help refine its design.
7. Institutionalise social audits as a continuous accountability mechanism
Social audits should not be treated as a one-time verification exercise. A regular cycle of planning → community verification → public disclosure → issue identification → corrective action → follow-up → evaluation would make social accountability an integral part of welfare governance. This would help ensure that beneficiary participation contributes not only to transparency but also to continuous improvement in service delivery.
Ultimately, social audits can improve accountability in welfare delivery when participation is connected to enforceable follow-up and measurable outcomes. For I-MESA, the priority should therefore be to move from expanding audit coverage to strengthening the complete accountability cycle—from identifying a problem to demonstrating that it has been resolved.
References
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2026). Information-Monitoring, Evaluation and Social Audit (I-MESA).
Official I-MESA Scheme Page
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2026). National Resource Centre for Social Audit (NRCSA).
Official NRCSA Page
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2023). Guidelines for Information-Monitoring, Evaluation and Social Audit (I-MESA).
I-MESA Guidelines
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2023). Conduct of Social Audit of Schemes of the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.
Official Circular, 31 July 2023
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2021). Information-Monitoring, Evaluation and Social Audit (I-MESA): Scheme for Social Audit of Outcomes of Schemes.
Official Letter, 7 June 2021
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2026). Social Audit Dashboard.
Official Social Audit Dashboard
Ministry of Finance. (2025). Expenditure Profile, Union Budget 2025–26.
Union Budget 2025–26: Expenditure Profile
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2026). Social Audit.
Official Social Audit Portal
About the contributor
Khushi holds a Master’s degree in Sociology. She serves as a Research and Editorial Intern at IMPRI and has research interests in public policy, governance, digital transformation, and institutional reforms.
Acknowledgement
The author sincerely acknowledges the IMPRI team for their guidance, valuable feedback, and continuous support throughout the preparation of this Policy Update.
Reviewers: Anushree Khare and Dolly Kaushik
Disclaimer
This article is intended for academic purposes only. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of IMPRI or any government.
Read more at IMPRI:
Kerala’s Electric Vehicle Policy, 2019: Assessing the State’s Green Mobility Transition
Tamil Nadu’s Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thoga (2023): A State-Level Women’s Cash-Transfer Programme
