Aswesuma: What’s really going on?

Aswesuma hence excludes the very communities it is meant to serve – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

• “I don’t have any information; we have not been informed and are unaware,” said a Grama Niladari Officer in the Southern Province in response to a question raised by an applicant of the Aswesuma welfare scheme. 
• The Government claims Aswesuma is apolitical, transparent and leaves no room for inefficiency or corruption. Yet, from the application process to data collection, the system does not appear to be fit for purpose. Instead, it seems to have alienated and excluded the most vulnerable.

By the Neelan Tiruchelvam Trust

Aswesuma is the new Welfare Benefit Payment Scheme (WBPS) implemented by the Government of Sri Lanka with the support of the World Bank. It categorises beneficiaries into four groups (severely poor, poor, vulnerable, and transitional) and aims to provide cash transfers to about 35% of the population. The scheme is managed by the Welfare Benefits Board (WBB), which was created to streamline the social protection system in Sri Lanka and make it more efficient and transparent. In place of a politicised and uni-dimensional approach to selecting households for welfare benefits, which Samurdhi was often criticised for, the WBB’s stated aim is to introduce a multi-dimensional approach to assess poverty. 

Evidence shows that the data collection process was flawed. Data was collected via an android mobile application which was made accessible to enumerators. Although it was user-friendly, enumerators stated that they encountered several issues. For example, the app prevented them from proceeding to the next step without first completing the ‘mandatory information’ section, even if the information was unavailable (e.g., income of an elderly person without an income). This indicates that the questionnaire was not designed considering the complex realities of the social groups it was meant to benefit, and ignored the fact that some persons might not have a stable income or even a national identity card

Nevertheless, a closer look at the implementation of the program, and at accusations of inequitable outcomes, leads to questions about its integrity and transparency. “The poor have been excluded while the rich have received it,” said Mohamed Faizal, a resident of Al Kasim in Puttalam. A Development Officer from the Eastern Province revealed, “I know a person who is receiving Rs. 15,000 under this scheme although he has lands spanning 20 or 30 acres. On the other hand, a woman who lost her husband during the war and is struggling to make ends meet has not been chosen.” The officer bemoaned, “We have no idea how they select and reject beneficiaries.” Contrast this with the statement by State Minister of Finance Shehan Semasinghe who claimed, “The Government will ensure that no eligible citizen is left behind.” Were all those in need able to apply? Were all who applied fairly assessed?

According to a WBB official, information on how to apply for Aswesuma was widely disseminated via newspaper, TV and radio advertisements. However, most of the people with whom we spoke had not seen nor heard the advertisements. Some of them had not even heard of the term ‘Aswesuma’ and referred to it as the ‘QR code program’. The WBB official also admitted that about 3 to 4% of the most impoverished households had not applied for Aswesuma. “They didn’t tell us anything,” said a resident of Thampady, Jaffna when asked if they were informed that Aswesuma would replace Samurdhi. She said she believed Aswesuma recipients would also receive Samurdhi. 

W.A. Premawathi from Polhengoda, Colombo said she first heard of Aswesuma when she learnt that her Samurdhi benefit was suspended. Did the WBB consider that the target beneficiaries include the most vulnerable households in the country who might not be literate and/or have no access to media? 

Evidence shows that the data collection process was flawed. Data was collected via an android mobile application which was made accessible to enumerators. Although it was user-friendly, enumerators stated that they encountered several issues. For example, the app prevented them from proceeding to the next step without first completing the ‘mandatory information’ section, even if the information was unavailable (e.g., income of an elderly person without an income). This indicates that the questionnaire was not designed considering the complex realities of the social groups it was meant to benefit, and ignored the fact that some persons might not have a stable income or even a national identity card.

Another issue faced by enumerators was internet access. According to the WBB, data collection could be carried out offline, but the enumerator required an internet connection to submit the data to the WBIS. Enumerators recalled instances when they could not upload data due to high internet traffic, after which they were assigned time slots according to districts to upload the data collected. However, we found that this strategy was not adopted island-wide, and some enumerators reportedly continue to hold data that has not yet been submitted. “Even today, some have 40 to 50 data forms that have not been submitted,” an enumerator from Gampaha revealed. 

According to the app guidelines, it is compulsory for enumerators to capture photographs of both the applicant and the house during data collection to validate the data collected. However, some applicants complained that enumerators deliberately took photos that did not capture their real economic condition. “They took photographs of our home, particularly focusing on a small part that has been constructed while avoiding the mud-thatched section,” said Selvakumari from Deniyaya. Applicants feared the photographs or lack thereof, may have affected their eligibility to receive Aswesuma.

It has also come to light that some enumerators had used versions of the mobile app that had not been updated. The enumerator from Gampaha said that when he first began working, he was using ‘Version 3’. By the time he had reached the end of the program, the app had been upgraded to ‘Version 25 or 26’. In contrast, an enumerator from Kalutara recalled that he had been using the same version (4.2 or 4.1) throughout the entire process and did not receive any information or instructions about updates to the app. Which begs the question, if the app, i.e., the questionnaire, was amended several times during the data gathering process, does it mean all applicants were not assessed according to the same criteria? If so, that could have adversely impacted on their eligibility for the program. This raises the critical question whether all the Aswesuma applicants were equally and fairly assessed. If they were not, it could be a potential violation of Article 12 (1) of the Constitution which guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

There have also been reports of minors entering data into the app instead of the enumerator. Sujani from Deniyaya said the enumerator arrived with her 10 or 11-year-old son, “who took all the photos and recorded all the data.” Data collection, according to the WBB, was initially supposed to be done by Samurdhi Development Officers and Grama Niladharis. However, they protested against being part of the data collection process supposedly due to concerns regarding Articles 21 and 22 in the Welfare Benefits Act of 2002, which holds them liable for any inaccuracies in collected data. Eventually, data collection was conducted by officers from divisional secretariats, undergraduates, and other youth. The minimum requirement to be an enumerator was a GCE O/L qualification. 

In many cases, applicants complained that inaccurate data had been entered to WBIS causing them to be disqualified from receiving Aswesuma. Some only learned of this when they visited the Divisional Secretariat to inquire about the reasons for disqualification. For example, Sanjeewani from Puttalam alleges her enumerator entered an inflated figure as her personal income, while Sujani from Deniyaya claims that her 12 and 4-year-old children were recorded in the system as having completed their Advanced Levels. Such discrepancies in the data collected call into question whether the most deserving were selected to receive Aswesuma.

As previously stated, an applicant’s eligibility to receive Aswesuma benefits is supposed to be determined based on multiple criteria that reflect the multidimensionality of poverty. However, neither the applicants nor the enumerators were aware of the criteria or the weight given to each criteria, resulting in suspicion and accusations of unfairness in the selection process. An applicant from the Southern Province said of her local Grama Niladhari Officer, “Whenever we inquired about Aswesuma, his response was consistently, ‘I do not have any information about this; we have not been informed, and we are unaware’.” The Gampaha enumerator agreed, saying, “Even the Divisional Secretariats are not aware of the selection process, to this day.” 

When the list of households eligible for Aswesuma was published, the WBB gave those who were not selected an opportunity to appeal, as well as to those who were selected but wished to be considered for a higher payment category. Anonymous objections could also be submitted against a household selected for the program. This method of filing objections could undermine social cohesion and create strife within communities already under severe economic stress if neighbours complain about each other. By the stipulated deadline, the WBB had received over 1.2 million appeals and 124, 000 objections. 

Aswesuma is a social security benefits program targeting the most vulnerable communities in Sri Lanka. Yet, it appears that it has failed to be inclusive, i.e., to be aware of and addressing factors such as disability and language that might prevent people from accessing the program. For example, there were reports of families with speech impairments not being enumerated to date because the enumerator could not communicate with them. A resident of Al Kasim, Puttalam said a female enumerator who visited their house spoke in Sinhala, a language she does not understand. This not only raises questions about the accuracy of data collected but also points to deep rooted structural discrimination, such as the failure to implement the official languages policy. Aswesuma hence excludes the very communities it is meant to serve.

[The Neelan Tiruchelvam Trust (NTT) is a local grant-making organisation. We work with community based civil society organisations that work with marginalised and vulnerable communities. We are sharing with the public what we have learnt and raising important questions that need answers. We, together with our partners, spoke to over 250 individuals across the country representing all communities. This includes applicants, enumerators, and recipients of Aswesuma, the WBB, State officials and scholars.

Visit www.neelan.org to watch the documentary showing all our findings. You can also watch it on our YouTube (www.youtube.com/@NeelanTiruchelvamTrust) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/neelantiruchelvamtrust) pages.]