BISP: a white elephant in the making

In her first formal media interaction as Chairperson Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) in March 2015, Marvi Memon said the organisation had started a sanity check of the beneficiaries database to weed out undeserving cases from the system. While BISP has been characteristically silent since then, BR Genie tells us that payments to more than 90,000 cases have just recently been blocked because they were found to be fake (i.e. undeserving) with some sources adding that those entries were in fact deliberately fraudulent.
Sources say that most of these undeserving cases were originally registered as deserving beneficiaries. The allegation so goes that deserving cases were given a beneficiary status based on BISPs poverty survey, but because those people didn't have their CNIC card, their files were left pending. Later, however, following a pre-planned scheme, BISP officials on the ground entered the CNICs of undeserving beneficiaries in those pending files, and thereby replaced the deserving beneficiaries with undeserving ones.
So for instance, if Farzana Bibi (hypothetical name) was selected as the deserving beneficiary, but because she didn't have a CNIC, she was told to get herself the ID card and then formally register herself to start getting the income support. In the meanwhile, however, the CNIC of an undeserving beneficiary with the same name was entered in the system, thereby leaving the deserving beneficiary entirely helpless. Now, 90,000 is not a big number per se, considering that estimated total number of beneficiaries as of December 2014 were about 4.7 million. Even if all of these fake beneficiaries were being paid since last three years, then the exchequer has lost nearly Rs3 billion. Again, this is not a big number given the size of the overall BISP programme, but a disconcerting number nevertheless for a fiscally constrained economy. Besides, when it comes to public money, even a loss of a penny ought to be strictly scrutinised, with relevant people held accountable.
Recall also that BISP is no stranger to controversies, scams, favouritism and irregularities. FY14s audit general reports for the fiscal year FY13 showed that regulations for disbursements of funds to the tune of Rs37 billion were not even approved by the BISP Board; the year before, that number was Rs74 billion. Likewise, the auditors found unauthorised retention of government funds by Pakistan Post and by commercial banks, including the likes of UBL, HBL, and Summit Bank.
The report also highlighted irregular selection/appointment of commercial banks for BISP programme and disbursed Rs25.4 billion in contravention to PPRA rules. It also expressed concerns over the non-reconciliation of funds (to the tune of Rs33.9 billion) provided to Pakistan Post and commercial banks for disbursement to beneficiaries. "In absence of reconciliation the management was unaware of the status of funds and discrepancies," the auditors report said. Similarly, the previous years audit report for the fiscal year 2012 also highlighted a host of serious issues. For instance, it said that the cash book was not maintained for 2011-12. Or that State Life Insurance Corporation was irregularly appointed for health insurance coverage without open competition, whereas Nadra was also awarded contracts for printing smart cards without competition - both in contravention to PPRA rules.
There were also reports of payments being made to people who didn't even meet the criteria based on poverty score card. The audit had in fact recommended that Waseela-e-Sehat programme "should be shelved as the justification of group life insurance for BISP beneficiaries does not outweigh the benefits as compared to the cost incurred." The audit report also highlighted that Pakistan Post does not deliver letters to BISP beneficiaries. Instead, Post officials "demanded akshish from BISP beneficiaries for the delivery of letters, particularly when they know that the letters pertain to some benefit, like their names being qualified for Waseela-e-Haq, delivery of smart cards or free Benazir mobile phones."
No matter how much the donor community in Pakistan loves the BISP programme, nobody ever expected BISP to be completely free of corruption and irregularities. After all its a government-run programme. But one expects the government to come forth and set the records straight in as far as the remarks of audit reports are concerned. Failure to do so would only smell fishy. On that account, the donor community, who seems to leave no opportunity to glorify the programme, would also do well to read the audit reports and question other irregularities reported by media before doling out millions into the programme. Nobody wants good money going after bad.
Lastly, are we the only one to notice that there is really no official publicly available third party evaluation of the BISP programme to date? BISP has three stated objectives: (a) enhance financial capacity of the poor and dependent family members; (b) formulate and implement policies and targeted programmes for upliftment of the under privileged; and (c) reduce poverty/promote equitable distribution of wealth. Nearly six years into operation, and the society still doesn't know which of the three stated objectives have been met and with what success. These are all the signs of a white elephant in the making!