Part 1 · The Invisible Barrier

This blog is based on exploratory field engagement and is presented for descriptive and design purposes. It summarises reported experiences and recurring patterns in responses, and does not make inferential or causal claims.

Why do eligible families stay invisible to welfare?

Project Nagrik followed welfare access across alleys, worksites, and market fronts in Maharashtra. What surfaced was not a single point of failure, but a broader pattern of fragmentation in how people encountered schemes, documentation, and institutions.

Field context

Between May 10–30, 2025, this project gathered 102 survey responses and 12 ethnographic interviews across urban and rural districts. Participation was voluntary and unpaid.

102Survey responses
12Ethnographic interviews
3Districts
The sample skews male (78/102), reflecting local informal labour dynamics. Women’s experiences are discussed in more detail in Part 3.

Who we spoke to

78 men, 24 women
Many respondents reported schooling beyond 10th
Domestic workers, drivers, cooks, vendors, and day-wage labourers
Migrants from Bihar, UP, and Odisha now living in Mumbai

Gender distribution (n=102)

Bar chart showing 78 male and 24 female respondents 78 · Male 24 · Female

The silent 43

43 of 102 respondents reported never applying for any welfare scheme. That pattern points to barriers around awareness, trust, and perceived accessibility rather than simple absence of need.

Applied to any scheme?

Bar chart showing 59 yes and 43 no 59 · Yes 43 · No

Invisible barriers

What often stood out was not just screens or forms, but trust, belonging, and the practical meaning of thresholds.

“It’s a waste of time. Nothing comes out of it.”

Auto driver, Mumbai

“Back home we knew where to go. In Mumbai, I don’t know where to begin.”

Cook from Samastipur
Field observation: Welfare offices often appeared unwelcoming to first-time applicants. Migration, local unfamiliarity, and income cut-offs that do not reflect urban costs all seemed to shape whether people even attempted to apply.

Monthly salary among non-applicants

Donut: 93% above ₹12k, 7% in 7–12k band 93% > ₹12k / month

Gendered exclusion

Only 24 of 102 respondents were women. Roughly half of these women reported never applying for schemes intended for them.

“Where to go, how to fill forms—I don’t know. I get anxious.”

Vegetable seller and single mother of three
Recurring barriers included mobility constraints, time poverty, and low institutional confidence rather than literacy alone.

Caste & perception

Observed pattern: OBC respondents formed a large share of non-applicants and frequently described local distribution as unfair or opaque.

“After submitting forms, we get no response. It feels like we’re not even human to them.”

Domestic help, Mumbai

Discussion

The material collected here suggests that digitisation alone does not overcome pre-digital barriers such as trust, portability, and threshold design. A more responsive system would likely need to prioritise:

  • Inter-state benefit portability with simpler status communication.
  • Transparent, auditable status updates through receipts, timelines, and appeal routes.
  • Urban-indexed income criteria that better reflect actual living costs.

Scope & limitations

  • Participation was voluntary and unpaid; minimal identifying information was collected.
  • The sample is male-skewed and not population-representative.
  • Responses are self-reported and should be interpreted descriptively.

Materials

The project instrument and selected descriptive materials are available on request. For pilots or collaboration, email modyparth7@gmail.com.

References

  1. Background on portability and administrative burden.
  2. Urban poverty measurement and threshold design.
Parth Mody
Engineer & Data Scientist — Building AI for Governance
Next → Part 2