A Training Fund That Nobody Uses
The district co-operative union in a central Uttar Pradesh district manages a co-operative education fund of ₹18.4 lakh, built from contributions by 38 PACS. In two years it has spent only 21%. Its training centre has 30 beds but no full-time trainer; programmes are three-day lectures on co-operative law and audit. Average attendance is 12, and only 8% of participants are women. PACS managers nominate board loyalists rather than new members or women. The Registrar has issued a circular asking every union to submit an annual education plan tied to member needs. The union's board wants to use the unspent money to renovate the training hall and buy a vehicle. The general manager asks for advice.
1. Diagnose why the education fund is underused and why the programmes are not reaching members.
Read the worked answer
The problem is not a shortage of money but a supply-driven education system.
- Content mismatch: three-day lectures on law and audit suit officials, not primary members. New members need induction, share rights, credit discipline and basic bookkeeping; women members may need different timing and location.
- No full-time trainer: the centre has beds but no dedicated faculty, so programmes depend on occasional guests and are easily postponed.
- Nomination capture: PACS managers send board loyalists. That excludes new members, women, small farmers and actual borrowers, who are the people the fund is meant to educate.
- Delivery design: residential, three-day formats are costly and difficult for daily-wage members. Average attendance of 12 leaves most of the 30 beds unused and signals weak demand.
- No follow-up or measurement: without pre/post assessment or village-level reinforcement, lectures do not change behaviour.
- Wrong use of savings: renovating the hall and buying a vehicle are capital purchases, not education. They may be permissible only under specific rules and would not solve the demand problem.
The union is treating the education fund as a residual budget rather than as a member-development tool.
2. Design a one-year education plan with priorities, delivery methods and a budget outline. Explain how it addresses the diagnosis.
Read the worked answer
Priorities:
- New-member induction in all 38 PACS: rights and duties, share capital, borrowing, repayment, AGM participation.
- Women's participation: at least 40% of participants; sessions at village level, timed around household work.
- Board and PACS governance: fiduciary duty, audit reports, conflict of interest, record-keeping.
- Functional literacy and digital payments: reading a passbook, understanding interest, using mobile banking safely.
- Trainer capacity: recruit or contract one full-time trainer and develop 20 master trainers from PACS.
Delivery: two-hour village sessions; one-day block workshops; a short residential programme only for board members; seasonal calendar; simple printed handouts in Hindi; follow-up visits.
Indicative budget (within ₹18.4 lakh): trainer ₹4.0 lakh; master-trainer honoraria and travel ₹2.5 lakh; materials ₹1.8 lakh; venue and refreshments ₹2.5 lakh; monitoring and evaluation ₹1.0 lakh; contingency ₹0.8 lakh. Total about ₹12.6 lakh, leaving a reserve. Do not spend the fund on a vehicle or hall renovation unless the rules specifically permit it and the education plan still meets its targets.
Targets: 1,500 member-participants, 40% women, all 38 PACS covered, 20 trained master trainers. This addresses the diagnosis by moving from supply-driven lectures to member-need-based, decentralised learning.
3. How should the union measure whether the education fund is achieving its purpose?
Read the worked answer
Measure both delivery and behaviour, not just attendance.
Delivery indicators: number of sessions held against plan; participants by PACS, gender and member category; share of new members covered; trainer deployment; budget spent against plan.
Learning indicators: pre- and post-session tests on basic co-operative rights, interest calculation and audit awareness; practical exercises such as reading a passbook.
Behaviour and outcome indicators: increase in AGM attendance; growth in regular share-capital contributions; reduction in loan overdue in participating PACS; more women nominated as delegates; PACS fixing audit objections; use of digital payment channels.
Process indicators: whether PACS managers stop nominating only loyalists; whether sessions are held at village level; whether follow-up visits happen.
Report quarterly to the board and annually to the Registrar. If attendance remains low or test scores do not improve, revise the content and timing rather than simply spending more. The test of the fund is not how much is spent but whether members can exercise their rights and hold their society accountable.