Policy Update
Viksha Adhinarayanan
Background
The empowerment of persons with disabilities (PwDs) is viewed as a central concern of India’s welfare policies, but it gained sharper focus after the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The Convention was adopted on 13 December 2006 and entered into force on 3 May 2008. India signed it on 30 March 2007 and ratified it on 1 October 2007, committing to inclusive development and the protection of disability rights. This global framework influenced the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which expanded the recognised categories of disability from 7 to 21, thereby broadening the scope of state responsibility.
The Act provides the domestic legal framework for implementing India’s commitments under the UNCRPD. Within this framework, the National Trust launched the SAMARTH Scheme in 2015–16 under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to address the need for residential and respite care.
The scheme’s name, SAMARTH (meaning “capable” or “empowered”), reflects its objective of providing residential and respite care for PwDs who require institutional support. It specifically focuses on persons with autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities and multiple disabilities, particularly those from BPL and LIG families, orphans, abandoned persons and families in crisis. By offering residential facilities, basic medical care and support services, SAMARTH seeks to ensure dignity, security and quality living conditions. However, it is important to distinguish SAMARTH from GHARAUNDA, another National Trust scheme that specifically aims to provide lifelong residential care and support.
Most importantly, SAMARTH contributes to India’s broader movement towards disability inclusion by providing structured residential support rather than leaving the responsibility of care entirely to families. It aligns with the country’s wider social justice agenda, emphasising protection, quality care and access to welfare services. However, describing SAMARTH itself as a complete shift from charity-based welfare to a rights-based empowerment model represents an analytical interpretation rather than an officially established outcome. Its effectiveness in promoting empowerment depends on the availability of quality care, skill development, community participation and integration with mainstream welfare programmes. Thus, SAMARTH can be considered both a social safety net and a residential-care intervention designed to uphold dignity while reducing the burden on families.
Functioning
The scheme operates through registered organisations that establish residential care homes for PwDs. These homes provide shelter, food, basic medical care, skill development and recreational activities. SAMARTH covers both residential and respite care, offering families temporary relief while ensuring that their wards receive appropriate support.
According to National Trust guidelines, the scheme provides financial support for infrastructure, staff salaries and essential facilities. The guidelines prescribe a standard batch size of 30 beneficiaries, with a maximum permitted capacity of 39. They also specify minimum staffing arrangements, including three caregivers, two special educators or vocational trainers, one physiotherapist or occupational therapist, two ayas and one cook. Caregivers are required to provide services across two daily shifts. Families and registered organisations may also contribute towards the financial sustainability of the centres. Integration with other welfare programmes is intended to improve residents’ access to healthcare, education and vocational opportunities.
The IJRAR study (2023) highlights that SAMARTH homes are designed not only to provide shelter but also to encourage skill development and social interaction. Community living can reduce isolation and promote inclusion. However, the actual impact depends on the quality of services, availability of trained personnel and the effective implementation of the scheme’s objectives.
Performance
Over the years, the SAMARTH Scheme has developed a network of residential and respite-care centres across India. According to the National Trust Annual Report 2022–23, the scheme had supported approximately 390 beneficiaries annually during its first eight years. During the financial year 2022–23, 221 persons with disabilities received support through 13 SAMARTH centres, with approximately ₹1.81 crore released for implementation. The report also records total expenditure of approximately ₹12.54 crore during the first eight years of the scheme. These figures provide a verifiable indication of the scheme’s implementation and beneficiary coverage. They should be used instead of the previously stated figure of more than 150 residential homes, which is not supported by the cited official records.
Despite these achievements, independent assessments reveal persistent challenges in infrastructure, staffing and specialised care. The International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR, 2023) identifies geographical and institutional limitations in the availability of National Trust facilities. Some centres may face difficulties in providing adequate medical facilities, physiotherapy and behavioural support. Vocational training opportunities also require further strengthening. However, the claims regarding caregiver ratios and the percentage of centres lacking specialised services cannot be established through the cited study without specific supporting data.
Financial sustainability also remains an important concern, as registered organisations require consistent funding to maintain residential facilities and provide quality services. The claim that over 80% of homes depend solely on government subsidies is not supported by an identifiable official dataset.
Regional disparities further complicate performance outcomes. The IJRAR study’s Table 1.2 on page 566 records 12 SAMARTH centres in its assessment, while the National Trust Annual Report 2022–23 reports 13 centres for that financial year. These figures indicate the limited geographical reach of the scheme and the need for wider expansion.
However, the claim that nearly 70% of SAMARTH homes are concentrated in urban centres cannot be established without a verified urban–rural distribution dataset. Rural districts may face difficulties due to weak institutional capacity, limited awareness and challenges in accessing welfare services. Monitoring and accountability mechanisms also require strengthening through regular reporting, financial audits and quality inspections. The claim that less than half of the homes submit timely audits requires centre-wise audit records and cannot be treated as an established national statistic.
Impact
The expanded performance indicators reveal both progress and challenges in SAMARTH’s implementation. On the positive side, hundreds of PwDs have received structured residential and respite support through the scheme, reducing the caregiving burden on families and providing opportunities for community interaction. The scheme has also facilitated access to basic healthcare, education and other welfare services, thereby contributing to social participation and reducing isolation.
However, the challenges highlighted in the available assessments point to systemic weaknesses. Limited geographical coverage can restrict access for PwDs living in rural and underserved areas. Staff shortages and the absence of specialised medical and therapeutic facilities may limit rehabilitation and personal development. The restricted availability of vocational training can reduce opportunities for economic independence, perpetuating dependency on welfare. Moreover, the financial sustainability of residential centres and weaknesses in monitoring mechanisms can affect the quality and continuity of care.
Analytically, SAMARTH still functions primarily as a residential and respite-care welfare intervention rather than a comprehensive rights-based empowerment framework. Unless infrastructure, staffing and vocational opportunities are strengthened, the scheme risks remaining limited in its ability to promote wider disability inclusion. A comparative look at similar initiatives, such as GHARAUNDA under the National Trust, shows that while SAMARTH focuses on respite and residential care, GHARAUNDA specifically provides for lifelong residential support. This distinction underscores the need for policy reforms that integrate empowerment, skill development and financial sustainability into the implementation of SAMARTH.
Emerging Issues
Key issues identified include:
Infrastructure gaps: The National Trust Annual Report 2022–23 records 13 SAMARTH centres during that financial year. The limited number of centres highlights the need for wider geographical coverage, particularly in rural and underserved districts. However, the claim that nearly 40% of rural districts lack functional facilities requires district-wise evidence and cannot be treated as a verified figure.
Shortage of trained staff: The National Trust guidelines prescribe three caregivers for a standard batch of 30 beneficiaries, with a maximum permitted capacity of 39. However, the adequacy of this staffing arrangement depends on shift-wise availability and the individual support requirements of residents. A caregiver-to-resident ratio of 1:5 may be considered as a proposed benchmark for residents requiring intensive assistance, but it should not be presented as an existing official standard.
Financial sustainability: Government financial assistance plays an important role in maintaining SAMARTH centres. The National Trust guidelines also encourage a combination of beneficiaries from different income categories to support the financial sustainability of registered organisations. However, the claim that around 80% of homes rely solely on government subsidies requires a verified financial assessment. Greater transparency regarding government grants, CSR contributions and other sources of funding is necessary.
Limited vocational training: Although the scheme provides for special educators and vocational trainers, the actual availability and quality of structured skill-development programmes may vary across centres. The claim that only 30–35% of homes offer vocational programmes requires a centre-wise assessment. Strengthening vocational training is important to improve residents’ opportunities for skill development and partial economic independence.
Regional disparities: The available records indicate that SAMARTH centres remain limited in number. Rural areas may remain underserved due to weak institutional capacity, limited awareness and difficulties in accessing services. A district-wise assessment is necessary to identify the actual geographical gap and prioritise expansion.
Weak monitoring mechanisms: Effective monitoring requires regular reporting, financial transparency, independent audits and quality inspections. The claim that less than 50% of homes submit timely audits requires official audit-compliance records. A uniform monitoring system is essential to improve accountability and ensure consistent quality of care.
These issues reveal a gap between the scheme’s objectives and its implementation. While SAMARTH has established a mechanism for residential and respite care, its limited coverage, staffing requirements, financial sustainability and monitoring systems need further attention. Without stronger implementation, the scheme may remain restricted in its ability to provide equitable and quality support to PwDs, particularly in rural and underserved areas.
Way Forward
To strengthen the scheme, the following suggestions have been mentioned:
Strengthen infrastructure: Establish uniform standards and prioritise rural expansion through district-wise mapping of underserved areas. The National Trust should identify districts without accessible SAMARTH facilities and introduce phased expansion. Dedicated infrastructure grants and recurring operational assistance should be provided through the National Trust budget, with additional support from state governments. Progress should be monitored annually through the number of operational centres, district coverage and beneficiary admissions.
Invest in training programmes: Launch structured caregiver and therapist training and certification programmes in collaboration with recognised training institutions and State Skill Development Missions. Training should cover disability-specific care, first aid, behavioural support, communication and safeguarding. A proposed caregiver benchmark of 1:5 for high-support settings may be introduced following professional assessment. Funding should be provided through dedicated training allocations, while annual monitoring should assess the number of certified caregivers, staff availability and training completion.
Expand vocational training: Tailor programmes to local industries and individual abilities through partnerships with Industrial Training Institutes, skill-development agencies, NGOs and local businesses. Every resident should receive an individual skill assessment, with a proposed target of enrolling at least 70% of residents for whom vocational participation is appropriate in structured programmes within three years. Funding can be supported through dedicated scheme allocations, government skill-development programmes and CSR partnerships. Progress should be evaluated through participation, skill development and employment or supported livelihood outcomes.
Enhance monitoring: Introduce digital dashboards and independent audits to ensure transparency and quality checks. All registered centres should submit quarterly performance reports covering admissions, staffing, healthcare, vocational activities and expenditure. Annual independent financial audits and periodic social audits should be made compulsory, with a target of 100% audit submission and time-bound corrective action for identified deficiencies. The National Trust should monitor compliance and publish annual performance reports.
Promote awareness campaigns: Target rural families through Panchayati Raj Institutions, district disability offices, healthcare centres and civil society organisations. Information about eligibility, admission procedures and available facilities should be provided in regional languages and accessible formats. Awareness programmes should be evaluated through applications received, admissions and beneficiary feedback.
Implementing these measures would strengthen SAMARTH as a sustainable residential and respite-care programme while improving its contribution to disability inclusion. By combining infrastructure expansion, skilled human resources, vocational development and transparent financial management, the scheme can move towards a more effective rights-based approach that ensures dignity, inclusion and long-term support for PwDs.
The SAMARTH Scheme is an important step in India’s journey towards inclusive welfare for PwDs. Its success depends on addressing implementation challenges and ensuring sustainability. Future directions include integrating SAMARTH with broader disability rights frameworks, strengthening civil society partnerships and expanding coverage to underserved regions.
Digital monitoring can help improve transparency, while vocational training and community engagement can ensure better long-term outcomes. Specialised medical and therapeutic care must also be prioritised to meet the diverse needs of persons with disabilities.
Henceforth, SAMARTH embodies the vision of a compassionate and inclusive India, where persons with disabilities are assured dignity, security and opportunities for growth. Enhancing care and assistance should not remain limited to welfare provision but should also serve as a means of upholding human rights and social justice.
References
- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews. (2023). Evaluation of SAMARTH homes for persons with disabilities. IJRAR. https://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR23C2571.pdf
- Press Information Bureau. (2024). Government commitment to scaling up SAMARTH facilities. PIB. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=153252&ModuleId=3®=48&lang=2
- National Trust. (2015). SAMARTH Scheme guidelines. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. https://nationaltrust.nic.in/samarth-scheme/ https://nationaltrust.nic.in/samarth/
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, No. 49, Acts of Parliament, Government of India.https://megscpwd.gov.in/reports/rpwd_act_2016.pdf
- United Nations. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). United Nations TreatyCollection. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
About the Author:
Viksha A is currently pursuing a Master’s in International Relations at Loyola College, Chennai, and serves as a Research & Editorial Intern at IMPRI. She is passionate about public policy research and writing, with interests in governance, social impact, and contributing to evidence-based policy discussions through research and informed analysis.
Acknowledgement
The author extends sincere thanks to the IMPRI team for their guidance.
Name of the Reviewers:
Sneha Kohli and and Anamika P K
Disclaimer:
All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organization.
Read more at IMPRI:
9 November – Legal Services Day 2026 : Bridging the Gap Between Legal Rights and Access to Justice
