Appendix H — Program Atlas
Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).
Read this chapter in the interactive reader, or download the full 601-page manifesto (PDF).
The People’s Model
Manifesto v2026
Volume III — Implementation Handbook
Appendix H — Program Atlas
Inclusive Governance sector — sheets H.163–H.180 (v1.0)
Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).
Problem
Karnataka state services apply accessibility inconsistently across physical, digital, language, and accommodation dimensions. The result is structural exclusion.
Program design
- Statewide Accessible Service Design Standards covering all four dimensions.
- Mandatory in Service Charters (Vol I Sec. 3.3).
- Audit on a published cycle.
- Non-compliance becomes a work-order to fix.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Disabled Welfare + Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms
Backup: Karnataka State Disability Department
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year (standards + audit)
Source: State Budget; convergence with RPWD Act funds.
Payment trigger: Per-service audit + non-compliance work-order completion.
KPIs
- • Top 100 services with accessibility standards in Charter — baseline: Patchy; F: 100%; B: All services; C: Continuous audit.
- • Accessibility-audit pass rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% with audit.
- • Median fix-time on non-compliance — baseline: (new); F: ≤30 days; B: ≤14 days; C: ≤7 days.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Tokenistic compliance. Safeguard: Practice-based audit; user-shadowing methodology; appeal pathway.
- • Risk: Vendor capture on accessibility tooling. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; published per-unit costs.
- • Risk: Maintenance lapses making accessibility regress. Safeguard: Asset Registry; maintenance-first allocation.
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 16; App H sheets H.164, H.165, H.169, H.180.
Problem
Karnataka deaf and hard-of-hearing residents face structural exclusion from public services; minority-language speakers also face access gaps.
Program design
- Sign-language interpretation at high-volume service touchpoints.
- Captioning for state video communications.
- Vernacular and minority-language service coverage.
- Interpreter cadre with rotation + certification.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Disabled Welfare + Department of Kannada & Culture
Backup: Karnataka State Disability Department
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹60-100 cr / year
Source: State Budget; central convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-touchpoint coverage + interpreter-event data.
KPIs
- • Service touchpoints with sign-language coverage — baseline: Limited; F: Top 50 touchpoints; B: Top 200; C: Universal at scale.
- • State video output with captioning — baseline: Variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
- • Minority-language service-page coverage — baseline: (new); F: +3 languages; B: +5 languages; C: All major minority languages.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Vendor capture on interpretation services. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; quality audit.
- • Risk: Token coverage without operational impact. Safeguard: User-shadowing audit; complaint pathway.
- • Risk: Caste / community gatekeeping in interpreter cadre. Safeguard: Inclusion safeguards (sheet H.180); diverse recruitment.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.163, H.196 (Multilingual Content), H.175 (Linguistic Minority).
Problem
Karnataka residents with disabilities face gaps in access to assistive devices — wheelchairs, hearing aids, white canes, prosthetics, communication aids.
Program design
- State-curated catalogue of assistive devices with quality standards.
- Auto-eligibility on Vulnerability Case File for prescribed aids.
- Distribution + repair + replacement pathway.
- Independent quality testing of supply.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Disabled Welfare
Backup: Karnataka State Disability Department + ALIMCO partnership
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹80-130 cr / year
Source: State Budget; ADIP central convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-prescription distribution + post-distribution use data.
KPIs
- • Residents with documented disability receiving prescribed aid — baseline: Sparse; F: Baselined per district; B: ≥80%; C: ≥95% within agreed window.
- • Device replacement / repair cycle adherence — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥85%; C: ≥95%.
- • Quality-test pass rate of supplied devices — baseline: (new); F: ≥90%; B: ≥97%; C: ≥99%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Device-supply fraud (sub-standard). Safeguard: Independent quality testing; vendor blacklist.
- • Risk: Targeting gap (eligible-uncovered). Safeguard: Proactive Vulnerability Case File enrolment; outreach via ASHA.
- • Risk: Family stigma reducing uptake. Safeguard: Outreach via trusted channels; confidential pathway.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.010, H.166, H.179.
Problem
Karnataka vulnerable households face fragmented welfare delivery. Eligibility across schemes is rarely seen as a whole.
Program design
- Vulnerability Case File on the operating spine.
- Indicators: income proxy, disability, age, single-parent, recent shock.
- Auto-enrolment trigger for eligible scheme bundle.
- Consent-protected; Citizen Data Trust governance.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Social Welfare + Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms
Backup: Citizen Data Trust
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹120-200 cr / year (platform + facilitation)
Source: State Budget; convergence with DBT infrastructure.
Payment trigger: Per-household case-file event + scheme-activation evidence.
KPIs
- • Identified vulnerable households on Case File — baseline: (new); F: Baselined per district; B: ≥80%; C: ≥95% with proactive enrolment.
- • Cross-scheme bundle activation rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70% of identified; B: ≥90%; C: Universal.
- • Case-closure with positive outcome — baseline: (new); F: ≥50%; B: ≥75%; C: ≥85%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Surveillance creep. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review of indicators; minimum-data; opt-out for non-eligibility.
- • Risk: Caste-/ community-gatekeeping by frontline. Safeguard: Inclusion-audit (sheet H.180); pattern audit (App C RF-X-04).
- • Risk: Indicators encoding bias. Safeguard: Trust review on indicator design; periodic equity audit.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 2, Ch 6; App H sheets H.167, H.052, H.005.
Problem
Karnataka eligible residents go unenrolled in welfare schemes they qualify for. Application burden creates inclusion error.
Program design
- Proactive enrolment driven by Vulnerability Case File and spine integration.
- No re-application annually; status carries with verification.
- Disbursement via spine.
- Real-time tracking on the People’s App.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms + relevant scheme depts.
Backup: Karnataka State Social Welfare Department
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹80-130 cr / year (platform + outreach)
Source: State Budget; scheme-level convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-scheme proactive-enrolment event + delivery evidence.
KPIs
- • Eligible-uncovered share (priority schemes) — baseline: Material; F: Baselined per scheme; B: ≤10%; C: ≤3%.
- • Time from eligibility-flag to first benefit — baseline: Slow; F: ≤30 days; B: ≤14 days; C: ≤7 days.
- • Re-application requirement (annual) — baseline: Common; F: ≥50% schemes auto-renewed; B: ≥90%; C: Universal.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Ghost beneficiaries. Safeguard: Spine identity + payment-anomaly detection (App C RF-P-02/05).
- • Risk: Disclosure of stigmatised eligibility. Safeguard: Aggregation-only public reporting; consent-protected access.
- • Risk: Departmental resistance. Safeguard: Statutory mandate; published compliance; pattern audit.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.166, H.005, H.022.
Problem
Karnataka inclusion delivery lacks a coordinator function at the district level. Coverage gaps and bias patterns go unnoticed.
Program design
- District Inclusion Coordinator with cross-departmental remit.
- Owns the Vulnerability Case File at district level.
- Convenes inclusion-audit (sheet H.180) and equity-audit (sheet H.204).
- Reports to Karnataka State Inclusion Commission.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Social Welfare + Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Persons with Disabilities (and parallel commissions)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year
Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.
Payment trigger: Per-quarter coordinator report + audit evidence.
KPIs
- • Districts with operational Coordinator — baseline: (new); F: All 31; B: All 31 with quality; C: Continuous with rotation.
- • Audit-completion rate per quarter — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: Continuous.
- • Issue-closure rate from coordinator findings — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95% with appeal.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Coordinator workload overload. Safeguard: Workload caps; cadre support; peer-supervision.
- • Risk: Political pressure on findings. Safeguard: Statutory independence; published findings; whistleblower protection.
- • Risk: Tokenistic role. Safeguard: Outcome tracking; complaint pathway; rating-triggered audit.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.163, H.166, H.180.
Problem
Karnataka digital state services exclude residents without smartphones, internet, or literacy. Assisted-access is too often improvised.
Program design
- Permanent (not transitional) Panchayat Service Centre + ward kiosk.
- Trained operator with audited action log.
- Multi-language; accessibility-equipped.
- Failover when self-service App fails.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development (PSC) + Department of Urban Development (ward kiosk)
Backup: Department of IT, BT & Science
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹300-500 cr / year (combined rural + urban)
Source: State Budget; 15th FC tied grants (rural); urban property-tax (urban).
Payment trigger: Per-centre operator event + service-completion data.
KPIs
- • GPs with operational PSC — baseline: (new); F: ≥40%; B: 100%; C: 100% with quality.
- • Urban wards with operational kiosk — baseline: (new); F: ≥40%; B: 100%; C: 100% with quality.
- • Operator-action audit pass rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥90%; B: ≥97%; C: ≥99%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Operator rent-seeking. Safeguard: Operator log; cross-verification; complaint pathway.
- • Risk: Caste/gender gatekeeping by operator. Safeguard: Inclusion-audit; rotation; representation safeguards.
- • Risk: Hardware failure. Safeguard: Maintenance SLA; offline-tolerant design; backup paper pathway.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.109 (PSC); H.161 (Assisted Access Resilience).
Problem
Karnataka women face under-reporting and slow response on safety incidents. Service infrastructure (police, hospital, court, social) is uneven and uncoordinated.
Program design
- One-stop Centre per district (sheet H.102 alignment).
- 112 + dedicated women’s-helpline integration.
- Trained female-officer first-contact.
- Compensation auto-eligibility on the spine.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of WCD + KSP
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Women
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹130-200 cr / year
Source: State Budget; Nirbhaya Fund; Sakhi convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-survivor case + service-bundle activation.
KPIs
- • Districts with One-Stop Centre operational — baseline: Partial; F: All 31; B: All 31 with quality; C: Continuous capacity-refresh.
- • Median response time on safety call — baseline: Variable; F: ≤15 min; B: ≤10 min; C: ≤7 min.
- • Survivor satisfaction (post-service) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained quality.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Re-traumatisation in fragmented intake. Safeguard: Single-window protocol; trained first-responder; female officer.
- • Risk: Confidentiality breach. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review; criminal liability for breach.
- • Risk: Compensation delays. Safeguard: Auto-eligibility on spine; published SLA.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.102, H.025, H.091.
Problem
Karnataka in-migrant workers from other states (and Karnataka out-migrants to other states) face fragmented entitlements; ration, health, school records do not move with them.
Program design
- Migrant Worker Registration on the spine with portability.
- One Nation One Ration Card alignment.
- Portability of school enrolment and health records.
- Inter-state cooperation protocols.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Labour + Department of Food & Civil Supplies
Backup: e-Shram + ONORC integration
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹100-160 cr / year
Source: State Budget; central convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-registration event + entitlement-portability evidence.
KPIs
- • Registered in-migrants (cumulative) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material registration; C: Universal where willing.
- • Portable entitlement activation rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥95%; C: Universal.
- • Inter-state cooperation cases handled — baseline: (new); F: Pilot pathways; B: Routine cooperation; C: Sustained capability.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Reluctance to register from exploitation fear. Safeguard: Confidentiality; attractive benefits; trusted intermediary.
- • Risk: Employer-side abuse. Safeguard: Labour-law enforcement; right-to-exit; Grievance Justice Authority remedy.
- • Risk: Data-broker abuse of migrant data. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review; statutory prohibition.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.125, H.166.
Problem
Karnataka seniors face service-delivery gaps — pension delays, health-system navigation, mobility, social isolation. Existing schemes deliver unevenly.
Program design
- Senior Citizen Case File with cross-scheme bundle.
- Home-visit health support via Family Health Teams (sheet H.019).
- Pension auto-disbursement on spine.
- Senior-friendly digital interface + assisted access.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Social Welfare + Department of Health & Family Welfare
Backup: Karnataka State Council for Senior Citizens
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹1,200-1,800 cr / year (pension + services)
Source: State Budget; central social-security convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-senior case + service-bundle activation.
KPIs
- • Eligible seniors enrolled in Case File — baseline: Partial; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥99%.
- • Pension disbursement on-time rate — baseline: Variable; F: ≥90%; B: ≥98%; C: ≥99%.
- • Home-visit coverage rate (high-need cohort) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥85%; C: ≥95%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Pension diversion through bank-account fraud. Safeguard: Bank-account-change protocol (App C RF-P-03); multi-factor + supervisor.
- • Risk: Senior digital exclusion. Safeguard: Assisted access (sheet H.169); senior-friendly UX.
- • Risk: Elder abuse / neglect under-detected. Safeguard: Home-visit pathway; reporting mechanism; statutory framework.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.019, H.166, H.169.
Problem
Karnataka single mothers and primary caregivers face structural disadvantage — income, time, social support — that existing welfare unevenly addresses.
Program design
- Recognition through the Vulnerability Case File.
- Childcare access (Anganwadi 2.0 sheet H.008).
- Cash support / scholarship via spine.
- Skills + livelihood pathway (sheet H.115 + H.122).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of WCD
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Women
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250-380 cr / year
Source: State Budget; central social-security convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-household enrolment + service-bundle evidence.
KPIs
- • Identified single-mother / caregiver households — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥80%; C: ≥95%.
- • Cross-scheme bundle activation rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: Universal.
- • Household-income trajectory (sampled) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained improvement.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Family pressure / stigma reducing uptake. Safeguard: Confidentiality; trusted-channel outreach; non-stigmatising communications.
- • Risk: Schemes captured by non-eligible households. Safeguard: Spine-linked verification; sample audit.
- • Risk: Caregiver burnout from cumulative responsibility. Safeguard: Respite care + mental-health support (sheet H.144).
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.008, H.115, H.122, H.166.
Problem
Karnataka transgender and other gender / sexual minority residents face structural exclusion from public services. Recognition is uneven; harassment in service settings is real.
Program design
- Recognition pathway under Transgender Persons Act + Karnataka State Policy.
- Self-determined identity on the spine.
- Service-design accommodation training.
- Anti-harassment policy in state service settings.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Social Welfare + Karnataka State Transgender Welfare Board
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Social Welfare
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year
Source: State Budget; central transgender-welfare convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-resident registration + service-experience data.
KPIs
- • Self-determined identity recognised on spine — baseline: (new); F: Live; B: ≥95% applicants served; C: Universal where willing.
- • Service-setting harassment incidents (reported) — baseline: Under-reported; F: Reporting matured; B: Decline trajectory; C: Sustained low.
- • Service-staff training coverage — baseline: (new); F: ≥50% high-touch staff; B: ≥95%; C: 100% with refresh cycle.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Backlash from staff / public. Safeguard: Training + complaints pathway; statutory protection.
- • Risk: Surveillance creep via identity registration. Safeguard: Voluntary; Citizen Data Trust review; opt-out.
- • Risk: Tokenism without operational change. Safeguard: User-shadow audit; rating-triggered audit.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.163, H.176.
Problem
Karnataka residents speaking minority languages (Tulu, Konkani, Urdu, Beary, others) face state-service language gaps where Kannada or English is assumed.
Program design
- Minority-language Service Charter coverage where population density supports.
- Translation + interpreter cadre.
- Forms + signage + voice channels.
- Convergence with Kannada-Dakshina Kannada / Udupi + tribal areas.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Kannada & Culture + Department of Minorities Welfare
Backup: Karnataka State Minorities Commission
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year
Source: State Budget; central minorities-welfare convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-language service coverage + interpreter-event evidence.
KPIs
- • Services with minority-language Charter coverage — baseline: (new); F: Baselined per language; B: ≥80% top services; C: ≥98%.
- • Interpreter response time — baseline: (new); F: ≤30 min; B: ≤15 min; C: ≤5 min.
- • Minority-language complaint pathway live — baseline: (new); F: Pilot; B: All major minority languages; C: Universal where applicable.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Symbolic translation without service quality. Safeguard: User-shadowing audit; complaint pathway.
- • Risk: Vendor capture on translation. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; quality audit.
- • Risk: Politicisation of minority-language coverage. Safeguard: Population-density criteria published; statutory framework.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.163, H.164, H.196.
Problem
Karnataka anti-discrimination remedy exists in statute (constitutional, sectoral, RPWD, JJ Act, etc.) but operational pathway is fragmented and slow.
Program design
- Single anti-discrimination grievance pathway on the spine.
- Priority routing for protected categories.
- Statutory adjudication via Grievance Justice Authority.
- Published decisions + remedies.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka Grievance Justice Authority (Vol I Ch 6)
Backup: Karnataka State Commissions (SC/ST, Backward Classes, Women, Minorities, Persons with Disabilities)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year
Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.
Payment trigger: Per-complaint disposition + remedy publication.
KPIs
- • Grievance resolution within statutory SLA — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95% with appeal.
- • Remedy-implementation tracking — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥85% closure; C: ≥95% closure.
- • Pattern-audit triggers per year — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Rising; structural causes addressed; C: Sustained mature feedback loop.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Retaliation against complainants. Safeguard: Whistleblower protection extended; criminal liability for retaliation.
- • Risk: Symbolic resolution without remedy. Safeguard: Remedy-implementation tracking; published closure rates.
- • Risk: Adjudicator capture. Safeguard: Rotation; conflict-of-interest register; statutory independence.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 6; App H sheets H.107, H.168, H.214.
Problem
Karnataka government officer representation across gender, caste, disability, linguistic groups is uneven. Constitutional reservation + statutory targets are inconsistently met.
Program design
- Published representation targets per cadre per category.
- Annual representation report by department.
- Promotion-panel transparency (decision reasons published in aggregate).
- Affirmative-action audit by Karnataka State PSC oversight.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms
Backup: Karnataka Public Service Commission + Karnataka State Commissions
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹40-70 cr / year (audit + transparency)
Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.
Payment trigger: Annual representation publication + audit evidence.
KPIs
- • Target achievement rate per cadre per category — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined publication; B: Published trajectory; C: Targets met or with published reason.
- • Promotion-panel reason-publication rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% (aggregate).
- • Affirmative-action audit completion — baseline: (new); F: All cadres annual; B: Continuous; C: Sustained discipline.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Backlog filling without genuine progression. Safeguard: Outcome tracking; promotion + representation parity.
- • Risk: Tokenistic representation. Safeguard: Quality outcomes audit; published progress.
- • Risk: Politicisation of cadre. Safeguard: Statutory framework; Vol III Ch 20 Anti-Interference Log; KPSC independence.
Dependencies
- • Vol III Ch 20; App H sheets H.178, H.180.
Problem
Karnataka government advisory and decision-making bodies (committees, councils, boards) often lack representation across gender, geography, caste, disability, sexual / gender minorities.
Program design
- Statutory representation targets for advisory and decision bodies.
- Published composition + decision rationale.
- Rotation rules to avoid permanent capture.
- Inclusion-audit by Karnataka State Inclusion Commission.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms
Backup: Karnataka State Inclusion Commission (parent body of sector commissions)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹20-40 cr / year
Source: State Budget; statutory framework.
Payment trigger: Per-body composition publication + audit evidence.
KPIs
- • Advisory / decision bodies meeting targets — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per body; B: ≥75%; C: Targets met or with published reason.
- • Composition + rationale publication rate — baseline: Partial; F: ≥80%; B: 100%; C: Continuous.
- • Inclusion-audit completion (annual) — baseline: (new); F: All major bodies; B: All bodies; C: Continuous discipline.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Backloading reservation without genuine voice. Safeguard: Decision-rationale review; sample audit of dissent recording.
- • Risk: Capture by single faction. Safeguard: Rotation rules; representation safeguards.
- • Risk: Tokenistic appointments. Safeguard: Outcome tracking; complaint pathway.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.177, H.180.
Problem
Karnataka State Disability Department under-resourced relative to mandate. Implementation of RPWD Act lags.
Program design
- Cadre + budget strengthening for the Department.
- Inter-departmental convergence framework.
- Annual report on RPWD Act implementation.
- Capacity-building for district-level Inclusion Coordinators (sheet H.168).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Disabled Welfare
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Persons with Disabilities
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹80-130 cr / year (incremental)
Source: State Budget; central RPWD funds.
Payment trigger: Per-quarter implementation evidence + audit.
KPIs
- • RPWD Act provision-implementation rate — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per provision; B: ≥80%; C: ≥98%.
- • Department cadre vacancy rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≤15%; C: ≤5%.
- • Annual report publication compliance — baseline: Partial; F: 100%; B: 100% with quality; C: Continuous.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Resource diversion from disability head. Safeguard: Statutory ring-fence; Equity audit (sheet H.204).
- • Risk: Departmental siloing. Safeguard: Inter-departmental convergence requirement; published cooperation data.
- • Risk: Tokenism in implementation. Safeguard: User-shadowing audit; KSCPD oversight; published outcomes.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.010, H.165, H.168.
Problem
Karnataka inclusion data — service-access gaps, representation gaps, accommodation gaps — is rarely consolidated for public review.
Program design
- Annual Inclusion Audit covering all dimensions (access, representation, accommodation).
- Independent execution by State Inclusion Commission.
- Published findings + remedy commitments.
- Cross-reference with Equity Audit (sheet H.204).
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Inclusion Commission
Backup: Karnataka State Statistics Department
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year
Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.
Payment trigger: Annual audit publication + remedy-tracking evidence.
KPIs
- • Audit completion within publication window — baseline: (new); F: Annual; B: Annual with quality; C: Continuous reference.
- • Remedy commitments closed within target — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
- • Independent peer-review pass rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Audit-finding suppression. Safeguard: Statutory publication requirement; KIC oversight; whistleblower protection.
- • Risk: Methodology drift. Safeguard: Open methodology; community review; consistency-audit.
- • Risk: Capture by political pressure. Safeguard: Statutory independence; council composition rules.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.163, H.168, H.204, H.215.
Architecture cross-reference
Architecture cross-reference — sector sheets to architectural sheets
Each program sheet in this sector references the operating architecture defined in Vol I Ch 2 and App H CyberDPI sheets H.230–H.233. Specifically: financial flows from this sector’s programs are published through the Open Ledger (sector-specific data fields per App D) anchored to KSSL (sheet H.230). Time-series outcome data and sector dashboards are published on the Karnataka Open Data Portal (sheet H.233). Personal data flows (where applicable) are governed by the Citizen Consent Ledger (sheet H.232). Security audit and incident response across this sector’s systems falls under the statutory CSOC (sheet H.231).
H.163 — INCLUSION — Accessible Service Design Standards (binding)
H.164 — INCLUSION — Sign-Language, Captioning & Vernacular Service Coverage
H.165 — INCLUSION — Persons with Disabilities — Assistive Devices & Aids
H.166 — INCLUSION — Vulnerability Case File on the Spine
H.167 — INCLUSION — Proactive Enrolment for Welfare Eligibility
H.168 — INCLUSION — District Inclusion Coordinators
H.169 — INCLUSION — Assisted-Access Centres (Panchayat + Ward)
H.170 — INCLUSION — Women’s Safety: Reporting + Response Network
H.171 — INCLUSION — Migrant Worker Registration & Portable Entitlements
H.172 — INCLUSION — Senior Citizens’ Service Package
H.173 — INCLUSION — Single Mothers & Caregivers Support
H.174 — INCLUSION — Gender & Sexual Minorities — Service Recognition
H.175 — INCLUSION — Linguistic Minority Service Provision
H.176 — INCLUSION — Anti-Discrimination Grievance Pathway (Operational)
H.177 — INCLUSION — Representation in Officer Recruitment & Promotion
H.178 — INCLUSION — Advisory & Decision Bodies — Representation
H.179 — INCLUSION — Karnataka State Disability Department Strengthening
H.180 — INCLUSION — Inclusion Audit (Annual, Published)
← Appendix H — Program Atlas · Appendix H — Program Atlas →
This is a chapter of The People's Model manifesto for Karnataka — published in full for public review. Every claim may be challenged: write to [email protected].