budget for children in uttar pradesh 2004-05 to 2008-09
TRANSCRIPT
BUDGET FOR CHILDREN
Centre for Child Rights
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
B 1/2, Malviya Nagar, Ground Floor, New Delhi - 110017, IndiaT: +91-11-26677412/3599 | F: +91-11-26674688 E: [email protected] | W: www.haqcrc.org
Centre for Rural Education and Development Action
490, Awas Vikas Colony, Mirzapur-231001 T: +05442-220285 (Off) +05442-220284 (Res) E: [email protected] | W: www.credaindia.org
Prepared by HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi, in partnership with Centre for Rural Education and Development Action, Mirzapur
2004-05 to 2008-09in Uttar Pradesh
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights is a ten-year old New Delhi-based civil society organisation
that works towards the recognition, promotion and protection of rights of all children.
It aims at contributing to the building of an environment where every child’s rights
are recognised and promoted without discrimination and in an integrated manner.
HAQ believes that child rights and children’s concerns have to be mainstreamed into
all developmental planning and action and must also become a core development
indicator.
To carry forward this mandate, HAQ undertakes research and documentation and is
actively engaged in public education and advocacy. In India, HAQ pioneered the Budget
for Children analysis in 2001. Over the years, it has developed skills for quick and incisive
scanning of law and policy documents and commenting on them. It works with existing
networks, builds alliances and partnerships with other actors/stakeholders such as the
bureaucrats, parliamentarians, judges and lawyers, police and media.
HAQ seeks to serve as a resource and support base for individuals and groups dealing
with children at every level. It not only provides information and referral services but
also undertakes training and capacity building for all those working with children or on
issues concerning them, and for the children themselves.
HAQ works on children and governance, violence and abuse of children, child trafficking
and juvenile justice. It provides legal support to children in need, particularly those who
are victims of abuse and exploitation or are in conflict with the law.
Publications | Kandhamal’s Forgotten Children: A Status Report. | India’s Childhood in
the “Pits”: A Report on the Impacts of Mining on Children in India | Blind Alley: Juvenile
Justice in India (2009) | Still out of focus: Status of India’s children (2008) | Handbook on
Children’s right to adequate housing | Combating Child Trafficking (A User’s Handbook)
| Budget for Children (set of four publications on child budget analysis) for India,
Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa (2007) | Child Protection: A handbook for
Panchayat Members (English and Hindi) | Status of Children in India Inc. 2005 | Says a
Child...Who Speaks for my Rights? ( A series of books analysing parliamentary questions
and debates from 2003 to 2008 in English and Hindi) | My God is a Juvenile Delinquent
(Not a HAQ publication but is available in HAQ) | Stop Child Trafficking: A handbook for
Parliamentarians | Children in Globalising India: Challenging our Conscience (2003)
| Children bought and sold: We can stop it! (Hindi and English)(2003) | Children and
Right to Adequate housing: A guide to international legal resources (2002) | India`s
Children and the Union Budget (2001)
A study by
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
In Partnership With:
Centre for Rural Education and Development Action (CREDA)
CHILDREN’S SHARE IN THE UTTAR PRADESH BUDGETAn Analysis from a Child Rights Perspective
2004-05 to 2008-09
Printed and Published in 2009
© Centre for Rural Education and Development Action (CREDA) and HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
Reproduction of any part of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised only with prior permission from Centre for Rural Education and Development Action (CREDA)
490, Awas Vikas Colony, Mirzapur-231001
Phone: 05442-220285 (Off ) 05442-220284 (Res)
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.credaindia.org
or
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
B 1/2, Malviya Nagar, Ground Floor
New Delhi-110017, India
Phone: 91-11-26677412/3599
Fax: 91-11-26674688
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.haqcrc.org
978-81-906548-5-2 Credits
Research Team
At HAQ | Paromita Shastri
Madhumita Purkayastha
Indarilin Dkhar
At CREDA | Vinod Singh
Photo Credit | Cover Gunnar Geir Petursson
Inside Campaign against Child Labour (CACL)
Dolon Bhattacharya
Design and Typesetting | Aspire Design, New Delhi
Supported by | Sir Dorabji Tata Trust
i
A budget is an estimate of the resources that will be available during a specifi ed fi nancial year to be spent on a set of projects that give shape to the nation/state’s long-term development plan. Th rough an annual budget, which breaks down into several sectoral and departmental budgets, the Government allocates money to achieve various social and economic goals such as education, health care, water and power supply, building roads, dams, etc. Th us the budget is the most important economic policy statement in any country, more so in a welfare state like India that still has miles to go in achieving a decent human development record.
Since the size of the allocation of funds determines, at fi rst glance, the level of priority accorded to a programme, a budget is also the best refl ection of how seriously the government takes its policies and their implementation. As a result, tracking the allocations in the annual fi nancial statement, right from the printed numbers in the budget document to the expenditures detailed in the demands for grants, becomes an indispensable tool in monitoring if the government is keeping the promises made to the citizens. Children are bona fi de citizens with full human rights but since they lack the all-important vote, they are neglected even in national budgets that are full of programmes that ostensibly benefi t children.
It is to make the government walk its talk about children that in 2002, HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, a civil society organisation based in New Delhi, embarked on a decadal analysis (1990-91 to 1999-2000) of the Union Budget from a child rights perspective. Th is unique endeavour was followed up by the Centre for Rural Education and Development Action (CREDA), which started child budget analysis work in Uttar Pradesh in 2006 in partnership with HAQ. Th e fi rst time-series budget analysis of this partnership was published in 2008 as “Budget for Children in Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to 2007-08.”
Th e present report, the second in this phase, extends the analysis by one more year to off er a fi ve-year review of state budgets from the perspective of child rights from 2004-05 to 2008-09. We seek to make the analysis more exhaustive by including the latest actual expenditure fi gures that are usually available with a two-year lag. Th e objective, as before,
Foreword
ii
is to evaluate the budget provisions made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh towards ensuring the rights of children in the areas of survival, protection and development and examine how far the fi nancial commitments have fallen short of fulfi lling these rights. Th is year, we have also undertaken a special ear-to-the ground fi nancial tracking analysis of the government’s fl agship Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme, to evaluate how far it has succeeded in achieving its broad objectives.
Th is project would not have come about without Sir Dorabji Tata Trust who supported our budget work for three years. Th e BfC report was written by Vinod Singh of CREDA, while Dolon Bhattacharya of MV Foundation helped out with the SSA study and fi eld tours and wrote the second part of the report. Both the reports were edited at HAQ by Paromita Shastri with assistance from Madhumita Purkayashtha and Indarilin Dkhar. Th e project has been aff ected by staff shortage at CREDA, resulting in their inability to devote much time to it. However, HAQ takes full responsibility for all facts and fi gures. Reader reactions, including those about any inadvertent mistakes, will be appreciated.
In disseminating the budget analysis, our purpose is to engage diverse stakeholders at the state and local levels, as well as all those involved in the process of preparing budgets in generating a wide discussion and debate. We hope it will serve as an eff ective tool for all child rights activists and organisations and help in holding governments accountable for the changing allocation and expenditure patterns in child-focused programmes. Write in to us at [email protected]
Enakshi Ganguly Th ukral & Bharti Ali Shamshad KhanHAQ: Centre for Child Rights Centre for Rural Education and Development ActionNew Delhi Mirzapur
iii
SECTION I
Children’s Potential Untapped by Callous State 1
Methodology & Overview of BfC Analysis 5
Despite Rising Enrolment, Education Remains ‘Unaff ordable’ 15
Funds Lie Idle Even as Development Needs Remain Unmet 20
Poor Allocation Dogs Health Sector 25
Allocation for Protection Dips Despite Extreme Vulnerability 29
References 33
Annexure 34
SECTION II
Tracking SSA Implementation in Uttar Pradesh 41
Annexure 72
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 74
Contents
iv
v
Section I
Budget for Children
vi
1
India’s largest state in terms of population, Uttar Pradesh is a glaring example of underutilised and undeveloped human potential. With 166.2 million people, the state has a 17 per cent share of India’s population and is bigger than most countries of the world, including Russia, Germany and Japan. It also has double the population density of India—689 persons per square km against 324 persons for India. UP is also India’s seventh poorest state, with 32.8 per cent of the people living below the poverty line. 1
Because of its large population, UP also has the biggest share of the child population in India. Almost every fi ft h child in India lives in UP. Within the state, children account for close to half -- 49.6 per cent2 -- of the state’s population.
With the highest share of scheduled tribe population among states and high backwardness, the state is also considered as one of the worst states in
1 http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/news/prmar07.pdf The poverty threshold/line is the minimum level of income deemed necessary to have an adequate standard of living in a given country. The international poverty line has been drawn by The World Bank at $1.25 a day, while it is Rs 538.60 per month for urban areas and Rs 356.35 in rural areas in India and Rs 483.26 and Rs 365.84 respectively in Uttar Pradesh
2 UP 2006, Information and Public Relation Department, Government of UP, pp. 152
Table 1.1: A Profi le of U� ar Pradesh
Divisions 17Districts 70Zilla Panchayat 70Tehsil 300Development Blocks 823Nyaya Panchayat 8,814Nagar Panchayat 417Gram Panchayat 51,855Inhabited villages 97,134Lok Sabha seats 80Rajya Sabha seats 31Vidhan Sabha 404cons� tuencies Vidhan Parishad 100 membersTotal geographical area 236,286 sq kmForest coverage 17,001 sq km
Children’s Potential Untapped by Callous State
2
India in terms of human development. At the beginning of this decade, UP had a human development index of close to half of that of Kerala3. Because of regional disparities, human development indicators are far behind in the eastern and Bundelkhand regions that are home to bulk of the poor people, compared to those in western UP where there has been industrial development and agricultural production is good. Th is lopsided development fuels migration out of the poorer districts and even the state as a whole. Th e worst aff ected in any such situation are the children, helpless and voiceless.
Due to high population and poverty fi gures, the state receives the largest share of central government funds as well as that of the centrally sponsored schemes. Also, since only about a fi ft h of the people live in urban areas and most live in numerous small villages, it requires a large spread of social and economic infrastructure and, in turn, resources. Despite the central largesse, a matching commitment of funds and implementation has not been forthcoming from the state government. For instance, government statistics show UP has received the maximum allocation among all states under the fl agship education programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Yet, the state’s per child expenditure remains lower than that in Bihar or Chhattisgarh, states which are poorer and also received less central funds.
It has been argued that historical and structural reasons, especially a population of largely illiterate voters, limited access to information, gender inequity, and rampant social discrimination against backward castes, have had a role to play in the state continuing to remain behind most other states in improving its human development indicators. Economist Jean Dreze has written how a rural school in UP can be nonfunctional for years, with teachers absent or shirking but without any civic protest.4 Since the eighties, electoral competition has been intensely socially polarised, with voting decisions overwhelmingly based on a candidate’s caste identity, a status that has changed little even aft er the backward castes started enjoying political supremacy. To add to its woes, the state’s fi nancial condition too has not really improved. Th e state has been the biggest producer in India of foodgrain (wheat), sugarcane, pulses and potatoes, says the UP State Development Report, 2006, with two-thirds of the people engaged in agriculture which contributes over 13 per cent to the total agricultural state domestic product.5 But agriculture’s bane has been a low yield, keeping per capita production low. Th is factor has combined with low and skewed industrialisation to keep the gross SDP low. UP’s per capita income in 2002-03 at current prices was Rs 11,856, almost half of the all-India average of Rs 21,373. Health and development expenditure has always been low, with much of the budget going in meeting revenue expenditure, or in other words, maintaining a huge government. Th e state tops in
3 National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission, Government of India 2002
4 Dreze, Jean and Haris Gazdar. 1996. “Uttar Pradesh: The Burden of Inertia.” In Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, eds., Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Probe Team in Association with Centre for Development Economics (1999)
5 UP State Development Report, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2006. This and all statistics used later in this chapter are from this report.
UP tops in maternal deaths
In-country dispari� es in maternal mortality are huge, with U� ar Pradesh in north India having one of the highest MMRs, with nearly three � mes as much as southern Tamil Nadu state. Even within a state, the access to and u� lisa� on of maternal healthcare varies based on region (rural or urban), caste, religion, income and educa� on. For instance, a 2007 UNICEF study in six northern states in India revealed that 61 per cent of the maternal deaths documented by it occurred in Dalit (so-called “untouchables”) and tribal communi� es.
No Tally of the Anguish: Accountability in Maternal Health Care in India, Human Rights Watch, October 2009
Government sta� s� cs show UP has received the maximum alloca� on among all states under the fl agship educa� on programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Yet, the state’s per child expenditure remains lower than that in Bihar or Chha� sgarh, states which are poorer and also received less central funds.
3
birth rate—a fact directly connected to its infant mortality which too is the highest in the country-- and also has the third highest death rate, with average life expectancy lower than the national average.
Literacy rate too is lower than the national average. In fact, the lack of a good educational base among its people as well as lack of quality educational institutions is one of the main reasons why the information technology and related services industry has not fl ourished in the state and fuelled job growth.
Most of the child indicators in the state, as table 1.2 shows, are worse than their national average. At the turn of the century, one in three girls in Uttar Pradesh had never been to school, even when there was universal enrolment in Kerala. While enrolment has improved along with the number of schools, the state and quality of school education still remains dismal. Th is combines with poverty to create an extremely vulnerable environment for children.
Table 1.2: How children fare in UP compared to India
Indicators UP India
Child popula� on 0-6 years (million)* 31.62 163.82
Share of child popula� on 0-6 years in total popula� on (%)* 19.03 15.92
Child popula� on 6-14 years (million)* 41.73 226.20
Share of child popula� on 6-14 years in total popula� on (%)* 25.11 21.99
Child popula� on 0-18 years (million)* 82.37 450.49
Share of child popula� on 0-18 years) in total popula� on (%)* 49.56 43.79
Sex Ra� o (female per thousand male)* 898 933
Infant Mortality Rate (per thousand live births)** 72.7 57
Maternal Mortality Rate*** 707 540
Under-fi ve Child Mortality Rate** 96.4 74.3
Low birth weight babies (in per cent)** 25.1 21.5
Underweight children under fi ve** 42.4 42.5
Life Expectancy at birth*** Male 59.9 62.1 Female 59.0 63.7
Percentage of children in the age group 3-5 years with 25.6 37.7pre-school educa� on****
Net Enrolment Ra� o in Primary School# - -All 97.74 84.53
Boys 97.92 95.01 Girls 97.87 95.32
Comple� on rate of Upper Primary Schooling# Boys 97.37 87.58 Girls 97.41 88.55
Child Labour Incidence Rate (per cent)* 4.08 5.00
Disability Incidence Rate* 1.78 1.67
Crime rate against children (per lakh popula� on)$ 2.1 2.0
Crime against UP children as %age of total crimes in India 18.1 -
Note: *Census 2001, Government of India; **NFHS-III 2005-06, Government of India
***SRS 2004; ****Mul� ple Indicator Survey (MICS) 2000 ; #NUEPA 2007; $NCRB 2008
4
Uttar Pradesh also has a high number of child workers, who are mostly concentrated in the cottage industries that have made the state famous, especially the hand-knit woolen carpets industry in Bhadohi and Mirzapur, chikan work in Lucknow, brassware in Moradabad, glassware in Firozabad, wood carvings in Saharanpur, footwear in Agra, hand-printing in Farrukhabad, and zari and embroidery work in several towns. According to the publication Crime Against Children 2008,6 Uttar Pradesh accounted for 43 per cent of infanticides, 24.4 per cent of murders of children, 16.5 per cent of cases of rape of children and 29 per cent of kidnapping of children in 2008. Th ese indicators underscore the importance the state government needs to give its children by taking up urgently the task of developing, nurturing and protecting them for a socially and economically secure future of the state.
6 Crime Against Children, 2008, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
5
Th e BfC study is an attempt to analyse the fi nancial priorities of the state government of Uttar Pradesh with respect to its declared commitments for the children. It seeks to understand and question the extent to which promises made by the government have been translated into policies and programmes that protect children’s rights, mainly through an analysis of the state budget and other government review documents.
It is important to remember that the Budget for Children (BfC) is not a separate budget. It is just an exercise to separate the allocations made for all programmes and schemes that benefi t children in the state. Child budget analysis can be undertaken for all kinds of national, sectoral and departmental budgets. Here, we analyse UP state government annual budgets for fi ve years.
Defi ning the Child
In keeping with the defi nition of the child under the UN Convention on Rights for Children (CRC) and the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, we have defi ned a child as a person aged 0-18 years and selected programmes catering to this age group. Indian legislation also makes 18 years the general age of majority in India.7
7 Union Ministry for Women and Child Development, Definition of the Child, http://wcd.nic.in/crcpdf/CRC-2.PDF, uploaded: 10 August 2009.
Methodology & Overview of the BfC Analysis
6
Ra� onale for the Study
By throwing light on how much the government allots and spends on programmes and schemes for children, a child budget analysis works as a tool to determine how signifi cant children are for policymakers. National and international commitment for attainment of child rights can only be translated into action when programmes and schemes are equipped adequately with resources and utilised optimally. Budget analysis fi ndings could go a long way towards providing people and the civil society with the ammunition we require to hold the government accountable for its action or inaction and exert pressure on it for course correction in current policies and bringing about improved policies and programmes. Th e UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) defi nes the four basic rights of a child as the rights to Survival, Development, Protection and Participation. In consonance with the CRC, this study analyses the Budget from the angle of these four sectors – development, health, education and protection – which are directly linked to the fi rst three CRC rights. Th e Right to Participation is not covered by any programme.
Objec� ves of the Study
Th e goal of the study is to undertake a critical assessment and analysis of the state budget provisions in accordance with the needs of the children and from the perspective of their rights to education, health, development and protection. Th e objectives are:
� To critically analyse if the allocations for programmes and schemes aimed at children are able to meet the needs of children. Th at is, matching needs with allocation.
� To examine the trends in allocation and expenditure and thereby the implications for children’s programmes and schemes. In other words, to evaluate if they are increasing or decreasing and if they are gaining or losing priority.
� To assess the utilisation of funds allocated for these programmes and thus evaluate utilisation versus allocation to see if children are getting their just share of the state’s resources.
Timeframe of the Study
Th e study reviews the budget fi gures for fi ve consecutive fi nancial years, 2004-05 to 2008-09. Th ese comprise the budget estimates, revised estimates and actual expenditure for all child-related programmes and schemes. However, actual expen-diture has been taken into account only for the fi rst three years, from 2004-05 to 2006-07. Th ere are two reasons for this, the fi rst of which is that actual estimates are available with a two-year lag. Secondly, due to the General and state elections, the full budget for 2009-10 was presented only in end June, 2009, and thus we couldn’t incorporate the actual expenditure fi gures for 2007-08.
Budget Es� mates, Revised Es� mates and Actual Expenditure
In the Indian budgeting process, Budget Estimate, Revised Estimate and Actual Expenditure are key phases in the process of resource generation, allocation and spending. Since the BfC analysis involves government spending, we discuss below only the expenditure fi gures, both plan and non-plan, and not the revenues.
Th e main budget, which is prepared by the fi nance ministry, is a balanced total of various budgets and demands from all the ministries as well as representation from various lobbies, including the private corporate sector. Th e fi nal Budget
7
Estimates (BE) are prepared by the fi nance ministry on the basis of numbers sent in by each department under each ministry, which does its own assessment of the requirements for the ensuing year basing it on the actual numbers of the previous years, the trend of budget estimates and utilisation, and the revised numbers for the immediate past year. Th e fi nance ministry usually has the last word on the fi nal budget estimates following its discussions with all departments and ministries, upon taking into account the revenues expected in a year. Th e Budget Estimates defi ne the money the govern-ment is able or willing to commit in a particular year under various heads of expenditure. For the purpose of our study, we look at the budget estimates in relation to the various ministries and departments that implement programmes for chil-dren.
Th e Revised Estimates (RE) take into account any change in budget estimates for the year, such as additional or lowered allocations following any new or change in policy or programme. It is the most up-to-date version of the budget estimate of a fi scal year (April-March) at the time of preparing the next year’s budget, the process of which starts in the last six months of the year. Th us, it is on the basis of both the Budget and the Revised Estimates for a fi scal year that the next fi s-cal’s budget estimates are prepared. However, in the case of many programmes, the BE and RE may remain the same.
Th e Actual Expenditure (AE) fi gures are the fi nal version of the budget estimates for any particular fi scal year. In other words, the actual on-the-ground spending for any programme (or all programmes) for that fi scal year which may be more or less than the initial budget estimate. However, these are available to the general public with a time lag of two years. Th is is why our budget analysis has actual estimates for only the fi rst three years from 2004-05 to 2006-07.
Th e diff erence between Budget Estimates and the Actual Expenditure shows how much of the budget, more or less, has been spent in a given fi nancial year. Overspending is rare in government-implemented schemes. On the contrary, under-utilisation or underspending of the budget allocation is rampant among child-related programmes. Although the scope of the study does not cover reasons for such underspending, we discuss them whenever the reasons are easily known to us.
We have taken into account both Plan and Non-Plan Expenditures. Plan expenditure is the expenditure already planned out in the on-going fi ve-year plan/s, which are subsequently divided into annual plans. Our study period covers a bit of both the Tenth and the Eleventh fi ve-year plans. Plan expenditure is to be utilised within the time period set by the plan. If the schemes or programmes extend beyond that time period, then the future expenditure to be incurred on the project is called non-plan expenditure. Th is includes, for example, the maintenance expenditure needed to maintain an asset created by plan expenditure. Oft en, during austerity drives or due to inadequate allocation by either the Centre or state govern-ments in relation to a scheme, the non-plan expenditure portion is axed or curtailed as these are typically considered to be inessential. Th is is one of the commonest reasons for waste of assets created by plan investments. For instance, hand pumps for water lying defunct all over the countryside could very well be the result of maintenance funds not being sanctioned anymore.
Research Design and Analysis
We began by identifying departments that run programmes that are directly concerned with children, such as the Ministry of Women and Child Development, as well as departments that run programmes having child-related components such as Department of Health and Family Welfare. Th e identifi cation was done by studying the expense heads in the Detailed Demands for Grants (DDG).
All the expenditure data have been taken from the DDG, which are available at both the State as well as the Centre. Generally, each ministry or department presents one list of Demands for Grants, and large ministries or departments may present more than one list. Each such list includes the total provisions required for a service, followed by the estimates for
8
expenditure under diff erent major heads of account. Th ese demands are submitted along with the Annual Financial State-ment8 . DDG are released aft er the presentation of the Budget but before the discussion on the Demands begins. Th ese have further details of the provisions/schemes and the heads under which a demand (an allocation) will be spent as well as the actual expenditure in the past.9 For example, the DDG for 2008-09 have AE for 2006-07. Th is is why our budget analysis has actual estimates for only the fi rst three years from 2004-05 to 2006-07.
Aft er selecting the child-related expense heads from among the demands submitted by all departments concerned, we segregate all the data (Budget Estimate, Revised Estimate and Actual Expenditure) under the selected heads to enter them and tabulate in various forms for comparison and analysis. Th e state departments selected were:
� Department of Health
� Department of Planning
� Department of Technical education
� Department of Minority Welfare and Waqf
� Department of Women and Child development
� Department of Education
� Department of Labour
� Department of Social Welfare
� Department of Agriculture
Th e next step involved identifying schemes concerning children. We divided the provisions made for children under diff erent schemes and programmes into four sectors keeping in mind the CRC child rights framework which describes the four basic Rights as the Rights to survival, development, protection and participation. However, because of the way the programmes and schemes are distributed in diff erent ministries (at the Centre) and departments in the states, it was important to follow the same distribution, though the analysis has been done from the perspective of these rights. All the child-focused schemes that we include in the analysis address all the four rights except for the Right to Participation. For instance, under
Education, we include elementary (6 to 14) and secondary (15 to 18 years) education programmes. In India, the school-leaving age is 18 years.
Development consists of programmes on early childhood care and education-- for instance, the Integrated Child Develop-ment Scheme (ICDS) – and some other general programmes aimed at the overall development of children.
Health includes programmes aimed at meeting the health care needs of children.
Protection covers interventions aimed at the following groups of children: child labour, physically or mentally challenged children, children in need of care and protection such as children in need of adoption, homeless or street children, and neglected children among others, and those in confl ict with law.
8 The estimates of expenditure from the Consolidated Fund included in the Annual Financial Statement and required to be voted by the Lok Sabha are submitted in the form of Demands for Grants in pursuance of Article 113 of the Constitution.
9 Each Demand normally includes the total provisions required for a service, that is, provisions on account of revenue expenditure, capital expenditure, grants to State and Union Territory Governments and also loans and advances relating to the service. With regard to Union Territories without Legislature, a separate Demand is presented for each Union Territory. Where the provision for a service is entirely for expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund, for example, interest payments, a separate Appropriation, as distinct from a Demand, is presented for that expenditure and it is not required to be voted by Parliament. Where, however, expenditure on a service includes both ‘voted’ and ‘charged’ items of expenditure, the latter are also included in the Demand presented for that service but the ‘voted’ and ‘charged’ provisions are shown separately in that Demand.)
9
Analysis Structure
For preparing the fi nal report, we began by calculating the total allocation and expenditure for a particular scheme/pro-gramme. In the second stage, the total of all programmes in a sector was made for each of the four sectors and thus the total Budget for Children (BFC) was calculated. Th en the BfC along with the sector totals, their growth and composition were compared with the total state budget.
In the third stage, the Need vs Allocation analysis was done by comparing the quantum and growth of allocations against the quantitative and qualitative status of the children in the state. At this stage, secondary data and analysis from diff erent government and non-government reports and publications were used.
In the fourth stage, the analysis of Allocation vs Spending was made on the basis of the data on actual expenditure (AE) available from the DDG for the fi rst three years and comparing them with the budget and revised expenditure fi gures to assess how well government money was being utilised for the children.
Th us, the focus of analysis was identifi cation of gaps at multiple levels:
� Between needs of the children to fulfi l their rights and the commitments made by the state, both national and international;
� Between the commitments made by the state and the actual programmes/schemes under the various ministries and departments;
� Between the objectives of the programmes/schemes and the fi nancial allocations towards them;
� Between the allocations and actual expenditures; and
� Between the outlays and the outcomes.10
Constraints and Limita� ons
Th e study posed various challenges listed below, limiting our eff orts to gain a better and more complete understanding of how allocations for children are being made and spent.
� Th e fi rst challenge was the reluctance of the government departments in general to share information with non- government people. Getting information from them was not only time-consuming but sometimes, the answers too were not satisfactory. Oft en we had to seek recourse to the Right to Information Act to get the information.
� Sometimes, the fi gures in the documents accompanying the DDGs did not tally. For example, some fi gures under same heads in the ‘Summary of Financial Position’ and ‘Annual Statement of Accounts’ for 2006-07 diff er.
� We did not get complete accounts of certain schemes. Lack of proper document-keeping and lack of transparency were also observed. As a result, we had to depend on personal meetings with the offi cials. Th is led to further delay since the offi cials concerned were not always available, while some of those available were unwilling to part with the information.
� Not all allocations are refl ected in the budget documents. A lot of the health and protection-related allocation/ex-penditure is made through autonomous societies set up by the state. Th is applies to all centrally sponsored schemes which have a higher share in development expenditure in UP than in other states. To the extent it is diffi cult to include such allocations the study is unable to capture the full extent of spending on children.
10 The Government of India has begun the practice of presenting the outcome budget in addition to outlays since 2005-06.
10
Sector-based Analysis
In keeping with the methodology adopted by HAQ in its BfC analysis, the allocations for diff erent schemes have been categorised under four sectors viz. Education, Health, Protection and Development.
1. Education comprises various schemes introduced by the Union and the State Governments either for giving educa-tion to children of 4-18 years or benefi ting school-going children or any other educational institution coming under this sector. It is divided into Elementary and Secondary depending on the age of the children. Allocations for schemes such as technical, non-formal and special education for handicapped children are also included in these categories.
2. Development consists of all schemes introduced by the government for the development of children in the 0-6 years age group. Any scheme that cannot be easily included under the other three categories has also been included in this sector.
3. Health comprises allocations for schemes targeted at meeting the health needs of children and expectant and new mothers, such as Reproductive child health (RCH), pre-and post-natal care, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) etc.
4. Protection consists of allocations made for certain schemes provided for protecting the children from abuse and exploitation.
Budget for Children in U� ar Pradesh
Th e children of Uttar Pradesh have received on an average 13.63 per cent of the total budget of the state. Among the six states whose budgets were analysed, UP has the third highest share of the budget for children (see table 2.2).
While the budget for UP increased by 75.78 per cent between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the social sector budget increased by 153.15 per cent. Matching this, the BfC in UP Budget showed an increase of 67.7 per cent in this period and an aver-age annual rate of increase of 15.28 per cent.
Table 2.1 gives the State budget as well as the BfC fi gures in detail. We can see that the share of BfC went up from almost 13 per cent in 2004-05 to 15.58 per cent in 2006-07, but dropped aft er that year. Th e increase in BfC in 2005-06 and 2006-07 was mainly due to increased allocations to a few schemes, such as the Kanya Vidya Dhan Scheme11 , Provision
for the Construction of New Schools Building (elementary education) in the education sector, ICDS III, and Supply of Nutrition Supplements among 0-6 years. It is a matter of seri-ous concern that the share of the BfC in the state budget has declined sharply between 2006-07 and 2008-09 from 15.58 per cent to 11.42 per cent.
11 To encourage girls’ education in UP, the State government started a new scheme, “Kanya Vidya Dhan Yojna”, in 2004-05 in state sector. Under this scheme, a sum of Rs 20,000 was to be given to every girl from a BPL family in rural or urban area who had passed intermediate examination under the State Board of Education. (planning.up.nic.in/annualplan0506).
U� ar Pradesh allocates 13.63 per cent of its own Budget to its children. The maximum alloca� on goes to educa� on and development, while children’s protec� on and health needs have been largely neglected.
13.63
BfC in State Budget
86.37
State Budget Other than BfC
Figure 2.1: Share of BfC in UP State Budget (2004-05 to 2008-09)
11
Children’s Share in Social Sector
Since most schemes for children come out of the social sectors, it is a good idea to look at how much of the social sector budget is going to children. On an average, we found that 54.66 per cent of the social sector budget in UP went to children between 2004-05 and 2008-09. Within the time period of the study, however, the share of the BfC in the social sector was the largest in 2005-06 (64.27 per cent), aft er which it started declining. Matching the fall-ing BfC, this share also fell to 61.05 per cent in 2006-07, 54.03 per cent in 2007-08 and 42.17 per cent in 2008-09.
Alloca� on and Expenditure: BE, RE and AE
It is not enough to just isolate the allocation for children. Th e government also needs to spend it fully for the allocation to impact the situation of the children on the ground and make a diff erence to their lives. When we look at the spending fi gures, as outlined in table 2.3, we fi nd a major underspending in BfC only in 2006-07. Th is underspending to the extent of 21.36 per cent is owing to underspending in two sectors–education, where there is underspending of 19.8 per cent and de-velopment, with underspending of 55.2 per cent. While the Revised Estimates (RE), which occur when the original budget estimate is changed any time during the fi scal year, have been higher than the Budget Estimates (BE) in two of the four years, actual estimate has been less than BE only in one year–2006-07. In that year, even the RE was lower than the BE.
On an average, out of every hundred rupees allocated in the UP social sector budget during 2004-05 to 2008-09, Rs 54.66 has gone to the children.
Table 2.2: How the six states fared: A comparison of BfC and Sector Alloca� on Shares, 2004-05 to 2008-09
State BfC as percentage Sector Alloca� ons as percentage of the State Budget of State budget Educa� on Health Development Protec� on
Assam 7.7 6.8 0.08 0.81 0.01
Andhra Pradesh 14.07 11.80 0.17 2.15 0.13
Himachal Pradesh 14.14 13.5 0.003 0.58 0.06
Odisha 13.51 11.54 0.54 1.38 0.05
U� ar Pradesh 13.63 11.64 0.19 1.29 0.03
West Bengal 13.48 12.04 0.34 1.07 0.03Source: Detailed Demands for Grants, various departments, State budgets of HP, AP, UP, Odisha, Assam and West Bengal, 2004-05 to 2008-09
Table 2.1: Budget Es� mates for Social Sector and Children in UP
Year Total State Alloca� on to Alloca� ons Share of BfC Share of BfC Annual Rate Annual Rate Budget Social Sector to BfC in total State in Social of Change in of Change Budget Sector State Budget in BfC (per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent
2004-05 63,983.63 12,028.75 7,656.13 11.97 63.65 - -
2005-06 69,295.19 16,043.87 10,311.38 14.88 64.27 8.30 34.68
2006-07 82,849.96 21,151.31 12,911.97 15.58 61.05 19.56 25.22
2007-08 100,911.41 27,426.67 14,819.26 14.68 54.03 21.80 14.77
2008-09 112,472.72 30,450.45 12,839.65 11.42 42.17 11.46 -13.36
Average 85,902.58 21,420.21 11,707.68 13.63 54.66 15.28 15.33
12
Although perplexing, most governments are seen to be revising budgets in the middle of the year, even if they are not sure that the full funds would be spent. What else explains the underspending in all the three years (AE-RE)? Th e average underspending (AE-RE) in these years was 13.13 per cent, the highest being in 2006-07 when it was 21.36 per cent.
Th e share of the BfC shows a 15.33 per cent average rate of increase over the fi ve year period (see table 2.1). While the rate of increase in 2005-06 over the previous year was 34.68 per cent, this was 25.22 per cent in 2006-07 and 14.77 per cent in 2007-08. In 2008-09, we see a decline in the allocation by 13.36 per cent. Th e rise and fall in the rate of change of the BfC can be traced to the changes in the sectoral share within the budget for children.
Alloca� on and Expenditure Across Sectors
Across the four sectors within BfC, education gets the highest allocation with an average of 85.44 per cent and protection the least share with 0.19 per cent. While devel-opment receives 9.43 per cent, the health sector remains neglected with 4.9 per cent.
Table 2.3: Diff erence in UP BfC at BE, RE and AE Level
(per cent)
Year AE–BE RE–BE AE–RE
2004-05 8.65 17.15 -7.25
2005-06 0.92 10.49 -8.66
2006-07 -21.36 -0.25 -21.16
Average for -6.48 7.65 -13.132004-05 to 2006-07
2007-08 NA -18.51 NASource: Detailed Demands for Grants, 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP Government
45.34
Social Sector
54.66
BfC
Figure 2.3: Share of BfC in Social Sector Budget over 2004-05 to 2008-09
24.94
Share of social sec-tor in state Budget
75.06
State Budget
Figure 2.2: Share of Social Sector in State Budget over 2004-05 to 2008-09
Figure 2.4: BE, RE and AE of BfC (2004-05 to 2008-09) (Rs crore)
0
2000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
BE RE AE
6000
4000
13
Th e share of BfC in the state budget showed an increasing trend, with the share rising from 11.97 per cent in 2004-05 to 15.58 per cent in 2006-07. Th e share then fell to 14.69 per cent in 2007-08 and further to 11.42 per cent in 2008-09, which is the lowest in the fi ve years of study. However, a sector-wise analysis of the share of the state budget does not show a consistent increase. Th e share of the education sector in the state budget is the highest always, recording an average of 11.64 per cent for the fi ve years, though it fl uctuates from
year to year. Th ere was a rise in the share of education between 2005-06 and 2006-07, but it fell in 2007-08 to 12.30 per cent and to an even lower 9.22 per cent in 2008-09.
As for the other sectors, the average share for the development sector in the state budget is 1.29 per cent, the second high-est. Th is is followed by health with 0.19 per cent and protection with only 0.03 per cent. Among the six states studied, UP makes the second highest allocation to education and the third highest to health. Th is is obviously related to the number of children in the state. Yet, by the same count, the state should have allocated more money to development and protection schemes. Sadly, it does not, leaving most of them unprotected and malnourished.
Despite the priority given to education in the state, the improvement in the necessary infrastructure such as primary schools in all villages and teachers for all classes is not commensurate with the allocation. Even though the allocation for SSA in the state is the largest among all states, large numbers of children are switching from government schools to private education or getting enrolled in private schools. Taking advantage of this situation, private schools of indiff erent quality are mushrooming in urban as well as rural areas.
Th e highest average rate of increase in allocation, as seen from table 2.6, has happened in the development sector–23.99
Table 2.4: Sector-wise Alloca� on within BfC (BE) (per cent)
Year Educa� on Health Development Protec� on
2004-05 90.06 5.26 4.47 0.21
2005-06 87.90 4.42 7.53 0.15
2006-07 87.33 3.90 8.64 0.12
2007-08 83.77 4.63 11.41 0.19
2008-09 80.74 6.52 12.43 0.31
Average 85.44 4.93 9.43 0.19
Table 2.5: Sector-wise Share of BfC in the UP State Budget and within Social Sector, BE per cent
Sector-wise Alloca� on in State budget Sector-wise Alloca� on in Social Sector* budgetYear Educa� on Health Development Protec� on Educa� on Health Development Protec� on
2004-05 10.78 0.63 0.53 0.03 57.32 3.35 2.84 0.13
2005-06 13.08 0.66 1.12 0.02 56.49 2.84 4.84 0.09
2006-07 13.61 0.61 1.35 0.02 53.31 2.38 5.28 0.08
2007-08 12.30 1.35 1.68 0.03 45.26 2.50 6.16 0.10
2008-09 9.22 0.61 1.42 0.03 34.04 2.75 5.24 0.13
Average 11.64 0.19 1.29 0.03 46.70 2.69 5.15 0.11*Budget for Social Sector includes the budget for educa� on, games, arts and culture, health and family welfare, social welfare and nutri� on
4.90
Health
9.43
Development
0.19
Protec� on
85.44
Educa� on
Figure 2.5: Sectoral share in Budget for Children (2004-05 to 2008-09)
14
per cent. However, between 2007-08 and 2008-09, growth in alloca-tion has declined from 34.12 per cent to 19.68 per cent. Allocation in the health and protection sec-tors, on the other hand, increased very slowly in the fi rst two years and then picked up sharply be-tween 2006-07 and 2007-08. Th is is followed by a slower growth rate in both health and development sectors in 2008-09. However, in health and protection, it doesn’t matter how sharply the allocations have risen in the later years, as they constitute a fraction of the state budget as well as BfC.
Average underutilisation in BfC was 6.48 per cent during the period of study. Education, which has the lion’s share in the state budget as well as within BfC, has an average underspending of 6.25 per cent. Protection, which in any case had the least share in the state budget, shows up an underutilisation of 3.11 per cent (table 2.7 and fi gure 2.6). Th is sector showed an underspending of 5.15 per cent in 2006-07 due to unspent balances against three schemes--Organising Homes under Kishore Nyay Adhiniyam, Implementation of JJ Act Monitoring Cell, and Establishment of Juvenile Justice Board ( JJB).
In 2006-07, the education sector showed the highest underspending of 19.75 per cent. Th is is because allocations for schemes such as Hostels for boys and girls from SC/ST and minority community (both in elementary and secondary), Ashram Schools, Welfare of Handicapped, Book Bank, and Providing uniform and bicycle were not spent at all. Th e de-velopment sector shows an average underspending of 12.83 per cent in the three years.
Table 2.6: Annual rate of change in Sectors within Budget for ChildrenIn per cent
Year Educa� on Health Development Protec� on Budget for Children
2005-06 31.45 13.21 32.48 -6.02 34.68
2006-07 24.41 10.39 9.71 6.67 25.22
2007-08 10.09 36.37 34.12 73.73 14.77
2008-09 -16.49 21.94 19.68 42.01 -13.36
Average 12.36 20.48 23.99 29.1 15.33
Table 2.7: Average Sectoral Spending in BfC in per cent(2004-05 to 2006-07)
Sector AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
Development -12.83 24.85 -30.18
Health -0.73 1.38 -2.08
Educa� on -6.25 6.56 -12.02
Protec� on -3.11 -0.63 -2.5
BfC 6.48 7.65 -13.12
Expansion of ICDS in UP• 2004-05: Honararia of the Anganwadi workers (AWWs) and
Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) increased by Rs 200 and Rs 100 respec� vely.
• 2005-06: 32,188 new Anganwadi centres (AWCs) sanc� oned, pushing up the total number of AWCs in the state to 138,299.
• 2006-07: 13,170 AWCs sanc� oned in the state, taking the total to 151,469.
• 2008-09: In addi� on to the 151,469 AWCs, 14604 new addi� onal AWCs and 22,186 addi� onal mini AWCs were sanc� oned by the Centre in December, 2008. As per latest informa� on available in the website of the Union MWCD, up to 31 March 2009, 187,517 AWCs and mini AWCs were sanc� oned in U� ar Pradesh and 150,936 are opera� onal*.
Source: Chronology of Programme Evolu� on, h� p://www.icdsupweb.org/english/chronology.htm*This informa� on is taken from the table Sanc� oned/Opera� onal AWCs as on 30.09.09 (updated as on 10.11.09) on www.wcd.nic.in
Figure 2.6. Sectoral Average Diff erence at BE to AE and RE to AE stage (2004-05 to 2005-06) (per cent)
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
AE-BE AE-RE
Educa� on Health Development Protec� on
15
India’s Constitution reposes in the state the responsibility to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of 6-14 years. Th e recent 93rd Constitu-tion amendment making education a fundamental right has increased the scope for working towards the goal of uni-versalising primary education, especially with civil society actors as watchdogs.
With an 11.64 per cent share of the UP budget, educa-tion (elementary and secondary) receives the largest share among all child-related sectors in the state. Even within the budget for children (BfC), education receives 85.44 per cent, while its share in the total state social sector budget it is 46.70 per cent. Clearly, the primacy of education in the UP budget is not in doubt.
As against an increase of 67.7 per cent in BfC, the budget for education went up by 50.34 per cent over the fi ve years of
Despite Rising Enrolment, Education Remains ‘Unaff ordable’
“The empowerment value of basic educa� on is so obvious that there is something puzzling in the fact that the promo� on of educa� on has received so li� le a� en� on from social and poli� cal leaders in the post independence period.”“India: Development and Par� cipa� on” by Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen
16
study (2004-05 to 2008-09). Th e revised allocation (RE) was higher in the fi rst two of the four years for which data was available (2004-05 and 2005-06), but lower in the other years 2006-07 and 2007-08. In 2006-07, the actual expenditure (AE) too was lower than the BE, while in a pleasant departure from trend, it was more than the allocated (BE) in the remaining two years for which estimates were available. However, even in this sector, actual expenditure lagged behind the revised estimates in all the three years.
As table 3.2 shows, average underspending in education sector was 6.25 per cent. However, this is only because of one single year, 2006-07, when there was 19.76 per cent
underspending. A programme head-wise analysis shows that in 2006-07, there were quite a few programmes in which the
14.56
Share of Educa� on in BfC
85.44
BfC
Figure 3.2: Share of Educa� on witnin Budget for Children Average Alloca� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
11.64
Share of Educa� on in State Budget
88.36
State Budget
Figure 3.1: Share of Educa� on in UP State Budget--Average Alloca� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
Table 3.1: Budget Alloca� on for Educa� on Sector
Rs crore
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 6,895.21 7,784.7 7,312.19
2005-06 9,063.76 10,138.02 9,172.43
2006-07 11,276.19 11,099.72 9,048.33
2007-08 12,413.88 10,489.64 NA
2008-09 10,366.30 NA NASource: Detailed Demand for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP State GovernmentBenefi ciary Survey Report on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
With regard to coverage of schools in U� ar Pradesh, 5.5 per cent of the villages and 7.7 per cent of the urban blocks are s� ll not covered under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Among the children in the age group of 6-14 years, about 83 out of every 1,000 children are s� ll out of school in the state. The average number is 90 for girls and 78 for boys.
In UP, the main reason for parents not enrolling their children in schools as well for not sending them to school ever a� er enrolment, was reported as “aff ordability”. Overall, about 4.8 per cent of the parents opined that they were not sa� sfi ed with the quality of the educa� on in the schools.
Table 3.2 : Diff erence between BE, RE and AE in Educa� on Sector, BfC
Rs crore
Year AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
2004-05 6.05 12.90 -6.07
2005-06 1.208 11.85 -9.52
2006-07 -19.76 -1.56 -18.48
Average -6.25 6.56 -12.02Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP Government
17
allocations were left untouched. Th ese were: Scholarships and Stipends, Hostels, Ashram Schools, Welfare of Handicapped, Education of Orphans and Children of Widow in elementary education, Schemes of distribution of Uniform and Bicycle, Hostels and Book Bank. Th ere was more than 90 per cent underspending in Direction and Administration in elementary education, and 99 per cent underspending in scholarships and stipends for secondary education.
However, it is not enough to simply undertake an analysis of the allocations and expenditure but also measure these against the outcomes. To encourage girls’ education, the UP Government started a new scheme called Kanya Vidya Dhan Yojna in 2004-05 in the state sector. Under the scheme, a sum of Rs 20,000 was to be provided to each girl who passed intermediate examination under the state board of education, provided she was also from a family living below the poverty line (BPL). In the annual plan 2005-06, a sum of Rs 200 crore had been proposed to benefi t one lakh girls belonging to the family living below the poverty line in rural and urban areas12. As per the budget document, a sum of Rs 63 crore was allocated in 2005-06 of which Rs 45.34 crore was utilised, resulting in an underspending of 28 per cent. Th ere has been no allocation under the scheme aft er 2005-06.
Th e report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) observed that under Kanya Vidya Dhan Yojna, Rs 12.61 crore remained unutilised in 22 districts due to delay in the fi nalisation of the list of benefi ciaries, “which further led
12 http://planning.up.nic.in/annualplan0506/part2/chapter-09.htm
Table 3.3: A Compara� ve Picture of U� lisa� on of SSA alloca� ons among States (Rs lakh)
Audited Shor� all in U� lisa� on Year States AWPB Expenditure Shor� all in per cent per cent
Bihar 90,002.02 21,817.78 68,184.24 76 24
Chha� sgarh 55,068.11 42,442.29 12,625.82 23 77
Jharkhand 59,519.33 20,359.59 39,159.74 66 34
MP 142,279.62 85,452.05 56,827.57 40 60
Rajasthan 854,22.30 75,529.10 9,893.20 12 88
UP 264,189.00 223,818.21 40,370.79 15 85
2005-06 U� arakhand 16,850.70 14,644.61 2,206.09 13 87
Bihar 241,407.75 80,221.60 161,186.15 67 33
Chha� sgarh 82,131.67 65,392.34 16,739.332 20 80
Jharkhand 104,284.99 50,404.36 53,880.63 52 48
MP 186,987.60 134,576.10 52,411.50 28 72
Rajasthan 125,337.14 105,729.31 19,607.83 16 84
UP 367,851.44 282,912.57 84,938.87 23 77
2006-07 U� arakhand 24,820.50 18,893.81 5,926.69 24 76
Bihar 333,929.74 195,292.51 138,637.23 42 58
Chha� sgarh 78,478.32 68,720.81 9,757.51 12 88
Jharkhand 132,191.92 85,627.91 46,564.01 35 65
MP 179,824.44 123,037.26 56,787.18 32 68
Rajasthan 159,999.36 136,945.00 23,054.36 14 86
UP 344,1452.52 297,777.48 46,375.04 13 87
2007-08 U� arakhand 25,283.56 18,761.37 6,522.19 26 74
Source: Annual Audited Reports of Respec� ve States
18
to non-distribution of incentives to 6,305 benefi ciaries, and no provision was made to monitor the scheme at any level or to assess its impact.”13 Th e CAG expressed displeasure over “expenditure incurred on organising functions to distribute incentives”.
Despite what seems like a very large portion of the budget going towards education, the outcomes remain dismal. Accord-ing to the Elementary Education Report of the National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUE-PA), enrolment of children in primary class was 25.6 million in 2006-07 and 25.1 million and 24.9 million in 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively14 . In upper primary, the enrolment increased from 6.51 million in 2006-07 to 7.41 million in 2008-09. Th e sharp fall in enrolment is clearly because of several students dropping out aft er completion of primary level due to several factors: aff ordability (lack of mid-day meal in some cases), distance from school, poor results and teaching, and economic conditions.
According to the NUEPA report, average dropout rate15 at the primary level in 2007-08 was 12.65. More than 52 per cent of these children are involved in domestic work, 12 per cent involved in sibling care, 3.75 per cent children do not have access to schools and 20 per cent are out due to other reasons. Th e children who were never enrolled include 44 per cent from OBCs, 24.3 per cent from SCs, 23 per cent from minorities and 6.55 per cent from general class.16
Following the auditing of the programmes for the education sector, particularly SSA, the CAG report observes:
� Based on the implementation of the programmes in the education sector, particularly the Benefi ts of Book Banks scheme could not reach the benefi ciaries as neither was the need of books assessed nor were these distributed prop-erly. (Paragraphs 3.1.10.1 and 3.1.10.2)
� 69 hostels were not functional as staff was not sanctioned, 6 girls’ hostels were under unauthorised occupation and boys’ hostels constructed in 1993-94 remained non-functional due to non-availability of students and were in dilapidated condition. (Paragraphs 3.1.12.1 and 3.1.12.2)
� Th ere were gaps in delivery of services at the grassroots level as child growth monitoring was virtually absent and supply of supplementary nutrition was very erratic despite provision of suffi cient funds for the purpose. (Paragraphs 3.5.15 to 3.5.18)
� Pre-examination coaching to SC/ST students was not run to its full capacity and was not eff ective in view of poor success rate of students who participated in coaching courses. Residential coaching centres constructed at a cost of Rs. 7.48 crore were non-functional for want of staff . (Paragraphs 3.1.12.1 and 3.1.12.2)
13 The Economic Times, 3 March 2008
14 Elementary Education in India, Progress towards UEE, Flash Statistics 2008-09. National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA).
15 In the NUEPA report, average repetition and drop-out rates have been computed based on data of common schools and states showing negative dropout rates have not been reported.
16 Ibid
Some facts about educa� on in UP
� Only 48.04 per cent of schools had boundary walls in 2008-09, slightly up from 46.62 per cent in 2007-08.
� Percentage of teachers in government schools was 67.47 in 2008-09, declining from 71.72 in 2006-07. Average number of teachers per school is 3.5 in all types of school.
� Pupil-teacher ra� o is 52 in primary level and 45 in upper primary level.
� Percentage of para teachers to total teachers has risen from 25.9 per cent in 2007-08 to 26.26 per cent in 2008-09.
Source: Elementary Educa� on in India, Progress towards UEE, Flash Sta� s� cs 2008-09.
19
To be a teacher in UP, barely make pass grade
Subodh Varma, TNN, May 2, 2010, 03.25 am IST
NEW DELHI: The chaos prevailing in the teachers’ educa� on system of the country just got worse with the country’s largest state U� ar Pradesh openly viola� ng eligibility norms for teachers’ educa� on set by the na� onal regulatory body.
On May 5, over 6.92 lakh students will appear for a joint entrance examina� on (JEE) for admission to about 1 lakh seats of the Bachelor of Educa� on (B.Ed) programme available in the state’s 730 teacher training colleges. The eligi-bility condi� on for this hugely popular course has been fi xed by the Na� onal Council for Teachers Educa� on (NCTE) as a graduate degree with at least 50% marks. But ac� ng under orders from the state government, the eligibility has been reduced to 45% in UP.
Educa� onists are describing this move as a blow to teachers’ quality standards while the applicants are worried that the examina� on or their degree may be derecognized later by judicial interven� on, as happened in Bengal.
Professor Akhilesh Choubey of Lucknow University, who is in charge of conduc� ng the exam, told TOI, “We are ac� ng as per a direc� ve received from the state government to fi x the minimum eligibility at 45%.”
h� p://� mesofi ndia.india� mes.com/India/To-be-a-teacher-in-UP-barely-make-pass-grade/ar� cleshow/5881883.cms
20
Early childhood care and development is another important area for which the state has to provide adequate resources. At the initial stages of his or her life, the child needs more care and protection, necessitating the need for state aid and inter-vention for disadvantaged families. Early childhood is a time of remarkable brain development that lays the foundation for later learning because 80 per cent of brain development happens before the age of three.
So children need to be provided with opportunities that help them explore and learn at their own pace. A lack of proper link between early child care and the formal school system may lead to slow learning, poor performance in tests, lack of self confi dence and eventually high dropouts.
Th e National Policy for Children announced in 1974 reaffi rmed the constitutional obligations to the children and declared that it shall be the policy of the State to provide adequate services to the children both before and aft er birth and through the period of growth to ensure their full physical, mental and social develop-ment and that the State shall progressively increase the scope of such services so that within a reasonable time, all children in the country can enjoy optimum conditions for their balanced growth.
“It is now a clearly established reality that even a� er gaining high growth rate and increasing per capita income, we have failed to protect our children from hunger and diseases. I feel the ques� on of resources is not the biggest one, a lot of money is being spent but the situa� on is not improving in accordance with the expenditure because our delivery systems are worst, un-accountable and non-responsive towards the most marginalized, like children,”
Nobel laureate Prof Amartya Sen, at the Bal Adhikar Sambad Conven� on, 19 December 2006, New Delhi
Funds Lie Idle even as Development Needs Remain Unmet
21
In this sector, we have included the programmes and schemes for children in the age group of 0-6 years, mainly the fl agship Inte-grated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) as well as some other general schemes and programmes aimed at the overall development of children.
Alloca� ons and Spending for Development
Within the larger state budget, the share of the development sector was an average of 1.29 per cent in our period of study, while it constituted 5.15 per cent of social sector allocations and 9.43 per cent of the budget for children (BfC). As table 4.1 shows, there has been a steady increase in allocation for the development needs of children in UP, especially aft er the fi rst year of study, 2004-05.
Table 4.1: Alloca� on for Development Sector in State Budget, Social Sector Budget and Budget for Children (BE)
Year Percentage in Percentage in Budget Percentage in Budget for State Budget for Social Sector Children
2004-05 0.53 2.84 4.47
2005-06 1.12 4.84 7.53
2006-07 1.35 5.28 8.64
2007-08 1.68 6.16 11.41
2008-09 1.42 5.24 12.43
Average 1.29 5.15 9.43Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP Government
Out of every 100 rupees spent in the total state budget during the years 2004-05 to 2008-09, the government of UP has allocated one rupee and twenty nine paisa for the development needs of children.
1.28
Share of De-velopment in State Budget
85.44
BfC
Figure 4.1: Share of Development in UP State Budget. Average Alloca� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
9.43
Share of Develop-ment within BfC
90.57
BfC
Figure 4.2: Share of Development within Budget for Children. Average Alloca� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
22
As the table shows, the share of the development sector in the Budget for Children in UP has jumped almost three times from only 4.47 per cent in that year, to 12.43 per cent in 2008-09. However, the increase has not been as much in the case of the share of development schemes in the total state budget or in the total social sector budget. Th e share has just about doubled in these areas. Th is implies that the rise in share for development in the BfC has been achieved at the expense of some other sector, in this case, education and to some extent, protection.
Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show there has been 12.83 per cent underspending of budget funds in the development sector on an average over the fi rst three years of the study period for which actual estimates are available. And this has happened despite mid-year upward revisions of the budget estimates. In fact, compared with the RE, the underspending is even more—30.18 per cent on average. Interestingly, funds could not be utilised even aft er the need was felt to raise the budget estimate by 24.85 per cent on average over the three-year period.
Even the various allocations show major fl uctuations, refl ecting either poor planning of funds allocation or lack of funds at the state level or change of policy or mind. For instance, the budget allocation of Rs 351.95 crore was doubled in the revised budget in 2004-05, while in 2007-08, this was cut to a little less than half—over 43 per cent.
Th e drama of the absurd reaches its highest level in 2006-07, when the allocation is raised by 42 per cent over the previous year’s (2005-06) level, raised again marginally later in the year to Rs 1,254.17 crore, and then more than half of it is not spent. Th is huge unspent balance of about 55 per cent is simply because of non-utilisation of allocations in the Nutrition Programme of ICDS in that year by up to 92.6 per cent. Going into the details of the programme, we fi nd that the allocation of Rs 603.81 crore for a component of the Nutrition programme, related to supply of materials, was fully unutilised. Th is was accompanied by a 93.23 per cent underspending in a World Food Programme Project as well as a small underspending of 2.71 per cent in the ICDS in 2006-07.
Th e allocations and expenditure for development must be analysed against the requirements of children as well as the defi cit in the existing services. According to NFHS-III data, infant mortality is the highest in Uttar Pradesh (73 per thousand live births) and 47 per cent children are underweight. Less than one-third of children are fully vaccinated.17 To address this situation, the Supreme Court
17 NFHS III. Volume 1 2005–06. Summary of Findings. Xxxv, xxxix September 2007
Table 4.2: Budget Alloca� on for Development Sector at BE, RE and AE level
Rs crore Year BE AE RE
2004-05 351.95 759.44 690.54
2005-06 786.41 776.33 757.36
2006-07 1,116.19 1,254.17 499.99
2007-08 1,690.79 959.53 NA
2008-09 1,596.30 NA NA
Table 4.3: Diff erence between BE, RE and AE in Development Sector of BfC
Per cent Year AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
2004-05 101.94 122.09 -9.07
2005-06 -2.454 -0.01 -2.44
2006-07 -55.21 12.36 -60.13
Average -12.83 24.85 -30.18
2007-08 NA -43.25 NA
Figure 4.3: BE, RE and AE in Development Sector of BfC (2004-05 to 2008-09) (Rs crore)
0
1000
1500
2000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
BE RE AE
500
Rs c
rore
23
had asked the central and state governments to open more anganwadi centres as well as to increase the budget provision per child.
As a compliance of the Supreme Court order in PUCL vs. Government of India case, Government of India via De-partment of WCD and the Union Government’s Letter to Commissioners (No NO19-5/2003CD-1 (Vol III) dated 28.08.06) accepted the following shortfalls:
Th e ICDS-3 programme, an externally aided project started in the state in 1999-2000, aimed at improve-ment of nutritional and health status of children under six years of age and their holistic development through pre-school education and anganwadi activi-ties in 14,698 new anganwadi centres in 110 blocks and 22,310 existing centres in 190 blocks. Following the Court’s direction, the State Government increased allocation for ICDS and supplementary nutrition and additional ICDS projects and anganwadi centres were sanctioned.
Th e relevance and effi cient use of the resources allocated are refl ected in the implementation of the scheme on the ground. Th e Audit Report18 of the Auditor General of Uttar Pradesh has made the following observations on the implementation of programmes for the development sector:
18 Audit Report Civil Year 31 March 2005
Table 4.4: Shor� all in UP ICDS
State Total Alloca� on Popula� on of 0-6 Necessary provision for Shor� all in (Union + State) years according popula� on of 0-6 years per cent (in Rs crore)# to Census (Union+ according to Census State) 2001 (lakh) 2001 (in Rs crore)#
U� ar Pradesh 67,569.73 304.7 182,832.252 63.04
There were gaps in delivery of services at the grassroots level as child growth monitoring was virtually absent and supply of supplementary nutri� on was very erra� c despite provision of suffi cient funds for the purpose.
(Paragraphs: 3.5.15 to 3.5.18)
Accountant General - Audit Report (civil) for the year ended 31 March
2005
Expansion of ICDS
� 2004: Honararium of the anganwadi workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) increased by Rs. 200and Rs 100 respec� vely.
� 2005: 32,188 new anganwadi centres (AWCs) sanc� oned in the state making the total number of AWCs to be138,299.
� 2006-07: 13,170 AWCs were sanc� oned in the state making the total AWCs to be 151,469.
� 2008-09: In addi� on to the 151,469 AWCs, 14,604 new addi� onal AWCs and 22,186 addi� onal MINI AWCsare sanc� oned by GOI in December, 2008. And as per latest informa� on available on the website of Ministryof Women and Child Development, � ll 31 March 2009, 187,517 anganwadi centres and mini anganwadicentres were sanc� oned in U� ar Pradesh and 150,936 are opera� onal*.
Source: Chronology of Programme Evolu� on, h� p://www.icdsupweb.org/english/chronology.htm*This informa� on is taken from the table Sanc� oned/Opera� onal AWCs as on 30.09.09 (Updated as on 10.11.09) on www.wcd.nic.in
24
� Only one per cent of the expenditure was incurred on medicines and medical supplies against its allocated share of 15 per cent of the total project cost.
� Audit scrutiny revealed that against the provision of Rs 9.11 crore, the State Project Management Unit (SPMU) procured Early Child Education (ECE) kit for Rs 1.69 crore only. ECE kit was not available at 56 out of 103 angan-wadi centres with the result that writing and play materials were out of reach of majority of the benefi ciaries.
� Against the allocation norm of 16 per cent towards establishment expenditure, the expenditure till March 2005 was much in excess--56 per cent. (Paragraph 3.5.7)
� Despite availability of funds, SPMU failed to educate the community properly about the benefi ts of the projects as it did not arrange information, education and communication materials in 92 per cent of the project area. (Para-graph 3.5.32)
� Some of the essential components of the project such as innovative activities for improvement in system of deliv-ery of services, formation of mahila mandals for promoting health awareness etc. were left uncovered. (Paragraph 3.5.28, 3.5.30)
25
Although health is wealth, most governments forget the maxim when it comes to framing policies for the disadvantaged and poorer section of citizens, accounting for the persistent demand in general to increase public expenditure in health and improve the quality and volume of services. Every citizen has a right to good health. Child health status is one of the most sensitive indicators of development and an important determinant of the quality of life as well because weak people cannot make a strong nation.
Investment in public health is a top priority in every big nation. One of the primary goals of the Eleventh Five year Plan is to achieve good health for the people, especially the poor and underprivileged. Most states in India spend around two per cent of their total budget money in this area . Th e health sector has several programmes, the most important of which is the fl agship centrally sponsored National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).
For analysis of allocation and expenditure on health sector for children, we have selected only those schemes and programmes specifi cally meant for children as also those that have child specifi c component. However, it is not possible to disaggregate the budget exclusively for children in the case of schemes such as Mother and Child Health Pro-gramme, Child Survival and Safe Motherhood Programme, and the Reproductive and Child Health Programme which cover both women and children health. In such cases, the entire allocation and expenditure has been included for the analysis on the rationale that mother’s health forms the foundation stone of the child’s health.
� Among all Indian states, UP has the second highest malnutri� on among children.
� Among illiterate mothers, 56 per cent children are born underweight. About 49 per cent women are of below 45 kg weight, while 57 per cent children born to malnourished mother are underweight.
� Less than three per cent of moth-ers receive less than 100 tablets of iron/folic acid.
Poor Allocation Dogs Health Sector
26
Despite a physical increase in the size of the budget alloca-tion in the health sector—it more than doubled from Rs 402.85 crore in 2004-05 to Rs 837.22 crore in 2008-09—we fi nd a decline in the actual allocation for health needs of children as a proportion of the state budget in all the years except 2008-09.
During 2004-05 to 2008-09, the BfC in health sector received an average of 0.19 per cent of the total state budget and 2.69 per cent of the social sector budget. Th e share of health in the overall state budget remained unchanged at 0.6 per cent during the fi ve-year study, except in 2007-08 when it went up signifi cantly to 1.35 per cent. Th is is inexplicable considering the health situation of the children in UP.
Th e share of allocations for the health of children was only 0.63 per cent of the state budget in 2004-05, with the singular exception of 1.35 per cent in 2008-09. Th is is despite the fact that the infant mortality rate in Uttar Pradesh is almost 73 per thousand live births and the under-fi ve child mor-tality rate is 96.4, as per NFHS-III data (2005-06).
Even as share of the budget for children, the aver-age share of the health sector is a mere 4.93 per cent. What is more, this share has been dropping.
Table 5.1: Alloca� on for Health Sector in State Budget, Social Sector Budget and BfC (BE)
per centYear Share in State Share in Social Share in BfC Budget Sector Budget
2004-05 0.63 3.35 5.26
2005-06 0.66 2.84 4.42
2006-07 0.61 2.38 3.90
2007-08 1.35 2.50 4.63
2008-09 0.61 2.75 6.52
Average 0.19 2.69 4.93
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP Government
Figure 5.1: BE, RE and AE in Health Sector of BfC (2004-05 to 2008-09) (Rs crore)
0
4000
6000
8000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
BE RE AE
2000
0.19
Share of Health in State Budget
99.81
State Budget
Figure 5.2: Share of Health in UP State budget. Average Alloca� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
4.93
Share of Healthwithin BfC
95.07
BfC
Figure 5.3: Share of Health within BfC. Average Alloca-� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
27
While this was 5.26 per cent in 2004-05, it fell in 2006-07 to as low as 3.9 per cent, rising to 6.52 per cent again in 2008-09. Clearly, improved budget allocations under health sector are required for the survival and good health of children in the State.
Th e allocation by state budget for health sector for children has been used for schemes such as assistance to hospitals, construction of sub-centre, Mother and Child health programme including child survival and safe motherhood, Post-Partum Programme, running of resource centre for vital in-dicators, and supply of medical kit to ICDS centre.
In three of the four years for which data was avail-able, there has been a mid-year increase in the allocations, leading to a higher Revised Estimate of the budget. Yet, on an average, 0.73 per cent of the allocated budget for health remained unspent. In 2004-05, the underspending was 25.34 per cent, while there was a marginal excess spending of 1.14 per cent next year (see table 5.3). Th e actual expendi-ture in 2004-05 and 2005-06 was less than the mid-year increase in allocations (RE), though in 2005-06 it was only 0.46 per cent.
In 2004-05, the scheme called Mother and Child Health showed an underspending up to 28.3 per cent. Mother and Child Health also includes expenses towards the establishment and running cost of Family Welfare cen-tres in rural and urban areas and sub-centres as these are the fi rst points of reference for any health complications in rural or semi-urban areas. However, in the case of another scheme, Post Partum Centre, money has consistently remained unspent. In 2004-05, over 16.4 per cent of the allocation was not spent, while in the later years, the underspending re-duced to 6.7 per cent in 2005-06 and 1.75 per cent in 2006-07.
It was worse in the case of Child survival and Safe Motherhood Programme, which showed almost a total underspend-ing of 95.1 per cent. In 2005-06, we see that the budget allocation for the scheme drops drastically by 94.5 per cent from Rs.73.69 crore in 2004-05 to Rs 3.69 crore. Th e programme was discontinued in the following year, though curiously, an allocation of Rs. 3.7 crore was made under a new component, Establishment of units in state and districts for Child Sur-vival and Safe Motherhood Programme.
Of the total population of 166.2 million in the state, 31.6 million persons are in the 0-6 years age group, making up 19 per cent of the total population. Some 33 per cent children are born underweight, while only 22 per cent deliveries in UP are institutional.19 Th e poor status of Mother and Child Health has been discussed above. Yet, the state seems to be missing the woods for the trees here. Even in the case of basic schemes such as Child Survival and Safe Motherhood Programme, allocations show a very erratic trend, refl ecting the lack of interest by the state government. Poor budget provisions oft en end up causing a downgrade of the health status of children.
19 S.R.S. 2007
Table 5.3: Diff erence between BE, RE and AE in Health Sector, BfC
per cent Year AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
2004-05 -25.34 1.42 -26.38
2005-06 1.14 1.60 -0.46
2006-07 17.28 1.14 15.95
Average -0.73 1.38 -2.08Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP government
Table 5.2: Budget Alloca� on for Health Sector at BE, RE and AE
Rs crore Year BE RE AE
2004-05 402.85 408.57 300.78
2005-06 456.08 463.39 461.26
2006-07 503.45 509.21 590.43
2007-08 686.55 599.83 NA
2008-09 837.22 NA NA
According to NFHS-III data, only 23 per cent of children be-tween 12 to 23 months age received all the necessary immuni-sa� on in the survey period of 2005-06, whereas 47 per cent of children up to three years’ old were found malnourished. During the same period, close to 73 children out of 1,000 live births in UP did not survive for one year, while it was only 57 at the all-India level.
28
Under the umbrella programme of Medical and Public Health, allocations are made for children’s hospitals and maternity hospitals (Prasuti Chikitsalaya). Along with these, we have also included in the study, allocations made towards construc-tion and renovation of Health sub-centres. Altogether, four such hospitals received an average allocation of Rs 42.5 crore during 2004-05 to 2008-09. Spending under these hospitals have been more than the allocation in two years of the study, but in 2007-08, 78.5 per cent of the money meant for one of the hospitals remained unspent. According to the fi ndings of Common Review Mission 2008, sub centres are in bad shape physically and the maintenance of old buildings is poor. Some of the sub centres, because of having met the accreditation standards, were not eligible for the Janani Suraksha Yo-jana ( JSY) scheme and hence are performing poorly.
Rou� ne Immunisa� on neglected due to overemphasis on Pulse Polio, says Common Review Mission 2008
The state of immunsa� on of under-fi ve children against vaccine preventable diseases is abysmal. The reasons iden� fi ed are:
� Over-enthusiasm and excess deployment of health personnel for Pulse Polio Immunisa� on ac� vity
� Too many rounds of pulse polio programme leading to lack of � me for rou� ne immunisa� on
� Irregular Vaccine Supply by the Government of India
� Repor� ng is of extremely poor quality
� There was no DPT (Diphtheria , Pertussis & Tetanus) vaccine available for 4 months and TT (Tetanus Toxin) for 3 months in 2007
� Poor micro planning
Source: Second Common Review Mission, U� ar Pradesh, 25 November to 5 December 2008
29
Children are more vulnerable to various forms of abuse and exploita-tion than any other group in society and are naturally in need of a protective environment that respects their fundamental rights. Chil-dren disadvantaged by their social, economic, physical or mental conditions are placed in the category of children in diffi cult circum-stances. Th ey comprise several groups of children in India in need of special care and protection, such as abused children, street children, traffi cked children, working children, girls married young, children without parents or family, and so on.
In India as well as in states such as UP, lack of availability of data on children aff ected by abuse and exploitation hampers research, planning as well as implementation of programmes for them. For instance, the data on child labour should ideally include – but do not – children who are out of school and engaged out of home–in the fi elds supplementing family work or at home taking care of work or siblings. Th is includes girls engaged in domestic as well as non-domestic activities, such as looking aft er infants, cooking, cleaning, washing, fetching water, gathering dung, fodder and fi rewood,
“The Commi� ee recommends that the State Party develop a system of data collec� on and indicators consisted with the conven� on and disaggregated by gender, age, social status (Scheduled castes and tribes, or religious com-munity) and urban and rural area and make it publicly available. This system should cover all children up to the age of 18 years with specifi c emphasis on those who are par� cularly vulner-able. It further encourages the State Party to use these indicators and data for forma� on of policies and programmes for the eff ec� ve implementa� on of the Conven� on”
CRC/C/15/Add.228, 30 January 2004, Com-mi� ee on the Rights of the Child, Thirty-fi � h session, Considera� on of Reports submi� ed by States Par� es under Ar� cle 44 of the Conven-� on, Concluding Observa� ons: India
Allocation for Protection Dips Despite Extreme Vulnerability
30
accompanying mother to the market, grazing cattle, and so on. In the same way, domestic violence against children are un-derplayed and unaccounted for, because these are seldom reported to police, as are child marriages, one of the worst forms of violence against girls, exposing them to sexual violence and unsafe motherhood, resulting oft en in death.
Uttar Pradesh is home to some of the highest child labour intensive industries. Th e little workers are mostly concentrated in the cottage industries that have made the state famous, especially the hand-knit woolen carpets industry in Bhadohi and Mirzapur, chikan work in Lucknow, brassware in Moradabad, glassware in Firozabad, wood carvings in Saharanpur, footwear in Agra, hand-printing in Farrukhabad, and zari and embroidery work in several towns. Even according to the government’s own records, Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of working children in the country. As per Census 2001, there are 19,27,997 working children in the 5-14 years in the state, though the government claims much less than this number (Th e Hindu, 24 September 2005).
According to the publication Crime Against Children 2008,20 Uttar Pradesh accounted for 43 per cent of infanticides, 24.4 per cent of murders of children, and 29 per cent of kidnapping of children in 2008. UP also accounted for 16.5 per cent of the rape of children cases registered in the country in 2008, sharply up from 9.3 per cent in 2007 and 7.4 per cent in 2006.21 According to Crime in India, 200722, crimes committed against children make up 11 per cent of the total in India, the highest among states. Although infanticide is listed separately, it applies mainly to the girl child who is seen as so undesirable that she is not allowed to live aft er birth, assuming she is allowed to be even born.
Alloca� on and Expenditure in Protec� on
Despite such an unprotected environment for children, the allocation of funds in the budget for protection has been, on average during the fi ve-year period of our study, as little as 0.03 per cent of the state budget, 0.11 per cent of social sector budget and 0.19 per cent of the total budget for children. Th is can only be seen as an instance of gross neglect of the rights of children.
Average allocation in protection sector during 2004-05 to 2008-09 has been Rs 23.05 crore, though it seems that the budget has more than doubled from Rs 16 crore in 2004-05 to almost Rs 40 crore in 2008-09. However, in a tacit ac-knowledgement of the spending capacity of the state govern-ment, the actual estimate has stayed constant around Rs 15 crore in all the three years.
What is more, between 2006-07 and 2007-08, this pathetic share for protection in the state budget went even lower. As a share of the BfC too, the study period saw wild fl uctuations in the allocation for protection, falling sharply from 0.21 per cent in 2004-05 to 0.12 per cent in 2006-07 and then rising even higher in the next two years.
20 Crime Against Children, 2008, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
21 Ibid 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
22 Crime in India 2008, National Crime Research Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
Table 6.1: BE, RE and AE in Protec� on Sector, BfC
Rs crore Year BE RE AE
2004-05 16.10 16.10 15.12
2005-06 15.13 14.83 15.46
2006-07 16.14 16.14 15.31
2007-08 28.04 27.88 NA
2008-09 39.82 NA NA
During the fi ve-year period of 2004-05 to 2008-09, the U� ar Pradesh government spent only three paisa on protec� on, out of every hundred rupees it spent on the state budget on average.
31
Over the fi ve years from 2004-05 to 2008-09, there has been a 147.3 per cent increase in the allocation for protection. However, in 2005-06, the budget went down by Rs 0.97 crore, or 6.02 per cent, only to again go up by Rs 1 crore in 2006-07. Th is increase coincided with the introduction of the new programme, Organising Homes under Kishore Nyay Adhiniyam with an allocation of Rs 14.87 crore.
Th e steep increase in allocations for 2007-08 from Rs 16.14 crore to Rs 28.04 crore, implying a 73.73 per cent increase, was due to the introduction of several programmes, such as Integrated Child Development Protection Unit for Child Protection, Adoption Unit at District level for Child Protection, Grant in Aid to NGOs for State Juvenile Homes, State Juvenile Homes (Boys and Girls), State Post Care Organisation Expenses, Expense on Kishore Nyaya Nidhi ( Juvenile Justice Fund), Survey for Child Labour Eradica-tion, and Conditional Cash Transfer Yojana under Child Labour Eradication.
Th e two fl agship programmes of the government to stop and rehabilitate child labour are the INDUS project and the National Child Labour Project (NCLP). Unfortunately, these programmes are centrally sponsored and are run through autonomous bodies set up by the government which directly receive the funds, thereby bypassing state budget. Th ese pro-grammes also engage independent NGOs as part of the process, a practice that has become popular with the government, which makes it diffi cult for researchers to track and monitor the budget and fi x accountability.
Table 6.2: Share of Protec� on (BE) Sector in State Budget, Social Sector udget and within Budget for Children per cent Year Percentage in Percentage in Social Percentage in Total State Budget Sector Budget Budget for Children
2004-05 0.025 0.13 0.21
2005-06 0.02 0.09 0.15
2006-07 0.02 0.08 0.12
2007-08 0.03 0.10 0.19
2008-09 0.04 0.13 0.31
Average 0.03 0.11 0.20
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, U.P. Government
Table 6.3: Total Expenditure on Child Labour (in Rs)
Year NCLP INDUS
2004-05 70,736,376 38,884,026
2005-06 151,892,537 40,064,507
2006-07 186,647,881 45,135,853Source: Ministry of Labour, Government of India
0.03
Share of Protec� on in State Budget
99.97
State Budget
Figure 6.1: Share of Protec� on in UP Budget -- Average Alloca� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
0.19
Share of Protec� on in BfC
99.81
BfC
Figure 6.2: Share of Protec� on within Budget for Children
Average Alloca� on 2004-05 to 2008-09
32
Some 8,563 children in 2004-05, 34,171 children in 2005-06 and 28,401 children in 2006-07 were enrolled in special schools under NCLP. Of them, only 3,429 children in 2004-05 and 5,876 children (9-14 years) in 2005-06 were mainstreamed under NCLP. Th e eff ort has clearly been a drop in the ocean so far.
Underspending in Protec� on
Looking at the actual estimates, as seen from table 6.4, it is clear that even the small amounts of money allocated have not been spent fully. However, the underutilisation, although not as big as in other sectors such as development, have hap-pened more in 2004-05 and 2006-07. Th e average budget money unspent in these schemes was about 3.11 per cent in the three years for which fi gures are available.
Table 6.4: Diff erence between BE, RE and AE in Protec� on Sector
per cent YEAR AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
2004-05 -6.07 0 -6.07
2005-06 2.20 -1.98 4.27
2006-07 -5.15 0 -5.15
Average -3.11 -0.63 -2.50
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09
UTTAR PRADESH SCORES POORLY IN CHECKING CHILD LABOUR No systematic survey for identifi cation of working children, says CAG report
ALLAHABAD: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has criticised Uttar Pradesh government for failing to put a check on child labour through effective enforcement of Child Labour (prohibition and regulation) Act.
In its report for the year ended March 31, 2004, the CAG has noted with concern that in the State, famous the world over for its carpet industry that is heavily dependent upon child labour, there was no systematic survey for identifi cation of working children.
In fact, the data on child labour in the State also appeared to be grossly understated at 66,000 as of March 2004, against 19.28 lakh working children as per the 2001 Census report, says the CAG.
Besides, there appeared to be laxity on part of the State labour department in implementing the provisions of the Child Labour Act.
Cases involving penalty of Rs 7.28 crore for employing child labour in hazardous industries were either withdrawn or cancelled by the labour depart-ment till December 31, 2004. Besides, there were stay orders in cases involving Rs 9.86 crore till the above date and this indicated inadequate or defec-tive documentation of cases for initiating legal action and recovery of penalty, the CAG report said.
The State has also fared badly in terms of rehabilitation of children withdrawn from various industries. The report pointed out that many of the NGOs selected to run national child labour project (NCLP) special schools discontinued the work after receiving grants-in-aid.
Most of the special schools, which continued to be functional, did so without adequate infrastructure and the essential health care facilities, it said.
The State Government also failed to comply with Supreme Court directions regarding withdrawal of children from hazardous jobs. The apex court had ordered creation of a corpus fund into which Rs. 20,000 was to be deposited by the employer of child labourers for each withdrawn child.
However, the CAG noted with dismay that Rs 49.59 lakh earned as interest on the corpus fund was not utilised for providing relief to families of the children withdrawn from hazardous industries.
Another factor that affected the implementation of child labour welfare projects adversely was non-appointment of full-time project directors and failure to fi ll up vacancies of teachers and instructors. –PTI
The Hindu, Saturday, Sep 24, 2005
33
References
• Census 2001, Government of India
• Uttar Pradesh 2006, Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of UP
• Uttar Pradesh 2007, Arthik Samiksha, Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of UP
• UP State Development Report, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2006
• NFHS-III, 2005-06, International Institute of Population Studies.
• SRS, Government of India, 2004
• Multiple Indicator Survey (MICS), 2000
• NUEPA, 2007
• Crime in India, NCRB, various years
• Economic Times, 3 March 2008
• Detailed Demands for Grants, 2004-05 to 2008-09, Government of UP
• Accountant General’s Accounts Audit Report Civil Year 31 March 2005 and 31 March 2006
• National Plan of Action, 2005, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India
• Monitoring Government Budget to Advance Child Rights, A Guide for NGO, Children’s Budget Unit, Budget Information Series, Institute for Democracy, IDASA, South Africa
• Th e Hindu, Saturday, September 24, 2005
• Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India
• Social Watch Report, UPVAN
• Annual Plan, 2005-06, Department of Planning, Government of UP
34
BE, RE and AE in Educa� on Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 6895.21 7784.70 7312.19
2005-06 9063.76 10138.02 9172.43
2006-07 11276.19 11099.72 9048.33
2007-08 12413.88 10489.64 NA
2008-09 10366.30 NA NA
Mid-Day Meal
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 1 204.00 182.90
2005-06 340.00 268.75 327.56
2006-07 350.00 350.00 574.15
2007-08 875.00 1310.80 NA
2008-09 1114.13 NA NA
Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Yojana
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 2.08 2.25
2005-06 5.00 5.00 1.69
2006-07 1.50 1.50 12.17
2007-08 20.00 20.00 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Elementary Educa� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 4271.40 4706.33 4328.25
2005-06 5891.30 6635.28 5545.52
2006-07 6615.33 6736.16 5788.51
2007-08 8140.35 7670.33 NA
2008-09 7325.63 NA NA
Ashram Schools
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 34.66 36.69 32.11
2005-06 80.79 84.32 12.55
2006-07 43.20 50.40 0
2007-08 99.44 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 536.31 402.64 322.90
2005-06 1094.36 1048.28 850.19
2006-07 749.04 749.13 747.16
2007-08 1340.00 1340.00 NA
2008-09 1360.00 NA NA
Scholarship and S� pend
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 460.70 571.44 457.27
2005-06 531.71 960.95 513.97
2006-07 586.46 584.09 0
2007-08 688.85 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Secondary Educa� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 2564.93 3019.57 2927.68
2005-06 3114.75 3439.85 3565.04
2006-07 4571.46 4276.96 3256. 30
2007-08 4143.33 2812.11 NA
2008-09 3038.81 NA NA
Annexure
(Figures are in Rs crore. Data sourced from DDGs of various departments, Government of UP)
Education
35
Scholarship for SE Student
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 111.20 376.52 172.62
2005-06 341.94 458.60 413.51
2006-07 958.71 1165.52 1.35
2007-08 545.04 3.20 NA
2008-09 3.20 NA NA
BE, RE, and AE in Development Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 341.95 759.44 690.54
2005-06 776.41 776.33 757.36
2006-07 1116.19 1254.17 499.99
2007-08 1690.79 959.53 NA
2008-09 1596.30 NA NA
Technical Educa� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 58.89 58.80 56.25
2005-06 57.71 62.88 61.88
2006-07 89.40 86.61 3.52
2007-08 130.20 7.20 NA
2008-09 1.87 NA NA
Assistance to Government Colleges
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 175.93 175.62 167.47
2005-06 176.40 176.40 183.30
2006-07 193.15 193.15 223.01
2007-08 262.62 262.62 NA
2008-09 288.25 NA NA
Grant for Family and Child Welfare Projects
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.10 0.10 0
2005-06 0.08 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Assistance to Non-Government Secondary Schools and Inter Colleges
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 2140.60 2328.61 2392.94
2005-06 2366.46 2562.52 2724.04
2006-07 3188.37 2686.13 2814.96
2007-08 3048.98 2310.19 NA
2008-09 2503.19 NA NA
WCD Directorate Insurance, Gratuity and Other Exp.
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.02 0.02 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0 0.03 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Development
Administra� ve Expenses for Pariveksha Seva Kshetra (Supervisor)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 3.63 3.63 3.53
2005-06 3.69 3.69 3.83
2006-07 4.32 4.32 5.37
2007-08 5.91 5.96 NA
2008-09 9.12 NA NA
36
Integrated Child Development Scheme
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 228.45 316.46 314.34
2005-06 277.94 277.94 283.98
2006-07 459.16 597.14 446.71
2007-08 450.41 436.05 NA
2008-09 533.95 NA NA
Capital Expenditure (Medical and Public Health)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.35 3.38 3.17
2005-06 22.91 26.59 26.59
2006-07 25.76 25.76 25.26
2007-08 75.00 75.00 NA
2008-09 17.50 NA NA
BE, RE and AE in Health Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 402.85 408.57 300.78
2005-06 456.08 463.39 461.26
2006-07 503.45 509.21 590.43
2007-08 686.55 599.82 NA
2008-09 837.22 NA NA
Nutri� on Programme for ICDS
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 109.76 439.23 372.67
2005-06 494.70 494.70 469.55
2006-07 652.71 652.71 47.92
2007-08 1234.47 517.49 NA
2008-09 1053.23 NA NA
Alloca� ons for Hospital under Medical and Public Health (MPH)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 13.28 15.96 15.08
2005-06 37.28 41.20 41.16
2006-07 41.25 41.25 10.73
2007-08 97.37 22.37 NA
2008-09 23.15 NA NA
Direc� on & Administra� on / Demography and Resource Centre
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.02 0.02 0.02
2005-06 0.02 0.02 0
2006-07 0.02 0.02 0.01
2007-08 0.03 0.03 NA
2008-09 0.03 NA NA
Family Welfare - Mother and Child Health
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 363.08 363.08 260.36
2005-06 283.66 288.16 286.74
2006-07 316.42 316.42 431.34
2007-08 364.52 358.40 NA
2008-09 632.98 NA NA
Health
Post-partum Centres
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 23.63 23.63 19.75
2005-06 109.72 104.92 102.41
2006-07 117.50 117.51 115.44
2007-08 141.34 135.73 NA
2008-09 154.48 NA NA
37
Implementa� on of Juvenile Jus� ce Act. - Monitoring Cell
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.09 0.09 0.18
2005-06 0.09 0.09 1.14
2006-07 0.11 0.11 0
2007-08 0.13 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Integrated Child Development Protec� on Unit for Child Protec� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 1.30 1.30 NA
2008-09 5.58 NA NA
Protection
Supply of Medical Kits
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 2.50 2.50 2.42
2005-06 2.50 2.50 4.37
2006-07 2.50 8.26 7.65
2007-08 8.30 8.30 NA
2008-09 9.08 NA NA
Establishment of Juvenile Jus� ce Boards
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.99 0.99 0.95
2005-06 1.04 1.04 0.94
2006-07 1.16 1.16 0.67
2007-08 1.87 1.82 NA
2008-09 3.34 NA NA
Organising Homes under Kishore Nyay Adhiniyam
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 14.87 14.87 11.68
2007-08 2.10 2.13 NA
2008-09 2.25 NA NA
Establishment of Homes and Ins� tu� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 15.02 15.02 13.99
2005-06 13.99 13.69 13.39
2006-07 0 0 2.95
2007-08 18.51 18.51 NA
2008-09 24.13 NA NA
BE, RE and AE in Protec� on Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 16.10 16.10 15.12
2005-06 15.13 14.83 15.46
2006-07 16.14 16.14 15.31
2007-08 28.04 27.88 NA
2008-09 39.82 NA NA
Adop� on Unit at District Level for Child Protec� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.07 0.07 NA
2008-09 0.03 NA NA
38
Condi� onal Cash Transfer Yojana under Child labour Eradica� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.07 0.07 NA
2008-09 0.08 NA NA
GIA to NGOs for State Juvenile homes
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 3.25 3.25 NA
2008-09 3.25 NA NA
Alloca� ons for Kishore Nyay Nidhi
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.25 0.25 NA
2008-09 0.25 NA NA
State Post -Care Organisa� on Expenses
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.15 0.15 NA
2008-09 0.43 NA NA
Survey for Child Labour Eradica� on
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.12 0.12 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
State Juvenile Homes (Boys and Girls)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.22 0.22 NA
2008-09 0.22 NA NA
39
Section II
A Half-hearted Quest for Quality Education for All
40
41
ONE of the pre-requisites for economic as well as social development of any society is the right of each citizen, especially children, to basic education of at least up to school level. Education has over the years gained acceptance as a fundamental value and as an end in itself that needs no further justifi cation. Social justice and equity are by themselves a strong argu-ment for providing basic education for all. Investment in basic education contributes immense benefi ts across generations. It not only improves the overall quality of life and the level of human wellbeing with regard to life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality and nutritional status of children but also contributes to political/ economic development of any society signifi cantly. Th e importance to provide free and compulsory education is therefore well recognised in the internal and national arena.
Programmes Ensuring Free and Compulsory Educa� on1
In accordance with the Constitutional commitment to ensure free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 years, provision of universal elementary education has been a salient feature of national policy since independence. A landmark step taken in 2009 was to enact the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 to provide
1 http://www.upefa.com/upefa/detail.php?chk=menu&vlmid=70
Education Remains Divorced from Community: Tracking SSA Implementation in Uttar Pradesh
42
every child of the age of 6-14 year right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education.
Th e National Policy of Education 1992 led to a number of schemes/ programmes at the national level, such as Operation Blackboard, Non-Formal Education, Teacher Education, Mahila Samakhya, and most importantly, National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education or Mid Day Meal (MDM) and District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in three phases. Th ese programmes preceded the current country-wide fl agship centrally sponsored education programme called Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Several state-specifi c programmes/ projects too were introduced to implement free and compulsory education for all children.
In Uttar Pradesh, the District Primary Education Programme-II began in 1997 in 22 districts of the state and ended in 2003, followed by the DPEP-III in 32 districts over 2000-06. Apart from this, the World Bank-assisted Basic Education Project was implemented over 1993-2000 in 17 districts for expansion of quality basic education in the state. For this project, a society “Uttar Pradesh Sabhee Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad (UP Education for all Project Board)” was established on 17 May 1993.
In line with the global push towards universal primary education, India too has taken signifi cant steps to widen access to primary education, the results of which are visible in the remarkable rise in the number of children in school in the post –independence period. In Uttar Pradesh, a similar improvement has taken place with higher budget allocation and empha-sis on targeted programmes. Th e number of primary schools, which was 116,347 in 2005, went up to 135,494 in 2007-08.2 However, the same cannot be said for the quality of education imparted in schools, which many feel has been stagnating or even declining. It is to address the goal of quality as well as to put all children in school that the Sarva Sikhsha Abhiyan was launched in 2002 to be implemented in all states in a mission mode.
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in U� ar Pradesh
SSA was started in the state in 16 districts in 2001-02 and now covers all 70 districts. Besides intending to achieve the goal of universal elementary education by creating a sustainable and decentralised education management system and bringing in community participation on a larger scale, the scheme emphasises the signifi cance of quality education as articulated in the National Curriculum Framework 2005. For carrying out the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, SSA resolves that the appropriate Government and the local authority shall establish, within such area or limits of neighbourhoods as may be prescribed, a school, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Act.
As a response to this enormous task, Uttar Pradesh Education For All Project Board (UPEFAPB) has evolved a manage-ment structure with a high degree of fl exibility in administrative functioning, with mechanisms to establish accountability, provide for smooth fl ow of fi nancial inputs and above all create a space to experiment with innovative methods & models. Th e Board functions as State Implementing Society (SIS) for the SSA. Th e General Council headed by the Chief Minister is the apex authority of the project and provides overall policy guidelines and directions for implementation of the project at the State level. Th e State Project Director (SPD) is the member secretary while the State Project Offi ce (SPO) headed by the SPD looks aft er the overall implementation of SSA with the assistance of two Additional SPDs at State level and 70 District Project Offi cers (DPO) at the district level. Th e State Institute of Educational Management and Training (SIEMET), the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), the State Institute of Education (SIE), and the State Institute of Educational Training (SIET) are the supporting institutions at the State level while the District Institutes of Educational Training (DIET) do that at the district level.
2 Based on “Elementary Education in India: Where We Do Stand?, State Report Cards, 2005, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi” and “Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE, Flash Statistics, DISE 2007-08 (Provisional) as on 30th September, 2007, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi”.
43
Ra� onale for the Study
Adequate, rigorous, inclusive and continuous monitoring and supervision are the key to successful implementation of any educational programme. Th e same is true for SSA, which suggests various parameters to be addressed in State and district plans to achieve the desired quality of education at school levels such as3
� Infrastructure and other facilities
� School Management and Community Support
� School and Classroom Environment
� Curriculum and Teaching Learning Materials
� Teacher and Teacher Preparation
� Classroom practices and processes
� Teaching learning time and opportunity time
� Learners’ Assessment, Monitoring & Supervision
Undoubtedly, there has been enormous improvement in the state in terms of quantitative indicators, such as, expansion of schools, enrolment etc. However, less attention has been paid so far towards what was happening inside the classrooms, what kind of education children were receiving, how to deal with high teacher absenteeism, and so on. All these remain stiff challenges in the way of getting all children to school and keep them there. Th e present study on SSA was undertaken to understand the level of these challenges and it was only by tracking the funds fl ow and implementation status of the scheme from the state to the districts to the blocks and the fi nal level, the schools and students, that we could get an idea of the government’s eff orts towards enhancing enrolment and quality in schools.
It is also important to study the qualitative achievements of the SSA in all dimensions, including if the state is recruit-ing adequate number of teachers keeping pace with increased enrolment especially in upper primary and high schools; if the teachers are getting adequate in-service trainings; if there are enough classrooms for the children as per norms; if the schools have adequate Teaching Learning Materials (TLM); if basic infrastructural facilities such as libraries, furniture, compound wall, playground, playing equipment etc. exist in all schools; if the textbooks are available free to all children on time, and so on.
Methodology
Th e present study aims at analysing the fl ow of fi nancial resources from the Centre to the state to districts to the last level of benefi ciaries. Th e main objectives are to know:
� Th e process of budget transfer from the Centre to the schools
� Th e amount of the promised budget allocations actually reaching and being utilised for the declared purpose so as to identify gaps at various levels and assess the constraints in the process
� Th e fi nal outcomes at the last level where the budget is being used and whether those conform to the objectives.
Th e study has been divided into two components—the fi rst is fi nancial tracking of Planned and Approved Budget, actual fl ow of funds and expenditure at various levels (state, district, blocks and schools) of selected project areas on the major
3 Monitoring Format for Quality Dimensions under SSA, www.ssa.nic.in URL - 164.100.51.121/quality-of-education/QMT.pdf, downloaded on 27 February 2009
44
interventions of SSA. Th e second is the tracking of the impact of implementation down to the benefi ciary through the means of Focused Group Discussions with stakeholders/benefi ciaries and also individual interviews with the offi cials at various levels. Th e main purpose of the study was to gather information through fi eld visits, individual interviews, observa-tions in the school level, and discussions with the offi cials on issues such as
� What is the extent of utilisation of funds available in a particular year?
� How timely is the transfer of funds intervention-wise?
� How well is the planning process being carried out?
� What are the major bottlenecks in the funds fl ow and utilisation process?
� How adequate is the availability of staff at various levels and of physical infrastructure, especially at the schools?
Loca� on and Timeframe of the Study
Uttar Pradesh comprises 70 districts where there are 1,35,484 primary and upper primary schools under government management, of which the ten schools we studied are but a tiny sample. We selected Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi (SRN Bhadohi) district as our sample district, based on CREDA’s long history of work in child labour in the area as well as its capacity and rapport with the authorities. In Bhadohi, we chose one Urban Block and a Rural Block—Suryawan and Gyanpur respectively. In these blocks, chosen due to CREDA’s familiarity with them as also in view of their poor performance in terms of educational and related indicators, we selected nine schools, a judicious mix of primary and upper primary schools of government management as well as EGS/AIE, Residential Bridge Course (RBC) and KGBV. In fact, government offi cials at various levels, during the discussions/ interviews, expressed concern at the gaps still pre-vailing in the Bhadohi district and sub-district levels. As the Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC) of Gyanpur pointed out,
� Th ere are only 2,200 teachers in the district, with an unfi lled vacancy of 4,000 posts.
� In the Gyanpur block, there are 71 Junior High Schools with only 181 regular government teachers. No subject-wise teacher has been recruited so far in any school.
� In 131 primary schools in this block, there are only 141 teachers. As a result, mostly, one teacher has been teaching all subjects in all classes up to the fi ft h.
� Th e BRCC feels there ought to be four teachers per junior high school along with one Headmaster. He also said the same requirement had been placed in the block-level plan and with the district offi ce.
� Some 80 per cent of the schools in the block do not have any compound wall and it has been mentioned in the consolidated block level plan.
The Names of the Sample Schools are: Gyanpur (Urban Block):
� AIE Centre, Bara Deegh
� Upper Primary School, Gyanpur
� Primary School, Gyanpur-II
� KGBV of Deegh Block, at Gyanpur DIET Building
45
Suriyawan (Rural Block):
� Prinmary School, Bhatewara
� Primary School, Saray Bhawsingh
� Upper Primary School, Batewara
� Upper Primary School, Saray Bhawsingh
� Residential Bridge Course (RBC) Centre, Bihiapur
Th e study has looked at the budgetary fi gures of four consecutive fi nancial years 2005-06 to 2008-09, in particular the ap-proved budget per intervention, the funds released, and expenditure data at state, district, block and school levels.
Collec� on of Data
For the purpose of data collection, frequent visits have been carried out to the state SSA offi ce (offi ce of State Project Di-rector) and the district SSA offi ce, SRN Bhadohi, to collect state and district level plans, budgets and relevant documents. Visits have been made to the urban and rural block headquarters to conduct individual interviews and discussions with the offi cials to know the planning processes and disbursal of funds per intervention and for collection of relevant budget docu-ments from block levels. All schools were visited to interact with the teaching staff and the students to observe the physi-cal and academic conditions prevailing there. Apart from collecting budget data from all levels, the views of government offi cials and of the grassroots service providers on the bottlenecks in funds fl ow and utilisation have been taken through interviews and focused group discussions respectively.
Data Sources
� Uttar Pradesh state level Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB) for 2005-06 to 2008-09 for SSA, and major inter-vention wise proposed, approved, released budget and expenditure fi gures.
� AWPB for SSA for 2005-06 to 2008-09 for Bhadohi district, Intervention and sub intervention wise approved, released and expenditure data
� Annual Reports, Bhadohi district, Uttar Pradesh
� School registers and Utilisation certifi cates for Grants for the selected schools
Constraints/ Limita� ons
� Irrespective of the Right to Information Act, which says that information should be transparent and available for the citizens at block and grassroots levels, the main constraint in the way of our study has been our inability to obtain proper and complete information and budgetary data from the district and block level offi ces. On a positive note, however, we could fi nd an improved documentation of the implementation of the SSA as well as the interven-tion/activity-wise budgetary fi gures at state and school levels. Th e attitude of the district offi cials has been mixed and our initial visits to the district offi ce in Bhadohi were not very successful. On one instance, responding to our repeated requests for budgetary fi gures, one of the district offi cials commented, “Itna jaldi kyaa hai, NGO ka kaam to barson tak chalta rehta hai” (why are you in such a hurry, you NGOs usually take years to fi nish any work!).
46
� Irrespective of the resources being transferred on the basis of interventions at block and village levels, we had problems in laying our hands on the data because of lack of proper record keeping and systematic documentations at these levels comparable to those existing at the state and district. Tracking of public resources up to the grassroots level has been the major problem because budget fi gures of state and district levels for every intervention are not broken down in the same way at the sub district levels.
� Th is meant that even aft er numerous visits, we were unable to gather data on intervention-wise budget allocations and spending on SSA components at block level for the years studied. Also, the Block Education Offi cer (BEO) who interacted with us during our visits was newly deputed and said that his predecessor had not handed over the documents to him.
Overview of SSA
SSA is an opportunity for states to develop their own vision of elementary education eff ectively by involving the Pan-chayat Raj Institutions, School Management Committees, Village and Urban Slum level Education Committees, Parents’ Teachers’ Associations, Mother Teacher Associations, Tribal Autonomous Councils and other grassroots structures in the management of elementary schools. In view of the importance of Early Childhood Care and Education and looking at the 0-14 age as a continuum, the objectives of SSA were framed as follows4:
� All children to be enrolled by 2005
� All children to complete 5 years of primary schooling by 2007.
� All children to complete 8 years of elementary schooling by 2010.
� Quality focus on elementary education of satisfactory quality.
� Bridge all gender and social category gaps at primary stage by 2007 and at elementary education level by 2010.
� Universal Retention by 2010.
Organisa� onal Setup5
Th e responsibility for implementation of the programme is vested at the national level in the Department of Elementary Education and Literacy (DEEL) in the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). At the national level, there is a General Council, an Executive Committee and a Project Approval Board (PAB). Th e work relating to policy, appraisal of plans, release of funds to State Implementation Societies, overall review of the programme, technical support to States, research, evaluation, supervision, monitoring, etc is undertaken by the DEEL.
4 www.upefa.com
5 Manual on Financial Management and Procurement, DEEL, MHRD, Government of India
There has been enormous improvement in the state in terms of quan� ta� ve indicators, such as, expansion of schools, enrolment etc. However, less a� en� on has been paid so far towards what was happening inside the classrooms, what kind of educa� on children were receiving, how to deal with high teacher absenteeism, and so on.
47
Th e SIS General Council is chaired by the Chief Minister/Education Minister of the State and the Executive Committee is headed by the Chief Secretary/ Development Commissioner/ Education Secretary. Representation of Finance and Plan-ning Departments on the General Council and the Executive Committee facilitate decision-making, while the Depart-ment of Rural Development’s involvement facilitates mobilising resources for school infrastructure development under the rural employment programmes. Involvement of NGOs, social activists, university teachers, teacher union representatives, Panchayati Raj representatives, and women’s groups would help ensure full transparency to the activities of the Mission. Th e MHRD would be represented both on the Governing Council and the Executive Committee.6
Th e district level implementation is overseen by the District Collector/ Magistrate/ Chief Executive Offi cer of the Zilla Parishad, while the District Elementary Education Offi cer executes the programme interacting with the Zilla Parishad, the Block Development Committee, and the Village Panchayats. At the village level, the critical unit is the Village Education Committees (VEC), which ensures the cooperation and participation of the local community. and at the same time over-sees the implementation of SSA in the village and are supported by other grassroots level structures like SDMC, MTA, PTA, women’s groups etc.
Th e UPEFAPB, which is the SIS in UP, has its General Council headed by the Chief Minister and the State Project Direc-tor (SPD) as member secretary. Th e State Project Offi ce (SPO) is assisted by two Additional SPDs at State level and 70 DPOs at the district level, apart from state institutions in the fi eld of education.
6 http://education.nic.in/ssa/ssa_1.asp
State Implemen� ng Society (SIS)
GeneralCouncil
ChairpersonChief Minister
Members
Execu� veCouncil
Chairperson Minister for HRD)/ Chief Secretary/ Development
Commissioner/ Educa� on Offi cer
Members
State Project Director (SPD)
District ProjectDirector
48
SSA Management Structure in U� ar Pradesh7
State Project Director
Addl State Project Director
Additional Project Director Finance Controller Additional Project Director
Senior Professional/ Senior Accounts Offi cer
System Analyst/ Accounts Offi cers/ Professionals
Financial Management and Planning8
Financial management of SSA includes planning, budgeting, accounting, fi nancial reporting, internal control, auditing, procurement, disbursement and the physical performance of the programme with the aim of managing programme re-sources properly and achieving the programme’s objectives. Th e programme envisages constitution of core planning teams at village, block and district levels. Th e grassroots level team in each village/habitation has to provide wider representation to the local structures, including community leaders, teachers and parents. Th is advisory body at the district level com-prises representatives of various departments such as Education, Health, Public Works, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Tribal Welfare, PHED, etc as well as NGOs.
Th ere is a State component plan for each state, both perspective and annual, for universalising of elementary educa-tion within the stipulated timeframe. All tables prepared by the districts are consolidated at State level and furnished in the State component plan. Each district is entitled to prepare a Perspective Plan and the AWPB. Th e PP is the Plan for universalising, within the SSA timeframe and fi nancial norms, with regard to attendance, retention, dropout and learning achievement as well as the requirement of school infrastructure and teaching learning materials based on this assessment. Th e Annual Plans on the other hand are based on a broad indication of resource availability for a district in a particular year.
While the objective of the PP is to assess and plan for the unfi nished UEE agenda in a particular district, the Annual Plan is an exercise in prioritisation. Th e Perspective Plans of districts would be the basis for placing demand for additional fi nancial resources for UEE in the years to come as per SSA fi nancial norms. Th e appraisal teams would ensure planning as per national/state norms. Th e quality of the planning exercise depends on institutions such as Cluster Resource Centres and Block Resource Centres, already established under DPEP and being established under SSA in non-DPEP districts, have to be carefully nurtured to provide capacity for eff ective planning. Th e CRCs, BRCs and DIETs have a large role in the preparation of perspective and Annual Plans and their systematic capacity development is a priority under SSA.
7 Websource - http://www.upefa.com/upefa/detail.php?chk=menu&vlmid=70
8 This section is based on the article “Manual on Financial Management and Procurement, DEEL, MHRD
49
SSA envisages a bottom-up approach of planning as opposed to the earlier top-down approach, to refl ect the reality at the grassroots level. Th ese participatory plans at the habitation level are called Habitation Plans that refl ect local educational needs and aspirations of the people and are based on consultative meetings and interaction with the community and target groups. Th ese habitation plans consist of information such as education statistics, that is caste/gender- wise children enrolled in private schools or schools run by autonomous bodies/ government or never-enrolled, out-of-school, GER/NER, completion rates, transition rate/dropout rates; caste and gender-wise population, literacy rates, data on access-less habitations, planning for EGS and AIE for children of 6-8, 8-11 and 11-14-year groups, details of trained and untrained teachers, disabled children, existing school infrastructures, and so on.
Budge� ng Process
Th e budget proposals are prepared in the form of AWPB, covering all the interventions specifi ed in SSA as follows:
� Appointment of teachers,
� Opening new primary and alternative schooling facilities like EGS/AIE Centres,
� Opening of upper primary schools,
� Construction of additional classrooms, schools and other facilities,
� Provision of free textbooks,
� Maintenance and repair of school buildings,
� Provision of TLM for primary schools on upgrading of EGS to regular schools or for setting up of a new primary school/upper primary school,
� School grant,
� Teacher grant,
� Teacher training,
� Opening of SIEMAT,
� Training of community leaders,
� Provision for disabled children,
� Research, Evaluation, Supervision and Monitoring,
� Management cost,
� Innovative activity for girls’ education, early childhood care and education, interventions for children belonging to SC/STs, computer education specially for upper primary level,
� Setting up BRC/CRC,
� Interventions for out of school children.
� Preparatory activities for micro planning, household surveys, studies, community mobilization, school-based activi-ties etc.
� NPEGEL and KGBV.
Once the District Elementary Education Plan is prepared, it is sent to the State Project Offi ce. Th ese district plans and State component plan are then sent to the EE Bureau by the SIS for appraisal. Th e Appraisal Mission examine and analyse the fi nancial, programmatic, managerial and technical viability of the interventions proposed, appraises the
50
plans and submit it to the EE Bureau. Th ese plans are then reviewed by the PAB headed by the Secretary, Elementary Education, in the MHRD, with or without modifi cation and the quantum of annual budget outlay for various inter-ventions fi nalised.
Funds Flow Process
Th e SIS gets funds to use mainly from (i) Grants-in-aid made by the Union and state governments; (ii) Income (includ-ing interest) from its own assets; and (iii) Other sources. Under the Ninth Five Year Plan, the expenditure was shared on 85:15 basis between the Union and State Governments. Th e ratio was changed to 75:25 during the Tenth Plan and 50:50 thereaft er. Th e Union government’s share has been part-fi nanced (up to 30 per cent) by external soft loan and grants.
Under SSA, the districts prepare their proposals through a community owned Pre-Project phase, based on the Broad Framework for Implementation. Th e SIS forwards these proposals to the SSA National Mission and the Union govern-ment releases funds directly to the SIS bank account twice in a year, in April and September. Th e merit of this is that the unspent balances at the end of the fi nancial year need not be refunded to the government and can be carried forward to be spent in the later years without the government getting involved. However, further installments are released to the SIS only aft er the State government transfers its share to the same bank account and expenditure of at least 50 per cent of the total funds has been incurred. Th is conditionality is aimed at full and effi cient use of the allocations. Th e utilisation certifi cates, however, becomes due one year aft er the release of an installment and if these are not submitted in time, might stall release of further funds. Any unspent balance out of the State share is carried forward with the approval of the State government.
Th e SIS is to release the funds to the districts within 15 days of its receipt from the governments. All funds meant for upgrade, maintenance & repair of schools, TLM, and local management must be transferred to VECs/SMCs/Gram Pan-chayats or any other village/school level arrangement for decentralisation in a State/UT. Here too, funds are given in two tranches, the fi rst at the beginning of the fi nancial year and the second aft er an expenditure statement on the use of at least 50 per cent of the funds already released. Funds are sent forward through the banking channel to the district-level bank account and thereon to the block and village level SSA institutions.
Status of Educa� on in U� ar Pradesh9
With an overall literacy of 57.36 per cent—worse for girls-- as of Census 2001, Uttar Pradesh lags behind all states except three. In 1950-51, 2,875,260 children were enrolled in 34,830 primary/upper primary schools. In 2006-07, these numbers have gone up to 358,904,347 students and 181,187 schools. According to offi cial estimates, there were still 7.89 million10 children out of school in March 2007.
Despite several initiatives, several lacunas exist as measured by indicators of school performance, infrastructure and learn-ing achievement of children. Table 1 shows how the state is still behind the national average in schools and performance, especially pupil-teacher ratio, GER in primary and upper primary classes, girls’ enrolment, etc, despite being ahead in infrastructural indicators. Enrolment in primary classes has been on the decline, although it has gone up at the upper
9 Website of Department of Basic Education, UP http://bed.up.nic.in/pri_sec_edu.htm
10 Websource: http://www.educationforallinindia.com/outofschoolchildren.htm
The quality of educa� on was poor at the primary level and the State was among the fi ve bo� om States in the country as per survey report of an independent agency.
CAG 2006, U� ar Pradesh
51
primary level. Th e state is also lagging behind in terms of teaching indicators such as recruitment, training, etc, even as the number of para teachers has gone up at the expense of regular teachers in government schools in the last two years. Only 23.48 per cent of regular teachers and 33.40 per cent of para teachers were given in-service trainings in 2008-09. Th is has clearly taken its toll of the learning outcomes among of children, as evident from the ASER 2008 facilitated by Pratham. As many as 16.9 per cent of the children in classes 1-7 cannot read any letter/word in their own language, 17 per cent can-not recognise any number and 78.6 per cent cannot recognise numbers beyond 0-9, says the report11.
11 Extracted from Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2008, published by Pratham Resource Centre
Table 1: Performance in Educa� on – U� ar Pradesh and India
U� ar Pradesh India
Indicators 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09
School related indicators
Primary Enrolment (million) 25.1 24.94 134.38
Upper Primary Enrolment 69.74 74.15 533.50
GER at Primary levels 110.29 109.43 115.31
GER at Upper Primary levels 50.93 54.54 73.74
NER at Primary levels 88.60 85.48 98.59
NER at Upper Primary levels 40.16 43.26 56.22
PTR 50 49 34
Transi� on Rate from Primary to Upper Primary Level 63.59 - 82.68
Dropout rate in I-V classes 12.85 - 8.02
Teaching indicators (govt. schools)
Percentage of teachers in govt. schools 69.38 67.47 68.56
Average number of teachers per school 3.3 3.1 3.8
Percentage distribu� on of teachers in govt. schools received in-service training 11.85 23.48 46.46
Percentage distribu� on of para teachers to total teachers 36.89 38.35 12.61
Percentage of professionally trained para teachers 34.63 33.40 41.06
Infrastructure indicators (in per cent)
Schools without common toilets 8.96 7.35 33.16
Schools without separate girls toilets 17.64 15.80 46.40
Schools without drinking water facili� es 2.3 2.42 12.23
Schools with single teacher (all schools) 6.1 7.49 9.71
Schools without pucca building 4.79 - 27.02
Schools without compound wall 53.38 51.96 48.98
Schools without kitchen shed (govt & aided) 51.67 40.48 56.56
Schools without ramp 47.50 43.87 59.61
Govt. Schools not Received TLM Grant - 28.20 27.17
Source: Flash Sta� s� cs, 2008-09 and State Report Card, 2007-08,DISE, NUEPA
52
Under SSA, the state claims to have experienced a signifi cant improvement in terms of quantitative indicators of education such as access, enrolment of children, teacher recruitment, etc. While that claim may be partly justifi ed, current statistics on these interventions (furnished in tables 2-3) show the programme has failed to address many important issues associ-ated with access, inclusion and quality. Implementation of interventions towards addressing dropout rates, recruitment of teachers, mainstreaming out of school children, class transition rate, promotion of education of girls, especially those belonging to SC/ST, etc were not at all satisfactory. As many as 66 per cent of primary students did not go on to upper primary classes, and 49 per cent did not even complete their education.1213
12 CAG report, 2006, Uttar Pradesh, Performance Audit, Chapt-III
13 http://www.upefa.com/upefa/detail.php?chk=menu&vlmid=92
Table 2: Progress under diff erent interven� ons under SSA13
A: Civil Work: Primary and Upper primary Schools
Year Primary Schools Upper Primary Schools
New Reconstruc� on New Reconstruc� on
Target Completed Target Completed Target Completed Target Completed
2001-05 6,536 6,532 3,119 3,119 9,859 9,838 884 869
2005-06 2,421 2,412 1,720 1,712 2.308 2,301 355 347
2006-07 2,848 2,837 120 119 4,000 3,983 Nil Nil
2007-08 813 810 - - 5,507 5,481 - -
2008-09 3,014 2,842 - - 4,398 4,210 - -
B: Addi� onal Classrooms
Year Target Completed
(I-V 2001-05 28,781 28,762
2005-06 65,398 65,336
2006-07 82,117 82,020
D: Recruitment of Shiksha Mitras (para teachers)
Year Target Appointed
2001-09 171,119 168,865
C: EGS/AIE/Bridge Courses
Par� culars 2007-08 2008-09
Target Achieve-ment Target Achieve-ment
Educa� on Guarantee Scheme (EGS) 4,335 4,077 3,560 1,640
Alterna� ve & Innova� ve Educa� on (Primary) 3,908 3,400 5,564 4,808
Non-Residen� al Bridge Course 1,835 1,650 1,769 1,657
Residen� al Bridge Course 800 731 851 681
Total 10,878 9,858 11,744 8,786
53
Th e CAG performance audit report, 2006, pointed out that the number of out-of-school children at the end of March 2006 stood at 1.43 million as per the annual plan approved for 2006-07. It also found that 3.13 mil-lion children dropped out aft er their enrolment in the schools whereas 0.28 million had never been enrolled as in February 2006. Such high dropouts could be because of the high pupil-teacher ratios, the CAG said. Against the norm under SSA of a teacher-student ratio of 1:40, the state had 1:64 and 1:45 for primary and upper-primary schools respectively in 2006.
Table 3: Inclusive Educa� on Indicators for Children with Special Needs (CWSN)
A: Number of CWSN covered, aids distributed and camps constructed
Year CWSN CWSN Aids & Appliances Ramps Bridge Course for iden� fi ed integrated distributed constructed CWSN (severe cases)
Camps Enrolment
2006-07 295,200 251,536 31,261 NA 67 2,376
2007-08 269,724 243,098 19,753 12,472 102 3,978
2008-09 431,674 358,724 43,026 4411 65 2,508
B: Benefi ciaries under medical assessment camps and Physiotherapists provided for CWSN
Year Medical Assessment Camp Physiotherapist
No. Of Camps Assess CWSN Disability Cer� fi cate Targets Working
2006-07 800 61,450 23,323 NA NA
2007-08 784 50,115 27,721 70 65
2008-09 779 48,212 19,996 70 53
C: Recruitment of special teachers for CWSN
Year I� nerant Teachers for CWSN Resource Teachers for CWSN
Target Working Training Targets Selected Working
2007-08 2,551 1,355 366 209 163 163
2008-09 1,321 1,244 - 160 147 147
D: Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV)
Phase Number Opera� onal By Commi� ee By NGO By Mahila Samkhya Enrolment Staff
I & II 125 125 100 15 10 10,892 1,199
III 132 132 87 33 12 11,112 1,337
IV 66 66 36 25 5 5,160 660
V 131 130 114 10 6 6,488 939
Total 454 453 335 83 33 33,632 4,135
“… the programme suff ered on many fronts such as high dropout rate, low transi� on from primary to upper primary level, dispropor� onate deployment of teachers, non-strengthening of District Ins� tutes of Educa� onal Training (DIETs), etc… High dropout rate at the PS level indicated that eff orts to achieve UEE by involving PRIs, SMCs and community leaders at the grassroots level were not eff ec� ve...”
CAG 2006, U� ar Pradesh
54
A Profi le of SRN Bhadohi District
Sant Ravidas Nagar district, formerly known as Bhadohi, is well-known as a carpet manufacturing centre and was actually born on 30 June 1994 as the 65th district of the state. It is divided into three tehsils namely Aurai, Bhadohi and Gyanpur and six blocks namely Bhadohi, Suriyavan, Gyanpur, Deegh, Abholi and Aurai. It has 1224 villages, 79 Nyaya panchayats, 489 Gram panchayats as well as two Nagar Palikas and fi ve Nagar Panchayats. Table 4 gives a snapshot of the educational status for the district prevailing in 2007-08.
SOME INTERVENTION�WISE GAPS POINTED OUT BY THE CAG REPORT
� Recruitment of teachers: Delay in recruitment and irra� onal deployment of teachers aff ected the learning achievements… the objec� ve of removal of imbalances in the employment of male and female teachers through the recruitment of female teachers under the recommenda� ons of Na� onal Policy of Educa� on (NPE) 1986 had not been achieved (March 2006).
� Teachers training: During 2004-05 and 2005-06 …the shor� all in training of teachers was 42 per cent and 40 per cent of the annual targets respec� vely.
� Ac� vi� es for OoSC: Strategies for mainstreaming of out of school children were not eff ec� ve…Non-coverage of out of school children, even those iden� fi ed in HHS during 2003-06, was a� ributable to shor� all of 47 per cent, 52 per cent and 22 per cent respec� vely in opening of EGS/AIE centres.
� Civil works: 2,510 PS (28 per cent) and 2534 UPS (21 per cent) involving an amount of Rs 217.33 crore re-mained incomplete as of April 2006... to delay in release of funds and delayed selec� on of sites etc. aff ected the coverage of access-less habita� ons in a � me bound manner…
� Innova� ve ac� vi� es: Innova� ve ac� vi� es for computer educa� on for UPS were not undertaken mainly due to the problem of electricity supply as of 2006-07.
� Educa� on for Girls, Scheduled Caste and Tribal children: Neither a focused strategy for the coverage of out of school girls especially those belonging to SC/ ST categories was adopted nor any programme exclusively for their iden� fi ca� on and main streaming was launched during 2001-06.
� NPEGEL: The programme suff ered due to inadequate performance and delay in release of funds… only 66,216 (56 per cent) out of 118,358 girls, iden� fi ed for supplying uniforms and work books were covered…
The state is s� ll behind the na� onal average in schools and performance, especially pupil-teacher ra� o, GER in primary and upper primary classes, girls’ enrolment, etc, despite being ahead in infrastructural indicators. Enrolment in primary classes has been on the decline, although it has gone up at the upper primary level. The state is also lagging behind in terms of teaching indicators such as recruitment, training, etc, even as the number of para teachers has gone up at the expense of regular teachers in government schools in the last two years.
55
Table 4: Educa� onal status of SRN Bhadohi district
Indicator Primary Primary All sec� ons, UP only UP with only with UP including secondary /HS secondary/HS
School related indicators
Number of schools Govt. 613 2 0 309 3
Private 206 50 2 122 26
Enrolment Govt. 181,385 1,532 0 51,158 544
Private 46,986 17,950 1108 26,742 6,127
Pupil-teacher ra� o 92 - - 52 -
Infrastructure Indicators
Percentage of single classroom schools 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentage of single teacher schools 6.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0
Percentage of schools with common toilet 96.2 100.0 100.0 96.1 96.6
Percentage of schools with girls toilets 87.1 100.0 100.0 88.6 82.8
Percentage of schools with drinking water 98.2 100.0 100.0 97.7 100.0
Percentage of schools with blackboard 98.0 100.0 100.0 97.7 100.0
Percentage of enrolment in govt schools 79.4 7.9 0.0 65.7 8.2
Percentage of govt schools with kitchen 70.6 50.0 0.0 3.2 33.3
Percentage of govt schools opened a� er 2003 15.7 0.0 0.0 50.8 33.3
Performance Indicators
Reten� on rate (primary level) 100.0
Transi� on rate (primary to upper primary) 68.1
Examina� on results
Percentage passed with 60 Boys 44.1per cent plus in Class 5 Girls 40.5
Percentage passed with 60 Boys 46.6per cent plus in Class 8 Girls 45.6
Source: District Elementary Educa� on Report Card : 2007-08, Elementary Educa� on in India: Where Do We Stand?, NUEPA, New Delhi
Budget Tracking in U� ar Pradesh
Apart from the SSA administrative offi cials mentioned earlier, the study team also interviewed the Ward Councilor of the Gyanpur block. At school level, individual interviews with the Headmaster and some of the PTA members14 and Village Education Committees/Gram Shiksha Samiti (GSS)15 attached to each school as well as focused group discussions with the teachers/ Shiksha Mitra-s16 and interaction with school children were carried out in all the nine schools. We also
14 PTA is a committee formed in every school with HM as the chair and parents as members which must meet every month as per SSA guidelines.
15 Gram Shiksha Samiti-s are five-member committees associated with each school consisting of Ward member/Councilor (in case of urban block) or Gram Pradhan (in case of rural blocks) as president, HM of Basic School or senior most HM in the area as secretary and three parents (one woman) of Basic schools.
16 Shiksha Mitra is the para teacher recruited at Nyaya Panchayat level only in the primary schools
56
managed to interact with guardians/parents of school children and children not going to school in Bhatewara village, Suryawan block. Th ese interactions revealed some of the major problems faced by the children and parents which would otherwise not have been exposed.
Planning Process in U� ar Pradesh
Although the planning process has been bottom-up following the SSA norms, offi cials say lacunas remain in the decen-tralised system of planning as well as fund fl ows, making it less eff ective. Household surveys and Child Census have been carried out every year, generally in May or July, and all the teachers are distributed 125 data tables/formats from the block offi ce. Th e members of the GSS are responsible for fi lling up the for-mats which then reach the district as under.
Head Master NPRC BRC District(School level) (Nyaya panchayat of school)
At the school level, the literacy status, income status of the households etc. are fi lled up by the Shiksha Mitra along with the BRC offi cials throughout the block as a part of the household survey, while it is the HM’s responsibility to fi nd out the number of dropouts and never- enrolled children. Th e fi lled up formats are then submitted to the respective Nyaya Panchayat Resource Centre Coordinator (NPRC) of the schools.
At the Cluster level (Nyaya Panchayat), the planning team consolidates the habitation plans to prepare and send cluster plans to the respective blocks. All the formats from each NPRC come to the BRC which are then consolidated at the Block level by the planning team and submitted to the districts. HM meetings are organised at the block level at the time of distributing the format tables and aft er the submission of the fi lled up formats to NPRC.
Th e State-level Planning Committee in the SIS scrutinise all the district plans and organise a state-level planning committee meeting, usually in January, to discuss and fi nalise the plans for each district. However, according to the CAG, “…annual plans were fi nalised without assessing the needs at the habitation level, thus contrary to the guidelines of the programme…”
According to the BRCC, Gyanpur block, Bhadohi, “…the GSS is not func� oning properly in all schools. Only the HM in the urban block and HM and Pradhan in the rural block take all the trouble to fi ll in the formats and send these to the BRC…”
“…Panchaya� Raj Ins� tu� ons, Village Educa� on Commit-tees/School Management Commi� ees, Parent Teachers’ Associa� ons and Non-Government organisa� ons were not associated with the prepara� on of Annual Work Plans and Budget….Annual plans were fi nalised without assessing the needs at the habita� on level, thus contrary to the guidelines of the programme…”
CAG Performance Audit 2006
Community Ownership Only on Paper
Though the GSS has been formed in every school, their func� onality remains severely inhibited. According to the HMs of Suryawan block, the panchayat heads are not ac� ve and take li� le interest in a� ending the mee� ngs or provide any sugges� on for improvement. A similar fate has befallen the PTA/MTA in the blocks studied. While some schools hold mee� ngs once a month following the SSA norms and maintain registrars of the minutes/resolu� ons of these mee� ngs, in some others, parents’ reluctance to join has hampered the process. The HMs and teachers say, “…parents are daily wage earners and not ready to forgo a day’s wage just for a� ending one mee� ng in school…”
57
Funds Flow Under SSA
SSA uses the Electronic Funds Transfer mechanism (EFT) between bank accounts for transfer of funds from SPO to DPO / DIETs and through bank transfer advices, from DPO to sub-district units. Prior to August 2004, the funds under SSA were remitted to DPOs through bank draft and from them to the sub district levels, which caused delay. Th e new system has resulted in lower funds transit period and more eff ective funds management and control mechanism. However, according to the offi cials at the state offi ce, the fl ow of funds to the SIS doesn’t adhere to the prescribed calendar, aff ecting planning and the pace of implementation. Even the state government has not been releasing its share of funds on time. Funds transfer to sub-districts is also effi cient (by using credit advice instead of cheques), but block offi cials say there are delays in actual release partly on account of lack of advance planning and partly due to lack of clarity of instructions and eff ective monitoring of district offi cials. From the district, intervention budgets fl ow in two ways, that is, district to blocks or directly to the schools. Grants for the blocks are released from the district for17,
� BRC Grants18 � Construction of Ramps (primary and upper primary)� Additional classrooms (primary and upper primary)� Weighing machine at Rs 500 per primary and upper primary school� Remedial teaching at Rs 50 per primary teacher � Teachers Training
Grants for the schools19 are released directly by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) of the Bhadohi district and get credited into the Gram Shiksha Samiti (GSS) account maintained for each school. Th is account is jointly held by the HM and head of Panchayat/Ward Councilor.
� TLM grants at Rs 500 per teacher� School Improvement Fund
17 Components are general components which get funds every year, though fund flows are need based.
18 This should include Office maintenance grant, salary for computer operator, fund to meet expenses of Meeting, Contingency, TA for HMs, and miscellaneous. However, as BRCCs, no grant has comes for maintenance and repair of block resource centre.
19 There are only three components for which fund flows directly from the district to the bank account of SMC: 1) School Improvement Fund (SIF), 2) School Management/Maintenance Grants and 3) Teachers Grant/TLM
On an average, only 1.12 per cent of the SSA funds approved for the en� re state of U� ar Pradesh during 2005-06 to 2007-08 went to SRN Bhadohi district, a renowned centre for carpet manufacturing which employs children.
The ups and downs of the ‘bo� om-up’ approach
Interac� ons with state and district-level offi cials made it clear that the planning process is grassroots oriented. Even the Ward Councilor of the Gyanpur block insisted that only a� er several rounds of discussions with headmasters/GSS members on the household surveys and child census made, the habita� on plan formats are fi lled. Yet, individual in-terviews with headmasters and GSS members revealed that there had been no improvement although requirements are being fi lled in the prescribed format every year and passed on to the blocks. Many HMs complained that “a variety of requirements such as, repair of handpumps, construc� on or repair of toilet, construc� on of boundary wall, addi� onal store room, sewing machine/cycles that are provided for girls, construc� on of kitchen shed, recruit-ment of science teacher, etc. were submi� ed to the block in the last four years but nothing has been sanc� oned as yet.” Some others said, “Everything is on paper. Offi cials from BRC visit schools only for the sake of inspec� on. They are neither interested in interac� ng with the children on the problems they face nor try to act towards improvement.”
58
� School Management Grants: Whitewashing of the building at Rs 5,000 to schools with less than three classrooms, Rs 7,000 – Rs 9,800 for schools with more than three classrooms
� School uniform for girls (Primary Schools)� School bags to children (Upper Primary Schools)� Scholarships to girls of SC/BC/minority communities at Rs 100 per girl child
Financial Reporting from School to District: Format of UCs are distributed to the HMs of PS, UPS and HS who has the responsibility to fi ll the expenditure details with signature of Pradhan/Councillor and submit to the NPRC coor-dinator who in turn submits all UCs to the BRC offi ce. Th e BRC scrutinises the UCs coming from diff erent NPRCs. Th e ABSA and BRCC, apart from regular visit to schools twice a month, also visit schools to check bills/ vouchers in the case of poor records furnished. All UCs received from the NPRC are then submitted to the district BSA. For block-level expenditures such as training, the BRC is supposed to report to the DIET with detailed information of the number of trainings organised, the number of teachers and per day training cost. Regarding the BRC grants, bills/vouchers of expenditures such as electricity fi ttings, TA/DA etc are prepared by the block and sent back to the district for internal and departmental audit.
Funds Flow Under SSA in U� ar Pradesh
Th e AWPB proposals are in two parts, the plan for the current fi nancial year and the progress overview of the previous year including spillover activities.20 As pointed out by the fi rst Joint Review Mission of the SSA in 2005, the reasons for this include: (i) delays in preparation, submission and approval of AWPB, (ii) delay in submission of UCs by the state, and (iii) inadequate provisions in the budget. Table 5 gives the state-level budgets that were approved and released as well as the audited expenditure reported under the SSA over 2005-06 to 2008-09.
Comparing the released amount with AWPB, we see that the total amount released has been much less than the approved budget in all the four years under study. Offi cials say this is because the release depends largely on the trend of expenditure in previous years as well as the timely submission of UCs. In fact, actual expenditure has been lower than released except in 2006-07 when it was actually a little more. As a share of the approved budget, on the other hand, expenditure ranges from 28 to 83 per cent over the last four years.
20 Manual on Financial Management and Procurement, DEEL, MHRD, Government Of India
Table 5: Approved Alloca� on, Releases and Expenditure under SSA in U� ar Pradesh (Rs lakh)
Year Approved AWPB GOI Shaire Fund Reported Share of Share of (with Opening (including Released Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Balance) external) to Approved to Total Release
2005-06 268,944.87 182,560.94 60,933.29 243,494.23 223,818.21 83.22 91.92
2006-07 393,154.82 206,654.00 68,884.66 275,538.66 282,912.57 71.96 102.68
2007-08 369,406.42 204,758.00 114,139.91 318,897.91 297,777.48 80.61 93.38
2008-09* 421,306.56 91,709.65 87,039.00 178,748.65 118,913.78 28.23 66.53
*Expenditure in 2008-09 shows only half-yearly expenditure � ll September, 2009
The state government released only 23 per cent and 18 per cent of the approved budget during 2005-06 and 2006-07 respec� vely, against the scheduled share of 25 per cent as per the guideline. In 2007-08, it released 31 per cent as against the revised share norm of 35 per cent.
59
Funds Flow by Interven� on
It is clear from table 6 that among all interventions, Teachers’ Salary gets the top billing in all the years, followed by the Civil Works and Textbooks. Major and unique interventions under the SSA such as Intervention for Out of School (EGS/
Table 6: Interven� on-wise Alloca� on and Expenditure under SSA in U� ar Pradesh (Rs lakh)
S. No. Component 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Alloca� on Spending Alloca� on Spending Alloca� on Spending Alloca� on Spending
1 Teachers Salary 107,369.00 89,552.03 133,227.61 84,309.1 163,807.1 154,834.81 191,133.97 34,356.31
2 Textbook 10,655.00 7,703.98 11,033.02 9,489.93 11,699.65 9,975.2 11,939.70 872.03
3 TLE 2,010.00 1,820.62 2,587.3 2,171.23 3,101.9 2,954.31 2806.4 26.29
4 BRC(other than 566.00 488.42 958.79 325.48 951.77 204.55 1,044.64 189.01 civil works)
5 CRC(other than 838.00 465.41 834.09 420.12 830.2 475.79 970.424 358.78 civil works)
6 Maintenance 5,700.00 5,404.01 6,027.1 5,748.29 6,328.75 6,147.18 10,065 8,243.93
7 IED/ CWSN 3,149.00 2,332.33 4,213.01 2,212.47 4,213.21 2,221.97 3,185.05 561.23
8 School Grant 2,546.00 2,404.18 2,669.82 2,563.2 2,815.1 2,609.07 8,113.05 7,052.01
9 Teacher Grant 2,287.00 1,654.73 2,445.59 1,921.61 2,495.47 2,065.76 2,396.13 1.75
10 Civil Works 89,914.00 88,997.61 150,518.45 145,488.46 88,496.49 86,374.81 75,667.25 54,715.1
11 Major repairs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
12 EGS/AIE 2,919.00 984.84 8,202.73 2,332.47 10,056.93 4,785.51 7,876.37 1112
13 Remedial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 Teaching
14 Teacher’s 6,850.00 3,621.70 5,876.6 2,992.1 5,383.36 3,357.11 3,278.12 499.68 Training
15 Community 286.00 153.79 301.92 268.9 308.62 53.15 319.29 11.48 Training
16 Innova� ve 3,500.00 1,476.04 4,550 17,269.45 3,500 2,270.21 3,846.28 495.86 Ac� vi� es
17 Research and 891.00 202.63 1,868.87 316.47 1,970.57 344.27 1,883.45 215.65 Evalua� on
18 Management 4,500.00 1,411.63 4,729.84 3,507.24 5,167.16 2,440.25 5,131.58 962.81 Cost (Dist)
Management 1,776.00 0.00 3,954.4 1,520.97 4,190.05 1,133.01 1,721.54 365.09 Cost (State)
Total (Mgt.) 6,276.00 1,411.63 8,684.24 5,028.21 9357.21 3,573.26 6,853.12 1,327.9
19 Learning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enhancement Programme
20 SIEMAT 0.00 0.00 0 55.08 0 0 0 0
TOTAL- SSA 245,756.00 208,673.95 343,999.14 282,912.57 315,316.33 282,246.96 331,378.26 110,039.01
Note: Expenditure for the year 2008-09 shows only the half yearly expenditure � ll September, 09
60
AIE)21, CWSN or Community Training and Innovative Activities22 have received least attention in the state with dwin-dling allocation and spending over the years.
Underspending at State Level
From the pattern of utilisation of the funds released de-picted in the chart (right) as well as the fi gures in table 7, we can see that the percentage of underspending at the state level in the case of SSA ranged from 10 per cent to 66 per cent between 2005-06 and 2008-0923. A closer scrutiny at component wise expenditure reveals that huge amounts of the funds allocated for major interventions have remained unspent over the years. On an average, over 27 per cent of funds remained unspent by the state during this period.
Components such as teachers’ salary, textbooks, teachers’ grant, intervention for out-of-school (EGS/AIE), CWSN, Teachers’ and community leaders’ training are the important interventions that experienced huge underspending of al-
21 Under Intervention for Out-of-school children, SSA intends to open and run alternative schools in access less habitations through centres under the Education Guarantee Scheme and the Alternative Innovative Education scheme.
22 Innovative activities include provision for Early Childhood Care and Education, Girls Education, Education of SC/ST group and Computer Aided Learning in Schools.
23 The expenditure figure for 2008-09 is only till September 2009
Table 7: Interven� on wise Underspending at the State level (in per cent)
Sl No. Interven� ons 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Average
1 Teachers Salary 16.59 36.72 5.48 82.03 35.20
2 Textbook 27.70 13.99 14.74 92.70 37.28
3 TLE 9.42 16.08 4.76 99.06 32.33
4 BRC 13.71 66.05 78.51 81.91 60.04
5 CRC 44.46 49.63 42.69 63.03 49.95
6 Maintenance 5.19 4.63 2.87 18.09 7.70
7 IED/CWSN 25.93 47.48 47.26 82.38 50.77
8 School Grant 5.57 3.99 7.32 13.08 7.49
9 Teacher Grant 27.65 21.43 17.22 99.93 41.55
10 Civil Works 1.02 3.34 2.40 27.69 8.61
11 Out of school-EGS/AIE 66.26 71.56 52.42 85.88 69.03
13 Teacher’s Training 47.13 49.08 37.64 84.76 54.65
14 Community Training 46.23 10.94 82.78 96.40 59.09
15 Innova� ve Ac� vi� es 57.83 (279.55) 35.14 87.11 (24.87)
16 Research and Evalua� on 77.26 83.07 82.53 88.55 82.85
17 Management Cost & MIS 77.51 42.10 61.81 80.62 65.51 Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate overspending of approved funds
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Figure 1: Average Underspending at State Level (Per cent)
61
located funds ranging from 35 per cent to 70 per cent. Table 5 shows that in the three years from 2005-06 to 2007-08, much less funds than approved have been released in the state. Th e major reasons for this are a) Underutilisation of the allocated funds, and b) Delayed submission of the UCs.
SSA Funds Flow in SRN Bhadohi
In spite of repeated visits to the district BSA offi ce at Bhadohi and persistent requests, we were not able to access properly documented budget data, especially the released and expenditure details for the district. Offi cials were reluctant to reveal the information. More importantly, we felt that they themselves had not properly documented the information
as per the SSA norms. We could only get proposed and approved budgets, intervention-wise, for three years from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and were thus unable to conduct a proper analysis of funds fl ow at district level. Th is is a major limitation of this study.
Based on the approved budget details provided by the BSA offi cials, we analysed that only an average of 1.12 per cent of the funds approved for the entire state of Uttar Pradesh during 2005-06 to 2007-08 had been approved for the SRN Bhadohi district in this time period. In the backdrop of poor educational indicators, the meagre fund allocation for the district is unlikely to result in big improvements in the district, especially when the actual amount spent is usually much lower than the approved.
Even in terms of intervention-wise allocations, the district has followed more or less the same patterns and priorities as the state.
Figure 2: Interven� on-wise Average Underspending (Per cent)
0
10
30
20
40
60
50
70
80
TextBook
IED/CWSN
TeacherGrant
Out of School
EGS/AIE
Teacher’sTraining
Comm-unity
Training
Major interven� on-wise avg. underspending
Table 8: SSA Share for SRN Bhadohi (Rs lakh)
Year Approved Approved Percentage Budget Budget share for for UP for district district
2005-06 264,189.00 3,196.10 1.21
2006-07 367,851.44 3,537.59 0.96
2007-08 344,152.52 4,074.69 1.18
Components such as teachers’ salary, textbooks, teachers’ grant, interven� on for out-of-school (EGS/AIE), children with special needs, teachers’ and community leaders’ training are the important interven� ons that experienced huge underspending, ranging from 35 per cent to 70 per cent of allocated funds. The major reasons for this are a) Under-u� lisa� on of the allocated funds, and b) Delayed submission of the u� lisa� on cer� fi cates.
In a district where there is a much higher propor� on of out of school children, poor learning outcome of the stu-dents, and very high pupil-teacher ra� os, low alloca� ons for running alterna� ve educa� on centres or for ge� ng teachers trained are inexplicable. There has also been very li� le money going towards strengthening of village educa-� on commi� ees and towards funding grants to maintain resource centres at all levels, which implies neglect of build-ing and promo� ng community ownership in educa� on.
62
It is clear from table 9 that, as in the case of state level allocations, the component Teacher’s Salary has received the top-most billing followed by Civil Works and distribution of Text Books. Shockingly, school level grants, such as Maintenance, School Grants, TLM have received the least attention in terms of allocations. So have some important interventions such as EGS/AIE, CWSN, Teachers’ Trainings, etc, which were to add to the uniqueness and eff ectiveness of the SSA.
In a district where there is a much higher proportion of out of school children, poor learning outcome of the students, and very high pupil-teacher ratios, low allocations for running alternative education centres or getting teachers trained are inexplicable. Th ere has also been very little money going towards strengthen-ing of VECs and to fund Grants maintaining BRC, NPRC and CRC, which implies neglecting to build and promote community ownership in education. Th is puts a question mark over the role and functioning of the block/cluster/village level administration in imple-menting SSA on the ground.
Table 9: Interven� on-wise Alloca� on in SRN Bhadohi (Rs lakh)
Sl No Interven� ons 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
1 BRC and Nagar Shiksha Adhikari 981.00 1488.50 1463.50
2 NPRC 466.10 466.10 466.10
3 CRC (Urban) 5.90 5.90 5.90
4 Civil Works 85781.06 139078.00 136024.14
5 EGS/AIE 2851.88 3351.00 14678.00
6 Free Text Books 19188.75 12461.90 15077.00
7 IED/CWSN 1958.40 3300.00 3300.00
8 Innova� ve Ac� vi� es 5000.00 5000.00 5000.00
9 Maintenance 4483.50 4735.50 4585.00
10 Research, Monitoring & Evalua� on 1192.80 1271.20 1355.20
11 School Grant 1704.00 1816.00 1936.00
12 Teacher’s Salary 184132.20 167226.90 207714.00
13 Teacher Grant (TLM) 1295.00 1644.00 1586.00
14 Teaching Learning Equipments 1220.00 1550.00 1300.00
15 Teacher Training 3769.85 3669.75 4847.85
16 Strengthening Of VEC/WEC 289.74 289.74 257.64
17 Management Cost 5290.20 6405.00 7873.00
TOTAL SSA- SRN Bhadohi District 319610.38 353759.49 407469.33
On an average, during a three and a half year period over 2005-06 and 2008-09, more than 27 per cent of the funds approved and released for SSA interven� ons remained unspent. Underspending ranged from 10 per cent to 66 per cent in this period.
The elusive key
During our visits to the SSA offi ce of Suriywan block, we were told that budget documents were kept in a cupboard. The key of that was with the Block Educa-� on Offi cer, who was at that � me par� cipa� ng in an agita� on against the awards of the Sixth Pay Com-mission. Since no one had even a copy of the key or knew where it was, we could not get hold of the budget documents.
63
Funds Flow at Sub-district and Schools
Budget documents and information on SSA implementation at the block level were not available despite repeated visits to the sample block offi ces. Th e reasons include: i) lack of proper record keeping, ii) offi cial’s reluctance to reveal the specifi c data, and iii) unavailability of block education offi cers despite prior appointment. We did not get required information on the rural block of Suriyawan but managed to gather some data on the urban block of Gyanpur.
Table 10 shows the component-wise breakup of the budget for Gyanpur block. According to the BRCC of Gyanpur, who took over in 2007-08, the budget and expenditure details had not been recorded and maintained properly by his predeces-sors. As a result, we could not get any numbers for 2005-06 and 2006-07, or half the period of the study.
Compared to the hurdles and resistance faced at the district and block offi ces, school-level data collection was much easier. Teachers and GSS members cooperated in providing us the information, although all of it was not well documented. Even UC are not maintained properly in the schools. However, according to the grants registers maintained at schools, it seems there has been full utilisation of grants received by the schools. Table 9 details the money fl ows at the schools surveyed during the project period.
Table 10: Component-wise alloca� on for Gyanpur Block (Rs)
Sl no. Components 2007-08 2008-09
1 TLM grants - Primary 160,500 - Upper-primary 91,000
2 Ramps 141,600
3 Addl. classes - Primary 2,450,000 - Upper-primary 560,000
4 Weighing machine @ Rs 500 in 42 PS 21,000
5 Uniform for girls @ Rs 100 for 16714 girls 1,671,400
6 SMG - Primary @ Rs 5000 570,000 - Upper-primary @ Rs 7000 497,000
7 SIF 1,467,300
8 BRC Grants 22,500 34,500
9 Remedial teaching 6,050 12,100
TOTALNote: The table is based on the informa� on documented at the block offi ce of Gyanpur. The components at block level include school-level grants. However, according to SSA norms, school-level grants are released from the district directly to the GSS account maintained in each school. Apart from these, a few other components too have received block grants, such as Ramps, Weighing Machines, BRC grants and Remedial teaching.
That the SSA has neglected inclusion, quality, and community ownership in Bhadohi district, UP, is easy to infer from the fact that the budget released towards interven� ons for out-of-school (EGS/AIE) children, children with special needs, and training of teachers and community leaders showed the highest underspending, ranging between 50 per cent and 60 per cent, during 2005-06 to 2008-09.
64
Th e components at this level are:
1. School Improvement Fund (SIF).
2. School Management/Maintenance Grants (SMG)
3. Teachers Grant/TLM.
4. Scholarships for SC/ST/BC and minority (Primary and Upper Primary classes).
5. Uniform for girls (Primary classes).
6. School bags for girls (Primary and upper-primary classes).
7. Sewing machine/ cycles for girls (Upper primary classes).
Interviews with the headmasters and teachers revealed that grants for each component are transferred directly to the schools from the BSA offi ce through e-banking to the joint bank account of HM and Ward councilor/gram pradhan. To spend the SIF and SMG grants, the HM has to make an indent of the requirements and get approval from the councilor/pradhan before withdrawing money from GSS account. TLM grants (at Rs 500 per teacher), on the other hand, were directly credited to the individual account of the teachers who have to purchase drawing sheets and make charts and other learning
Table 9: Grants Received and U� lised at the Nine Sample Schools (in Rs )
Block School/Year 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Primary School, Gyanpur-II* 12,000 14,040 22,070 16,570
Upper Primary School, Gyanpur II** 11,000 37,320 44,120 87,720
AIE, Bara Deegh, Gyanpur II*** … … … 120,000
Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Deegh, Gyanpur II **** Items supplied
Primary School, Bhatewara# 68,700 77,500 220,500 22,200
Primary School, Saray Bhawsingh## 83,720 77,700 210,475 359,900
Upper Primary School, Bhatewara### 6,500 6,500 146,724 71,580
Upper Primary School, Saray Bhawsingh#### 8,000 135,224 8,000 173,850
Residen� al Bridge Course (RBC) Centre, Bihiapur Alloca� on through NGO
** SC/ST toppers in classes 3-5 were given pullovers @ Rs100 and class one and two toppers were given box @ Rs 35. Apart from the SSA and NPEGEL funds, the school has received Rs 60,000 towards construc� on of kitchen in 2007-08 and Rs 25,188 towards electrical work in 2008-09. ** Apart from the fund that comes from SSA, there was kitchen shed grant of Rs 60,000 and fund towards electricity fi � ngs/wirings of more than Rs 1 lakh.*** Funds include salary of the Shiksha Mitra at Rs 2,000 per month for ten months and School Expenditure Grant at Rs 10,000 per month for ten months.**** This Centre does not receive any funds. Requirements of soaps, mats, oil, sanitary ar� cles, etc are supplied from the BSA directly as per the requirements sent by the principal of KGBV. Cooked meals come directly from the DIET as the Centre is running at the DIET building.# It received an addi� onal amount of Rs 25,000 towards electrical work in 2008-09.## Apart from the SSA funds, the school received a grant of Rs 5,000 for utensils under MDM and Rs 25,133 for electrical work in 2008-09.### The school received grants of Rs 1,000 and Rs 25,000 for science kit and electrical works respec� vely in 2008-09.#### Addi� onal sums of Rs.60,000 and Rs.7,500 received towards kitchen shed and science kit respec� vely.
Gya
npur
Blo
ckSu
riya
wan
Blo
ck
TLM painted on the wall of a school in UP
65
materials till 2007-08. Since 2007-08, as per BSA’s instruction, the TLM grants are being used in the state decorating each classroom with placards or wall painting of Hindi letters/numbers/pictures, mathematical formula/shapes, biological fi gures and English words with pictures. Grants for other components come to the school joint account on the basis of the number of students and are distributed in the beginning of each academic year by the headmaster.
Reporting of Expenditure by Schools: Th e HM is responsible for fi lling up the UC in detail and submitting it to the block. Th e SDI (School Development Inspector) at the block level along with the ABSA visits the school to check the bills/ vouchers. Later during the time of audit, all original bills and vouchers are submitted to the NPRC coordinator who takes them to the auditors at BSA offi ce.
How Inclusive is the SSA?
One of the objectives of our study was to fi nd out if the SSA goal of inclusion—of widening all children’s access to schools—was being met. Th is is the reason we included KGBV, RBC centres and AIE centres in our sample. Th e AIE centre in Gyanpur block runs under the Primary School Gyanpur II, although the overall monitoring and supervising responsibilities lie with the BSA of Bhadohi district. Th is centre is running in a single room, which is actually the store in the residence of the centre head, called Acharya. Interviews with her and the HM of the Primary school told us that the funds towards salary and school expenditure for 10 months comes from the BSA to the joint bank account of the school and the HM then makes out a cheque to the Acharya. Th e Acharya then buys the materials needed as per the instruction from the BSA offi cial. However, we found a lack of transparency on these purchases as no expenditure statements, bills/vouchers were being maintained at the centre.
Th e Bihiapur RBC centre is being operated since January 2009 by an NGO, Purbanchal Social Development Society, Tiwaripur, Gazipur. SSA has disbursed money to the NGO towards meeting all expenses for nine months, which the NGO has to disburse to the centre. While all spending is done at the RBC against bills, it is the NGO’s responsibility to collect those records and submit proper UC to the District Project Offi ce (BSA).
Th e sample KGBV of Deegh block has been running in the DIET bulding of Gyanpur since the sanctioned permanent building is under construction. According to the principal of the centre, the SSA funds come from the SPO to the BSA and she or warden/teachers do not have any authority. Th e needs list is prepared by the principal and submitted to the accountant24 who in turn submits it to the BSA which supplies as per the requirements25. Non-recurring item such as
24 A separate post of accountant is created in this state for KGBV who takes care of all administrative work at the centre.
25 At the BSA level, a joint bank account is opened in the name of KGBV by BSA and AAO. After the approval from the DM (such permission comes in the beginning of the academic year for prescribed items, but for additional requirements, ad hoc permissions are granted), the AAO withdraws the required amount from the bank account to purchase and supply the requirements to the KGBV.
No money for AIE
Against the headmaster’s claim that he had dis-bursed a cheque towards Salary and School expen-diture, the Acharya of the AIE Centre said she had received no funds since the centre started in August 2008. She said she had been buying all sta� oneries and related materials out of her own pocket to run the centre, an untenable situa� on, and therefore she was planning to close the centre.
Poor state of KGBV
• Medical aids/check-ups for children not available
• No boundary wall
• No science equipment provided as yet
• There is one TV set but doesn’t work
• One computer provided by the State offi ce but unused.
• No benches for children. Children sat on fl oor mats.
• The toilets are dark and not maintained.
66
furniture, bedding, TLE, civil works etc and recurring items such as salary, maintenance grants etc. go directly from the district as per the prescribed format.
At the KGBV, we found that there was no supply of fruits/biscuits etc since no earmarked funds were available to the principal. As the school is housed in DIET, all three cooked meals are supplied by the DIET offi ce. Th e meals cost Rs 25 per child per day. Soaps, mats, oil, sanitary supplies etc come from the BSA through the accountant as per the needs list from KGBV.
Th e KGBV principal said she was not responsible for maintaining bills and reporting to the district. Th e AAO in the BSA offi ce fi lls up the format of recurring and non-recurring items maintained in the district with the help of the KGBV accountant and send to the state SPO. Original bills are also kept in the BSA offi ce to be audited three times a year (external audit, internal audit and audit by the AG, UP).
How effi cient are Ini� a� ves for ‘Out of School’ children?
Our visits to the AIE and RBC centres and interviews conducted there brought home the real truth of ‘inclusion’ being prac� sed at these schools. At the AIE centre, Gyanpur II seemed to lack every facility mandated by the SSA guidelines. It runs in a single room in a private residence--a room that was previously being used as a store by the Acharya, the head of the school. It not only stank but also didn’t have an electricity connec� on and windows. We did not fi nd any children when we visited but the Acharya insisted that all the 15 children in the register had been a� ending school regularly. However, despite the Acharya’s insistence, we did not fi nd any children having been mainstreamed a� er comple� on of ten months of alterna� ve schooling as per rules. Nor was there any monitoring/supervision from the HM of associated primary school or by the BSA district offi ce. The Acharya had not taken any ini� a� ve so far for mobilising the community to send children to the centre. It was also clear from the interview that no parent was called if any child stopped coming to the centre. On the contrary, the Acharya’s excuse was that parents were mostly agricultural labour, they were not interested in coming to school.
The state of the RBC centre at Bihiapur, Suryawan block was even worse. Against 60 children’s names in the register, we found only 35 a� ending. The class was actually being conducted in the balcony and a small, overcrowded room was being used as the dormitory for all the children. Children did not have any ma� ress or even fl oor mat to sleep on. The SSA mandates honorarium of Rs.1500 each to the cook and helper, but we were told that they got only Rs 600 each. This was however denied by the NGO running the centre, Purbanchal Social Development Society of Tiwaripur, Gazipur.
67
Table 10a: Facili� es in the sample schools surveyed – Gyanpur Block (Urban)
Facili� es Name of the Schools
Primary School, Upper Primary AIE Centre, KGBV, Deegh block, Gyanpur II, School, Gyanpur, Bara Deegh, Gyanpur, DIET Bhadohi Bhadohi Gyanpur, Bhadohi building, Bhadohi
Number of Students 130 192 25 73
Number of Regular Teachers 2 including 5 including No 1 the HM the HM
Number of Para … … 1 Acharya 2teachers/ Shiksha Mitra
Number of Classrooms 7 6 No 3 classrooms and 3 separate dormitories
Drinking water Yes Yes No Yes
Common toilet Yes, but without Yes, but without No Yes but lack of water and proper water and proper ligh� ng and proper maintenance. maintenance. maintenance.
Separate toilets for girls No No No …
Uniform for girls Yes No No Yes
Scholarships Yes Yes … …
Library Books No Yes. No No
If yes, whether separate … Stored in … …library room HMs room
Computer … Yes No Yes but not working
Boundary Wall Yes Yes No No
Playground No No No Yes
Ramps No No No No
Sea� ng facility Not Available Yes Not Available No. Si� ng on the ground
Availability of textbooks Yes Yes Yes Yeson � me
If not, delayed by how … … … …many months
Science equipment/apparatus … Yes No No
Infrastructure is a major concern, especially poor infrastructure facili� es and lack of adequate number of teachers, especially in upper primary schools. This is all the more worrisome in the urban block where the schools lack even basic facili� es such as usable toilets, ramps for disabled children, and benches in the classrooms. In this situa� on, facili� es such as playground, boundary wall, computer and science lab equipment, ramps for the disabled etc seem like luxury. In fact, none of the schools, in urban and rural block, had the luxury of having a playground. In the rural block, even essen� als such as water are not available. Even the toilet is not maintained properly due to lack of water. All these factors contribute to keeping children away from school and make educa� on really inaccessible.
68
Table 10b: Facili� es in the sample schools surveyed – Suriyawan Block (Rural)
Facili� es Name of the Schools
PS, Bhatewara, PS, Saray UPS, Saray Purba Madhyamik RBC, Bihiapur, Suryawan Bhawsingh, Bhawsingh, Vidyalaya (UPS), Suryawan block Suryawan block Surwayan Bhatewara block
Number of Students 235 but only 270 146 109 but only 60 (Only 35 140 are regular 70 are regular present on the day of our visit)
Number of Regular One teacher One teacher 5 including HM 2 including HM …Teachers cum HM cum HM (No science & hindi teacher)
Number of Para 2 2 … … 2Teachers/ Shiksha Mitra
Number of Classrooms 4 but HM 5 classrooms, 3 classrooms 3 classrooms, No classroom, using one one used by HM and one room one hall and one one dormitory for HM small room for HM room
Drinking Water Three handpumps Yes One handpump, Three handpumps, Yes in the school also used by the only one is working compound, two villagers as there and also used not working is no boundary wall by the villagers
Common toilet Yes, but not Not usable. Yes but without Yes but not Yes working, so boys Children using running water working use girl’s toilet another toilet provided by the Panchayat head.
Toilet for girls Yes … No … …
Uniform for girls Yes Yes No …
Scholarships Yes Yes Yes Yes …
Library Books No No No (Rs. 6000 given No … by the government to the local Nyaya Panchayat)
If Yes, whether … … … … …separate library room
Computer No No No No …
Boundary Wall No No No Partly constructed No
Playground No No No No No
Ramps No Yes Yes Yes No
Sea� ng facility No benches. No benches. Benches donated Many benches Si� ng on mats Si� ng on fl oor. Si� ng on mats by community are broken in the balcony
Availability of Yes Yes Yes. Every year, Yes Yestextbooks on � me because of monsoons, books come late
If no, delayed by how … … 3-4 months … …many months
Science-related No No Yes but locked in No …equipment/apparatus cupboard without installa� on
69
Facili� es Available in the Schools
Th e main qualitative part of the study is a detailed school-level survey to assess if the SSA funds were being used to provide all the facilities as mandated to the children. Th e fi nd-ings are documented in tables 10a and 10b. Th e major areas of concern, as documented in the tables, are poor infrastructure facilities and lack of adequate number of teachers, especially in upper primary schools. Th is is all the more worrisome in the urban block where the schools lack even basic facilities such as usable toilets, ramps for disabled chil-dren, and benches in the classrooms.
In this situation, facilities such as playground, boundary wall, computer and science lab equipment, ramps for the disabled etc seem like luxury. In fact, none of the schools, in urban and rural block, had the luxury of having a playground. In the rural block, even essentials such as water are not available. Because of the lack of a boundary wall, the hand pumps in the Upper Primary schools in Bhatewara and Saraybhawsingh are used more by villagers than the students. Even the toilet is not maintained properly due to lack of water. All these factors contribute to keeping children away from school and make education really inaccessible.
In several schools, due to lack of classrooms and sometimes lack of teachers, two or three classes are being combined and taken by one teacher. Classes are also being run out in the open or on the balcony due to lack of classroom. Th is is only going to worsen the poor learning outcomes for these schools. Even the HM doesn’t have a room to himself in most schools, or his room also serves as the store to keep SSA-funded acquisi-tions. According to interviews with HMs and teachers, a major reason for lack of facilities is lack of approval of needs that are noted and listed out at the micro planning stage.
Parents S� ll Keep Children Away From School
Th e study team had an opportunity to mingle with the commu-nity members, including parents/ guardians of children not go-ing to school in Bhatewara, Suryawan block, Bhadohi. Despite being a few steps away from the Bhetawara Primary and Upper-primary schools, several children were not in school, tending cattle or involved in housework or working with/ accompany-ing their parents in cutting grass or wood, feeding animals, etc. Some of them were wearing school uniforms which meant they were in school once. Informal discussions with villagers brought out several interesting issues, although they initially held us off and were lukewarm to our questions, resenting the intrusion from outsiders. Some said “…it is very easy for people like you to come once in a while and talk on what the parents should do, but none show an interest to stay on and discover what our problem really are and why we cannot send the children to school…” We summarise their main arguments below:
HM’s room at Bhatewara UPS is a dumping ground
Educa� on out in the open at Primary school, Bhatewara, Suryawan
Discussions with parents of school children
70
� Th e most common complaint was lack of teachers. Parents said either the schools didn’t have enough teachers or they were usually not found in the classrooms. Children end up playing in school and not studying, which makes it easier for parents to decide to keep them away from school and use them to supplement the family income.
� Th e second commonest complaint was against the Panchayat head, who is also the joint account holder of GSS in primary and upper primary schools, Bhatewara. According to the parents, the Pradhan is not at all active despite the important role that he plays at the school level as well as the village level. So far, he has not addressed any of the needs of the village or the school although the block-level habitation plan is his responsibility.
� Reasons for not sending children to school ranged from an impending ‘mela (fair)’ in the village to dirty uniforms. However, we found several children in school not wearing uniforms. Some parents complained that frequent ab-sence from school oft en became a vicious cycle, with teachers taking them to task for their absenteeism and beating them up for simple mistakes which makes both children and parents scared of school. On the other hand, the shik-sha mitra at Bhatewara primary school complained that parents did not take kindly to their children being scolded and used that as an excuse to fi ght with the teachers and keep them away from school.
� Parents, when asked if they attended PTA/VEC meetings or take an interest in the school’s running and their chil-dren’s education, or off ered suggestions for improvement., said they were unable to give time to school because they were iliterate and also because they needed to be at work in the daytime.
From the focused group discussions with children in the community, we learnt that children enjoyed coming to school in preference to going for work or doing chores at home. But they also told us the problems they usually faced in school. Th e upper primary school students emphasised the problem of lack of teachers, especially in some vital subjects. Also, science equipment is not used in school for teaching science. Neither is there a specialist teacher to clear their doubts and answer their questions. Th ey also complained about the poor state of toilets and drinking water. In the absence of any helper/ayah in school, children are sweeping, washing plates etc aft er the midday meal. During our visit to the primary school at Gyanpur, we were served tea by a child studying in class four. On ask-ing the HM about this, he replied, “Who else? Th ere is no ayah appointed for the school despite requests, so the children are forced to do her work, including sweeping, serving tea, fi lling water in buckets etc.”
Key Findings of the Study
Despite the limited access to information, our study was able to bring out the dichotomy between the detailed planning for the SSA and the inability of the system to deliver the grand objectives even six-seven years aft er the programme started. Despite the small sample size, the fi ndings could serve as a glimpse of the hurdles in the implementation of the SSA in states as well as the gap between the goals and the implementation. While the main fi ndings are summarised below, we would hope these can be used as a tool for further action in strengthening and implementing a universal education pro-gramme under the new Right to Education Act that really translates into action a universal, high-quality, inclusive school education for all children.
A class four student serving tea at the Primary School, Gyanpur
71
� During 2005-06 to 2008-09, the total amount released under SSA in UP by both central and state governments has lagged far behind the approved budget in all the years, largely because of underutilisation of the allocated funds as well as non-submission of funds utilisation certifi cates on time by the State.
� Th e State has failed to release its share26 of funds every year. It released 23 per cent and 18 per cent of the total ap-proved budget in 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively, against the norm of 25 per cent, and 31 per cent in 2007-08 against 35 per cent.
� Since UP is already a poor performer in terms of school related indicators, the underutilisation of released funds in all the years except in 2006-07 makes no sense. Out of the approved budget, actual spending ranged from 28 to 83 per cent over the period of study.
� Important interventions under SSA, such as teachers salaries, textbooks, teacher grant, out of school (EGS/AIE) and CWSN, teacher and community leader training, showed huge underspending ranging from 35 per cent to 70 per cent.
� During 2005-06 to 2007-08, an average of only 1.12 per cent of total funds approved for the entire state went to our sample district SRN Bhadohi.
� Despite large number of out of school children, poor learning outcome of the students and high pupil-teacher ratio, little attention has been paid in SRN Bhadohi district to consciously allocate higher sums to important interven-tions such as EGS/AIE, CWSN, teachers trainings and school level grants such as, maintenance, school grants, TLM etc.
� Th ere are huge gaps in infrastructural facilities such as classrooms, drinking water units and toilets, playground, or compound wall in rural and urban blocks of the district. Either the schools do not have them or if they have them, they have broken down due to lack of maintenance. Computers in upper primary schools are more a showpiece than study aids.
� Ensuring a minimum quality of education is aff ected by lack of subject teachers in upper primary levels, vacant posi-tions in both primary and upper primary schools, and substituting the posts of regular teachers by under qualifi ed Shiksha Mitra or para teachers.
� Visits to alternative and innovative education/residential bridge course centres set up for mainstreaming dropped out or out of school children revealed that the important goal of inclusion is not being served at all. Th ese centres are run at very poor standards, with little funds and even less monitoring. Discrepancies were also found between funds disbursal and receipt by the centres.
� Another important goal, of community participation, too remains largely unmet because we found that the par-ticipatory planning process was not working at the habitation level. As correctly pointed out by the CAG, “…an-nual plans were fi nalised without assessing the needs at the habitation level, thus contrary to the guidelines of the programme…” Interviews with the HMs revealed that their suggestions and requirements of the school were not escalated properly to upper level which is why there has been no such improvement at school level.
� Village level committees existed but only on paper. Meetings for GSS, PTAs and MTAs are irregular due to the reluctance of members to join the meetings. Th e records of these meetings are not properly documented.
� Not enough attention is paid to proper record keeping and documentation at the district level and bureaucratic red tape prevails.
� Parents are still not involved in children’s education. Th e state of education and teaching level at the schools also serve to disenchant them about the benefi ts of such an education.
26 SSA envisages contribution from GOI vis-à-vis the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the ratio of 85:15 for the Ninth Plan (till 2001-02), 75:25 during the Tenth Plan till 2006-07, in the Eleventh Plan it would be 65:35 for the first two years (2007-08 and 2008-09), 60:40 for 2009-10, 55:45 for 2010-11 and 50:50 for 2011 onwards.
72
Annexure
SSA Grants by Component for Schools in SRN Bhadohi District
Suryawan Block
Gyanpur Block
Components 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
TLM Grants 2500 3000 3000 -
SMG- 7500 5760 5000 9800White wash & maintenance
SIF 2000 2000 2000 5000
Girls’ uniform - 2910 2200 1770@ Rs 100
Prizes for SC/ST - 370 370 -one student of A-grade of each class
Benches - - 9500 -(from NPEGEL)
Primary School, Gyanpur-II
Components 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
TLM Grants 4,000 2,000 2,500 Not yet received
SMG- 5,000 5,000 6,500 9,400Whitewash & maintenance
SIF 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
School Bag for - - - -girls @ Rs 90
Scholarship for - 28,320 33,120 76,320SC, BC, Minority (@480 to (@480 to (@480 59 SC) 69 SC) to 64 SC, 89 BC & 6 Mino- rity)
Upper Primary School, Gyanpur-II
Components 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
TTLM Grants 1,500 1,500 1,500 Not yet received
SMG- Whitewash & maintenance 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
SIF - - - -
Girls’ uniform 9,100 8,900 11,300 12,200@ Rs 100
Benches - 9,000 - -
Electricity - - - 25,000
Addi� onal - - 140,000 -classroom
Scholarship 44,700 49,500 54,600 No (149 SC) (157 SC) (182 SC) record
8,400 3,600 8,100 but (28 BC) (12 BC) (26 BC) Scholar- ships were distrib uted
Chairs, mats, - - - 5,000globes, combs etc.
Primary School, Bhatewara, Suryawan
Components 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Honorarium to … … … 20,000Acharya @ Rs 2,000 pm for 10 months
SMG- … … … 100,000Whitewash & maintenance@ Rs 10,000 pm for 10 months
AIE, Bara Deegh, Gyanpur-II
73
Components 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
TLM Grants 2,000 1,500 1,500 Not yet received
SMG- Whitewash 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000& maintenance
SIF 2,000 2,000 4,000 -
Girls’ uniform - 12,300 10,000 12,600@ Rs 100
Prizes for SC/ST one 370 - - -student of A-grade of each class
Benches - - 9,500 -
Utensils - - - 5,000
Furniture, - - - 5,000mats, globe
Electricity wearing - - - 25,133
New classrooms - - 140,000 280,000
Sta� oneries 450 - - -
Ramps 6,500 - - -
Scholarship 40,200 30,600 15,150 1,200 (134 SC) (102 SC) ( 101 SC) (4 Min- ority)
28,200 27,300 26,325 34,800 (95 BC) (51 BC) (89 BC) (116 SC)
21,300 (71 BC)
Primary School, Bhatewara, Suryawan
Components 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
TLM Grants 1,500 1,500 2,000 Not yet received
SMG- Whitewash 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000& maintenance (spent 5,010)
SIF - - 2,000 - (spent 1,910)
School Bags for - - - 5,580girls @ Rs 90
Benches for - - 127,224 -children
Electricity - - - 25,000
Sewing Machine - - - 21,000
Cycle for girls - - 10,500 - (6 cycles)
Boundary wall - - - 40,000
(Incomplete)
Science kit - - - 1,000
Upper Primary School, Bhatewara, Suryawan
Components 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
TLM Grants 2,000 2,000 2,000 Not yet received
SMG- Whitewash 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000& maintenance
SIF 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
School Bags for - - - 5,850girls @ Rs 90
Benches for - 127,224 - -children
Electricity - - - 25,000
Sewing Machine - - - 21,000
New classroom - - - 140,000
Kitchen shed - - - 60,000
Science kit - - - 7,500
Upper Primary School, Saray Bhawsingh, Suryawan
74
List of Abbrevia� ons and Acronyms
AIE Alterna� ve and Innova� ve Educa� on
AMO Addi� onal Monitoring Offi cer
ASER Annual State of Educa� on Report
AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget
BEO Block Educa� on Offi cer
BSA Basic Shiksha Adhikari
BRC/CRC Block/Cluster Resource Centre
CAG Comptroller and Auditor General
CWSN Children With Special Needs
DISE District Informa� on System for Educa� on
DIET District Ins� tute of Educa� onal Trainings
DPEP District Primary Educa� on Programme
DPO District Project Offi cer
EGS Educa� on Guarantee Scheme
ETF Electronic Funds Transfer
GER Gross Enrolment Ra� o
GSS Gram Shiksha Sami�
HM Head Master
HS High School
KGBV Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya
MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development
MIS Management Informa� on System
MTA Mother-Teacher Associa� on
MWCD Ministry of Women and Child Development
NCERT Na� onal Council of Educa� on Research and Training
NCTE Na� onal Council for Teacher Educa� on
NPEGEL Na� onal Programme for Educa� on of Girls at Elementary Level
NER Net Enrolment Ra� o
NPE Na� onal Policy for Educa� on
NPRC Nyaya Panchayat Resource Centre
NGO Non Government Organisa� on
NUEPA Na� onal University of Educa� onal Planning and Administra� on
OBC Other Backward Classes
PAB Project Approval Board
PRI Panchayat Raj Ins� tu� ons
PS Primary school
PTA Parent- Teacher Associa� ons
PTR Pupil Teacher Ra� o
RBC Residen� al Bridge Course
SC Scheduled Caste
75
SIS State Implementa� on Society
SIF School Improvement Fund
SMG School Maintenance Grant
SIEMAT State Ins� tute of Educa� onal Management and Training
SDI School Development Inspector
SDMC School Development Management Commi� ee
SPD State Project Director
ST Scheduled Tribe
TLE/TLM Teaching-Learning Equipment/ Teaching-Learning Materials
UEE Universal Elementary Educa� on
UP U� ar Pradesh
UPS Upper Primary School
UPEFAPB U� ar Pradesh Educa� on for All Project Board
UC U� lisa� on Cer� fi cate
VEC Village Educa� on Commi� ee
BUDGET FOR CHILDREN
Centre for Child Rights
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
B 1/2, Malviya Nagar, Ground Floor, New Delhi - 110017, IndiaT: +91-11-26677412/3599 | F: +91-11-26674688 E: [email protected] | W: www.haqcrc.org
Centre for Rural Education and Development Action
490, Awas Vikas Colony, Mirzapur-231001 T: +05442-220285 (Off) +05442-220284 (Res) E: [email protected] | W: www.credaindia.org
Prepared by HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi, in partnership with Centre for Rural Education and Development Action, Mirzapur
2004-05 to 2008-09in Uttar Pradesh
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights is a ten-year old New Delhi-based civil society organisation
that works towards the recognition, promotion and protection of rights of all children.
It aims at contributing to the building of an environment where every child’s rights
are recognised and promoted without discrimination and in an integrated manner.
HAQ believes that child rights and children’s concerns have to be mainstreamed into
all developmental planning and action and must also become a core development
indicator.
To carry forward this mandate, HAQ undertakes research and documentation and is
actively engaged in public education and advocacy. In India, HAQ pioneered the Budget
for Children analysis in 2001. Over the years, it has developed skills for quick and incisive
scanning of law and policy documents and commenting on them. It works with existing
networks, builds alliances and partnerships with other actors/stakeholders such as the
bureaucrats, parliamentarians, judges and lawyers, police and media.
HAQ seeks to serve as a resource and support base for individuals and groups dealing
with children at every level. It not only provides information and referral services but
also undertakes training and capacity building for all those working with children or on
issues concerning them, and for the children themselves.
HAQ works on children and governance, violence and abuse of children, child trafficking
and juvenile justice. It provides legal support to children in need, particularly those who
are victims of abuse and exploitation or are in conflict with the law.
Publications | Kandhamal’s Forgotten Children: A Status Report. | India’s Childhood in
the “Pits”: A Report on the Impacts of Mining on Children in India | Blind Alley: Juvenile
Justice in India (2009) | Still out of focus: Status of India’s children (2008) | Handbook on
Children’s right to adequate housing | Combating Child Trafficking (A User’s Handbook)
| Budget for Children (set of four publications on child budget analysis) for India,
Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa (2007) | Child Protection: A handbook for
Panchayat Members (English and Hindi) | Status of Children in India Inc. 2005 | Says a
Child...Who Speaks for my Rights? ( A series of books analysing parliamentary questions
and debates from 2003 to 2008 in English and Hindi) | My God is a Juvenile Delinquent
(Not a HAQ publication but is available in HAQ) | Stop Child Trafficking: A handbook for
Parliamentarians | Children in Globalising India: Challenging our Conscience (2003)
| Children bought and sold: We can stop it! (Hindi and English)(2003) | Children and
Right to Adequate housing: A guide to international legal resources (2002) | India`s
Children and the Union Budget (2001)