Acknowledgements. March 19, 2014 (G S Katiyar) Director Economics & Statistics Division Uttar Pradesh

Monitoring Poverty in Uttar Pradesh (A Report on the fourth Poverty & Social Monitoring Survey (PSMS-IV): 2009-10) Economics & Statistics Division State Planning Institute Planning Department Govt. of UP Website http://updes.up.nic.in Email dsdesd@up.nic.in

Acknowledgements The Poverty and Social Monitoring system was established by the UP government in 1999, under the direction of Economics & Statistics Division, Planning Department. Broad set of economic & social monitoring indicators were identified with consultation of different line departments. For monitoring identified indicators, a first special-purpose Poverty Module was added to the UP state sample of the 55 th (July 1999-June 2000) round socio-economic survey of National Sample Survey (NSS). Based on the findings of the survey, first report was brought in 2002. In continuation of the first survey, second survey was conducted with NSS 58 th & 59 th (first visit) round of NSS & two reports were prepared and the same were widely discussed in the government & disseminated throughout Uttar Pradesh. On the line of first & second, third Poverty Module was canvassed with NSS 64 th round (July2007-June2008) state sample survey. Based on the above survey,a report was prepared & released in January 2011. The present report "Monitoring Poverty in Uttar Pradesh " (A Report on the fourth Poverty and Social Monitoring Survey (PSMS-IV) : 2009-10) is based on the poverty module canvassed with state sample of the NSS 66 th round survey. First of all, I wish to express my deep appreciation & thanks to all respondents of the survey who extended their co-operation to the field staff and gave their valuable time to respond to the questions which were asked by our survey personnel. I would like to express my thanks to all field staff & officers related to NSS whose active involvement could make complete the field survey, Data Entry & Validation of data which were collected during the survey. The present report has been written by Dr. Shri Nath Yadav, Deputy Director. Dr. Yadav contributed in all technical aspects such as data analysis and setting of procedure to generate required statistical tables for preparation of present report. So I would like to give him earnest acknowledgement for his keen interest & devotion in shaping the report in the present form. Thank is due to Mrs. Neelam Singh, Assistant Statistical officer who prepared the tables presented in this report and for her considerable help in drafting the present report. Mrs. Shakti, Additional Statistical officer's assistance in implementation of analytical techniques are also appreciable. Acknowledgments are also due to Mr. Shiv Jee Sharma & Mr. Ravi Shankar Pradhan, Additional Statistical Officer for rendering all round assistance in day to day work on this report. Finally not the least thanks are also due to Sri Mohan Singh, Junior Assistant who charted graphs, typed the report and made it in printable form. We are striving to improve both content and presentation of the report and, therefore, welcome suggestions from all users dealing with programmes for uplifting the living standard of the poor and weaker section of the society. March 19, 2014 (G S Katiyar) Director Economics & Statistics Division Uttar Pradesh

TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 THE POVERTY AND SOCIAL MONITORING SYSTEM IN UP 10 1.2 LIST OF MONITORING INDICATORS 11 1.3 THE PSMS SURVEY ROUNDS I,II,III & IV 12 1.4 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT 14 2. INCOME & POVERTY 2.1 STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCT 16 2.2 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION 17 2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES 18 2.4 DISTRIBUTION OF SHARE OF FOOD TOTAL 20 2.5.1 WHAT IS POVERTY 21 2.5.2 NEED FOR MEASURING POVERTY 22 2.5.3 MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY IN UP 22 2.5.4 INCIDENCE OF POVERTY 23 2.5.5 POVERTY INCIDENCE CURVE 26 2.5.6 EXPENDITURE OR INCOME GAP RATIO 27 2.5.7 POVERTY GAP RATIO 27 2.5.8 SQUARED POVERTY GAP RATIO 28 2.5.9 SUMMARY 28 APPENDIX-2(I) A SHORT NOTE ON POVERTY MEASUREMENT IN INDIA 2(I)A.1 PAST PROCEDURE & METHODS FOR POVERTY MEASUREMENT 2(I)A.2 CURRENT PROCEDURE & METHODS OF POVERTY MEASUREMENT 3. MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD 3.1 INTRODUCTION 47 3.2 DECILE DISPERSION RATIO OF INEQUALITY MEASURE 47 3.3 GINI COEFFICIENT OF INEQUALITY MEASURE 48 3.4 GENERALIZED ENTROPY (GE) MEASURE 49 3.5 ATKINSON'S INEQUALITY MEASURE 51 4. BASIC EDUCATION 4.1 INTRODUCTION 55 4.2 LITERACY RATE 56 4.3 ENROLMENT RATE 57 4.4 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 59 4.5 DROP-OUT RATE (DOR) 61 4.6 SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & MAIN REASONS FOR NOT CURRENTLY ATTENDING SCHOOL 4.7 MAIN REASONS FOR NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL (NEVER ENROLLED) 4.8 ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN BY TYPES OF SCHOOLS 67 4.9 AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT ON EDUCATION 69 4.10 EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVES RECEIVED BY STUDENTS 71 4.11 MID DAY MEAL 72 5. HEALTH 5.1 INTRODUCTION 91 5.2 INFANT & CHILD MORTALITY RATE 91 5.3 MATERNAL MORTALITY RATIO (MMR) 92 39 40 63 65

5.4 MARITAL STATUS AND AVERAGE AGE AT MARRIAGE 93 95 5.5 SURVIVOR RATE OF CHILDREN AND AGE AT MARRIAGE OF WOMEN 5.6 INCIDENCE OF PREGNANCY, CHILDBIRTH 97 5.7 PLACE OF CHILDBIRTH 98 100 5.9 WOMEN GIVING BIRTH AT HOME AND PERSON'S CONDUCTING DELIVERY 5.10 SAFE DELIVERIES 101 5.11 MORBIDITY AND HEALTH CARE 102 5.11.1 TYPE OF SYMPTOMS 103 5.11.2 TYPE OF CONSULTATION 104 5.11.3 REASONS FOR NOT CONSULTING 105 5.11.4 UNABILITY TO DO NORMALWORK 106 5.12 JANANI SURAKSHA YOJANA (JSY) 107 5.13 ANGANWADI ATTENDANCE 109 5.14 NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT IN ANGANWADI CENTERS 111 6. HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES 6.1 INTRODUCTION 140 6.2 STRUCTURE OF DWELLING 140 6.3 ACCESS TO WATER 142 6.4 SANITATION FACILITIES 146 6.5 ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY 150 6.5.1 ELECTRICITY CONNECTION 151 6.5.2 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY : AVERAGE HOURS PER DAY 152 7. VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP 7.2 AVERAGE NUMBER OF ASSETS OWNED PER HOUSEHOLD 164 7.3 OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS AND CONSUMER DURABLES 165 7.4 REASON FOR SELLING OR MORTGAGE OF ASSETS 168 7.5 TYPE OF ASSETS FOR SELLING OR MORTGAGE 170 7.6 FINANCIAL POSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS 172 8. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8.2 PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM : COVERAGE & TARGETING 183 8.3 COVERAGE AND TARGETING OF OTHER PUBLIC PROGRAMMES FOR THE POOR 8.4 AWARENESS OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SERVICES 189 8.5 M N R E G A 190 8.5.1 JOB CARDS ISSUED UNDER MNREGA 190 8.5.2 DEMAND FOR WORK AND PROVISION OF WORK UNDER MNREGA 8.5.3 MAIN REASON FOR NOT OBTAINING JOB CARD UNDER MNREGA 188 191 192

LIST OF APPENDIX APPENDIX-I 205 APPENDIX-II 241 APPENDIX-III 246 APPENDIX-IV 260 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: The PSMS-I, PSMS-II,PSMS-III & PSMS-IV Samples 13 Table 1.2; PSMS Household Questionnaires for PSMS-I,PSMS-II, PSMS -III & 14 PSMS-IV Table 2.1: Per Capita Income of Uttar Pradesh and India 29 Table-2.2: Region wise Per Capita Income (on constant prices year 2004-05) in 29 Uttar Pradesh Table2.3: Annual rate of growth in UP state & India economy during different 29 Five Year Plan Period Table 2.4; Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions 30 Table 2.4.1: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group 30 & Economic Regions Table 2.4.2: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group 30 & Economic Regions Table 2.4.3: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group 31 & Economic Regions Table 2.4.4: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group 31 & Economic Regions Table 2.5: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions 31 Table 2.5.1: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & 32 Economic Regions Table 2.5.2: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & 32 Economic Regions Table 2.5.3: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & 32 Economic Regions Table 2.5.4: Average Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group 33 & Economic Regions Table 2.6: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group 33 Table 2.6.1: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group 33 Table 2.6.2: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group 34 Table 2.6.3: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group 34 Table 2.6.4: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group 34 Table 2.7: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group 35 Table 2.7.1: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group 35 Table 2.7.2: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group 35 Table 2.7.3: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group 36 Table 2.7.4: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group 36

Table 2.8: Estimates of Poverty Line & Head Count ratio for Uttar Pradesh 36 Table 2.9: Regional & state level Poverty Line(Rs) for the Year 2004-05 & 2009-10 37 Table 2.10: Head Count Ratio(HCR) for different Regions & sectors of Uttar 37 Pradesh Based on State Sample Data of NSS Table2.11: Expenditure(or Income) Gap Ratio(IGR) for differnt regions of Uttar Pradesh using UP state sample data of NSS for the year 2004-05 & 2009-10 37 Table 2.12: Poverty Gap Ratio(PGR) for different regions of Uttar Pradesh using 37 UP state sample data of NSS for the year 2004-05 & 2009-10 Table 2.13: Squired Poverty Gap Ratio( SPGR) for different regions of Uttar 38 Pradesh using UP state sample data of NSS for the year 2004-05 & 2009-10 Table 2.14: Percentage -point change in estimates of different poverty measures 38 during period 2004-05 to 2009-10 by sector & regions Statement Poverty Line for states and India 43 2(I) A2.1: Statement Persons below poverty line (2004-05) & (2009-10) on the basis of 44 2(I)A2.2: Tendulkar committee Statement Persons below poverty line (2011-12) on the basis of Tendulkar 46 2(I) A2.3: committee Table 3.1: Decile Disperion Ratio for the Year2004-05 & 2009-10 52 Table 3.2 : Gini Coefficient for the Year2004-05 & 2009-10 52 Table 3.3: Generalized Entropy measures for different regions of Uttar Pradesh 52 Table 3.4: Generalized Entropy measures for different regions of Uttar Pradesh 52 Table 3.5: Generalized Entropy measures for Rural-Urban Sector of Uttar Pradesh 53 Table 3.6 : Atkinson's Inequality Coefficient A(Ɛ =.0.5,1 & 2) for the Year 2004-05 53 & 2009-10 Table 3.7: Inequalities in distribution of Real Total Expenditures in UP by Decile 53 Group Table 3.8: Inequalities in Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by 54 Decile Group Table 4.1: Literacy Population 7 Years and Older 75 Table 4.2: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years 75 Table 4.3: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by social group 76 Table 4.4: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Decile Group 76 Table 4.5: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Income Level 76 Table 4.6: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Region 77 Table 4.7: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years by Income level 77 Table 4.8: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years by Region 77 Table 4.9: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Region 77 Table 4.10: Highest Educational Attainment Population Aged 18 Years and Older 78 Table 4.11: Highest Educational Attainment Population Aged 18 Years and Older 78 by Region Table 4.12: Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years 78 Table 4.13: Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Region 78 Table 4.13: School Attendance Profile by Single-Year Age Group 79 Table 4.14 : School Attendance Profile by Single-Year Age Group and by region 79 Table 4.15: Main Reasons for Not currently attending School 80 Table 4.16: Main Reasons for Not currently attending School-by Region 81 Table 4.17: Main Reasons for Not Attending School 82 Table 4.18: Main Reasons for Not Attending School by Region 83

Table 4.19: Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools 83 Table 4.20: Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools-by Region 84 Table 4.21: Percentage Attending Government Schools by Income Level 84 Table 4.22: Percentage Attending Government Schools by Region 85 Table 4.23: Average Expenditure Per Pupil on Education 86 Table 4.24: Provided Mid Day Meals - Liked by students or not 87 Table 4.25: Provided Mid Day Meals - Liked by students or not by Region 87 Table 4.26: Provided Mid Day Meals - Liked by students or not by Decile group 87 Table 4.27: Percentage of students receiving Mid day meal 88 Table 4.28: Percentage of students receiving Mid day meal-by income level 88 Table 4.29: Percentage of students receiving Mid day meal-by region 88 Table 4.30: Receipt of Government Scholarships by Income Level 88 Table 4.31: Receipt of Government Scholarships by Region 88 Table 4.32: Proportion of Students getting Different Types scholarship 89 Table 4.33: Proportion of Students getting Different Types scholarship by Region 89 Table 4.34: Percentage of students of age 05-18 years pursuing general education 90 and receiving (i) scholarship, free books/stationery, mid-day meals Table 5.1: Demographic profile of Uttar Pradesh compared to India 113 Table 5.2: Pattern of Change in Infant Mortality Rate of UP & India 113 Table 5.3: Maternal Mortality Rate in Utter Pradesh and India 114 Table 5.4: Average age at marriage 114 Table 5.5: Population by marital status and sex. 114 Table 5.6: Average age at marriage-by region 114 Table 5.7: Married Women Reporting Delivery in Last One Year 115 Table 5.8: Married Women Reporting Delivery in Last One Year by Region 115 Table 5.9: Percentage of Deliveries by Place 115 Table 5.10: Percentage of Deliveries by Place 116 Table 5.11: Percentage of Women Giving Birth at Home by Person Conducting 117 Delivery Table 5.12: Percentage of Women Giving Birth at Home by Person Conducting 118 Delivery by Region Table 5.13: Percentage of Safe Deliveries by Income Level and Social Group 118 Table 5.14: Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) 119 Table 5.15: Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) by 120 Region Table 5.16: Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) 120 Table 5.17: Population Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom 121 Table 5.18: Population Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom by 122 Region Table 5.19: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level 123 Table 5.20: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level by 123 Region Table 5.21: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level 124 Table 5.22: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level by 124 Region Table 5.23: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level by 124 Social group Table 5.24: Population Not Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Reason 125 Table 5.25: Population Not Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Reason 125 by Region Table 5.26: Population Not Consulting Doctor/Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom 126

Table 5.27: Population Not Consulting Doctor/Quack/Health Facility by 126 Symptom by Region Table 5.28: Percentage of Persons (Age 6 and above) by Number of Days Unable to 127 Work Normally Due to Illness Table 5.29: Percentage of Persons (Age 6 and above) by Number of Days Unable to 127 Work Normally Due to Illness by Region Table 5.30: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Attending Aganwadi in UP 128 Table 5.31: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Attending Aganwadi in UP by 128 Region Table 5.32: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional 129 Supplement Table 5.33: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional 130 Supplement by Region Table 5.34: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Liking the Nutritional Supplement 130 Table 5.35: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Liking the Nutritional Supplement 130 by Region Table 5.36: Percentage of Females receiving Janani suraksha yojana within 12 131 months Table 5.37: Percentage of Females receiving Janani suraksha yojana within 12 131 months by Region Table 5.38: Marital Status of the Population by Sex and age-group 132 Table 5.39: Population by marital status and sex. 132 Table 5.40: Age at marriage by sex and marital status 133 Table 5.41: Average age at marriage 134 Table 5.42: Average age at marriage-by region 134 Table 5.43: Percentage of migrants by place of last residence 135 Table 5.44: Percentage of migrants by place of last residence 135 Table 5.45: The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child 136 along with sex ratio and survival rates Table 5.46: Percentage of Deliveries by Place and by age-group 136 Table 5.47: The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child 136 along with sex ratio and survival rates Table 5.48: The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child 137 along with sex ratio and survival rates(sample DATA) Table 5.49: Average age at marriag 137 Table 5.50: The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child 138 along with sex ratio and survival rates Table 5.51: The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child 139 along with sex ratio and survival rates Table 6.1: Structure of Dwelling 155 Table 6.2: Structure of Dwelling by Region 155 Table 6.3: Main source of Drinking water 155 Table 6.4: Main source of Drinking water 156 Table 6.5: Main source of Drinking water by Region 156 Table 6.6: Main source of Drinking water by Region 157 Table 6.7: Households main source of Drinking Water within their Premises 157 Table 6.8: Households main source of Drinking Water within their Premises by 158 Region Table 6.9: Type of Sanitation System 158 Table 6.10: Type of Sanitation System by Region 158 Table 6.11: Households Connected to Covered/Open Drains 159

Table 6.12: Households Connected to Covered/Open Drains by Region 159 Table 6.13: Type of Latrine in the Household Premises 159 Table 6.14: Type of Latrine in the Household Premises by Region 160 Table 6.15: Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises 160 Table 6.16: Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises by Region 161 Table 6.17: Households with Electricity Connection 161 Table 6.18: Households with Electricity Connection by Region 161 Table 6.19: Average Hours per Day of Electricity Supply 162 Table 6.20: Average Hours per Day of Electricity Supply by Region 162 Table 7.1: Average number of Assets hold per household 174 Table 7.2: Percent of households possessed Assets by region 175 Table 7.3: Asset Ownership - by location 177 Table 7.4: Asset Ownership - by Income groups 178 Table 7.5: Reason for selling or mortgage of assets 179 Table 7.6: Reason for selling or mortgage of assets by Region 179 Table 7.7: Reason for selling or mortgage of assets - by income groups 179 Table 7.8 : Assets sell or mortgage by household 180 Table 7.9: Assets sell or mortgage by household - by income groups 180 Table 7.10 : Assets sell or mortgage by household by Region 181 Table 7.11: Financial position of households - by location 181 Table 7.12: Financial position of households - by income group 182 Table 7.13: Financial position of households by Region 182 Table 8.1: Households with APL and BPL Cards 194 Table 8.2: Households with APL and BPL Cards by Region 194 Table 8.3: Households with Antyodaya and BPL Cards 194 Table 8.4: Households with Antyodaya and BPL Cards by Region 194 Table 8.5: Households with BPL Cards By Income and Social Group 195 Table 8.6: Households with BPL Cards By Income, Social Group and Region 195 Table 8.7: Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop 195 Table 8.8: Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop 196 Table 8.9: Percentage of households obtained a loan from a government-sponsered credit program in the past 12 months 196 Table 8.10: Percentage of households obtained a loan from a government-sponsered 197 credit program in the past 12 months-by region Table 8.11: Average amount of cash borrowings per households from a 197 government-sponsored credit program Table 8.12: Distribution of households who had obtained job card under NREGA (PSMS IV)-Rural only 198 Table 8.13: Main Reasons for Not obtaining job card under NREGA (PSMS IV)- 198 Rural only Table 8.14: Main Reasons for Not obtaining job card under NREGA (PSMS IV)- 198 Rural only Table 8.15: Distribution of respondents Grievances related to Allocation of Work 199 after getting Job Card Table 8.16: Number of workdays completed by the households under NREGA and 199 average wage cost per person Table 8.17: Distribution Persons who received Unemployment Allowance 200 Table 8.18: Coverage of Other Government Programmes 200 Table 8.19: Coverage of Other Government Programmes by Region 200 Table 8.20: Coverage of Other Government Programmes by Income and Social 201 Group

Table 8.21: Coverage of Other Government Programmes by Income,Social Group 201 and Region Table 8.22: Coverage of Other Government Programmes in Rural Areas by Income 202 and Social Group Table 8.23: Coverage of Other Government Programmes in Urban Areas by 203 Income and Social Group Table 8.24: Coverage of Other Government Programmes in Urban Areas by 204 Region Table 8.25: Awareness of Government-sponsored Services 204 Table 8.26: Awareness of Government-sponsored Services by Region 204 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Per capita income (Rs.) of India and UP by regions on constant prices 16 (2004-05) Figure 2.2: Average monthly per capita expenditure (in Rs.) in Uttar Pradesh 17 Figure 2.3: Nominal average monthly per capita expenditure (in Rs.) by regions 17 in Uttar Pradesh Figure 2.4: Average real MPCE (in Rs.) in Uttar Pradesh by Decile group 18 Figure 2.5: Change in living standard of Rural UP during 2004-05 to 2009-10 18 Figure 2.6: Change in living standard of Urban UP during 2004-05 to 2009-10 19 Figure 2.7: CDF of food MPCE in 2009-10 for Rural UP 19 Figure 2.8: CDF of food MPCE in 2009-10 for poor Rural persons of UP 19 Figure 2.9: CDF of food MPCE in 2009-10 for Urban UP 19 Figure 2.10: CDF of food MPCE below BPL in 2009-10 for Urban persons of UP 19 Figure 2.11: Engel curve for Rural UP 2009-10 (sch 1.0 type-1) 20 Figure 2.12: Engel curve for Urban UP 2009-10 (sch 1.0 type-1) 20 Figure 2.13: Estimates of Head Count Ratio for Uttar Pradesh 23 Figure 2.14: Head Count Ratio (HCR) for different regions of Uttar Pradesh 24 Figure 2.15: Poverty incedence curve for Rural & Urban sector of Uttar Pradesh 26 for the year 2009-10 Figure 2.16: Poverty incedence curve for Rural sector of Uttar Pradesh for the 26 year 2004-05 & 2009-10 Figure 2.17: Poverty incedence curve for Urban sector of Uttar Pradesh for the 26 year 2004-05 & 2009-10 Figure 2.18: Poverty incedence curve for Rural & Urban sector of Uttar Pradesh 26 for the year 2004-05 Figure 3.1a: Lorenz curve for Rural UP 2009-10 48 Figure 3.1b: Lorenz curve for Rural UP 2009-10 48 Figure 3.2a: Lorenz curve for Urban UP 2009-10 48 Figure 3.2b: Lorenz curve for Urban UP 2009-10 48 Figure 4.1: Literacy-Population 7 years and older 56 Figure 4.2: Literacy-Population 7 years and older by income groups 57 Figure 4.3: Enrolment rate of children of age group 6-10 years 57 Figure 4.4: Enrolment rate of children of age group 11-13 years 58 Figure 4.5: Enrolment rate of children of age group 14-15 years 58 Figure 4.6: Enrolment rate of children aged 6 to 15 years-by income level 59 Figure 4.7: Enrolment rate of children by social group 59

Figure 4.8: Enrolment rate of children aged 6 to 15 years-by region 60 Figure 4.9: Highest educational attainment population aged 18 years and older 60 Figure 4.10(a): Drop-out rate of children aged 6 to 15 years in rural area 61 Figure 4.10(b): Drop-out rate of children aged 6 to 15 years in urban area 61 Figure 4.11(a): Drop-out rate of children aged 6 to 15 years by region 62 Figure 4.11(b): Drop-out rate of children aged 6 to 15 years by region 62 Figure 4.12: Currently school attending profile by age 63 Figure 4.13: currently school attending profile by age and region 64 Figure 4.14(a): Main reasons for not attending school in rural area 65 Figure 4.14(b): Main reasons for not attending school in urban area 65 Figure 4.15: Main reasons for not attending school 66 Figure 4.16: Proportion of students attending different types of schools 67 Figure 4.17: Proportion of students attending different types of schools by regions 68 Figure 4.18: Government school enrolment for children aged 6-10 yeras by 69 income level Figure 4.19: Average expenditure per pupil on education 70 Figure 4.20(a): Percentage of student getting scholarships 70 Figure 4.20(b): Percentage of students getting scholarships by income groups 71 Figure 4.20(c): Percentage of students getting scholarships by regions 71 Figure 4.21(a): Percentage of students of age 5-18 years getting MDM 72 Figure 4.21(b): Percentage of students of age 5-18 years getting MDM by income 73 groups Figure 4.21(c): Percentage of students of age 5-18 years getting MDM by regions 74 Figure 5.1: Pattern of change in IMR of Uttar Pradesh and India 92 Figure 5.2: Change in MMR of Uttar Preadesh & India 93 Figure 5.3(a): Average age at Marriage 93 Figure 5.3(b): Cumulative percentage of persons by age at marraige 94 Figure 5.4: Survivors per 100 children ever born by age of marriage of women in 95 UP Figure 5.4(a): Cumulative percentage of children everborn by women age at 96 marriage by sector Figure 5.4(b): Cumulative percentage of children surviving by women age at 96 marriage by sector Figure 5.4(c): Distribution of cumulative children everborn by age of mothers and 96 sector Figure 5.4(d): Distribution of cumulative children surviving by age of mothers and 96 sector Figure 5.5: Percent of women reporting delivery in last one year 97 Figure 5.6: Percent of married women giving birth in last one year 97 Figure 5.7: Percent of deliveries by place 98 Figure 5.8: Percent of deliveries at Government health facility 99 Figure 5.9: Percent of safe deliveries 101 Figure 5.10: Percent of safe deliveries by region 101 Figure 5.11: Percent reporting illness during 15 days (preceding date of survey) 102 Figure 5.12: Percent reporting illness during 15 days preceding date of survey by 102 income group Figure 5.13: Percentage reporting illness during 15 days preceding date of survey 102 by income social group Figure 5.14: Percentage reporting illness during 15 days preceding date of survey 103 by income social group Figure 5.15: Percent of females receiving benifits of JSY within 12 months by 107

income Figure 5.16: Percent of females receiving benifits of JSY within 12 months by 107 social group Figure 5.17: Percent of females receiving benifits of JSY within 12 months by 108 regions Figure 5.18: Percentage of children (0-6 years) attending Aganwadi in UP 109 Figure 5.19: Percentage of children (0-6 years) attending Aganwadi in UP by 109 income groups Figure 5.20: Percentage of children (0-6 years) attending Aganwadi in UP by social 110 groups Figure 5.21: Percentage of children (0-6 years) attending Aganwadi in UP by 110 region Figure 5.22: Percentage of children (0-6 years) receiving the nutritional 111 supplement Figure 5.23: Percentage of children (0-6 years) always receiving the nutritional 112 supplement by regions Figure 6.1: Percentage of dwellings with pucca building material in UP 141 Figure 6.2(a): Percentage of dwellings with pucca building material in rural areas 141 Figure 6.2(b): Percentage of dwellings with pucca building material in urban areas 142 Figure 6.3: Percentage of dwellings with pucca building material by regions 142 Figure 6.4(a): Percentage of households by main source of drinking water in rural 143 area Figure 6.4(b): Percentage of households by main source of drinking water in urban 143 area Figure 6.5: Percentage of households having main source of drinking water 144 within premises Figure 6.5: Percentage of households having main source of drinking water 145 within premises by income groups Figure 6.6: Percentage of households having main source of drinking water 145 within premises by region Figure 6.7: Type of sanitation system 146 Figure 6.8: Type of sanitation system by region 147 Figure 6.9: Type of latrine in the household premises 148 Figure 6.10: Type of latrine in the household premises 148 Figure 6.11: Households with flush latrines within their premises 149 Figure 6.12: Households with flush latrines within their premises by region 150 Figure 6.13: Precentage of households with electricity connection 151 Figure 6.14: Percentage of households with electricity connection by income 151 groups Figure 6.15: Percentage of households with electricity connection by region 152 Figure 6.16: Percentage of households with average hours per day of electricity 153 supply Figure 6.17: Percentage of households with average hours per day of electricity 153 supply by region Figure 7.1(a): Average number of assets per household in rural area 164 Figure 7.1(b): Average number of assets per household in urban area 164 Figure 7.2: Average number of assets per households by region 164 Figure 7.3: Lorenz curve for assets in Uttar Pradesh : 2009-10 165 Figure 7.4(a): Lorenz curve for assets in rural Uttar Pradesh : 2009-10 165 Figure 7.4(b): Lorenz curve for assets in urban Uttar Pradesh : 2009-10 165 Figure 7.5: Percent of households possessed assets 166

Figure 7.6: Percent of household owning cows/buffaloes in UP 166 Figure 7.7: Percent of households owning Goats/Sheep 167 Figure 7.8: Percent of households by reason for selling or mortgage of assets 168 Figure 7.9: Percent of households by reason for selling or mortgage of assets by 169 region Figure 7.10: Percentage share of different type of assets sold or mortgaged by 170 household Figure 7.11: Regionwise Percentage share of different type of assets sold or 170 mortgaged by household Figure 7.12: Financial position of households 172 Figure 7.13: Regionwise Financial position of households 173 Figure 8.1: Percent of households with APL and BPL cards 183 Figure 8.3(a): Percentage share of households with BPL cards by income groups 184 Figure 8.3(b): Percentage share of households with Antyoday cards by income 184 groups Figure 8.4: Percentage share of households with Antyoday and BPL cards by 185 region Figure 8.5: Percentage share of households with BPL cards by social groups 186 Figure 8.6(a): Purchases of Wheat from the PDS Shop 187 Figure 8.6(b): Purchases of Rice from the PDS Shop 187 Figure 8.7: 8.7 Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop during last 30 187 days (in Kg.) 2009-10 Figure 8.8: Coverage of other Government programmes 188 Figure 8.9: Coverage of other Government programmes by income groups 188 Figure 8.10: Coverage of other Government programmes by social groups 189 Figure 8.11(a): Percent of households who had obtained job card under MNREGA 191 by regions(2009-10) Figure 8.11(b): Percent of households who had obtained job card under MNREGA 191 by income groups (2009-10) Figure 8.11(c): Percent of households who had obtained job card under MNREGA 192 by social groups (2009-10) Figure 8.12: Main Reasons for Not obtaining job card under MNREGA (2009-10) 192

SUMMARY CONTEXT SUMMARY The Uttar Pradesh Poverty and Social Monitoring System (UP PSMS) was established by the Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) in 1999, under the direction of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Planning Department. A broad set of economic and social monitoring indicators (measures of economic growth and poverty, as well as human development outcomes, access to basic services and antipoverty programs, and measures of consumer awareness and satisfaction) was agreed upon at the outset of the project, and a specialpurpose module (Poverty Module) was added to the state sample of the 55 th Round National Sample Survey (NSS) to measure these indicators. The first survey (henceforth PSMS-I) was completed between February and June 2000. Drawing upon the salient findings of PSMS-I, in October 2002 DES prepared a baseline report on poverty and living conditions, which painted a broad picture of the status of the poor in Uttar Pradesh. PSMS-I report was widely disseminated and discussed throughout Uttar Pradesh, within the Government as well as outside of it. The second survey (henceforth PSMS-II) entailed adding a similar module to the 58 th and 59 th rounds of the state sample NSS and was completed in 2002 03. On the basis of above survey & other sources, PSMS-II report had been prepared & widely disseminated and discussed through out Uttar Pradesh. The PSMS-II report had been prepared jointly by the Planning Department of the GoUP and the World Bank. On the line of first & second PSMS survey, III rd round survey was conducted with NSS 64 th round (July2007-June2008). The report based on III round was prepared by DES independently and it was released in January 2011. These all three PSMS rounds were administered to large samples of households that were representative of the UP state as a whole, as well as for the rural and urban areas, and the NSS regions separately. On the line of last three-psms rounds, fourth PSMS survey was conducted with NSS66 th round (July 2009-June 2010) state sample survey with objective to generate different indicators of development at more disaggregated level. To achieve above objective, the general sample size was doubled for 66 th round so that representative sample size could be met in some extent for disaggregated level i.e. different regions and districts of state at some acceptable level of errors in estimates of different indicators under study. Page 1

SUMMARY This report on PSMS survey is the second one which has been prepared by DES independently. Drawing on the PSMS-I, II, III &IV indicators as well as other sources, this current PSMS-IV report has been prepared. The report aims to provide a quick statistical update on changes in poverty and living conditions and access to services between these four data points. In this report, analysis focusing on determinants and changes and inequalities in living conditions of the UP population and assessing performance of current policies and programs with respect to their impacts on the poor. The report also focuses regional imbalances in living condition of population which resides in Uttar Pradesh. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FINDINGS INCOME AND POVERTY (TRENDS BETWEEN 2004-05 TO 2009/10) Per capita net state domestic product for UP (UP NSDP) on current prices increased substantially from Rs. 12950 in 2004-05 to Rs. 23671 in 2009-10. Considering increase in prices i.e. on constant prices (base year 2004-05=100), it also increased substantial from Rs 12950 in 2004-05 to Rs. 16390 in 2009-10. Besides, it remained only above half of the national average. But in terms of growth in economy during the above period, Uttar Pradesh performed satisfactorily well. Highest per capita income was observed for Western fallowed by Southern and lowest for Eastern region for the Year 2009-10. Annual rate of growth in UP state economy during 9 th to 11 th Five Year Plan period increased satisfactorily compared to all India. NSS UP data show that the pattern of growth between 2004-05 to 2009-10 was not satisfactorily pro-poor, meaning that per capita expenditures of the poorest one-tenth of the population not increased faster than that of the richest one-tenth. Per capita expenditures of urban lower decile group dropped faster than that of rural sector from the year 2004-05 to 2009-10. The head count poverty rate for UP fell from 40.9 percent to 37.7 percent between 2004-05 to2009-10. In absolute terms, the absolute number of poor in UP not declined from 2004-05 to 2009-10. Page 2

SUMMARY The poverty rate in rural areas of UP declined from 42.7 percent in 2004-05 to 39.4 percent in 2009-10, while that in urban areas declined from 34.1 percent in 2004-05 to 31.7 percent in 2009-10. However HCR decreased in state but other poverty measures such as IGR, PGR and SPGR increased during period 2004-05 to 2009-10. INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD (TRENDS BETWEEN 2004-05 TO 2009/10) Deciles dispersion ratio for the year 2004-05 was 5.4 and it became to 5.9 in the year 2009-10. Increase in Deciles dispersion ratio is observed for rural and urban sector both. Estimated Deciles dispersion ratio suggests that between regions, living inequalities increased quit large from the year 2004-05 to 2009-10. Gini coefficient increased from 0.274 in 2004-05 to 0.288 in 2009-10. Gini was found higher in urban sector compared to rural. Inter-regional variation in Gini coefficient is observed in state. Highest Gini coefficient has been observed for Central and lowest for Eastern region in state. Gini coefficient found increased in rural part of all region (except Southern) whereas it is found decreasing in Western and Southern region's urban part in state between 2004-05 and 2009-10. GE measures of inequality increased in rural as well as in urban sector of Uttar Pradesh. Further different GE measures of within group inequalities increased whereas between group inequalities decreased during the period 2004-05 to 2009-10. Overall Atkinson's inequality coefficient also increased during the aforesaid period. The sectoral and regional analysis shows that Atkinson's inequality measure increased in rural part of each region while it decreased in Western and Southern region s urban part. BASIC EDUCATION (TRENDS BETWEEN 2003 TO 2009/10) Literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh has increased from 60 percent in 2003 to 67 percent in 2010. The percentage of the population over 18 that has ever attended school increased from 51 percent in 2003 to 64 percent in 2010. Still, in 2010, 7 percent of children aged 6 11 years have never attended school. Page 3

SUMMARY Enrolment rates at the primary level (i.e., among children aged 6 10 years) stood at 84 percent in 2010, up sharply from around 78 percent in 2003; these rates are up in all regions, for both boys and girls, and among all income groups. Highest enrolment rate is found in Eastern region for all age group and lowest for Central region. Highest Drop Out Rate (DOR) in Central fallowed by Western region and Lowest DOR (1.9 percent) has been seen for Southern region for primary level. In context of middle & onwards, DOR is lowest for Eastern region for year 2009-10. Among children in UP who never enrolled in school, the main reasons cited for this was cannot afford (44 percent) and education not useful (30 percent). About 2.8 percent of children left school before completing the primary level. Enrolment in private schools increased from 38 to 77 percent for those 6 to 10 years old and from 45 to 72 percent for those 11 to 13 years old during 2003 2010. Government schools continue to be an important source of education for the poor, especially in rural areas. Inter-regional look of enrolment in different type of schools shows that more than 50 percent children of aged 6-10 years are enrolled in Government school in each region except Western region where it is only 48 percent in year 2009-10. Average per pupil expenditure on education is much higher for children enrolled in private vs. Government schools. Even for those children attending Government schools in UP, the total non-fee costs (books, uniforms, private tutoring) are quite high and constitute the bulk of the cost. In 2010, the Government s scholarship and free textbooks programs were reaching, respectively, 34 and 36 percent of all students. These programs were reasonably well-targeted to the poor, though there appears to be some scope for reducing leakage to high-income groups. Inter regional variation in receipt of scholarship is also observed. Highest percentage of receipt of scholarship is found for Southern (54.5 percent) fallowed by Central region and least receipt of scholarship has been seen for Page 4

SUMMARY Western region (28.5 percent). In each region s, girl students more benefited than boys. About 39 percent children got MDM. Rural -Urban significant difference has been observed. HEALTH Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) has fallen from 84 to 57 deaths per thousand live births between 1999 and 2011 in UP. MMR in UP fallen from 539 in 1999-01 to 309 in 2007-09, but it remained considerably higher than the corresponding all India average. The average age at marriage of females was 19 years while for males it was 21 years. In UP child marriage is defined as the marriage of males below the age of 21 years, and females below 18 years. About 13 percent of females and 19 percent of males were married below the legal age. Among 1000 ever born children, 973 male and 967 female children found surviving on the date of survey in the year 2009-10. The data appear to show that the level of morbidity tends to rise with the level of income group. This may mean that the poor were less prone to sickness than the rich. Fever could be indicative of a variety of ailments, ranging from a minor infection to major health problems. Overall, 54 percent of the population reported suffering from fever, within 15 days prior to the survey. About 38 percent (55 percent in urban and 33 percent in rural areas) of those persons, who consulted any medical practitioner, consulted a formal private health provider, and 15 percent visited a Government health facility. The rest sought consultations from private informal providers (quacks, traditional healers, etc.). More than one-third of those who reported being ill during the two weeks preceding the PSMS-IV survey did not lose a single workday. Almost 52 percent of deliveries occur at home and only 48 percent of these were attended by skilled birth attendants (doctors, nurses, and midwives). Almost 49 percent of all deliveries in UP were assisted by trained or traditional dai. Only 18 percent of all deliveries were institutional, with urban areas being more likely to report institutional delivery. Accordingly, Page 5

SUMMARY almost 91 percent of all deliveries in the State could be considered safe deliveries. The proportion of safe deliveries in urban areas was about 93 percent compared to about 91 percent in rural areas. Drop in the percent of deliveries has been observed in all regions except Central where marginal increase has been observed over the period of two PSMS rounds. It is notable that highest drop in the share of home deliveries has been occur in Southern region compared to others between two PSMS rounds. It is important to mention that peoples trust in Government health facilities has been increased consistently over the period of 2002/03 to 2009-10. Regional analysis of Person Conducting Deliveries at home shows that the share of Trained/traditional dai is highest 59.1 percent for Western fallowed by Central(44.3 percent) and Eastern(38.6 percent) region and it was lowest for Southern region(36.9 percent). Overall 91 percent deliveries in state estimated as safe in 2009-10. Safe deliveries were found more (93.4 percent) in urban compared to rural sector (90.5 percent). Inequality in increase of safe deliveries has been observed by different income and social group and by region of residence. In Uttar Pradesh attendance of children in Anganwadi centers has been found to be low. Between 2002 2003 and 2009-10 Anganwadi attendance decreased from 10 percent attendance to 6 percent of all children eligible by age. The anganwadi attendance among the poor is higher than among the rich (6.8 vs. 5.2 percent). In rural area 82.6 percent children attending the Anganwadi reported receiving the food supplement always, followed by 17.1 percent who got it sometimes, whilst only 4 percent reported. JSY beneficiary increased from 8.8 percent in 2007-08 to 24.1 percent women giving birth receiving JSY benefit in 2009-10. The poorest and SC/ST women always have the highest odds of receiving JSY benefit. HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES In 2009/10, 65 percent of all dwellings were of pucca construction material, up from 57 percent in 2002/03. Improvements in housing structure are registered both in urban and rural areas and across all income groups. Page 6

SUMMARY About 59 percent dwelling structure of poor income groups were still katcha in rural sector whereas it was about only 24 percent in context of urban households in 2009-10. The share of Pucca dwelling structure was found lowest in Central(50 percent) fallowed by Southern region (56 percent) Hand-pumps increased in importance as the most common drinking water supply source in UP, with about 73 percent of the population in 2009/10 reporting this as their main water source. In U P, there has been a gradual increase in the share of the sources tap, and a corresponding decrease in the share of well. In rural areas, majority of the households had drinking water outside the premises and had to travel to access the source of drinking water whereas in urban areas reverse situation prevailed and majority of the households had access to sources of drinking water within the premises. Nearly 63 percent households in U P had access to drinking water within premises and nearly 36 percent had to travel a distance of upto 0.5 k.m. Southern region s households have least drinking water source within their premises (35 percent). Rural households of Southern region are more adversely affected compared to urban households of the same region. Overall 21.5 percent households in state have no any system of drainage while 61.4 percent household reported open drainage system. Only 14.0 percent households reported covered drains. There has been virtually no improvements in access to sanitation in UP over the period in question. Some 61 percent of UP s population do not have access to latrines of any type. The share of the population with no sanitation system was much higher in Eastern as compared to other regions. In 2009/10, 44 percent of the state s population had access to electricity, reflecting a much higher coverage rate of 84 percent in urban areas, but only 34 percent in rural areas. This represents a high rise from 2002 03 when 35 percent (81 in urban and 23 in rural) of the population had reported having electricity connection. Western region's households found highest (56 percent) electricity connection fallowed by Southern region (47 percent). Lowest 32 percent of Page 7

SUMMARY Central region's households found with electricity connection fallowed by Eastern region (40 percent). Only 9 percent of UP s population reported having access to electricity for 15 or more hours per day in 2009/10. This also represents a slight worsening from 2002 03 when 10 percent of the population reported so. The rates in rural areas are considerably lower than in urban areas. VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP On an average 18 assets are hold by a household in year 2009-10 but holdings of assets found significantly different by region of residence and income group of persons. Poor income group people found on an average 13.5 assets per household whereas it on an average 22.2 for rich income group. Gini inequality measure in ownership of asset in state is found large. Overall about 52 percent households of state owning livestock like cows/buffaloes. More than 69 percent of urban households own TVs, whereas it was reported only by 25 percent in context of rural households. Among type of assets, jewellery and land/house are the two most prominent assets which were sold in 2009-10. Improvement in financial position of households has occurred for each region but change has been observed least in Western and Eastern region. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS 90 percent of the rural and 70 percent of the urban households in UP as a whole had ration cards in the year 2009-10. In 2009/10, 65 percent of UP s population had above-the-poverty-line (APL) cards, 21 percent had below-the-poverty-line (BPL) cards, and 14 percent did not have any PDS card. This represents a decline in the share of APL cardholders in UP, and an increase in the proportion of the population without any cards compared to 2002/03. Out of all BPL-cardholders, 38 percent came from the poorest one-third of the population, 29 percent came from the middle third and 33 percent from the richest third. Page 8

SUMMARY As regarding BPL-card, 11.6 percent of the Western, 21.6 percent of the Central, 30.1 percent of the Eastern and 27.6 percent of the Southern region's households were the beneficiaries. Over the period of PSMS round III to IV,share of beneficiaries of Antyodaya increased in Western and Central region whereas it diminished in Eastern and Southern region. Overall, there has been some rise in the proportion of beneficiaries of various Government programs (such as old age pension, disability pension, benefits for pregnancy and subsidized credit). In state, 4.6 percent of the Western, 11.1 percent of the Central, 14.0 percent of the Eastern and 12.4 percent of the Southern region's households possessed Antyodaya card. The targeting of the subsidized credit program to the poor in rural areas has substantially worsened, while JRY/other employment programs tend to serve more poor and socially deprived in rural areas of the state. Their targeting has actually improved. Almost 34 percent of the population is aware of the benefits of vaccination, 35 percent of the benefits of measles immunization, 32 percent know of family planning and 31 and 28 percent know the importance of iodized salt and ORS, respectively. There are large variations between urban and rural areas of the state, with urban areas having better knowledge. Awareness of HIV/AIDS was found to be only 25 percent in the state, showing a large gap in awareness between urban and rural areas. In 2009 10, only 14 percent rural households had MNREGA job cards. As may be expected, overall, the proportion of SC and ST rural households having job cards was higher than the proportion of rural households belonging to OBC (Other Backward Classes) and Other category with job cards. Most of the respondents who getting job within 15 days, belong to category of Other Backward category (OBC) and Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST). Page 9

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 1- INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND During most of India s post-independence period, economic growth in Uttar Pradesh (UP) has lagged behind other states. The gap between UP and the rest of India widened substantially during the 1990s, as the annual growth rate of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) slowed down to over two percentage points per year slower than for India as a whole. Power shortages, low rates of capital formation and low productivity of existing irrigation systems and road networks, along with the under development of human capital were among the main causes of economic stagnation in UP, particularly in the agricultural sector. In 1999 the Government of Uttar Pradesh embarked upon a comprehensive reform program with assistance from the World Bank. Wide-ranging fiscal, governance, as well as sectoral reforms were initiated by the Government. While the primary objective of the reform program was to address the fiscal crisis facing the state Government, the reforms undertaken were also expected to have a significant impact on raising incomes and the standard of public service delivery, as well as on reducing poverty in the state. Since the actual impacts of reforms on the poor are complex and can be difficult to anticipate, a carefully designed monitoring system was needed to track changes both in outcomes (e.g., incomes, literacy, morbidity, etc.) as well as in key intermediate variables (e.g., access to services, infrastructure, etc.) that have an impact on living standards. In response, the GoUP, with the help of the WB, set up a Poverty Monitoring System (UP PSMS) in the UP, Department of Planning with the mandate to collect and process data on living standards and report the results. 1.1 THE POVERTY AND SOCIAL MONITORING SYSTEM IN UTTAR PRADESH The establishment of the PSMS by the GoUP was an important reform in itself, as it provided an important source of information to policy makers at all levels of Government for making better informed decisions regarding poverty reduction and social development initiatives. The objectives of the UP PSMS are fourfold: To measure and monitor progress in key areas related to poverty and living standards of the population in the state; Page 10

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND In the context of ongoing reforms, to identify emerging problems that may have adverse impacts on the poor or other vulnerable groups; To use this information to aid in making more informed policy decisions, also to improve the performance and accountability of public sector entities, particularly those providing services to the poor; To keep the public better informed about progress as well as difficulties linked to achieving key development objectives in the state. A broad set of economic and social monitoring indicators was agreed upon at the outset of the project. These indicators which include conventional measures of economic growth and poverty, as well as human development outcomes, access to basic services and anti poverty programs, and measures of consumer awareness and satisfaction were to be used to track progress at combating poverty in the state. 1.2 LIST OF MONITORING INDICATORS A specific set of poverty and social performance indicators reflecting the various dimensions of well-being was identified by the GoUP Planning Department following consultation with relevant line departments. Where feasible, it was agreed that indicators should be disaggregated by gender, social group, urban/rural and geographic region. These included: CONSUMPTION AND INCOME MEASURES GSDP growth rates Composition of household expenditures (food, priority non-food items) Poverty head count index, depth and severity of poverty Income Inequalities Employment and Wages Wages for agricultural laborers, unskilled workers Prices for key food commodities, price index for poor Employment status Education Literacy rates School enrolments School drop-out rates, school completion rates Page 11

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Health Percent immunized Infant mortality rates Housing and Infrastructure Proportion living in slums, unregulated settlements Access to clean water and sanitation Access to electricity Participation in Government Programs Access to anti-poverty programs, social welfare schemes Safe motherhood, use of antenatal care, deliveries attended by trained birth attendants Enrolment in adult, non-formal education Use of ICDS (anganwadi, balwadi program) Public Health Knowledge, Awareness of Social Rights Distance to Key Services and Facilities Measure of Service Quality and Satisfaction Health, education, water and sanitation 1.3 THE PSMS SURVEY ROUNDS I, II, III AND IV After several years of operation, the UP PSMS boasts a number of noteworthy achievements. The statistical capacity in the state has been substantially increased. These measures have led to substantial improvements in the quality and timeliness of survey and district level administrative data. Four special purpose surveys have been conducted by the PSMS. The first survey (a baseline) entailed adding a special purpose module (Poverty Module) to the state sample of the National Sample Survey (NSS) 55 th Round and was completed from February June 2000 (henceforth PSMS-I). Drawing upon the salient findings of PSMS-I, in October 2002 DES prepared a baseline report on poverty and living conditions that painted a broad picture of the status of the poor in Uttar Pradesh and how well they were being served by Government services and programs. This report was widely disseminated and discussed throughout Uttar Pradesh, within and outside the Government, to stimulate discussion on the performance of current policies and programs with respect to impacts on the poor. The second survey (henceforth PSMS-II) entailed adding a similar module to both the 58th and Page 12

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 59 th rounds of the state sample and was completed in 2002/03. Based on above survey, two reports were prepared. The first was Monitoring Poverty in Uttar Pradesh and the second was Living Conditions in UP. The both reports were widely disseminated, discussed and circulated through out the Uttar Pradesh. On the line of first & second PSMS survey, III rd round survey was conducted with NSS 64 th round (july2007-june2008). Based on above survey, a report was prepared and it was widely disseminated and circulated within and outside Government in year 2011. On the line of last PSMS survey, fourth PSMS survey was conducted along NSS 66 th round state sample by adding poverty module questionnaire with household consumer expenditure schedule schedule Type-1 and Type-2. Last three PSMS rounds were administered in large samples that were representative of the UP state as a whole, as well as at the rural and urban levels. But in the PSMS IV th round, sample size was as large as it is representative of different regions of UP and also different districts of state at some extent. Questionnaires were canvassed in over 36,000 households in PSMS-IV round (Table 1.1). The PSMS-IV questionnaire is presented here in Annex III. Table 1.1: The PSMS-I, PSMS-II,PSMS-III & PSMS-IV Samples NUMBER OF FIRST STAGE UNITS 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010PSMS-IV LOCATIO N FSU House Person FSUs House Perso FSUs House Person FSUs House Persons s holds s holds ns holds s holds Rural 789 9454 57754 1433 9769 57963 901 12613 73998 1,478 23648 134248 Areas Urban Areas 392 4688 25882 643 4474 25630 359 5022 26556 774 12382 64223 UP OVER 1181 14142 83636 2076 14243 83593 1260 17635 100554 2,252 36030 198471 ALL Source: PSMS-I, PSMS-II, PSMS-III& PSMS-IV At the individual and household level, the PSMS surveys collected information on a wide range of activities using an integrated questionnaire (Table 1.2). The questionnaire comprised a number of different modules, each of which collected information on a particular aspect of household behavior and welfare. Finally, the NSS household consumer expenditure Schedule Type-1 & Type-2 which was canvassed with the PSMS schedules, collected data on the household s consumption of goods and services allows for the creation of aggregate Page 13

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND consumption indicators and a ranking of individuals into different income groups (i.e., bottom one-third, middle one-third and top one-third as ranked by per capita monthly household expenditures, separately for urban and rural areas). This, in turn, permits an analysis of how the above socio -economic characteristics vary across different income groups in Uttar Pradesh. Table 1.2: PSMS Household Questionnaires for PSMS-I,PSMS-II, PSMS - III & PSMS-IV 1999/2000 (PSMS-I) 2002/2003 (PSMS-II) 2007/2008 (PSMS-III) 2009/2010 (PSMS-IV) 1.INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION 1. Household Roster 1. Household Roster 1. Household Roster A: Household Roster 2. Education 2. Education 2. Education B: Education 3. Health 3. Health 3. Health C: Information on Children 0 5 years 4. Maternal and Child Health 4. Maternal and Child Health 4. Maternal and Child Health D: Maternity History All women aged 15 49 years 5. Activities All persons 10 years and 5. Housing and Amenities 5. Housing and Amenities older E: Activities: All persons 10 6. Housing and 6. Vulnerability and 6. Vulnerability and years and older 2.HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION Amenities 7. Vulnerability and Asset Ownership A: Housing and Amenities 8. Government Programs and Services B: Vulnerability and Asset 9. Irrigation and Ownership C: Government Programs and Services Extension Services 10. Access to Facilities Asset Ownership 7. Government Programs and Services 8. Access to Facilities 1.4 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT Asset Ownership 7. Government Programs and Services 8. Access to Facilities Data collected by the PSMS surveys provide a valuable source of information to study a number of topics of interest from a policy perspective. This report is descriptive rather than analytic in its approach. It highlights the main changes in socioeconomic indicators that took place between the Four PSMS surveys. Thus, indicators for primary education, primary health, water supply and sanitation, housing and amenities, etc. derived from the 2009-10 PSMS-IV are compared with the 2000 PSMS-I, 2002-03 PSMS-II & 2007-08 PSMS III. Given that the four PSMS rounds are large, complex household surveys that collect information on a Page 14

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND number of different topics, main tabulations are presented in the main report and supplementary tabulations are in Appendix-I. These tables comprise only a subset of the larger number of tables that could be prepared using data from these four surveys. In addition to collating PSMS-I, PSMS-II, PSMS-III and PSMS-IV this report uses some of other data sources to bring additional insights to a wide range of poverty and human development indicators in Uttar Pradesh. In the following seven chapters, the report presents salient findings pertaining to data collected through these surveys on various sectors (income and poverty, living inequality, education, health, housing and access to amenities, vulnerability, various Government services etc.). The questions underlying the contents of this report are the following with emphasis on regional perspective also. To make comparability from last PSMS rounds, composition of regions in current PSMS-IV round has been kept same as in NSS 58th and 59th round. The list of districts in different regions are as in Appendix-IV. Were the patterns of growth in Uttar Pradesh pro-poor? Has headcount poverty declined over the 1990s 2000s &2010? Has the absolute number of poor declined? Has the living inequality declined among population? Has access to basic services improved in the last ten years? What is the role of the private sector in delivering these services? Have education and health outcomes improved? If so, did they improve for the poor as well? Did the housing situation improve? Did the vulnerability reduced? Do the Government-targeted programs reach their intended beneficiaries? Page 15

INCOME & POVERTY 2. INCOME AND POVERTY 2.1 STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCT Net State Domestic Product (NSDP)of Uttar Pradesh slowly increased from Rs. 10,616 in 1999-2000 to Rs. 12,950 in 2004-05 (on prices of 2004-05). After that 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Figure 2.1 Per Capita income (Rs.) of India and UP by regions on Constant Prices (2004-05) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 state economy picked up some what and increased up to Rs. 23,671 in 2009-10 (see Table-2.1).Taking into account the increase in price level over the reference period, NSDP per-capita in real term (on Western Central Eastern Southern UP India base year 2004-05) was Rs. 12,433 in year 1999-2000 and it became Rs. 12,950 in year 2004-05. Further it increased up to Rs. 16,390 in year 2009-10. Over all between years 1999-2000 and 2009-10, UP registered rate of economic growth about 5.3 percent per annum whereas growth in per-capita income during the same period was observed about 3.1 percent per annum in real per-capita term-prima facie, an indication of some improvement in economic health of the state. Further analysing rate of growth in state economy with respect to Five-Year Plan, it was found that state registered only 2.0 percent growth during Ninth Five Year Plan(1999-98 to 2001-02). After that economic performance of state in tenth (2002-03 to 2006-07) and eleventh (2007-08 to 2010-11) Five Year Plan comparatively improved and became 5.2 & 7.0 percent respectively ( seetable-2.3).besides it remained below the national average. Looking per-capita income by region, lowest per-capita income estimate found in Eastern region (Rs. 11,392) whereas highest per-capita income estimate is observed for Western region(rs.20,846) followed by Southern (Rs.17,555) region on constant price (see Table-2.2).Inter-regional per-capita income estimate indicate large amount of inequality in per-capita income between regions.trend of increase in real per-capita income is observed in each region between years 2004-05 and 2009-10 in State.

INCOME & POVERTY 2.2 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION The NSDP per-capita is used as measure of standard of living of people. It representing the value of goods and services produced within the geographical boundaries of the State in a particular year. Data collected from household surveys 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Figure 2.2: Average monthly per capita expenditure (in Rs.) in Uttar Pradesh 514 814 840 1285 908 Rural Urban State 574 2004-05 2009-10 are needed to better understand how this increased aggregate produce is distributed across the state s population. In India, there is a longstanding tradition of using National Sample Survey data on household consumer expenditure to assess changes over time in average living standard. Here data collected under UP NSS State Sample 2004-05(NSS61 st ) is compared with 2009-10(NSS66 st ). To infer about the changes in living standards, the nominal monthly per-capita expenditure MPCE is adjusted for changes in the price level by using consumer price index prepared by DES UP. Comparison of MPCE in real prices shows that average real MPCE of rural sector increased by 2.16 percent whereas urban MPCE increased by 1.49 percent. It is noticeable that overall first 30 percent population's (first 3-deciles may be said as relatively poor population s) real MPCE dropped between the period 2004-05 to 2009-10 whereas other 70 percent population s real MPCE increased. Looking across deciles & sector, first 30 percent rural and 60 percent urban population experienced decreasing trend in real MPCE over compared period (see Table 2.5). Analysing real MPCE by region, it is seen that over all it has increased in each region except Southern region of state where it registered enormous decrease 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Figure 2.3: Nominal average monthly per capita expenditure (in Rs.) by regions in Uttar Pradesh 957 952 611 626 497 831 739 967 574 Western Central Eastern Southern State 908 2004-05 2009-10 between year 2004-05 and 2009-10.Further looking the real MPCE by sector and region, besides Southern region, rural part of Central & urban part of Western region experienced deceleration in real MPCE during aforesaid period.

INCOME & POVERTY Analysing decile wise average real MPCE by region, sign of improvement in wellbeing is observed in all decile group for rural part of Western region (see Table 2.5.1 to 4).Contrary to it, urban part of the same Western region experienced worsened wellbeing in all decile groups between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Compared to Western region, apposite situation has been observed in rural part of Central region where except last decile, all other decile group experienced deterioration in their wellbeing whereas in context of urban part, first 40 percent population's living standard downed during 2004-05 to 2009-10. It is remarkable that only Eastern region of state improved in all decile groups except the first (poorest group) for both rural and urban sector between year 2004-05 and 2009-10. Apposite to Eastern, highest 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Figure 2.4: Average real MPCE (in Rs.) in Uttar Pradesh by Decile group Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest 2004-05 2009-10 deterioration in wellbeing is observed in Southern region's all decile groups. Rural-Urban analysis shows that only 2 nd to 5 th decile group of urban sector of Southern region showed some improvement in living standard in real term between year 2004-05 and 2009-10. 2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES The distribution of real expenditure (i.e. on prices of 2004-05) in deciles showed that share of expenditure of first 50 percent population decreased during periods of 2004-05 to 2009-10. Marginal increase in share of expenditure has been observed from 6 th decile and onward during aforesaid period. It is notable that relatively poorer population's share in total expenditure affected more than others between period of 2004-05 and 2009-10. Cum. prop of MPCE Figure 2.5: Change in Living Standard of Rural U. P. during 2004-05 to 2009-10 1.8.6.4.2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cum % of population 2004-05 2009-10

INCOME & POVERTY Looking across decile group, it is found 1 that for rural and urban sector both,.8 first 40 percent population 's share of.6 consumption in total consumption diminished during period of 2004-05 to.4 2009-10 where as it has increased for.2 last 20 percent richer population. 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cum % of population Analysing pattern of change in share of 2004-05 2009-10 expenditure by region, it is found that Central region's poorest people got highest sock of drop fallowed by Southern region during the discussed period. Least drop in share has been observed for Cum. prop of MPCE Figure 2.6:Change in Living Standard of Urban U.P.during 200405 to 2009-10 Figure 2.8: CDF of Food MPCE in 2009-10 for poor rural persons of UP Cumulative of Food MPCE 1.8.6.4.2 0 0 1.8.8 Cumulative of Food MPCE Cumulative of Food MPCE 1.4 400 Food MPCE 600 800 Figure 2.10: CDF of Food MPCE below BPL in 2009-10 for poor urban persons of UP Figure 2.9: CDF of Food MPCE in 2009-10 for Urban UP.6 200.6.4.2.2 0 0 0 1000 2000 Food MPCE 3000 4000 0 200 400 Food MPCE 600 800 Western region. It is also found that share in total expenditure of last decile (richest group) is highest 27.28 percent in Central region fallowed by Southern (23.37 percent) and Eastern(19.36 percent) region in 2009-10. It is notable that Central and Eastern region registered increase in share for tenth decile group during period of 2004-05 to 2009-10 (see Table 2.6,2.6.1 to 4).

INCOME & POVERTY 2.4 DISTRIBUTION OF SHARE OF FOOD TOTAL According to 1 Engel s law-" The poorer a household, the greater the proportion of its total household consumer expenditure that must be devoted to the provision of food or the greater the income, the smaller the relative percentage of outlays for subsistence 2 ( 1 Engel 1895). An allocation of a high share of household budgets to food can be therefore a sign of poverty, hence a quantitative analysis of food share in the total household consumer expenditure is a very important problem. Major determinant of food expenditure are only two factors-total consumption expenditure and size of household. About 88.5 percent variation in food expenditure can be attributed to only these two factors. The variations in food expenditure are more described for rural compared to urban sector by these two factors. Significant influence of sector and region of residence of household on food expenditure has been also observed. In the absence of a universally accepted method of calculating poverty, the share of household consumer expenditures that expends on food can be used to provide an indication of inequality of income distribution and it may serve as an indicator of poverty. In UP state, overall 54.85 percent of total household consumption found spent on food in year 2009-10. In rural sector, it was 57.28 percent whereas it was only 48.02 percent in case of urban sector. There has been marginal decrease in the share of household consumption expenditure being spent on food during 2004-05 to 2009-10. The share of expenditure on food has marginally declined in both sectors. Looking proportion expend on food across the deciles groups, it was minimum for 1 Engel, E. (1895), "Die LebenskostenBelgischerArbeiter-FamilienFruher and jetzt," International Statistical Institute Bulletin, vol. 9, pp. 1-74.

INCOME & POVERTY richest group (39.4 percent) & maximum for poorest group (63.1 percent) shows that differences between upper & lower group's expenditure on food is quit large. Analysing it by sector and deciles group, the share of food expenditure in first decile of rural sector is found as 62.8 percent where as it is 45.5 percent for last decile group. In context of urban sector, this share is 64.3 percent for first decile whereas it is only 31.7 percent for last decile for the year 2009-10 which shows that gap in poorest and richest group is more than 1 to 2. Between the year 2004-05 to 2009-10, highest change in food share has been observed in Southern region s tenth deciles where it gone from 33.23 percent in 2004-05 to 40.72 in 2009-10.The decrease in food share of poorest group (first deciles) is found highest in Central and followed by Western and Eastern region whereas Southern region showed no change between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Looking food share by region and sector, it is found that rural part of Central and urban part of Eastern region showed sign of improvement in lowest as well as in highest decile group (see Table2.7 & 2.7.1 to 2.7.4).. The shape of the Engel curve on food expenditure can be explained by asserting that nourishment is one of the most basic human needs. The slope of food expenditure suggest it is essential good and need to insure its sufficient supply at reasonable price to all relatively poor person through system like PDS. The Engel curve further suggest that among food items, it is more important to insure supply of cereals compared to other item (see Figure 2.11&2.12) and it is more important for urban sector compared to rural. Further looking the Engel's curve, it is found that consumption on health & durable goods got priority over education in relatively lower standard of living group in rural sector where as similar pattern has been seen for urban sector with different slope. 2.5.1 WHAT IS POVERTY Poverty is associated with socially perceived deprivation with respect to basic human needs. Social perception plays a dominant role in ascertaining deprivation from basic needs. Poverty also means "either lack of command over commodities in general (ie, a severe constriction of the choice set or a specific type of consumption (e.g., too little food energy intake) deemed essential to constitute a reasonable standard of living in a society, or lack of ability to function in the society. The insufficient outcomes with respect to health, nutrition, education, to Page 21

INCOME & POVERTY deficient social relations, to insecurity and to low self-confidence and powerlessness are associated to poverty. Similar to that a Noble Prize Laurent Prof. Amartya Sen (1987) 2 advocated capability approach in which wellbeing comes from a capability to function in society and poverty arises when people lack capabilities like inadequate income, education, health, insecurity, low selfconfidence, absence of powerlessness & absence of rights e.g. freedom of speech etc. Based on above views according to World Bank-2000 3, "Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being "where well-being can be measured by an individual's possession of income, health, nutrition, education, assets, housings, and certain rights in the society such as freedom of speech. 2.5.2 NEED FOR MEASURING POVERTY The concept of poverty thus admitted as multi-dimensional and require its measurement. The need to measure it comes to keep the poor on the agenda, to target interventions, internal(within country or region) or external(worldwide or international) which may needed to monitor and evaluate projects and policy interventions geared towards the poor and to evaluate the effectiveness of institutions whose goal is to help the poor. The three main steps to measure poverty may be (1.) defining an indicator of welfare(2.) establishing a minimum acceptable standard of that indicator to separate the poor from the nonpoor(poverty line) and(3.) generating a summary statistics to aggregate the information from the distribution of this welfare indicator relative to poverty line. 2.5.3 MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY IN UTTAR PRADESH Like other states of country, Uttar Pradesh also used poverty ratio & poverty line set by Planning Commission, Government of India for monitoring poverty in state till 1999. But after establishment of Poverty & Social Monitoring System(PSMS) in 1999, state started measuring poverty in holistic way including poverty ratio using own state sample data of NSS & adding a special purpose module (poverty module) starting with NSS 55 th round (1990-2000) state sample survey. Generally state uses procedure & device used by Central Planning Commission with certain modification. In continuation of that the analysis in present chapter mainly uses the data collected in NSS 66 th round (july2009-june 2010) state sample survey. In 2 Sen Amartya k (1987):The standard of living: The Tanner lecture Cambridge: Cambridge University press 3 The World Bank(2000): Introduction to Poverty Aanalysis Page 22

% ag e of person INCOME & POVERTY this chapter, various measures of poverty have been derived in subsequent sections for rural and urban sector of state including different economic region. 2.5.4 INCIDENCE OF POVERTY This is the share of the population whose monthly per capita consumer expenditure is below the poverty line, that is, the share of the population that cannot afford to buy a minimum basic basket of goods and services for their livelihood. As per the official methodology of the GoI Planning Commission, the Figure 2.13 : Estimates of Head Count Ratio for Uttar Pradesh 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50.9 38.3 42.7 34.1 39.4 31.7 30.4 1993-94 2004-05 2009-10 2011-12 26.1 Rural Urban Note :-Press Release of Planning commission on estimate of Head Count Ratio population with MPCE (as estimated by the NSS household consumption surveys) below the level defined by the official poverty line is counted as poor. The ratio of the population below the poverty line to the total population is called the poverty ratio, also known as the head count ratio. Earlier reports under PSMS used procedure prescribed by the Go I Planning Commission. The details of the procedure fallowed by Planning Commission, Govt. Of India is appended in the last of the present chapter as Appendix-2(I). This procedure entails taking the Lakdawala committee poverty line for UP and updating it by using the state-specific consumer price index for agricultural workers (CPIAL) for rural households, and the state-specific consumer price index for industrial workers(cpiiw) for urban households. These updated poverty lines were then used in conjunction with the 2007-08 MPCE distribution to estimate the poverty incidence. Following this procedure 19.3 percent of UP's population (19.8 percent rural,16.8 percent urban) was found to be below the poverty line in 2007-08. The procedure and estimates like this have been severely get criticism within and outside the government. In view of this, Planning Commission set up Expert

%age of Pers o n INCOME & POVERTY group under the chairmanship of Prof. S Tendulkar. The expert group suggested new methodology to arrive at state wise and all-india rural and urban poverty lines for 2004-05(the details of method & procedure is appended in Appendix-2(I)).The expert group also suggested procedure and method to update poverty line for the year 2009-10 and onward. Following the new procedure, Planning Commission released estimated poverty line & poverty rates for the year 2004-05 &2009-10 based on central Figure 2.14 : Head Count Ratio (HCR) for different Regions of Uttar Pradesh 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 37.61 33.07 50.13 41.81 48.75 44.39 sample data for all states of India including state of Uttar Pradesh also.due to methodological change, incidence of poverty derived from Western Central Eastern Southern UP All new methodology is NSS 61st round (Year2004-05) NSS 66st round (Year2009-10) not comparable with estimate derived Note :- (i) Based on MRP schedule type- 1 state sample data (ii) Regional poverty line has been derived using CPI prepared by from past DES UP methodology as reported in earlier reports of PSMS-III and other past reports. Using new procedure as recommended by expert group, Central Planning Commission derived and released state wise poverty line & percentage of poor for the year 2004-05 and 2009-10. To make comparability with the past, a preliminary exercise was made in Central Planning Commission at that time for the 50th round of NSS for the year 1993-94 to facilitate two- point- comparison of changes in head count ratio.the overall results on head count ratio for Uttar Pradesh for years 2011-12, 2009-10, 2004-05 and 1993-94 is presented in Table-2.8. 27.4 42.81 41.24 38.04 The results presented in Table-2.8 are based on NSS Central sample data. From Table-2.8, it emerges that the poverty ratio in UP has declined by 3.2 percent from 40.9 percent in 2004-05 to 37.7 percent in 2009-10, with rural poverty declining by 3.3 percentage points from 42.7 percent to 39.4 percent and urban poverty declined by 2.4 percentage points from 34.1 percent to 31.7 percent. As earlier explained that DES Uttar Pradesh also participate in NSS Socio Page 24

INCOME & POVERTY Economic(SE)surveys on equal matching sample basis since very beginning of NSS. With objective to generate lower level estimate based on NSS SE surveys i.e. below the state (e.g. region or district) for living standard, employmentunemployment & poverty etc., DES UP enhance sample size up to double of its usual state sample size for 61 st & 66 th round. So here it is tried to estimate different poverty measures including poverty head count ratio using same poverty line as in Table-2.8 with state sample data. Looking the Table-2.10, it is clear that HCR estimated through state sample data shows hire incidence of poverty compared to estimate released by planning commission as in Table-2.8 to both rural and urban sector of the state for year 2004-05 & 2009-10. Besides that HCR reduced between the period 2004-05 to 2009-10 in both rural and urban sector of the state. Analysis of HCR by region shows that it varies from 30 to 50 percent among different regions of the state. This variation is quite large in rural sector comparison to urban sector for the year 2009-10. Central region has as much HCR as about 50 percent its populations were found below poverty line where as lowest poverty level(30.07 percent) was observed in Western region of the state. Eastern region which has highest population share of state having also moderately high HCR (44.39 percent) followed by Southern region. Comparison of HCR across region and sector, it is found that among all region's urban part have less HCR compared to their rural counterpart except urban part of Western region. Further it is also observed that among rural part of different regions, HCR is highest in Central region's whose about 54 percent populations were below poverty line in year 2009-10 where as it is highest in urban part of Western region (38.86 percent) (see Table2.9 & 2.10 for regional poverty line & HCR) Analysing the trends in fall of HCR across regions and sector, it is found that rural part of Western and Eastern region's HCR increased by 7.99 & 3.76 percent point where as it decreased by 10.11 &14.70 percent point respectively in Central &Southern region's rural part from the year 2004-05 to 2009-10.Similarly analysing changes in HCR for urban part of each region, it is found that HCR decreased in every region's urban part except Western region where it increased by 4.87 percent point from year 2004-05 to 2009-10. Page 25

INCOME & POVERTY 2.5.5 POVERTY INCIDENCE CURVE (PIC) There has been growing criticism on single poverty line and the estimates of Figure 2.15: Poverty Incidence Curve for Rural & Urban Sector of Uttar Pradesh for the year 2009-10 10 8 Figure 2.16: Poverty Incidence Curve for Rural Sector of Uttar Pradesh for the year 2004-05 & 2009-10 100 80 Cumm % of population 6 4 2 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 MPCE Rural Urban Cumm % of Population 60 40 20 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 MPCE 2004-05 2009-10 poverty based on it. To overcome solution for such criticism, it may be to consider one or more extra poverty lines. If we take this step further and assume a curve that is traced out as one plots the cumulative percentage of population on the vertical axis and the average per capita per month consumption (MPCE)on horizontal axis. Each point on the curve gives cumulative percentage of population consuming less than the amount given on the horizontal axis as in Figure- 2.15.Thus the PIC for rural in Figure-2.15 shows if the poverty line is Rs 654.34, the HCR is 40 percent in rural sector for the year 2009-10. For the same HCR in the urban sector, poverty line is Rs 833.35. In similar way one can obtain from PIC, different set of poverty line and associated HCR. Like different sectors of a particular year, PIC may be traced for comparing HCR Cumm % of Population Figure 2.17: Poverty Incidence Curve for Urban Sector of Uttar Pradesh for the year2004-05 & 2009-10 100 80 60 40 20 Cumm % of Population Figure 2.18: Poverty Incidence Curve for Rural & Urban Sector of Uttar Pradesh for the year2004-05 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 MPCE 2004-05 2009-10 0 0 2000 4000 6000 MPCE rural urban of different years to see changes taken place during the period. To see such changes, PIC for rural and urban sector of year 2004-05 & 2009-10 is shown as in Figure-2.16 &17. Looking the figure it can be inferred that living standard of urban people was better in both year compared to rural people. Further it can be

INCOME & POVERTY also inferred from figure that what be the choice of poverty line, HCR in 2009-10 is always less than that of year 2004-05 for both rural as well as urban sector. 2.5.6 EXPENDITURE OR INCOME GAP RATIO (EGR OR IGR) Expenditure Gap Ratio(EGR) provides information on the depth of poverty. It captures the average expenditure shortfall, or gap, for the poor in a given area to reach the poverty line. However, there is decline in HCR, but at the same time EGR increased during the period 2004-05 to 2009-10 in both sector of the state which may be seen as sign of worsening status of poor in state for both rural as well as in urban sector(see Table-2.11).Looking EGR by region and sector during the period 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is found that only in rural Western and urban Southern part of the region, EGR given sign of decrease whereas rest region's rural as well as urban part's EGR increased. The highest increase is found in Central region's rural part(11.4 percent point) followed by rural part of the Southern region(7.98 percent point). Looking it in different region's urban part, it is found that EGR remains almost unchanged in Southern region where as it increased in Central(6.72 percent point), Western (2.85 percent point)and in Eastern (1.70 percent point) region's urban part during the period 2004-05 to 2009-10. 2.5.7 POVERTY GAP RATIO(PGR) The problem with the Expenditure gap ratio (EGR) is that it is defined only on the population that is poor, while the poverty gap is defined over the population as a whole. So the poverty gap ratio is a moderately better measure of poverty which adds up the extent to which individuals on an average fall below the poverty line and it is expressed as a percentage of the poverty line.this measure is considered as representing the depth of poverty. It also measures the poverty deficit of the entire population where the notion of the poverty deficit captures the resources that would be needed to lift all the poor out of poverty through perfectly targeted cash transfers.poverty Gap Ratio (PGR) can also be expressed as product of Head Count Ratio ( HCR) & Expenditure Gap Ratio(EGR).As seen trends in EGR, PGR in state of Uttar Pradesh widen from 9.20 percent to 10.49 percent in rural sector from the year 2004-05 to 2009-10. Similarly it rose from 8.04 percent to 9.09 percent from year 2004-05 to 2009-10 in urban sector of the state. (see Table-2.12) Page 27

INCOME & POVERTY Analysis of change in PGR by region and sector shows only moderate decrease in rural part of Western (2-percent point) and urban part of Eastern(1.52 -percent point) region during the period 2004-05 to 2009-10. Highest increase in PGR is observed in Central(8.47 -percent point) as well as Southern (6.18 percent point) region's rural part over the period of 2004-05 to 2009-10 whereas PGR increased relatively in little quantity in Western(2.13 per cent point) fallowed by Central (1.86 percent point) region's urban part in the same duration. So from policy point of view, it requires urgent attention of policy planner to correct their strategy in such way that PGR should decrease within a specified time period. 2.5.8 SQUARED POVERTY GAP RATIO (SPGR) The SPGR is described generally as a measure of the severity of poverty. As PGR takes into account the distance separating poor from the poverty line whereas in SPGR by squaring the PGR, the PGR is weighted by itself, so as to give more weights to the very poor. In other word, it can be said that SPGR takes into account the inequality among the poor. Looking the Table-2.13, it indicate that condition of poorer people are under deteriorating in rural as well as in urban sector because SPGR increased from 2.77 percent to 3.91 in year 2004-05 to 2009-10 for rural sector. In urban sector of the state it also increased from 2.51 to 3.21 in year 2004-05 to 2009-10. Looking different regions and sector, it is observed that only rural part of the Western and urban part of the Eastern region given sign of decline in SPGR during the period 2004-05 to 2009-10. Rural part of the Central and Southern region shown highest increase i.e. 5.33 and 3.09 percent point respectively during the period 2004-05 to 2009-10. It is also found that change in SPGR moderately small in urban part of each except Central region where change is more than 1- percent point between year 2004-05 to 2009-10. 2.5.9 SUMMARY : Looking estimates of different poverty measures across regions and sectors over the period 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is found that only rural part of the Western region showed decline in all poverty measures i.e. HCR, EGR, PGR & SPGR. Contrast to it rural part of Central and Southern and urban part of Western region showed increase in all estimated above poverty measures during aforesaid period. Detail of it is summarized as in Table-2.14. Page 28

INCOME & POVERTY It is important to use the poverty gap or the squared poverty gap in addition to the HCR for evaluation purposes, since this measures different aspects of income poverty. Indeed,the basing evaluation on the HCR would consider as more effective policies which lift the richest of the poor(those close to the poverty line) out of poverty. On the basis of the poverty gap and the SPGR,on the other hand, puts the emphasis on helping those who are farther away from the poverty line, i.e. the poorest of the poor. Table 2.1 : Per Capita Income of Uttar Pradesh and India Year Current prices Constant prices UP India UP India 2004-05 12950 24143 12950 24143 2005-06 14221 27131 13445 26015 2006-07 16013 31206 14241 28067 2007-08 17785 35825 14875 30332 2008-09 20422 40775 15713 31754 2009-10 23671 46249 Source :Compiled from DES UP's buletin on state income estimates 16390 33901 Table-2.2 : Region wise Per Capita Income (on constant prices year 2004-05) in Uttar Pradesh Year Region wise Per capita income : based on Net District Domestic Per capita Income (Based on NSDP) Product(NDDP) Western Central Eastern Southern Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 2004-05 16176 13873 9206 13683 12840 12950 2005-06 16836 14023 9693 13588 13302 13445 2006-07 18190 14762 10043 14260 14109 14241 2007-08 19317 15331 10427 13867 14764 14875 2008-09 19785 15817 10993 16528 15381 15713 2009-10 20846 16903 11392 17555 16182 16390 Source :Compiled from DES UP's bulletin on district and state income estimates Table2.3: Annual rate of growth in UP state & India economy during different Five Year Plan Period S No Plan Period Uttar Pradesh India (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 XI(2007-08- to 2011-12) 7.0 8.3 2 X(2002-03 to 2006-07) 5.2 7.8 3 IX(1997-98 to 2001-02 2.0 5.6 4 VIII(1992-93 to1996-97) 3.2 6.8 5 VII(1985-86to1989-90) 5.7 5.8 Source :Compiled from DES UP's bulletin on state income estimates Page 29

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.4: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month) by Decile Group Region/ Year/ Rural Urban Overall State Decile 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 256.42 377.2 47.10 316.76 432.63 36.58 263.27 385.64 46.48 2 323.63 494.66 52.85 400.24 577.7 44.34 332.24 505.48 52.14 3 363.67 565.35 55.46 462.65 683.82 47.81 375.37 580.18 54.56 4 400.04 626.24 56.54 525.95 786.88 49.61 414.8 647.43 56.08 5 438.82 689.28 57.08 594.29 895.14 50.62 457.63 715.79 56.41 State 6 479.63 753.28 57.05 684.2 1024.26 49.70 504.47 789.56 56.51 7 528.64 832.95 57.56 798.4 1220.11 52.82 561.19 885.36 57.76 8 593.09 940.53 58.58 957.29 1512.28 57.98 641.46 1016.69 58.50 9 693.85 1117.18 61.01 1249.96 1999.54 59.97 779.79 1255.49 61.00 Richest 1063.8 1740.48 63.61 2411.88 3724.59 54.43 1411.84 2297.02 62.70 Average 514.11 813.58 58.25 840.01 1285.07 52.98 574.16 907.74 58.10 Table 2.4.1: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ Year/ Rural Urban Overall State Decile 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 280.15 450.54 60.82 326.4 455.16 60.82 287.93 451.51 56.81 2 346.46 555.14 60.23 409.15 588.38 60.23 357.78 561.78 57.02 3 388.89 620.87 59.65 471.8 680.69 59.65 402.51 633.04 57.27 4 425.25 681.13 60.17 532.93 773.26 60.17 444.52 700.14 57.50 5 464.37 748.96 61.29 598.47 870.46 61.29 488.25 775.86 58.91 Western 6 506.7 823.45 62.51 686.17 983.46 62.51 539.25 860.37 59.55 7 557.95 917.05 64.36 792.28 1135.07 64.36 599.01 964.23 60.97 8 621.51 1037.06 66.86 945.57 1357.68 66.86 683.62 1103.08 61.36 9 721.43 1201.93 66.60 1232.06 1726.53 66.60 828.88 1317.65 58.97 Richest 1072.56 1755.74 63.70 2237.04 3058.31 63.70 1478.83 2211.77 49.56 Average 538.39 878.82 63.23 822.4 1162.07 63.23 610.9 957.26 56.70 Table 2.4.2: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ Year/ Rural Urban Overall State Decile 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 249.33 323.67 29.82 319.34 416.33 30.37 258.74 336.03 29.87 2 324.95 436.76 34.41 423.04 535.6 26.61 338.25 450.75 33.26 3 369.78 502.5 35.89 501.01 668.46 33.42 387.12 523.49 35.23 4 412.1 569.32 38.15 553.88 801.91 44.78 435.49 596.77 37.03 5 453.1 635.67 40.29 642.72 953.43 48.34 482.68 678.64 40.60 Central 6 496.8 710.26 42.97 730.02 1196.57 63.91 534.28 744.84 39.41 7 551.16 761.84 38.22 861.13 1572.81 82.64 602 827.83 37.51 8 623.34 848.79 36.17 1053.68 1996.07 89.44 692.12 982.81 42.00 9 726.44 1025.84 41.21 1376.15 3042.51 121.09 851.97 1349.47 58.39 Richest 1094.55 1767.28 61.46 3059.85 5144.28 68.12 1682.77 3036.12 80.42 Average 529.71 757.45 42.99 945.74 1612.81 70.53 626.41 952.13 52.00 Page 30

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.4.3: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 245.21 377.48 53.94 301.05 434.6 44.36 248.02 382 54.02 2 306.37 484.18 58.04 374.99 592.67 58.05 310.47 489.62 57.70 3 342.54 553.12 61.48 418.98 700.6 67.22 347.68 561.92 61.62 4 375.25 609.04 62.30 467.38 803.85 71.99 381.58 621.21 62.80 5 407.52 667.06 63.69 533.82 905.48 69.62 415.3 682.52 64.34 Eastern 6 445.65 727.83 63.32 611.86 1026.02 67.69 454.99 747.69 64.33 7 487.25 803.62 64.93 725.14 1213.46 67.34 500.27 831.76 66.26 8 541.02 900.49 66.44 879.71 1543.61 75.47 559.25 938 67.72 9 625.57 1050.85 67.98 1127.53 1973.41 75.02 660.31 1126.42 70.59 Richest 939.76 1666.38 77.32 1944.41 3146.57 61.83 1092.63 1933.49 76.96 Average 471.52 783.73 66.21 738.34 1229.61 66.54 496.96 830.89 67.19 Table 2.4.4: Avg. Monthly Nominal Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 293.54 325.3 10.82 304.98 434.89 42.60 295.25 337.37 14.27 2 367.69 446.3 21.38 386.91 614.14 58.73 371.73 472.71 27.16 3 425.02 550.53 29.53 454.21 755.81 66.40 430.31 583.35 35.57 4 484.6 628.13 29.62 563.33 864.17 53.40 492.92 673.57 36.65 5 536.16 714.93 33.34 625.28 946.47 51.37 554.91 768.93 38.57 Southern 6 606.91 801.73 32.10 748.95 1053.49 40.66 624.08 865.38 38.66 7 687.25 897.52 30.60 878.39 1229.82 40.01 717.34 957.8 33.52 8 796.76 1022.63 28.35 1069.1 1398.44 30.81 833.76 1131.43 35.70 9 941.49 1254.77 33.27 1390.57 1772.06 27.43 1025.62 1371.89 33.76 Richest 1678.51 2169.7 29.26 3310.38 3348.64 1.16 2059.12 2519.85 22.38 Average 681.01 879.05 29.08 964.41 1228.85 27.42 738.73 967.07 30.91 Table 2.5: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 256.42 241.75-5.72 316.76 282.66-10.77 263.27 247.41-6.02 2 323.63 317.7-1.83 400.24 379.96-5.07 332.24 325.13-2.14 3 363.67 362.89-0.21 462.65 451.01-2.52 375.37 374.05-0.35 4 400.04 402.61 0.64 525.95 517.18-1.67 414.8 417.68 0.69 5 438.82 443.74 1.12 594.29 591.43-0.48 457.63 463.6 1.30 State 6 479.63 487.93 1.73 684.2 676.82-1.08 504.47 511.93 1.48 7 528.64 537.82 1.74 798.4 809.2 1.35 561.19 573.66 2.22 8 593.09 608.89 2.66 957.29 1003.61 4.84 641.46 660.44 2.96 9 693.85 722.65 4.15 1249.96 1328.27 6.27 779.79 818.3 4.94 Richest 1063.8 1129.18 6.15 2411.88 2489.53 3.22 1411.84 1514.16 7.25 Average 514.11 525.2 2.16 840.01 852.53 1.49 574.16 590.57 2.86 Page 31

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.5.1: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 280.15 295.7 5.55 326.4 300.55-7.92 287.93 295.81 2.74 2 346.46 362.02 4.49 409.15 386.78-5.47 357.78 366.91 2.55 3 388.89 403.23 3.69 471.8 446.51-5.36 402.51 412.31 2.43 4 425.25 445.3 4.71 532.93 505.25-5.19 444.52 458.55 3.16 5 464.37 491.47 5.84 598.47 571.22-4.55 488.25 507.7 3.98 Western 6 506.7 536.83 5.95 686.17 644.51-6.07 539.25 561.43 4.11 7 557.95 598.72 7.31 792.28 746.2-5.82 599.01 629.96 5.17 8 621.51 673.38 8.35 945.57 889.12-5.97 683.62 718.77 5.14 9 721.43 783.34 8.58 1232.06 1130.65-8.23 828.88 859.04 3.64 Richest 1072.56 1154.25 7.62 2237.04 1982.26-11.39 1478.83 1443.49-2.39 Average 538.39 573.76 6.57 822.4 759.79-7.61 610.9 625.28 2.35 Table 2.5.2: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 249.33 204.81-17.86 319.34 269.27-15.68 258.74 212.65-17.81 2 324.95 282.47-13.07 423.04 351.33-16.95 338.25 291.27-13.89 3 369.78 323.55-12.50 501.01 452.41-9.70 387.12 335.27-13.39 4 412.1 363.41-11.82 553.88 532.36-3.89 435.49 384.8-11.64 5 453.1 409.22-9.68 642.72 646.66 0.61 482.68 437.72-9.31 Central 6 496.8 453.94-8.63 730.02 817.4 11.97 534.28 484.38-9.34 7 551.16 494.35-10.31 861.13 1080.6 25.49 602 540.64-10.19 8 623.34 550.08-11.75 1053.68 1346.31 27.77 692.12 644.59-6.87 9 726.44 664.74-8.49 1376.15 2087.57 51.70 851.97 894.21 4.96 Richest 1094.55 1157.54 5.75 3059.85 3556.51 16.23 1682.77 2051.47 21.91 Average 529.71 489.81-7.53 945.74 1094.82 15.76 626.41 627.51 0.18 Table 2.5.3: Avg. Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 245.21 240.42-1.95 301.05 281.1-6.63 248.02 243.63-1.77 2 306.37 307.93 0.51 374.99 385.47 2.79 310.47 311.99 0.49 3 342.54 352.28 2.84 418.98 458.07 9.33 347.68 358.21 3.03 4 375.25 388.28 3.47 467.38 523.9 12.09 381.58 396.34 3.87 5 407.52 425.18 4.33 533.82 595.85 11.62 415.3 435.98 4.98 Eastern 6 445.65 466.82 4.75 611.86 677.99 10.81 454.99 480.64 5.64 7 487.25 513.74 5.44 725.14 804.86 10.99 500.27 532.64 6.47 8 541.02 576.59 6.57 879.71 1024.1 16.41 559.25 604.15 8.03 9 625.57 674.99 7.90 1127.53 1315.52 16.67 660.31 726.21 9.98 Richest 939.76 1061.44 12.95 1944.41 2101.95 8.10 1092.63 1247.37 14.16 Average 471.52 500.62 6.17 738.34 811.15 9.86 496.96 533.46 7.34 Page 32

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.5.4: Average Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditure in UP By Decile Group & Economic Regions Mean MPCE (Rs/person per month ) by Decile Group Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 293.54 206.87-29.53 304.98 286.93-5.92 295.25 218.32-26.06 2 367.69 287.07-21.93 386.91 416.19 7.57 371.73 307.27-17.34 3 425.02 353.18-16.90 454.21 495.57 9.11 430.31 378.57-12.02 4 484.6 405.69-16.28 563.33 575.48 2.16 492.92 438.75-10.99 5 536.16 462.02-13.83 625.28 638.53 2.12 554.91 496.91-10.45 Southern 6 606.91 515.14-15.12 748.95 700.09-6.52 624.08 558.46-10.51 7 687.25 573.23-16.59 878.39 817.88-6.89 717.34 625.23-12.84 8 796.76 656.87-17.56 1069.1 949.01-11.23 833.76 733.67-12.00 9 941.49 810.74-13.89 1390.57 1204.38-13.39 1025.62 903.71-11.89 Richest 1678.51 1417.25-15.56 3310.38 2271.78-31.37 2059.12 1684.56-18.19 Average 681.01 566.41-16.83 964.41 833-13.63 738.73 633.49-14.25 Table 2.6: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group Distribution of MPCE (share of the total MPCE in the sample) by Decile Group YEAR/ 2004/2005 2009/2010 DECILE Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Region/ State State Poorest 5.82 5.51 5.63 5.40 4.79 5.11 2 7.35 6.23 7.01 6.94 6.13 6.61 3 8.00 7.40 7.81 7.75 6.79 7.31 4 8.59 7.66 8.22 8.28 7.47 7.98 5 9.24 7.91 8.89 8.96 8.23 8.88 6 9.70 8.64 9.31 9.93 8.86 9.33 7 10.11 10.30 10.08 10.39 9.42 10.10 8 11.29 11.70 11.12 11.26 11.43 11.26 9 12.46 12.89 12.48 12.76 14.83 12.58 Richest 17.44 21.76 19.43 18.34 22.05 20.84 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 2.6.1: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group Distribution of MPCE (share of the total MPCE in the sample) by Decile Group YEAR/ 2004/2005 2009/2010 DECILE Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Region/ State Western Poorest 6.57 5.80 6.22 6.43 5.69 6.13 2 7.15 6.30 6.81 7.57 7.21 7.41 3 8.14 7.95 7.63 7.47 7.29 7.37 4 8.70 7.53 8.51 9.13 7.85 8.47 5 9.37 7.89 8.83 8.67 9.23 8.77 6 9.47 9.12 9.12 9.23 9.16 9.50 7 10.64 10.45 10.35 10.52 9.76 10.07 8 11.45 11.73 11.21 11.66 11.16 11.35 9 12.12 12.54 12.46 12.39 13.15 12.56 Richest 16.40 20.69 18.86 16.93 19.50 18.38 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 33

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.6.2: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group Distribution of MPCE (share of the total MPCE in the sample) by Decile Group YEAR/ 2004/2005 2009/2010 DECILE Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Region/ State Central Poorest 5.40 4.95 4.98 4.74 4.99 3.88 2 7.21 5.81 6.62 6.58 3.14 6.20 3 8.07 6.47 7.09 7.14 6.02 5.95 4 8.01 7.23 7.77 7.39 5.67 6.49 5 9.42 7.35 8.89 8.21 7.03 7.54 6 9.68 7.87 8.80 11.84 7.54 9.93 7 10.17 11.02 10.07 10.50 10.82 9.09 8 11.83 11.25 10.87 10.59 12.29 10.04 9 13.52 14.07 13.36 12.03 21.25 13.40 Richest 16.68 23.99 21.56 20.98 21.26 27.48 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 2.6.3: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group Distribution of MPCE (share of the total MPCE in the sample) by Decile Group YEAR/ 2004/2005 2009/2010 DECILE Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Region/ State Eastern Poorest 5.83 5.84 5.73 5.48 4.29 5.23 2 6.98 6.37 6.87 6.95 6.26 6.77 3 8.24 7.28 8.12 7.93 7.45 7.71 4 8.95 8.39 8.86 8.20 7.11 8.19 5 9.46 8.66 9.20 9.09 8.50 8.60 6 9.90 9.10 9.87 9.56 9.76 9.53 7 10.25 10.50 10.03 10.81 10.12 10.56 8 11.29 11.58 11.18 11.28 11.65 11.47 9 12.39 13.66 12.67 12.74 17.40 12.58 Richest 16.72 18.62 17.47 17.97 17.45 19.36 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 2.6.4: Distribution of Real Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group Distribution of MPCE (share of the total MPCE in the sample) by Decile Group YEAR/ 2004/2005 2009/2010 DECILE Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Region/ State Southern Poorest 5.23 4.56 5.15 5.30 4.46 4.66 2 5.85 5.19 5.74 5.69 6.65 5.30 3 6.44 7.12 6.45 6.25 9.08 6.31 4 7.22 6.77 7.34 8.14 6.98 7.99 5 8.02 7.55 8.14 8.11 9.28 8.99 6 8.62 8.40 8.29 9.77 7.32 9.31 7 9.85 11.00 9.18 10.95 10.79 10.58 8 12.39 10.85 12.06 11.07 12.00 10.00 9 10.90 14.23 13.79 12.08 11.76 13.49 Richest 25.48 24.34 23.87 22.65 21.69 23.37 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 34

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.7: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group Food Share by the Decile Group(deciles based on total MPCE) Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (%) (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 64.91 62.8-3.3 62.29 64.3 3.2 64.75 63.1-2.5 2 62.80 61.6-2.0 59.49 61.8 3.9 62.42 61.9-0.9 3 61.93 62.0 0.1 58.00 60.1 3.5 61.65 62.1 0.7 4 61.48 62.2 1.1 57.16 57.9 1.4 60.74 61.2 0.8 5 59.61 60.6 1.6 54.98 56.3 2.4 58.91 59.4 0.9 state 6 59.03 59.4 0.7 52.79 54.3 2.9 58.05 59.8 3.0 7 57.79 60.2 4.2 48.48 51.3 5.9 57.16 59.1 3.4 8 56.50 59.2 4.7 46.62 48.4 3.7 55.48 56.6 2.0 9 55.02 55.6 1.1 41.63 40.1-3.7 51.69 53.2 2.9 Richest 44.69 45.5 1.8 30.97 31.7 2.3 39.25 39.4 0.4 Average 56.73 57.28 1.0 47.27 48.02 1.6 54.49 54.85 0.7 Table 2.7.1: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group Food Share by the Decile Group(deciles based on total MPCE) Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (%) (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 63.91 61.1-4.3 62.18 61.7-0.7 63.5 61.3-3.5 2 62.22 63.7 2.3 58.23 61.4 5.4 61.8 63.4 2.6 3 61.27 63.5 3.6 57.67 59.2 2.6 61.0 62.4 2.4 4 60.14 61.8 2.8 57.06 59.2 3.7 58.8 61.0 3.7 5 59.91 61.5 2.6 53.72 55.5 3.3 59.5 61.2 2.9 Western 6 59.25 61.9 4.5 51.87 55.8 7.6 58.4 59.2 1.4 7 58.85 60.3 2.5 47.85 52.3 9.3 57.0 59.1 3.7 8 57.73 56.6-1.9 46.09 52.6 14.2 55.2 54.9-0.5 9 55.92 55.1-1.5 42.13 45.1 7.0 51.9 52.3 0.8 Richest 47.04 45.8-2.6 33.47 35.5 6.2 39.4 41.3 4.9 Average 57.45 57.71 0.5 47.74 50.97 6.8 54.37 55.56 2.2 Table 2.7.2: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group Food Share by the Decile Group(deciles based on total MPCE) Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (%) (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 65.50 62.54-4.51 61.09 70.70 15.74 65.67 63.08-3.93 2 62.65 60.70-3.11 59.43 62.91 5.86 61.79 62.94 1.87 3 61.84 60.63-1.95 56.00 61.58 9.96 60.88 62.06 1.93 4 60.73 61.77 1.73 58.93 58.75-0.30 60.18 61.69 2.51 5 59.51 61.46 3.29 57.18 53.45-6.53 57.56 59.53 3.44 Central 6 57.11 55.07-3.58 50.87 50.88 0.02 57.97 57.06-1.56 7 57.35 59.77 4.23 48.16 43.28-10.13 54.86 57.93 5.60 8 54.16 58.00 7.11 42.07 39.54-6.00 54.19 55.42 2.26 9 52.89 55.63 5.17 37.71 33.11-12.20 49.61 47.84-3.57 Richest 44.72 41.07-8.16 25.43 27.88 9.63 34.44 33.33-3.21 Average 55.90 55.15-1.34 44.01 42.64-3.12 52.03 50.60-2.75 Page 35

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.7.3: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group Food Share by the Decile Group(deciles based on total MPCE) Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (%) (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 65.71 63.58-3.2 65.15 62.90-3.5 65.48 63.51-3.0 2 63.28 62.40-1.4 61.44 62.70 2.0 63.56 61.92-2.6 3 62.83 61.18-2.6 59.09 58.35-1.2 62.41 61.47-1.5 4 62.28 62.39 0.2 57.33 58.21 1.5 62.11 61.82-0.5 5 61.73 59.93-2.9 58.45 55.52-5.0 60.98 60.75-0.4 Eastern 6 58.75 60.57 3.1 55.93 54.59-2.4 58.64 59.33 1.2 7 58.33 59.34 1.7 51.37 51.98 1.2 57.91 59.69 3.1 8 56.26 59.22 5.3 51.01 45.50-10.8 56.01 58.13 3.8 9 54.72 57.11 4.4 44.39 40.20-9.4 53.96 55.71 3.3 Richest 44.85 47.54 6.0 35.78 32.41-9.4 42.90 43.29 0.9 Average 57.26 57.93 1.2 51.01 48.37-5.2 56.49 56.55 0.1 Table 2.7.4: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group Food Share by the Decile Group(deciles based on total MPCE) Region/ YEAR/ Rural Urban Overall state DECILE 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase 2004-05 2009-10 Increase (%) (%) (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Poorest 59.50 59.7 0.3 57.66 57.6 0.0 59.21 59.2-0.03 2 58.15 63.7 9.5 59.85 59.5-0.7 58.59 62.6 6.8 3 60.60 57.6-5.0 56.48 61.8 9.5 59.64 58.4-2.1 4 58.03 59.0 1.7 55.35 53.4-3.5 58.45 57.4-1.8 5 60.10 59.2-1.5 53.94 56.4 4.6 57.98 61.2 5.5 Southern 6 57.84 57.8-0.1 52.08 56.5 8.5 58.48 55.3-5.5 7 58.02 58.6 1.1 44.27 49.7 12.2 56.58 57.5 1.7 8 54.64 56.6 3.6 44.88 53.2 18.6 52.38 57.9 10.5 9 51.40 56.2 9.4 38.58 44.1 14.4 45.72 51.1 11.8 Richest 34.87 45.0 29.1 25.70 32.9 28.1 32.33 40.7 26.0 Average 51.38 55.30 7.62 43.43 49.31 13.53 49.64 53.27 7.31 Table 2.8: Estimates of Poverty Line & Head Count ratio for Uttar Pradesh S. No Year Rural Urban Total Poverty Line(Monthly % age of No of Person Poverty Line(Monthly % age of No of Person % age of No of Person per capita (Rs) person (in lakhs) per capita (Rs) person (in lakhs) person (in lakhs) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1 1993-94 244.3 50.9-281.3 38.3-48.4-2 2004-05 435.1 42.7 600.5 532.1 34.1 130.1 40.9 730.7 3 2009-10 663.7 39.4 600.6 799.9 31.7 137.3 37.7 737.9 4 2011-12 768 30.4 479.3 941 26.1 118.8 29.4 598.2 Source :1- Report of the Expert Group To Review The Methodology For Estimation Of Poverty :2-Press Release of Planning commission on estimate of Head Count Ratio for the year 2009-10 Page 36

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.9: Regional & state level Poverty Line(Rs) for the Year 2004-05 & 2009-10 S. No Region**/state* Year 2004-05 Year 2009-10 Rural Urban Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 Western(91) 440.04 526.34 655.11 811.94 2 Central (92) 450.97 548.78 663.06 768.95 3 Eastern(93) 421.97 528.64 669.51 814.09 4 Southern(94) 436.47 519.28 677.41 782.38 5 UP All* 435.14 532.12 663.70 799.90 Note *- State level poverty line is same as poverty line released by Planning Commission,Govt of India ** Regional poverty line is derived using CPI prepared by DES UP Table 2.10: Head Count Ratio(HCR) for different Regions & sectors of Uttar Pradesh Based on State Sample Data of NSS S No Region NSS 61st round (Year2004-05) NSS 66st round (Year2009-10) Rural Urban All Rural Urban All (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1 Western 38.85 33.99 37.61 30.86 38.86 33.07 2 Central 44.02 34.52 41.81 54.13 32.92 50.13 3 Eastern 49.23 44.14 48.75 45.47 35.25 44.39 4 Southern 26.57 30.64 27.40 41.27 28.41 38.04 5 UP All 44.24 36.49 42.81 42.5 35.95 41.24 Note * Based on MRP schedule type- 1 data & Poverty Line as in Table-2.8 & 2.9 Table2.11: Expenditure(or Income) Gap Ratio(IGR) for differnt regions of Uttar Pradesh using UP state sample data of NSS for the year 2004-05 & 2009-10 S. No Region/state Year 2004-05 Year 2009-10 Rural Urban Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 Western 18.73 21.10 16.80 23.95 2 Central 22.80 21.64 34.20 28.36 3 Eastern 20.87 23.92 21.80 25.62 4 Southern 19.62 25.95 27.60 25.20 5 UP All 20.80 22.04 24.68 25.28 Note * Based on MRP schedule type- 1 data & Poverty Line as in table-2 Table 2.12: Poverty Gap Ratio(PGR) for different regions of Uttar Pradesh using UP state sample data of NSS for the year 2004-05 & 2009-10 S. No Region/state Year 2004-05 Year 2009-10 Rural Urban Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 Western 7.28 7.17 5.18 9.31 2 Central 10.04 7.47 18.51 9.34 3 Eastern 10.27 10.56 9.91 9.03 4 Southern 5.21 7.95 11.39 7.16 5 UP All 9.20 8.04 10.49 9.09 Note * Based on MRP schedule type- 1 data & Poverty Line as in Table-2.8 & 2.9 Page 37

INCOME & POVERTY Table 2.13: Squired Poverty Gap Ratio( SPGR) for different regions of Uttar Pradesh using UP state sample data of NSS for the year 2004-05 & 2009-10 S. No Region/state Year 2004-05 Year 2009-10 Rural Urban Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 Western 2.02 2.13 1.33 3.11 2 Central 3.28 2.46 8.60 3.57 3 Eastern 3.08 3.34 3.16 3.20 4 Southern 1.47 2.60 4.56 2.69 5 UP All 2.77 2.51 3.91 3.21 Note * Based on MRP schedule type- 1 data & Poverty Line as in Table-2.8 & 2.9 Table 2.14 Percentage -point change in estimates of different poverty measures during period 2004-05 to 2009-10 by sector & regions S No Region Rural Urban HCR IGR PGR SPGR HCR IGR PGR SPGR (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1 Western -7.99-1.94-2.09-0.69 4.87 2.85 2.13 0.98 2 Central 10.11 11.40 8.47 5.33-1.60 6.72 1.86 1.12 3 Eastern -3.76 0.93-0.36 0.08-8.89 1.70-1.52-0.14 4 Southern 14.70 7.98 6.18 3.09-2.23-0.75-0.79 0.09 5 Over all Uttar Pradesh -1.74 3.88 1.29 1.14-0.54 3.24 1.05 0.70 Note -Negative sign ( -) indicates improvement Page 38

INCOME & POVERTY APPENDIX-2(I) : A SHORT NOTE ON POVERTY MEASUREMENT IN INDIA 2(I)A.1 PAST PROCEDURE & METHODS FOR POVERTY MEASUREMENT In context of India, following the recommendations of the Task Force on Projections of Minimum needs and Effective Consumption Demand (1979) the Planning Commission government of India has been estimating the proportion and number of poor separately for rural and urban area at national and state levels. These estimates have been released from the year 1973-74 using the full survey data on household consumption expenditure by NSSO's quinquinial survey rounds. It measure absolute poverty in India in consumption dimension. The procedure and methods devised to estimate number of poor and percentage continued and remained almost the same till the expert group report on estimation of proportion and number of poor brought out in 1993. Expert Group- 1993 headed by Lakdawala procedure and methods continued till 2004-05.The procedure entails taking the Lakdawala committee poverty line and updating it by using the state -specific consumer price index for agricultural workers (CPIAL) for rural households, and the state -specific consumer price index for industrial workers(cpiiw) for urban households. This updated poverty lines were then used in conjunction with the current year MPCE distribution to estimate the head count poverty rate for the current year. The above procedure uses rural and urban poverty lines which were originally defined in terms of per capita total consumer expenditure (PCTE) at 1973-74 market prices and price changes were adjusted over time and across states keeping unchanged original 1973-74 rural & urban reference poverty line baskets(plb) of goods & services. These PLBs were derived for rural & urban sector separately, anchored in the per capita calorie norms of 2400 (rural) and 2100(urban) per day. These poverty line's get criticisms over time. In view of that Planning commission government of India constructed expert group to review the methodology for estimation of poverty in December-2005 under the chairmanship of Prof S Tendulkar. The committee has given the job to examine the issues relating to the comparability of the 50 th, 55 th & 61 st round NSS and to suggest methodologies for deriving such comparability with past and for future surveys. The committee has given also the task to review alternative conceptualization of poverty and associated technical aspects of procedures of measurement and data base for Page 39

INCOME & POVERTY empirical estimation including procedures for updating overtime and across states and also in the light of above reference, to recommend any changes in the existing procedures of official estimates of poverty. The expert group submitted their report on the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty in November 2009.The Poverty Line Baskets get criticisms. First-the consumption behavior & patterns underlying the rural & urban PLBs remained tied down to those observed more than three decades ago in 1973-74 and therefore had become outdated. Comparably risen up living standard resulting from accelerated economic growth since the nineteen-eightes, consumption pattern of the poor has also been changing but not reflected in the poverty line. Second -crude adjustment for prices was leading to implausible results e.g. proportion of total urban population below poverty line being higher than its rural counter parts in some states. Third-the earlier poverty lines assumed that basic social services of health and education would be supplied by the state and hence, although private expenditure on education and health covered in the base year 1973-74, no account was taken of either the increase in proportion of these in total expenditure over time or of their proper representation in available price indices. To accounting the criticism on official estimate of poverty line & estimate of poverty rates, Tendulkar committee examined the issue and suggested a new poverty line and estimates for year 2004-05.It was latest available major NSS survey on household consumer expenditure which provides the data base for the calculation of poverty estimates by the Planning Commission. With giving new poverty line & estimate, expert group suggested procedure & method for updating poverty line & estimating proportion and number of poor s for future years. 2(I)A.2 CURRENT PROCEDURE& METHODS OF POVERTY MEASUREMENT The expert group found it desirable in some generally acceptable aspect of the present practice to make comparable from past procedure. They started from official estimates of poverty following broadly the Expert Group (1993) method and using the Uniform Reference Period (URP) of 30 days which indicate that persons below poverty line(bpl) was 28.3 percent of the rural population and 25.7 percent of the urban population in 2004-05 at all India level. The above official estimates released by the Planning Commission are based on the(1)1973-74 rural & urban poverty line baskets originally at 1973-74 prices adjusted for price changes during 1973-74 and 2004-05 (2) a uniform reference period(urp) of 30 days for Page 40

INCOME & POVERTY canvassing consumption of all items of present household consumption in NSS and(3) rural and urban size distributions of per capita total consumer expenditure (PCTE) data collected during the 61 st round(july2004-june 2005) quinquennial survey of NSS on household consumer expenditure. Tendulkar committee-2009 make departure from 1993 Expert Group procedure which constituted significant improvement over the past official poverty estimation procedure. They moved from general calorie norm for poverty line to adequacy of actual food expenditure near the poverty line to ensure certain aggregate nutritional outcomes. This committee decides to not discriminate between rural and urban population and recommended to provide uniform Poverty Line Basket(PLB) based on the latest available(i.e. NSS-61 st household consumer expenditure )data to both rural and urban populations. This alteration corrects the previous out-dated PLB's. The another change they made in price adjustment procedure that was predominantly based in the same data set that were used the poverty estimation and hence it corrects the problems associated with externally generated and population-segment specific price indices with out-dated price and weight used so for in the official poverty estimation. Tendulkar committee for incorporating an explicit provision in price indices for private expenditure on health and education which has been upward increasing trend over time and test for their adequacy to ensure certain desirable educational and health outcomes. The committee started with the observation that the official estimate of rural poverty ratio at all India level of 28.3 percent for 2004-05 is widely admitted to be too low mainly because of under-stated price adjustment & very old and out-dated 1973-74 poverty line basket(plb)where as the corresponding urban poverty ratio 25.7 percent of the BPL population emerges less controversial in terms of the magnitude & extent. Committee taken account of the decision of NSSO,s to shift from URP to a MRP.Therefore make comparability with future survey, the PLB was taken to be MRP equivalent of per capita total expenditure corresponding to 25.7 percent of the urban poverty ratio. As urban living standard is regarded as better than and preferable to its rural counterpart. The Expert Group recommends that the purchasing power represented by the MRP- equivalent PCTE underlying the all India urban poverty ratio of 25.7 percent be taken as the new reference PLB for measuring poverty and made available to both the rural and urban population in all the states after correcting for urban - rural price differentials as well as urban Page 41

INCOME & POVERTY and rural state -relative- to all India price differentials. The all India rural head count ratio using the recommended PLB was estimated as 41.8 percent for the year 2004-05. The poverty estimate of 25.7 percent for urban areas is based on size distribution of households in ascending order of per capita monthly expenditure on the basis of URP.MRP equivalent poverty line is that level of MPCE which is obtained when population is ranked in ascending order of size of MRP based MPCE and the percentage of poor s equals 25.7 per cent. The choice of MRP over URP is based on the observation that 365 -day recall captures better than 30 -day recall, It is important to note that except for the urban all -India poverty ratio for 2004-05 which was used to derive the new all India reference poverty line basket, all other poverty ratio for 2004-05 rural all India and rural and urban state-wise are based on the new reference poverty line basket and new price indices, and hence are not comparable and must not be compared with the earlier poverty ratios using the old-out dated 1973-74 PLB and unsatisfactory price indices. All -India headcount ratios using the new poverty line basket appears higher at 41.8 percent in rural for the year 2004-05 and urban all -India level is same as in old procedure and is 25.7 percent. Using the procedure suggested by committee., the Planning Commission released state wise poverty line & poverty ratio s for the year 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12 which is appended in statement-2(i) A2.1&2(I) A2.2 and also suggested procedure for updating the poverty line estimated to the year 2004-05 for 2009-10 and beyond. Page 42

INCOME & POVERTY Statement. 2(I) A2.1:Poverty Line for states and India Poverty Line (Rs.) 2004-05 2009-10 2011-12 States Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Andhra Pradesh 433.43 563.16 693.8 926.4 860 1009 Arunachal Pradesh 547.14 618.45 773.7 925.2 930 1060 Assam 478 600.03 691.7 871 828 1008 Bihar 433.43 526.18 655.6 775.3 778 923 Chhatisgarh 398.92 513.7 617.3 806.7 738 849 Delhi 541.39 642.47 747.8 1040.3 1145 1134 Goa 608.76 671.15 931 1025.4 1090 1134 Gujrat 501.58 659.18 725.9 951.4 932 1152 Haryana 529.42 626.41 791.6 975.4 1015 1169 Himanchal Pradesh 520.4 605.74 708 888.3 913 1064 Jammu & Kashmir 522.3 602.89 722.9 845.4 891 988 Jharkhand 404.79 531.35 616.3 831.2 748 974 Karnataka 417.84 588.06 629.4 908 902 1089 Kerala 537.31 584.7 775.3 830.7 1018 987 Madhya Pradesh 408.41 532.26 631.9 771.7 771 897 Maharashtra 484.89 631.85 743.7 961.1 967 1126 Manipur 578.11 641.13 871 955 1118 1170 Meghalaya 503.32 745.73 686.9 989.8 888 1154 Mizoram 639.27 699.75 850 939.3 1066 1155 Nagaland 687.3 782.93 1016.8 1147.6 1270 1302 Orissa 407.78 497.31 567.1 736 695 861 Pondicherry 385.45 506.17 641 777.7 1301 1309 Punjab 543.51 642.51 830 960.8 1054 1155 Rajasthan 478 568.15 755 846 905 1002 Sikkim 531.5 741.68 728.9 1035.2 930 1226 Tamil Nadu 441.69 559.77 639 800.8 880 937 Tripura 450.49 555.79 663.4 782.7 798 920 Uttar Pradesh 435.14 532.12 663.7 799.9 768 941 Uttarakhand 486.24 602.39 719.5 898.6 880 1082 West Bengal 445.38 572.51 643.2 830.6 783 981 All India 446.68 578.8 672.8 859.6 816 1000 Page 43

INCOME & POVERTY Statement-2(I)A2.2: Persons below poverty line (2004-05) & (2009-10) on the basis of Tendulkar committee States Year 2004-05 Rural Urban Combined no. of %age of rank no. of %age of rank no. of %age of rank persons (lakhs) persons persons persons (lakhs) persons persons (lakhs) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Andhra Pradesh 180 32.3 18 55 23.4 16 235.1 29.6 18 Arunachal Pradesh 3.2 33.6 17 0.6 23.5 15 3.8 31.4 16 Assam 89.4 36.4 14 8.3 21.8 20 97.7 34.4 10 Bihar 451 55.7 2 42.8 43.7 1 493.8 54.4 2 Chhatisgarh 97.8 55.1 3 13.7 28.4 7 111.5 49.4 3 Delhi 1.1 15.6 27 18.3 12.9 25 19.3 13 29 Goa 1.8 28.1 20 1.7 22.2 19 3.4 24.9 20 Gujrat 128.5 39.1 10 42.9 20.1 21 171.4 31.6 15 Haryana 38.8 24.8 22 15.9 22.4 18 54.6 24.1 21 Himanchal Pradesh 14.3 25 21 0.3 4.6 29 14.6 22.9 22 Jammu & Kashmir 11.6 14.1 28 2.9 10.4 26 14.5 13.1 28 Jharkhand 116.2 51.6 5 16 23.8 14 132.1 45.3 5 Karnataka 134.7 37.5 12 51.8 25.9 9 186.5 33.3 13 Kerala 42.2 20.2 26 19.8 18.4 24 62 19.6 24 Madhya Pradesh 254.4 53.6 4 61.3 35.1 3 315.7 48.6 4 Maharashtra 277.8 47.9 6 114.6 25.6 11 392.4 38.2 8 Manipur 6.7 39.3 9 2.3 34.5 4 9 37.9 9 Meghalaya 2.9 14 29 1.2 24.7 12 4.1 16.1 25 Mizoram 1.1 23 23 0.4 7.9 28 1.5 15.4 26 Nagaland 1.5 10 30 0.2 4.3 30 1.7 8.8 30 Orissa 198.8 60.8 1 22.8 37.6 2 221.6 57.2 1 Pondicherry 0.8 22.9 24 0.7 9.9 27 1.5 14.2 27 Punjab 36.7 22.1 25 16.9 18.7 23 53.6 20.9 23 Rajasthan 166.4 35.8 15 43.5 29.7 6 209.8 34.4 10 Sikkim 1.5 31.8 19 0.2 25.9 9 1.7 30.9 17 Tamil Nadu 134.4 37.5 12 59.7 19.7 22 194.1 29.4 19 Tripura 11.9 44.5 7 1.5 22.5 17 13.4 40 7 Uttar Pradesh 600.5 42.7 8 10.1 34.1 5 730.7 40.9 6 Uttarakhand 23.1 35.1 16 6.6 26.2 8 29.7 32.7 14 West Bengal 227.5 38.2 11 60.8 24.4 13 288.3 34.2 12 All India 3258.1 42 814.1 25.5 4072.2 37.2 Page 44

INCOME & POVERTY States Year 2009-10 Rural Urban Combined no. of %age of rank no. of %age of rank no. of %age of rank persons (lakhs) persons persons persons (lakhs) persons persons (lakhs) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Andhra Pradesh 127.9 22.8 16 48.7 17.7 20 176.6 21.1 15 Arunachal Pradesh 2.7 26.2 14 0.8 24.9 9 3.5 25.9 10 Assam 105.3 39.9 6 11.2 26.1 5 116.4 37.9 5 Bihar 498.7 55.3 2 44.8 39.4 2 543.5 53.5 1 Chhatisgarh 108.3 56.1 1 13.6 23.8 11 121.9 48.7 2 Delhi 0.3 7.7 29 22.9 14.4 21 23.3 14.2 24 Goa 0.6 11.5 26 0.6 6.9 28 1.3 8.7 29 Gujrat 91.6 26.7 12 44.6 17.9 19 136.2 23 14 Haryana 30.4 18.6 20 19.6 23 12 50 20.1 18 Himanchal Pradesh 5.6 9.1 27 0.9 12.6 24 6.4 9.5 27 Jammu & Kashmir 7.3 8.1 28 4.2 12.8 22 11.5 9.4 28 Jharkhand 102.2 41.6 5 24 31.1 4 126.2 39.1 4 Karnataka 97.4 26.1 15 44.9 19.6 16 142.3 23.6 13 Kerala 21.6 12 25 18 12.1 25 39.6 12 26 Madhya Pradesh 216.9 42 4 44.9 22.9 13 261.8 36.7 8 Maharashtra 179.8 29.5 10 90.9 18.3 17 270.8 24.5 12 Manipur 8.8 47.4 3 3.7 46.4 1 12.5 47.1 3 Meghalaya 3.5 15.3 22 1.4 24.1 10 4.9 17.1 21 Mizoram 1.6 31.1 9 0.6 11.5 26 2.3 21.1 15 Nagaland 2.8 19.3 19 1.4 25 8 4.1 20.9 17 Orissa 135.5 39.2 8 17.7 25.9 6 153.2 37 7 Pondicherry 0 0.2 30 0.1 1.6 30 0.1 1.2 30 Punjab 25.1 14.6 24 18.4 18.1 18 43.5 15.9 23 Rajasthan 133.8 26.4 13 33.2 19.9 15 167 24.8 11 Sikkim 0.7 15.5 21 0.1 5 29 0.8 13.1 25 Tamil Nadu 78.3 21.2 17 43.5 12.8 22 121.8 17.1 21 Tripura 5.4 19.8 18 0.9 10 27 6.3 17.4 20 Uttar Pradesh 600.6 39.4 7 137.3 31.7 3 737.9 37.7 6 Uttarakhand 10.3 14.9 23 7.5 25.2 7 17.9 18 19 West Bengal 177.8 28.8 11 62.5 22 14 240.3 26.7 9 All India 2782.1 33.8 764.7 20.9 3546.8 29.8 Page 45

INCOME & POVERTY Statement 2(I) A2.3: Persons below poverty line (2011-12) on the basis of Tendulkar committee States Year 2011-12 Rural Urban Combined no. of %age of rank no. of %age of rank no. of %age of rank persons (lakhs) persons persons persons (lakhs) persons persons (lakhs) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Andhra Pradesh 61.8 11.0 25 17.0 5.8 26 78.8 9.2 25 Arunachal Pradesh 4.3 38.9 3 0.7 20.3 8 4.9 34.7 4 Assam 92.1 33.9 9 9.2 20.5 7 101.3 32.0 7 Bihar 320.4 34.1 8 37.8 31.2 2 358.2 33.7 5 Chhatisgarh 88.9 44.6 1 15.2 24.8 4 104.1 39.9 1 Delhi 0.5 12.9 20 16.5 9.8 17 17.0 9.9 23 Goa 0.4 6.8 30 0.4 4.1 29 0.8 5.1 30 Gujrat 75.4 21.5 14 26.9 10.1 16 102.2 16.6 15 Haryana 19.4 11.6 22 9.4 10.3 15 28.8 11.2 21 Himanchal Pradesh 5.3 8.5 28 0.3 4.3 28 5.6 8.1 28 Jammu & Kashmir 10.7 11.5 24 2.5 7.2 22 13.3 10.4 22 Jharkhand 104.1 40.8 2 20.2 24.8 4 124.3 37.0 2 Karnataka 92.8 24.5 11 37.0 15.3 11 129.8 20.9 10 Kerala 15.5 9.1 27 8.5 5.0 27 24.0 7.1 29 Madhya Pradesh 191.0 35.7 5 43.1 21.0 6 234.1 31.7 8 Maharashtra 150.6 24.2 12 47.4 9.1 20 197.9 17.4 14 Manipur 7.5 38.8 4 2.8 32.6 1 10.2 36.9 3 Meghalaya 3.0 12.5 21 0.6 9.3 18 3.6 11.9 18 Mizoram 1.9 35.4 7 0.4 6.4 24 2.3 20.4 11 Nagaland 2.8 19.9 15 1.0 16.5 10 3.8 18.9 13 Orissa 126.1 35.7 5 12.4 17.3 9 138.5 32.6 6 Pondicherry 0.7 17.1 16 0.6 6.3 25 1.2 9.7 24 Punjab 13.4 7.7 29 9.8 9.2 19 23.2 8.3 26 Rajasthan 84.2 16.1 18 18.7 10.7 13 102.9 14.7 16 Sikkim 0.5 9.9 26 0.1 3.7 30 0.5 8.2 27 Tamil Nadu 59.2 15.8 19 23.4 6.5 23 82.6 11.3 19 Tripura 4.5 16.5 17 0.8 7.4 21 5.2 14.1 17 Uttar Pradesh 479.4 30.4 10 118.8 26.1 3 598.2 29.4 9 Uttarakhand 8.3 11.6 22 3.4 10.5 14 11.6 11.3 19 West Bengal 141.1 22.5 13 43.8 14.7 12 185.0 20.0 12 All India 2166.6 25.7 531.3 13.7 2697.8 21.9 Page 46

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD 3.MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD 3.1 INTRODUCTION Poverty measures looks at the situation of individuals who find themselves at the bottom of income or expenditure distribution.this requires information both about mean level of MPCE as well as its distribution at the lower tail. Sometimes it is better to measure inequalities because it is defined over the entire population not merely on the population below a certain poverty line which might get criticism because of social perceptions about its low or highness in value. Generally most of the inequality measures do not depend on the mean of the distribution i.e. mean independent and it is considered as desirable property of an inequality measure and it is computed for the distribution other than expenditure. Simplest way to measure inequality is by dividing the population into 3-equal parts from poorest to richest. It may be said as poor, middle and rich and reporting the levels or proportion/ percentage of income/expenditure that accrue to each level. In this chapter, some important summary measures of inequalities of living are presented with use of MRP data on household consumer expenditure collected in NSS 61 st and 66 th round as state sample for different sector and economic region. 3.2 DECILES DISPERSION RATIO OF INEQUALITY MEASURE Decile dispersion ratio is the ratio of the average consumption of the richest 10 percent of the population divided by the average expenditure of the bottom 10 percent. This ratio can also be calculated for other percentiles also. It is readily interpretable, by expressing the expenditure of the top 10 percent (the rich) as a multiple of those that of the poorest decile(the poor). Besides easy interpretability, it has drawback that it does not uses income/expenditure of the middle of the distribution and not even uses the information about the distribution of expenditure within the top and bottom decile. Deciles dispersion ratio for the year 2004-05 was 5.36 and it became to 5.90 in the year 2009-10. This increase was observed for rural and urban sector both. It indicates that inequalities among poorest and richest people increased during the year 2004-05 to 2009-10. It is important to note that this measure is much high in urban sector compared to rural sector. It is also found that increase in this ratio between rural and urban sector was more in year 2009-10 compared to 2004-05. (see Table3.1) Living inequality measured through deciles dispersion ratio suggest Page 47

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD that between regions,living inequalities increased quit large from the year 2004-05 to 2009-10. Increase was observed highest 5.66 percent point in Central region fallowed by Eastern (2.83 percent point.) and Western(1.58 percent point) regions.this increase was least in Southern region. 3.3 GINI COEFFICIENT OF INEQUALITY MEASURE The most widely used inequality measure is a Gini coefficient. It is a measure of Figure 3.1a: Lorenz Curve for Rural UP 2009-10 Figure 3.1b: Lorenz Curve for Rural UP 2009-10 Cumulative proportion of MPCE 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of MPCE 0.2.4.6.8 1 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of household Lorenz curve Line of Perfect Equality 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of population Lorenz curve Line of Perfect Equality the inequality of a distribution, a value of 0 expressing total equality and a value of 1 maximal inequality. It is based on Lorenz curve, a cumulative frequency curve that compares the distribution of a specific variable (e.g. income or expenditure) with the uniform Figure3.2a: Lorenz Curve for Urban UP 2009-10 Figure 3.2b : Lorenz Curve for Urban UP 2009-10 Cumulative proportion of MPCE 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of MPCE 0.2.4.6.8 1 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of household 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of population Lorenz curve Line of Perfect Equality Lorenz curve Line of Perfect Equality distribution that represents equality. To find living inequality with Gini coefficient, draw Lorenz curve in which cumulative percentage of expenditure on the vertical axis and cumulative percentage of populations( from poor to rich) on horizontal axis. The Gini coefficient for state as whole estimated as 0.294 for the year 2009-10 (see Table-3.2).This measure observed high (0.359) in urban sector compared to rural (0.250).The difference in living inequality between rural and urban sector

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD can also be observed from Lorenz curve drawn as in Figure 3.1a & 3.2b for households and Figure 3.1b &3.2b for population. It can be also inferred from these curves that Gini coefficient of living inequalities between households are less than that of between populations s both for rural as well as urban sector. Over the period of 2004-05 to 2009-10, Gini coefficient increased in both sectors. Interregional analysis of Gini reflects that it increased in each region except Western where it given sign of reduction over the aforesaid period. Sectoral introspection by region indicated increase of Gini in rural part of each region where as in context of urban sector, Western and Central region showed reduction in this coefficient over the period of 2004-05 to 2009-10. 3.4 GENERALIZED ENTROPY(GE) MEASURE However Gini coefficient is popular measure of inequality and has many properties mean independence,population size independence,symmetry etc but it cannot easily decomposed to show the sources of inequality i.e. within-group and between group. Decomposability of an inequality measure can be very useful for analyzing inequality in a population partitioned according to identifiable characteristics, such as geographic location- sector & region, race or gender. Therefore Gini is infrequent use in this type of analysis. In contrast, the generalized entropy class of measures, including the two Theil s measures and the squared coefficient of variation, allow one to decompose inequality into the part that is due to inequality within areas( e.g. rural,urban) and the part that is due to differences between areas(e.g. rural urban expenditure gap). The value of GE measure vary between 0 and,where zero showing an equal distribution and higher value showing higher level of inequality. It has weighing parameter (α) which shows distances between incomes at different parts of the income (here expenditure) distribution, and can take any real value. For lower value of this parameter, GE is more sensitive to changes in the lower parts of distribution, and for higher value GE is more sensitive to changes that takes place in upper part of the distribution. Generally value of this parameter(α) is taken 0,1 and 2. TheGE(0) is Thail s L and some time it is referred as mean log deviation measure.ge(1) is known as Thiel s T measure and GE(2) is squired coefficient of variation.the values of different GE measures described above have been computed for the year 2004-05 and 2009-10 and all are charted as in Table-3.3 for sectors & Page 49

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD regions. Here only GE(1) which is most important among all GE measures, details has been provided. Theil's inequality measure(ge(1)) is a summary measure of inequality that gives a number that reflects the extent to which the structure in the distribution of income across groups differs from the distribution of population across those same groups. When the structures are the same (each group has the same share of income as its share of population) the Theil inequality measure attains its minimum (zero). If one of the groups has the same share of income and population, this group s contribution to the Theil's inequality measure is zero. Groups that have higher shares of income than population shares contribute positively to the Theil 's measure; those that have lower shares of income than population contribute negatively. Still, the positive contributions are always higher than the negative contributions, so that the Theil 's measure of inequality is always positive overall. The negative contributions provide the non-linearity that make the Theil 's measure of inequality sensitive to transfers of income from poor to rich, a sensitivity that increases the large the amount that is transferred and the wider the dispersion between rich and poor. The GE(1)estimated as 0.162 for the year 2009-10 which shows increase from the year2004-05( 0.156). Rural -urban analysis of above measure indicate that it has sign of increase in rural sector where as it has declined in urban sector from year 2004-05 to year 2009-10. Further analysis of total inequality, it is found that about 12.14 percent of total inequality is attributable to between group inequality i.e. to the differences in MPCE levels between rural and urban sector of the state and the remaining 87.86 percent of all inequality is due to the inequality in per capita that occurs within rural sector and within urban sector. It is noticeable that over the period 2004-05 to 2009-10, within group inequality increased where as between group inequality in state decreased from 0.134 to 0.143 and 0.022 to 0.020 respectively in state(see Table 3.3 to 3.5). GE(1) observed highest in Central (0.265) and lowest in Western(0.127) region in the state for the year 2009-10 among four regions. Looking between the period of 2004-05 to 2009-10, it is found that GE(1) for state decreased in Western & Southern region. Further looking it by sector and region, it is observed that Page 50

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD GE(1) of rural sector increased in all regions except Western region where as it decreased in all region's urban part except Central region where it increased. It is found that very little quantity (about 1.41 percent) of total inequality GE(1) is attributable to between group inequality i.e. to the differences in MPCE levels between different regions of state.the remaining all inequality is due to the inequality in MPCE that occurs within different regions for the year 2009-10. Looking it over the period 2004-05 to 2009-10, between group inequality diminished sufficiently large i.e. from 4.59 to 1.41 percent. The over all contribution in reduction of between inequality may be attributable to different region's rural part because different region's urban part showed increase in group inequality(see Table 3.3 to 3.5). 3.5 ATKINSON'S INEQUALITY MEASURE Atkinson proposed another class of inequality measures that has a weighting parameter and useful in charting inequalities. The weighting parameter measures aversion to inequality. Atkinson inequality coefficient's values are useful to calculate the proportion of total income or expenditure that would be required to achieve an equal level of social welfare as at present if incomes or expenditures were perfectly distributed. It's value ranges from zero to one,with zero being a state of equal distribution and one shows completely unequal distribution of income. Aversion parameter generally taken greater than zero. Value of aversion parameter zero means there is no inequality i.e. distribution of income is equal. Here Atkinson's inequality measure is computed for aversion parameter.05,1.0 and for 2 and is shown as in Table 3.6 by region & sector. Looking the Table,it is found that if distribution of income (here expenditure) were made equal in year 2004-05, same level of welfare was achieved in 80.6 percent of the above year's income in the state (for aversion parameter Ɛ =2) where as it is only 78.5 percent for the year 2009-10. For rural & urban sector of state these percentage were about 85.5 and 72.0 respectively for the year 2004-05. It slightly decreased in year 2009-10 became 83.5 & 69.2 percent for rural & urban sector respectively. Interregional differences has been observed in value of this measure for both years i.e. 2004-05 & 2009-10. The fall in value of this measure is found highest in Central fallowed by Eastern region. Page 51

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD Table 3.1 : Decile Disperion Ratio for the Year2004-05 & 2009-10 S. No Region Year 2004-05 Year 2009-10 Rural Urban State Rural Urban State (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1 Western 3.83 6.85 5.14 3.90 6.72 4.90 2 Central 4.39 9.58 6.50 5.46 12.36 9.04 3 Eastern 3.83 6.46 4.41 4.41 7.24 5.06 4 Southern 5.72 10.85 6.97 6.67 7.70 7.47 5 All 4.15 7.61 5.36 4.61 8.61 5.96 Table 3.2: Gini Coefficient for the Year2004-05 & 2009-10 S. No Region Year 2004-05 Year 2009-10 Rural Urban State Rural Urban State (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1 Western 0.216 0.326 0.268 0.222 0.317 0.260 2 Central 0.234 0.377 0.304 0.264 0.428 0.363 3 Eastern 0.214 0.322 0.237 0.234 0.327 0.258 4 Southern 0.286 0.399 0.322 0.298 0.317 0.314 5 All 0.228 0.345 0.274 0.241 0.359 0.288 Table 3.3 : Generalized Entropy measures for different regions of Uttar Pradesh S. Region/G Year 2004-05(NSS61st rnd) No roup Rural Urban State GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE (-1) (0) (1) (2) (-1) (0) (1) (2) (-1) (0) (1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 1 Western 0.077 0.077 0.090 0.148 0.173 0.171 0.201 0.305 0.115 0.119 0.148 0.247 2 Central 0.092 0.089 0.097 0.123 0.237 0.233 0.298 0.624 0.151 0.156 0.203 0.437 3 Eastern 0.075 0.075 0.084 0.111 0.168 0.164 0.187 0.260 0.091 0.093 0.110 0.157 4 Southern 0.135 0.135 0.164 0.270 0.274 0.257 0.299 0.440 0.170 0.171 0.211 0.347 5 All 0.085 0.085 0.098 0.146 0.194 0.192 0.233 0.403 0.120 0.125 0.156 0.279 6 Within group Inequality 7 Between group Inequality 0.081 0.081 0.094 0.142 0.190 0.188 0.229 0.399 0.113 0.118 0.149 0.272 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 Table 3.4: Generalized Entropy measures for different regions of Uttar Pradesh S. Region/G Year 2009-10(NSS66th rnd) No roup Rural Urban State GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE (-1) (0) (1) (2) (-1) (0) (1) (2) (-1) (0) (1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 1 Western 0.080 0.080 0.087 0.107 0.168 0.161 0.181 0.249 0.109 0.110 0.127 0.175 2 Central 0.122 0.117 0.132 0.180 0.376 0.307 0.315 0.411 0.221 0.217 0.265 0.428 3 Eastern 0.092 0.091 0.106 0.204 0.184 0.171 0.184 0.238 0.110 0.110 0.130 0.231 4 Southern 0.164 0.150 0.167 0.237 0.184 0.166 0.183 0.244 0.182 0.165 0.183 0.258 5 All 0.099 0.096 0.108 0.166 0.223 0.207 0.231 0.322 0.137 0.137 0.162 0.257 6 Within group Inequality 0.097 0.094 0.106 0.164 0.214 0.197 0.221 0.312 0.135 0.134 0.160 0.255 7 Between group Inequality 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 GE (2) GE (2) Page 52

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD Table 3.5: Generalized Entropy measures for Rural-Urban Sector of Uttar Pradesh Sector/Group Year 2004-05 (NSS 61 th Round) Year 2009-10 (NSS 66 th Round) GE(-1) GE(0) GE(1) GE(2) GE(-1) GE(0) GE(1) GE(2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Rural 0.085 0.085 0.098 0.146 0.099 0.096 0.108 0.166 Urban 0.194 0.192 0.233 0.403 0.223 0.207 0.231 0.322 All 0.120 0.125 0.156 0.279 0.137 0.137 0.162 0.257 Within group Inequality 0.102 0.105 0.134 0.255 0.120 0.118 0.143 0.236 Between group Inequality 0.018 0.020 0.022 0.024 0.017 0.018 0.020 0.022 Table 3.6 Atkinson's Inequality Coefficient A(Ɛ =.0.5,1 & 2) for the Year 2004-05 & 2009-10 S Region No Year 2004-05(NSS61 st Round) Rural Urban State A(0.5) A(1) A(2) A(0.5) A(1) A(2) A(0.5) A(1) A(2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1 Western 0.040 0.074 0.133 0.088 0.157 0.257 0.064 0.113 0.187 2 Central 0.045 0.085 0.155 0.122 0.208 0.322 0.084 0.144 0.232 3 Eastern 0.039 0.072 0.130 0.084 0.151 0.251 0.049 0.089 0.154 4 Southern 0.071 0.127 0.213 0.130 0.227 0.354 0.090 0.157 0.253 5 All 0.044 0.082 0.145 0.100 0.175 0.280 0.067 0.118 0.194 S No Region Year 2009-10(NSS66 th Round) Rural Urban State A(0.5) A(1) A(2) A(0.5) A(1) A(2) A(0.5) A(1) A(2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1 Western 0.041 0.076 0.138 0.082 0.149 0.251 0.057 0.104 0.179 2 Central 0.060 0.110 0.196 0.145 0.264 0.429 0.113 0.195 0.307 3 Eastern 0.047 0.087 0.155 0.085 0.157 0.270 0.058 0.104 0.180 4 Southern 0.076 0.139 0.247 0.083 0.153 0.269 0.083 0.152 0.267 5 All 0.049 0.092 0.165 0.104 0.187 0.308 0.071 0.128 0.215 Note " Ɛ" is the aversion parameter of inequality Table 3.7: Inequalities in distribution of Real Total Expenditures in UP by Decile Group REGION Distribution of MPCE /STATE (share of the total MPCE in the sample) by Decile Group DECILE 2004/2005 2009/2010 Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Western Lowest(Poorest) 6.57 5.80 6.22 6.43 5.69 6.13 Highest(Richest) 16.40 20.69 18.86 16.93 19.50 18.38 Central Lowest(Poorest) 5.40 4.95 4.98 4.74 4.99 3.88 Highest(Richest) 16.68 23.99 21.56 20.98 21.26 27.48 Eastern Lowest(Poorest) 5.83 5.84 5.73 5.48 4.29 5.23 Highest(Richest) 16.72 18.62 17.47 17.97 17.45 19.36 Southern Lowest(Poorest) 5.23 4.56 5.15 5.30 4.46 4.66 Highest(Richest) 25.48 24.34 23.87 22.65 21.69 23.37 State Lowest(Poorest) 5.82 5.51 5.63 5.40 4.79 5.11 Highest(Richest) 17.44 21.76 19.43 18.34 22.05 20.84 Page 53

MEASURING INEQUALITIES OF LIVING STANDARD Table 3.8 Inequalities in Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group Region/ DECILE Food Share by the Decile Group(deciles based on total mpce) state Rural Urban Overall 2004/ 05 2009 /10 Increase (%) 2004/ 05 2009/ 10 Increase (%) 2004 / 05 2009/ 10 Increase (%) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Western Lowest(Poorest) 63.91 61.13-4.35 62.18 61.73-0.72 63.5 61.31-3.53 Highest(Richest) 47.04 45.80-2.65 33.47 35.54 6.21 39.4 41.32 4.95 Overall 57.45 57.71 0.45 47.74 50.97 6.77 54.37 55.56 2.18 Central Lowest(Poorest) 65.50 62.54-4.51 61.09 70.70 15.74 65.67 63.08-3.93 Highest(Richest) 44.72 41.07-8.16 25.43 27.88 9.63 34.44 33.33-3.21 Overall 55.90 55.15-1.34 44.01 42.64-3.12 52.03 50.60-2.75 Eastern Lowest(Poorest) 65.71 63.58-3.23 65.15 62.90-3.45 65.48 63.51-3.00 Highest(Richest) 44.85 47.54 6.00 35.78 32.41-9.42 42.90 43.29 0.90 Overall 57.26 57.93 1.18 51.01 48.37-5.17 56.49 56.55 0.11 Southern Lowest(Poorest) 59.50 59.67 0.28 57.66 57.64-0.03 59.21 59.19-0.03 Highest(Richest) 34.87 45.01 29.10 25.70 32.92 28.08 32.33 40.72 25.97 Overall 51.38 55.30 7.62 43.43 49.31 13.53 49.64 53.27 7.31 State Lowest(Poorest) 64.91 62.76-3.31 62.29 64.29 3.22 64.75 63.13-2.50 Highest(Richest) 44.69 45.48 1.78 30.97 31.68 2.31 39.25 39.39 0.37 Overall 56.73 57.28 0.96 47.27 48.02 1.58 54.49 54.85 0.65 Page 54

BASIC EDUCATION 4. BASIC EDUCATION 4.1 INTRODUCTION Basic Education is the basic need and the Fundamental Right' of the citizens of a nation. While Higher Education is important. The elementary education system serves as the base over which the super-structure of the whole education system is built up and also one of the important determinant of poverty and inequality and it lays a foundation for sustained economic development. So free and compulsory education to all children up to the age fourteen is long standing constitutional commitment in India. At the time of adoption of the Constitution in 1950, it was decided to achieve the goal of universal enrolment within a period of ten year. Keeping in view the educational facilities available in the State at that time, the goal to achieve universal enrolment was ambitious to achieve it in a short span of ten year. Therefore the target date (1986 onwards) was revised a number of times despite the significant improvement in all the spheres of elementary education. The Government of India has recently launched a programme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan(SSA) to achieve the goal of universal primary education by 2007 and that of universal elementary education by 2010. Despite of it Uttar Pradesh is lagging behind from many states of our country in universalistion of elementary education. Further experiencing importance of the basic education, Government of India passed "The Right to Education Act (RTE) in 2009" in which every child aged six to fourteen of country have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighboring school till completion of elementary education". The Government of UP is making continuous efforts to universalize elementary education through its various schemes related to this. The budget document shows that UP Government has increased 2.75 times expenditure on elementary education from Rs. 362511 lakh in year 2000-01 to Rs. 995867 lakh in year 2009-10. The share of expenditure on primary education to total expenditure on education increased from 59.5 percent in 2000-01 to 62.7 percent in 20079-10 and the Enrolment of children per primary school increased from 177 in 2000-01 to 186 in 2009-10. Besides Pupil- Teacher Ratio which was 53 in 2000-01 became 80 in 2009-10 which may be induced effect on the quality of elementary education. Details on educational services received by the household were collected from each sample household selected for the PSMS round IV like previous rounds. Some Page 55

BASIC EDUCATION general particulars such as age, sex, education level attained, current enrolment status, etc., were collected from all the household members. From persons of age 5-18 years, more detailed information was asked as they formed the main target group of the survey. Data on utilization of facilities by them which were provided by Government in terms of scholarship, free studentship, etc., and details of private expenditure incurred by them on education were also collected. The information on members of household those currently not attending any educational institution were collected with asking whether they were ever enrolled or not, whether they had completed their education or discontinued during midcourse and what were the reasons for dropping out or for non-enrolment. 4.2 LITERACY RATE: The literacy rate is the number of educated people in a population, over the age of seven who can read and write. Literacy rate points to demographic shifts in the years to come and is one of another important indicator of economic development. According to Prof. Amartya Sen, poverty is also the lack of capability to function effectively in society. Inadequate education can thus be considered a 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 4.1 Literacy Population 7 Years and Older Male Female Male Female Male Female Rural Urban Combined 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 form of poverty. The literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh has improved over the last one decade. Especially after the implementation of free education in the villages the literacy rate has gone up in rural areas. Government of UP has taken several measures to improve the literacy rate in rural and urban sector. There has been a significant improvement in literacy rate of UP in last 10 years but there is still a long way to go. Page 56

BASIC EDUCATION The results show that the literacy rate among persons aged 7 years and above has increased by 2 percent points from 65 percent in 2007/08 to 67 percent in 2009/10 (see Table 4.1). The male literacy rate (77 percent) was higher than that for females (57percent) which reflect a similar pattern to that of the 2007/08 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 4.2 Literacy Population 7 Years and Older by income groups Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Male Female survey. Regional analysis shows that Western region had the moderately high literacy rate (67.7percent) compared to other regions. The Eastern as well as Central region had the second highest literacy rate (67.2 percent) while the Central region had the 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 lowest (66.8 percent).it indicates marginal differences between regions In each regions, the male literacy rate was higher than that of females. Analysing literacy rate by social group shows highest rate (79.9 percent) for other social group fallowed by OBC (65.1percent) in 2009-10. It was seen lowest for ST & SC group respectively. Further analysis shows quit large gender inequality in literacy rate between regions, social and income groups. As expected, quit large gap in literacy has been observed between different income group. Besides above, about to equal proportionate increase in literacy rate has been observed in all three income groups over the period. 4.3 ENROLMENT RATE: 88.0 86.0 84.0 82.0 80.0 78.0 76.0 74.0 Figure 4.3 Enrolment rate of children of age group 6-10 years 85.8 86.2 85.9 84.3 84.0 82.3 78.1 78.4 78.2 Rural Urban Combined 1999-2000 2002-03 2009-10 It is important to underline the enrolment figures to understate the extent of the deficit in providing a basic education of good quality. In spite of various initiatives taken by Government to increase school enrolment in Uttar Pradesh, the enrolment rate among children of age 6-10 Page 57

BASIC EDUCATION (Primary) years has not shown any sign of increase between 2007-08 and 2009-10 and remained about 84 percent for the year 2009-10. But it is important to note that overall enrolment rate has shown marginal increase for children of age 11-13 (Middle). Analysing by sector, 1-percent point increase has been observed for rural sector whereas surprisingly at least 6-percent point reduction has been observed for urban sector. Further analysing enrolment rate among children of secondary level (age 14-15 Years), with marginal increase overall it remained at about 70 percent in year 2009-10. It is important to mention here that enrolment rate of girls in every age group are comparatively high compared to boys in urban sector (see Table 4.2). 88.0 86.0 84.0 82.0 80.0 78.0 76.0 74.0 72.0 70.0 Figure 4.4 Enrolment rate of children of age group 11-13 years 76.6 85.7 84.5 80.4 86.2 79.8 77.4 84.884.6 Rural Urban Combined 1999-2000 2002-03 2009-10 Looking enrolment by social group it is found that highest rate of enrolment is seen for other social group compared to OBC & SC/ST social group in all age groups. Rural-Urban analysis of 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 4.5 Enrolment rate of children of age group 14-15 years 70.2 68.2 69.8 69.9 68.167.4 69.5 57.1 59.6 Rural Urban Combined 1999-2000 2002-03 2009-10 enrolment by social group indicates that for rural sector it shows high rate for each social group compared to urban sector in each age group (see Table 4.3). Analysing rate of enrolment of children aged 6 to 15 years by region; highest enrolment rate is found in Eastern region for all age groups and lowest for Central region. Further looking change between PSMS III (2007-08) to IV(2009-10), it is seen that for each region, enrolment rate downed for age group 6-10 years and increased in three region- Western, Central and Eastern for ages11-13 years. Further looking for ages 14-15, it is observed that it given sign of increase in Eastern and Southern region where as it has decreased for Western and Central region (see Table 4.4). Page 58

BASIC EDUCATION Looking enrolment by income group,it is found that it has downed in rural sector s all income group at primary level whereas it shown sign of increase for 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 4.6 Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years by Income level Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Rural Urban 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 poor & middle income group at middle level from PSMS-III to IV. Further it is found that except middle income group of rural sector, it has increased for secondary level (see Table 4.4). Analysis of enrolment rate in context of urban sector by income, it is found that in (except for middle income group & at secondary level) every income and age group enrolment registered sign of reduction (see Table 4.4). Figure 4.7 shows that children of schedule cast and schedule tribe, who are historically disadvantage socially 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 4.7 Enolment rate of children by social group 84.3 85.2 80.8 87.8 80.8 87.9 64.6 69.5 76.9 Primary (6 10 years) Middle (11 13 years) Secondary (14 15 years) SC/ST OBC Others and economically, have had lower school participation in terms of enrolment and retention compared to the general population. Among social groups, SC/ST and OBC have lower enrolment rates than the forward category. The primary enrolment rates for SC/ST was 80.8 percent that was about 7 percent less than that of the other category. 4.4 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT: The share of population aged 18 years & above who never attended school slashed down from 49 percent in 2002/03 to 36 percent in 2009/10. As expected percentage who never attended school was observed much higher for girls compared to boys. It is seen that percentage never attended school was about 67 in Page 59

BASIC EDUCATION 2002/03 and became 49 in 2009/10 for girls. For males it was seen about half of the girls for both year 2002/03 and 2009/10(see Table 4.5). Looking the table, it is clear that propensity to attain relatively higher level of education has been 78.0 76.0 74.0 72.0 70.0 68.0 66.0 64.0 Figure 4.8 Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years by Region 72.0 70.2 69.7 68.5 76.6 75.2 75.0 73.0 Western Central Eastern Southern 2007-08 2009-10 increased in last ten years. Analysing educational attainment by region, it is clear that share of never attended school increased significantly high in Southern (41.5 percent) fallowed by Eastern region (37.8 percent) in the year 2009-10. Marginal increase has been noticed in Secondary / higher level for each region compared to 2007/08 in 2009/10 whereas share of children never attained school slashed down for each region except Southern where it has increased (see Table 4.6). The Figure-4.9 shows a comparative illustration of educational levels among the 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 4.9 Highest educational attainment population aged 18 years and older Male Female Male Female Male Female 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 Less than Primary Primary Middle Secondary or Higher male and female population of UP. It is clear that the percentage of illiteracy among male was lower than the female population; meanwhile, the status of higher education among male was better compared to female population. It is interesting to note that the gender disparity among population of UP in terms of illiteracy is quite apparent. While female illiteracy was 51 percent and male illiteracy was just half of female illiteracy. It may be noted that compared to the period 2007-08 to 2009-10, the improvement in this regard had been much faster during the period 2002-03 to 2007-08. Page 60

BASIC EDUCATION 4.5 DROP-OUT RATE (DOR) The term dropout has a number of connotations. To get an idea of the extent of dropouts, each of those who are currently not attending but were ever enrolled was asked what was his/her last level of enrolment and whether he/she completed it successfully. If the answer was in the negative to the second question, he/she was counted as a 'dropout' at that level. Drop-out rate measures the percentage of Figure 4.10(a) Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years in Rural area Figure 1.10(b) Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years in Urban area 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 7.8 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 8.9 4.0 3.4 2.6 4.2 4.9 4.3 3.2 4.2 5.3 3.7 6 10 years 11 15 years 6 10 years 11 15 years students leaving school before completion of educational level for which they were registered. Uttar Pradesh has been making agonizingly slow improvements in its literacy rate. High dropout rate is proving a major hindrance in the success of Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan. Uttar Pradesh Government has made intervention to ensure children go to school and stay in school long enough to get basic education. Let us look at drop-out rate between age-group 6 15 years. For literacy, this is the most important target segment of students. In these years of schooling, students learn to read, write. Dropping out of school between classes I and V is a recipe for life-long illiteracy. Page 61

BASIC EDUCATION About 2.8 percent of children left school before completing the primary level and 5.7 percent dropped out at the middle and secondary level (see Table 4.12).The drop-out rate has fallen from 3.4 percent in 2007-08 to 2.8 in 2009-10 for primary level where as it has increased for ages 11-15 years from 4.1 in 2007-08 to 5.7 percent in 2009-10. Surprisingly in case of rural areas, the drop-out rates were lower than the urban population in 2009-10 whereas in 2007-08 the drop-out rates of rural populations were higher than urban population. It had zoomed up from Figure 4.11(a) Drop-out rate of children aged 6-10 years by Region 2.7 2.5 2007-08 2009-10 4.2 3.7 3.3 2.4 3.0 1.9 5.8 4.9 Figure 4.11(b) Drop-out rate of children aged 11-15 years by Region 2007-08 2009-10 2.7 10.1 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.8 Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 4.1 percent during 2007-08 to 5.7 percent in 2009-10 for age-group 11-15 years. Regional analysis shows highest DOR (10.1 percent for ages 11-15 years and 4.2 percent for ages 6-10 years) in Central fallowed by Western region for the year 2009-10 (see Table 4.13). Lowest 1.9 percent DOR has been seen for Southern region at primary level. In context of middle & onwards, DOR is lowest for Eastern region for year 2009-10. The drop-out problem is pervasive in our education system. Many children, who enter school, are unable to complete secondary education and multiple factors may be responsible for children dropping out of school. Risk factors may begin to add up even before students enroll in school that includes: poverty, low educational level of parents, the weak family structure, pattern of schooling of sibling, and lack of pre-school experiences. Family background and domestic problems create an environment which negatively affects the value of education. Further, students could drop out as a result of a multitude of school factors such as uncongenial atmosphere, poor comprehension, absenteeism, attitude and behavior of the teachers, and failure or repetition in the same grade, etc. When students experience Page 62

BASIC EDUCATION school failure, they become frustrated with lack of achievement and end up alienated and experience exclusion leading to eventual dropout. It is important to carefully design preventive measures and intervention strategies that could be adopted in order to help all adolescent drop-outs. Certain preventive measures can be implemented throughout the target populations, while others must take into account the diversity of drop-out profiles. 4.6 SCHOOL ATTENDANCE & MAIN REASONS FOR NOT CURRENTLY ATTENDING SCHOOL Universal primary school education has long been a goal of Government. Despite making enormous efforts to increase school attendance over the past 50 years, this goal remained elusive for our state including many of rest. School attendance is affected by various socio-economic factors and generated a lot of interest of policy 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Figure 4.12 Currently school attending profile by age 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 9 yrs 10 yrs 11 yrs planner. Government launched several schemes such as Mid Day Meal, Free Uniform, and Scholarship etc to improve school attendance in Uttar Pradesh. The current attendance status refers to whether a person was attending any educational 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 institution on the date of survey and information were collected for each individual of age between 5-11 years. Persons were classified as attending or not attending; if not attending, it was ascertained whether one ever attended or never attended. Overall about 57 percent children found never attended school at age 5 years in year 2009-10 in state of Uttar Pradesh (see Table 4.13). This indicator become about to half at age 6 years and further with decreasing pattern, it became only 6.8 percent at age 11 years in year 2009-10. As the percentage never attended school diminished with age, apposite to it currently attending school increased from 42.6 percent at age 5 years to 88.3 percent at age 11 years. It is notable that with increase of age 5 to 11 years, percentage of children attended school in the past Page 63

BASIC EDUCATION (see Table4.14) increased from 0.5 percent at age 5 years to 4.9 percent for the age 11 years. Over the period of PSMS-II to IV, percent of children currently attending school generally increased for each ages from 5 to 11 years. Similarly percent of children attended school in the past also increased for each ages between 5-11 years in state of Uttar Pradesh.However comparison from PSMS-III to IV shows no sign of improvement in percent of children currently attending school. Knowledge of reasons why children not currently attending school may provide guidance on policies designed to improve attendance. Children 5 years and above who had reported currently not attending school were asked the reason why they 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 4.13 Currently school attending profile by age and region 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 9 yrs 10 yrs 11 yrs did not currently attending school. Analysis has been carried out for children aged 5 18 years to find out why they were not attending school. About 28 percent children aged 5-18 years were not attending school in state because of the reason Western Central Eastern Southern "Child Not Interested" while for 27 percent of the children reason was stated as "Can Not Afford"(see Table4.15).The other main reason identified as "Education Not Useful.It was the statement for 17 percent children. Sectoral inspection of data shows that Education Not Useful told much more by urban residents (37.5 percent) compared to rural (10.3 percent) counterpart. Further looking the data overtime, it is found that percentage of Child Not Interested increased from 22.5 percent in year 2007-08 to 27.9 percent in year 2009-10. It is important to mention here that in rural area response was more about Child Not Interested compared to urban areas responses about it. Analysing results of main reasons for not currently attending school by region, inter regional variation in reporting of reasons have been observed (see Table 4.16). Further introspection of aforesaid data, it is found that Can Not Afford It reason's percentage diminished in each region during 2007-08 to 2009-10. Page 64

BASIC EDUCATION However the reporting of reason Child Not Interested increased in every region except Southern region where it has reduced from about 47 percent in 2007-08 to 26 percent in 2009-10. It is notable that about 22 percent reported reason as Failed in Examination for year 2009-10 in Southern region. Eastern region also reflected this reason (19.38 percent) for year 2009-10 for not currently attending school. 4.7 MAIN REASONS FOR NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL (NEVER ENROLLED) This section deals with children who have not participated in the educational system at all. There are Figure 4.14(a) Main reasons for not attending school in rural area Others 14.1% Education not considered useful 31.6% Too young 14.3% Cannot afford 40.0% Figure 4.14(b) Main reasons for not attending school in urban area Education not considered useful 24.3% Others 9.3% various causes which might be responsible for a child out of school. These factors may be like not interested in studies, cannot afford education etc or it may be some economic or social factors. In the survey each child of aged 5-18 years who never attended any school were asked what are the main reason they never enrolled them self in a school.two main reasons for each such children were asked and recorded for each never-enrolled child from a specified list of reasons. The three most frequently sighted reasons for Never Attending school were a) Cannot Afford (43.9 percent), b) Education not considered useful (30.3 percent) and c)too young (12.6 percent). For Too young 4.6% Cannot afford 61.7% urban children Cannot Afford was most commonly given as the reason for not attending school (61.7 percent) compared to rural (40 percent) children (see Table 4.17). The second most Page 65

BASIC EDUCATION sighted reason for never attended school was reported Education not considered useful(30.3 percent). Rural-Urban differences has been observed in occurrence of this reason. The third important reason was "Too Young" and its percentage is observed as 12.6 with large rural-urban difference. Comparing main reasons for never attending school from PSMS -III to IV, it is found that stating of reason as Cannot afford diminished from 51.5 percent in 2007-08 to 43.9 percent in year 2009-10. However reason Education not considered useful increased from 17 percent in 2007-08 to 30.3 percent in 2009-10. Further analysis shows that stating for never attending school increased from 7.3 percent in 2007-08 to 12.6 percent in 2009-10 with significant difference with respect to sector of residence of child. This type of difference prevailed for reasons such as Cannot afford, Education not considered useful etc also. When main reasons for Never Attended school analyses with respect to different region, significant variation has been observed in stating reasons. Reason Cannot Figure 4.15 Main reasons for not attending school Western Central Eastern Southern cannot afford child not interested others cannot afford child not interested others afford stated highest 66.4 percent by Children of Western fallowed by Southern (48.1 percent) and Eastern (30.9 percent).this reason was stated least by children of Central region (21.5 percent). Analysis of second most stated reason Education not considered useful found highest for Central (48.1 percent) fallowed by Eastern(37.2 percent) and Western(16.5 percent) region. This reason was stated least by children of Southern region (see Table 4.18). Main reason for never attended school Too Young also varied with region and was stated highest by children of Eastern (18.9 percent) fallowed by Central (12.6 percent) and Western region (7.9 percent).it was stated least for Southern region's (5.4 percent) children. Page 66

BASIC EDUCATION When main reason Cannot afford compared over PSMS round III to IV, except Western region all other region showed diminishing trend whereas Education not considered useful related reason showed increasing trend for Central and Eastern region respectively. Statement about reason Too Young increased for each region except Southern where it has downed. 4.8 ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN BY TYPE OF SCHOOLS Overall, Government sector has been catering to the educational needs of the children, but increasingly, private sectors both aided and unaided-are also complementing the Government provision, more so for the urban sector. In Uttar Pradesh, which saw a rise in enrolment in both the Government and private 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 4.16 Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools Govt Private Others Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary rural urban rural urban rural urban 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 primary schools, the preference was clearly for the private. In rural areas, the majority of students were attending Government schools 60 percent of primary, 54 percent of middle and 48 percent of secondary level students. Schools run by private bodies accounted for 39 percent of students at primary and 51 percent of student at middle level and 50 percent at secondary level. The remaining students were in other schools. Page 67

BASIC EDUCATION In urban areas, on the other hand, 72 percent of students at primary level were in private schools. At middle and secondary, 69 & 63 percent was in private schools respectively. Government schools accounted for only 26 percent of primary level students, 30 percent of middle level students, and 36 percent of secondary level students. Analysing school enrolment in the state by type of school reveals that the share of children attending private schools in UP has increased quite large for all age groups. For instance, the survey data show that the share of children aged 6-10 years attending private schools in UP rose from around 38 percent to 77 percent between the two rounds (PSMS II and PSMS IV). The proportion of children attending private schools increased with the age level. Focusing on children aged 6-10 years, all PSMS rounds shows a sharp increase in the share of private school enrolment across rural and urban areas of the state. In rural areas of UP, the share of total enrolment accounted for private schools are still quite low compared to urban areas, but it has increased quite large in recent years(from around 31 percent in Round III to 39 percent in round IV). In urban areas, the total share of private school s enrolment is considerably higher than that of rural areas i.e. more than 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 4.17 Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools by Regions Govt Private Others Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Western Central Eastern Southern half of children aged 6-10 years in urban UP were enrolled in private schools in round IV (see Table 4.19). Page 68

BASIC EDUCATION Inter-regional analysis of enrolment in different type of schools shows that more than 50 percent children of aged 6-10 years are enrolled in Government school in each region except Western where it is only 48 percent in PSMS round IV (see Table 4.20). The enrolment share of private schools in primary education increased over the period of PSMS round III to IV in each region except Central where it diminished. The share of children s enrolment of ages 11-15 years in private school increased in Western and Southern region and decreased for Eastern and Central region over the two PSMS round. As household income increases, the share of enrolment of children in private school increased dramatically whereas relatively poor income group children have higher propensity to attend Government school for continuation of their school education (see Table 4.21). It can also infer that children in relatively higher classes 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 4.18 Government School Enrolment for children Aged 6-10 Years by Income Level 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich enroll relatively less in Government school. The percentage share of enrolment in Government school of belonging relatively children to richer section of society diminished for all age group 6-15 years in both rural & urban sector. Analysing children's attendance in Government school shows diminishing trend in share of Government school for primary, middle and secondary level education. Inter regional observance shows increasing share of attending Government school only for Central region in rural sector at primary level and Southern & Central region both for urban sector from PSMS-III to PSMS-IV (see Table 4.22). 4.9 AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT ON EDUCATION Education remained an important development priority, necessitating intervention by Government for its easy access and reach to different sections of society. As a Page 69

BASIC EDUCATION result, it has involved subsidisation, mainly in the form of establishment of a large Page 70

BASIC EDUCATION number of schools operated by Government and local bodies for affordable availability of education. Nevertheless, individuals attending educational institutions incur expenditure in the form of payment of fees of different kinds (admission fee, examination fee, other fees, etc.), purchase of books, stationery and 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Primary level Figure 4.19 Average Expenditure Per Pupil on Education PSMS-III (2007-08) Middle level Rural Secondary level Higher level PSMS-IV(2009-10) Primary level Middle level Urban Figure 4.20(a) Percentage of Students getting scholarships 2002-03 Boys Girls Boys Girls Rural Urban Secondary level 2007-08 2009-10 Higher level uniforms, expenses on conveyance, private coaching, etc. This is referred to as expenditure on education. In the current survey information on this has been obtained from all children in the age-group 5-18 years currently attending at primary level and above. Annual average expenditure per student on education found as Rs 1982. The expenditure was found more than fourfold in private school compared to Government school. Overall expenditure on education per student found 3 times more in urban sector compared to rural sector. Rural -Urban difference in average annual expenditure per student in private school seen more than 50 percent in year 2009-10. It is also found large differences in expenditure over level of school and by sector. Over the period of two PSMS round, hike in average expenditure per student has been observed for Government as well as in private school both but hike was observed more sharp in private school compared to Government schools (see Table 4.23). Page 71

BASIC EDUCATION 4.10 EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVES RECEIVED BY STUDENTS: In this survey information was obtained for each student on various educational incentives provided by Government viz. Free books, free uniform, Scholarship, Mid Day Meal etc. Under the survey, information on receipt of these incentives were collected. Some students are awarded scholarships in cash as long as they continue their studies or are provided with free books and/ or uniform as educational incentives. Of the students of age 5-18 and pursuing general education, 33.8 percent received scholarships, 35.5 percent received free books, and 14.2 percent got free uniform and 39.1 percent received Mid Day Meal (MDM)(see Table 4.25 to 4.32). Rural students benefited more from these 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 4.20(b) Percentage of Students getting scholarships by income groups 25.1 37.5 44.5 17.8 34.2 29.2 10.1 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 20.6 22.3 incentives, especially in respect of scholarship, free books, MDM from Government, etc. Thus, out of 1000 students in rural areas, 383 received scholarships compared to only 130 in urban areas, 407 received free books in Poor Middle Rich rural areas compared to 112 in urban areas, and 441 received MDM in rural areas from Government compared to 158 in urban areas. The proportions of beneficiaries among female students were a few percentage points higher than among male students. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Figure 4.20(c) Percentage of Students getting scholarships by regions PSMS-III (2002-03) 28.5 41.5 PSMS-IV(2009-10) 25.7 25.7 29 33.1 58 54.5 There has been a noticeable increase since 2007-08 to 2009-10 in the proportion of students receiving these incentives, as depicted in Figure 4.20(a-c).The most spectacular rise has been 0 in the proportion of Western Central Eastern Southern students receiving free books from Government, which increased from 8.1 percent in 2007-08 to 35.5 Page 72

BASIC EDUCATION percent in 2009-10. Percent of children receiving different benefit belongs more to relatively poor income group of society. Receipt of Government scholarships increased from 29.2 percent in 2007-08 to 33.8 percent in 2009-10. Major receiver students of scholarship belong to rural sector compared to urban students. Inter regional variation in receipt of scholarship is also observed. Highest percentage of receipt of scholarship is found in Southern (54.5 percent) fallowed by Central and least receipt of scholarship has been seen for Western region (28.5 percent). In each region, girl students were found more benefitted than boys (see Table4.27 &28). 4.11 MID DAY MEAL The Mid Day Meal (MDM) scheme is a multi-faceted programme with objective to provide hot cooked meal to children of primary and upper primary classes for improving nutritional status of children, encouraging poor children, belonging to disadvantaged sections, to attend school more regularly and help them to concentrate on classroom activities, which may increase the enrolment, retention and attendance rates. It may give positive impact to develop the feelings of Figure 4.21(a) Percentage of students of age 05-18 years getting MDM 47.2 PSMS-III(2007-08) 44.1 PSMS-IV(2009-10) 16.1 15.8 Rural Urban brotherhood and to develop positive outlook through combined fooding for the children belonging to different religions and castes. The serious concern related to quality and quantity of the meal in almost all the schools with lot of scope for improvement. About 39 percent children got MDM. Rural -Urban significant difference has been occurred. About 44 percent rural children of the school got MDM while it was lower in urban sector compared to rural sector. Among the Page 73

BASIC EDUCATION children who attended all six days school, about 49 percent provided Mid Day Meal for all six days (seetable4.29). Inter regional differences also occurred in receipt of MDM. Propensity to liking MDM was found as about 40 percent in state.. Rural children liked MDM more than twice of urban children. Further analysis shows that girl children liked MDM more compared to boys. It is also mentionable here that liking of MDM by children diminished over two PSMS round both for rural and urban sector. Inter-regional comparison of provided MDM liked by children or not shows highest liking (about 50 percent)by children of Southern fallowed by Central (48.3 Figure 4.21(b) Percentage of students of age 05-18 years getting MDM by income groups PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) 53.5 53.6 41.3 37.6 30.6 25.6 Poor Middle Rich percent).it was liked least by children of Western region (see Table 4.26). Least change in liking of MDM is observed in Southern region over two PSMS rounds. 4.11 In present chapter it is tried to analysis the trends, patterns and interacting factors affecting the quantitative and qualitative aspects of School Education System in UP in year 2009-10. It is observed that complete Literacy has not been achieved and this has far reaching socio-economic impacts. Enrolments in schools have improved substantially in recent years but the retention rates are poor, and only a fraction of enrolled students completes even the Primary classes. Completion of Middle and Secondary levels is still lower. Substantial Gender-bias in both access to and completion of education is a major cause of concern. Wide regional variation exists even within this sub-standard performance of the Basic Education system. Factors like poverty, presence of a wide child-labour market, Page 74

BASIC EDUCATION absence of assured employment after schooling, and infrastructural problems may be said as responsible for the ills plaguing the elementary education system in UP. Providing incentives for attending schools, making the schooling process attractive to the children, streamlining the middle and high school curriculum to make it Figure 4.21(c) Percentage of students of age 05-18 years getting MDM by regions PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) 74 61.7 36.3 34 40.5 43.9 40.7 39.4 Western Central Eastern Southern more vocational and job-oriented, and providing better infrastructure for the schools are some of the policies likely to improve the scenario. Page 75

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.1: Literacy Population 7 Years and Older LITERACY RATE (PERCENT) Target agegroup and location 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Rural 69.5 41.7 56.3 73.4 50.2 62.2 75.2 53.5 64.9 Urban 80.3 65.1 73.0 82.4 70.8 76.9 83.1 70.0 77.0 Combined 71.7 46.4 59.7 75.1 54.1 65.1 76.8 56.8 67.3 By Region: Western 71.8 48.9 61.1 74.1 55.0 65.2 76.6 57.5 67.7 Central 68.0 46.6 58.0 72.7 55.9 64.7 75.1 57.7 67.2 Eastern 72.9 44.0 58.7 76.7 53.6 65.3 78.0 55.7 67.2 Southern 75.7 46.3 62.1 78.8 51.5 66.0 76.4 55.8 66.8 By Income Level: Poor 61.6 37.6 49.9 65.5 46.1 56.0 68.2 48.1 58.5 Middle 72.0 44.7 59.0 75.7 53.4 65.0 77.0 55.9 67.1 Rich 79.9 56.2 68.8 82.9 62.5 73.4 84.2 65.7 75.6 By Social group: SC 64.7 47.9 56.6 72.3 50.6 62.5 68.9 53.9 61.9 ST 63.2 35.5 50 67.2 44.9 56.5 70.2 48.9 60.2 OBC 69.2 41.1 55.8 74.1 49.9 62.5 75.4 53.7 65.1 Others 84.1 65.7 75.2 85.6 72.7 79.4 87.2 71.8 79.9 Table 4.2: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years Target age-group and location ENROLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN GROUP (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-II 2002/2003 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Boys Girls Overall Boys Girls Overall Boys Girls Overall Primary (6 10 years) Rural 81.2 74.8 78.1 87.4 84.0 85.8 85.5 83.0 84.3 Urban 80.0 76.6 78.4 84.8 88.0 86.2 80.9 83.8 82.3 Combined 81.0 75.1 78.2 87.0 84.6 85.9 84.7 83.1 84.0 Middle (11 13 years) Rural 82.4 69.7 76.6 86.2 82.6 84.5 87.2 83.9 85.7 Urban 79.9 80.9 80.4 84.9 87.5 86.2 79.2 80.4 79.8 Combined 82.0 72.0 77.4 86.0 83.5 84.8 85.8 83.2 84.6 Secondary (14 15 years) Rural 65.9 45.6 57.1 73.6 65.4 69.9 71.3 68.9 70.2 Urban 68.5 67.8 68.1 64.4 71.2 67.4 66.1 71.0 68.2 Combined 66.4 51.3 59.6 72.0 66.4 69.5 70.3 69.3 69.8 Page 76

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.3: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by social group Target ENROLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN GROUP (PERCENT) agegroup 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Primary (6 10 years) Middle (11 13 years) Secondary (14 15 years) and SC/ST OBC Others SC/ST OBC Others SC/ST OBC Others location Rural 81.6 84.9 87.3 82.7 86.5 88.0 65.7 70.5 76.0 Urban 73.7 80.8 89.1 68.0 78.6 87.7 57.9 64.8 78.9 Combined 80.8 84.3 87.8 80.8 85.2 87.9 64.6 69.5 76.9 Table 4.4: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Decile Group Target agegroup and Decile ENROLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN GROUP (PERCENT) 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Primary (6 10 years) Middle (11 13 years) Secondary (14 15 years) Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Combined Poorest 76.3 60.7 73.6 78.9 44.5 70.5 57.6 34.7 51.3 2 83.6 68.5 80.8 86.6 66.6 82.6 66.7 48.6 62.9 3 79.7 78.1 79.4 80.1 77.2 79.6 61.3 56.9 60.6 4 86.0 81.7 85.3 82.1 84.2 82.4 62.8 67.6 63.8 5 83.5 85.0 83.7 83.3 81.2 82.9 66.2 69.4 66.8 6 88.5 93.8 89.4 88.8 91.2 89.2 70.3 79.9 72.2 7 87.4 96.2 89.0 87.9 92.9 88.7 72.0 80.1 73.3 8 86.5 97.5 88.0 90.1 95.6 91.0 79.3 90.8 81.5 9 88.1 98.9 89.5 90.2 98.0 91.5 83.0 94.9 84.7 Richest 91.5 99.7 92.9 92.2 98.5 93.2 85.1 97.4 86.8 Total 84.3 82.3 84.0 85.7 79.8 84.6 70.2 68.2 69.8 Table 4.5: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Income Level Location and ENROLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN AGE GROUP (PERCENT) income group 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Prim ary Middle Secondar y Prim ary Middle Secon dary Prim ary Middle Secon dary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 14 15 yrs yrs RURAL 78.1 76.6 57.1 85.8 84.5 69.9 84.3 85.7 70.2 Poor 72.2 69.0 42.6 81.5 79.9 59.8 80.3 81.7 61.7 Middle 79.4 75.8 56.0 86.3 83.4 70.5 85.9 85.2 67.8 Rich 85.9 85.8 72.4 91.7 91.4 79.6 88.9 91.1 81.9 URBAN 78.4 80.4 68.1 86.2 86.2 67.4 82.3 79.8 68.2 Poor 65.2 65.3 49.1 75.1 73.4 47.9 69.9 62.9 47.2 Middle 84.8 80.9 64.8 91.9 89.6 72.9 89.0 86.7 74.3 Rich 95.1 97.8 91.1 98.3 98.0 93.4 98.2 97.1 92.9 COMBINED 78.2 77.4 59.6 85.9 84.8 69.5 84.0 84.6 69.8 Page 77

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.6: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Region 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Region Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs Western 83.5 82.2 66.1 83.3 82.7 65.8 Central 86.1 85.3 69.7 81.0 82.5 64.9 Eastern 87.8 86.1 74.8 86.0 87.6 76.0 Southern 89.2 88.3 67.9 85.7 86.7 70.9 Table 4.7: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years by Income level Location and ENROLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN 6-15 YEARS (%) income group 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV RURAL 74.3 73.8 71.9 Poor 67.1 67.5 66.1 Middle 74.6 73.9 72.2 Rich 83.2 81.4 79.2 URBAN 76.8 74.7 70.6 Poor 62.4 59.1 54.1 Middle 79.5 79.6 74.8 Rich 94.9 91.6 92.4 Table 4.8: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years by Region Region Enrollment Rate 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western 70.2 69.7 Central 72.0 68.5 Eastern 76.6 75.2 Southern 75.0 73.0 Table 4.9: Enrolment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Region Target age-group 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV and region Boys Girls Overall Boys Girls Overall Primary (6 10 years) Western 85.1 81.6 83.5 84.2 82.3 83.3 Central 86.5 85.7 86.1 80.9 81.2 81.0 Eastern 88.9 86.6 87.8 87.0 84.8 86.0 Southern 93.0 84.2 89.2 87.3 83.8 85.7 Middle (11 13 years) Western 84.4 79.6 82.2 83.4 81.8 82.7 Central 87.1 83.2 85.3 81.9 83.2 82.5 Eastern 86.5 85.8 86.1 90.0 84.8 87.6 Southern 94.3 81.7 88.3 92.4 80.1 86.7 Secondary (14 15 years) Western 70.1 61.4 66.1 68.4 62.8 65.8 Central 70.9 68.1 69.7 65.3 64.4 64.9 Eastern 76.0 73.4 74.8 74.6 77.8 76.0 Southern 68.0 67.9 67.9 69.2 73.0 70.9 Page 78

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.10: Highest Educational Attainment Population Aged 18 Years and Older Highest level of SHARE OF POPULATION AGED 18 AND OLDER (PERCENT) educational 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV attainment Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Never Attended 33.4 66.6 49.3 25.8 51.8 38.5 24.5 49.3 36.3 School Less than Primary 7.4 5.1 6.3 11.2 14.1 12.6 9.5 12.2 11.7 Primary 12.7 7.8 10.4 12.4 8.7 10.6 13.5 9.7 11.7 Middle 17.1 7.6 12.5 17.7 9.2 13.6 17.9 9.9 14.1 Secondary or Higher 29.4 12.9 21.5 33.0 16.2 24.8 34.6 18.8 27.1 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 4.11: Highest Educational Attainment Population Aged 18 Years and Older by Region Highest level of 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV educational attainment Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Never Attended 38.6 35.9 39.8 34.3 35.5 34.2 37.8 41.5 School Less than 11.3 13.0 13.4 16.0 10.9 12.7 10.3 5.5 Primary Primary 10.1 10.9 10.7 13.0 11.8 11.0 12.0 11.1 Middle 13.7 15.3 11.6 16.6 15.2 15.6 11.9 17.7 Secondary or 26.4 24.9 24.6 20.2 26.6 26.5 28.1 24.3 Higher Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 4.12: Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years DROP-OUT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN AGE GROUP (PERCENT) Group 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV 6 10 years 11 15 years 6 10 years 11 15 years 6 10 years 11 15 years Rural 4.0 7.8 3.4 4.2 2.6 4.9 Urban 4.3 5.3 3.2 3.7 4.2 8.9 Combined 4.1 7.2 3.4 4.1 2.8 5.7 Table 4.13: Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years by Region Region 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV 6 10 years 11 15 years 6 10 years 11 15 years Western 2.7 4.9 2.5 5.8 Central 3.7 2.7 4.2 10.1 Eastern 3.3 3.9 2.4 3.4 Southern 3.0 3.2 1.9 3.8 Page 79

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.14: School Attendance Profile by Single-Year Age Group Attainment level PROPORTION OF CHILDREN (PERCENT) 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 9 yrs 10 yrs 11 yrs 2002/2003 PSMS-II Never attended school 55.3 34.3 19.9 15.1 13.4 14.7 11.3 Currently attending 44.0 64.6 78.8 83.1 84.9 81.2 84.4 Attended in the past 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.7 4.1 4.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2007/2008 PSMS-III Never attended school 50.5 24.6 12.5 11.1 4.1 8.6 6.5 Currently attending 49.2 74.3 86.9 87.7 93.5 88.6 90.1 Attended in the past 0.3 1.1 0.6 1.3 2.4 2.8 3.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Never attended school 56.9 28.2 14.3 10.6 8.2 8.2 6.8 Currently attending 42.6 70.6 84.0 87.7 89.6 88.3 88.3 Attended in the past 0.5 1.3 1.7 1.8 2.2 3.5 4.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 4.15 : School Attendance Profile by Single-Year Age Group and by region Attainment level PROPORTION OF CHILDREN (PERCENT) 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 9 yrs 10 yrs 11 yrs Western Never attended school 50.7 26.1 14.3 12.0 10.6 9.9 9.3 Currently attending 48.6 72.8 84.1 86.2 87.3 87.4 87.3 Attended in the past 0.7 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.7 3.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Central Never attended school 60.4 38.5 17.0 10.6 9.7 7.8 7.3 Currently attending 39.4 59.3 82.3 87.8 87.6 86.6 82.9 Attended in the past 0.3 2.2 0.8 1.6 2.7 5.6 9.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Eastern Never attended school 62.1 24.8 13.1 9.4 5.6 6.8 3.9 Currently attending 37.5 74.2 84.6 88.7 92.2 90.3 92.7 Attended in the past 0.5 1.0 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.9 3.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Southern Never attended school 49.9 31.5 11.6 9.8 1.2 9.7 6.1 Currently attending 49.3 68.5 87.6 90.2 98.8 85.5 85.6 Attended in the past 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 8.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 80

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.16: Main Reasons for Not currently attending School MAIN REASON GIVEN 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV 1 st REASON GIVEN 2 nd REASON GIVEN 1 st REASON GIVEN 2 nd REASON GIVEN Rural Urban Combined Rural Ill 0.4 2.1 0.7 3.0 0.1 2.5 3.4 0.0 2.6 2.9 0.0 2.1 Got/Getting Married 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 School Is Too Far 2.0 0.3 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.1 0.9 1.8 2.5 0.6 2.0 Cannot Afford It 33.5 66.8 40.3 12.7 0.0 10.3 26.1 29.7 27.0 12.6 2.1 9.9 Have To Look After Younger Siblings 5.9 0.0 4.7 10.8 32.8 14.9 1.7 0.7 1.4 1.1 2.8 1.5 Have To Work At Home 5.0 2.4 4.5 12.3 4.4 10.8 3.8 0.9 3.0 3.7 8.8 5.0 Have To Work On Own Farm /Livestock Care / Household Enterprise 1.0 0.0 0.8 8.0 2.8 7.1 3.4 1.6 2.9 10.1 8.1 9.6 Have To Work For Wage/Salary Urban Combined 3.4 0.4 2.8 4.5 2.9 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.9 1.1 Child Not Interested 24.3 15.4 22.5 10.7 9.6 10.5 28.8 25.3 27.9 8.7 47.6 18.6 Failed In Exams 0.9 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 1.4 11.3 0.3 8.5 6.6 2.3 5.5 Teacher Behavior Not Good 0.0 6.8 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.6 Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Combined Education Not Useful 5.4 0.0 4.3 9.8 1.3 8.2 10.3 37.5 17.4 17.9 9.5 15.7 Completed Desired Level 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 Awaiting Admission To Next Level 14.9 0.0 11.8 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 2.5 9.8 4.0 25.5 36.8 27.6 3.6 1.7 3.1 31.0 15.0 26.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 81

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.17: Main Reasons for Not currently attending School -by Region MAIN REASON GIVEN 2007/2008 PSMS-III 1 st REASON GIVEN 2 nd REASON GIVEN Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Ill 1.94 1.23 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.00 5.40 7.46 Got/Getting Married 1.75 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 School Is Too Far 0.14 7.53 1.09 0.22 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 Cannot Afford It 45.52 43.02 40.82 39.20 4.76 36.02 7.21 2.54 Have To Look After Younger Siblings Have To Work At Home Have To Work On Own Farm /Livestock Care / Household Enterprise Have To Work For Wage/Salary 1.75 3.52 0.00 0.52 16.33 34.66 13.72 0.00 0.18 0.16 1.19 2.53 6.90 5.55 4.76 24.62 0.00 0.61 0.39 9.68 13.10 1.40 10.13 0.00 0.00 12.47 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 11.26 0.00 Child Not Interested 31.46 18.81 16.78 47.44 8.78 2.30 6.14 10.75 Failed In Exams 2.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 0.00 11.51 Teacher Behavior Not Good 0.00 0.00 3.59 0.00 Education Not Useful 2.67 8.77 5.62 0.00 15.32 16.16 0.89 0.00 Completed Desired 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 Level Awaiting Admission To Next Level 0.33 0.00 30.47 0.00 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 11.44 3.88 1.14 0.21 30.8 2.7 34.31 43.11 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Ill 0.70 3.63 3.17 3.81 1.00 2.81 2.19 3.94 Got/Getting Married 1.88 3.20 1.49 0.00 0.77 0.00 1.62 0.00 School Is Too Far 2.02 3.01 0.77 0.00 0.83 4.88 0.74 0.00 Cannot Afford It 39.23 25.42 17.22 32.70 3.51 2.46 20.39 0.00 Have To Look After Younger Siblings 2.64 0.35 1.38 0.00 3.87 1.03 0.51 0.00 Have To Work At Home Have To Work On Own Farm /Livestock Care /Household Enterprise Have To Work For Wage/Salary 2.84 3.92 2.04 8.65 7.61 2.89 4.23 12.47 0.32 2.25 5.94 0.00 1.18 7.87 17.08 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.31 0.00 2.70 0.51 0.46 0.00 Child Not Interested 32.02 23.01 28.35 26.28 11.64 38.58 8.82 13.61 Failed In Exams 1.90 0.65 19.38 22.34 4.12 9.63 3.59 1.97 Page 82

BASIC EDUCATION MAIN REASON GIVEN Teacher Behavior Not Good 2007/2008 PSMS-III 1 st REASON GIVEN 2 nd REASON GIVEN Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.33 13.06 Education Not Useful 7.81 33.13 14.36 0.00 28.33 10.11 13.04 0.00 Completed Desired 0.49 0.87 0.49 0.00 0.77 0.43 0.16 6.41 Level Awaiting Admission To Next Level 0.00 0.15 3.42 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 8.15 0.02 1.05 6.21 33.37 18.80 26.85 48.54 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 4.18: Main Reasons for Not Attending School Main reason given 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV 1 st REASON GIVEN 2 nd REASON GIVEN 1 st REASON GIVEN 2 nd REASON GIVEN Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Too young 6.6 11.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 4.6 12.6 2.3 2.4 2.3 School too far 6.4 1.4 5.6 8.6 2.0 7.7 3.1 1.0 2.7 2.2 0.5 1.9 Cannot afford 49.0 64.3 51.5 6.0 6.8 6.1 40.0 61.7 43.9 6.7 7.0 6.8 Looking after siblings 4.5 0.9 3.9 7.1 7.7 7.2 1.6 2.1 1.7 3.3 5.2 3.6 For working at home 4.4 1.8 4.0 10.3 6.0 9.7 3.6 2.1 3.3 4.3 9.8 5.3 For working at farm 0.5 0.2 0.4 5.1 1.5 4.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.2 2.4 1.4 Working for wage/salary 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.1 2.7 1.4 Education not considered useful 17.7 13.1 17.0 20.9 23.1 21.2 31.6 24.3 30.3 18.8 14.3 18.0 Admission procedure 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.6 9.8 2.8 1.3 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.3 1.0 cumbersome Disability 0.8 3.3 1.2 1.8 0.0 1.5 0.8 1.9 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.9 Other 9.6 4.0 8.6 38.2 42.6 38.9 2.9 0.6 2.5 57.9 55.4 57.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Combined Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Combined Page 83

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.19: Main Reasons for Not Attending School by Region Main reason given 2007/2008 PSMS-III 1 st REASON GIVEN 2 nd REASON GIVEN Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Too young 4.2 12.7 9.9 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 School too far 1.4 9.6 9.2 13.8 0.0 8.0 4.3 0.0 Cannot afford 56.2 37.6 37.4 51.9 6.5 22.6 2.2 0.0 Looking after siblings 4.3 0.4 7.4 0.2 8.1 3.4 6.2 49.1 For working at home 3.0 1.6 6.3 12.2 5.9 7.1 13.9 0.3 For working at farm 0.1 0.0 1.2 2.4 4.3 3.8 6.8 12.8 Working for wage/salary 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.2 Education not considered useful 17.7 29.4 14.7 10.6 27.9 7.5 18.9 9.6 Admission procedure cumbersome 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 8.1 1.1 0.0 Disability 1.9 0.0 1.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 Other 10.3 8.4 12.4 0.2 45.7 39.5 40.7 28.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Too young 7.9 12.6 18.9 5.4 2.4 1.7 2.4 3.8 School too far 1.0 2.2 5.1 2.9 1.0 1.3 3.6 0.0 Cannot afford 66.4 21.5 30.9 48.1 3.3 2.6 14.3 1.0 Looking after siblings 2.1 0.0 0.3 27.3 5.9 2.6 1.7 0.0 For working at home 3.8 4.2 2.3 2.5 4.7 7.3 3.8 16.3 For working at farm 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.2 1.5 0.4 1.6 5.2 Working for wage/salary 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.5 1.9 1.0 1.1 Education not considered useful 16.5 48.1 37.2 7.4 22.0 10.3 18.3 16.6 Admission procedure cumbersome 0.0 4.0 0.4 3.6 0.6 0.8 1.6 0.0 Disability 0.4 1.2 1.4 2.7 0.0 2.1 0.2 13.5 Other 1.0 5.9 2.2 0.0 57.1 68.9 51.5 42.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 4.20: Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools SHARE OF TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE AGE GROUP (PERCENT) Type of 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV school Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs COMBINED Government 60.7 53.8 48.8 60.4 53.4 46.5 57.1 51.0 47.3 Private 37.5 44.9 50.2 38.2 45.9 52.7 41.5 47.6 51.8 Other 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.4 0.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL Government 68.1 59.7 51.7 67.3 59.0 49.6 63.7 56.1 51.1 Private 30.1 38.9 47.4 31.2 40.2 49.6 34.9 42.4 48.0 Other 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 84

BASIC EDUCATION Type of school SHARE OF TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE AGE GROUP (PERCENT) 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs URBAN Government 24.4 30.9 40.3 22.7 27.0 31.4 21.6 26.7 30.4 Private 73.7 68.2 58.5 76.6 72.8 68.0 76.5 72.4 68.5 Other 1.9 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.9 1.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 4.21: Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools- by Region Types of Schools 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs Western Government 52.7 50.1 47.2 48.0 42.8 44.0 Private 46.6 49.7 52.3 51.3 56.3 55.3 Other 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Central Government 56.3 50.4 44.2 63.7 58.2 54.6 Private 41.9 48.4 54.7 34.3 40.0 44.5 Other 1.8 1.1 1.2 2.0 1.8 0.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Eastern Government 64.1 53.7 44.2 60.5 53.2 46.1 Private 33.8 45.2 54.6 37.6 45.0 52.7 Other 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.9 1.8 1.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Southern Government 77.6 70.4 59.4 71.9 67.6 55.9 Private 22.2 29.6 40.6 28.0 32.2 44.1 Other 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 4.22: Percentage Attending Government Schools by Income Level Location SHARE OF TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE AGE GROUP (PERCENT) and 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV income group Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs RURAL 68.1 59.7 51.7 67.3 59.0 49.6 63.7 56.1 51.1 Poor 81.7 68.5 64.9 78.3 70.9 57.9 77.2 69.2 63.4 Middle 66.7 63.5 54.3 65.9 55.2 46.9 61.1 57.8 52.1 Rich 52.0 48.4 41.9 54.0 50.6 45.8 46.7 40.0 40.3 Page 85

BASIC EDUCATION Location and income group SHARE OF TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE AGE GROUP (PERCENT) 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs URBAN 24.4 30.9 40.3 22.7 27.0 31.4 21.6 26.7 30.4 Poor 38.2 44.2 54.3 36.8 42.3 45.0 38.9 45.3 43.0 Middle 19.9 30.9 41.0 19.6 30.7 38.2 14.9 22.5 33.0 Rich 11.2 20.4 32.1 7.5 8.4 12.7 4.8 12.8 17.7 COMBI NED 60.7 53.8 48.8 60.4 53.4 46.5 57.1 50.9 47.3 Table 4.23: Percentage Attending Government Schools by Region SHARE OF TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE AGE GROUP (PERCENT) Location and Region 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Primary Middle Secondary Primary Middle Secondary 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs 6 10 yrs 11 13 yrs 14 15 yrs RURAL 67.3 59.0 49.6 63.7 56.1 51.1 Western 63.4 60.2 54.7 56.3 47.6 49.4 Central 65.5 59.4 49.6 72.7 66.3 62.1 Eastern 66.8 55.5 44.2 63.9 56.0 47.5 Southern 88.0 79.2 66.8 81.2 78.4 62.9 URBAN 22.7 27.0 31.4 21.6 26.7 30.4 Western 20.4 22.3 23.6 20.4 27.6 29.2 Central 17.4 18.3 24.6 19.4 22.0 28.3 Eastern 30.1 35.6 45.0 23.8 26.0 33.6 Southern 36.3 39.0 41.5 36.5 39.1 37.5 COMBINED 60.4 53.4 46.5 57.1 50.9 47.3 Page 86

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.24: Average Expenditure Per Pupil on Education Location AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE IN RUPEES and school PSMS-III PSMS-IV level Government Private school Overall : All School Government Private school Overall : All School FEES OTHER TOTAL FEES OTHER TOTAL FEES OTHER TOTAL FEES OTHER TOTAL FEES OTHER TOTAL FEES OTHER TOTAL Primary level 46 188 234 666 789 1454 235 371 606 58 267 325 896 1040 1936 359 544 903 Middle level 147 454 601 695 922 1617 385 658 1043 157 505 662 1030 1303 2333 527 843 1369 Secondary level 447 1152 1599 874 1274 2148 706 1226 1932 588 1376 1964 1252 1703 2954 973 1565 2539 Higher level 927 1608 2535 1534 1805 3338 1274 1721 2994 1292 1861 3153 2554 2219 4773 2030 2071 4101 RURAL 142 388 530 804 1019 1823 399 633 1032 185 490 674 1146 1323 2469 583 835 1418 Primary 196 348 544 1834 1391 3225 1416 1125 2542 176 417 593 2492 1610 4101 1936 1323 3259 level Middle level 359 868 1227 2481 2118 4600 2000 1835 3835 555 995 1550 3277 2227 5504 2551 1898 4449 Secondary level 709 1508 2217 3738 3325 7063 2742 2727 5469 768 1777 2544 4969 3387 8356 3569 2850 6419 Higher level 1668 2457 4125 4915 3508 8423 3843 3161 7005 2754 2655 5409 6371 4550 10922 5120 3894 9015 URBAN 580 1031 1611 2664 2116 4780 2099 1822 3921 770 1138 1908 3433 2315 5748 2707 1994 4701 Primary 55 197 252 1006 964 1970 405 479 884 66 276 341 1331 1195 2526 596 661 1257 level Middle level 162 485 647 1163 1235 2398 654 854 1507 193 549 741 1631 1550 3181 879 1026 1905 Secondary level 496 1218 1714 1538 1749 3287 1143 1548 2691 619 1444 2064 2107 2090 4197 1509 1830 3339 Higher level 1103 1810 2912 2619 2351 4971 2013 2135 4148 1637 2049 3686 3673 2902 6575 2866 2564 5430 COM- BINED 178 441 619 1319 1323 2643 688 835 1523 236 547 783 1757 1588 3344 948 1034 1982 Page 87

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.25: Provided Mid Day Meals - Liked by students or not SECTOR PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 2007/2008 PSMS-III Boys Girls Children YES NO CAN'T SAY YES NO CAN'T SAY YES NO CAN'T SAY Rural 67.8 20.6 11.6 69.7 19.3 11.0 68.7 20.0 11.3 Urban 50.9 23.1 26.0 53.4 17.6 29.0 52.1 20.4 27.4 Combined 66.7 20.7 12.6 68.6 19.2 12.2 67.7 20.0 12.4 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Rural 41.7 13.3 45.0 46.3 14.0 39.7 43.8 13.6 42.6 Urban 16.4 8.2 75.4 19.8 8.7 71.6 17.9 8.4 73.6 Combined 37.9 12.5 49.5 42.3 13.2 44.5 39.9 12.8 47.2 Table 4.26: Provided Mid Day Meals - Liked by students or not by Region Region PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 2007/2008 PSMS-III Boys Girls Children YES NO CAN'T SAY YES NO CAN'T SAY YES NO CAN'T SAY Western 67.8 17.0 15.1 69.6 16.6 13.8 68.7 16.8 14.5 Central 77.5 9.6 12.9 82.1 7.3 10.5 79.7 8.5 11.8 Eastern 65.1 26.4 8.5 67.2 23.6 9.2 66.2 25.0 8.9 Southern 51.6 29.1 19.3 51.5 30.0 18.5 51.5 29.5 19.0 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western 28.4 9.3 62.3 33.7 10.7 55.6 30.8 9.9 59.3 Central 45.4 11.7 42.9 51.9 10.8 37.3 48.3 11.3 40.4 Eastern 43.4 15.5 41.1 45.8 15.7 38.5 44.5 15.6 39.9 Southern 48.2 22.5 29.3 51.9 24.9 23.2 49.9 23.6 26.6 Table 4.27: Provided Mid Day Meals - Liked by students or not by Decile group Decile group PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 2007/2008 PSMS-III Rural Urban Combined YES NO CAN'T SAY YES NO CAN'T SAY YES NO CAN'T SAY 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Poorest 58.5 13.1 28.4 36.5 10.9 52.6 55.1 12.8 32.1 2 52.3 13.3 34.4 25.4 7.6 67.0 47.8 12.3 39.8 3 46.0 14.0 40.0 25.3 8.7 66.0 42.7 13.1 44.2 4 46.2 15.6 38.2 16.0 7.6 76.4 41.3 14.3 44.4 5 45.4 14.7 39.8 12.2 8.3 79.5 40.6 13.8 45.6 6 42.1 13.9 44.0 10.5 8.1 81.4 36.6 12.9 50.5 7 42.8 11.3 45.8 9.7 8.9 81.3 38.2 11.0 50.9 8 39.3 12.4 48.3 10.3 8.5 81.2 35.2 11.8 53.0 9 29.7 12.9 57.4 9.5 8.3 82.2 27.4 12.4 60.2 Richest 22.8 14.9 62.2 9.0 5.8 85.2 21.5 14.1 64.4 Page 88

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.28: Percentage of students receiving Mid day meal Sector / no. of days PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rural 2.3 3.2 4.8 12.1 33.0 44.7 1.9 2.7 5.8 11.3 29.6 48.8 Urban 3.9 2.5 4.0 7.2 26.6 55.8 2.9 4.6 4.1 9.5 26.1 52.9 Combined 2.4 3.2 4.7 11.7 32.6 45.5 2.0 2.8 5.7 11.1 29.4 49.0 Table 4.29: Percentage of students receiving Mid day meal-by income level Income group/ no. of days PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Poor 1.4 2.8 5.7 13.3 35.5 41.3 2.3 3.0 7.2 12.5 27.1 48.0 Middle 3.0 3.8 4.2 10.5 31.8 46.7 1.5 2.6 3.6 10.6 29.1 52.6 Rich 3.2 2.9 3.7 10.8 28.4 51.0 2.1 2.6 5.8 8.9 34.9 45.7 Table 4.30: Percentage of students receiving Mid day meal-by region Region / no. of days PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Western 1.8 2.5 3.7 12.8 37.7 41.6 1.4 2.0 4.0 13.9 28.3 50.4 Central 2.4 3.3 4.2 14.3 29.3 46.6 2.8 5.4 9.9 8.9 24.4 48.6 Eastern 2.6 4.1 5.6 10.9 31.8 45.1 1.3 2.0 5.2 11.1 33.3 47.1 Southern 1.96 1.66 2.18 6.72 26.66 60.81 7.0 2.7 2.2 4.5 26.2 57.4 Table 4.31: Receipt of Government Scholarships by Income Level Sector and PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS GETTING SCHOLARSHIPS income 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV group Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Rural 18.9 21.0 19.8 31.0 36.0 33.3 36.4 40.6 38.3 Urban 7.8 9.3 8.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 11.3 15.0 13.0 Combined 16.8 18.4 17.5 27.5 31.2 29.2 32.1 36 33.8 By Income Level: Poor 23.7 26.8 25.1 35.4 39.8 37.5 41.9 47.2 44.5 Middle 17.3 18.5 17.8 27.5 31.3 29.2 33.3 35.2 34.2 Rich 10.3 9.8 10.1 20.0 21.5 20.6 21.2 23.7 22.3 Table 4.32: Receipt of Government Scholarships by Region PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS GETTING SCHOLARSHIPS Region 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Western 23.7 28.1 25.7 25.9 31.8 28.5 Central 22.1 30.0 25.7 39.7 43.7 41.5 Eastern 27.1 31.1 29.0 32.2 34.1 33.1 Southern 58.5 57.3 58.0 51.2 58.5 54.5 Page 89

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.33:Proportion of Students getting Different Types scholarship Types of scholarships getting by students Sector 2007/2008 PSMS-III ST/SC OBC MINORITY ECONOMICALLY MERIT OTHER WEAK Rural 94.8 95.0 87.6 97.0 99.1 95.9 Urban 5.2 5.1 12.4 3.1 0.9 4.1 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Rural 94.7 95.5 83.6 92.0 64.2 90.3 Urban 5.3 4.6 16.4 8.0 35.8 9.7 Table 4.34 :Proportion of Students getting Different Types scholarship by Region Region Types of scholarships getting by students 2007/2008 PSMS-III ST/SC OBC MINORITY ECONOMICALLY WEAK MERIT OTHER Western 28.1 24.9 34.1 12.4 73.6 21.6 Central 19.4 11.9 16.3 24.8 23.0 8.1 Eastern 44.4 48.0 43.1 56.1 3.4 56.1 Southern 8.1 15.2 6.5 6.7 0.0 14.2 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western 26.7 28.5 45.7 37.2 60.7 32.1 Central 29.4 22.1 25.5 20.5 4.6 16.3 Eastern 36.9 44.5 26.5 39.8 21.9 41.2 Southern 7.0 5.0 2.4 2.5 12.7 10.4 Page 90

BASIC EDUCATION Table 4.35: Percentage of students of age 05-18 years pursuing general education and receiving (i) scholarship, free books/stationery, mid-day meals Sector and income Percentage of students getting group Scholarships Free Textbooks Free Uniform mid-day meals Scholarships Free Textbooks Free Uniform mid-day meals 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Boys Rural 31.0 9.0 6.1 44.8 36.4 37.5 5.5 41.6 Urban 9.6 2.2 2.2 16.1 11.3 9.4 1.8 14.9 Combined 27.5 7.9 5.4 40.0 32.1 32.6 4.9 37.0 By Income Level: Poor 35.4 9.7 5.8 52.0 41.9 47.2 5.9 51.0 Middle 27.5 8.2 5.0 39.8 33.3 33.5 5.6 36.0 Rich 20.0 5.8 5.6 29.0 21.2 17.7 3.2 24.5 Girls Rural 36.0 9.6 25.7 50.2 40.6 44.7 29.3 47.2 Urban 9.6 3.2 5.6 16.2 15.0 13.4 8.4 17.0 Combined 31.2 8.4 22.1 44.0 36.0 39.1 25.5 41.8 By Income Level: Poor 39.8 10.1 27.1 55.1 47.2 56.3 37.0 56.4 Middle 31.3 8.7 22.0 43.1 35.2 36.5 24.0 39.5 Rich 21.5 6.1 16.5 32.8 23.7 21.7 13.7 27.1 Children Rural 33.3 9.2 14.9 47.2 38.3 40.7 16.2 44.1 Urban 9.6 2.7 3.8 16.1 13.0 11.2 4.9 15.8 Combined 29.2 8.1 13.0 41.8 33.8 35.5 14.2 39.1 By Income Level: Poor 37.5 9.9 15.9 53.5 44.5 51.6 20.8 53.6 Middle 29.2 8.4 12.7 41.3 34.2 34.8 13.8 37.6 Rich 20.6 5.9 10.3 30.6 22.3 19.4 7.7 25.6 Page 91

HEALTH 5. HEALTH 5.1 INTRODUCTION The nations of the world have agreed that enjoying the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief and economic or social condition. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), commit countries to halving extreme income poverty and to achieving improvements in health by 2015 (OECD-2003) 1. Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state of India and is bigger than many of the countries of the world. UP Government has expended much more to improve health facilities of its wellbeing. Besides major health and demographic indicators of state are far too below the national average. To assess the development made in context of general health condition of wellbeing of state people, the enquiry under PSMS-IV covered the various aspects of the availability and utilization of general health care facilities which were provided by the Government and private agencies and the expenditure incurred by the households for availing these services. This chapter discuss status of some demographic indicators including infant & maternal mortality, morbidity, maternal health care and health care services. The main objective of the survey was to study the extent of utilisation of the maternal and child health care programmes by the people. The target groups of the study were: (i) 0-6 year old children and (ii) married women of age group 14-49 years who were pregnant or who had delivered child at any time during the last 365 days before the date of survey. The survey sought to assess the coverage of activities of Anganwadi and programmes relating to maternal health care during pregnancy. In this chapter, discussion has been focused on rural-urban, male-female, socioeconomic group, sector and region wise variations in the status and extent of utilization of health services by different domain of the population. 5.2 INFANT & CHILD MORTALITY RATE Infant mortality rate is regarded as an important health indicator and it shows general standard of living of the people of the area. Sample Registration System (SRS) data shows that the infant mortality rate (IMR) has fallen from 84 to 57 deaths per thousand live births between 1999 and 2011 in UP (see Table 5.2). 1 OECD, 2003 :DAC Guidelines and Reference Series-Poverty and Health World Health Organisation Page 91

HEALTH However IMR fallen significantly in the state of UP but it still remains higher than national average (44 per thousand live birth). 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Figure 5.1 : Pattern of Change in IMR of Uttar Pradesh and India UP(All) UP(Rural) UP(Urban) India(All) India(Rural) India(Urban) 20 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Moreover, IMR in rural UP is considerably higher than that in urban part of state. It is notable that different year Rural-Urban differences in IMR between 1999 and 2011 are relatively lower than corresponding all India level Rural-Urban differences. Looking the trend of reduction in IMR shows that achieving the goal of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) to reduce IMR in Uttar Pradesh upto the level of 28 by 2015 is far behind targets. Reduction of child mortality i.e. under 5-mortality rate is also an important MDG goal. But MDG target to reduce under 5-mortality rate upto 42 by 2015 also seems far behind target for Uttar Pradesh. Like infant mortality rates,under 5- mortality rate in UP was 91 in 2008 and with 12-point decrease it still remained at point of 79 in 2010 which is considerably high than the national average (India- 59) and remained high too than many states of the country. There is gender and sectoral differences in under 5- mortality rate of Uttar Pradesh. 5.3 MATERNAL MORTALITY RATIO (MMR) Maternal health is strongly related with the health of a child. Motherless children tend to be at a greater risk of death than children with mothers. Hence maternal Page 92

HEALTH mortality the death of women during pregnancy, childbirth, or even in the 42 days after delivery remains a major concern to health systems world wide. The SRS is the largest demographic survey in the country, providing estimates of maternal mortality through its nation wide sample survey. Maternal mortality ratio is derived as maternal deaths per 100,000 live birth. 700 600 500 400 300 200 Figure 5.2 : Change in MMR of Uttar Pradesh & India 606 539 517 440 398 327 301 309 254 212 100 0 MMR -India MMR-UP 1997-98 1999-01 2001-03 2005-06 2007-09 Notwithstanding the Figure 5.2 shows the decline in the MMR in UP from 539 in 1999-01 to 309 in 2007-09, but it remained considerably higher than the corresponding all India average.the latest SRS data from 1997-98 to 2007-09 also shows that MRR in UP is not only higher than all India level but it remained highest than that of almost all bigger states of the country. 5.4 MARITAL STATUS AND AVERAGE AGE AT MARRIAGE Marriage and divorce are central to the study of living arrangements and family composition. Social and Figure 5.3 (a) : Average age at Marriage economic events as well as Years 25 20 15 10 5 0 21 Male 23 18 20 Female Rural Urban changes in cultural attitudes shape marital behavior, which then affect family life and other interactions. Table 5.4 gives the distribution of males and females by their marital Page 93

HEALTH status for the year 2009-10. It is seen that 56.7 persons of males were unmarried while in context of female it was only 48.3 percent. Among males, currently married constitute 40.5 percent while in females it was 46.9 percent. About 2.6 percent of males were found widowed while in context of females it was 4.8 percent. Over all about 51 percent males and 49 percent females found currently married in ages between 30 to 49 years. Significant rural-urban difference by sex has been observed in currently married by age of persons. The share of divorced/widowers men and women were seen highest in age group 50 and above for both sectors (see Table 5.5). The average age at marriage of females was 19 years while for males it was 21 years. The average age at marriage found varied by sector, region and sex of person (see Table 5.6) and observed higher in urban sector compared to rural. In UP child marriage is defined as the marriage of males below the age of 21 years, and females below 18 years. About 27 percent of females and 43 percent of males were married 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 5.3(b) Cumulative percentage of persons by age at marriage 4 14 24 34 44 age at marriage (in years) All Male All Female Rural Male Rural Female Urban Male Urban Female below the legal age. Analysis it by sector and sex, it is found that about 46 percent males and 27 percent females of rural sector get married below the legal age of marriage whereas it was only 27 and 19 percent for males and females respectively in urban sector which is quit less compared to rural sector.child marriage is more prevalent among illiterates and those living in rural areas versus literates and urban areas. Quit large differences have been observed in child marriages by region of residence and sex of persons. Page 94

HEALTH 5.5 SURVIVOR RATE OF CHILDREN AND AGE AT MARRIAGE OF WOMEN Among 1000 ever born children, 973 male and 967 female child found surviving on the date of survey in the year 2009-10. Generally what ever was the age of Survivers per 1000 1000 980 960 940 Figure 5.4: Survivors per 1000 children ever born by age of marraige of women in U P 10 20 30 40 50 Age at marraige marriage of women, surviving male child were found higher than surviving female child in the year 2009-10. Further survivors in rural sector found lesser compared to urban sector for both male and female children. Figure 5.4 suggest that late marriages of women generally in most cases increases the survivorship of their children ever born. Surviving children found varied by income group of women to which they belongs. Page 95

HEALTH Figure 5.4(a) Cumulative percentage of children everborn by womens age at marriage by sector 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rural ever born Urban ever born 3 13 23 33 43 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 5.4(b) Cumulative percentage of children surviving by womens age at marriage by sector 3 13 23 33 43 Rural live cum Urban live cum 0.9 1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Figure 5.4(c) Distribution of cumulative children everborn by age of mothers and sector 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Urban everborn child Rural everborn child Figure 5.4(d) Distribution of cumulative children surviving by age of mothers and sector 0.9 1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Urban live child Rural live child Page 96

HEALTH 5.6 INCIDENCE OF PREGNANCY, CHILDBIRTH Maternal health care remains a major challenge to the global public health system. In UP, considerable attention has been paid to estimate maternal mortality, but mere has been reserved to the issue of adolescents pregnancies requires paramount 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 5.5 : Percent of women reporting delivery in last one year 13.7 14.1 10 9.4 8.21 8.58 10.8 6.9 6.69 All Rural Urban 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 attention. Studies have highlighted the relationships between early childbearing and adverse health outcomes potentially causing death among women in the 15 19 age groups. Additionally, adolescent pregnancies may be consistently associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, low birth weight, premature deliveries, high neonatal and post neonatal as well as infant morbidity and mortality. Table 5.7 presents the proportion of married women that delivered a baby at any time during the one-year period preceding the date of interview. As the table shows, about 75 percent women in UP aged 15 to 49 years were ever married in the year 2009-10. This percentage for rural and urban areas was 76 and 70 percent respectively. While the proportion of the age group that was married did not vary much by income level, but within this group there were significant 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 5.6 : Percent of married women giving birth in last one year 10.7 9.93 8.3 8.1 8.62 6.37 10.0 9.19 Western Central Eastern Southern 2007/08 2009/10 differences in the share of women reporting a delivery in the past one year (11 percent among the poorest one-third vs. 6 percent among the richest one third). Comparison of it by social group shows that highest percentage of women given birth of child in last one year were from SC/ST (9.3 percent) fallowed by women of OBC (8.6 percent) and least by women of other social category. Further looking Page 97

HEALTH the percentage of married women reporting deliveries in last one year, deliveries has been found significantly dropped from 13.7 percent in PSMS-II (2002/03) to 8.2 percent in PSMS-IV (2009/10). Significant drop has been observed for both sectors, in all income and social groups over the period of PSMS-II to IV. Lowest percentage of delivery has been reported in Eastern (6.37 percent) and highest in Western region (9.93 percent) (see Table5.8). Drop in the percent of deliveries has been observed in all regions except Central where marginal increase has been observed over the period of two PSMS rounds. 5.7 PLACE OF CHILDBIRTH: Place of child birth plays important role on child and maternal health. Especially deliveries at home cause many times death of child and their mother and it is seen as access of poor heath facilities and relatively low standard of living. In UP, still more than half of the child births take place at home (see Table 5.9). It is seen that in rural sector 54.4 percent of deliveries occur at home whereas it was only 42.1 percent in context of urban sector. 90.0 80.0 Figure 5.7 : Percent of deliveries by place 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Western Central Eastern Southern Home2007/08 Home2009/10 Government health facility2007/08 Government health facility2009/10 Private health facility2007/08 Private health facility2009/10 Page 98

HEALTH 40 35 30 25 20 Figure 5.8 : Percent of deliveries at Government health facility 33.4 34.1 24 29.6 2002/03 2007/08 15 10 15.5 14.1 2009/10 5 0 6.2 5.3 11.0 UP All Rural Urban Further looking the data by income level, it is clear that women belonging to relatively lower strata of society deliver their child at home relatively more frequent than women belonging to upper strata of the society. But dramatically percentage share of deliveries at home cut down from 74.2 percent in 2007-08 to 52.4 percent in 2009-10. Further significant reduction in share of home deliveries has been occur in both rural and urban sector,in each income as well as social group and region of state over the period of two PSMS rounds (see Table 5.9 &10).It is notable that highest drop in the share of home deliveries has been occur in Southern region compared to other regions between two PSMS rounds. It is important to mention that people's trust on Government health facilities has been increased consistently over the period of 2002/03 to 2009-10 in both rural as well as urban sector which resulted percentage share of place of deliveries at Government health facilities increased manifold in all social and income group. This share was overall only 6.2 percent in year 2002/03 and with enormous increase it became 33.4 percent in 2009-10. The increase in share was observed more in rural compared to urban sector. Western region of state showed lowest 22.6 percent share in place of deliveries at Government health facilities and it was highest 62.3 percent for Southern and fallowed by Eastern(40.8 percent) and Central (38.7 percent) region. Increase over period showed similar pattern in all regions (see Table 5.9 &10). Looking place of deliveries at Private facilities, over all it's share has been found increased but further looking the data, this share has been reduced in poor income group and increased in rich income group over the Page 99

HEALTH period of PSMS-III to PSMS-IV. Regional introspection of place of deliveries at Private facilities shows quit large differences between different regions. 5.9 WOMEN GIVING BIRTH AT HOME AND PERSON S CONDUCTING DELIVERY In spite of considerable progress in maternal health care facilities in state more than half share of deliveries still take place at home. Among various reasons, one of the important reason may be also women s perception to avoid medical interventions in the birth process of child and hence quit large percentage of women still choosing to deliver their babies at home, but medical experts warn that the option is accompanied by elevated neonatal mortality, even in low-risk births. Therefore it became important to study the person who conducted deliveries at home. Information on person conducting delivery at home was collected under heads-doctor, Nurse/ANM, Trained/Traditional Dai and Friends/relatives. Among the women giving birth at home, about 48.5 percent deliveries conducted by Trained/traditional dai.in rural part of state it was 47.1 percent and in urban part it was relatively high as 57.0 percent. Compared to last two PSMS rounds, the share of Trained/traditional dai in conduction of delivery diminished significantly large and share of Doctor, Nurse/ANM and Friends/relatives increased in conduction of delivery at home (see Table 5.11&12). Further looking the data it is found that the share of doctor conducting delivery at home among deliveries at home had got marginal increase over PSMS round III to IV in both rural and urban sector. Introspecting it by income level, it get marginal decrease in poor income group where as significant increase in middle and rich income group. However sign of increase in Doctor's share in conduction of deliveries at home has been observed for all social groups between PSMS round II and IV. Regional analysis of Person conducting deliveries at home shows that the share of Trained/traditional dai is highest 59.1 percent for Western fallowed by Central (44.3 percent) and Eastern (38.6 percent) region and it was lowest for Southern region (36.9 percent).the share of friends/relatives was observed highest for Central (51.5 percent) and lowest (14.5 percent) for Western region. It is important to mention that the share of Doctors conducting deliveries at home increased for Western and Eastern region whereas it has decreased for Central and Southern region over PSMS round III to IV. Except Central, the share of conducting Page 100

HEALTH deliveries at home by Nurse/ANM increased in rest three regions of state between aforesaid periods (see Table 5.12). 5.10 SAFE DELIVERIES In general, deliveries at medical institutions are considered to be safer than those at home. As stated earlier that more than 50 percent childbirths took place at home in Uttar Pradesh. Under PSMS survey a question on who conducted deliveries at home was asked. Among the deliveries at home conducted by Doctor, nurse/anm, and Trained/traditional dai may be considered as safe. Inclusions of these deliveries at home to deliveries at Government and private health facilities derive the safe deliveries in general. Anchoring the all deliveries in this way, overall 90.9 percent deliveries in 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 5.9 : Percent of Safe Deliveries 90.9 90.5 78.7 76.9 71.1 68.6 88.9 87.1 UP all Rural Urban 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 66.4 93.4 95.8 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 Figure 5.10 : Percent of Safe Deliveries by Region 80.4 state estimated as safe in 2009-10. Safe deliveries were found more (93.4 percent) in urban compared to rural sector (90.5 percent). It may be the impact of progress in maternal health care facilities that resulted quit large increase in percentage of safe deliveries in state over last two PSMS round II and III (see Table 5.13 &14). Inequality in increase of safe deliveries has been observed by different income and social group. But pattern of inequality was found similar between poor income group vs SC/ST, Middle vs OBC and Rich vs other. A regional difference in percent of safe deliveries has been seen. It is observed that highest 90.5 76.7 78.3 79.8 97.0 Western Central Eastern Southern 2007/08 2009/10 difference in safe deliveries is between Central (80.4 percent) and Southern (97.0 percent) region. Page 101

HEALTH 5.11 MORBIDITY AND HEALTH CARE Morbidity is the rate at which an illness or ailment or abnormality occurs. An 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 5.11 : Percent reporting illness during 15 Days (preceding date of Survey) 10.6 10.7 10.1 9.8 10.0 9.4 5.8 5.8 6.1 UP(Overall) UP(Rural) UP(Urban) 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 8.9 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 10.1 9.6 8.2 5.2 5.6 ailment means any deviation from the state of physical and mental well-being. Morbidity is calculated by dividing the number of people who are affected within a group by the entire number of people in that group. A question on morbidity was asked in current PSMS round like earlier round with reference to the last 15 days preceding the date of survey. Morbidity rates compared with those that of last PSMS round shows that the rate has decreased by 4 and 3 percentage points in the rural and urban areas respectively (see Table 5.15). Looking further the aforesaid table, it Figure 5.12 : Percent Reporting Illness during 15 Days Preceding date of Survey by Income group 12.9 11.7 Poor Middle Rich reveals a broad positive association between income group and morbidity. 6.8 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 5.13 : Percentage Reporting Illness during 15 Days Preceding date of Survey by IncomeSocial Group 10.8 10.5 10.6 10.4 9.7 9.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 SC/ST OBC Other 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 The data show that the level of morbidity tends to rise with the rise of level of income of people. This may mean that the relatively poor feel less prone to sickness than the rich. The data further indicate that morbidity was higher in the urban areas of Uttar Pradesh compared to rural. People's perception is that Page 102

HEALTH morbidity in households belonging to different social groups may vary significantly by social group but the estimates of morbidity did not show significant variation by social group. Only marginal difference has been observed between different social groups. Regional introspection shows significant differences in morbidity rate of different 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 5.14 : Percentage Reporting Illness during 15 Days Preceding date of Survey by IncomeSocial Group 8.8 10.4 9.7 5.8 6.1 5.4 10.2 9.3 Western Central Eastern Southern 2007/08 2009/10 regions in year 2009-10. Drop in morbidity is found significantly large in each region except Southern. The population those reported experiencing some illness during last 15 days preceding the date of survey, most of them (77.8 percent) consulted for illness and only 7.1 did not consulted for illness. About 15.3 percent population consulted for maternal/other reasons. Consultation about illness found varied by sector, social group and income level of person (see Table 5.17). 5.11.1 TYPE OF SYMPTOMS The PSMS IV 2009/10 also collected information on the self reported symptoms of illness of all household members for a 15 day recall period. Percentage of population consulting doctor/quack/health facility by symptom is presented in Table 5.18. Data show that like previous PSMS round, in current PSMS-IV round also fever remains the most prevalent illness, despite the decline, reported by respondents compared as was the case in 2007/08. Clearly, fever could be indicative of a variety of ailments, ranging from a minor infection to major health problems. Overall, 54 percent of the population reported suffering from fever, within 15 days prior to the date of survey. The proportions of persons who suffered from fever in rural about 54 percent and that in urban sector it was about 56 percent respectively. Further more, Stomach ache were common among the population, with a share of 9.7 and 7.6 percent in rural and urban areas respectively. Other reasons with significant share reporting for seeking health care included diarrhea (7.7 percent), cough (5.7 percent) and injury (3.6 percent). There Page 103

HEALTH appeared no marked differences among rural and urban areas in most regards but there seems to be some differences in this regard by income level. However share of consultation for the reason of delivery, ANC/PNC, health check-up, immunization and family planning was found only about 4.2 percent. This share has been found marginal increase compared to 2007/08. There has been observed significant variation between almost all regions in population Consulting Doctor/Quack/Health Facility by Symptoms of illness. Comparison of the PSMS IV and PSMS III survey findings show a similar pattern for the above mentioned illnesses. However, it is worth noting that there was a drop in the proportion of persons who suffered from fever by four percent points and the drop in shares were re-distributed to other symptoms of illness in 2009/10 compared to 2007/08. It is remarkable that share of consulting Doctor/Quack/Health Facility for reason of Delivery, ANC/PNC and Family Planning was found about to zero in Southern region of state in year 2009/10. However these reasons having very little share in year 2007/08 but greater than zero for this region (see Table 5.19). 5.11.2 TYPE OF CONSULTATION The public providers of health care include Government hospitals, Government clinics, Government dispensaries, Primary Health Centers (PHCs), Community Health Centers (CHCs) and the state and central Government assisted ESI hospitals and dispensaries. The rest of the providers fall in the category of private sources. The private sources include private doctors, nursing homes, private hospitals, charitable institutions, etc. Table 5.20 gives the percentage consulting by consultation type in the rural and urban areas. In case of type of consultation it was the private institutions that were the main provider of patient s health care both in the rural and urban areas. It is seen that the patients consulted dominantly private institutions for treating themselves in year 2009-10 like 2007-08. About 74 and 78 percent cases of consultation in rural and urban areas respectively were treated by the non- Government institutions. A steady decline in the use of Government sources and a corresponding increase in the use of private sources over the last PSMS round are also evident. It is notable that different type of consultation varied by income Page 104

HEALTH level and sector of residence of person. The share of Government facility consultation of illness availed by higher income class people by 42 percent where as it was only 24.2 percent for poor income group people (see Table 5.22). Similarly private formal Facility's consultation share is higher also for higher income class people. Private informal consultation's share is very high (60.75 percent) in urban sector's poor population. It may be due to unaffordable private formal consultation for illness and difficult accessibility of Government facility due to their illiteracy etc. Consultation of private formal as well as private informal health care facility remained almost unchanged during last two PSMS rounds by sector of residence of person and income group of person. Type of facility of consultation found significantly different among different regions of state and the share of consultation by type of health care facilities varied by region, social and income group of persons (see Table 5.22 to 24). 5.11.3 REASONS FOR NOT CONSULTING: Persons who are ailing do not always get their ailments medically treated and sometimes they feel treatment too expansive and unaffordable. They resort to home remedies or no medical care. All persons that indicated falling sick within 15 days prior to the date of survey were asked whether consulted for the major illness they suffered. Information on the reasons for not consulting was then collected from those who did not seek treatment of any kind for the illness suffered. The person who reported some illness or other but did not consult for their illness (7.1 percent) were asked to describe the reasons why they did not consult (see Table 5.15). It is seen in present round of survey that the reason most often cited for no consultation for the illness was Repeated old prescription (33 percent)'. It shows tendency of increase to repeat old prescription to become cure from illness compared to last two PSMS rounds (see Table 5.25). It is very important to mention here that urban people prefer more than four times to repeat old prescription compared to rural people. The second most often cited reason(31 percent) for not consulting for ailment is observed as "Problem not serious" fallowed by "Home remedies" (25.1 percent). Due to expensiveness of treatment,about 6 percent people not consulted to any Doctor etc. Further looking the data by residence of people it is found that rural people cited that Problem not Page 105

HEALTH serious/home remedy more than twice that of urban people. These reason (Problem not serious/home remedy) found significant variation by income group of people. It is matter of caution that Southern region's all person reported Treatment expensive where as for other region this ranges from 3.2 to 8.6 percent only. Further Problem not serious reason for not consulting found highest for Western(50 percent) fallowed by Eastern region (34.5 percent). Eastern region having reason for not consulting for illness highest as Home remedy (36.6 percent) fallowed by Problem not serious (34.5 percent). In similar fashion repeated old prescription observed highest in Central (69.2 percent) fallowed by Western (16.1 percent) and Eastern (14.6 percent) region respectively (see Table 5.26). Going by symptoms, about 48 percent reported fever was the major cause of illness, as it was pointed out by 47 percent and 50 percent of the rural and urban respondents (see Table 5.27). About 21 percent reported other symptoms of the illness. Among other prominent reasons were stomachache (12 percent) and cough (7 percent), for which no consultation was sought. A little rural-urban difference in the proportion of no consultation within each illness type has been found, except for the cough, where the proportion of illness in the urban areas were almost double that of the rural areas. Going by symptom and income level, about 64 percent poor and 32 percent fever as un treated ailment with decreasing propensity by income levels. Middle income group people reported highest 19.8 percent stomach ache fallowed by poor(12.3 percent) and rich (5.8 percent) respectively. It is remarkable that Southern region's all person reported symptom of untreated ailment as Cough only whereas Eastern and Central region's about 55 and 52 percent cited symptom of untreated ailment as fever. Over the period of PSMS III to IV, major increase in untreated ailment was found fever. Diarrhea &Vomiting symptom get marginal increase in untreated ailment where as rest other symptom decreased over the period in untreated ailment.(see Table 5.27& 28). 5.11.4 UNABILITY TO DO NORMAL WORK Page 106

HEALTH The severity of an illness can be determined by number of days unable to do work normally due to illness. The number of days lost has an adverse effect on the productive capacity of an individual. The PSMS IV sought to establish the number of days a household member had lost due to the major illness suffered. The findings presented in Table 5.29 and 30. It shows that the majority of the people(38.4 percent) that fell sick 15 days prior to the survey, did not lose a single day of their usual activity in spite of the illness suffered. About 29 percent reported that they were 3-7 days unable to do their normal work while 11 percent cited 8-15 days they were unable to do their normal work. The distribution of number of days unable to do normal work due to illness found significantly different by income group and sector of residence of persons. Propensity to unable to do normal work due to illness found decreased over the PSMS rounds II to IV. Regional look of data shows that propensity to unable to do normal work due to illness almost decreased in Western where as apposite to it increased in Southern region (seetable5.30). 5.12 JANANI SURAKSHAYOJANA (JSY) Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), is an integral component of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), launched in 12th April 2005., is being implemented in all states and UTs. JSY is a 100 percent centrally sponsored scheme and it integrates 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 5.15: Percent of Females receiving benifits of JSY within 12 months by Income 28.1 5.5 8.8 24.9 14.5 2007/08 2009/10 16.4 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 5.16: Percent of Females receiving benifits of JSY within 12 months by Social Group 12.8 27.3 6.3 25.4 10.7 2007/08 2009/10 14.7 POOR MIDDLE RICH SC/ST OBC OTHER cash assistance with delivery and post-delivery care. JSY aims to reduce maternal and neo-natal mortality by promoting institutional deliveries, focusing on women living below the poverty line (BPL). It is expected that the promotion of institutional delivery will reduce maternal and neonatal mortality among pregnant Page 107

HEALTH women in rural areas with special attention to women having low standard of living. From the Table 5.31, it appears that there has been observed substantial increase in the number of women who receive the assistance of JSY from PSMS round III to IV. Implementation of JSY from 2007-08 to 2009-10 was found highly appreciable in state because its beneficiary increased from 8.8 percent in 2007-08 to 24.1 percent women giving birth receiving JSY benefit in 2009-10. The poorest and SC/ST women always have the highest odds of receiving JSY benefit. The findings of this assessment seems encouraging but for the improved targeting towards the poorest women and attention to quality of obstetric health care facilities still needs further more emphasize. The Janani Suraksha Yojana is an attempt to promote institutional deliveries. There is some evidence to suggest that institutional deliveries have increased due to the JSY. However, it is apparent that there are some weaknesses in the scheme. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 4.01 Figure 5.17: Percent of Females receiving benifits of JSY within 12 months by Regions 2007/08 2009/10 14.3 17.11 36.3 7.47 24.3 25.11 60.9 Western Central Eastern Southern Women were not aware of the scheme. From the data, it is clear that receipt of financial assistance from JSY was highest in women of the poor income group. JSY payments seemed to be higher for women in scheduled (low) castes or tribes than in other women. Rates of JSY payments were highest for women of Southern (61 percent), followed by Central (36 percent)(see Table5.31) and lowest for Western region (14 percent). Comparison over the period of PSMS round III and IV, highest 3.6 times increase in beneficiaries has been seen in Western fallowed by Eastern(3.3 times) region and lowest (2.1 times) in Central fallowed by Southern (2.4 times) region. Overall, the JSY programme achieved some of its stated goals of reaching towards poor, disadvantaged women, although it needs more to reach the poorest women at the highest rate. Page 108

HEALTH 5.13 ANGANWADI ATTENDANCE: The word Anganwadi is derived from the hindi word Angan which refers to the 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 5.18 Percentage of children (0 6 Years) attending Aganwadi in UP 10.0 10.8 Rural 7.3 6 4 2 5.9 1.7 Urban 1.6 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 8.8 9.6 6.8 6.4 courtyard of a house. In rural areas an Angan is a place where people get together to discuss, greet, and socialize. Anganwadi centers started by the Government of India in 1975 as part of the Integrated Child Development Services(ICDS) program to combat child hunger and malnutrition. A typical Anganwadi centre also provides basic health care in Indian villages. It is a part of the Indian public health-care system. Basic health-care activities include contraceptive counseling and supply, nutrition education and supplementation, as well as pre-school activities. India in general and Uttar Pradesh in particular suffering from overpopulation, malnourishment, poverty and high infant & maternal mortality Figure 5.19 Percentage of children (0 6 Years) rates. In order to attending Aganwadi in UP by income groups 12 counter the health and 10 11.4 mortality issues 9.8 8 2002-03 gripping the state there is a need for a high number of medical and health 7.4 10.4 5.2 2007-08 2009-10 care experts. 0 Poor Middle Rich Unfortunately India as well as Uttar Pradesh is suffering from a shortage of skilled health care professionals. Therefore through the Anganwadi centers, it is tried to meet its goal of enhanced health facilities of maternal and child care that are affordable and accessible to all needy local population. Since the Anganwadi workers are from the village it self and hence they are trusted easily which makes it easier for them to help the people. Last but not the least, Anganwadi workers are well aware of the Page 109

HEALTH ways of the people and are comfortable with the language and also know the rural folk personally etc. which makes it very easy for them to figure out the problems being faced by the people and ensure that those problems are solved. In Uttar Pradesh attendance of children in Anganwadi centers has been found to 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Figure 5.20 Percentage of children (0 6 Years) attending Aganwadi in UP by social groups 12.0 12.1 8.8 9.1 8.7 5.5 25 20 15 10 5 0 6.89 4.1 8.5 7.8 4.6 16.07 11.0 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 be low. Between 2002 2003 and 2009-2010 Anganwadi attendance decreased from nearly 10 percent attendance to 6 percent of all children eligible by age. Anganwadi attendance SC/ST OBC Other in rural sector is much higher than urban sector like PSMS-III (see Table 32). Further Anganwadi attendance among the poor was higher than among the rich (6.8 vs. 5.2 percent). Although most of the children attended Anganwadi centers regularly. But these children were mostly from poorer households who cannot afford private Figure 5.21 Percentage of children (0 6 Years) attending Aganwadi in UP by region 19.1 7.24 6.2 7.1 pre-primary school Western Central Eastern Southern even though it is available locally and also because of the availability of free food in Anganwadi. 2007-08 2009-10 Data shows that the children attending Anganwadi, higher proportion belongs to scheduled tribes and scheduled caste (ST & SC) followed by other backward classes (OBC), and children from other social groups. However over the period of PSMS II to IV, attendance in Anganwadi centers diminished significantly large in all income and social group but availability of free food in the Anganwadi centers may be the cause of relatively high attendance in relatively deprived class i.e. ST Page 110

HEALTH &SC and relatively poor children. Analysing the Anganwadi attendance by region (see Table5.33), it comes out that Western region has lowest attendance (4.1 percent) fallowed by Eastern region(6.2 percent). Relatively highest attendance has been observed in Central (11.0 percent) fallowed by Southern region (7.1 percent). Over the period of PSMS round III and IV, highest reduction in attendance has been seen in Southern region where it dropped from 19.1 in 2007-08 to 7.1 in 2009-10 and least drop has been seen in Eastern region (1.02 percent point). 5.14 NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT IN ANGANWADI CENTERS Nutritional needs of under six children are mandated to be fulfilled through Anganwadi centers of the area under ICDS scheme. Supplementary nutrition is provided to 0-6 year old children at Anganwadi centers. To assess the 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 5.22 Percentage of children (0 6 Years) receiving the nutritional supplement 77.2 78.6 Always 17.7 21.2 Sometimes 5.1 0.2 Never 87.99 86.79 Always 11.92 13.21 Sometimes 0.09 0 Never 82.56 91.66 Always 17.05 8.34 Sometimes 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 Rural Urban 0.39 0 Never successfulness of the scheme, data on receipt of Nutritional Supplement collected under PSMS Surveys. The Supplementary Nutrition is provided to 0-6 year old children of age group 0 6. Overall in rural Uttar Pradesh 82.6 percent children of age 0-06 years received the nutritional supplement whereas it was significantly high in urban sector (91.7 percent) compared to its rural counter part. However it has slightly decreased compared to last PSMS III round in rural area and get increase in urban area. A very insignificant i.e. only less than1- percent targeted children never get nutritional supplement at centers whereas rest children get it sometimes at centers in state (see Table 5.34 ). It is remarkable that Nutritional supplements receipt is relatively higher (84.2 percent rural & 94.4 percent urban )in relatively deprived class (SC/ST) compared to OBC and Other social group.likewise relatively poor class people get lesser nutritional supplement compared to richer class of people both in rural and urban sector. Further analyzing the data it is found that Page 111

HEALTH propensity of receipt of nutritional food get marginal increase in relatively poor income group for both in rural and urban sector respectively over the period of PSMS round 2002/03 to 2009/10. Highest jump in increase of receipt has been occur for SC/ST group over the PSMS round (see Table 34). 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 5.23 Percentage of children (0 6 Years) always receiving the nutritional supplement by regions 81.45 74.89 2007-08 2009-10 87.05 85.37 85.01 93.39 92.64 97.01 Western Central Eastern Southern Inter regional comparison of receipt of nutritional supplement shows highest 97.0 percent receipt in Southern fallowed by Central and Eastern region and lowest in Western (75 percent) region. Over the period of PSMS III to IV, only Southern region shows sign of increase in receipt of nutritional supplement. However, receipt of nutritional supplement in state gone up to more than 82 percent mark but it is matter of great dissatisfaction that propensity of liking of the nutritional supplement dropped both in rural and urban sector but drop in liking is very large in urban sector over the period of PSMS-III to IV(see Table 5.35). Compared it by income group shows lowest liking in poor group compared to middle and rich income group. When compared by social group,obc people liked least the nutritional supplement. Interregional comparison of liking of nutritional supplement shows least liking of it in Western (57.1 percent) fallowed by Southern region. Provided nutritional supplement liked highest (78.4 percent) in Central fallowed by Eastern region(68.8 percent). Comparison of liking over the period of PSMS III to IV and by region, highest drop in liking has been occur in Central fallowed by Southern region (see Table5.35). Page 112

HEALTH Table 5.1 : Demographic profile of Uttar Pradesh compared to India S. no. Item Uttar Pradesh India Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Combined (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1 Natural Growth Rate - 2011 20.5 17.7 20 15.7 11.9 14.7 2 Crude Birth Rate - 2011 28.8 23.7 27.8 23.3 17.6 21.8 3 Crude Death Rate - 2011 8.3 6.1 7.9 7.6 5.7 7.1 4 Total Fertility Rate - 2011 3.6 2.6 3.4 2.7 1.9 2.4 5 GRR (Gross Reproduction Rate) 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.3 0.9 1.2 2011 6 Sex Ratio at birth (Female per 1000 874 881 875 907 900 906 Male) 2009-11 7 Sex Ratio of child age group (0-4) 877 886 878 916 908 914 2009-11 8 Percent of population in the age 11.5 8.8 11 10.3 8.2 9.7 group (0-4) to total population- 2011 9 Percent of population in the age 29.2 34.7 33.7 30.9 25.5 29.5 group (0-14) to total population- 2011 10 Percent of population in the age 58.4 64.3 59.5 61 66.6 62.5 group (15-59) to total population- 2011 11 Percent of population in the age 6.9 6.5 6.8 8.1 7.9 8 group (60 & above) to total population- 2011 12 Child Mortality Rate- 2011 18.6 13.8 17.9 13.6 7.4 12.2 13 Under 5 Mortality Rate- 2011 77 54 73 61 35 55 14 Neo Natal Mortality Rate- 2011 43 23 40 34 17 31 Table 5.2 : Pattern of Change in Infant Mortality Rate of UP & India Infant mortality rate Year UP India Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 2011 57 60 41 44 48 29 2010 61 64 44 47 51 31 2009 63 66 47 50 55 34 2008 67 70 49 53 58 36 2007 69 72 51 55 61 37 2006 71 75 53 57 62 39 2005 73 77 54 58 64 40 2004 72 75 53 58 64 40 2003 76 79 55 60 66 38 2002 80 83 58 63 69 40 2001 82 86 62 66 72 42 2000 83 87 65 68 74 43 1999 84 88 66 70 75 44 Page 113

HEALTH Table 5.3 : Maternal Mortality Rate in Utter Pradesh and India Year MMR -India MMR-UP (1) (2) (3) 1997-98 398 606 1999-01 327 539 2001-03 301 517 2005-06 254 440 2007-09 212 309 Table 5.4 Average age at marriage Average age at marriage Age-group Rural Urban Combined Male Female Male Female Male Female (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Less than 15 15-29 21 19 22 20 21 19 30-49 21 19 23 20 22 19 50-69 21 18 23 19 22 18 70 and above 20 17 23 19 21 18 Total 21 18 23 20 22 19 Percentage of Persons Marrying below the Legal prescribed age 20.24 14.16 11.58 9.72 18.49 13.29 Table 5. 5: Population by marital status and sex. Marital status PSMS-IV (2009/2010) Number of Persons (in '000) Percentage (%) Persons Males Females Males Females (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Never Married 527 567 482 56.7 48.3 Married 435 405 469 40.5 46.9 Widowed 36 26 48 2.6 4.8 Divorced / Separated 1 2 1 0.2 0.1 Total 1000 1000 1000 100 100 Table 5.6: Average age at marriage-by region Age-group Average age at marriage Western Central Eastern Southern Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Less than 15 15-29 21 19 21 19 21 19 20 18 30-49 23 20 22 19 21 19 21 17 50-69 23 19 21 18 21 18 20 16 70 and above 22 18 21 17 20 17 19 17 Total 22 19 21 18 21 18 20 17 Percentage of Persons 12.98 8.71 21.98 16.43 21.07 14.63 28.92 27.76 Marrying below the Legal prescribed age Page 114

HEALTH Table 5.7: Married Women Reporting Delivery in Last One Year Income level and Social group Percentage of women age 15-49 years Ever Ever married married Given birth in last 1 year among married Given birth in last 1 year among married Ever married Given birth in last 1 year among married 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV UP overall: 79.4 13.7 NA 9.4 74.6 8.2 Rural areas 82.3 14.1 NA 10.0 75.8 8.6 Urban areas 69.0 10.8 NA 6.9 69.8 6.7 By income level: Poor 80.5 18.0 NA 12.6 76.5 10.9 Middle 80.9 14.2 NA 9.6 74.7 8.2 Rich 77.0 9.4 NA 6.4 72.7 5.8 By social group: SC/ST 82.2 14.5 NA 9.8 77.6 9.3 OBC 80.1 14.1 NA 10.2 74.6 8.6 Other 75.6 12.1 NA 7.1 71.4 6.2 Table 5.8: Married Women Reporting Delivery in Last One Year by Region Percentage Of Women Age 15 49 Years Region Ever Married Given Birth In Last 1 Year Among Married Ever Married Given Birth In Last 1 Year Among Married 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western NA 10.7 72.6 9.9 Central NA 8.3 74.8 8.6 Eastern NA 8.1 75.8 6.4 Southern NA 10.0 79.3 9.2 Table 5.9: Percentage of Deliveries by Place Income level and Social group Place of Deliveries home Government health facility Private facility Total 2002/2003 PSMS-II UP overall: 84.1 6.2 9.8 100 Rural areas 88.0 5.3 6.7 100 Urban areas 61.6 11.0 27.3 100 By income level: Poor 92.7 4.7 2.6 100 Middle 83.6 5.5 10.9 100 Rich 70.6 9.6 19.9 100 By social group: SC/ST 90.9 3.8 5.4 100 OBC 85.5 7.0 7.6 100 Other 73.6 7.1 19.3 100 2007/2008 PSMS-III Page 115

HEALTH Income level and Social group Place of Deliveries home Government health facility Private facility Total UP overall: 74.2 15.5 10.4 100 Rural areas 78.7 14.1 7.2 100 Urban areas 45.2 24.0 30.8 100 By income level: Poor 78.9 12.0 9.1 100 Middle 70.6 19.8 9.6 100 Rich 70.9 15.5 13.6 100 By social group: SC/ST 78.4 13.6 8.0 100 OBC 77.7 14.1 8.2 100 Other 55.8 22.8 21.4 100 2009/2010 PSMS-IV UP overall: 52.4 33.4 14.2 100 Rural areas 54.4 34.1 11.5 100 Urban areas 42.1 29.6 28.3 100 By income level: Poor 57.7 35.4 6.9 100 Middle 52.2 35.6 12.2 100 Rich 43.9 26.9 29.2 100 By social group: SC/ST 53.7 31.6 14.6 100 OBC 54.0 34.5 11.5 100 Other 45.3 32.6 22.1 100 Table 5.10: Percentage of Deliveries by Place Region Place Of Deliveries Home Government Health Facility Private Facility Total 2007/2008 PSMS-III Western 79.6 10.6 9.8 100 Central 76.9 17.4 5.7 100 Eastern 69.8 18.8 11.5 100 Southern 62.7 32.1 5.2 100 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western 58.9 22.6 18.5 100 Central 53.1 38.7 8.3 100 Eastern 45.8 40.8 13.4 100 Southern 32.4 62.3 5.4 100 Page 116

HEALTH Table 5.11: Percentage of Women Giving Birth at Home by Person Conducting Delivery Income level and Social group WHO conducted delivery Doctor Nurse/ Trained / traditional ANM dai Friends/relatives Total Doctor Nurse/ Trained / traditional ANM dai Friends/relatives Total Doctor Nurse/ ANM Trained / traditional dai Friends/relatives Total 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP overall: 3.1 7.2 64.4 25.3 100 6.3 13.3 54.1 26.3 100 7.2 14.9 48.5 29.5 100 Rural areas 2.9 6.7 64.2 26.2 100 6.1 13.7 51.4 28.8 100 7.1 15.6 47.1 30.2 100 Urban areas 4.4 11.2 66.4 18.0 100 7.6 10.2 78.7 3.5 100 7.7 10.4 57.0 25.0 100 By income level: Poor 2.9 5.6 64.4 27.1 100 3.4 12.1 46.4 38.1 100 3.0 10.1 44.2 42.8 100 Middle 3.3 6.4 66.5 23.9 100 5.7 15.4 52.1 26.8 100 8.1 15.8 53.4 22.8 100 Rich 3.1 12.0 61.1 23.9 100 11.0 12.7 67.1 9.3 100 14.5 23.3 50.1 12.1 100 By social group: SC/ST 3.7 5.5 54.1 36.7 100 4.0 11.5 58.3 26.1 100 6.0 9.5 41.2 43.3 100 OBC 2.6 5.6 68.7 23.1 100 8.4 13.6 50.2 27.8 100 8.2 20.0 48.3 23.5 100 Other 3.5 13.4 67.5 15.6 100 3.2 17.6 59.6 19.6 100 5.7 5.5 69.2 19.6 100 Page 117

HEALTH Table 5.12: Percentage of Women Giving Birth at Home by Person Conducting Delivery by Region WHO CONDUCTED DELIVERY Region Doctor Nurse/ ANM Trained / traditional dai Friends/ relatives Total Doctor Nurse/ ANM Trained / traditional dai Friends/ relatives Total 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 4.4 14.5 71.5 9.6 100 7.8 18.6 59.1 14.5 100 Central 5.6 6.2 58.5 29.7 100 1.0 3.2 44.3 51.5 100 Eastern 10.9 17.2 28.3 43.6 100 12.2 17.7 38.6 31.5 100 Southern 0.9 20.9 48.4 29.9 100 0.0 44.5 36.9 18.6 100 Table 5.13: Percentage of Safe Deliveries by Income Level and Social Group Income level and Percentage of safe deliveries Social group 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP overall: 78.7 71.1 90.9 Rural areas 76.9 68.6 90.5 Urban areas 88.9 87.1 93.4 By income level: Poor 74.9 64.3 85.9 Middle 80.1 71.8 93.1 Rich 83.2 81.7 96.6 By social group: SC/ST 66.7 79.0 84.9 OBC 80.3 65.9 92.6 Other 88.5 75.8 95.8 Page 118

HEALTH Table 5.14 Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) Income level and Social group Percentage of persons by status Did not consult Consulted for illness Consulted for maternal/other reasons Did not feel ill 2002/03 PSMS-II UP Overall: 1.0 7.7 1.9 89.4 100 UP Rural 1.0 7.8 1.9 89.3 100 UP Urban 0.8 7.2 2.1 90.0 100 By income level: Total Poor 0.9 6.8 1.2 91.1 100 Middle 1.0 7.4 1.7 90.0 100 Rich 1.1 8.9 2.9 87.0 100 By social group: SC/ST 1.1 7.9 1.8 89.1 100 OBC 0.9 7.8 1.8 89.5 100 Other 1.0 7.3 2.3 89.4 100 2007/08 PSMS-III UP Overall: 0.6 7.6 1.6 90.2 100 UP Rural 0.6 7.9 1.5 90.1 100 UP Urban 0.5 6.7 2.2 90.6 100 By income level: Poor 0.6 6.5 1.1 91.8 100 Middle 0.5 7.6 1.5 90.4 100 Rich 0.6 8.8 2.3 88.3 100 By social group: SC/ST 0.6 8.2 1.6 89.7 OBC 0.5 7.7 1.5 90.3 100 Other 0.7 6.8 2.0 90.5 100 100 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP Overall: 0.4 4.5 0.9 94.2 100 UP Rural 0.4 4.6 0.8 94.2 100 UP Urban 0.7 4.3 1.2 93.9 100 By income level: Poor 0.5 4.1 0.5 94.8 100 Middle 0.3 4.5 0.8 94.4 100 Rich 0.4 5.0 1.4 93.2 100 By social group: SC/ST 0.6 4.6 0.8 94.0 100 OBC 0.4 4.7 0.9 94.0 100 Other 0.3 4.1 1.0 94.6 100 Page 119

HEALTH Table 5.15: Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) by Region Percentage of persons by status Region Did not consult Consulted for illness Consulted for maternal/other reasons Did not feel ill Total 2007/08 PSMS-III Western 0.5 6.7 1.7 91.2 100 Central 0.6 8.2 1.6 89.6 100 Eastern 0.5 7.6 1.6 90.3 100 Southern 0.8 8.0 1.5 89.8 100 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 0.2 4.7 0.9 94.2 100 Central 0.7 4.4 1.0 93.9 100 Eastern 0.5 4.2 0.8 94.6 100 Southern 0.0 6.9 2.4 90.7 100 Table 5.16: Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) Income level and Percentage of persons by status Social group Did not consult Consulted for illness Consulted for maternal/other reasons Total 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP Overall: 7.1 77.7 15.3 100 UP Rural 6.0 79.7 14.3 100 UP Urban 11.0 69.8 19.2 100 By income level: Poor 10.3 79.8 9.9 100 Middle 5.4 81.0 13.5 100 Rich 6.0 73.3 20.8 100 By social group: SC/ST 9.7 77.1 13.2 100 OBC 6.1 78.9 15.0 100 Other 6.3 75.1 18.7 100 Page 120

HEALTH Table 5.17: Population Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom SELF- REPORTED SYMPTOMS Percentage reporting BY RESIDENCE BY INCOME LEVEL BY RESIDENCE BY INCOME LEVEL BY RESIDENCE BY INCOME LEVEL UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN POOR MIDDLE RICH UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN POOR MIDDLE RICH UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN POOR MIDDLE RICH 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Fever 54.2 54.7 52.3 59.3 56.6 49.1 58.1 59.2 53.4 62.5 58.8 54.5 54.2 53.9 55.7 58.6 57.3 48.5 Diarrhea 7.0 7.2 6.1 8.3 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.4 7.3 5.3 7.7 8.2 5.8 9.1 7.8 6.7 Vomiting 2.0 2.1 1.5 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.6 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.3 2.2 2.5 1.5 Spinning 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.0 Cough 4.8 4.4 6.4 4.5 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.3 5.2 4.2 4.3 4.9 5.7 5.9 4.5 5.7 5.3 5.9 Stomach ache 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.6 8.3 7.8 8.1 6.1 6.6 7.5 8.8 9.3 9.7 7.6 9.8 8.2 9.9 Injury 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.5 2.7 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.6 3.8 2.8 2.8 3.4 4.3 REASONS REASONS Delivery 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 ANC/PNC 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.7 Health check-up 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.6 2.2 Immunization 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.7 0.5 1.6 2.0 Family planning services 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Others 17.7 17.4 19.2 14.0 16.6 21.1 14.2 12.6 21.6 11.3 13.2 16.9 12.3 11.2 16.7 8.8 10.3 16.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 121

HEALTH Table 5.18: Population Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom by Region SELF-REPORTED SYMPTOMS Percentage reporting By Region Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Fever 58.6 68.4 54.6 58.0 58.7 50.0 51.2 57.3 Diarrhea 6.2 4.2 6.9 6.5 7.3 6.9 9.6 3.1 Vomiting 1.4 2.3 2.0 3.8 2.0 1.0 2.8 1.4 Spinning 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.0 Cough 4.9 2.6 5.0 3.5 5.7 5.8 5.5 5.5 Stomach ache 6.5 4.7 9.0 9.1 6.7 13.1 10.8 4.5 Injury 1.9 1.4 3.4 3.3 3.6 4.6 3.3 2.3 REASONS Delivery 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 ANC/PNC 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 Health check-up 1.8 0.5 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.0 4.6 Immunization 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.3 10.5 Family planning services 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 Others 15.5 14.1 14.0 13.2 10.6 14.9 12.9 10.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 122

HEALTH Table 5.19: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level Income level and Social group Govt Private formal Private informal Others total Govt Private formal Type of consultation Private informal Others total Govt Private formal Private informal Others total 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP overall: 10.3 39.9 44.6 5.2 100 18.5 37.6 37.9 6.1 100 15.3 37.9 37.2 9.6 100 Poor 7.8 36.5 49.9 5.8 100 16.6 32.1 43.6 7.7 100 12.6 27.7 48.2 11.4 100 Middle 10.1 34.9 50.1 4.9 100 19.8 33.2 41.1 6.0 100 16.3 37.4 39.6 6.7 100 Rich 12.2 46.1 36.8 4.9 100 18.6 44.9 31.3 5.2 100 16.5 46.0 27.0 10.6 100 Rural areas: 9.6 35.2 50.2 5.1 100 18.7 34.5 41.5 5.3 100 15.4 33.4 40.9 10.3 100 Poor 6.9 34.3 53.3 5.5 100 17.3 30.8 45.2 6.8 100 11.6 26.0 49.4 13.1 100 Middle 9.4 29.3 56.3 5.0 100 19.4 30.5 44.8 5.3 100 16.1 30.8 46.0 7.1 100 Rich 11.7 40.2 43.3 4.8 100 19.1 40.1 36.5 4.3 100 17.6 40.7 31.0 10.8 100 Urban areas: 13.5 60.7 20.2 5.6 100 17.3 51.7 21.1 10.0 100 15.0 55.3 22.9 6.9 100 Poor 12.2 46.9 33.6 7.3 100 13.9 37.6 37.0 11.5 100 16.3 33.9 44.1 5.8 100 Middle 13.1 58.9 23.2 4.8 100 21.2 44.8 25.0 9.0 100 16.9 59.8 17.8 5.4 100 Rich 14.7 70.5 9.8 5.1 100 16.4 69.3 4.8 9.6 100 11.7 70.6 8.2 9.5 100 Table 5.20: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level by Region Region Type of consultation Government Private formal Private informal Others total Government Private formal Private informal Others total 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 12.4 40.5 41.9 5.3 100 13.8 40.6 34.9 10.8 100 Central 30.1 36.2 29.8 4.0 100 18.4 34.6 37.8 9.3 100 Eastern 14.8 35.9 42.1 7.2 100 13.0 35.8 41.6 9.6 100 Southern 28.1 47.7 21.2 3.0 100 27.2 46.0 23.2 3.7 100 Page 123

HEALTH Table 5.21 Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level Income level and Social group Government Private formal Private informal Others total 2009/10 PSMS-IV Poor 24.2 21.5 38.0 35.0 29.4 Middle 33.8 31.4 33.8 22.2 31.8 Rich 42.0 47.2 28.2 42.8 38.9 Rural areas: Poor 21.7 22.4 34.7 36.5 28.8 Middle 32.4 28.6 34.8 21.3 30.9 Rich 46.0 49.0 30.5 42.2 40.3 Urban areas: Poor 34.4 19.4 60.8 26.4 31.6 Middle 39.5 37.9 27.2 27.6 35.0 Rich 26.2 42.8 12.1 46.0 33.5 Table 5.22 Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level by Region Region Type of consultation Government Private formal Private informal Others total 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 33.1 39.4 34.4 41.2 36.7 Central 26.0 19.7 22.0 20.9 21.6 Eastern 30.4 33.7 40.0 35.6 35.7 Southern 10.5 7.2 3.7 2.3 5.9 Table 5.23: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level by Social group Social group Type of consultation Government Private formal Private informal Others total 2009/10 PSMS-IV SC/ST 26.2 22.7 30.0 22.3 25.9 OBC 50.4 51.1 54.6 62.4 53.4 Other 23.4 26.2 15.4 15.3 20.7 Page 124

HEALTH Table 5.24: Population Not Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Reason Reasons for not Percent reporting By residence By income level By residence By income level By residence By income level consulting UP overall Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich UP overall Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich UP overall Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Problem 30.4 28.8 39.5 32.4 31.1 28.3 4.0 4.8 0.0 0.6 9.5 2.4 31.0 38.6 15.2 25.8 36.4 33.8 not serious Home 24.5 24.8 23.0 20.5 25.7 26.7 44.2 48.3 23.7 64.4 32.1 34.9 25.1 31.3 12.3 22.7 36.3 20.1 remedy Treatment 11.0 11.4 8.6 11.8 13.2 8.4 6.2 5.8 8.2 8.9 3.8 5.7 5.9 7.9 1.9 8.7 7.3 1.3 expansive Other 4.8 5.0 3.5 8.2 3.6 3.0 8.0 9.5 0.4 10.7 10.9 2.6 2.5 3.0 1.3 0.2 6.1 2.7 reasons clubbed Repeated 24.0 24.1 23.0 19.8 20.6 30.3 30.0 24.0 60.3 10.6 36.8 43.5 32.9 15.7 68.9 41.0 9.4 39.8 old prescription Others 5.4 5.9 2.4 7.2 5.9 3.4 7.6 7.6 7.4 5.0 6.8 11.0 2.6 3.6 0.5 1.7 4.5 2.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 5.25: Population Not Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Reason by Region REASONS FOR NOT CONSULTING PERCENT REPORTING Region Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Problem not serious 1.1 4.2 4.5 0.0 49.9 15.0 34.5 0.0 Home remedy 27.5 68.7 42.6 48.4 27.0 7.5 36.6 0.0 Treatment expansive 4.5 8.3 9.2 4.0 3.2 3.5 8.6 100 Other reasons clubbed 3.4 7.5 12.4 12.8 1.0 1.4 3.8 0.0 Repeated old prescription 56.5 1.9 24.8 6.6 16.1 69.2 14.6 0.0 Others 7.1 9.5 6.5 28.2 2.8 3.4 1.9 0.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 125

HEALTH Table 5.26: Population Not Consulting Doctor/Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom Self reported symptom UP overall Percent reporting By residence By income level By residence By income level By residence By income level Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich UP overall Rural Urban Poor Middle UP Rich overall Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Fever 33.2 33.6 30.8 36.1 36.2 28.3 33.7 37.7 14.0 51.1 33.7 16.3 47.7 46.7 49.8 63.6 41.3 31.7 Diarrhea 4.9 5.1 3.8 4.9 5.8 4.1 4.1 3.1 9.3 4.9 4.2 3.2 4.5 4.7 4.0 3.2 6.6 4.7 Vomiting 3.9 3.0 9.0 3.4 2.8 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.1 4.3 0.8 2.1 2.8 3.1 2.3 0.7 5.8 3.4 Dizziness 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.2 2.4 0.6 3.2 3.0 4.3 5.8 3.6 0.1 1.6 2.2 0.2 0.7 1.2 3.0 Cough 13.2 12.8 15.7 15.1 9.8 14.7 9.8 9.7 10.1 8.4 8.7 12.2 6.9 8.5 3.5 5.5 9.1 7.0 Stomach ache 11.3 11.0 12.7 5.4 14.0 13.6 14.1 15.1 9.3 6.8 14.3 21.4 12.0 9.6 17.0 12.3 19.8 5.8 Injury 2.6 2.7 2.4 3.1 1.7 3.1 6.1 6.8 2.3 7.6 6.1 4.5 4.1 4.6 3.0 3.8 2.0 6.0 Others 29.3 30.5 23.1 30.0 27.4 30.5 26.5 22.2 48.7 11.0 28.6 40.4 20.5 20.7 20.3 10.3 14.2 38.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 5.27: Population Not Consulting Doctor/Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom by Region Self reported Percent reporting symptom Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 2007/08PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Fever 13.1 52.6 33.9 59.9 22.9 52.5 54.6 0.00 Diarrhea 5.8 4.6 5.7 0.1 9.7 0.0 5.5 0.00 Vomiting 1.6 0.0 3.1 4.0 9.0 0.1 2.2 0.00 Dizziness 2.4 0.3 6.2 2.1 1.5 0.0 2.7 0.00 Cough 17.2 6.8 7.6 7.4 15.1 2.3 6.5 100 Stomach ache 15.6 13.7 11.0 18.6 12.8 16.4 8.6 0.00 Injury 2.3 4.6 5.6 2.4 9.9 0.9 3.8 0.00 Others 42.1 17.3 26.9 5.5 19.0 27.9 16.1 0.00 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 126

HEALTH Table 5.28: Percentage of Persons (Age 6 and above) by Number of Days Unable to Work Normally Due to Illness Number of days Percent reporting By residence By income level By residence By income level By residence By income level Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich UP Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich UP Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich overall overall UP overall 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV None 33.2 31.9 38.7 35.2 31.5 33.2 34.4 33.6 38.5 33.1 34.3 35.4 38.4 38.2 39.3 39.6 34.4 40.7 One 5 5.2 3.9 5.6 5 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.7 6.3 4.8 6.4 6.4 6.1 7.6 7.1 5.0 Two 14.1 14 14.5 12.7 15.6 13.9 14.6 15.1 12.1 15.5 15.5 13.4 15.2 13.9 20.1 15.0 17.3 13.8 Three to 33.1 33.7 30.6 34.3 34.3 31.6 31.5 31.4 31.6 32.3 31.9 30.6 28.7 30.1 23.7 26.8 29.4 29.4 seven Eight to fifteen 14.7 15.2 12.2 12.2 13.7 16.8 14 14.4 12.5 13.5 12.1 15.9 11.3 11.4 10.8 11.0 11.8 11.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 5.29: Percentage of Persons (Age 6 and above) by Number of Days Unable to Work Normally Due to Illness by Region Number of days Percent reporting Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV None 26.4 24.7 42.7 43.1 38.0 46.9 38.0 8.9 One 6.2 1.4 6.1 5.2 6.6 1.3 8.0 14.3 Two 18.4 8.0 14.1 9.6 17.7 13.9 12.8 21.4 Three to seven 36.5 35.1 27.2 25.2 29.1 21.1 32.1 34.7 Eight to fifteen 12.6 30.7 9.9 16.9 8.6 16.8 9.1 20.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 127

HEALTH Table 5.30: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Attending Aganwadi in UP Income level and Percentage of children Social group 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP overall 9.8 9.4 6.3 Rural areas 10.0 10.8 7.3 Urban areas 5.9 1.7 1.6 By income level: Poor 11.4 8.8 6.8 Middle 9.8 9.6 6.4 Rich 7.4 10.4 5.2 By social group: SC/ST 12.0 12.1 8.8 OBC 9.1 8.7 5.5 Other 8.5 7.8 4.6 Table 5.31: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Attending Aganwadi in UP by Region Region Percentage of children 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 6.9 4.1 Central 16.1 11.0 Eastern 7.2 6.2 Southern 19.1 7.1 Page 128

HEALTH Table 5.32: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional Supplement Income level and Intensity of receiving the nutritional supplement Social group Always Sometimes Never Total Always Sometimes Never Total Always Sometimes Never Total 2002/03 PSMS-II 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP Rural 77.2 17.7 5.1 100 88.0 11.9 0.1 100 82.6 17.1 0.4 100 By income level: Poor 77.4 18.5 4.2 100 86.1 14.0 0.0 100 78.6 21.1 0.3 100 Middle 76.1 19.2 4.8 100 87.9 12.1 0.0 100 88.1 11.9 0.0 100 Rich 78.8 13.6 7.6 100 90.8 8.8 0.3 100 81.4 17.4 1.2 100 By social group: SC/ST 81.3 12.1 6.6 100 85.3 14.8 0.0 100 84.2 15.7 0.1 100 OBC 73.8 20.4 5.8 100 88.8 11.2 0.0 100 82.6 16.9 0.5 100 Other 78.3 21.7 0.0 100 91.9 7.5 0.6 100 77.6 21.6 0.8 100 UP Urban 78.6 21.2 0.2 100 86.8 13.2 0.0 100 91.7 8.3 0.0 100 By income level: Poor 80.5 19.3 0.3 100 80.9 19.1 0.0 100 91.5 8.6 0.0 100 Middle 74.7 25.3 0.0 100 95.0 5.0 0.0 100 92.7 7.4 0.0 100 Rich 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 86.8 13.2 0.0 100 By social group: SC/ST 83.4 16.6 0.0 100 58.3 41.7 0.0 100 94.4 5.7 0.0 100 OBC 93.9 5.8 0.3 100 94.6 5.4 0.0 100 89.3 10.7 0.0 100 Other 10.1 89.9 0.0 100 88.3 11.7 0.0 100 94.3 5.7 0.0 100 Page 129

HEALTH Table 5.33: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional Supplement by Region Region Intensity of receiving the nutritional supplement Always Sometimes Never Total Always Sometimes Never Total 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 81.5 18.6 0.0 100 74.9 23.8 1.3 100 Central 87.1 13.0 0.0 100 85.4 14.5 0.1 100 Eastern 93.4 6.3 0.3 100 85.0 15.0 0.0 100 Southern 92.6 7.4 0.0 100 97.0 3.0 0.0 100 Table 5.34: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Liking the Nutritional Supplement Income level Intensity of liking the nutritional supplement and Social Yes No Don't Total Yes No Don't group say say 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV UP overall 73.3 17.0 9.7 100 68.7 17.2 14.2 100 Rural areas 73.1 16.9 10.0 100 69.4 16.5 14.0 100 Urban areas 82.2 17.8 0.0 100 53.0 30.1 16.9 100 By income level: Poor 71.6 17.8 10.5 100 67.6 22.6 9.8 100 Middle 69.3 20.4 10.3 100 68.1 15.2 16.8 100 Rich 80.9 11.4 7.7 100 72.4 8.2 19.4 100 By social group SC/ST 74.3 18.1 7.6 100 70.7 14.4 15.0 100 OBC 73.3 16.1 10.6 100 66.0 20.3 13.8 100 Other 71.2 17.1 11.7 100 72.5 14.4 13.1 100 Total Table 5.35: Percentage of Children (0 6 Years) Liking the Nutritional Supplement by Region Region Intensity of liking the nutritional supplement Yes No Don't say Total Yes No Don't say Total 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 62.0 27.8 10.2 100 57.1 21.5 21.3 100 Central 90.4 5.8 3.8 100 78.4 14.2 7.4 100 Eastern 70.4 14.7 14.9 100 68.8 14.4 16.8 100 Southern 68.0 25.2 6.8 100 60.4 39.6 0.0 100 Page 130

HEALTH Table 5.36: Percentage of Females receiving Janani suraksha yojana within 12 months Income level and Social group Households receiving benefit (Percent) Yes No Total Yes No Total 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV POOR 5.5 94.5 100 28.1 71.9 100 MIDDLE 8.8 91.2 100 24.9 75.1 100 RICH 14.5 85.5 100 16.4 83.6 100 Social group SC/ST 12.8 87.2 100 27.3 72.7 100 OBC 6.3 93.7 100 25.4 74.6 100 OTHER 10.7 89.4 100 14.7 85.4 100 Total 8.8 91.2 100 24.1 75.9 100 Table 5.37: Percentage of Females receiving Janani suraksha yojana within 12 months by Region Region Households receiving benefit (Percent) Yes No Total Yes No Total 2007/08 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Western 4.0 96.0 100 14.3 85.7 100 Central 17.1 82.9 100 36.3 63.7 100 Eastern 7.5 92.5 100 24.3 75.7 100 Southern 25.1 74.9 100 60.9 39.1 100 Page 131

HEALTH Table 5.38 : Marital Status of the Population by Sex and age-gp Age-group Single men 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Rural Men Single Married Divorced Widowers Total women PSMS-IV Women Married Divorced Widows Total Less than 15 66 0 0 0 37 75 0 0 0 36 15-29 32 21 2 20 27 25 31 1 27 27 30-49 1 50 19 48 22 0 47 14 41 23 50-69 0 25 46 31 12 0 20 53 32 12 70 and above 0 4 33 2 3 0 2 32 0 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Urban Less than 15 56 0 0 0 32 64 0 0 0 31 15-29 42 16 1 3 30 35 26 1 20 29 30-49 2 55 20 45 24 1 54 19 66 26 50-69 0 26 46 52 12 0 19 54 11 12 70 and above 0 4 32 0 2 0 1 27 2 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Combined Less than 15 63 0 0 0 35 71 0 0 0 34 15-29 35 20 1 16 28 28 29 1 24 27 30-49 2 51 20 47 23 0 49 16 53 24 50-69 0 25 46 35 12 0 20 53 22 12 70 and above 0 4 33 2 3 0 2 30 1 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 5.39 : Population by marital status and sex. Marital status 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Number of Persons ( in '000) Percentage (%) Persons Males Females Males Females PSMS-IV Never Married 527 567 482 56.7 48.3 Married 435 405 469 40.5 46.9 Widowed 36 26 48 2.6 4.8 Divorced / Separated 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.1 Total 1,000 1,000 1,000 100 100 Page 132

HEALTH Table 5.40: Age at marriage by sex and marital status Age-group 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Less than 15 Men 15-29 30-49 50-69 70 and above Marriage age groups Less than 15 Women 15-29 30-49 50-69 70 and above PSMS-IV Rural Less than 18 0 15 13 20 33 0 51 52 59 69 19-21 0 51 41 37 32 0 40 36 31 24 22-24 0 30 31 28 22 0 8 9 7 5 25-27 0 5 11 11 7 0 1 2 2 2 28-30 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 31-33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34-36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 and 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 above Total 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 Urban Less than 18 0 6 6 8 18 0 32 40 47 56 19-21 0 38 29 31 30 0 45 39 35 28 22-24 0 41 33 31 19 0 19 15 13 8 25-27 0 15 22 21 22 0 4 5 3 5 28-30 0 1 9 7 6 0 0 1 1 1 31-33 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 34-36 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 37 and 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 above Total 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 Combined Less than 18 0 14 11 17 30 0 48 49 57 67 19-21 0 49 39 36 32 0 41 37 32 24 22-24 0 31 32 28 22 0 10 10 8 6 25-27 0 6 14 13 10 0 1 3 2 2 28-30 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 1 1 0 31-33 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 34-36 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 and 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 above Total 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 Page 133

HEALTH Table 5.41: Average age at marriage Age-group Average age at marriage Rural Urban Combined Male Female Male Female Male Female PSMS-IV Less than 15 15-29 21 19 22 20 21 19 30-49 21 19 23 20 22 19 50-69 21 18 23 19 22 18 70 and above 20 17 23 19 21 18 Total 21 18 23 20 22 19 Percentage of Persons Marrying below the Legal prescribed age 20.2 14.2 11.6 9.7 18.5 13.3 Table 5.42: Average age at marriage-by region Age-group Average age at marriage Western Central Eastern Southern Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female PSMS-IV Less than 15 15-29 21 19 21 19 21 19 20 18 30-49 23 20 22 19 21 19 21 17 50-69 23 19 21 18 21 18 20 16 70 and above 22 18 21 17 20 17 19 17 Total 22 19 21 18 21 18 20 17 Percentage of Persons Marrying below the Legal prescribed age 13.0 8.7 22.0 16.4 21.1 14.6 28.9 27.8 Page 134

HEALTH Table 5.43: Percentage of migrants by place of last residence Migrations by 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Place of last residence Migrants from village/ town Migrants from within the districts Migrants from other districts of the state Migrants from other states in India Migrants from other countries Total Population Total Migrations PSMS-IV Rural 73.7 20.2 5.3 0.7 0.0 137,034,102 114,647,461 Urban 67.7 19.0 11.3 2.0 0.1 33,914,135 29,114,069 Combined 72.5 19.9 6.5 1.0 0.0 170,948,237 143,761,530 By Region: Western 72.7 17.3 8.6 1.5 0.0 63,777,994 52,879,659 Central 72.5 20.5 6.4 0.5 0.1 35,283,860 30,156,944 Eastern 72.0 22.7 4.8 0.6 0.1 65,587,309 55,366,118 Southern 76.5 14.5 5.7 3.3 0.0 6,299,074 5,358,809 By Income Level: Bottom third 75.0 19.7 4.6 0.7 0.0 57,045,756 45,675,305 Middle third 73.2 20.0 5.8 0.9 0.0 56,942,984 47,649,491 Top third 69.6 20.0 9.0 1.4 0.1 56,959,497 50,436,734 By Social group: SC 78.7 15.5 4.8 0.9 0.0 2,446,105 2,075,513 ST 73.4 20.7 5.1 0.7 0.0 40,847,028 33,656,158 OBC 73.2 19.8 6.2 0.8 0.0 89,273,628 74,759,048 Others 69.7 19.7 8.9 1.6 0.1 38,381,476 33,270,811 Table 5.44: Percentage of migrants by place of last residence Migrations 2009/2010 PSMS-IV by Place of last residence Migrants from village/ town Migrants from within the districts Migrants from other districts of the state Migrants from other states in India Migrants from other countries Total Population Total Migrations PSMS-IV Male Rural 98.0 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 72,188,057 60,348,955 Urban 84.4 8.1 6.0 1.4 0.1 18,202,157 15,585,261 Combined 95.2 2.7 1.5 0.5 0.0 90,390,214 75,934,216 Female Rural 46.7 41.1 10.8 1.2 0.1 64,846,045 54,298,506 Urban 48.5 31.5 17.3 2.6 0.1 15,711,978 13,528,808 Combined 47.1 39.2 12.1 1.5 0.1 80,558,023 67,827,314 Page 135

HEALTH Table 5.45: The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child along with sex ratio and survival rates Sector Number of children ever born Children surviving Survivors (per 1000) Male Female Male Female Male Female PSMS-IV Rural 33436453 27820953 32439496 26823095 970 964 Urban 8365640 6668604 8245769 6524488 986 978 Combined 41802093 34489557 40685265 33347583 973 967 Table 5.46: Percentage of Deliveries by Place and by age-group Age-group Place of delivery Rural Urban Combined Home Other Home Other Home Other PSMS-IV 15 19 3.1 3.4 0.1 1.0 2.7 3.0 20 24 32.0 37.4 34.6 30.4 32.4 36.1 25 29 32.9 33.8 39.2 37.9 33.7 34.6 30 34 19.9 15.6 17.9 22.4 19.6 17.0 35 39 10.3 8.2 7.2 7.1 9.9 8.0 40 44 1.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.5 0.7 45 49 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 Tablec 5.47 : The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child along with sex ratio and survival rates Marriage age-gp Number of children ever born Children surviving Survivors (per 1000) Male Female Male Female Male Female PSMS-IV 15 1553382 1248866 1507053 1174633 970 941 16 3489240 2959706 3355533 2824074 962 954 17 4465242 3575043 4298751 3422276 963 957 18 11824318 9829529 11531992 9558747 975 972 19 5360020 4112377 5191647 3954228 969 962 20-24 14329564 12128146 14030518 11819750 979 975 25-29 724663 597040 714205 557866 986 934 30-34 47599 32953 47501 31327 998 951 35-39 2271 2813 2271 2813 1000 1000 40-44 5794 3084 5794 1869 1000 606 All Ages 41802093 34489557 40685265 33347583 973 967 Page 136

HEALTH Table 5.48: The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child along with sex ratio and survival rates(sample DATA) Marriage age-gp Number of children ever born Children surviving Survivors (per 1000) Male Female Male Female Male Female PSMS-IV 15 1856 1539 1792 1452 966 943 16 3645 3147 3536 3042 970 967 17 4931 4180 4773 4042 968 967 18 13573 11326 13272 11022 978 973 19 6063 4831 5864 4662 967 965 20-24 16450 13788 16153 13419 982 973 25-29 943 837 923 804 979 961 30-34 57 49 55 47 965 959 35-39 6 7 6 7 1000 1000 40-44 14 4 14 3 1000 750 45-49 47538 39708 46388 38500 976 970 Table 5.49: Average age at marriage Average age at marriage Age-group Rural Urban Combined Male Female Male Female Male Female PSMS-IV Less than 15 15 14.7 14.1 14.7 14.4 14.7 14.1 16 15.0 14.5 15.0 15.8 15.0 14.6 17 16.4 16.0 16.7 16.8 16.4 16.1 18 17.1 17.0 17.3 17.3 17.1 17.0 19-20 18.6 18.1 18.9 18.1 18.6 18.1 21-24 20.4 18.9 20.8 19.5 20.4 19.0 25-29 21.2 19.0 22.5 20.3 21.5 19.3 30-34 21.6 18.8 23.5 20.0 22.0 19.0 35-39 21.5 18.5 23.1 19.6 21.8 18.7 40-44 21.3 18.7 22.7 19.4 21.6 18.9 45-49 21.6 18.7 23.1 19.5 21.9 18.8 50 and above 21.1 17.9 22.8 19.1 21.4 18.1 Total 21.2 18.5 22.8 19.5 21.5 18.7 Page 137

HEALTH Table 5.50 : The number of children ever born and surviving by sex of the child along with sex ratio and survival rates Number of children ever Marriage Children surviving Survivors (per 1000) born age-gp Male Female Male Female Male Female PSMS-IV 15 1553382 1248866 1507053 1174633 970 941 16 3489240 2959706 3355533 2824074 962 954 17 4465242 3575043 4298751 3422276 963 957 18 11824318 9829529 11531992 9558747 975 972 19 5360020 4112377 5191647 3954228 969 962 20 8273903 6948912 8082710 6766968 977 974 21 2430074 1964754 2378421 1901827 979 968 22 2179834 1953036 2135521 1920513 980 983 23 880798 744685 871508 725975 989 975 24 564955 516759 562358 504467 995 976 25 404311 335577 395944 300175 979 895 26 203272 143007 202141 141903 994 992 27 51586 51137 50626 48647 981 951 28 60892 62724 60892 62724 1000 1000 29 4602 4595 4602 4417 1000 961 30 22380 24274 22282 22648 996 933 31 2119 2682 2119 2682 1000 1000 32 20489 5223 20489 5223 1000 1000 33 704 774 704 774 1000 1000 34 1907 0 1907 0 1000 0 35 0 1167 0 1167 0 1000 36 304 608 304 608 1000 1000 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 1967 1038 1967 1038 1000 1000 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 2056 0 2056 0 1000 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 2430 2430 2430 1215 1000 500 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 1308 654 1308 654 1000 1000 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 138

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES 6. HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES 6.1 INTRODUCTION The need to provide adequate, suitable and equitable housing has remained a major priority of government. Housing is a basic necessity of life, yet major population of our country in general and UP in particular, are forced to live in poor housing condition, where they have no access to adequate amenities of sanitary, water and warmth to meet their daily physical needs. Adequate housing is one of the effective means to alleviate poverty because shelter is usually the most expensive item for the households. It is also a pre-requisite for good health. Beside it, state of Uttar Pradesh is lagging behind from many state of our country in above pointed aspects. The level of welfare of a household depends on the quality, sufficiency, availability and accessibility of the above stated basic amenities to the household. Data on the structural aspects of dwelling units and basic housing amenities such as drinking water, bathroom, sewerage, latrine, lighting, etc. available to the households were collected in PSMS IV like other PSMS rounds. In addition, it is widely accepted that the standard of living of a households are directly affected by the structural aspects of dwelling unit, basic facilities and amenities available to the households as well as their accessibility to get these services. Beside from housing characteristic, the survey also collected information on household amenities such as clean water, sanitation, electricity and the accessibility to these services because provision of basic services such as piped water, sanitation systems, and electricity has been remained important goal of state developmental planning. an 6.2 STRUCTURE OF DWELLING While discussing the structure of the dwelling units, the first thing that comes in one s mind is the materials from which the houses are constructed. The dwelling units are generally made up of two types of materials broadly classified as- pucca and katcha. Therefore, the dwelling units are categorised as pucca or katcha. Page 140

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Overall 64.6 percent of dwelling in the state of Uttar Pradesh were found to be made of from Pucca material in year 2009-10 with increase of about 6 percent point from Figure 6.1 Percentage of dwellings with Pucca building material in UP Rural 86.4 84.9 49.3 52.2 Urban 58.2 89.1 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 last PSMS round 2007-08. Significantly large 31 percent point variation has been observed between rural and urban sector in Pucca structure of dwelling as presented in Figure 6.1. It is clear from aforesaid figure that in UP, about 58 percent of the rural and 89 percent of the urban households lived in pucca structures in year 2009-10. Rural dwellers get more increase compared to urban dwellers from PSMS round-iii to IV. Figure 6.2(a) Percentage of dwellings with Pucca building material in Rural areas Poor Middle Rich 64.9 57.8 48.3 50.8 38.3 36.5 40.9 57.8 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 to IV(see Table 6.1). 71.6 About 59 percent dwelling structure of poor income groups were still katcha in rural sector whereas it was about only 24 percent in context of urban households in 2009-10. Comparing from last PSMS round by income group, it is found that residing of households in Pucca dwelling increased across all income groups and in both sector from PSMS round III Analysing structure of dwelling by region, it is found that overall highest 78 percent structure of dwelling of Western region s residents are made of with Pucca structure fallowed by Eastern (60.7 percent) region in year 2009-10. The share of Pucca dwelling structure was found lowest in Central (50.1 percent) fallowed by Southern region (55.7 percent). Similar pattern in share of pucca dwelling was also found in rural as well as in urban sector across all regions (see Table 6.2 ). Further looking Page 141

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES structure of dwelling by sector and across all region it is found that rural dwellers of Southern region s poor income group Figure 6.2(b) Percentage of dwellings with Pucca building material in Urban areas Poor Middle Rich 95.2 86.5 86.2 93.0 89.6 96.7 72.2 70.2 76.2 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 78.0 70.5 has only 21.3 percent Pucca dwelling unit which is least among all regions and it is fallowed by Central region (26.4 percent). Highest 57.5 percent Pucca dwelling structure in rural poor income group of Western region s households have been seen in PSMS round-iv fallowed by Eastern region s dwellers (43.8 percent). Similar pattern has been also found in urban sector s poor income group dwelling structure. Over the period of PSMS round III and IV, the share of Pucca dwelling structure in both sector and income group significantly increased except Central region where it get marginal change. It is notable that middle income group related to urban part of Central region showed significant reduction in pucca dwelling structure where as other three regions showed significant increase in pucca dwelling structure over the PSMS round III to IV(see Figure 6.3). Figure 6.3 Percentage of dwellings with Pucca building material by regions 2007/08 2009/10 49.3 50.1 60.7 53.9 37.8 55.7 Western Central Eastern Southern 6.3 ACCESS TO WATER Availability of ample quantity of water for drinking and all other purposes are basic necessities of human being because with out water life of any living being seems to be very difficult even sometimes impossible. Specially deprived class of our society faces problem of accessibly of water for drinking and other purposes. Availability of clean drinking water is one of the most basic human needs. Page 142

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES People of India in general and Uttar Pradesh in particular has accessibility of drinking water from many Figure 6.4(a) Percentage of households by main source of Drinking Water in Rural area Hand Pump 81.2% Other 0.2% Tap 14.4% Well 4.3% Figure 6.4(b) Percentage of households by main source of Drinking Water in Urban area Hand Pump 42.3% Well 1.4% sources like Well, Tap, Handpump, Tank/pond/reservoir, river/canal/lake etc. Some of these sources give clean and safe drinking water whereas some do not give that type of water. Under PSMS rounds from very beginning, data were collected on access to water from various sources. The study of the drinking water facility requires analysing the access to different sources of drinking water and sufficiency of drinking water. The accessibility component has other aspects, such as distance travelled to the source of drinking water and whether the source is shared with other households or is for exclusive use of households. About 98 percent households of the state reported water available in all 12 months. Hand-pumps Other 3.0% Tap 53.3% remains the most common source of drinking water supply in UP, with about 73 percent population of state reporting this to be their main drinking water source during 2009-10. The second most common source of drinking water reported by 22.5 percent households as Tap. The share of well was estimated only about 4 percent (see Table 6.3). Quit large sectoral difference has been seen regarding main source. Tap has been reported as the main source of drinking water in urban areas (53.3 percent), whereas it is only 14 percent in context of rural area. Apposite to Tap, Hand-pump Page 143

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES remained most popular source of drinking water in rural areas (81.2 percent) where as it was reported about half (42.3 percent) by urban households as the main source of drinking water. From the Table 6.4, changes in the share of the different sources of drinking water over the period from 2002-03 to 2009-10 can be studied. In UP, there has been gradual increase in the share of the source Tap, and a corresponding decrease in the share of Well. In 2003, nearly 14 percent of the households used Tap as source of drinking water, which rose to cover nearly 23 percent of households in 2009-10. It is seen that during 2009-10, nearly 63 percent households in UP had access to drinking water within premises and nearly 36 percent had to travel a distance upto 0.5 k.m. outside the premises and very little (nearly 0.5 percent) households had to travel a distance beyond 0.5 k.m. but within 1.0 k.m. for collection of drinking water. Considerable rural-urban differences exist in this respect. In rural areas, majority of Figure 6.5 Percentage of households having main source of Drinking Water within premises 79.6 Rural Urban 83 81.5 57.4 55.5 58.4 PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) the households had drinking water outside the premises and had to travelled to access the source of drinking water whereas in urban areas reverse situation prevailed and majority of the households had access to source of drinking water within the premises. In rural areas, nearly 58 percent of the households had drinking water facility within the premises where as in the urban areas the situation was much better i.e. nearly 82 percent of the households had drinking water facility within the premises. Page 144

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Drinking water facility within the premises was also more common in rich income group households. In rural areas Figure 6.5 Percentage of households having main source of Drinking Water within premises by income groups PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Rural Urban Western more than half (65 percent) of the most affluent households where as only 48 percent of the poor households, have water facility within the premises. However in context of urban households, about 70 percent poor income group people have drinking water sources within their premises and in case of rich income group people it was more high i.e. about 91 percent households have drinking water source within premises. It is seen over the period from 2002-03 to 2009-10, in both the rural and urban areas, there has been considerable improvement in the availability of drinking water within premises thus signifying that percentage of households who were required to undertake travelling to access drinking water facility declined over the years. In 2007-08, nearly 61 Figure 6.6 Percentage of households having main source of Drinking Water within premises by region Central PSMS-III(2007-08) Rural Eastern Southern Western PSMS-IV(2009-10) percent of the households had drinking water facility within premises which increased to 63 percent in 2009-10. Consequent to an increase in the percentage of households with drinking water facility within premises, a resultant steady decline in the proportion of households with drinking water facility outside premises was observed during this time period. In 2002-03, nearly 38 percent households had drinking water facility outside premises but within 0.5 km and this situation improved in year 2009-10 where nearly 36 percent of the households had drinking water facility outside premises but within 0.2 km of distance from their premises (see Table 6.4). Central Urban Eastern Southern Page 145

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Inter regional comparison of household s main source of drinking water within their premises shows that Southern region s households have least drinking water source within their premises (34.7 percent). Rural households of Southern region were more adversely affected compared to urban households of the same region (see Table 6.5). Highest main source of drinking water within premises was found for Western region s households. Sectoral and inter regional comparison shows that rural part of Western (68.1 percent) and urban part of Eastern region s (87.5 percent) household had highest main source of water within their premises. Over the period of PSMS round III and IV, household s main source of drinking water within premises worsen in each region (see Table 6.6). It is also found that poor household s main source of drinking water within premises worsen in each sector and region except Central where it registered marginal increase (see Table 6.8). 6.4 SANITATION FACILITIES Sanitation means provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human waste. Inadequate sanitation is a main cause of many diseases and therefore improving sanitation is known to have a Covered drains Figure 6.7 Type of Sanitation System PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Open drains Soak pit Other No system significant positive impact on health of households and communities. Generally poor households deprived from adequate sanitation facilities. Keeping importance of it, the government under number of its innovative efforts to improve sanitation including the community led Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) and the monetary rewards under the Nirmal Gram Puraskar Yojna. Government of India had set a target of universal household sanitation coverage by 2012 at the time of launching its flagship TSC scheme in 1991. But state of Uttar Pradesh with many other states of country is still far behind to achieve the target. Data on having various sanitation facilities by Page 146

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES households are collected under PSMS surveys. Proper drainage arrangement meant a system of easy carrying-off waste water and liquid waste of the house without any overflow or seepage. This is an essential requirement for maintaining hygienic condition surrounding the house. PSMS-IV data shows that over all 21.5 percent households in state have no any system of drainage while 61.4 percent household reported open drainage system. Only 14.0 percent households reported covered drains (Figure 6.9). Soak pit and other type of drain has been seen little share (3.2 percent household) (see Table 6.9). The share of the population with no sanitation system was much higher in Eastern as Figure 6.8 Type of Sanitation System by region PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Covered drains Open drains Soak pit Other No system Covered drains Open drains Soak pit Other No system Covered drains Open drains Soak pit Other No system Covered drains Open drains Soak pit Other No system Western Central Eastern Southern compared to other regions (see Table 6.10). Access to covered/open drains in urban areas are quite high, even among the poor it is close to 92 percent of the poorest onethird of the urban population in UP was connected to such facilities, compared to around 63 percent of the poor in rural areas (see Table 6.11). Over the period of PSMS III to IV, no significant change has been occur in drainage system of Uttar Pradesh. It is interesting that only 3.8 percent households of Western region showed no drainage system. Further it is remarkable that Southern region has considerable high share of covered drainage compared to other regions (see Table 6.12). Page 147

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Flush system Figure 6.9 Type of Latrine in the Household Premises PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Septic tank Rural Other No latrine Flush system Flush system Septic tank Other Septic tank No latrine Urban Flush system Other Septic tank Other No latrine Figure 6.10 Type of Latrine in the Household Premises PSMS-III(2007-08) No latrine Flush system Septic tank Breaking down the population of UP by access to type of latrine, the first point that emerges on an examination of PSMS- IV data is that in state as whole, 61 percent of the household does not have access to latrines of any type (see Table 6.13). This figure is so high for rural areas that 72.5 percent households have no access to any type of latrine where as it is only 17.8 percent in context of urban households. As it is known that congested living arrangement of urban area necessitated more urgently access to latrines because these types of living arrangements raise considerably the health risks associated with lack of sanitation infrastructure. Inter regional consideration of access to latrine indicates that Eastern PSMS-IV(2009-10) region of state is more Western Central Eastern Southern disastrous among all regions where about three-fourth of the total population is found no access to latrine. However Western region is in better condition in access to latrine among all regions but about 47 percent households of it are still no access to latrine (see Table 6.14). Looking the data by sector and region, it is found that overall highest about 87 Other No latrine Flush system Septic tank Other No latrine Page 148

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES percent urban dwellers of Western had access to latrine facility where as it is least in context of rural dwellers of Eastern (21.3 percent) fallowed by Southern and Central region. Over the period of PSMS-III to IV, no significant improvement has been observed in access to latrine. A latrine of flush system type is generally considered to be the best among all types Figure 6.11 Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Rural Urban of latrine, in respect of hygiene. It is seen from Table 6.13 that overall 18.6 percent of households have Flush system of latrine in the premises of household. But this figure is comparably very low in rural areas (10.2 percent) and relatively high in urban areas (50.7 percent). However, the situation has improved over the seven years. At that time, only 6 percent of dwelling units in the rural areas and 42 percent of dwelling units in the urban had Flush latrine within the premises. Coming back to the present survey, the households belonging to higher income group were found to be much better placed in this respect in both rural and urban areas. 67 percent of dwelling units of the urban households of the top most income group had the Flush type of latrine facilities as against 29 percent of dwelling units of the urban households of the poorest one-third of the population, and 4 percent of the rural households of poorest one-third (see Table 6.15). Inter regional lookup of data on households with Flush Latrines in their premises, it is found that Eastern region's 9 percent households only have Flush system of latrines within their premises where as it is found highest for Western region where it is about 29 percent. Rural - urban regional diagnostic of data shows that rural part of Central as well as Eastern region have as least as about only 5 percent households have Flush System of latrine within their premises where as in context of urban sector this minimal figure is Page 149

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES for Eastern region as 39 percent. This figure in maximum side was 19.5 percent in rural part of Western region and 67.4 percent in urban part of Southern region (see Table 6.16). Analysing households with Flush Latrines within their premises by region and income group, it is found that having of Flush latrine within premises of households belonging to poor income group households of different regions have gap more than thrice between rural and urban sector's households in different regions. Gap in this figure between poor and rich among different regions are also very high. Generally increase in Flush latrine type has been observed in both sectors by income group and regions over the period of PSMS round III and IV. Figure 6.12 Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises by region Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Rural PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Urban 6.5 ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY Access to electricity is acknowledged crucial part of all development and poverty alleviation programmes because certain basic activities and household appliances are not possible to work without electricity. UN Commission for Sustainable Development also accepted need of electricity accessibility in context of development. Electricity as an important basic infrastructure service, it is provided publicly by the state government in Uttar Pradesh. All four PSMS rounds collected information on household with electricity connection and average number of hours electricity available per day. Page 150

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES 6.5.1 ELECTRICITY CONNECTION Figure 6.13 Percentage of households with electricity connection PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) 23.3 28.5 Rural 34.0 80.7 84.6 Urban 84.1 Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Rural PSMS-IV shows that about 44 percent of the households had electricity connection in state. While in rural areas, nearly 34 percent households had electricity connection, in the urban areas this proportion was nearly 84 percent. In rural areas, about 19 percent households of the poor income class had electricity connection which is quit higher for rich income group and is at the level of about 48 percent (see Table6.17). The trend in the urban sector seems some different and even 61 percent poor income class group households had access to electricity while the coverage of electricity was nearly complete (97 percent) for the households in the rich income class of urban sector. Overall households with electricity connection has been increased over the period of PSMS round-ii to IV. Significant increase has been occur in all Figure 6.14 Percentage of households with electricity connection by income groups PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Urban income group of rural sector where as only marginal change has been occur in context of urban sector's all income group. Page 151

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Western region's households found highest about 56 percent electricity connection fallowed by Southern region (46.6 perent). Lowest 31.6 percent Central region's households found with electricity connection fallowed by Eastern region (40.4 percent). Analysing electricity connection by sector and region, Central region's households found 37.7 44 Figure 6.15 Percentage of households with electricity connection by region 21.2 17 PSMS-III(2007-08) 27.5 34.5 20.5 34.9 Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Rural 87.4 PSMS-IV(2009-10) 85.8 86.6 78.3 Urban 84.9 87.3 67.2 83.1 lowest percent of electricity connection in both rural and urban sector. It is found highest in Western (44.0 percent) region in context of rural sector while it was highest in Eastern region (87.3 percent) in context of urban sector. Electricity connection found lowest in poor income group for Central region for both sectors. Households having electricity connection found substantial variation by income group across all regions and sectors. Over the period of PSMS III and IV, all regions of state (except Central) showed sign of increase in electricity connection. Similar trend of change has been observed for rural sector across all regions whereas slight different trend has occur in context of urban part of all region (see Table 6.17) 6.5.2 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: AVERAGE HOURS PER DAY Although only 44 percent households of UP had electricity connection, even that state regularly faces power crises because demand for electricity frequently exceeds supply significantly which result power cut. Most of UP dwellers have poor reliability on electricity supply. PSMS-IV data show that only 9 percent households of UP report a steady supply of electricity more than 15 hours a day, and as many as 12 percent of consumers have 15 or fewer hours of electricity each day. 22 percent have a 5 to 10 Page 152

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES hour supply per day, and about 56 percent do not have any electricity service (See Figure 6.16). Looking the data of average hours per day of electricity supply, it is found that rural dwellers of state get quit less electricity supply compared to urban. About 66.0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 6.16 Percentage of households with average hours per day of Electricity Supply No connectionless than 5 hrs 5 10 hours 10 15 hours 15 + hours PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) percent rural dwellers had no electricity connection in year 2009-10 and it was only 16 percent in context of urban dwellers. Supply of electricity on an average hours per day in rural sector seems to worsen compared to urban dwellers because only 10 percent rural dwellers reported electricity supply 10 hours or more which was about 63 percent in context of urban dwellers(see Table6.19). Region wise analysis of average hours per day electricity supply show that 15 hours or more electricity supply are availed by 11.6 percent Western region's households fallowed by Central and Southern region households. It is important to mention that only 5.1 percent households of Eastern region get electricity supply Figure 6.17 Percentage of households with average hours per day of Electricity Supply by region 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) No connection Less than 5 hrs 5 10 hours 10 15 hours 15 + hours No connection Less than 5 hrs 5 10 hours 10 15 hours 15 + hours No connection Less than 5 hrs 5 10 hours 10 15 hours 15 + hours No connection Less than 5 hrs 5 10 hours 10 15 hours 15 + hours Western Central Eastern Southern Page 153

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES more than 15+ hours per day. 26 percent households of Western and 24 percent household of Eastern region get supply of electricity between 5 to 10 hours daily only. Regional analysis of average hours electricity supply by sector shows that highest Southern region's rural as well as urban households getting electricity supply 10 hours and more compared to other regions. The same thing was lowest for Central region's households in both sectors (see Table 6.20).Over the period of PSMS-III to IV, some improvement has been occur in power supply of state(see Table 6.19). Page 154

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.1: Structure of Dwelling Location and Income Group Pucca dwelling (percent) 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 56.7 58.7 64.6 Rural Areas 49.3 52.2 58.2 Poor 38.3 36.5 40.9 Middle 48.3 50.8 57.8 Rich 57.8 64.9 71.6 Urban Areas 86.4 84.9 89.1 Poor 72.2 70.2 76.2 Middle 86.5 86.2 89.6 Rich 95.2 93.0 96.7 Table 6.2: Structure of Dwelling by Region Location Pucca dwelling (percent)-by Region and 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Income Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Group Over All 70.5 49.3 53.9 37.8 78.0 50.1 60.7 55.7 Rural 63.2 38.6 50.2 32.8 73.1 38.9 56.9 47.9 Areas Poor 46.6 19.6 38.7 15.7 57.5 26.4 43.8 21.3 Middle 60.1 36.3 52.0 25.1 68.7 40.2 58.1 46.4 Rich 73.2 55.3 61.2 43.5 82.0 55.1 67.9 62.9 Urban 88.6 86.0 85.2 54.5 90.4 86.1 91.6 79.9 Areas Poor 71.7 70.6 71.6 51.3 80.4 69.2 78.1 51.3 Middle 90.9 90.3 87.0 42.8 91.7 81.3 94.3 79.4 Rich 95.7 91.4 96.5 66.0 96.7 96.5 97.4 94.7 Table 6.3: Main source of Drinking water Drinking water Percentage of households Rural Urban Total Main Source Tap 14.4 53.3 22.5 Well 4.3 1.4 3.7 Hand-pump 81.2 42.3 73.1 Other 0.2 3.0 0.8 Total 100 100 100 Distance Within premises 58.4 81.5 63.3 < 0.5 km 41.0 18.0 36.2 0.5 1 km 0.5 0.2 0.4 More than 1 km 0.1 0.3 0.1 Total 100 100 100 Water available all 12 months (%) 98.2 98.4 98 Page 155

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.4: Main source of Drinking water Drinking water Percentage of households 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Main Source Tap 14.0 24.7 22.5 Well 8.8 5.0 3.7 Hand-pump 76.8 69.8 73.1 Other 0.4 0.5 0.8 Total 100 100 100 Distance Within premises 61.0 64.2 63.3 < 0.5 km 38.4 35.1 36.2 0.5 1 km 0.3 0.6 0.4 More than 1 km 0.3 0.1 0.1 Total 100 100 100 Water available all 12 months (%) 98.3 98.8 98.2 Table 6.5: Main source of Drinking water by Region Drinking water Main Source Rural Percentage of households Urban Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Tap 16.1 11.2 15.5 5.0 50.4 55.6 59.1 49.0 Well 0.8 4.8 6.1 11.9 0.6 2.8 1.6 2.0 Hand-pump 82.9 83.9 78.3 83.0 45.6 37.2 38.8 49.0 Other 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.5 4.4 0.6 0.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Distance Within premises 68.1 45.3 60.7 22.2 82.8 75.9 87.5 73.6 < 0.5 km 31.2 54.6 39.1 73.3 16.4 24.1 12.4 25.9 0.5 1 km 0.7 0.1 0.2 4.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 More than 1 km 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Water available all 12 months (%) 99.2 99.5 96.7 97.9 98.4 98.9 98.1 97.7 Page 156

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.6: Main source of Drinking water by Region Drinking water Main Source Percentage of households 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Tap 29.3 29.1 22.0 13.8 25.8 21.7 20.4 15.7 Well 0.9 5.4 7.1 15.8 0.8 4.4 5.6 9.5 Hand-pump 69.1 65.4 70.6 70.3 72.4 72.8 73.8 74.8 Other 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.2 0.3 0.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Distance Within premises 74.7 52.6 65.9 37.9 72.2 52.6 63.7 34.7 < 0.5 km 24.5 46.8 33.7 60.2 27.0 47.3 36.1 61.8 0.5 1 km 0.5 0.6 0.4 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 3.2 More than 1 km 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Water available all 12 months (%) 99.7 99.6 97.8 98.1 99.0 99.4 96.8 97.9 Table 6.7: Households main source of Drinking Water within their Premises Location and Income Percentage of households Group 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 61.6 61.0 63.3 Rural Areas 57.4 55.5 58.4 Poor 54.1 50.8 47.6 Middle 57.1 54.0 59.4 Rich 60.8 59.9 65.9 Urban Areas 79.6 83.0 81.5 Poor 69.3 72.2 69.5 Middle 78.8 81.1 79.2 Rich 90.6 91.2 90.8 Page 157

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.8: Households main source of Drinking Water within their Premises by Region Location and Households (Percent) Income Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Group 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 74.6 52.6 65.9 37.8 72.2 52.5 63.7 34.7 Rural Areas 68.3 46.2 63.5 30.1 68.1 45.3 60.6 22.2 Poor 63.4 38.7 54.7 34.9 59.7 39.5 49.7 12.3 Middle 65.2 43.8 67.1 28.8 66.5 48.1 61.4 22.3 Rich 72.6 53.6 69.4 28.9 72.3 50.4 70.2 27.5 Urban Areas 90.6 74.9 86.3 63.5 82.8 75.8 87.5 73.6 Poor 85.2 61.2 72.6 58.2 76.8 55.4 71.5 45.0 Middle 92.6 65.5 87.8 54.5 81.9 64.7 88.1 69.8 Rich 91.9 86.5 97.8 74.0 88.0 91.1 96.3 91.2 Table 6.9: Type of Sanitation System Type of sanitation system Percentage of households 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Covered drains 12.4 16.0 14.0 Open drains 56.5 59.5 61.4 Soak pit 1.2 1.6 1.6 Other 0.4 1.5 1.6 No system 29.4 21.5 21.5 Overall 100 100 100 Table 6.10: Type of Sanitation System by Region Type of sanitation Percentage of households system 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Covered drains 13.1 20.4 14.6 33.3 12.7 14.1 13.7 28.3 Open drains 79.7 66.5 38.9 38.0 82.2 61.6 42.2 43.0 Soak pit 0.9 0.4 2.6 3.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 7.9 Other 0.7 0.1 3.1 0.6 0.5 0.5 3.5 1.3 No system 5.5 12.6 40.8 24.5 3.8 22.6 39.0 19.5 Overall 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 158

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.11: Households Connected to Covered/Open Drains Location and Income Households (Percent) Group 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 69.0 75.5 75.4 Rural Areas 62.8 70.5 70.0 Poor 55.9 63.0 62.7 Middle 61.3 67.8 69.5 Rich 68.8 78.2 75.9 Urban Areas 93.6 95.6 95.8 Poor 88.7 91.7 92.1 Middle 93.6 95.2 96.2 Rich 96.6 98.4 97.9 Table 6.12: Households Connected to Covered/Open Drains by Region Location Households (Percent) and Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Income Group 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 92.8 86.9 53.5 71.3 94.9 75.6 55.8 71.3 Rural 97.4 99.2 90.8 88.4 94.1 68.7 51.3 64.6 Areas Poor 87.2 77.5 45.3 50.0 90.8 65.1 48.0 58.5 Middle 89.1 80.8 49.4 60.7 94.6 71.6 49.2 56.0 Rich 94.0 89.6 53.1 75.4 95.0 70.8 56.5 72.0 Urban 97.4 99.2 90.8 88.4 96.9 97.8 91.4 92.3 Areas Poor 97.8 99.8 81.1 80.0 94.6 96.4 81.2 84.8 Middle 95.6 99.6 94.2 85.8 97.7 97.3 92.1 92.3 Rich 98.6 98.7 97.3 95.7 98.0 98.7 97.0 96.0 Table 6.13: Type of Latrine in the Household Premises Type of Percentage of households latrine 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Combined Rural Urban Combined Flush system 5.6 42.4 13.0 7.9 51.8 16.6 10.2 50.7 18.6 Septic tank 4.1 22.3 7.7 7.5 23.9 10.8 10.3 22.6 12.9 Other 5.9 16.1 8.0 11.0 9.2 10.6 7.0 8.9 7.4 No latrine 84.3 19.2 71.4 73.6 15.2 62.0 72.5 17.8 61.1 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 159

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.14 Type of Latrine in the Household Premises by Region Type of latrine Percentage of households 2007-/08 PSMS-III 2009-/10 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern State Flush system 25.4 20.8 6.6 20.4 28.6 16.7 8.8 26.8 Septic tank 15.6 7.4 9.4 4.7 13.9 11.3 13.5 6.0 Other 13.6 16.4 5.7 13.7 10.7 7.6 4.6 1.6 No latrine 45.4 55.3 78.3 61.2 46.8 64.3 73.2 65.6 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Rural Areas Flush system 15.2 7.5 3.0 11.1 19.6 5.0 4.9 13.8 Septic tank 11.5 5.7 6.3 3.9 10.3 9.9 10.8 6.9 Other 13.7 19.8 5.8 16.8 10.1 7.9 4.6 1.7 No latrine 59.5 67.0 84.9 68.2 60.1 77.2 79.7 77.6 Urban Areas Flush system 51.1 66.7 37.3 51.5 51.7 54.4 39.3 67.4 Septic tank 25.8 13.5 35.7 7.4 22.9 15.9 35.0 3.3 Other 13.2 4.9 5.1 3.6 12.4 6.7 4.7 1.2 No latrine 9.9 15.0 22.0 37.6 13.0 23.0 21.1 28.2 Table 6.15: Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises Location and Income Households (Percent) Group 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 12.9 16.6 18.6 Rural Areas 5.6 7.9 10.2 Poor 2.1 3.3 4.1 Middle 4.7 5.6 8.4 Rich 8.7 13.2 16.3 Urban Areas 42.4 51.8 50.7 Poor 23.7 30.6 28.8 Middle 38.7 51.6 47.7 Rich 56.8 64.9 66.5 Page 160

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.16: Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises by Region Location Households (Percent) and Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern Income 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Group Over All 25.4 20.8 6.6 20.4 28.6 16.7 8.8 26.8 Rural 15.2 7.5 3.0 11.1 19.5 5.0 4.9 13.8 Areas Poor 8.5 2.0 1.9 4.8 11.0 2.0 2.1 5.5 Middle 11.9 4.4 2.1 6.9 15.0 4.9 4.8 8.0 Rich 20.6 13.7 5.4 15.8 25.9 9.3 7.6 21.0 Urban 51.0 66.7 37.3 51.5 51.7 54.4 39.3 67.4 Areas Poor 31.4 37.7 21.7 44.4 36.5 16.8 18.9 42.7 Middle 53.6 56.8 41.7 45.3 49.1 44.8 42.6 64.2 Rich 59.3 86.1 48.4 60.7 65.4 77.1 48.8 82.4 Table 6.17: Households with Electricity Connection Location and Households (Percent) Income Group 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 34.8 39.6 44.4 Rural Areas 23.3 28.5 34.0 Poor 12.4 15.0 18.7 Middle 20.6 24.8 31.5 Rich 32.9 41.5 47.6 Urban Areas 80.7 84.6 84.1 Poor 60.7 63.0 60.6 Middle 78.9 86.6 86.2 Rich 94.6 96.5 97.1 Table 6.18: Households with Electricity Connection by Region Location and Income Group Households (Percent) Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV Over All 51.9 36.0 33.5 31.3 55.8 31.6 40.4 46.6 Rural Areas 37.7 21.2 27.5 20.5 44.0 17.0 34.5 34.9 Poor 22.5 3.9 17.2 6.2 27.3 8.7 20.7 26.5 Middle 28.7 18.4 26.4 12.2 38.4 13.3 34.4 32.0 Rich 50.8 36.9 40.4 30.5 54.2 32.5 47.5 40.8 Urban Areas 87.4 86.6 84.9 67.2 85.8 78.3 87.3 83.1 Poor 66.6 66.0 65.7 45.2 67.9 38.7 66.0 66.2 Middle 88.1 85.4 91.1 61.9 88.9 77.2 89.7 78.1 Rich 97.7 97.3 97.9 85.1 96.3 98.0 98.1 95.7 Page 161

HOUSING AND ACCESS TO AMENITIES Table 6.19: Average Hours per Day of Electricity Supply Hours per day Percentage of households of electricity 2002-03 PSMS-II 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV No connection 65.2 60.4 55.6 Less than 5 hrs 2.2 2.0 2.0 5 10 hours 13.7 17.5 21.5 10 15 hours 8.5 10.9 12.1 15 + hours 10.4 9.3 8.9 Total 100 100 100 Table 6.20: Average Hours per Day of Electricity Supply by Region Hours per day Percentage of households of electricity Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern 2007-08 PSMS-III 2009-10 PSMS-IV No connection 48.1 64.0 66.5 68.7 44.2 68.4 59.6 53.4 Less than 5 hrs 1.3 1.5 2.8 1.2 1.4 3.8 1.4 4.1 5 10 hours 21.3 16.8 18.3 8.7 26.0 11.5 23.8 12.4 10 15 hours 17.1 5.4 7.8 8.5 16.8 6.1 10.1 19.6 15 + hours 12.1 12.2 4.6 12.9 11.6 10.2 5.1 10.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 162

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP 7. VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP 7.1 INTRODUCTION Vulnerability refers to the peoples propensity to fall, or stay, below a pre determined minimum level of security of basic needs of life and it is a function of people's exposure to risks and of their resilience to these. According to Moser (1998) 1 -"Analysis of vulnerability does not only involves identifying the risk or threat but also the resilience in exploiting opportunities and recovering from negative effects of change of environment. The means of resistance are the assets and entitlements that individual households communities can mobilise and can manage in the face of hardship. Hence vulnerability is closely associated to asset ownership. The more assets people have the less vulnerable they are, and the greater the erosion of people's assets the greater their insecurities". Assets are defined as, stocks of financial, human, natural or social resources that can be acquired, developed, improved and transferred across generations. It includes financial assets, land, livestock, housing, non-farm business assets, other physical assets such as vehicles and culturally specific valued items. Assets serve two main functions (1)As social safety net -- strengthen households ability to cope with aggregate shocks (financial crises, natural disasters) and idiosyncratic shocks (divorce, illness, or death).(2) As an income generating mechanism providing productive capacity, ensuring access to credit, capital, etc. There is a correlation between ownership and control of assets and vulnerability More ownership and control of assets less vulnerability Less ownership and control of assets more vulnerability Asset levels and changes in asset ownership over time appeared good indicator of prevailing vulnerability. The PSMS-IV survey collected information on ownership of assets by household during the period of 2009-10. The information on ownership of cows/ buffaloes, goats/sheep, other animals; radio, TV; cycle, motor cycle/ scooter; telephone/ mobile and sewing machine was collected in all PSMS round. This chapter summarises the main findings related to ownership of these assets by different characteristics of households. 1 Moser(1998) : The Asset Vulnerability Framework : Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies, World Development Vol -26 No 1 PP 1-19 Page 163

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP 7.2 AVERAGE NUMBER OF ASSETS OWNED PER HOUSEHOLD Propensity to increase ownership of assets plays an important role in reducing vulnerability of household, which is a key to measure both chronic and transient 25.0 Figure 7.1(a) Average number of assets per household in rural area 35.0 Figure 7.1(b) Average number of assets per household in urban area 20.0 30.0 15.0 25.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest Poorest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest poverty. Households with more assets are generally said better able to improve their income levels and less vulnerable to poverty. Accumulation of assets is a means by which people can move out of poverty and 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 7.2 Average number of assets per household by region Western Poor MIddle Rich Central Rural Eastern Southern Western Central Urban Eastern Southern improve their standard of living. On an average 18 assets are hold by a household but holdings of assets found significantly different by region of residence and income group of persons. Poor income group people found on an average 13.55 assets per household where as it was on an average 22.16 for rich income group. Urban sector households found comparably high figure of holding assets than rural sector households. Average number of assets per household found lowest in Central region fallowed by Southern region. It is found highest for Western fallowed by Eastern region. Poor income group people of Central as well as Southern region found it below at level of 11 per household on an average. Regional as well as sectoral difference in owning of assets also seen.

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Analysis of owning of assets by decile group indicate that inequality between lowest (poorest) and highest (richest) decile are more than one to two in both sector. In context of Central region, inequality between lowest and highest decile group is more than one to three (see Table 7.1). Figure 7.3:Lorenz Curve for Assets in Uttar Pradesh:2009-10 Cum prop of average no of assets 0.2.4.6.8 1 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of population Lorenz curve Line of Perfect Equality Figure7.4a :Lorenz Curve for Assets in Rural Uttar Pradesh:2009-10 0 Cum.2 prop of.4 average.6 no of assets.8 1 Figure 7.4b:"Lorenz Curve for Assets in Urban Uttar Pradesh:2009-10" Cum prop of average no of assets 0.2.4.6.8 1 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of population Lorenz curve Line of Perfect Equality 0.2.4.6.8 1 Cumulative proportion of population Lorenz curve Line of Perfect Equality Figure 7.3,7.4a and 7.4b shows that Gini inequality measure in ownership of assets in state is large. It is found varied by sector and region also. Significant positive correlation (0.57) has been also found in asset ownership and MPCE. 7.3 OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS AND CONSUMER DURABLES There are ample evidence that rural households keep livestock assets like cow, buffaloes, goats, sheep, poultry birds and other such animals significantly large compared to urban households. Overall about 52 percent households of state owning livestock like cows/buffaloes. Mostly (63.7 percent) these animals are

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP owned by rural households. A very little number of urban (8.3 percent) household also found owning cow/ buffaloes. Similarly about 16 percent households of state found owning goat/sheep. Like cows/buffaloes, major owners of goat/sheep were rural and urban households owning these assets very little. Over the period Figure 7.5 Percent of households possessed Assets 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rural Urban Milch Animal Goat Other Animal Radio TV Bycycle M. Cycle Sewing Mech telephone water filter of PSMS-III to IV, owning the livestock animal get reduction both in rural and urban sector(see Table 7.3). Ownership of cow/buffaloes found increasing pattern Figure 7.6 : Percent of household owning cows/buffaloes in UP 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Rural Uraban by income group whereas goat/sheep found in decreasing order if one compares its owning from lower to higher income group. From it one could infer that increase in owning of goat/sheep may decrease level of standard of living and apposite to it, increase in ownership of cow/buffaloes may increase level of standard of living( see table 7.4).

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP The data reveals that the incidence of ownership of TV dominates other electrical durables goods. More than 69 percent of urban households own TVs, whereas it Figure 7.7 Percent of households owning Goats/Sheep 30.0 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Rural Urban was reported only by 25 percent in context of rural households. Ownership of TVs increased in both sectors compared to last two PSMS rounds. TV ownership in rural areas was 11 percent for the poor versus 39 percent for the rich. In urban areas corresponding data was found 44 percent and 84 percent respectively. The incidence of the ownership of radio is generally lower than that of TV in urban areas, suggesting that the TV is the primary mode of entertainment and access to information. As regards mode of communication, there is an increase of 4 percent in television and a corresponding decline of about 8 percent in use of radios. 25 percent households have telephone/mobile facility with 46 percent in urban and 20 percent in rural area. In the modes of transport 75 percent of the households were having bicycle and 19 percent motor cycle/scooter. Bicycles were the most popular durable in rural areas, 78 percent of households own it.there is an increase of 3 percent in motor cycle/scooter, with bicycle showing decrease of 1.5 percent only. 61 percent of the households were having sewing machine with 78 percent in urban and 57 percent in rural areas. The rural-urban difference has been reduced from 36 to 26 point. Owning of TV, motorcycle/scooter and sewing machine increased over last PSMS rounds (seetable7.3).

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Inter regional comparison of percentage households possessed assets shows that the assets which indicate prosperity of households are owned by Western region s households more and more compared to other regions. Similarly the assets which are seen as sign of low standard of living are found comparatively less by Western region s households (see Table 7.2). 7.4 REASON FOR SELLING OR MORTGAGE OF ASSETS Commonly households do not sell or mortgage assets they owned.it happens only when households have no more way to overcome from the adverse sock or 3.0 2.5 Figure 7.8 Percent of households by reason for selling or mortgage of assets 2002/03 2007/08 2009/10 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Illness Marriage/Death Other Emergency Repayment of Loan Illness Marriage/Death Other Emergency Repayment of Loan Rural Urban situation that has come. As per PSMS-IV survey, about 97 percent households reported neither mortgaged nor sold their any assets (see Table7.5) and only 3 percent households reported selling or mortgaging of their assets.reason for selling/mortgaging the assets by 1.2 percent households was reported due to illness in the state. Next common reason was reported Other Emergency (0.8 percent). Marriage/death and repayment of loan were reported by 0.7 & 0.4 percent households respectively. Rural -urban percentage difference in reporting reason for selling or mortgaging of their assets were found substantially large for all reasons except repayment of loan. Over the periods of PSMS-II to IV, propensity to sell/mortgage the assets dropped in state for both sectors. From it one may also infer that vulnerability in state falls down from PSMS round-ii to IV in both

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP sectors. Further analysing it by region of residence of households, it emerged that selling or mortgage of assets highest in Southern region fallowed by Central region. It also emerges from the data that in spite of highest vulnerability in Southern 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Figure 7.9 Percent of households by reason for selling or mortgage of assets by region 2007/08 2009/10 Illness Marriage/Death Other Emergency Repayment of Loan Illness Marriage/Death Other Emergency Repayment of Loan Illness Marriage/Death Other Emergency Repayment of Loan Illness Marriage/Death Other Emergency Repayment of Loan Western Central Eastern Southern region, it has registered highest improvements over the period. Regional introspection shows that each region of state showed sign of reduction in overall propensity to sell/mortgage the assets (see Table 7.5). Analysing the reason for selling or mortgage of assets by income groups shows substantial reduction in propensity to sell/mortgage the assets for poor fallowed by rich and middle income groups. As earlier stated the most common reason for sell/mortgage the asset was found illness, it is found true for poor and other income groups also. This share for poor & rich income class was just about 1.2 percent each(see Table 7.7). Over the period of PSMS-II to IV, propensity to sell/mortgage of asset generally diminished both in rural as well as in urban sector of state, each income group and region of state.reason for selling or mortgage of asset due to Marriage/Death was found highest in Southern region. Similarly reason was stated as Illness for sell/mortgage highest by households of Central region.

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP 7.5: TYPE OF ASSETS FOR SELLING OR MORTGAGE: Table 7.8 shows the percentage distribution of type of assets for selling or mortgage of rural and urban households. It is observed from the data that, among Figure 7.10 Percentage share of different type of assets sold or mortgaged by household 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 Jewelry Hh utencils/furniture Livestock Productive assets Land/House Others type of assets, Jewelry and land/house are the two most prominent asset which were sold in 2009-10. It accounted about more than 60 percent to assets sold or mortgaged in state. The share of these two items diminished compared to last round. In rural areas, these two type of assets together accounted for 60 percent for selling or mortgage, with Jewelry (31percent) accounting for a greater share than Land/house (29 percent). However, only 47 percent Jewelry in urban areas was selled or mortgage and the Land/house and Livestock s respective shares being 19 and 11 percent respectively. Overall from the period of PSMS III to IV, sell or mortgage of assets like Jewelry, productive and other asset decreased. 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 7.11 Regionwise Percentage share of different type of assets sold or mortgaged by household 2007-08 2009-10 Jewelry Hh utencils/furniture Livestock Productive assets Land/House Others Jewelry Hh utencils/furniture Livestock Productive assets Land/House Others Jewelry Hh utencils/furniture Livestock Productive assets Land/House Others Jewelry Hh utencils/furniture Livestock Productive assets Land/House Others Western Central Eastern Southern Sectoral analysis shows that sell or mortgage of Jewelry, productive and

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Land/House type asset in urban sector increased where as in rural sector only productive assets found increase over the two PSMS round. Table 7.9 depicts the shares of different type of selled or mortgaged assets by income group. The share of Jewelry was quite substantial for all income groups. However, significant difference was observed in this share between the three groups of income. It ranges between 30 to 38 percent. Sell/mortgage of Land/house is also found high share in all three groups of income. Inter regional comparison of assets selled or mortgaged for year 2009-10 shows that selling of Jewelry (41.5 percent) and Land/house(41.2 percent) are highest in Eastern followed by Southern region where Jewelry is about 35 percent and Land/house is 33 percent respectively. Selling of Livestock found highest in Western(25.5 percent) and lowest in Eastern region (3.4 percent). Selling/mortgaging of land found lowest in Western and Central region both. Highest selling/mortgaging of productive asset found in Central region. Comparing over the period of PSMS-III to IV,selling/mortgaging of Jewelry rise substantially in Eastern and Southern region and for Livestock it rise in Western region. Selling/mortgaging of Land/house remained constant in Eastern and it increased only in Southern region. The other two regions shows substantial reduction in this respect over the period of two PSMS round (see Table 7.10). Page 171

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP 7.6 FINANCIAL POSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS Self reported financial position were ascertained from the sample households by asking a question to each household about their perception on their financial position. Overall 65 percent households reported that their financial position are on average good in 2009/10. (see Table 7.11). It was about 68 percent for the rural households and 54 percent for urban households.overall in the state, 28 percent households reported good financial position. The corresponding figures for rural & urban are 27 and 34 percent respectively. The households with very good financial position were only 4 percent in state. Very good financial position holder households in urban sector were found more(9 percent) than rural sector Figure 7.12 Financial position of households 70.0 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Very bad Bad Average Good Very Good (2 percent). The marginal changes in financial position over the periods of PSMS-III to PSMS-IV are seen. Analysis of the perception about financial position of the households by income group shows that most of the poor households are generally having average financial position (82 percent) compared to other income groups. Only 3.4 percent poor household reported their financial position either very bad/bad where as this percent for middle and rich income group was little small compared to poor. It is also seen from the data that percentage of perception towards badness of financial position over the periods of PSMS-III & IV diminished in all income group and financial position of relatively better group bettered more compared to relatively poor group(see Table 7.12).

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Comparison of above perception by region shows that Southern region households are found highest in well off position fallowed by Western region The Figure 7.13 Regionwise Financial position of households 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2007-08 2009-10 Very bad Bad Average Good Very Good Very bad Bad Average Good Very Good Very bad Bad Average Good Very Good Very bad Bad Average Good Very Good Western Central Eastern Southern condition of Central region household shows worse off among four regions of state in year 21009-10. Comparison over the period of the PSMS rounds III and IV shows that improvement in financial position of households has occurred in each region but change has been observed least in Western and Eastern region(see Table7.13)

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Table 7.1 : Average number of Assets hold per household 2009-10 PSMS-IV Income Group Rural Urban Combined (1) (2) (3) (4) Poor 13.0 16.0 13.6 Middle 16.3 21.2 17.3 Rich 20.4 28.4 22.2 Decile Group Rural Urban Combined (1) (2) (3) (4) Poorest 11.0 13.4 11.4 2 13.3 15.6 13.7 3 14.1 17.8 14.8 4 14.6 19.2 15.5 5 16.1 20.4 16.9 6 16.9 21.9 17.9 7 17.5 23.5 18.8 8 18.7 26.1 20.3 9 20.0 28.8 21.9 Richest 22.5 30.5 24.4 Total 16.9 22.9 18.1 Region Rural Urban Combined (1) (2) (3) (4) Western 19.3 22.8 20.3 Central 13.7 23.7 16.1 Eastern 16.7 22.8 17.4 Southern 15.2 19.4 16.2 Total 16.9 22.9 18.1 Region Poor Middle Rich Total Rural Western 15.7 17.8 21.8 19.3 Central 10.4 13.7 18.4 13.7 Eastern 13.5 16.4 19.9 16.7 Southern 10.5 14.1 18.1 15.2 Total 13.0 16.3 20.4 16.9 Urban Western 18.3 22.2 26.7 22.8 Central 11.5 18.2 32.2 23.7 Eastern 16.0 22.2 27.3 22.8 Southern 12.0 17.8 24.5 19.4 Total 16.0 21.2 28.4 22.9 Page 174

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Region Poor Middle Rich Total All Western 16.7 19.1 22.9 20.3 Central 10.6 14.6 23.3 16.1 Eastern 13.7 17.1 20.9 17.4 Southern 10.8 15.3 19.5 16.2 Total 13.6 17.3 22.2 18.1 Table 7.2: Percent of households possessed Assets by region. Possessed Assets Region Western Central Eastern Southern All (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Sector -All Milch Animal 50.3 54.1 52.7 53.2 52.2 Goat 11.5 20.1 17.5 27.2 16.2 Other Animal 3.1 2.2 5.2 2.5 3.7 Radio 25.3 33.8 38.6 23.2 31.9 TV 45.7 27.4 27.0 33.0 34.3 Bycycle 72.0 73.3 82.2 56.1 75.4 M. Cycle 23.5 16.3 15.1 20.6 18.7 Sewing Mech 38.8 20.6 14.9 19.9 25.2 telephone 68.1 53.2 58.5 63.1 61.1 water filter 3.2 4.2 2.7 2.4 3.2 Total 34.1 30.5 31.4 30.1 32.2 Sector -Rural Milch Animal 66.8 68.2 58.6 66.2 63.7 Goat 14.0 24.1 18.9 32.2 18.9 Other Animal 3.2 2.4 5.6 2.7 4.0 Radio 26.1 33.1 39.0 24.5 32.8 TV 35.7 15.3 21.6 21.9 25.0 Bycycle 74.6 78.3 83.2 55.7 78.2 M. Cycle 18.9 9.5 12.7 15.6 14.2 Sewing Mech 33.8 13.1 12.3 11.4 19.7 telephone 63.8 46.3 56.0 58.3 56.7 water filter 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.3 Total 33.8 29.2 30.9 28.9 31.4 Sector -Urban Milch Animal 8.3 8.9 6.4 12.8 8.3 Goat 5.1 7.2 6.2 11.5 6.1 Other Animal 2.9 1.5 2.7 1.8 2.5 Radio 23.3 35.9 35.4 19.3 28.7 TV 71.0 66.5 69.5 67.5 69.4 Bycycle 65.4 57.3 73.9 57.2 64.7 Page 175

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Possessed Assets Region Western Central Eastern Southern All (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) M. Cycle 35.1 37.9 34.4 36.2 35.7 Sewing Mech 51.3 44.8 35.3 46.8 46.3 telephone 79.1 75.2 78.3 77.9 77.9 water filter 8.0 12.4 15.0 6.9 10.4 Total 34.9 34.8 35.7 33.8 35.0 Page 176

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Table 7.3 Asset Ownership - by location Percent of hhs. Owning Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Cows/buffaloes 55.9 67.2 10.6 54.6 65.4 10.9 52.2 63.7 8.3 Goats/Sheep 16.7 19.4 5.8 18.4 21.6 5.5 16.2 18.9 6.1 Other animals 3.6 3.9 2.3 4.8 5.5 2.2 3.7 4.0 2.5 Radio 37.1 35.5 43.6 40.4 39.8 42.9 31.9 32.8 28.7 TV 27.1 17.5 65.6 30.5 20.3 71.9 34.3 25.0 69.4 Cycle 74.8 76.6 67.5 76.9 78.5 70.4 75.4 78.2 64.7 Motor cycle/scooter 12.0 8.3 26.7 15.5 10.6 35.1 18.7 14.2 35.7 Telephone/Mobile 26.2 19.2 54.3 25.2 19.7 46.3 Sewing Machine 21.1 15.5 43.6 26.8 20.7 51.8 61.1 56.7 77.9 Water filter 3.2 1.3 10.4 Page 177

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Table 7.4 Asset Ownership - by Income groups Percent of hhs. Owning Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Rural Cows/buffaloes 60.9 70.2 69.2 56.8 66.2 71.0 58.2 64.9 66.8 Goats/Sheep 22.1 21.6 15.8 26.9 22.6 16.9 23.8 18.6 15.3 Other animals 3.7 4.7 3.5 5.6 4.6 6.1 4.4 4.0 3.7 Radio 24.7 34.3 43.9 27.9 36.6 51.1 27.3 33.5 36.4 TV 9.3 14.8 25.3 7.7 15.6 33.4 10.7 21.3 39.0 Cycle 76.3 77.4 76.1 74.7 78.3 81.4 77.9 79.9 77.1 Motor cycle/scooter 3.8 6.3 13.1 2.4 6.6 19.9 2.6 10.3 26.2 Telephone/Mobile 6.2 15.4 31.9 9.9 16.7 29.6 Sewing Machine 10.6 13.8 20.0 12.4 17.9 29.0 40.5 56.3 69.2 Water filter 0.6 1.1 2.0 Urban Cows/buffaloes 16.1 10.6 7.1 13.8 16.1 5.1 9.5 10.2 6.1 Goats/Sheep 12.9 6.0 1.2 11.0 7.2 0.8 13.7 5.3 2.0 Other animals 3.5 3.1 0.9 3.7 3.2 0.6 4.4 2.4 1.3 Radio 33.6 41.5 51.4 31.6 44.0 49.1 24.1 25.9 33.6 TV 37.7 62.9 84.9 45.9 72.3 87.8 43.6 71.4 83.8 Cycle 65.1 70.5 66.9 68.5 78.8 65.3 69.2 71.9 56.4 Motor cycle/scooter 3.8 15.1 49.7 5.3 26.9 59.7 7.1 24.1 62.2 Telephone/Mobile 20.8 49.4 78.8 28.9 44.1 58.7 Sewing Machine 27.8 38.4 57.3 34.0 51.1 63.4 55.5 78.8 91.0 Water filter 1.0 3.3 21.7 Page 178

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Table 7.5: Reason for selling or mortgage of assets Items Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Illness 2.3 2.5 1.4 2.1 2.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.6 Marriage/Death 1.5 1.7 0.5 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.4 Other Emergency 1.2 1.4 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.3 Repayment of Loan 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 No 94.4 93.7 97.2 94.8 94.3 96.5 96.9 96.5 98.4 Table 7.6: Reason for selling or mortgage of assets by Region Items Percentage of households 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Illness 1.5 1.3 2.4 2.9 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.6 Marriage/Death 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2.0 Other Emergency 1.1 0.9 1.6 2.5 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.6 Repayment of Loan 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 No 96.2 96.0 94.2 91.8 97.1 96.5 97.1 95.8 Table 7.7 Reason for selling or mortgage of assets - by income groups Items Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Illness 2.8 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.5 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.2 Marriage/Death 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 Other Emergency 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.7 1.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.6 Repayment of Loan 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 No 93.6 94.2 95.1 94.0 94.1 95.9 97.1 96.5 97.1 Page 179

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Table 7.8 : Assets sell or mortgage by household Type of assets Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Jewelry 38.0 38.5 33.5 32.5 32.5 32.9 32.9 31.2 46.5 Hh utencils/furniture 3.1 2.9 5.0 5.1 3.3 17.0 3.0 2.5 7.4 Livestock 18.2 18.0 19.7 14.2 14.2 13.7 13.2 13.4 11.4 Productive assets 0.9 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 5.1 5.4 2.7 (tools, implements, rikshaw etc.) Land/House 28.7 30.1 15.3 31.0 33.6 13.6 27.7 28.8 18.9 Others 11.2 9.6 25.0 15.9 15.1 21.7 18.0 18.6 13.2 Table 7.9 Assets sell or mortgage by household - by income groups Type of assets Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Jewelry 39.1 33.9 40.7 24.7 40.5 31.5 37.7 30.2 32.0 Hh utencils/furniture 3.7 1.5 4.0 6.2 4.6 4.4 2.8 3.5 2.8 Livestock 18.8 16.6 19.0 14.1 14.5 13.9 9.2 15.5 13.9 Productive assets 1.5 0.8 0.5 1.4 1.6 0.7 8.3 6.4 1.5 (tools, implements, rikshaw etc.) Land/House 26.3 35.5 24.8 33.1 27.1 33.3 28.5 22.3 32.3 Others 10.7 11.7 11.1 20.5 11.6 16.2 13.5 22.1 17.4 Page 180

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Table 7.10 : Assets sell or mortgage by household by Region Type of assets Percentage of households 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Jewelry 29.3 27.4 30.4 27.3 30.3 24.3 41.5 34.8 Hh utencils/furniture 6.1 6.7 3.3 0.3 5.8 2.6 1.1 0.0 Livestock 11.2 25.3 7.1 23.6 25.5 10.9 3.4 7.4 Productive assets (tools, 1.2 4.3 1.0 0.0 3.2 13.4 1.2 3.3 implements, rikshaw etc.) Land/House 26.1 26.3 41.2 28.5 19.7 19.1 41.2 33.0 Others 26.1 9.9 17.0 20.3 15.5 29.7 11.6 21.5 Table 7.11 : Financial position of households - by location Type of financial position Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Very bad 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bad 2.9 2.9 2.9 5.7 6.3 3.3 2.8 2.9 2.3 Average 64.1 66.6 54.0 65.0 67.8 53.6 65.2 68.2 54.1 Good 31.0 29.1 38.8 26.6 23.9 37.2 28.2 26.6 34.4 Very Good 2.0 1.4 4.3 2.4 1.5 5.8 3.7 2.3 9.2 Page 181

VULNERABILITY AND ASSET OWNERSHIP Table 7.12 Financial position of households - by income group Type of financial position Percentage of households 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich Poor Middle Rich (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Very bad 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bad 4.4 2.8 1.9 9.5 5.9 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.1 Average 74.5 68.6 53.7 75.4 69.3 54.1 82.0 69.5 49.6 Good 20.4 27.9 40.5 14.3 23.8 37.6 14.1 26.0 40.3 Very Good 0.6 0.6 3.9 0.3 0.8 5.1 0.5 1.4 7.9 Table 7.13: Financial position of households by Region Type of financial position Percentage of households 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Very bad 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bad 3.8 4.6 8.6 3.8 1.6 4.8 2.9 2.4 Average 61.1 74.3 64.1 55.2 63.1 66.6 68.0 51.4 Good 32.1 18.2 25.5 35.1 32.2 21.6 26.9 39.5 Very Good 2.8 2.4 1.4 5.6 3.1 7.0 2.1 6.7 Page 182

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES 8. GOVERNMENT PROGAMMES 8.1 INTRODUCTION The main purpose of on going Government programmes and services is to support relatively poorer who are not able to bear shocks emanating from income inequalities. The data relating to access and participation in these Government programmes in rural and urban areas are one of important feature of all PSMS including current PSMS IV round. The information were collected on household's access to Government-sponsored programmes such as credit programmes (SRSJY, PMRY, Kisan Credit Card etc.), employment programmes (MNREGA) and Government benefits such as retirement, old-age, disability, widowhood pensions, social security and pregnancy benefits. In addition, the survey also collected information on awareness about Government sponsored Services. The survey also collected detailed information on pattern of Public Distribution System (PDS) utilisation, quantity of goods like rice, wheat, sugar, edible and kerosene oil purchase from PDS. The data on type of ration cards-apl, BPL and Antyoday card possessed by households were also collected in the survey. 8.2 PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: COVERAGE &TARGETING The Public Distribution System (PDS) means distribution of essential Figure 8.1 Percent of households with APL and BPL cards 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) No cards APL cards BPL cards (of which Antyodaya) No cards APL cards BPL cards (of which Antyodaya) Rural Urban commodities to a large number of people through a network of Fair Price Shop (FPS) on recurring basis. It has multiple objective to ensure availability of basic Page 183

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES commodities to the poor and needy families and to check the practice of hoarding and black marketing. Under this scheme, the Below Poverty Line (BPL) families would get basic commodities at a subsidized rate whereas the Above Poverty Line (APL) families would get them only at their economic cost. The Government of India launched the scheme called Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) with effect from 25th Dec. 2000. The above scheme was implemented in Uttar Pradesh from year 2001. The objective of the scheme is to ensure food security to the poorest of the poor. Under AAY scheme, each poorest of the poor BPL families would be provided food grains at the rate of Rs.2/- per Kg for wheat and Rs. 3/- per Kg for rice of 35 Kg per family per month. 50 40 30 20 Figure 8.3(a) Percentage share of households with BPL cards by income groups PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) 60 50 40 30 20 Figure 8.3(b) Percentage share of households with Antyoday cards by income groups PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) 10 10 0 Poorest Middle Richest 0 Poorest Middle Richest The most crucial element for ensuring the success of PDS is the correct identification of BPL & Antyodaya families and issuing them proper ration card. The identification of these families and issuing them proper ration card are done by the state government. Overall 86 percent families of state found holding ration card in year 2009-10. Ration card holder among rural and urban households were found as 90 and 70 percent respectively. Over the period of PSMS-III and IV, households possessing ration card diminished in both rural and urban sector. Major 65 percent households in state found possessing APL card whereas BPL card possessor in state were found only 21 percent households. Among BPL households, about 10 percent were Antyodaya. Antyodaya's were 11 percent in rural sector whereas they were only 3.0 percent in urban sector. From PSMS III to IV, possessors of Antyodaya get marginal change in both rural as well as urban sector (seetable8.1). Thus, the PDS is predominantly rural in terms of absolute as well as in percentage number of households possessing ration cards. Page 184

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES As regards the regional vulnerable groups in state, 4.6 percent of the Western, 11.1 percent of the Central, 14.0 percent of the Eastern and 12.4 percent of the Southern region's households possessed Antyodaya card. As regards the BPL-card, Figure 8.4 Percentage share of households with Antyoday and BPL cards by region 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Antyoday BPL Antyoday BPL Antyoday BPL Antyoday BPL Western Central Eastern Southern 11.6 percent of the Western, 21.6 percent of the Central, 30.1 percent of the Eastern and 27.6 percent of the Southern region's households were the beneficiaries. Figure 8.3(b) shows that this scheme was reasonably well-targeted towards the poor households. About 56 percent of Antyodaya beneficiaries were selected from among the poorest one-third of UP's population. Still, about 18 percent of all Antyodaya beneficiaries were from richest one-third of population. Targeting of Antyodaya is better than targeting of BPL. 44 percent of BPL beneficiaries were selected from the poorest one-third, while 24 percent from the richest group. As it is reflected from Table 8.3, both these schemes performed better at targeting than if the cards had been distributed at random among the population, so in this sense, both schemes can be described as being targeted towards the poor. Over the period targeting of Antyoday and BPL made considerable improvement. Inter regional introspection of beneficiaries from Antyodaya and BPL shows that more than 50 percent beneficiaries belongs to Eastern and rest more than 40 percent beneficiaries were distributed among Western and Central region.it is notable that only 5 percent beneficiaries belongs to Southern region. Over the period of PSMS round III to IV, share of beneficiaries of Antyodaya increased in Western and Page 185

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Central region whereas it diminished in Eastern and Southern region. In context of BPL beneficiaries it has increased in Western and given sign of reduction for other regions. As regards the socially vulnerable groups in rural UP, 39.7 percent of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST), 48.1percent of the Other Backward Castes (OBC), 12.3 percent for other households possessed BPL card. The urban profile was slightly different: The percentage of households holding the BPL card Figure 8.5 Percentage share of households with BPL cards by social groups 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) SC/ST OBC Other was the highest for the Others (46 percent), followed by OBC households (about 38 percent ) and SC/ST (16 percent) (see Table 8.5). Over the period of PSMS-III to IV, holding of BPL card among relatively most vulnerable social group i.e. SC/ST diminished whereas it almost increased among the households of other and OBC social group. Inter regional look of it shows that Southern region's SC/ST social group s more than 50 percent households holding BPL card fallowed by OBC (39 percent). Central and Eastern region's SC/ST household s share in BPL are almost found equal i.e. about 38 percent in each (see Table 8.6) Page 186

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES 25 Figure 8.6(a) Purchases of Wheat from the PDS Shop 25 Figure 8.6(b) Purchases of Rice from the PDS Shop 20 20 15 15 10 5 0 Qty. (Kg.) Med. Price (Rs.) Qty. (Kg.) Med. Price (Rs.) 10 5 0 Qty. (Kg.) Med. Price (Rs.) Qty. (Kg.) Med. Price (Rs.) BPL Antyodaya BPL Antyodaya PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) PSMS-II(2002-03) PSMS-III(2007-08) PSMS-IV(2009-10) Another aspect in which the performance of the PDS program has been currently assessed is the amount of food grains(i.e. Wheat and Rice) that the population purchased from the PDS shops (See Table 8.7). The average amount of wheat purchased from the PDS shop was about 11.4 kg. per month, while average purchase of rice from PDS shop was 17.3 kg. per month. The median nominal Figure 8.7 Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop during last 30 days (in Kg.) 2009-10 25 20 Wheat Rice 15 10 5 0 Western Central Eastern Southern wheat price was 4.5 per kg, while the median nominal was 6.0 per kg. Moreover, the price paid per unit charged for these both commodities felled down compared to PSMS round III to round IV. It is found that average quantity of food grains purchased from PDS shop also increased significantly large compared to round III in round IV. Significant inter regional variation in purchase of average quantity of wheat and rice has been observed in state (see Table 8.8) Page 187

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES 8.3 COVERAGE AND TARGETING OF OTHER PUBLIC PROGRAMMES FOR THE POOR Besides public programmes as described above, many other social assistance schemes are being implemented in Uttar Pradesh with objective to provide direct support to the chronically poor households sustainably uplifting them from poverty. The main scheme of such type are old age, widow, disability and other pensions, benefits for pregnancy, subsidized credit, social security benefits and etc. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Old-age pension Figure 8.8 Coverage of Other Government Programs Widow pension Other pensions Benifited from any Govt. prg. Old-age pension Widow pension Other pensions Benifited from any Govt. prg. Rural Urban 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 Overall 5.6 percent households of state benefited minimum from any one of the above type of Government program in year 2009-10. Beneficiary households of these programmes are found more 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 8.9 Coverage of Other Government Programs by Income groups Poorest Middle Richest Poorest Middle Richest Rural Urban 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 than three times in rural areas compared to urban. The data shows that the old age pension scheme reaches about 3.7 percent of the elderly population (aged 65 and above) in UP, while state schemes for widow pensions reach about 0.7 percent of the widow population. In addition, about only 0.4 percent of all households receive disability Page 188

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES pensions(see Table 8.19). Over the period of PSMS round-ii to IV, beneficiaries of programmes like retirement and old age pension increased in both sector and all regions (see Table8.20). Other Government programmes appear to be not reasonably well targeted with respect to income. Less than 36 percent of the surveyed beneficiaries were belongs to poor income group while 33 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 8.10 Coverage of Other Government Programs by Social groups SC/ST OBC Other SC/ST OBC Other Rural Urban 2002-03 2007-08 2009-10 percent were reported to belongs to be from rich income group. In rural area, the share of poor income group was 35 percent and rich income group 34 percent. In urban areas poor income group was 36 percent whereas rich income group was 29 percent. It is matter of satisfaction that targeting of these programmes towards poor improved significantly well compared to PSMS rounds II and III in round IV. Coverage of aforesaid programmes was found highest among OBC fallowed by SC/ST households (see Table 8.21). Other social group makes only 13.6 percent of total beneficiaries. These programmes seem to be reasonably targeted towards vulnerable social class i.e. SC/ST and OBC compared to others. Inter regional comparison shows that targeting of the other programmes towards the poor seems better in Central fallowed by Eastern region (see Table 8.22). Social pension schemes in Uttar Pradesh are found expand dramatically following a recent central government initiative to significantly expand coverage and increase the benefits. This policy change enhancing the scope of this program makes it imperative to assess the performance of the program on the ground more and more and to identify areas for improvement before further expanding the scheme. 8.4 AWARENESS OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SERVICES Many important government sponsored services are going on. But due to lack of awareness of these services, general people not get benefits of these due to proper awareness. Due to its importance, PSMS-surveys collected data regarding Page 189

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES awareness of different government services. Awareness status about government sponsored services are analyzed in this section. Over all, 25.1 percent of the respondents mentioned that they heard about AIDS. The level of awareness was high among respondents of urban (37.1 percent) compared to rural households(22 percent). About 24 and 27 percent households in rural area knew the use of ORS and iodized salt respectively (see Table 8.26). In urban area 42.5 and 44.3 percent households were found to have knowledge of the same.overall at state level on an average 28.0 and 31 percent households knew the use of ORS and iodised salt. The programmes like immunization and vaccination to pregnant women were known to about one-third of the households of the state but knowledge about it were found more in urban households. Inter regional comparison about knowledge of government sponsored programmes indicates highest awareness of these to Southern fallowed by Western region households. Least knowledge about it has been seen in Eastern region s households (see Table 8.27). Lastly with the analysis of available data, conclusion may be drawn that the sizeable community participation particularly in the rural areas cannot be attained unless most of the households have sufficient knowledge about existing government sponsored programmes like health and social rights. 8.5 M N R E G A The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (NREGA) guarantees 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to any rural household whose adult members are willing to participate in unskilled manual work The act is an important step towards realization of the right to work and aims at arresting out-migration of rural households in search of employment simultaneously enhancing people s livelihood on a sustained basis, by developing the economic and social infrastructure in rural areas. 8.5.1 JOB CARDS ISSUED UNDER MNREGA All rural households are entitled to apply for participation in the Scheme and to get job cards issued. Workers in households that obtain job cards are entitled to employment guarantee in public works up to 100 days per family in a year. The Government is obliged to provide employment within 15 days of the demand for it. In case of failure to provide employment, the Government is obliged to pay an unemployment allowance. Table 8.12 shows that in 2009 10, only 14 percent rural Page 190

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES households had MNREGA job cards. The table also shows that there was a large variation across region in Figure 8.11(a) Percent of households who had obtained job card under MNREGA by regions(2009-10) Eastern 47% Southern 7% Western 17% Central 29% Figure 8.11(b) Percent of households who had obtained job card under MNREGA by income groups (2009-10) Richest 22% Middle 31% Poorest 47% terms of the proportion of households with job cards, ranging from 16.9 percent in Western to 28.7 percent in Central and 46.8 percent in Eastern region. The proportion of households with job cards was found lowest in Southern region. As may be expected, overall, the proportion of SC and ST rural households having job cards was higher than the proportion of rural households belonging to OBC (Other Backward Classes) and Other category with job cards. The households belonging to other social group having little proportion in share of job cards. Analyzing it by income group, it is found that highest 46.8 percent household belongs to poor income group among MNREGA job card holders. 8.5.2 DEMAND FOR WORK AND PROVISION OF WORK UNDER MNREGA As per the MNREGA rules, it is mandatory to allocate the work to the registered households within 15 days of application. There should be no delay in allotting employment as this will create the liability of giving on an unemployment allowance. As per the results given in Table 8.15, 38.4 percent households from lowest income group received the job under MNREGS after getting Job Card, 36.9 percent of middle income group, while 24.8 percent of higher income group received the work after getting Job Card. The social group wise distribution of employment receivers shows that most of the households who get job within 15 days, belongs to category of OBC and SC/ST i.e. 48.4 and 44.3 percent, respectively. Only 7.3 percent of them were of the general category. Hence, the analysis reveals that major section of Page 191

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Figure 8.11(c) Percent of households who had obtained job card under MNREGA by social groups (2009-10) Other 6% OBC 43% SC/ST 51% beneficiary belongs from the category of OBC and SC/ST households, which is the ultimate goal of the MNREG Scheme. Under the MNREGA, a household has the right to demand up to 100 days of employment in a year. The households that demand employment are supposed to be provided work within 15 days of their demand, or be provided unemployment allowance. Data from the PSMS survey shows that a substantial proportion of rural households demanded work under MNREGA, but were not provided any work at all. 8.5.3 MAIN REASONS FOR NOT OBTAINING JOB CARD UNDER MNREGA The main reason for not obtained Job Card cited as Work not required by 32.2 percent fallowed by Not interested in type of work by 27.2 percent household. The reason cited as Have been denied application by 3.0 percent of the households. Figure 8.12 Main Reasons for Not obtaining job card under MNREGA (2009-10) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Western Central Eastern Southern Other Unlikely to get work even with a job card Have been denied application Application process too lengthy Don t know how to apply Wage too low Not interested in type of work Work not required Have not heard of NREGA Analysing the reason by income group, it is found that 24.2 percent households from the poor reported Work not required and 23.6 percent households reported Not interested in type of work. In the case of rich income group, the reasons cited as Work not required by 38.6 percent and Not interested in type of work Page 192

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES by 29.1percent. As it believed analysis shows similar pattern when it analyzing by social group. Page 193

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.1: Households with APL and BPL Cards Type of card Share of households (percent) 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) No cards 12.9 10.4 22.6 12.4 10.6 19.9 14.2 10.0 29.9 APL cards 65.9 64.5 71.3 63.9 61.8 72.0 64.6 65.0 63.2 BPL cards 21.3 25.1 6.1 23.7 27.6 8.0 21.2 25.0 6.9 (of which Antyodaya) 3.3 3.9 0.7 9.9 11.5 2.7 9.9 11.3 3.0 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 8.2: Households with APL and BPL Cards by Region Type of card Share of households (percent) 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) No cards 13.1 8.8 12.8 10.8 15.6 16.6 11.7 10.2 APL cards 76.8 62.3 54.4 58.0 72.8 61.8 58.2 62.2 BPL cards 10.2 28.9 32.8 31.3 11.6 21.6 30.1 27.6 (of which Antyodaya) 4.2 10.4 14.8 9.5 4.6 11.1 14.0 12.4 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 8.3: Households with Antyodaya and BPL Cards Income Share of beneficiaries from group (Percent) group 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Antyodaya Other BPL Overall Population Antyodaya Other BPL Overall Population Antyodaya Other BPL Overall Population (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Poorest 53.1 38.5 33.3 50.7 39.9 33.3 55.5 44.1 33.3 Middle 24.2 31.9 33.3 27.7 32.1 33.3 26.7 31.7 33.3 Richest 22.8 29.6 33.3 21.6 27.9 33.3 17.7 24.2 33.3 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 8.4: Households with Antyodaya and BPL Cards by Region Region Share of beneficiaries from group (Percent) 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Antyodaya Other BPL Antyodaya Other BPL Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Western 12.5 12.8 17.2 22.4 Central 21.1 24.7 24.2 21.5 Eastern 60.5 53.3 53.5 51.1 Southern 6.0 9.2 5.2 5.1 Page 194

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.5: Households with BPL Cards By Income and Social Group Household group Share of beneficiaries from group (Percent) 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Income Group: Poorest 40.5 39.8 51.5 38.5 40.2 29.3 37.7 41.4 24.6 Middle 30.8 31.0 27.6 31.3 31.6 29.6 28.8 29.7 25.6 Richest 28.7 29.2 20.9 30.2 28.2 41.0 33.4 28.9 49.8 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Social Group: SC/ST 44.4 45.6 23.6 37.6 40.5 21.8 34.6 39.7 16.4 OBC 45.0 44.9 46.9 44.9 46.1 37.9 45.8 48.1 37.7 Other 10.6 9.5 29.5 17.5 13.4 40.3 19.6 12.3 46.0 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 8.6: Households with BPL Cards By Income, Social Group and Region Household group Share of beneficiaries from group (Percent) 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Income Group: Poorest 28.3 41.7 44.0 27.1 25.6 45.3 41.1 42.3 Middle 31.4 24.2 32.4 32.6 32.3 21.6 30.5 29.5 Richest 40.4 34.1 23.7 40.4 42.1 33.2 28.4 28.2 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Social Group: SC/ST 31.3 42.6 37.7 43.4 25.1 37.9 37.5 50.7 OBC 40.6 42.2 47.1 40.9 46.5 40.4 49.0 39.1 Other 28.1 15.2 15.2 15.8 28.4 21.7 13.5 10.2 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 8.7: Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop Household group Purchases during past 30 days 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Amount (Kg) Median price(per kg) Amount (Kg) Median price Amount (Kg) Median price (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Purchases of Wheat: BPL cardholders 18.5 5.0 7.4 10.0 11.5 5.0 Antyodaya cardholders 22.6 2.3 9.1 3.5 11.3 2.0 Overall 21.0 2.5 3.4 11.0 11.4 4.5 Purchases of Rice: BPL cardholders 10.1 6.2 6.8 7.1 14.5 6.3 Antyodaya cardholders 12.3 3.0 9.2 3.5 21.4 3.0 Overall 11.4 3.5 3.2 11.0 17.3 6.0 Page 195

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.8: Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop Household Purchases during past 30 days group Western Central Eastern Southern Amount Median Amount Median Amount Median Amount Median (Kg) price(per kg) (Kg) price (Kg) price (Kg) price (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Purchases of Wheat: BPL cardholders 13.5 4.7 13.6 5.0 9.4 5.0 15.8 5.0 Antyodaya 14.3 2.0 10.8 2.0 10.1 2.0 16.4 2.0 cardholders Overall 13.8 4.7 12.4 4.3 9.7 4.0 16.1 5.0 Purchases of Rice: BPL cardholders 12.2 6.2 17.6 6.5 14.3 6.3 14.0 7.0 Antyodaya 19.1 3.0 22.6 3.0 21.9 3.0 18.5 3.0 cardholders Overall 14.5 6.0 19.7 5.5 17.4 5.5 15.8 6.6 Table 8.9: Percentage of households obtained a loan from a government-sponsered credit program in the past 12 months Type of card Percentage of households 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Government source Swarnjayanti gram swarozgar 11.8 11.8 10.3 9.7 10.0 6.2 yojana/swarnjayanti swarozgar yojana Pradhan mantri rozgar yojana 1.5 1.6 0.3 30.5 27.6 66.0 kisan credit card 68.0 68.4 56.6 50.9 53.7 15.7 Others 18.7 18.2 32.8 8.9 8.7 12.2 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 Other Sources Employer/ Landlord 9.0 9.4 0.7 3.6 4.2 0.0 Trader/Money lender 21.5 20.2 48.0 39.0 32.9 79.3 Relative (kin or in-laws) 19.0 19.1 17.3 19.6 21.7 6.2 Credit groups 9.3 9.7 0.0 11.5 12.8 2.9 Institutional sources (bank, cooperative,etc.) 33.2 33.7 22.4 20.1 22.0 7.9 Other 8.1 7.9 11.6 6.1 6.4 3.9 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 196

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.10: Percentage of households obtained a loan from a government-sponsered credit program in the past 12 months- by region Type of card Percentage of households 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Government source Swarnjayanti gram swarozgar yojana/swarnjayanti swarozgar 6.4 9.1 12.7 5.6 yojana Pradhan mantri rozgar yojana 17.0 11.6 55.4 5.9 kisan credit card 57.1 72.8 27.0 78.6 Others 19.6 6.5 4.9 9.9 Total: 100 100 100 100 Other Sources Employer/ Landlord 8.9 0.4 1.4 0.9 Trader/Money lender 33.5 37.1 47.0 48.3 Relative (kin or in-laws) 16.3 12.3 35.1 21.1 Credit groups 18.2 7.7 5.0 16.5 Institutional sources (bank, cooperative,etc.) 22.6 32.1 4.2 4.8 Other 0.6 10.4 7.3 8.4 Total: 100 100 100 100 Table 8.11: Average amount of cash borrowings per households from a government-sponsored credit program Income Received (Rs.) group/social 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Group Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) Income Group: Poorest 12908 13969 3630 Middle 17612 17506 18748 Richest 30820 31437 18922 Social Group: SC/ST 18504 20058 2974 OBC 20177 20193 19919 Other 29579 31227 13364 Region Western 35735 37892 19892 Central 22224 23733 4893 Eastern 10634 10830 7014 Southern 43865 43933 42635 Uttar pradesh 22068 22808 12863 Page 197

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.12: Distribution of households who had obtained job card under NREGA (PSMS IV)-Rural only Income group/social Group Percentage of households 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Yes No No Response (1) (2) (3) (4) Income Group: Poorest 46.8 25.6 29.2 Middle 31.2 32.0 41.6 Richest 22.0 42.5 29.2 Social Group: SC/ST 51.3 22.1 16.9 OBC 43.1 51.8 64.7 Other 5.6 26.2 18.4 Region Western 16.9 40.4 51.3 Central 28.7 21.3 7.6 Eastern 46.8 35.0 39.6 Southern 7.7 3.3 1.4 Uttar Pradesh 14.3 84.7 1.0 Table 8.13: Main Reasons for Not obtaining job card under NREGA (PSMS IV)-Rural only Income group/social Group Percent of households 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Have not heard of NREGA 4.3 1.0 1.5 1.7 Work not required 33.3 30.0 30.8 47.2 Not interested in type of work 20.8 28.7 34.3 19.7 Wage too low 2.7 0.2 0.7 0.7 Don t know how to apply 9.4 3.8 6.9 6.9 Application process too lengthy 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.4 Have been denied application 4.4 1.9 2.4 1.3 Unlikely to get work even with a job card 0.7 1.1 1.9 8.6 Other 23.9 32.5 21.0 13.6 Table 8.14: Main Reasons for Not obtaining job card under NREGA (PSMS IV)-Rural only Income group/social Group Percent of households 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Poor Middle Rich SC/ST OBC other All (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Have not heard of NREGA 3.3 2.9 1.9 2.9 2.8 1.8 2.6 Work not required 24.2 30.0 38.6 26.4 32.0 37.4 32.2 Not interested in type of work 23.6 27.4 29.1 22.0 29.0 27.9 27.2 Wage too low 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.7 1.5 0.8 1.4 Don t know how to apply 11.7 8.1 4.0 11.5 7.6 3.0 7.3 Application process too lengthy 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 Have been denied application 4.4 3.2 2.1 4.5 3.4 1.1 3.0 Unlikely to get work even with a job card 1.5 1.7 1.2 3.1 1.2 0.4 1.4 Other 28.8 24.4 21.6 26.8 21.8 27.4 24.4 Page 198

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.15: Distribution of respondents Grievances related to Allocation of Work after getting Job Card Income group/social Group Applied for employment Pertaining to Work provided employment within 15 days Applied for at least 100 days Yes No Yes No Yes No (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Income Group: Poorest 37.5 28.1 38.4 34.9 39.9 31.2 Middle 35.7 31.7 36.9 31.5 35.9 32.2 Richest 26.9 40.3 24.8 33.6 24.2 36.5 Social Group: SC/ST 44.7 24.9 44.3 45.6 51.3 30.6 OBC 48.3 50.8 48.4 48.0 44.0 49.0 Other 7.0 24.3 7.3 6.4 4.7 20.4 By Region: Western 35.5 37.3 32.2 46.1 23.3 24.4 Central 20.1 22.3 22.0 14.0 19.1 25.5 Eastern 41.3 36.4 42.5 37.5 50.5 43.6 Southern 3.1 4.0 3.3 2.4 7.1 6.6 Table 8.16:Number of workdays completed by the households under NREGA and average wage cost per person Income group/social Group Number of workdays completed by the households under NREGA Average wage cost per personday (Rs.) 76-100 51-75 25-50 Less than 25 None at all (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Income Group: Poorest 1 2 6 7 84 27.40 Middle 1 1 3 4 91 17.00 Richest 0 0 2 3 95 8.80 Social Group: SC/ST 1 2 7 8 82 29.30 OBC 1 1 3 4 92 15.10 Other 0 0 1 1 98 6.10 By Region: Western 0 0 2 3 95 7.70 Central 1 1 5 5 88 19.20 Eastern 1 1 4 5 89 23.50 Southern 1 2 7 9 81 25.70 All 1 1 4 4 91 16.70 Page 199

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.17: Distribution Persons who received Unemployment Allowance Income group/social Group Persons who Received Unemployment Allowance (last 365 days) Yes No (1) (2) (3) Income Group: Poorest 0.2 99.8 Middle 0.4 99.6 Richest 0.6 99.4 Social Group: SC/ST 0.1 99.9 OBC 0.8 99.2 Other 0.0 100.0 By Region: Western 0.5 99.6 Central 0.2 99.8 Eastern 0.7 99.4 Southern 0.2 99.8 Table 8.18: Coverage of Other Government Programmes Type of benefit Households receiving benefit (Percent) 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Retirement pension - - - - - - 2.2 1.7 4.0 Old-age pension 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.5 3.7 4.4 0.8 Disability pension 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.2 Widow pension 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.3 Social Security benefit NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other pensions 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Pregnancy benefit 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.3 Savitri Bai Phule NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 0.1 0.0 Balika Shiksha Madad Yojana Mahamaya Gareeb NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 0.1 0.0 Balika Aashirwad Yojna Any of the above 4.2 4.8 1.7 3.9 3.9 3.5 5.6 6.6 1.8 Table 8.19: Coverage of Other Government Programmes by Region Type of benefit Households receiving benefit (Percent) 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Retirement pension 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.5 1.7 2.9 2.2 2.2 Old-age pension 0.5 1.1 1.2 0.8 2.2 4 4.5 7.9 Disability pension 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.1 Widow pension 0.5 1.1 0.7 1.7 0.6 1 0.7 0.9 Page 200

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Social Security benefit 0.9 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Other pensions 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 Pregnancy benefit NA NA NA NA 0.4 0.8 0.8 2.1 Savitri Bai Phule Balika NA NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 Shiksha Madad Yojana Mahamaya Gareeb Balika Aashirwad Yojna NA NA NA NA 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 Table 8.20: Coverage of Other Government Programmes by Income and Social Group Household group Households receiving benefit (Percent) 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Income Group: Poorest 23.8 23.6 25.5 24.9 26.5 18.1 35.5 35.5 36.0 Middle 28.9 28.4 35.1 31.1 30.6 33.4 31.1 30.9 35.0 Richest 47.3 48.0 39.4 44.0 43.0 48.5 33.3 33.7 29.0 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Social Group: SC/ST 34.5 35.7 21.0 34.0 38.5 13.4 38.1 39.2 22.3 OBC 38.9 38.8 40.7 37.2 39.8 25.1 48.3 48.3 48.0 Other 26.6 25.6 38.2 28.9 21.7 61.5 13.6 12.4 29.7 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table 8.21: Coverage of Other Government Programmes by Income,Social Group and Region Household group Households receiving benefit (Percent) 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Income Group: Poorest 37.4 37.5 36.9 23.8 26.8 44.2 37.7 23.3 Middle 32.3 31.3 40.8 28.9 33.4 29.6 30.9 30.6 Richest 30.3 31.2 22.3 47.3 39.8 26.2 31.5 46.1 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Social Group: SC/ST 42.8 44.9 23.8 34.5 33.9 38.6 38.5 47.0 OBC 33.7 32.7 42.7 38.9 51.4 46.4 49.2 40.1 Other 23.6 22.4 33.5 26.6 14.8 14.9 12.3 12.9 OVERALL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Page 201

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.22: Coverage of Other Government Programmes in Rural Areas by Income and Social Group Rural Type of benefit Households receiving benefit (Percent) Income level Social group Poor Middle Rich SC/ST OBC Other Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) PSMS-II Old-age pension 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 Disability pension 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Widow pension 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 Other pensions 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 Pregnancy benefit 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Subsidized credit 2.2 2.6 3.7 3.1 2.4 3.7 2.9 JRY/employment program 1.8 1.6 0.9 2.9 1.0 0.2 1.4 PSMS-III Old-age pension 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 Disability pension 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.8 Widow pension 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 Other pensions 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.1 0.9 Pregnancy benefit 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 Subsidized credit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA JRY/employment program NA NA NA NA NA NA NA PSMS-IV Old-age pension 5.1 4.3 4.0 6.3 3.8 3.0 4.4 Disability pension 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 Widow pension 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 Social Security benefit 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Other pensions 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Pregnancy benefit 1.3 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.8 Savitri Bai Phule Balika Shiksha 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Madad Yojana Mahamaya Gareeb Balika Aashirwad Yojna 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 Page 202

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.23: Coverage of Other Government Programmes in Urban Areas by Income and Social Group Urban Type od benefit Households receiving benefit (Percent) Income level Social group Poor Middle Rich SC/ST OBC Other Total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) PSMS-II Old-age pension 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 Disability pension 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Widow pension 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 Other pensions 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 Pregnancy benefit 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 Subsidized credit 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 JRY/employment program 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PSMS-III Old-age pension 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 Disability pension 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.8 Widow pension 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.1 0.5 0.9 0.9 Other pensions 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.4 Pregnancy benefit 0.3 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.9 Subsidized credit NA NA NA NA NA NA NA JRY/employment program NA NA NA NA NA NA NA PSMS-IV Old-age pension 1.3 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.7 0.5 0.9 Disability pension 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 Widow pension 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 Social Security benefit 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other pensions 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Pregnancy benefit 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Savitri Bai Phule Balika Shiksha Madad 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yojana Mahamaya Gareeb Balika Aashirwad Yojna 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Page 203

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES Table 8.24: Coverage of Other Government Programmes in Urban Areas by Region Type of benefit Households receiving benefit (Percent) Rural Urban Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) PSMS-IV Old-age pension 2.8 4.9 5.0 9.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 3.9 Disability 0.3 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 pension Widow pension 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.2 Other pensions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Pregnancy 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.0 benefit Subsidized credit 0.5 1.0 0.9 2.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.9 JRY/employment program 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Table 8.25: Awareness of Government-sponsored Services KNOWLEDGE OF Have any knowledge (Percent of households) 2002/2003 PSMS-II 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Measles immunization 68.0 64.0 83.8 82.3 80.3 90.6 34.7 31.8 45.9 Vaccination of pregnant 78.9 76.6 88.2 82.5 80.3 91.6 34.2 31.2 45.3 mothers Use of iodized salt 54.0 48.3 76.6 82.7 80.6 91.2 30.9 27.3 44.3 Use of ORS 39.1 33.2 62.8 82.7 80.7 90.8 28.0 24.1 42.5 Family planning 72.9 70.5 82.4 82.9 80.7 91.7 31.7 28.8 42.7 AIDS 50.1 44.9 71.1 82.7 80.6 91.3 25.1 21.9 37.1 Table 8.26: Awareness of Government-sponsored Services by Region KNOWLEDGE OF Have any knowledge (Percent of households) 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/2010 PSMS-IV Western Central Eastern Southern Western Central Eastern Southern (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Measles immunization 85.7 82.1 81.0 84.9 39.9 31.6 29.3 54.1 Vaccination of pregnant 83.8 84.4 82.3 84.7 39.2 31.7 28.3 54.5 mothers Use of iodized salt 84.7 83.0 81.2 84.2 34.4 30.3 25.8 47.8 Use of ORS 85.4 83.2 81.9 85.5 33.2 27.5 21.2 43.1 Family planning 85.0 80.3 80.8 86.0 36.4 30.7 25.5 50.4 AIDS 84.6 83.8 81.5 84.0 26.8 26.2 21.0 40.7 Page 204

APPENDIX-I DETAILED TABLES OF PSMS-IV Table 1(a) : Percent literate persons aged 7 years and above by sex Sector Male Female Person Male Female Person (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 2007/2008 PSMS-III 2009/10 PSMS-IV Rural 73.4 50.2 62.2 75.2 53.5 64.9 Urban 82.4 70.8 76.9 83.1 70.0 77.0 Combined 75.1 54.1 65.1 76.8 56.8 67.3 Table 1(b): Per cent literate persons aged 7 and above years by sex and Decile Group DECILE Male Female Person (1) (2) (3) (4) Rural Poorest 63.8 44.1 54.0 2 70.4 48.5 59.9 3 69.8 48.3 59.5 4 72.2 49.3 61.0 5 74.4 54.3 65.0 6 77.6 53.4 66.3 7 76.8 53.8 66.3 8 78.0 55.8 67.6 9 81.1 61.0 71.7 Richest 84.3 64.6 75.1 Average 75.2 53.5 64.9 Urban Poorest 64.9 46.6 56.5 2 64.5 51.6 58.4 3 72.8 56.7 65.1 4 77.4 61.6 70.1 5 82.1 65.0 74.0 6 85.0 70.1 78.2 7 89.0 76.7 83.2 8 94.3 82.6 88.9 9 95.9 90.2 93.3 Richest 98.5 93.7 96.4 Average 83.1 70.0 77.0 Page 205

Table 1(c): Per cent literate persons aged 7 and above years by sex District Rural Urban Combined Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Western Region Saharan Pur 69.1 52.9 61.6 78.2 65.8 72.1 71.2 56.1 64.1 Mujaffar Nagar 76.2 52.4 65.0 80.2 62.3 71.9 77.1 54.6 66.5 Bijnor 86.3 75.1 81.0 88.2 76.6 82.4 86.7 75.4 81.3 Moradabad 53.1 38.1 45.8 65.4 55.5 60.7 56.6 43.2 50.1 Ram Pur 69.0 46.5 58.9 60.4 36.5 49.8 67.2 44.5 57.1 J.P.Nagar 75.4 50.7 64.4 67.7 59.6 64.3 73.4 52.9 64.4 Meerut 82.3 62.3 72.8 84.3 66.6 76.0 83.3 64.4 74.4 Baghpat 75.7 49.8 63.2 79.1 63.5 71.3 76.3 52.4 64.7 Ghaziabad 89.4 59.5 76.0 92.8 75.2 84.5 91.5 69.6 81.4 G.B.Nagar 90.1 73.1 82.2 89.8 67.7 80.4 89.9 70.8 81.4 Bulandshahar 82.8 57.7 70.8 83.0 64.4 74.2 82.8 59.1 71.5 Aligarh 80.4 52.6 67.6 74.1 56.4 66.6 78.3 53.8 67.3 Hathras 81.0 58.2 71.0 83.1 70.0 76.6 81.3 60.4 71.9 Mathura 76.7 47.7 63.0 69.2 53.4 61.9 74.7 49.2 62.7 Agra 79.8 51.6 66.7 86.6 73.6 80.4 82.5 60.4 72.1 Firozabad 79.3 64.5 72.6 68.0 61.9 65.0 76.3 63.7 70.5 Etah 70.2 50.5 61.0 86.9 78.0 83.0 73.3 55.3 65.0 Mainpuri 82.0 63.8 73.7 86.6 74.9 81.1 82.5 65.1 74.6 Budayun 62.4 39.9 52.2 65.9 48.8 58.0 62.9 41.4 53.2 Bareilly 64.6 39.0 52.3 75.2 62.6 69.5 67.9 45.9 57.5 Pilibhit 64.0 47.3 55.9 69.8 49.6 60.2 65.0 47.7 56.7 Shahjahan Pur 71.3 45.2 59.6 88.8 81.9 85.6 74.0 51.3 63.8 Furrukhabad 72.1 58.6 66.0 81.3 75.2 78.4 74.1 62.4 68.7 Kannauj 78.9 63.1 72.0 84.9 78.3 81.6 79.6 65.5 73.3 Etawah 86.0 72.3 79.5 78.8 69.2 74.6 83.7 71.4 78.0 Auraiya 85.2 74.9 80.0 81.6 70.8 76.7 84.6 74.3 79.5 Central Region Kheri 72.9 55.2 64.7 67.1 66.9 67.0 72.3 56.5 64.9 Sitapur 63.5 41.0 53.0 83.8 57.5 71.8 65.4 42.5 54.7 Hardoi 71.3 49.8 62.2 75.0 55.4 66.1 71.6 50.3 62.5 Unnao 62.2 39.5 51.9 87.6 63.7 79.1 56.8 23.5 44.2 Lucknow 78.0 59.2 69.2 85.9 79.3 82.7 83.2 72.8 78.2 Raebareli 76.3 57.4 67.3 82.8 64.6 73.8 76.9 58.0 67.8 Kanpur Dehat 87.7 83.7 85.9 94.1 93.7 93.9 88.0 84.2 86.3 Kanpur Nagar 83.1 72.5 78.2 89.1 83.4 86.5 86.5 78.5 82.8 Fatehpur 68.4 45.5 57.8 78.5 63.7 72.1 69.7 47.8 59.6 Page 206

District Rural Urban Combined Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Barabanki 70.3 47.9 60.6 87.7 63.8 76.5 70.7 49.2 61.2 Banda 77.4 50.7 65.6 88.5 80.1 84.3 78.4 54.1 67.5 Chitrakoot 70.6 55.2 63.4 81.3 70.7 75.7 71.4 56.6 64.4 Eastern Region Pratapgarh 82.9 57.2 70.7 89.5 65.4 78.0 83.2 57.6 71.1 Koushambi 74.1 43.0 59.2 80.3 61.1 71.3 74.6 44.2 60.0 Allahabad 85.0 52.0 69.6 95.2 83.4 90.2 88.0 60.3 75.4 Faizabad 78.8 60.4 68.7 91.2 76.4 84.1 81.2 62.9 71.4 Ambedkar Nagar 78.4 60.0 69.5 80.8 73.6 77.2 78.6 60.9 70.0 Sultanpur 80.2 58.8 70.0 93.6 81.8 88.0 80.8 59.7 70.7 Bahraich 57.0 34.0 46.2 87.0 76.6 82.2 59.2 37.1 48.9 Shrawasti 53.6 37.1 45.5 64.7 54.4 60.0 53.9 37.5 45.8 Balrampur 76.5 37.0 58.2 78.8 52.9 67.2 76.6 38.1 58.8 Gonda 57.2 37.0 47.3 76.5 62.9 69.7 58.1 38.2 48.4 Siddharthanagar 64.3 40.4 52.2 59.0 45.3 52.7 64.1 40.5 52.3 Basti 78.9 55.8 67.9 94.9 82.0 89.0 79.5 56.7 68.6 Sant Kabir Nagar 70.1 45.0 57.2 61.0 45.6 54.0 69.2 45.0 56.9 Maharajganj 86.8 71.2 79.7 98.9 90.5 95.2 87.4 72.1 80.5 Gorakhpur 79.9 57.8 68.8 89.0 75.5 82.7 81.4 60.4 71.0 Kushi Nagar 75.8 49.3 62.8 81.6 70.0 75.6 76.1 50.5 63.5 Deoria 81.5 56.7 68.3 84.7 69.9 77.8 81.9 57.9 69.2 Azamgarh 80.2 57.1 68.7 90.2 79.5 85.0 80.8 58.3 69.6 Mau 99.0 80.9 90.1 99.3 88.9 94.1 99.1 82.6 90.9 Ballia 74.1 56.9 65.9 75.0 62.3 69.1 74.2 57.2 66.0 Jaunpur 81.7 57.1 68.9 73.9 65.5 69.6 81.0 57.8 69.0 Ghazipur 81.0 57.8 68.9 90.3 73.0 81.5 81.7 58.9 69.8 Chandauli 82.0 58.1 71.0 79.7 62.0 71.3 81.8 58.5 71.1 Varanasi 81.8 62.1 72.7 78.6 73.3 76.1 80.7 65.8 73.9 Sant Ravidas Nagar 80.5 48.7 64.7 73.9 58.0 66.6 79.7 49.7 64.9 Mirzapur 70.7 47.6 60.7 83.8 68.3 76.8 72.5 50.5 62.9 Sonbhadra 63.6 45.9 55.3 94.2 80.8 87.6 68.4 51.7 60.5 Southern Region Jalaun 78.6 56.6 68.1 83.3 71.3 77.3 80.0 61.4 71.0 Jhansi 71.6 46.9 60.3 86.8 72.3 79.7 76.5 56.1 66.9 Lalitpur 72.4 50.7 62.6 97.3 91.2 94.4 75.3 56.0 66.5 Hamirpur 69.5 44.6 58.4 87.8 69.2 79.1 71.5 47.6 60.8 Mahoba 72.8 46.6 60.8 88.2 71.3 80.1 76.8 53.4 65.9 Uttar Pradesh 75.2 53.5 64.9 83.1 70.0 77.0 76.8 56.8 67.3 Page 207

Table 2(a): Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education Sector/ decile Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 99 Total PSMS-III Rural 3.6 4.7 4.4 5.1 9.8 3.1 3.0 10.7 2.7 6.0 1.1 4.5 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 38.6 100 Urban 2.7 3.3 3.2 3.8 8.5 2.6 2.6 10.2 3.0 9.7 2.0 8.6 8.6 3.8 2.7 0.1 24.6 100 Combined 3.4 4.4 4.1 4.9 9.6 3.0 2.9 10.6 2.8 6.7 1.3 5.3 3.0 1.2 0.8 0.1 35.9 100 PSMS-IV Rural 0 3.4 4.2 3.8 5.5 10.4 3.1 2.9 11.2 2.9 6.8 0.7 5.5 2.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 36.0 100 Urban 0 2.6 2.9 3.3 4.3 8.8 3.0 2.5 10.5 2.5 9.1 1.1 10.2 8.9 4.3 1.8 0.1 24.2 100 Combined 0 3.2 4.0 3.7 5.3 10.1 3.1 2.8 11.1 2.8 7.3 0.8 6.5 3.7 1.4 0.7 0.1 33.6 100 Table 2(b): Percentage distribution of persons according to Decile Group and highest level of education Sector/ Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education decile 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 99 Total Rural All PSMS-IV Poorest 4.7 5.7 4.4 6.1 9.7 3.0 1.9 9.5 1.9 3.4 0.1 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 47.1 100 2 4.2 5.5 4.4 6.3 11.9 3.4 3.0 9.4 2.1 4.4 0.3 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 41.2 100 3 3.7 5.1 4.1 6.1 10.7 3.2 3.0 10.4 2.5 5.0 0.4 3.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 41.5 100 4 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.5 10.6 3.2 3.0 10.6 2.6 5.1 0.6 3.2 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 39.9 100 5 3.7 4.4 3.9 5.6 11.1 3.4 2.9 12.3 2.9 7.1 0.8 4.3 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 36.0 100 6 3.6 4.2 3.8 5.5 9.9 3.5 3.4 11.6 3.5 7.1 0.7 5.9 2.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 34.5 100 7 2.9 3.6 3.6 6.2 10.5 3.5 3.2 11.2 3.2 7.7 0.9 6.2 2.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 34.4 100 8 2.9 3.8 3.3 5.7 10.0 3.3 3.0 11.8 3.4 8.5 0.7 6.7 3.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 32.8 100 9 2.2 3.2 3.4 4.6 11.1 2.6 2.9 12.6 3.4 8.6 1.2 8.7 4.4 1.1 0.8 0.1 29.2 100 Richest 2.0 2.5 2.7 3.9 8.9 2.4 2.4 12.2 3.2 10.7 1.3 11.4 6.5 2.3 1.8 0.1 25.7 100 Average 3.4 4.2 3.8 5.5 10.4 3.1 2.9 11.2 2.9 6.8 0.7 5.5 2.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 36.0 100 Page 208

Table 2(c): Percentage distribution of persons according to Decile Group and highest level of education Sector/ Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education decile 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 99 Total Rural Boy PSMS-IV Poorest 5.0 6.0 4.4 7.0 11.6 2.9 2.0 12.3 3.1 4.8 0.2 2.3 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 37.2 100 2 3.9 5.6 4.9 7.5 13.5 3.4 3.5 11.3 2.9 6.2 0.4 4.5 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 30.8 100 3 4.2 5.2 4.0 6.5 12.3 3.3 3.3 13.3 3.3 6.9 0.5 4.2 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 31.1 100 4 5.0 5.6 4.8 6.0 12.2 3.2 3.6 13.4 3.3 6.9 0.7 4.2 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 28.7 100 5 4.2 4.5 4.3 5.3 12.5 3.2 2.9 13.9 4.0 9.4 1.1 5.7 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 26.6 100 6 3.6 4.3 3.9 6.5 10.9 4.2 3.8 14.0 4.5 9.4 0.9 7.0 2.8 0.7 0.4 0.1 23.1 100 7 3.2 3.9 3.6 6.6 10.9 3.9 3.9 13.0 4.4 10.2 0.9 7.6 3.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 24.0 100 8 3.1 3.8 3.7 6.1 10.9 3.2 3.3 13.3 4.5 11.0 0.8 8.2 3.9 1.2 0.5 0.1 22.2 100 9 2.3 3.1 3.3 5.0 11.0 2.3 2.8 15.3 3.8 11.3 1.1 10.6 5.9 1.4 0.9 0.1 19.7 100 Richest 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.7 9.3 2.4 2.6 12.8 4.0 12.7 1.3 13.3 8.5 3.1 2.6 0.2 16.3 100 Average 3.6 4.4 3.9 6.0 11.5 3.2 3.2 13.3 3.8 9.0 0.8 7.0 3.2 0.9 0.6 0.1 25.6 100 Table 2(d): Percentage distribution of persons according to Decile Group and highest level of education Sector/ Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education decile 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 99 Total Rural Girl PSMS-IV Poorest 4.4 5.3 4.4 5.3 7.8 3.1 1.8 6.6 0.6 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 57.1 100 2 4.6 5.4 3.8 5.1 10.1 3.4 2.5 7.3 1.3 2.4 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 52.6 100 3 3.2 5.0 4.2 5.6 8.9 3.0 2.7 7.3 1.6 3.0 0.4 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 52.7 100 4 3.9 4.0 4.7 4.9 9.0 3.2 2.3 7.7 1.8 3.2 0.6 2.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 51.8 100 5 3.0 4.2 3.4 6.1 9.3 3.6 2.9 10.5 1.6 4.4 0.5 2.7 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 46.8 100 6 3.7 4.0 3.7 4.4 8.8 2.6 2.9 8.8 2.3 4.5 0.6 4.6 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 47.4 100 7 2.5 3.2 3.5 5.8 10.1 2.9 2.5 9.0 1.7 4.8 0.9 4.6 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 46.8 100 8 2.7 3.8 2.8 5.2 9.0 3.3 2.7 10.2 2.1 5.7 0.6 4.9 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 44.8 100 9 2.0 3.2 3.5 4.2 11.2 3.0 2.9 9.5 2.9 5.5 1.4 6.5 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 40.0 100 Richest 1.9 2.6 2.4 4.2 8.4 2.4 2.2 11.4 2.2 8.4 1.4 9.3 4.3 1.5 0.9 0.0 36.6 100 Average 3.2 4.1 3.6 5.1 9.3 3.0 2.6 8.9 1.8 4.4 0.7 3.9 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 47.5 100 Page 209

Table 2(e): Percentage distribution of persons according to Decile Group and highest level of education Sector/ Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education decile 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 99 Total Urban All PSMS-IV Poorest 0.0 4.4 4.5 5.7 5.5 9.7 3.0 2.3 8.3 1.6 3.8 0.3 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 47.1 100 2 0.0 3.7 4.5 4.0 6.7 10.4 2.8 2.7 10.4 2.3 4.9 0.2 2.5 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 43.3 100 3 0.0 4.0 4.2 3.9 5.3 11.3 3.3 3.0 10.3 2.0 7.7 0.6 4.7 2.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 36.2 100 4 0.0 2.5 2.7 4.0 5.9 11.9 3.2 3.1 12.6 2.5 8.8 1.0 6.0 2.8 0.9 0.8 0.0 31.4 100 5 0.0 3.0 3.1 3.9 4.2 10.6 4.2 3.4 12.9 2.6 9.2 0.5 8.3 4.0 1.4 1.1 0.1 27.6 100 6 0.1 2.4 2.9 3.1 5.0 9.5 3.7 3.2 13.9 3.1 11.8 1.2 9.7 5.7 1.7 0.6 0.1 22.5 100 7 0.0 2.4 3.2 2.9 4.1 10.3 2.9 1.8 12.7 3.4 11.8 1.0 12.2 8.5 4.0 1.2 0.0 17.7 100 8 0.0 1.5 1.8 2.2 3.1 7.1 3.0 2.4 12.5 3.3 13.4 1.6 16.3 12.8 5.5 1.7 0.1 11.8 100 9 0.0 1.1 1.8 1.6 2.5 5.0 1.9 2.2 7.0 2.5 11.2 1.8 18.2 21.1 11.4 3.3 0.2 7.3 100 Richest 0.0 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.4 3.1 1.8 1.4 5.1 2.0 7.5 2.0 19.2 25.4 14.4 7.8 0.2 4.0 100 Average 0.0 2.6 2.9 3.3 4.3 8.8 3.0 2.5 10.5 2.5 9.1 1.1 10.2 8.9 4.3 1.8 0.1 24.2 100 Table 2(f): Percentage distribution of persons according to Decile Group and highest level of education Sector/ Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education decile 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 99 Total Urban Boy PSMS-IV Poorest 0 5.9 5.0 7.1 5.9 11.2 3.1 1.9 9.7 1.6 4.4 0.2 2.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 40.0 100 2 0 3.5 3.7 3.9 7.2 12.8 2.8 3.3 12.8 2.7 5.9 0.2 2.7 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 37.2 100 3 0 3.8 3.8 4.0 6.0 12.8 4.4 3.8 11.8 2.4 8.9 0.6 5.6 2.5 0.8 0.5 0.0 28.3 100 4 0 2.5 2.4 3.6 6.0 13.6 3.5 3.9 15.5 2.0 10.5 1.2 5.9 2.9 1.1 1.4 0.1 24.1 100 5 0 2.3 3.1 3.2 4.3 11.1 4.2 4.2 15.7 3.4 11.8 0.5 9.6 3.9 1.3 1.9 0.1 19.3 100 6 0.1 2.4 3.0 2.6 5.5 9.3 2.8 4.4 13.2 4.0 15.0 1.4 11.8 6.4 1.9 0.8 0.1 15.4 100 7 0 2.3 2.6 2.8 4.5 9.7 3.3 1.8 14.0 4.3 12.9 1.0 13.6 8.9 4.1 2.0 0.0 12.2 100 8 0 1.4 1.5 1.9 2.8 6.8 3.1 2.7 12.8 3.5 14.5 2.0 18.4 13.8 6.1 2.4 0.1 6.1 100 9 0 1.3 2.2 1.6 2.1 4.8 1.2 2.2 5.6 3.3 10.9 1.5 18.0 24.2 11.6 4.9 0.3 4.5 100 Richest 0 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.7 2.3 1.7 1.2 3.3 2.1 7.1 2.4 21.4 26.9 13.3 10.4 0.2 1.7 100 Average 0.01 2.6 2.8 3.2 4.5 9.2 3.0 2.9 11.3 2.9 10.3 1.2 11.4 9.7 4.3 2.6 0.1 18.2 100 Page 210

Table 2( g): Percentage distribution of persons according to Decile Group and highest level of education Sector/ decile Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 99 Total Urban Girl PSMS-IV Poorest 2.7 3.9 4.0 4.9 8.0 2.9 2.9 6.7 1.5 3.0 0.4 1.9 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 55.4 100 2 4.0 5.4 4.2 6.2 7.9 2.9 2.1 7.7 1.9 3.9 0.2 2.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 49.9 100 3 4.2 4.7 3.9 4.6 9.6 2.1 2.2 8.7 1.5 6.4 0.5 3.8 2.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 44.7 100 4 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.9 9.9 2.8 2.2 9.3 3.1 6.8 0.8 6.1 2.8 0.8 0.1 0.0 39.8 100 5 3.8 3.0 4.6 4.0 10.0 4.2 2.6 9.8 1.8 6.2 0.6 6.8 4.2 1.5 0.2 0.1 36.8 100 6 2.4 2.7 3.8 4.3 9.7 4.7 1.8 14.8 1.9 8.0 0.8 7.2 5.0 1.5 0.5 0.1 30.8 100 7 2.5 3.9 3.0 3.7 10.9 2.4 1.8 11.1 2.4 10.5 0.9 10.7 8.1 3.8 0.3 0.0 23.9 100 8 1.5 2.1 2.5 3.5 7.4 2.8 2.1 12.0 3.1 12.1 1.2 13.7 11.5 4.7 1.0 0.0 18.6 100 9 0.9 1.4 1.7 3.0 5.3 2.7 2.2 8.7 1.5 11.5 2.2 18.3 17.5 11.3 1.5 0.0 10.5 100 Richest 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.1 4.1 2.0 1.7 7.3 2.0 8.1 1.6 16.4 23.5 15.8 4.5 0.2 6.9 100 Average 2.6 3.1 3.4 4.1 8.3 2.9 2.1 9.6 2.1 7.8 0.9 8.9 7.9 4.2 0.9 0.1 31.2 100 Page 211

Table 2( h): Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education District Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education Rural Urban Combined Primary Middle Secondary/H. Sec. diploma/certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate postgraduate Other Western Region Saharan Pur 56.4 26.3 12.7 0.4 3.5 0.7 0.0 44.5 13.0 26.4 0.9 10.8 4.4 0.0 53.2 22.7 16.4 0.5 5.5 1.7 0.0 Mujaffar Nagar 59.7 19.4 15.8 0.4 3.4 1.4 0.0 43.4 15.3 27.9 1.0 9.4 2.9 0.1 55.7 18.4 18.7 0.5 4.9 1.7 0.1 Bijnor 59.5 18.9 18.4 0.1 2.5 0.6 0.0 49.3 12.9 20.1 0.7 9.9 7.2 0.0 57.5 17.7 18.7 0.2 3.9 1.9 0.0 Moradabad 64.0 18.9 13.4 0.8 2.1 0.5 0.3 48.4 21.1 21.7 1.9 4.9 1.8 0.3 58.7 19.6 16.2 1.2 3.1 0.9 0.3 Ram Pur 63.4 19.0 12.1 0.4 4.1 1.0 0.0 55.7 19.7 13.4 0.4 7.9 2.9 0.0 62.0 19.1 12.3 0.4 4.8 1.4 0.0 J.P.Nagar 52.0 23.7 19.4 2.6 1.9 0.5 0.0 65.5 17.0 14.4 0.6 1.6 0.8 0.2 55.6 21.9 18.1 2.1 1.8 0.6 0.1 Meerut 49.1 19.0 26.0 0.4 4.1 1.3 0.0 47.9 19.3 20.5 0.5 6.4 5.4 0.0 48.5 19.1 23.3 0.5 5.2 3.3 0.0 Baghpat 46.4 17.8 28.6 0.0 4.2 3.0 0.0 31.5 20.7 32.8 0.1 10.3 4.7 0.0 43.5 18.4 29.4 0.0 5.4 3.3 0.0 Ghaziabad 47.8 22.6 24.3 0.4 4.0 0.3 0.7 35.8 15.6 26.7 0.8 18.2 2.7 0.1 39.9 18.0 25.9 0.7 13.4 1.9 0.3 G.B.Nagar 55.9 23.6 16.1 0.0 2.9 0.4 1.1 56.6 15.5 23.4 0.4 2.6 1.5 0.0 56.2 20.0 19.4 0.2 2.8 0.9 0.6 Bulandshahar 52.8 18.6 22.7 0.2 4.5 1.1 0.0 35.5 17.6 26.7 0.3 10.8 8.7 0.4 49.2 18.4 23.5 0.3 5.8 2.7 0.1 Aligarh 54.6 22.4 19.0 0.5 2.0 1.5 0.0 51.6 13.9 18.8 2.9 8.6 4.3 0.0 53.7 19.7 18.9 1.3 4.0 2.4 0.0 Hathras 49.1 19.6 26.3 0.3 3.5 1.0 0.0 44.7 14.2 26.0 0.7 9.5 5.0 0.0 48.4 18.7 26.3 0.4 4.6 1.7 0.0 Mathura 53.7 21.7 19.7 1.0 3.3 0.5 0.2 38.9 20.1 26.3 1.8 8.2 4.7 0.0 50.0 21.3 21.3 1.2 4.5 1.5 0.2 Page 212

District Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education Rural Urban Combined Primary Middle Secondary/H. Sec. diploma/certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate postgraduate Other Agra 55.9 20.9 21.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.0 37.6 16.9 30.1 0.1 10.1 5.3 0.0 47.9 19.1 25.0 0.0 5.3 2.6 0.0 Firozabad 57.9 18.1 20.4 0.0 1.4 0.6 1.6 44.3 22.5 22.8 0.4 4.1 4.1 1.9 54.4 19.3 21.0 0.1 2.0 1.5 1.7 Etah 52.6 22.0 18.4 0.2 5.1 1.7 0.1 31.1 19.3 33.9 0.4 10.5 4.8 0.0 47.8 21.4 21.9 0.2 6.4 2.4 0.1 Mainpuri 61.2 17.6 16.2 0.0 4.2 0.8 0.0 42.6 16.3 29.1 0.3 8.2 3.6 0.0 59.1 17.4 17.7 0.1 4.6 1.1 0.0 Budayun 54.8 21.6 18.2 0.1 4.1 1.3 0.0 41.2 19.3 27.8 1.4 7.3 3.1 0.0 52.3 21.1 19.9 0.4 4.7 1.6 0.0 Bareilly 65.6 20.0 11.1 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.2 34.3 16.4 24.8 0.4 16.3 7.3 0.6 54.2 18.7 16.1 0.1 7.9 2.7 0.3 Pilibhit 55.4 30.6 11.9 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.0 47.8 21.7 19.1 0.1 5.7 5.3 0.5 54.0 28.9 13.2 0.1 1.9 1.9 0.1 Shahjahan Pur 47.2 40.8 11.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 34.0 14.9 33.0 0.8 11.8 5.5 0.0 44.3 35.3 15.9 0.3 2.8 1.4 0.0 Furrukhabad 58.1 25.2 12.9 0.2 2.3 1.2 0.0 40.0 23.4 24.5 0.4 7.9 3.8 0.1 54.3 24.8 15.4 0.3 3.5 1.8 0.0 Kannauj 50.1 23.6 21.1 0.2 4.9 0.1 0.0 39.0 23.1 23.3 0.1 10.6 3.8 0.0 48.4 23.5 21.5 0.2 5.7 0.7 0.0 Etawah 52.5 17.7 24.6 0.5 3.2 1.4 0.1 52.4 16.2 21.3 0.3 6.7 3.1 0.0 52.4 17.2 23.6 0.5 4.3 1.9 0.1 Auraiya 44.7 26.7 23.6 1.2 2.9 0.9 0.1 42.0 22.9 26.1 1.0 4.7 3.3 0.0 44.3 26.1 24.0 1.2 3.2 1.2 0.1 Central Region Kheri 70.8 17.8 9.4 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 58.2 18.7 14.1 0.0 5.3 2.7 2.7 69.6 17.9 9.9 0.1 2.0 0.5 0.1 Sitapur 72.0 13.8 11.8 0.1 1.3 1.1 0.0 60.9 18.4 12.4 0.0 4.8 3.3 3.3 70.8 14.3 11.8 0.1 1.7 1.4 0.0 Hardoi 60.8 26.7 9.5 0.0 2.4 0.7 0.0 53.3 19.7 20.1 0.0 5.6 1.4 1.4 60.1 26.1 10.4 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 Unnao 60.2 24.9 10.6 0.0 2.3 2.0 0.0 46.6 18.4 19.1 0.0 7.8 8.2 8.2 54.9 22.4 13.9 0.0 4.4 4.3 0.0 Page 213

District Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education Rural Urban Combined Primary Middle Secondary/H. Sec. diploma/certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate postgraduate Other Lucknow 48.7 24.5 19.5 0.3 5.7 1.3 0.0 24.0 13.4 27.1 1.0 19.6 15.0 15.0 31.3 16.6 24.8 0.8 15.5 11.0 0.0 Raebareli 48.1 26.5 18.3 0.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 33.0 21.7 26.6 0.0 13.4 5.3 5.3 46.8 26.1 19.1 0.0 6.7 1.4 0.0 Kanpur Dehat 22.8 28.0 45.2 0.3 3.7 0.0 0.1 20.5 14.1 50.5 1.5 10.4 2.5 2.5 22.6 27.1 45.6 0.3 4.1 0.2 0.1 Kanpur Nagar 51.1 25.5 17.0 0.4 4.7 1.3 0.0 30.2 14.5 31.8 1.5 14.9 7.0 7.0 39.1 19.2 25.5 1.0 10.6 4.6 0.0 Fatehpur 66.7 19.4 9.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 3.1 44.9 17.0 16.2 0.4 13.9 7.2 7.2 63.4 19.0 10.1 0.1 3.3 1.5 2.7 Barabanki 75.9 13.6 8.4 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.0 49.3 19.0 20.5 3.8 4.6 2.8 2.8 73.7 14.1 9.4 0.4 2.1 0.4 0.0 Banda 59.4 21.3 17.7 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.0 43.2 16.9 26.2 0.4 9.4 3.1 3.1 57.4 20.7 18.7 0.1 2.4 0.7 0.1 Chitrakoot 70.9 16.2 10.1 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.5 49.2 15.6 18.4 1.3 12.3 2.9 2.9 69.2 16.1 10.7 0.5 2.2 0.8 0.5 Eastern Region Pratapgarh 46.5 20.1 25.8 0.5 4.9 2.2 0.0 32.5 14.8 32.7 2.3 12.6 5.1 5.1 45.7 19.8 26.2 0.6 5.3 2.4 0.0 Koushambi 57.6 14.0 23.7 0.0 3.9 0.8 0.0 51.4 17.0 21.9 0.1 6.6 2.5 2.5 57.1 14.3 23.6 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.1 Allahabad 53.1 17.8 22.4 0.0 4.8 1.9 0.0 25.1 12.3 27.2 1.3 22.5 11.6 11.6 44.1 16.0 24.0 0.4 10.5 5.0 0.0 Faizabad 53.0 22.5 17.0 0.0 4.4 2.7 0.4 38.9 22.9 20.0 0.4 11.4 6.4 6.4 50.2 22.6 17.6 0.1 5.8 3.5 0.3 Ambedkar 53.0 16.9 22.0 0.4 7.1 0.7 0.0 59.1 14.1 20.3 0.2 5.7 0.6 0.6 53.4 16.7 21.9 0.4 7.0 0.7 0.0 Nagar Sultanpur 60.2 17.0 17.8 0.1 2.9 1.9 0.3 36.5 12.6 29.9 0.1 15.6 5.3 5.3 59.1 16.8 18.3 0.1 3.5 2.1 0.3 Bahraich 68.3 15.6 12.3 1.7 1.6 0.5 0.0 33.8 12.5 22.2 6.4 19.4 5.7 5.7 64.1 15.2 13.5 2.2 3.8 1.1 0.0 Page 214

District Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education Rural Urban Combined Primary Middle Secondary/H. Sec. diploma/certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate postgraduate Other Shrawasti 70.2 13.7 13.1 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 38.1 18.0 30.1 0.9 7.6 5.3 5.3 69.4 13.8 13.5 0.1 3.1 0.2 0.0 Balrampur 74.6 9.9 12.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 68.6 7.0 15.7 0.0 7.5 1.3 1.3 74.1 9.6 12.6 0.0 3.5 0.1 0.0 Gonda 59.2 18.2 17.2 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.8 35.8 18.0 32.0 0.0 10.1 4.1 4.1 57.8 18.2 18.1 0.1 2.8 0.4 2.6 Siddharthanag 66.1 11.0 17.0 0.2 4.9 0.8 0.0 49.8 15.4 23.7 0.7 6.8 3.6 3.6 65.6 11.1 17.3 0.2 5.0 0.9 0.0 ar Basti 59.5 17.5 17.0 0.0 4.8 1.1 0.1 36.1 13.9 24.2 1.0 16.4 6.8 6.8 58.6 17.3 17.2 0.1 5.3 1.3 0.2 Sant Kabir 53.5 21.4 21.8 0.0 0.2 3.0 0.0 57.9 17.6 20.0 0.0 1.2 3.3 3.3 53.9 21.1 21.7 0.0 0.3 3.1 0.0 Nagar Maharajganj 58.4 20.4 20.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 48.0 15.3 31.6 0.0 3.3 1.9 1.9 57.8 20.1 20.6 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 Gorakhpur 52.5 20.4 20.8 0.2 5.0 1.0 0.1 34.1 9.6 31.9 0.4 17.4 6.5 6.5 49.2 18.5 22.8 0.3 7.2 2.0 0.1 Kushi Nagar 58.8 18.7 17.4 0.1 3.7 1.3 0.0 44.9 15.0 26.5 0.4 9.7 3.6 3.6 57.9 18.4 18.0 0.1 4.1 1.5 0.0 Deoria 44.9 20.1 28.8 0.1 5.4 0.8 0.0 32.5 16.0 33.2 0.0 15.6 2.7 2.7 43.5 19.7 29.3 0.1 6.5 1.0 0.0 Azamgarh 56.1 16.6 23.0 0.1 3.1 1.2 0.0 37.3 14.8 29.0 0.1 11.8 7.0 7.0 54.8 16.4 23.4 0.1 3.7 1.6 0.0 Mau 42.6 12.9 35.3 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 42.4 12.9 33.5 5.6 5.4 0.3 0.3 42.6 12.9 34.9 1.2 8.3 0.1 0.0 Ballia 45.7 19.2 24.9 0.2 9.0 1.0 0.0 27.6 17.6 37.9 0.7 11.9 4.2 4.2 44.8 19.1 25.5 0.2 9.2 1.2 0.0 Jaunpur 49.6 20.2 22.3 0.9 5.5 1.5 0.0 53.7 21.3 18.4 0.0 5.5 1.1 1.1 50.0 20.3 21.9 0.9 5.5 1.5 0.0 Ghazipur 50.1 19.1 25.7 0.0 4.1 1.0 0.1 36.2 14.3 33.2 0.0 10.9 5.4 5.4 48.9 18.7 26.3 0.0 4.7 1.3 0.1 Chandauli 43.9 23.5 23.6 0.1 6.6 2.4 0.0 36.1 13.6 28.5 0.3 13.9 7.7 7.7 43.0 22.5 24.1 0.1 7.4 3.0 0.0 Page 215

District Percentage distribution of persons according to highest level of education Rural Urban Combined Primary Middle Secondary/H. Sec. diploma/certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate post graduate Other Primary Middle Secondary/ H. Sec. diploma/ certificate course graduate postgraduate Other Varanasi 55.6 16.9 22.2 0.1 4.1 1.2 0.0 42.6 12.1 25.0 0.2 13.5 6.5 6.5 51.1 15.2 23.2 0.1 7.4 3.0 0.0 Sant Ravidas 50.3 24.2 20.4 0.2 3.8 1.1 0.0 43.7 15.5 28.9 0.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 49.6 23.2 21.4 0.2 4.5 1.2 0.0 Nagar Mirzapur 52.8 19.4 22.6 0.7 3.9 0.6 0.0 35.5 18.6 30.8 0.8 12.1 2.2 2.2 49.9 19.2 24.0 0.7 5.3 0.9 0.0 Sonbhadra 77.3 12.5 7.5 0.1 1.8 0.8 0.0 20.0 15.8 35.3 5.7 14.9 8.3 8.3 66.5 13.1 12.7 1.2 4.3 2.2 0.0 Southern Region Jalaun 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.1 20.0 27.1 1.2 10.2 3.4 3.4 46.4 22.5 21.2 1.4 6.5 2.1 100.0 Jhansi 50.7 23.8 18.1 1.5 4.5 1.5 0.0 30.5 22.6 27.4 0.5 13.8 5.3 5.3 42.6 27.5 20.0 0.3 7.2 2.4 100.0 Lalitpur 50.7 30.8 15.0 0.1 2.8 0.5 0.0 23.7 18.0 31.3 0.7 19.2 7.2 7.2 50.2 26.6 13.5 0.4 7.2 2.2 100.0 Hamirpur 55.7 28.4 9.8 0.3 4.7 1.2 0.0 37.9 21.4 27.0 0.0 11.2 2.6 2.6 51.7 24.8 16.5 0.8 5.7 0.6 100.0 Mahoba 54.1 25.4 14.7 0.9 4.7 0.2 0.0 39.1 29.3 24.0 0.3 5.3 1.9 1.9 49.1 26.9 18.2 0.2 4.5 1.2 100.0 Uttar Pradesh 53.8 25.7 15.4 0.1 4.2 0.9 0.0 39.3 16.4 25.5 0.9 11.9 5.9 5.9 52.4 19.3 20.2 0.4 5.5 2.1 0.1 Page 216

Table 3(a): Enrolment rate of children of age 5 to 14 years Enrolment rate Sector Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children PSMS-III PSMS-IV Rural 76.0 68.7 72.6 81.0 78.2 79.7 Urban 77.3 75.4 76.4 77.0 77.8 77.3 Combined 76.3 69.9 73.3 80.4 78.1 79.3 Table 3(b): Enrolment rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to Decile Group Sector/decile Enrolment rate Boys Girls Children Rural PSMS-IV Poorest 70.0 72.1 71.0 2 79.2 76.5 77.9 3 76.3 73.9 75.2 4 79.7 75.5 77.7 5 80.2 76.7 78.6 6 85.7 81.0 83.7 7 84.7 80.3 82.8 8 83.4 83.6 83.4 9 87.2 86.2 86.7 Richest 90.0 86.4 88.5 Average 81.0 78.2 79.7 Table 3(c): Enrolment rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to Decile Group Sector/ decile Boys Girls Children Urban PSMS-IV Poorest 47.1 54.1 50.1 2 60.6 64.4 62.5 3 73.2 72.8 73.0 4 75.9 79.8 77.7 5 80.1 77.2 78.6 6 90.5 87.7 89.2 7 93.2 91.1 92.2 8 94.8 93.2 94.0 9 96.4 98.0 97.0 Richest 99.0 97.0 98.1 Average 77.0 77.8 77.3 Page 217

Table 3(d): Enrolment rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to the District District Enrolment rate Rural Urban Combined Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Western Region Saharan Pur 75.6 79.8 77.7 86.6 76.9 81.7 77.7 79.2 78.5 Mujaffar Nagar 74.9 76.7 75.6 81.8 74.8 78.7 76.1 76.3 76.2 Bijnor 83.2 78.2 80.7 82.1 81.9 82.0 83.1 78.9 80.9 Moradabad 62.1 58.2 60.1 68.6 70.9 69.8 63.6 61.1 62.3 Ram Pur 76.1 76.9 76.5 58.2 57.2 57.9 71.4 73.7 72.5 J.P.Nagar 79.6 76.0 78.0 79.9 75.3 77.9 79.7 75.8 78.0 Meerut 91.0 76.8 84.6 85.8 76.4 81.1 88.7 76.6 83.0 Baghpat 72.5 67.0 69.8 53.9 71.3 61.5 69.6 67.6 68.6 Ghaziabad 81.8 87.8 84.6 90.8 83.9 87.5 87.8 85.1 86.5 G.B.Nagar 91.0 93.1 91.8 82.4 68.1 75.2 87.6 80.6 84.5 Bulandshahar 88.5 83.7 86.2 79.8 81.2 80.4 86.8 83.3 85.2 Aligarh 86.5 72.0 80.4 67.7 67.7 67.7 81.0 70.8 76.7 Hathras 89.4 86.3 88.1 85.1 71.7 77.3 88.8 82.7 86.1 Mathura 91.5 78.9 85.5 67.3 73.2 70.1 86.0 77.6 82.0 Agra 89.0 87.5 88.3 84.5 83.5 84.1 87.4 86.1 86.8 Firozabad 83.1 82.0 82.6 65.9 68.0 67.0 79.5 78.4 79.0 Etah 75.8 74.9 75.4 85.2 94.2 88.7 77.2 77.0 77.1 Mainpuri 95.0 94.6 94.8 81.7 82.9 82.2 93.6 93.5 93.6 Budayun 65.4 62.1 64.0 70.4 69.5 69.9 66.0 63.3 64.9 Bareilly 75.8 62.4 70.2 55.9 47.9 53.0 70.9 59.3 66.2 Pilibhit 72.1 71.8 72.0 74.3 75.2 74.8 72.4 72.5 72.4 Shahjahan Pur 85.0 84.3 84.7 96.2 100.0 98.0 86.7 86.9 86.8 Furrukhabad 67.1 78.2 72.9 82.0 80.3 81.1 70.1 78.6 74.4 Kannauj 88.2 89.0 88.6 80.1 73.3 76.6 87.2 86.6 86.9 Etawah 99.6 93.9 96.6 82.0 82.3 82.1 93.1 91.4 92.3 Auraiya 86.8 92.6 90.1 88.5 79.9 84.7 87.1 91.1 89.3 Central Region Kheri 78.9 77.4 78.2 63.7 74.4 69.3 77.5 77.1 77.3 Sitapur 77.5 75.3 76.5 79.3 73.5 76.6 77.7 75.1 76.5 Hardoi 79.3 73.8 77.1 64.7 75.4 68.7 78.2 73.9 76.5 Unnao 72.9 61.0 67.6 38.9 59.0 44.7 61.7 60.6 61.3 Lucknow 85.1 83.7 84.5 77.7 81.0 79.4 81.0 82.0 81.5 Raebareli 81.0 73.9 77.5 90.1 80.6 84.5 81.4 74.3 77.9 Kanpur Dehat 67.6 72.4 69.9 77.3 74.2 76.1 68.2 72.4 70.2 Kanpur Nagar 86.1 84.5 85.4 84.6 83.2 83.8 85.4 83.8 84.6 Fatehpur 85.7 81.6 83.7 79.7 77.3 78.8 84.9 81.3 83.2 Barabanki 84.0 83.7 83.9 74.8 81.2 77.5 83.4 83.5 83.5 Page 218

District Enrolment rate Rural Urban Combined Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Banda 90.4 76.9 85.5 95.2 92.9 94.2 90.7 78.4 86.2 Chitrakoot 73.2 74.5 73.8 83.0 80.4 81.6 73.8 74.9 74.3 Eastern Region Pratapgarh 81.8 86.3 83.9 64.1 65.2 64.7 81.2 85.2 83.1 Koushambi 74.5 66.8 70.8 74.8 71.3 73.2 74.5 67.0 70.9 Allahabad 90.2 87.1 88.9 91.3 82.9 87.4 90.4 86.1 88.5 Faizabad 90.5 91.2 90.9 96.3 94.6 95.4 91.2 91.7 91.4 Ambedkar Nagar 85.8 82.8 84.3 84.0 89.1 86.5 85.7 83.2 84.4 Sultanpur 78.0 78.1 78.0 81.6 85.8 83.6 78.1 78.3 78.2 Bahraich 54.9 54.5 54.8 81.5 91.3 86.3 56.2 56.8 56.5 Shrawasti 54.9 63.6 59.1 56.7 74.3 65.3 55.0 63.8 59.2 Balrampur 83.9 90.3 86.2 62.4 85.7 69.0 81.6 89.9 84.5 Gonda 63.0 59.9 61.6 77.7 66.0 71.1 63.5 60.2 62.0 Siddharthanagar 72.5 58.7 65.9 62.8 60.8 61.9 72.2 58.8 65.8 Basti 89.6 81.0 86.0 90.9 99.3 94.5 89.6 81.5 86.2 Sant Kabir Nagar 62.4 57.4 59.6 48.6 54.6 51.0 60.8 57.2 58.8 Maharajganj 95.2 91.7 93.9 99.1 100.0 99.4 95.4 92.1 94.2 Gorakhpur 86.3 85.5 85.9 89.8 84.4 87.4 86.7 85.4 86.1 Kushi Nagar 76.6 75.5 76.1 75.3 91.4 83.3 76.5 76.4 76.4 Deoria 91.3 91.7 91.5 93.4 93.6 93.5 91.5 91.9 91.7 Azamgarh 86.9 88.4 87.6 91.8 88.5 90.3 87.2 88.4 87.8 Mau 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ballia 77.1 85.8 80.7 63.3 77.0 69.1 76.6 85.5 80.3 Jaunpur 92.0 87.0 89.7 74.1 76.3 75.2 90.6 86.0 88.5 Ghazipur 91.5 89.2 90.4 95.7 88.1 92.2 91.8 89.1 90.5 Chandauli 78.9 73.1 76.2 59.8 53.6 56.9 77.1 71.2 74.3 Varanasi 90.2 88.3 89.3 66.0 73.7 69.4 82.7 83.9 83.3 Sant Ravidas Nagar 83.4 85.4 84.3 73.8 82.6 78.1 82.5 85.1 83.7 Mirzapur 82.9 82.6 82.8 86.7 79.4 82.8 83.3 82.1 82.8 Sonbhadra 73.0 80.0 76.3 92.7 86.2 89.7 75.4 80.7 77.9 Southern Region Jalaun 84.9 79.9 82.6 86.3 86.9 86.6 85.3 82.1 83.9 Jhansi 90.3 84.0 87.5 93.3 82.4 88.2 91.1 83.5 87.7 Lalitpur 77.7 71.7 74.7 99.2 94.2 96.7 79.8 73.8 76.8 Hamirpur 70.2 65.2 67.8 84.2 90.6 87.2 71.5 67.4 69.5 Mahoba 85.6 81.5 83.6 91.0 82.7 87.0 87.2 81.8 84.7 Uttar Pradesh 81.0 78.2 79.7 77.0 77.8 77.3 80.4 78.1 79.3 Page 219

Table 4(a): Drop out rate of children of age 5 to 14 years Sector Drop out rate Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children PSMS-III PSMS-IV (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Rural 3.7 5.0 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.3 Urban 5.5 4.5 5.0 6.4 5.5 6.0 Combined 4.0 5.0 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.6 Table 4(b): Dropout rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to decile Group Drop out rate Sector/decile Boys Girls Children (1) (2) (3) (4) Rural PSMS-IV Poorest 5.4 4.5 5.0 2 3.2 4.0 3.6 3 6.0 6.9 6.4 4 4.0 4.2 4.1 5 5.2 4.4 4.9 6 3.2 6.1 4.5 7 4.1 3.6 3.9 8 3.9 3.9 3.9 9 2.6 4.2 3.3 Richest 2.1 3.7 2.8 Average 4.1 4.6 4.3 Table 4(c): Dropout rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to Decile Group Sector/decile Drop out rate Boys Girls Children (1) (2) (3) (4) Urban PSMS-IV Poorest 22.1 9.3 16.6 2 10.8 11.3 11.0 3 5.7 8.1 6.9 4 8.4 4.9 6.8 5 2.6 7.0 4.9 6 1.8 2.8 2.3 7 1.0 2.0 1.5 8 1.1 1.3 1.2 9 0.9 0.3 0.7 Richest 0.5 1.6 1.0 Average 6.4 5.5 6.0 Page 220

Table 4(d): Dropout rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to the District District Drop out rate Rural Urban Combined Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Western Region Saharan Pur 3.6 5.7 4.7 2.1 10.4 6.2 3.3 6.5 4.9 Mujaffar Nagar 5.4 4.2 4.9 5.4 8.2 6.7 5.4 5.1 5.2 Bijnor 7.4 5.9 6.7 8.2 3.8 5.8 7.5 5.6 6.5 Moradabad 4.6 7.9 6.3 3.8 1.6 2.7 4.4 6.5 5.5 Ram Pur 10.4 5.5 8.0 4.2 3.0 3.8 8.9 5.2 7.2 J.P.Nagar 0.8 5.4 3.0 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.6 4.7 2.5 Meerut 3.6 1.9 2.9 5.9 8.9 7.4 4.6 5.6 5.1 Baghpat 2.6 7.9 5.1 12.5 10.2 11.4 4.0 8.2 6.0 Ghaziabad 8.7 5.1 7.0 2.9 8.5 5.6 4.8 7.4 6.0 G.B.Nagar 3.4 3.2 3.3 1.3 8.3 4.7 2.6 5.5 3.9 Bulandshahar 1.8 2.9 2.3 5.6 0.0 3.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 Aligarh 3.7 3.8 3.8 10.9 7.7 9.6 5.6 4.8 5.3 Hathras 0.7 2.2 1.3 1.5 9.9 6.4 0.8 4.0 2.2 Mathura 2.0 4.4 3.1 4.3 7.1 5.8 2.4 5.0 3.6 Agra 1.4 2.4 1.8 1.7 6.9 4.0 1.5 4.0 2.6 Firozabad 0.8 2.9 1.7 12.0 3.9 7.9 2.9 3.2 3.0 Etah 0.2 6.2 2.9 5.9 2.7 4.6 1.0 5.8 3.2 Mainpuri 4.2 2.8 3.5 8.3 4.7 6.9 4.6 2.9 3.8 Budayun 1.3 3.1 2.0 5.6 4.4 5.0 1.8 3.3 2.4 Bareilly 1.6 3.9 2.5 8.4 11.8 9.7 3.1 5.6 4.1 Pilibhit 5.2 6.0 5.6 14.7 10.0 12.2 6.5 6.8 6.6 Shahjahan Pur 12.7 6.8 10.2 1.2 0.0 0.6 10.8 5.6 8.6 Furrukhabad 15.9 5.3 10.2 5.6 3.9 4.7 13.8 5.0 9.2 Kannauj 1.9 3.5 2.7 4.4 1.9 3.2 2.2 3.3 2.7 Etawah 0.4 3.2 1.9 10.3 13.1 11.3 3.9 5.3 4.5 Auraiya 0.2 1.9 1.2 4.7 7.7 6.0 1.0 2.5 1.8 Central Region Kheri 8.2 3.1 5.7 14.4 10.5 12.3 8.7 3.8 6.3 Sitapur 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.9 10.9 6.4 2.7 4.0 3.3 Hardoi 4.4 9.3 6.3 15.2 5.0 11.0 5.1 9.0 6.6 Unnao 4.4 7.0 5.6 33.4 4.7 24.0 13.9 6.4 10.8 Lucknow 5.2 8.0 6.5 2.9 1.7 2.3 4.0 4.3 4.1 Raebareli 1.6 8.2 5.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 1.6 7.8 4.8 Kanpur Dehat 1.9 5.5 3.6 0.0 0.8 0.3 1.8 5.3 3.4 Kanpur Nagar 10.4 12.2 11.2 4.4 9.3 7.0 7.9 10.7 9.2 Fatehpur 3.4 6.4 4.8 6.5 8.8 7.2 3.8 6.6 5.1 Barabanki 0.8 2.8 1.7 4.2 3.4 3.9 1.1 2.8 1.8 Banda 5.7 0.7 4.2 3.2 3.6 3.4 5.6 1.1 4.1 Page 221

District Drop out rate Rural Urban Combined Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Chitrakoot 6.8 9.9 8.3 11.3 1.6 6.4 7.1 9.2 8.1 Eastern Region 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pratapgarh 4.4 3.6 4.0 11.4 5.8 8.5 4.7 3.7 4.2 Koushambi 2.1 10.9 6.2 2.6 17.1 9.5 2.2 11.3 6.4 Allahabad 1.6 3.5 2.4 5.2 1.5 3.5 2.3 3.0 2.6 Faizabad 0.0 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1 1.6 0.9 Ambedkar Nagar 0.7 1.9 1.3 3.8 5.5 4.7 0.9 2.1 1.5 Sultanpur 7.8 11.3 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 10.9 9.0 Bahraich 7.8 1.6 5.3 6.1 0.4 3.3 7.7 1.5 5.2 Shravasti 9.6 11.1 10.3 8.1 0.0 3.9 9.6 10.9 10.2 Balrampur 3.2 7.2 4.7 11.7 11.5 11.6 4.1 7.5 5.3 Gonda 20.8 16.4 19.0 9.6 8.0 8.8 20.4 16.1 18.6 Sidhartha nagar 6.3 11.2 8.6 5.1 3.9 4.6 6.3 11.0 8.5 Basti 2.6 0.7 1.8 6.0 0.7 3.7 2.7 0.7 1.9 Sant Kabir Nagar 7.8 12.9 10.5 18.1 17.7 17.9 8.8 13.2 11.1 Maharajganj 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.7 Gorakhpur 2.6 3.3 3.0 3.4 5.7 4.4 2.7 3.6 3.1 Kushi Nagar 6.3 1.2 4.1 3.0 0.0 1.4 6.1 1.2 4.0 Deoria 1.4 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.3 Azamgarh 2.1 0.9 1.6 0.9 3.5 2.1 2.0 1.1 1.6 Mau 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ballia 2.5 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.3 1.6 Jaunpur 2.1 2.7 2.4 6.9 8.6 7.8 2.5 3.2 2.8 Ghazipur 2.6 2.5 2.6 3.0 0.0 1.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 Chandauli 2.2 7.2 4.5 2.5 6.0 4.1 2.2 7.1 4.5 Varanasi 2.2 4.1 3.1 1.6 3.1 2.3 2.1 3.9 2.9 Sant Ravidas Nagar 4.6 5.5 5.0 8.9 5.4 7.1 4.9 5.5 5.2 Mirzapur 3.7 0.6 2.4 2.3 0.0 1.1 3.6 0.5 2.2 Sonebhdra 6.6 0.7 3.9 1.3 5.9 3.4 5.9 1.3 3.8 Southern Region Jalaun 4.3 3.0 3.7 1.9 3.3 2.6 3.6 3.1 3.4 Jhansi 4.1 0.4 2.5 1.4 8.5 4.6 3.4 2.6 3.1 Lalit pur 3.8 3.6 3.7 0.0 0.4 0.2 3.4 3.3 3.3 Hamirpur 6.1 9.3 7.7 5.0 6.1 5.5 6.0 9.0 7.5 Mahoba 1.8 7.1 4.3 2.8 1.6 2.3 2.1 5.5 3.7 Uttar Pradesh 4.1 4.6 4.3 6.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 4.8 4.6 Page 222

Table 5(a): Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above Sector Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary Male PSMS-III Rural 20.5 29.1 18.8 24.3 92.7 Urban 11.6 17.2 18.8 47.5 95.1 Combined 18.3 26.2 18.8 30.0 93.3 PSMS-IV Rural 20.8 27.9 18.5 25.3 92.5 Urban 13.9 17.2 16.4 47.5 95.1 Combined 19.1 25.3 18.0 30.8 93.2 Table 5(b): Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above Sector Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary Female PSMS-III Rural 28.2 28.4 15.1 17.9 89.5 Urban 13.7 16.8 17.5 46.3 94.3 Combined 23.4 24.6 15.9 27.3 91.1 PSMS-IV Rural 26.1 25.9 14.1 22.1 88.2 Urban 14.7 17.1 14.5 46.7 93.0 Combined 22.6 23.2 14.2 29.7 89.7 Table 5(c): Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above Sector Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary Person PSMS-III Rural 22.9 28.9 17.7 22.3 91.7 Urban 12.5 17.0 18.3 47.0 94.7 Combined 20.0 25.6 17.8 29.1 92.6 PSMS-IV Rural 22.6 27.2 17.0 24.2 91.1 Urban 14.2 17.2 15.6 47.2 94.2 Combined 20.3 24.5 16.6 30.4 91.9 Page 223

Table 5(d):Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to Decile Group Rural Male Rate of Completion of Educational Level Decile Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-IV Poorest 27.9 36.0 13.7 11.0 88.6 2 28.4 29.3 15.7 15.9 89.3 3 26.1 31.6 17.7 16.8 92.3 4 26.6 31.2 15.4 16.5 89.6 5 22.1 32.2 21.4 18.8 94.4 6 21.3 29.5 19.4 22.9 93.1 7 19.7 28.8 20.3 23.5 92.3 8 18.9 26.3 20.1 27.3 92.6 9 16.7 25.0 18.6 33.4 93.7 Richest 12.3 19.3 19.2 44.5 95.3 Average 20.8 27.9 18.5 25.3 92.5 Table 5(e):Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to Decile Group Rural Female Decile Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-IV Poorest 30.5 34.1 11.1 10.2 85.9 2 33.6 31.2 12.4 8.4 85.6 3 32.7 28.4 13.9 12.5 87.6 4 30.1 27.4 13.0 14.1 84.6 5 25.3 32.7 14.9 14.0 86.9 6 24.6 26.6 12.7 24.5 88.5 7 29.1 24.4 13.7 22.5 89.7 8 23.7 25.1 14.9 22.8 86.5 9 27.0 19.7 14.1 28.2 89.0 Richest 18.1 22.5 16.1 35.2 91.8 Average 26.1 25.9 14.1 22.1 88.2 Page 224

Table 5(f):Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to Decile Group Rural Person Decile Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-IV Poorest 28.7 35.5 12.9 10.7 87.8 2 29.9 29.9 14.7 13.7 88.2 3 28.1 30.6 16.6 15.5 90.8 4 27.8 29.9 14.6 15.7 88.0 5 23.2 32.3 19.2 17.2 91.8 6 22.4 28.6 17.3 23.4 91.6 7 22.8 27.4 18.2 23.2 91.5 8 20.5 25.9 18.3 25.8 90.5 9 20.5 23.1 16.9 31.4 92.0 Richest 14.5 20.5 18.0 40.9 93.9 Average 22.6 27.2 17.0 24.2 91.1 Table 5(g):Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to Decile Group Urban Male Decile Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-IV Poorest 29.9 28.2 13.8 12.9 84.8 2 31.9 30.3 13.8 11.4 87.4 3 25.9 24.1 17.6 20.0 87.6 4 25.6 25.6 19.6 21.7 92.5 5 20.6 26.3 18.7 28.7 94.4 6 13.2 21.2 26.0 35.7 96.1 7 13.2 19.9 19.1 44.1 96.3 8 8.4 15.5 18.3 55.4 97.6 9 2.9 5.9 13.1 77.0 98.8 Richest 1.7 2.7 8.0 87.2 99.6 Average 13.9 17.2 16.4 47.5 95.1 Page 225

Table 5(h):Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to Decile Group Urban Female Decile Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-IV Poorest 31.6 25.9 13.0 15.1 85.6 2 25.2 28.4 13.2 16.5 83.2 3 27.1 18.8 17.3 21.6 84.9 4 21.9 21.3 16.3 26.4 85.8 5 21.7 21.0 14.5 33.1 90.2 6 16.6 29.8 14.4 31.1 91.9 7 18.3 16.7 17.2 43.1 95.3 8 10.7 18.5 16.9 48.9 94.9 9 6.7 8.8 15.0 66.4 96.8 Richest 3.6 7.9 9.0 78.0 98.6 Average 14.7 17.1 14.5 46.7 93.0 Table 5(i) :Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to Decile Group Urban Decile Person Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-IV Poorest 30.5 27.3 13.5 13.8 85.1 2 29.7 29.7 13.6 13.1 86.0 3 26.4 22.2 17.5 20.6 86.6 4 24.2 24.0 18.4 23.5 90.0 5 21.0 24.3 17.1 30.4 92.8 6 14.6 24.6 21.4 33.9 94.4 7 15.3 18.6 18.3 43.7 95.8 8 9.4 16.7 17.7 52.7 96.5 9 4.6 7.2 13.9 72.3 97.9 Richest 2.5 4.9 8.4 83.3 99.2 Average 14.2 17.2 15.6 47.2 94.2 Page 226

Table 5(j): Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above Rate of Completion of Educational Level District Primary Middle Secondary Other At least Primary PSMS-IV Western Region Saharan Pur 27.0 29.8 13.4 24.0 94.1 Mujaffar Nagar 18.8 22.3 14.6 28.8 84.4 Bijnor 14.6 25.7 15.8 28.0 84.0 Moradabad 26.8 26.3 15.5 23.5 92.1 Ram Pur 22.3 28.7 12.8 24.1 88.0 J.P.Nagar 31.6 22.6 13.8 23.9 91.9 Meerut 21.4 23.5 19.6 30.7 95.2 Baghpat 17.1 22.2 23.0 35.1 97.3 Ghaziabad 14.6 19.4 13.9 40.6 88.5 G.B.Nagar 26.1 26.5 20.2 17.1 90.0 Bulandshahar 20.0 21.8 21.1 31.2 94.1 Aligarh 19.8 24.0 15.6 27.6 87.1 Hathras 9.9 21.0 21.7 30.9 83.5 Mathura 18.2 32.1 16.5 31.5 98.3 Agra 16.2 22.4 18.0 33.1 89.6 Firozabad 29.7 26.0 18.5 20.5 94.7 Etah 19.4 27.1 16.6 32.5 95.4 Mainpuri 17.9 26.8 20.2 25.8 90.7 Budayun 18.9 25.5 18.3 28.6 91.4 Bareilly 23.3 22.5 14.3 28.3 88.4 Pilibhit 27.5 41.9 9.7 17.4 96.5 Shahjahan Pur 21.6 47.6 17.7 11.8 98.7 Furrukhabad 17.7 38.0 13.9 24.4 94.0 Kannauj 18.4 27.2 16.6 29.8 92.0 Etawah 22.7 20.7 18.8 31.4 93.5 Auraiya 15.2 36.0 14.5 30.5 96.1 Central Region Kheri 32.0 27.4 10.6 12.6 82.6 Sitapur 19.4 31.9 16.5 19.5 87.2 Hardoi 27.3 40.0 8.7 17.6 93.6 Unnao 21.2 30.4 10.2 31.6 93.5 Lucknow 11.0 16.3 15.9 54.7 97.8 Raebareli 13.3 33.6 12.7 30.6 90.2 Kanpur Dehat 10.6 28.0 29.5 30.9 98.9 Kanpur Nagar 14.0 21.6 17.5 41.8 94.8 Fatehpur 28.9 30.6 10.7 25.5 95.6 Barabanki 33.7 30.9 11.0 22.5 98.1 Page 227

District Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle Secondary Other At least Primary Banda 24.6 29.7 18.0 21.5 93.8 Chitrakoot 23.2 25.6 15.1 18.2 82.1 Eastern Region Pratapgarh 21.0 24.8 19.4 31.4 96.6 Koushambi 20.5 18.0 20.8 31.2 90.5 Allahabad 15.3 16.7 17.1 43.9 92.9 Faizabad 25.3 26.5 10.9 32.1 94.8 Ambedkar Nagar 20.2 21.2 17.9 36.5 95.7 Sultanpur 27.9 21.1 18.9 21.2 89.0 Bahraich 20.6 19.4 12.3 24.0 76.3 Shravasti 35.1 22.9 13.0 20.4 91.3 Balrampur 38.7 15.1 12.2 14.7 80.7 Gonda 31.8 23.3 12.8 22.3 90.2 Sidhartha nagar 28.5 13.4 10.8 30.2 82.9 Basti 19.4 25.2 10.1 34.8 89.5 Sant Kabir Nagar 27.5 26.9 19.2 21.2 94.7 Maharajganj 26.0 22.4 29.3 5.9 83.5 Gorakhpur 16.9 23.9 20.8 33.6 95.2 Kushi Nagar 22.2 25.3 15.7 27.7 90.9 Deoria 13.3 21.0 25.4 37.0 96.6 Azamgarh 29.9 19.6 18.6 28.3 96.2 Mau 19.2 17.8 19.0 42.2 98.2 Ballia 18.1 22.7 15.9 40.8 97.5 Jaunpur 18.6 21.6 17.6 32.5 90.4 Ghazipur 13.8 21.2 22.8 38.5 96.2 Chandauli 19.1 24.9 16.2 36.7 96.9 Varanasi 17.6 17.1 17.9 36.8 89.5 Sant Ravidas Nagar 20.6 27.4 19.6 28.8 96.3 Mirzapur 16.8 22.0 20.6 32.5 92.0 Sonebhdra 23.8 19.0 11.3 32.1 86.3 Southern Region Jalaun 16.4 28.8 14.5 34.7 94.4 Jhansi 16.2 30.9 17.8 28.1 93.0 Lalit pur 24.4 34.0 7.4 25.6 91.4 Hamirpur 23.1 32.5 13.5 24.9 94.0 Mahoba 25.9 33.5 15.2 24.2 98.7 Uttar Pradesh 20.3 24.5 16.6 30.4 91.9 PSMS-IV Page 228

Table 6a: Percentage distribution of married women in the age group 15-49 years according to birth place of the last child born in the past five year Sector Percentage distribution of married women in the age group 15-49 years according to place of the last birth in past five years At Home Subcentre PHC CHC/District Govt. Hospital Private Hospital Others All PSMS-II Rural 87.5 0.8 1.1 3.4 6.7 0.5 100 Urban 61.3 0.5 3.8 6.8 27.3 0.3 100 Combined 83.6 0.7 1.5 3.9 9.8 0.5 100 PSMS-III Rural 78.2 1.8 4.2 8.1 7.2 0.4 100 Urban 45.1 0.9 1.4 21.7 30.8 0.1 100 Combined 73.8 1.7 3.9 10.0 10.4 0.4 100 PSMS-IV Rural 53.7 3.3 13.8 17.1 11.5 0.7 100 Urban 41.7 0.5 3.6 25.4 28.3 0.5 100 Combined 51.8 2.8 12.2 18.4 14.2 0.7 100 Table 6b: Percentage distribution of married women in the age group15-49 years according to birth place of the last child born in the past five year and Decile Group Decile Percentage distribution of married women in the age group 15-49years according to place of the last birth in past five years At Home Govt. hospital Others All PHC/ CHC/ Subcentre Non Govt. dispensary/ nursing home Non Govt. hospital Rural PSMS-IV Poorest 59.0 3.0 17.9 15.3 3.7 1.0 100 2 51.6 5.3 17.8 14.5 10.7 0.2 100 3 58.5 3.3 20.9 13.2 3.5 0.7 100 4 57.8 3.2 14.3 21.4 3.1 0.3 100 5 56.6 7.8 13.5 12.5 7.3 2.3 100 6 50.5 2.3 14.3 23.2 9.7 0.0 100 7 52.3 0.7 11.7 13.9 20.6 0.7 100 8 57.1 0.3 5.4 17.5 19.2 0.5 100 9 44.2 2.5 6.8 14.6 30.8 1.0 100 Richest 41.9 2.4 5.1 28.6 21.5 0.4 100 Average 53.7 3.3 13.8 17.1 11.5 0.7 100 Page 229

Table 6c: Percentage distribution of married women in the age group15-49 years according to birth place of the last child born in the past five year and Decile Group Percentage distribution of married women in the age group 15-49years according to place of the last birth in past five years Decile At Home PHC/ CHC/ Sub-centre Govt. hospital Non Govt. dispensary/ nursing home Non Govt. hospital Others Urban PSMS-IV Poorest 60.9 3.1 8.6 21.3 5.5 0.7 100 2 60.9 0.0 1.5 13.1 23.7 0.8 100 3 57.8 0.0 4.3 26.3 11.5 0.0 100 4 39.4 0.0 5.0 36.3 19.2 0.0 100 5 61.5 0.0 3.5 20.2 14.3 0.6 100 6 24.6 0.0 3.2 34.8 35.8 1.7 100 7 17.2 0.0 3.1 39.1 40.4 0.2 100 8 25.2 1.9 1.6 38.6 32.8 0.0 100 9 13.4 0.0 1.0 13.7 72.0 0.0 100 Richest 3.4 0.0 0.0 12.7 83.9 0.0 100 Average 41.7 0.5 3.6 25.4 28.3 0.5 100 Table 6d: Percentage distribution of married women in the age group15-49 years according to birth place of the last child born in the past five year Percentage distribution of married women in the age group 15-49years District according to place of the last birth in past five years Rural Urban Combined At Home Others At Home Others At Home Others Western Region Saharan Pur 67.3 32.7 79.1 20.9 69.5 30.5 Mujaffar Nagar 74.0 26.0 54.2 45.8 70.5 29.5 Bijnor 100.0 0.0 33.8 66.2 95.0 5.0 Moradabad 78.3 21.7 57.3 42.7 72.6 27.4 Ram Pur 71.4 28.6 65.5 34.5 70.3 29.7 J.P.Nagar 27.1 72.9 15.4 84.7 25.3 74.7 Meerut 75.1 24.9 58.3 41.8 66.8 33.2 Baghpat 28.6 71.4 11.3 88.7 26.3 73.8 Ghaziabad 74.0 26.0 26.4 73.6 43.1 56.9 G.B.Nagar 72.4 27.7 57.5 42.6 67.3 32.7 Bulandshahar 38.2 61.8 51.3 48.7 39.8 60.2 Aligarh 53.1 46.9 54.7 45.3 53.9 46.1 Hathras 42.8 57.2 44.7 55.3 42.9 57.1 Mathura 62.9 37.2 47.1 52.9 59.6 40.4 Agra 8.5 91.5 34.0 66.0 16.3 83.7 Firozabad 16.6 83.4 31.9 68.1 22.5 77.5 Etah 76.6 23.4 0.0 100.0 74.4 25.6 Mainpuri 65.2 34.8 32.7 67.3 62.3 37.7 Budayun 82.5 17.5 59.6 40.4 80.0 20.0 All Page 230

District Percentage distribution of married women in the age group 15-49years according to place of the last birth in past five years Rural Urban Combined At Home Others At Home Others At Home Others Bareilly 91.6 8.4 67.3 32.7 88.7 11.3 Pilibhit 57.0 43.0 18.0 82.1 49.8 50.2 Shahjahan Pur 100.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 94.0 6.0 Furrukhabad 81.3 18.7 100.0 0.0 85.1 14.9 Kannauj 68.2 31.8 22.8 77.2 61.8 38.2 Etawah 7.4 92.6 0.0 100.0 7.4 92.6 Auraiya 30.4 69.6 34.8 65.2 31.3 68.7 Central Region Kheri 92.2 7.8 62.2 37.8 87.8 12.2 Sitapur 59.1 40.9 62.6 37.4 59.6 40.4 Hardoi 81.4 18.6 72.7 27.3 80.8 19.2 Unnao 86.0 14.0 82.4 17.6 85.2 14.8 Lucknow 15.3 84.7 6.8 93.2 11.7 88.3 Raebareli 46.7 53.3 16.3 83.7 44.1 55.9 Kanpur Dehat 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 46.3 53.7 Kanpur Nagar 67.6 32.4 56.7 43.3 63.7 36.3 Fatehpur 2.5 97.5 0.0 100.0 2.0 98.0 Barabanki 30.1 69.9 9.4 90.6 27.7 72.3 Banda 24.3 75.7 15.3 84.7 24.0 76.0 Chitrakoot 33.4 66.6 55.3 44.7 34.6 65.4 Eastern Region Pratapgarh 96.2 3.8 100.0 0.0 96.8 3.2 Koushambi 84.1 15.9 22.4 77.6 81.5 18.5 Allahabad 20.1 79.9 0.0 100.0 15.0 85.0 Faizabad 39.0 61.0 47.1 52.9 40.1 59.9 Ambedkar Nagar 45.5 54.5 68.3 31.8 45.9 54.1 Sultanpur 5.9 94.1 0.0 100.0 5.8 94.2 Bahraich 94.4 5.6 83.4 16.7 93.2 6.8 Shravasti 89.0 11.0 43.8 56.2 86.3 13.7 Balrampur 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Gonda 97.2 2.8 100.0 0.0 97.3 2.8 Sidhartha nagar 48.4 51.6 100.0 0.0 49.7 50.3 Basti 45.1 54.9 68.8 31.2 45.7 54.3 Sant Kabir Nagar 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Maharajganj 71.6 28.4 0.0 100.0 71.6 28.4 Gorakhpur 29.4 70.6 38.2 61.8 29.9 70.2 Kushi Nagar 44.5 55.5 61.4 38.6 46.0 54.0 Deoria 12.4 87.6 13.7 86.3 12.6 87.4 Azamgarh 35.4 64.6 19.8 80.3 34.9 65.1 Page 231

District Percentage distribution of married women in the age group 15-49years according to place of the last birth in past five years Rural Urban Combined At Home Others At Home Others At Home Others Mau 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Ballia 51.8 48.2 0.0 100.0 51.3 48.7 Jaunpur 54.5 45.5 52.0 48.0 54.3 45.7 Ghazipur 29.9 70.2 15.4 84.6 29.0 71.0 Chandauli 41.8 58.2 32.1 67.9 39.5 60.5 Varanasi 35.4 64.6 1.6 98.5 31.1 69.0 Sant Ravidas Nagar 26.5 73.5 58.5 41.5 31.4 68.6 Mirzapur 55.6 44.4 31.6 68.4 53.0 47.0 Sonebhdra 89.9 10.1 25.5 74.6 51.4 48.6 Southern Region Jalaun 50.2 49.8 5.8 94.2 37.0 63.0 Jhansi 21.4 78.7 18.3 81.7 19.8 80.2 Lalit pur 56.7 43.3 0.0 100.0 54.8 45.2 Hamirpur 28.7 71.4 22.9 77.1 28.4 71.7 Mahoba 32.3 67.7 0.0 100.0 21.9 78.1 Uttar Pradesh 53.7 46.3 41.7 58.4 51.8 48.2 Table 7a: Percentage of children of age group 0-5 years attending Anganvadi/Balvadi center and their percentage distribution according to level of services received Percentage of children of age 0- Sector 5 years attending Anganbadi/ Balvadi centre Percentage Distribution of children according to days complementary food received Almost all days Only few days Never Total PSMS-II Rural 9.98 77.2 17.7 5.1 100 Urban 5.92 78.6 21.2 0.2 100 Combined 9.76 77.3 17.8 4.9 100 PSMS-III Rural 10.78 88.0 11.9 0.1 100 Urban 1.71 86.8 13.2 0.0 100 Combined 9.44 88.0 12.0 0.1 100 PSMS-IV Rural 7.26 82.6 17.1 0.4 100 Urban 1.62 91.7 8.3 0.0 100 Combined 6.26 83.0 16.7 0.4 100 Page 232

Table 7b: Percentage of children of age group 0-5 years attending Anganvadi/Balvadi center their distribution according to level of and their percentage services received and Decile Group Decile Percentage of children of age 0-5 years attending Anganbadi/ Percentage Distribution of children according to days complementary food received Balvadi centre Almost all days Only few days Never Total Rural PSMS-IV Poorest 7.2 81.5 18.3 0.2 100 2 10.4 75.5 24.6 0.0 100 3 5.1 84.7 15.3 0.0 100 4 9.5 78.3 21.0 0.8 100 5 7.7 93.3 6.7 0.0 100 6 6.9 87.1 13.0 0.0 100 7 5.0 89.3 10.7 0.0 100 8 8.6 70.8 26.8 2.3 100 9 4.5 94.7 4.8 0.4 100 Richest 5.7 91.3 8.7 0.0 100 Average 7.3 82.6 17.1 0.4 100 Table 7c-Percentage of children of age group 0-5 years attending Anganvadi/Balvadi center their distribution according to level of and their percentage services received and Decile Group Decile Percentage of children of age 0-5 years attending Percentage Distribution of children according to days complementary food received Anganbadi/ Balvadi centre Almost all days Only few days Never Total Urban PSMS-IV Poorest 3.6 89.9 10.1 0.0 100 2 3.0 93.7 6.3 0.0 100 3 1.8 92.2 7.8 0.0 100 4 1.1 83.7 16.3 0.0 100 5 0.4 66.6 33.4 0.0 100 6 1.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 7 1.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 8 0.1 62.5 37.5 0.0 100 9 0.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Richest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Average 1.6 91.7 8.3 0.0 100 Page 233

Table 7d-Percentage of children of age group 0-5 years attending Anganvadi/Balvadi center their distribution according to level of and their percentage services received Percentage of children Percentage Distribution of children according to of age 0-5 years days complementary food received District attending Anganbadi/ Almost all days Only few days Never Total Balvadi centre PSMS-IV Western Region Saharan Pur 4.7 99.2 0.8 0.0 100 Mujaffar Nagar 1.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Bijnor 2.5 97.4 2.6 0.0 100 Moradabad 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Ram Pur 1.5 7.9 92.1 0.0 100 J.P.Nagar 2.7 93.6 6.4 0.0 100 Meerut 0.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Baghpat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ghaziabad 0.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 G.B.Nagar 2.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Bulandshahar 4.9 59.8 40.2 0.0 100 Aligarh 5.1 48.2 29.3 22.5 100 Hathras 32.3 72.7 27.3 0.0 100 Mathura 3.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Agra 5.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Firozabad 4.7 6.3 93.7 0.0 100 Etah 1.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Mainpuri 2.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Budayun 0.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Bareilly 2.7 75.5 24.5 0.0 100 Pilibhit 5.2 98.7 1.3 0.0 100 Shahjahan Pur 17.0 29.2 70.8 0.0 100 Furrukhabad 0.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Kannauj 14.7 90.6 9.4 0.0 100 Etawah 11.9 98.9 1.1 0.0 100 Auraiya 5.8 97.3 2.7 0.0 100 Central Region Kheri 12.6 74.0 26.0 0.0 100 Sitapur 8.5 79.7 19.4 0.9 100 Hardoi 6.7 90.2 9.8 0.0 100 Unnao 3.9 62.3 37.7 0.0 100 Lucknow 4.6 99.1 0.9 0.0 100 Raebareli 9.8 51.3 47.9 0.8 100 Kanpur Dehat 2.2 78.9 21.1 0.0 100 Kanpur Nagar 21.2 99.5 0.5 0.0 100 Fatehpur 26.4 92.9 7.1 0.0 100 Page 234

District Percentage of children of age 0-5 years attending Anganbadi/ Balvadi centre Percentage Distribution of children according to days complementary food received Almost all days Only few days Never Total Barabanki 84.5 92.3 7.7 0.0 100 Banda 10.2 99.4 0.6 0.0 100 Chitrakoot 11.9 85.9 14.1 0.0 100 Eastern Region Pratapgarh 13.7 97.1 3.0 0.0 100 Koushambi 3.5 93.7 6.4 0.0 100 Allahabad 5.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Faizabad 5.1 93.6 6.4 0.0 100 Ambedkar Nagar 6.1 80.0 20.0 0.0 100 Sultanpur 5.5 79.2 20.8 0.0 100 Bahraich 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Shravasti 4.6 99.5 0.5 0.0 100 Balrampur 12.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Gonda 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Sidhartha nagar 3.5 97.1 2.9 0.0 100 Basti 0.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Sant Kabir Nagar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maharajganj 14.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Gorakhpur 3.2 99.4 0.6 0.0 100 Kushi Nagar 11.8 28.7 71.3 0.0 100 Deoria 7.8 70.0 30.0 0.0 100 Azamgarh 3.0 75.1 24.9 0.0 100 Mau 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Ballia 13.6 98.8 1.2 0.0 100 Jaunpur 5.8 73.8 26.2 0.0 100 Ghazipur 7.4 90.9 9.1 0.0 100 Chandauli 5.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Varanasi 19.3 99.4 0.6 0.0 100 Sant Ravidas Nagar 9.1 79.5 20.5 0.0 100 Mirzapur 3.4 43.7 56.3 0.0 100 Sonebhdra 4.7 84.2 15.8 0.0 100 Southern Region Jalaun 6.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Jhansi 5.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Lalit pur 0.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Hamirpur 8.3 99.8 0.2 0.0 100 Mahoba 19.0 90.7 9.3 0.0 100 Uttar Pradesh 0.0 83.0 16.7 0 100 Page 235

Table 8a: Percentage of households having knowledge of social rights and health programmes Immunisation of Vaccination Use of Use of Oral Use of AIDS Sector Children of Pregnant Women Iodinised Salt Dehydration Therapy Contraceptive PSMS-II Rural 64.0 76.6 48.3 33.2 70.5 44.9 Urban 83.8 88.2 76.7 62.8 82.4 71.1 Combined 68.0 78.9 54.0 39.1 72.9 50.1 PSMS-III Rural 80.2 80.9 80.2 80.7 80.6 80.5 Urban 91.2 91.3 91.2 90.9 91.2 91.5 Combined 82.4 83.0 82.4 82.7 82.7 82.7 PSMS-IV Rural 31.8 31.2 27.3 24.1 28.8 21.9 Urban 45.9 45.3 44.3 42.5 42.7 37.1 Combined 34.7 34.2 30.9 28.0 31.7 25.1 Table 8b: Percentage of households having knowledge of social rights and health programmes according to Decile Group Decile Immunisation of Children Vaccination of Pregnant Women Use of Iodinised Salt Use of Oral Dehydration Therapy Use of Contraceptive Rural PSMS-IV Poorest 19.6 17.7 14.5 11.1 13.9 9.1 2 21.5 19.8 16.3 13.5 17.7 12.1 3 26.3 26.2 20.2 17.7 24.2 16.7 4 28.0 27.1 21.8 18.9 23.6 17.9 5 28.9 28.5 23.0 20.4 24.8 17.9 6 28.3 28.1 22.7 19.5 26.4 19.9 7 28.4 28.0 24.2 21.8 24.4 20.0 8 36.6 35.3 30.5 27.4 32.5 24.0 9 41.1 41.9 39.0 34.5 40.1 31.4 Richest 48.4 48.0 47.7 43.7 47.7 38.7 Average 31.8 31.2 27.3 24.1 28.8 21.9 AIDS Page 236

Table 8c: Percentage of households having knowledge of social rights and health programmes according to Decile Group Immunisation of Vaccination Use of Use of Oral Use of AIDS Decile Children of Pregnant Women Iodinised Salt Dehydration Therapy Contraceptive Urban PSMS-IV Poorest 24.7 24.2 22.2 20.0 21.6 16.7 2 27.6 26.1 24.2 22.2 22.4 17.3 3 28.7 28.7 28.0 23.4 27.1 21.2 4 34.5 32.6 30.7 30.4 32.1 26.3 5 41.3 41.1 39.4 36.2 38.8 30.9 6 38.6 38.9 37.3 35.7 37.4 30.5 7 49.7 49.6 48.7 46.8 47.1 39.3 8 56.0 54.4 53.0 51.5 48.9 43.9 9 52.6 51.7 52.7 50.2 49.1 43.5 Richest 72.4 72.3 72.2 72.4 69.9 66.9 Average 45.9 45.3 44.3 42.5 42.7 37.1 Table 9a: Percentage of households not getting drinking water from drinking water source throughout the year and percentage distribution of households according to duration of availability of water Sector Percentage of households not getting drinking water from drinking water source throughout the year Percentage distribution of households according to duration of availability of water from drinking water source in the year PSMS-II up to 6 months 6-9 months 9-11 months All Rural 1.5 19.6 25.2 55.3 100 Urban 2.4 13.5 23.4 63.0 100 Combined 1.7 17.9 24.7 57.5 100 PSMS-III Rural 1.7 0.1 0.2 99.7 100 Urban 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100 Combined 1.4 0.1 0.2 99.8 100 PSMS-IV Rural 1.8 0.7 0.1 99.2 100 Urban 1.6 1.2 0.0 98.8 100 Combined 1.8 0.8 0.1 99.1 100 Page 237

Table 9b: Percentage of households not getting drinking water from drinking water source throughout the year and percentage distribution of households according to duration of availability of water and Decile Group RURAL Decile Percentage of households not getting drinking water from drinking water source Percentage distribution of households according to duration of availability of water from drinking water source in the year throughout the year up to 6 months 6-9 months 9-11 months All PSMS-III Poorest 0.9 65.8 4.4 29.9 100 2 1.3 0.0 75.0 25.0 100 3 1.3 14.2 46.6 39.3 100 4 1.4 13.4 17.0 69.6 100 5 1.6 16.9 7.2 75.9 100 6 1.0 27.1 2.8 70.2 100 7 1.7 32.2 23.3 44.4 100 8 0.8 9.6 16.8 73.6 100 9 2.1 31.9 12.4 55.6 100 Richest 2.2 17.8 32.3 49.9 100 Average 2.2 3.0 69.9 27.0 100 PSMS-IV Poorest 1.9 1.0 0.1 99.0 100 2 1.7 0.4 0.1 99.5 100 3 1.9 0.8 0.0 99.3 100 4 0.9 0.5 0.0 99.5 100 5 2.1 0.9 0.1 99.1 100 6 1.6 1.0 0.0 99.0 100 7 2.0 0.8 0.0 99.2 100 8 2.1 0.6 0.1 99.3 100 9 1.9 0.4 0.2 99.4 100 Richest 2.1 0.9 0.1 99.0 100 Average 1.8 0.7 0.1 99.2 100 Page 238

Table 9c: Percentage of households not getting drinking water from drinking water source throughout the year and percentage distribution of households according to duration of availability of water and Decile Group URBAN Decile Percentage of households not getting drinking water from drinking water source throughout the year Percentage distribution of households according to duration of availability of water from drinking water source in the year up to 6months 6-9 months 9-11 months PSMS-II Poorest 0.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3 0.6 91.9 8.1 0.0 100 4 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 100 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 6 0.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Richest 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Average 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 PSMS-III Poorest 0.8 35.3 16.6 48.1 100 2 2.9 0.0 28.4 71.6 100 3 3.7 13.0 28.9 58.1 100 4 3.1 15.3 27.9 56.8 100 5 2.1 0.0 11.7 88.3 100 6 1.8 7.0 0.2 92.8 100 7 2.3 0.0 90.1 9.9 100 8 2.1 54.7 4.7 40.6 100 9 1.4 52.7 15.3 32.0 100 Richest 2.0 7.0 8.4 84.6 100 Average 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 100 PSMS-IV Poorest 1.59 0.8 0.0 99.2 100 2 0.96 0.5 0.0 99.6 100 3 1.61 0.5 0.0 99.5 100 4 1.47 1.1 0.1 98.8 100 5 1.46 1.2 0.2 98.6 100 6 1.5 1.1 0.0 98.9 100 7 1.74 1.2 0.0 98.8 100 8 1.3 1.0 0.0 99.0 100 9 1.55 1.3 0.0 98.7 100 Richest 2.11 2.0 0.0 98.0 100 Average 1.57 1.2 0.0 98.8 100 All Page 239

Table 9d: Percentage of households not getting drinking water from drinking water source throughout the year and percentage distribution of households according to duration of availability of water Percentage of households not getting drinking water from District drinking water source throughout the year less than 12 months PSMS-IV Western Region Saharan Pur 0.1 99.9 Mujaffar Nagar 0.2 99.8 Bijnor 0.0 100.0 Moradabad 0.6 99.5 Ram Pur 2.1 97.9 J.P.Nagar 0.7 99.3 Meerut 2.2 97.8 Baghpat 0.1 99.9 Ghaziabad 0.8 99.2 G.B.Nagar 1.7 98.3 Bulandshahar 1.4 98.6 Aligarh 3.8 96.2 Hathras 1.9 98.2 Mathura 2.9 97.1 Agra 0.3 99.7 Firozabad 0.9 99.1 Etah 0.1 99.9 Mainpuri 0.2 99.8 Budayun 2.6 97.4 Bareilly 0.2 99.8 Pilibhit 0.1 99.9 Shahjahan Pur 0.2 99.8 Furrukhabad 0.2 99.8 Kannauj 1.9 98.1 Etawah 1.4 98.6 Auraiya 1.3 98.7 Central Region Kheri 0.0 100.0 Sitapur 0.3 99.7 Hardoi 0.1 99.9 Unnao 0.3 99.7 Lucknow 0.7 99.3 Raebareli 0.3 99.7 Kanpur Dehat 1.1 98.9 Kanpur Nagar 1.9 98.2 Fatehpur 0.7 99.3 Barabanki 0.6 99.4 Banda 0.5 99.5 Chitrakoot 1.9 98.1 Eastern Region Pratapgarh 1.8 98.2 Koushambi 2.1 97.9 Page 240

Percentage of households not getting drinking water from District drinking water source throughout the year less than 12 months Allahabad 15.3 84.7 Faizabad 1.7 98.3 Ambedkar Nagar 0.4 99.6 Sultanpur 2.6 97.4 Bahraich 2.2 97.8 Shravasti 0.0 100.0 Balrampur 2.2 97.8 Gonda 0.7 99.3 Sidhartha nagar 0.0 100.0 Basti 3.2 96.8 Sant Kabir Nagar 0.5 99.5 Maharajganj 0.1 100.0 Gorakhpur 1.5 98.5 Kushi Nagar 0.0 100.0 Deoria 0.2 99.8 Azamgarh 0.0 100.0 Mau 0.7 99.3 Ballia 3.0 97.0 Jaunpur 4.4 95.6 Ghazipur 7.8 92.2 Chandauli 3.1 96.9 Varanasi 0.2 99.8 Sant Ravidas Nagar 3.9 96.1 Mirzapur 11.7 88.4 Sonebhdra 0.8 99.2 Southern Region Jalaun 4.2 95.8 Jhansi 1.9 98.2 Lalit pur 0.3 99.7 Hamirpur 0.6 99.5 Mahoba 3.3 96.7 Uttar Pradesh 1.8 98.2 Page 241

APPENDIX-II LIST OF PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS (a) List of Assistant Statistical Officers/Assistant Development Officers (Stat.) who undertook the field work of PSMS-IV survey and subsequently entered data at various district offices 1 Jaipal Singh 2 RamKumar 3 Sher Singh 4 Amar Singh 5 Ashok Kumar 6 Sanjay Babu 7 Vijendra Singh 8 Munnalal 9 Ramnaresh Pal 10 Durga Prashad 11 Vinod Kumar Awasthi 12 Darshan Lal 13 Ramprakash Shukla 14 Dayashankar Mishra 15 Manohar Lal 16 Kamlesh Kumar Dixit 17 Anju Asthana 18 Puttilal Patel 19 Shiv Prakash 20 Gurubaksh Singh 21 Arvind Singh 22 Ganesh Kumar Singh 23 Moh. Sharif 24 Servendra Singh 25 Ramjeet Verma Dr. Harish Chandra 26 Singh 27 Vinay Kumar Verma 28 Govind Narayan 29 Krishna Nand Uppadhay 30 Rajesh Rai 31 Ajay Kumar Gupta 32 Mohan Lal Sriwastava 33 Yashpal Singh 34 Rajendra Singh 35 Rajendra Kumar 36 Sanjay Kumar 37 Vinod Kumar Jayant 38 Sajid Ahmad 39 Adil Faiz 40 Jaswant Singh 41 Viresh Tyagi 42 Vijay Kumari 43 Neeraj Sharma 44 Mukesh Kumar 45 Om Prakash Singh 46 Umed Singh 47 Smt. Neeraj Sharma 48 Sanjay Kumar 49 Anuj Kumar 50 Arun Kumar 51 U K Rastogi 52 Suneet Bhari 53 Manveer Singh 54 Manjeet Singh 55 Sunil Kumar Bhari 56 Mona Yadav 57 Ritesh Kumar 58 Manju Chajlana 59 Shalini Gupta 60 Sweta Verma 61 Navita Agarwal 62 Lekhraj Singh 63 Tilakraj Sharma 64 Puspa Arya 65 V N Gautam 66 Randheer Singh 67 Babita Singh 68 Anar Singh 69 Vijaya Rani 70 Vijay Kumar 71 Hari Om Rajauriya 72 Jitendra Kumar 73 Niranjan Singh 74 Smt. Rekha Mishra 75 Km. Neeta Saxena 76 Umesh Chandra Agarwal 77 Mashroor Ahmad 78 Mayuri Agarwal 79 Mohan Singh 80 S K Gupta 81 Pusplata 82 Ajayveer Singh 83 Arvind Chandbariya 84 Satendra Pal Singh 85 Atar Singh 86 Ashutosh Kumar Mishra 87 Rohit Singh 88 Dr. Bharat Dheeman 89 Devendra Kumar 90 Ratnesh Kumar 91 B K Singh 92 Divya 93 Arjana Singh 94 Vinod Kumar Mishra Dharmendra Mohan 95 Saxena 96 Dr. Dinesh Pal Sharma 97 Kamlesh Babu 98 Shatish Kumar 99 Satendra Kumar Gupta 100 Vedprakash 101 Mohan Lal 102 Krishna Kumari 103 Sanjeev Kumar Dubey 104 Arun Kumar 105 Raja Ram 106 Jitendra Kumar Mishra 107 Rohit Gupta 108 Prabha Singh 109 Moh. Sadullah 110 Rajbahadur Verma 111 Ganesh Babu Sriwastawa 112 Anil Kumar Vipul Vikram Singh 113 Chauhan 114 Ram Chandra Bhartiya 115 Vinod Kumar Sahu Page 241

116 Ramveer Singh Pal 117 Om Prakash 118 Suresh Chandra 119 Vinod Kumar Sahu 120 Km. Deepmala Singh 121 Archana Verma 122 Nalini Gaud 123 Ashok Kumar saena 124 Harishankar Viswkerma 125 Sahroop 126 Sanjay Yadav 127 Mahima Dhuleker 128 Ganga Ahirwar 129 Krishna Bihari Gupta 130 Phoolchand Kushwaha 131 Indarpal Jain 132 Ramswaroop Awastri 133 Promod Kumar Yadav 134 Pankaj Kumar 135 Dharmendra Bajpai 136 Ashok Kumar 137 Bhanu Pratap 138 Sonu Verma Kamal 139 Chote Lal 140 Jitendra Kumar 141 Balram ji Verma 142 Rajesh Kumar Gupta 143 Manoj Kumar Tripathi 144 Ramraj Pal 145 Ramnaresh Vidyarthi 146 Lalta Prashad Prajapati 147 Bhoopendra tiwari 148 Om Prakash Praveen Kumar 149 Chaurasia 150 Manish Kumar 151 Anubha Satsangi 152 Habibul Rab 153 Versha Pandey 154 Rajesh Kumar Gupta 155 Ranjeet Kumar 156 Nibha Sriwastawa 157 Brij Kishor Tiwari 158 Ram Sahai 159 Ram Shankar 160 Hareendra Krishnan 161 Tribhuwan Verma 162 R P Singh 163 Harishchand Pathak 164 Sheetla Prashad 165 Teerath Ram 166 Moh. Yaseen 167 Radheyshyam 168 Vinod Kumar 169 Bhawani Prashad Shukl 170 Munnar Lal 171 Aseesh Tripathi 172 Rajeev Kumar Singh 173 Dinesh Kumar Verma 174 Ram Bali Yadav 175 Prathvi Pal Mishra 176 JaiNath Ram Yadav 177 Santosh Kumar Verma 178 Ram Vishun 179 Vivek Kumar Singh 180 Kiran Kumar Tiwari 181 Ram Chandar Shushil Kumar 182 Madeshiya 183 Anismani Pandey 184 Raj Bali 185 Jitendra Prashad 186 Ganesh Dutta Shukla 187 Shatish Chandra Agarwal 188 Prabhuram Singh 189 Ekhlakh Ahmad 190 Balram 191 Ram Aseesh Yadav 192 M P Chaturvedi 193 M C Mishra 194 Rajesh Kumar Patel 195 Arunesh Kumar Singh 196 Vinay Kumar Yadav 197 Ashok Singh 198 B K Ojha 199 Dr. Lalita 200 Sudheer Giri 201 Nirankar Chaudhary 202 Jaya Uppadhyay 203 Gautam Bharti 204 Ranjeet Singh 205 Raj Kumar 206 Rajesh Kumar 207 Manoj Kumar Pandey 208 Shradhanand Tripathi 209 Jhinnu Ram 210 Pramod Sriwastava 211 Harendra Yadav 212 Sunil Singh 213 Sanjeev Kumar Singh 214 Ashok Kumar Mishra 215 Babulal Singh Yadav 216 Vijendra Kumar Yadav 217 Ajit Pratap Singh 218 Shailesh Kumar Maurya 219 Neeraj Kumar 220 Rakesh Kumar 221 Kamlesh Kumar Singh 222 Shiv Kumar 223 Suresh Kumar Maurya 224 Vijay Prakash Verma 225 Vijay Bahadur Yadav 226 Dinesh Kumar Singh 227 Kamlesh Kumar Singh 228 Shiv Kumar 229 Kiran Maurya 230 Swapna Pandey 231 Neetu Agarwal 232 Chandra Prakash Maurya 233 HariOm 234 Manik Lal 235 Arun Kumar 236 Virendra Kumar Singh 237 Chandra Prakash Singh 238 Smt.Suman Page 242

(b) List of Superwisers who were engaged in field supervision and field scrutiny of PSMS-IV survey at various district offices 1 Jaikishan Tyagi 2 R. K. Dinkar 3 Kamal Kumar 4 Omkar Singh 5 Adil Jamal 6 P K Maheshwari 7 Abdul Salam 8 Subash Chandra 9 N B Bharadwaj 10 Dhanesh Kumar 11 Radha Krishna 12 Vijay Kumar 13 Mahendar Singh 14 Anuj Mishra 15 Vinayak Sharma 16 Atul Yadav 17 Atul Saxena 18 Praveen Tingal 19 Laxman Prashad 20 Shamshad Hussian 21 Karanjeet Singh 22 C B Singh 23 Jagdish Prashad 24 Vijay Kumar 25 K K Mishra 26 Harischand 27 Ram Lakhan Nishad Ayodhya Prashad 28 Tripathi 29 Laxman Singh Rawat 30 Suresh Chandra 31 Raja Ram 32 Devendra Agnihotri 33 Jaisi Ram 34 P N Gupta 35 Ram Prakash Rajpoot 36 Vishram 37 Anil Kumar Sriwastawa 38 Bhagirath Yadav 39 Vinod Kumar Kushwaha 40 Ramchandra Khare 41 V P Tripathi 42 Rahmat Ali 43 Udaybhan Mishra 44 Sudhir Om Nigam 45 Sadashiv Pandey 46 R S Tripathi 47 Moh. Haidar 48 K K Singh 49 A K Agrahari 50 Arun Kumar Singh 51 Kunju Ram 52 Ishrar Ahmad 53 Ajeet Kumar Raizada 54 Sanjeev Kumar Dubey 55 Ram Kumar 56 Sadullah 57 A A Khan 58 V M Duggal 59 K P Tripathi 60 R B Singh 61 R P Gupta 62 Rajendra Pandey 63 Sagar Singh 64 Vinod Mani Tripathi 65 Chandrashekhar Prasad 66 Ghanshyam 67 Lallan Ojha 68 Shobnath Singh Yadav 69 S K Maurya Krishna Singh 70 Kushwaha 71 P K Sriwastava 72 Neeraj Sriwastava 73 Kapil Dev 74 Randheer Kumar Page 243

(c) List of District Economics & Statistics Officers who Supervised the PSMS-IV survey at various district offices 1 Anula Verma 45 Durgesh Nandani Singh 89 Dr. Rajeev Kumar Sriwastava 2 Pramod Kumar 46 R K Trivedi 3 Amit Kumar 47 C L Tiwari 4 Prashant 48 Jitendra Kumar 5 Aidal Singh 49 Vijay Singh 6 V M Lal 50 R D Yadav 7 Dr. Harendra 51 M N Ansari 8 Dr. Bharti Goyal 52 Jitendra Kumar Yadav 9 Km. Laxmi Devi 53 R K Agarwal 10 R K Singh 11 Ashok Kumar 12 Rashmi Singh 13 Narendra Yadav 14 Raghuwar Dayal 15 Rajneesh 16 M.P. Singh 17 R P Sachdeva 18 V K Jain 19 Dr. V K Sharma 20 Banwari Lal 21 Chitra Dubey 22 Shri Krishna 23 B S Yadav 24 P K Jain 25 Kripal Singh 26 Shish Kumar 27 Sangeeta Saxena 28 Riyasat Hussian 29 R C Bajpai 30 S K Baghel 31 Amarnath Dubey 32 Ramnath 33 S K Singh 34 V K Sharma 35 Pratap Singh 36 Smt. Manju Ashok 37 T P Gupta 38 Vineeta Yadav 39 Jaideep Singh 40 Yashwant Singh 41 Ram Dhani 42 F L Shakya 43 Pradeep Kumar Tyagi 44 R N Ram 54 R B Singh 55 Ram Narayan 56 Panna Lal 57 S N Tripathi 58 Vijay Shankar 59 Amlendu Rai 60 Smt. Poonam 61 R K Singh 62 Dr. V. K. Singh 63 Santpal Verma 64 G P Singh 65 R K Singh 66 Amjad Ali Ansari 67 Ahsaanullah 68 Veer Singh 69 Ajay Kumar Yadav 70 N N Rai 71 R K Mishra 72 D K Singh 73 Deepak Pandey 74 S K Singh 75 N K Singh 76 Ram Chandra Tripathi 77 Pradeep Kumar Sriwastava 78 Archana Singh 79 Babu Lal 80 O P Yadav 81 R N Yadav 82 Dr. Moh. Naseh 83 P N Singh 84 Rajnath ram 85 Santosh Kumar 86 R D Ram 87 B P Singh 88 Ram Narayan Yadav Page 244

(d) List of Deputy Directors (Economics & Statistics) who superwised the PSMS-IV survey at various divisions 1 A.K. Pawar 2 Ashok Kumar Arvind 3 Taukeer Hussian 4 Rohan Lal 5 Dr. M A Ansari 6 V D Pandey 7 Bhola Ram 8 Rajaram Yadav 9 Jairam Ram 10 U R Bhave 11 Rajendra Kumar 12 Dr. S N Tripathi 13 A K Pandey 14 Dr. Shuiab Ahmad 15 Gopal Sharma 16 Malvika Ghoshal (e) List of Officers who were involved at Headquarter 1 Mr. G. S. Katiyar 4 Mr. Pankaj Vimal 2 Dr. Shri Nath Yadav 5 Mr. Shiv Charan Singh 3 Mr. Hemant Kumar (f) List of Additional Statistical Officer who were involved at Headquarter 1 Mr. R B Srivastava 6 Mr. R S Pradhan 2 Mr. A B Saxena 7 Mr. Sanjeev Kumar 3 Mr. J P Verma 8 Smt. Sugandha Chaturvedi 4 Mr. Shivjee Sharma 9 Mr. Akhilesh Mishra 5 Mr. B S Verma 10 Mr. Narendra Kumar (g) List of Assistant Statistical Officer who were involved at Headquarter 1 Mr. Rahul Pathak 6 Smt. Gargi 2 Mr. V K Sahu 7 Smt. Neelam Singh 3 Mr. Ramesh Tripathi 8 Smt. Preeti Kumari 4 Mr. Anuj Kumat Singh 9 Smt. Shalini Pandey 5 Smt. Shakti 10 Smt. Manish Kumar Page 245

APPENDIX-III: SCHEDULE 99 : POVERTY MODULE FOR UTTAR PRADESH HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONAIR 2009-10 ikfjokfjd iz'ukoyh 2009-2010 [k.m 0% ifjokj dk ifjp;kred fooj.k o losz{k.k dh lwpuk 0-1 {ks=d 0-2 lec) fd;k x;k % ¼xzkeh.k&1] uxjh;&2½ vuq&1-0 izdkj ¼VkbZi&1@VkbZi&2½ 0-3 izfrn'kz bdkbz la[;k 0-4 p;fur [ksm+k lewg@mi[k.m la[;k 0-5 Lr`r 0-6 milr`r 0-7 f}rh; pj.k Lr`r la[;k 0-8 izfrn'kz ifjokj dzekad 0-9 Øfed ifjokj Øekad 0-10 ifjokj dk vkdkj 0-11 vuqlwph Hkjus esa yxk le; @ 0-12 losz{k.k dk fnukad ¼?k.Vk@feuV½ ¼DD/MM/YYYY½ 0-13 losz{k.kdrkz dk uke o inuke 0-14 fujh{k.k dk fnukad ¼DD/MM/YYYY½ 0-15 losz{k.kdrkz dk glrk{kj 0-16 ifjfujh{k.k dk fnukad ¼DD/MM/YYYY½ 0-17 fujh{k.kdrkz dk uke o inuke 0-18 MsVk,.Vªh dk fnukad ¼DD/MM/YYYY½ 0-19 fujh{k.kdrkz dk glrk{kj @ @20 @ @20 @ @20 @ @20 Page 246

[k.m&1% ifjokj ds lnl;ksa dk fooj.k lnl; dzekad 1-1 vuqlwph 1-0VkbZi&1@ 2 ls vk;q dh udy djsa ¼[k.M&4] LrEHk&5½ 1-2 vuqlwph 1-0VkbZi&1@2 ls fyax dh udy djsa ¼[k.M&4] LrEHk&4½ iq:"k -------- 1 L=h ----------- 2 1-3 vuqlwph 1-0VkbZi&1@2 ¼[k.M&4] LrEHk&2½ ls udy djsa 1-4 osokfgd Lrj ¼vfookfgr&1] fookfgr&2] fo/kok&3] rykd'kqnk@ ifjr;dr&4½ 1-5 fookg ds le; vk;q ¼LrEHk 1-4 esa dksm 2] 3 o 4 gsrq½ 7o"kZ,oa vf/kd vk;qoxz ds fy, 1-6 D;k ¼uke½ i<+uk o fy[kuk tkurs gsa\ gk ] dsoy i<+ ldrs gsa ------------------------------------------1 gk ] i<+,oa fy[k nksuksa ldrs gsa ---------------------- 2 ugh ------------------------------ 3 1-7 izkir f'k{kk dk mppre Lrj D;k gs] ftls ¼uke½ us iwjk fd;k gs \ ¼f'k{kk ladsr dk iz;ksx djsa½ 1-8 ¼uke½ dgk isnk gqvk Fkk\ bl xzke@uxj ---1 mlh tuin esa vu; LFkku ij ----2 vu; ftys esa -------3 vu; jkt; esa -------4 vu; ns'k esa ---------5 1-9 tgk orzeku esa ¼uke½ jg jgk gs] mlds iwoz vfure fuokl dk LFkku bl xzke@uxj es a------------------------1 mlh tuin esa vu; LFkku ij -- -----------------------------2 vu; tuin esa - -----------------------------3 vu; jkt; esa --4 vu; ns'k esa ----5 1-10 ¼uke½ 5 o"kz iwoz dgk jg jgk Fkk\ bl xzke@uxj -------------------------------1 mlh tuin esa vu; LFkku ij -------------------------------2 vu; ftys esa -------------------------------3 vu; jkt; esa -------------------------------4 vu; ns'k esa -------5 01 vk;q fyax O;fDr;ksa ds uke 02 03 04 09 10 11 12 iz'u 1-5 ds fy, ladsr % dksbz d{kk mrrh.kz ugh&98] dhkh miflfkr ugh gq,&99] d{kk 1&01] d{kk 2&02] d{kk 3&03]d{kk 4&04] d{kk 5&05] d{kk 6&06] d{kk 7&07] d{kk 8& 08] d{kk 9&09] d{kk 10&10] d{kk 11&11] d{kk 12&12] O;olkf;d izek.k i=&13] O;olkf;d fmiyksek&14] xsj O;olkf;d Lukrd&15] O;olkf;d Lukrd&16] xsj O;olkf;d ijklukrd&17] O;olkf;d ijklukrd&18] vu;&19 Page 247

[k.m&2% f'k{kk [k.m&d iwoz ukekadu] vk;q lewg% 5 ls 18 o"kz 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 lnl; dzekad D;k ¼uke½ orzeku esa Ldwy tk jgk gs\ gk ----------1 ¼ [k.m [k] 2-7½ ugh -------2 D;k ¼uke½ dhkh Ldwy x;k\ gk ----------1 ugh -------2 ¼ 2-6½ og dksu ls nks eq[; dkj.k gsa] ftlls ¼uke½ orzeku esa Ldwy ugh tk jgk gs chekjh -----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 'kknh gks xbz@gksuh gs ------------------------------------------------2 fo ky; cgqr nwj gs ---------------------------------------------------3 [kpz ogu ugh dj ldrk ----------------------------------------4 NksVs HkkbZ&cguksa dh ns[khkky ds dkj.k -----------------5?kj ij dk;z gksus ds dkj.k ---------------------------------------6 vius QkeZ ij dk;z djus@i'kqvksa dh ns[khkky@?kjsyw m e ij dk;z djuk ---------------------------------------------------7 etnwjh@osru ds fy, dk;z djuk --------------------------8 cpps dh :fp u gksuk --------------------------------------------------9 ijh{kk esa vuqrrh.kz --------------------------------------------------------10 v/;kid dk O;ogkj vpnk ugh ------------------------------11 f'{kk ykhkizn ugh ---------------------------------------------------------12 okafnr Lrj izkir -----------------------------------------------------------13 vxyh d{kk esa izos'k ds fy, izrh{kk -----------------------14 vu; -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 ¼uke½ fdl izdkj ds fo ky; esa vfure ckj miflfkr gqvk\ ljdkjh ------------------------------1 futh -----------------------------------2 vuksipkfjd@osdfyid fo ky; ¼fo kdsunz½ -------3 f'k{kk xkj.vh dsunz ---------4 /kkfezd vuksipkfjd --------5 ¼uke½ us fo ky; dc NksM+k\,d o"kz ;k mlls de ----------------------------------------------------------1,d o"kz ls vf/kd rfkk nks o"kz rd -------------------------------------------------2 nks o"kz ls vf/kd rfkk rhu o"kz rd -------------------------------------------------3 rhu o"kz ls vf/kd ---------------------4 vxyk cppk fdu nks eq[; dkj.kksa ls ¼uke½ fo ky; dhkh ughmiflfkr gks ldk vyik;q ------------------------------------------------------------------0 fo ky; vf/kd nwj gs -------------------------------------1 [kpz ogu ugh dj ldrk ------------------------------2 NksVs HkkbZ cguksa dh ns[k Hkky ds dkj.k -----3?kj ij dk;z gksus ds dkj.k ----------------------------4 vius QkeZ@ i'kqvksa dh ns[khkky @?kjsy wm e ij dk;z djus ds dkj.k ---------------------5 etnwjh osru ds fy, dk;z djuk ----------------6 f'k{kk ykhkizn ugh le>h --------------------------------7 ijh{kk i}fr dfbu -------------------------------------------8 fodykaxrk -----------------------------------------------------------9 vu; ---------------------------------------------------------------------10 vxyk cppk 01 igyk nwljk igyk nwljk 02 03 04 05 10 11 12 Page 248

[k.m 2 f'k{kk Hkkx [k& crzeku ukekadu] vk;q 15 ls 18 c"kz lnl; dzekad 2-7 orzeku es ¼uke½ fdl d{kk es i<+ jgk gs\ ¼dksM½ 2-8 orzeku es fdl izdkj ds fo ky; es ¼uke½ i< jgk gs\ ljdkjh -----------------------------1 futh ----------------------------------2 vuksipkfjd@osdfyid fo ky; ¼fo kdsunz½ ------3 f'k{kk xkjuvh dsunz -------4 /kkfezd vuksipkfjd -------5 2-9 D;k ¼uke½ us finys 12 eghuks esa futh V~;w'ku@dksfpax izkir dh\ gk ------------------------1 ugh ---------------------2 2-10 Nk=o`fRr ds :i esa fdruh /kujkf'k ¼uke½ us finys 12 eghuksa es izkir dh\ ¼;fn dqn ugha izkir gqbz rks ^0-00* fy[ksa½ 2-11 ;fn Nk=o`fRr izkir dh ¼iz'u 2-10 esa 0-00 ds vfrfjdr dksbz buvªh gksus ij½ rks Nk=o`fRr ds izdkj dk myys[k djsa\ vuq-tkfr@tutkfr ------------------------------------------1 vu; finm+k oxz ------------------------------------------2 vyila[;d -------------------3 vkffkzd n`f"v ls finm+s ------------------------------------------4 ;ksx;rk ---------------------------5 vu; --------------------------------9 2-12 D;k ¼uke½ us bl 'ksf{kd l= esa eq r ikb~; iqlrdsa izkir dh\ gk ------------------------1 ugh ---------------------2 2-13 D;k ¼uke½ us bl 'ksf{kd l= esa eq r ;wuhqkwez izkir dh\ gk ------------------1 ugh ---------------2 iz'u 2-7 esa iz;qdr f'k{kk ladsrkad ulzjh ---------- 00 d{kk&1 -------01 d{kk&2 -------02 d{kk&3 -------03 d{kk&4 -------04 d{kk&5 -------05 d{kk&6 -------06 d{kk&7 -------07 d{kk&8 -------08 d{kk&9 -------09 d{kk&10 -------10 d{kk&11 -------11 d{kk&12 -------12 O;olkf;d izek.k i= -------13 O;olkf;d fmiyksek ------14 xsj O;olkf;d Lukrd -------15 O;olkf;d Lukrd -------16 xsj O;olkf;d ijklukrd -------17 O;olkf;d ijklukrd -------18 vu; -------------------19 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Page 249

[k.m 2 f'k{kk Hkkx [k& orzeku ukekadu] vk;q 15 ls 18 c"kz lnl; dzekad 01 2-14 finys 7 fnuksa esa fdrus fnuksa ds fy, ¼uke½ dh d{kk [kqyh Fkh\ ¼;fn fo ky; yecs le; ds fy, cun gs] tsls xehz@tkm+s dh NqfV~V;ksa esa] rks vfure lirkg tc fo ky; [kqyk Fkk mldk lanhkz yhft;s½ 2-15 finys 7 fnuksa esa oklro esa fdrus fnu ¼uke½ viuh d{kk esa miflfkr gqvk\ ¼iz'u 2-14 esa mi;ksx fd;s x;s 7 fnu dk iz;ksx djsa½ 2-16 finys 7 fnuksa esa oklro esa fdrus fnu ¼uke½ dks e/;kug Hkkstu izkir gqvk\ ¼iz'u 2-14 esa mi;ksx fd;s x;s 7 fnu dk iz;ksx djsa½ 2-17 D;k miyc/k djk;s tk jgs e/;kug Hkkstu dks ¼uke½ ilun djrk gs \ gk ---------------------------------1 ugh ------------------------------2 irk ugha ---------------------3 2-18 vkids ifjokj esa finys 12 eghuksa esa Ldwyh f'k{kk ij ¼uke½ ds fy, fdruk [kpz fd;k\ :i;s esa ¼0-00½ d [k x?k p N t Ldwy 'kqyd] izos'k 'kqyd,oa ijh{kk 'kqyd ;wuhqkwez iqlrdsa,oa ys[ku lkexzh futh V~;w'ku@ dksfpax ;krk;kr O;; vu; dqy ;ksx 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Page 250

[k.m 3 LokLF; 3-1 D;k ¼uke½ us fdlh MkWDVj] Dosd] dsfelv vfkok vu; LokLF; lsok ls finys 15 fnuksa esa ijke'kz fd;k \ lnl; dzekad gk -----------1 ¼ 3-5½ ugh ---------2 3-2 D;k finys 15 fnuksa ds nksjku ¼uke½ fdlh chekjh@fod ykaxrk@pksv ds y{k.k ls ihfm+r jgk ¼mnkgj.k ds fy, cq[kkj] myvh] nlr ;k nnz½ \ gk -----------1 ugh ---------2 ¼ vxyk O;fDr½ lelr lnl; 3-3 bl chekjh@fodykaxrk ds y{k.k D;k Fks \ cq[kkj ----------------------------1 isfpl@mk;fj;k----------2 myvh ----------------------------3?kqejh ---------------------------4 dq ------------------------------5 isv nnz ------------------------6 pksv ------------------------------7 vu; ¼mYys[k djsa½------8 3-4 ¼uke½ us fdlh MkWDVj] Dosd ;k LokLF; dsunz ls ijke'kz D;ksa ugha fd;k\ lel;k xehkhj Fkh ------------------------------1?kjsyw mipkj fd;k------------------------------2 bykt dkqh eagxk------------------------------3 nwjh cgqr vf/kd-----------------------------------4 xehkhj ekeys gks ldrs gsa ds Mj ls ----------------------------------------------5 ijke'kz i'pkr dh dk;zokgh ls Mj ----------------------------------------------------6?kj ij fdlh us /;ku ugh fn;k------------------------------------------------7 dksbz lkfk pyus okyk ugh Fkk ------8 ckgj tkuk eqf'dy-----------------------------9 dgk tkuk gs ekywe ugh ---------------10 iwoz ds vizhkkodkjh vuqhko -----------11 iwoz lykg ds vuqlkj bykt py jgk gs --------------------------------------------------12 vu; -----------------------------------------------------13 ¼ 3-7½ 3-5 bl MkWDVj ;k LokLF; lqfo/kk ds ikl ¼uke½ ds tkus dk D;k dkj.k Fkk \ cq[kkj -----------------------------------------1 isfpl@mk;fj;k-----------------------2 myvh ------------------------------------------3?kqejh -----------------------------------------4 dq --------------------------------------------5 isv nnz --------------------------------------6 pksv --------------------------------------------7 izlo -------------------------------------------8 izlo iwoz@i'pkr ifjp;kz ------------------------------------------------------9 LokLF; ijh{k.k ---------------------10 izfrj{k.k ----------------------------------11 ifjokj fu;kstu lsok,a -------12 vu; ¼mYys[k djsa½-----------------13 3-6 fueu esa ls fdlls bl chekjh@fodykaxrk ds fy, lykg yh x;h ¼mlh Øe esa ftlesa lykg yh x;h½\ vks>k@/kkfezd O;fDr -------------------------------------1 >ksyknki MkWDVj@Dosd----------------------------------2 vkbz-,l-,e MkWDVj ¼vk;qosZn] ;qukuh br;kfn½-----------------------------------------------------------------3 dsfelv ----------------------------------------------------------------4 vkaxuckm+h dk;zdrkz-----------------------------------------5,-,u-,e@iq:"k LokLF;drkZ--------------------------6 ljdkjh MkWDVj&ih-,p-lh------------------------------7 ljdkjh MkWDVj&lh-,p-lh-@tuin vlirky---------------------------------------------------------------8 ljdkjh MkWDVj vu; --------------------------------------9 futh,yksisffkd MkDVj--------------------------------10 /kekzfkz@xsj ljdkjh lalfkk MkWDVj-------------11 lpy vks"k/kky; --------------------------------------------12 vu; ------------------------------------------------------------------13 ¼;fn dsoy,d ls lykg yh x;h rks dsoy igyk LrEHk Hkfj;s½ 3-7 dsoy 5 o"kz ;k vf/kd vk;q ds lnl;ksa ls iwnsaa finys 15 fnuksa dh vof/k esa fdrus fnuksa rd chekjh¼;k ½ o pksv¼ska½ ds dkj.k ¼uke½ lkeku; dk;z djus esa vlefkz jgk\ ¼;fn dksbz ugha rks ^0* fy[ksa½ igyk nwljk fnu 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Page 251

[k.m 4 ekr`ro,oa f'k'kq LokLF; 15&49 o"kz dh efgykvksa ds fy, ¼[k.M 1 ds LrEHk 1-2 esa dksm 2 ds fy,½ 0&6 o"kz ds cppksa ds fy, lozizfke [k.m 1&ikfjokfjd fooj.k ls 15&49 o"kz dh lhkh efgykvksa ds fy, igpku ladsr udy djsaa rri'pkr LrEHk 4-1 ls 4-7 rd iz'u iwfn;sa 4-1 D;k ¼uke½ us finys 12 eghuksa esa fdlh cpps dks tue fn;k gs\ gk -----------1 ugha --------2 ¼ vxyh efgyk½ [k.m&1 LrEHk&1-4 ds dksm 2 ¼fookfgr efgykvksa½ ds fy, LrEHk 1-4 esa dksm 2] 3 o 4 ds fy, 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 dgk ij ¼uke½ us izlo fdlus izlo ds iwoz D;k finys 12 dqy isnk orzeku esa tue fn;k\ djk;k\,,u lh ds eghuksa esa gq, cppksa dh thfor cppksa Hkze.k la[;k\ ¼uke½ us la[;k dh la[;k tuuh lqj{kk L=h iq:"k L=h iq:"k ;kstuk ds?kj ij -----------1 ;fn,-,u-lh- vurxzr dksbz midsunz------------2 dk Hkze.k u ykhk izkir ih-,p-lh --------3 gqvk gks rks ^0* fd;k\ lh-,p-lhfy[ksaa @tuin ljdkjh gk ---------------1 vlirky --------4 ugha ------------2 futh vlirky ---------5 vu; -----------------6 MkWDVj ---------------1 ulz@,-,u-,e ------------- 2 izf'kf{kr nkbz --------------------3 nkbz@ikjeifjd <ax ls tue djkus okyh -----4 fe=@ lecu/kh --------------5 dksbz ugh -----------6 lozizfke 0&6 o"kz ds lhkh cppksa ds fy, lnl; Øekad [k.m&1 ls udy djsaa rri'pkr LrEHk 4-8 ls 4-12 rd iz'u iwansa lnl; Øekad 4-8 D;k ¼uke½ orzeku esa vkaxuckm+h esa tkrk gs \ gk ---------1 ugha ------2 ¼ vxyk cppk½ 4-9 fdrus fnuksa rd [kqyk jgk\ fnuksa dh la[;k finys 30 fnuksa esa vkaxuckm+h dsunz 4-10 4-11 esa ¼uke½ esa ¼uke½ fdrus dks fdrus fnu fnu [kk miflfkr lkexzh gqvk\ izkir gqbz\ fnuksa dh la[;k fnuksa dh la[;k 4-12 D;k ¼uke½ [kk lkexzh ilun djrk gs \ gk ---------1 ugha -------2 dg ugha ldrs ---3 ¼ vxyk cppk½ lnl; Øekad Page 252

[k.m 5 vkokl,oa lqfo/kk,a 1. vkokl bdkbz dh lajpuk dk izk:i dppk --------------------------------------------------------1 Nr iddk] detksj oxz gsrq vkokl-----------2 iddk --------------------------------------------------------3 nhokj dksbz vkoklh; lajpuk ugha-----------------4 2. losz{k.kdrkz%&d;k vkokl bdkbz efyu clrh dk fgllk gs\ ¼ns[kdj fy[ksa½ gk -------------------------------------------------------------1 ugha ----------------------------------------------------------2 3. vius vkoklh; ifjlj esa vki fdl izdkj ds 'kkspky; dk iz;ksx djrs gsa\ 'kkspky; ugha ----------------------------------------1 y'k 'kkspky;----------------------------------------2 lsfivd VSad----------------------------------------------3 lsok 'kkspky; ----------------------------------------4 fiv 'kkspky; ----------------------------------------5 vu; 'kkspky;-----------------------------------------6 4. vkidk vkokl fdl izdkj dh lqkbz O;oLFkk ls tqm+k gs\ <dh gqbz ukyh --------------------------------------1 [kqyh ukyh ------------------------------------------2 lks[rk x<~<k ----------------------------------------3 vu; ------------------------------------------------------4 dksbz O;oLFkk ugha----------------------------------5 5. lkeku; :i ls ihus dk ikuh dgk ls izkir gksrk gs\ uy -----------------------------------------------------------1 dqvk ---------------------------------------------------------2 gs.miai ekdz&aa------------------------------------3 vu; gs.miai ------------------------------------------4 rkykc@iks[kj@tyk'k; --------------------5 unh@ugj@>hy ----------------------------------6 ikuh cspus okyksa ls ----------------------------7 vu; ----------------------------------------------------------8 6. vkids vkokl ls ;g lzksr fdruh nwj gs\ ifjlj esa -------------------------------------------------1 100 eh- ls de -------------------------------------2 100&500 eh ------------------------------------------3 500 eh-&1fdeh -------------------------------------4 1 fdeh ls vf/kd ---------------------------------5 7. ikuh ds lzksr dk izdkj lkoztfud ---------------------------------------------1 lk >k ---------------------------------------------------------2 futh ---------------------------------------------------------3 vu; ----------------------------------------------------------4 8. o"kz esa fdrus eghus bl lzksr ls ikuh miyc/k jgrk gs\ ekg izfr o"kz 9. D;k vki ihus ls igys ikuh dks 'kq) djrs gsa\ gk ] mckyrs gsa ---------------------------------------------1 gk ] Nkurs gsa --------------------------------------------------2 gk ] vyvªkok;ysv fqyvj ----------------------------3 ugha -------------------------------------------------------------------4 10. D;k vkids vkokl ds djhc ihus ds ikuh dk,slk lkozufud lzksr gs tgk ls vkids ifjokj dks ikuh ysus dh lqfo/kk ugha gs\ gk ----------------------------------------------------------------------1 ugha -------------------------------------------------------------------2 ;gk dksbz lkoztfud lzksr ugha gs -----------3 11. D;k vki vius vkokl esa fctyh dk mi;ksx djrs gsa\ gk a ----------------------------------------------------------------------1 ugha -------------------------------------------------------------------2 ¼ vxyk [k.m½ 12. finys 7 fnuksa dh vof/k esa vkids ;gk izfrfnu fdrus?k.vs fctyh miyc/k jgh\?k.vs@fnu 13. finys 2 eghus ds fy, vius?kj dh fctyh [kir ds fy, vkius fdruk Hkqxrku fn;k@ns; gs\ :i;s esa ¼0-00½ Page 253

1- vkids ikl Lo;a dh fdruh ifjleifrr gs\ ¼;fn dqn ugha gs rks ^0* fy[ksa½ ifjleifrr 01 xk;@hksal@csy ¼nw/k cun dj nsus okys i'kq lfgr½ 02 cdjh@hksm+ 03 pwts 04 vu; i'kq ¼x/kk] [kppj]?kksm+s] Å V vkfn½ 05 gs.m&iei 06 Mhty iei lsv 07 d`f"k mrikn ds Hk.Mkj.k gsrq c[kkjh 08 VªSDVj 09 Fkszlj ¼vU;½ 10 uydwy ¼gS.MiEi ds vfrfjdr½ 11 ia[kk 12 fev~vh ds rsy dk LVksj 13 jsfm;ks 14 Vhoh ¼';ke 'osr½ 15 Vhoh ¼jaxhu½ 16 jsfqztjsvj 17 lkbzfdy 18 flykbz e'khu 19,y-ih-th- pwygk 20 eksvj lkbzfdy@ldwvj 21 eksvj dkj@thi 22 csyxkmh+ 23 VsyhQksu@eksckbZy Qksu la[;k [k.m 6 Ns rk vksj leifrr LokfeRo 24 isz'kj dwdj 25?kM+h@ nhoky?km+h 26 dqlhz 27 est 28 pkjikbz@csm 29 xn~nk 30 okwvj fqyvj 2. finys 2 o"kksza esa dksbz vko';d@vkdfled [kpz vfkok _.k Hkqxrku ds fy, vkius dksbz leifrr csph ;k cu/kd ds :i esa j[kh\ gk ] chekjh ds fy, ------------------------------- 1 gk ] fookg@eksr ------------------------------------ 2 gk ] vu; vko';d [kpz ---------------------- 3 gk ] _.k vnk;xh --------------------------------- 4 ugha] ----------------------------------------------------------- 5 3. vkidks fueu esa ls D;k csapuk@cu/kd j[kuk im+k\ ¼ 4½ xgus -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1?kj ds crzu@quhzpj -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 i'kq/ku ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 mriknd ifjleifrr ¼vkStkj] midj.k] fjd'kk vkfn½------------ 4 Hkwfe@nqdku -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 vu; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 4. fueufyf[kr fooj.k esa ls dksu lk dfku vkidh ikfjokfjd forrh; flfkfr dks lgh izdkj ls iznf'kzr djrk gs\ ¼dsoy finys 30 fnuksa ds vuqlkj½ cgqr cqjk] dqn fnu rd Hkkstu ugha [kk;k ----------------------------------------------------------------1 dqn cqjk] gesa nks ckj ;k mlls de ckj vf/kdka'k fnu [kkus dks feyk -----------2 vkslr] nks ckj Hkkstu dk izcu/k lhkh fnolksa gsrq dj lds ----------------------------------3 vpnk] ge dqn cpr dj ysrs gsa ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 cgqr vpnk] ge vpnh cpr dj ysrs gsa ---------------------------------------------------------------------5 Page 254

[k.m 7 ljdkjh dk;zøe,oa lsok,a 1. D;k vkidk ifjokj xjhch js[kk ds uhps dh lwph esa gs ¼vUR;ksn; vuu ;kstuk dks lfeefyr djrs gq,½\ gk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ugha ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 dqn dg ugha ldrs ------------------------------------------------ 3 2. D;k vkids ikl jk'ku dkmz gs\ gk ], ih,y dkmz ¼ihyk½ ------------------------------------ 1 gk ] ch ih,y dkmz ¼lQsn½ ---------------------------------- 2 gk ] vur;ksn; dkmz ¼yky½ ------------------------------------- 3 ugha ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 ¼ 6½ 8. vkius bl Lkzksr ls dqy fdruk _.k izkir fd;k\ ¼okLro esa izkir dh x;h dqy /kujkf'k fy[ksa½ :i;s ¼0-00½ 9. D;k vkius finys 12 eghuksa esa fdlh vu; Lkzksr ls ¼uxn ;k olrq :i esa½ _.k fy;k\ 10. vkius fdlls _.k fy;k\ gk --------------------------------------------- 1 ugh ------------------------------------------ 2 ¼ 11½ olrqvksa dh lwph 3- D;k ¼oLrq½ xr 30 fnu esa utnhdh llrs xyys dh nqdku esa miyc/k jgh\ gk -------------------------- 1 ugha- ---------------------- 2 ¼ vxyk½ irk ugha --------------- 3 ¼ vxyk½ 4- finys 30 fnuksa esa vkius ¼oLrq½ fdruh ek=k esa [kjhnh\ ¼dqN ugha rks 0-00 fy[ksa½ 5- vkius dqy fdruk Hkqxrku fd;k ¼dqN ugha rks 0-00 fy[ksa½ fu;ksdrk@tehankj ------------------------------------------------------- 1 O;kikjh@egktu ---------------------------------------------------------- 2 lecu/kh ¼lxs ;k osokfgd :i ls½ --------------------------- 3 ØsfMV xzqi ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 lalfkkxr Lkzksr ¼cSad] lgdkjh vkfn½ --------------------- 5 vu; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 11. orzeku esa vkids ifjokj ij fdruk _.k ckdh gs\ C;kt lfgr cdk;k /kujkf'k ¼:i;s 0-00½ ¼dqN ugha rks ^0-00* fy[kk tk;s½ pkoy xsg w phuh fev~vh dk rsy [kkus dk rsy dqy Hkqxrku losz{k.kdrkz uksv djsa%& bdkbz ek=k ¼0-00½ :- ¼0-00½ fdxzk fdxzk fdxzk yhvj yhvj ;fn xsg w vfkok@vksj pkoy iz'u 3 esa [kjhnk ugha x;k gks rks ¼ 6½ 6. D;k vkius finys 6 eghus dh vof/k esa llrs xyys dh nqdku ls dksbz [kk kuu [kjhnk\ gk ---------------------------- 1.. ugha -------------------------- 2 7. D;k vkius finys 12 eghus esa ljdkj }kjk lapkfyr _.k dk;zøe ds vurxzr dksbz _.k izkir fd;k\ gk ] Lo.kZt;Urh xzke Lojkstxkj ;kstuk@lo.kzt;urh 'kgjh jkstxkj ;kstuk --------------1 gk ] iz/kkuea=h jkstxkj ;kstuk ------------------------------- 2 gk ] fdlku ØsfMV dkmz ------------------------------------------ 3 gk ] vu; ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 ugh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 ¼ 9½ 12. D;k vkids ifjokj ds ikl jk"vªh;] xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkj.vh ;kstuk ¼ujsxk½ ds vurxzr lkoztfud dk;z gsrq dksbz tkwc dkmz gs\ gk --------------------------------------------- 1 ¼ 14½ ugh ------------------------------------------ 2 irk ugh --------------------------------- 3 13. ;fn iz'u 12 esa dksm 2 gks rks] D;ksa ugha\ jk"vªh; xzkeh.k jkstxkj xkj.vh ;kstuk ds ckjs esa ugha lquk ---------------------- 1 dk;z dh vko';drk ugha -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 bl izdkj ds dk;ksza dk bpnqd ugha ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 etnwjh cgqr de ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 vkosnu djus ds ckjs esa irk ugha ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 vkosnu djus dh izfø;k cgqr yech ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6 vkosnu QkeZ nsus ls euk fd;k x;k ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7 tkwc dkmz gksus ds ckotwn dk;z izkir djuk dfbu ------------------------------------- 8 vu; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 14- D;k vkids ifjokj ds fdlh O;fDr¼;ksa½ us jkstxkj izkfir gsrq fyf[kr vkosnu fd;k\ gk ---------------------------- 1¼ 15½.. ugha -------------------------- 2 15- D;k vkids ifjokj ds fdlho;fdr¼;ksa½ dks vkosnu ds 15 fnuksa ds Hkhrj jkstxkj izkir gqvk\ gk ---------------------------- 1 ugha ------------------------ 2 ¼ 19½ 16- D;k vkids ifjokj ds O;fDr¼;ksa½ }kjk finys 365 fnuksa esa de ls de 100 fnu ds fy;s jkstxkj izkfir gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;k\ Page 255

gk ---------------------------- 1 ugha -------------------------- 2 17-fiNys 365 fnukasa esa vkids ifjokj ds O;fDr¼;ksa½ us dqy fdrus fnu dk;z fd;k\ [k.m 7 ljdkjh dk;zøe,oa lsok,a 18- finys 365 fnuksa esa 100 fnuksa ls de jkstxkj izkir gksus dh n'kk esa cps gq, fnuksa dk csjkstxkjh HkRrk izkir gqvk\ gk --------------------------------------------------- 1 ugha ------------------------------------------------ 2 19- vkosnu djus ds 15 fnuksa ds Hkhrj jkstxkj u feyus ij vkidks fdrus fnuksa dkcsjkstxkjh HkRrk izkir gqvk\ 20- bl izdkj ds dk;zøe esa izfrfnu vkslr fdruh etnwjh izkir gqbz\ ¼:i;s esa½ dksm ljdkjh dk;zøe 01 lsokfuo`frr isa'ku 02 o`)kolfkk isa'ku 03 fodykaxrk isa'ku 04 fo/kok isa'ku 05 lkekftd lqj{kk ykhk 06 vu; isa'ku 07 ekr`ro ykhk 08 lkfo=hckbz Qwys ckfydk f'k{kk enn ;kstuk 09 egkek;k xjhc ckfydk vk'khzokn ;kstuk 21- D;k vkids ifjokj dk dksbz lnl; fueu ds fy, ;ksx; gs& gk ---------------------- 1 ugh ------------------- 2 ¼;fn ugha nwljk isa'ku@ykhk½ 22- vkius finys 12 eghuksa esa fdruk izkir fd;k\ ¼dqN ugha ds fy, 0 fy[ksa½ 23- D;k finys 12 eghuksa esa vki vfkok vkids ifjokj ds fdlh lnl; us lk{kjrk dk;zøe esa Hkkx fy;k\ gk --------------------------------------------------- 1 ugha ------------------------------------------------ 2 24D;k vki vius {ks= ds izfrfuf/kro djus okys okmz esecj dk uke tkurs gsa\ gk --------------------------------------------------- 1 Page 256

ugha ------------------------------------------------ 2 ¼ 26½ 25 D;k vki vfkok vkils lecfu/kr fdlh lewg us muls fdlh izdkj dh lgk;rk izkir djus ds fy, leidz fd;k\ gk --------------------------------------------------- 1 ugha ------------------------------------------------ 2 ¼ 26½ 11 mihkksdrk Qksje 26 D;k lurks"ktud mrrj izkir gqvk\ gk --------------------------------------------------- 1 ugha ------------------------------------------------ 2 26 D;k fueufyf[kr ds ckjs esa vkidks irk gs\ gk ] vpnk Kku --------------------------------------- 1 gk ] dqn Kku ------------------------------------------ 2 dsoy uke lquk gs --------------------------------- 3 ugha ------------------------------------------------------------ 4 ¼ vxyk½ 27 tgk ls vkius blds ckjs esa lquk mldk eq[; Lkzksr D;k gs\ fe=@ifjokj --------------------------------------- 1 f'k{kd --------------------------------------------------- 2 jsfm;ks@vªkfutlvj ----------------------------- 3 Vsfyfotu -------------------------------------------- 4 lekpkj i=@fizuv ehfm;k ------------ 5,u-th-vks-@dk;ZdrkZ ------------------------ 6 LFkkuh; ljdkjh dezpkjh% vk'kkcgw&7],-,u-,e&8] vkaxuckm+h dk;zd=h&9] vu; ljdkjh dezpkjh&10 fmlisuljh ------------------------------------------- 11 vu; ---------------------------------------------------- 12 01 cppksa dk izfrj{k.k\ 02 xhkzorh efgykvksa dk Vhdkdj.k\ 03 vk;ksmhu ;qdr ued dk iz;ksx\ 04 vks-vkj-,l- dk iz;ksx\ 05 ifjokj fu;kstu\ 06,M~l\ 07 U;wure etnwjh vf/kfu;e 08 cky fookg vf/kfu;e 09 lozf'k{kk vfhk;ku dk;zøe 10 cky Je jksdfkke vf/kfu;e Page 257

[k.m 8 lqfo/kkvksa rd ig qp xzkeh.k ifjokjksa gsrq 8-2 vkids?kj ls fudvre ¼lqfo/kk½ fdruh nwj gs\ xk o ds vunj ------------------- 1 0-5 fdeh- ls de ------------ 2 0-5 fdeh- ls 1 fdeh ----- 3 1 fdeh ls vf/kd ----------- 4 irk ugha ---------------------------- 5 8-vkids edku ls ¼lqfo/kk½ rd ig qpus esa fdruk [kpz gksrk gs\ ¼:- 0-00½ ;fn dqn u [kpz gqvk gks rks 0-00 fy[ksa lqfo/kk,a ladsr lqfo/kk,a ladsr ljdkjh izkfkfed fo ky; 01 ljdkjh izkfkfed fo ky; 01 futh izkfkfed fo ky; 02 futh izkfkfed fo ky; 02 ek/;fed fo ky; 03 ljdkjh ek/;fed fo ky; 03 ljdkjh MkWDVj 04 futh ek/;fed fo ky; 04 ljdkjh LokLF; lqfo/kk 05 ljdkjh MkWDVj 05 futh MkWDVj 06 llrs xyys dh nqdku 06 llrs xyys dh nqdku 07 csad 07 gj eksle ;ksx; iddh lm+d 08 LFkkuh; cl 08 Mkd?kj 09 VsEiks 09 csad 10 ifjokj fu;kstu dsunz 10 e.mh 11 LFkkuh; cl 12 VsEiks 13 mozjd fcøh dsunz 14 VsyhQksu@ih-lh-vks 15 lkoztfud gs.miei 16 uxjh; ifjokjksa gsrq 8-3 vkids?kj ls fudvre ¼lqfo/kk½ fdruh nwj gs\ uxj ds vunj --------------- 1 0-5 fdeh- ls de --------- 2 0-5 fdeh- ls 1 fdeh---- 3 1 fdeh ls vf/kd -------- 4 irk ugha ------------------------- 5 8-4 vkids edku ls ¼lqfo/kk½ rd ig qpus esa fdruk [kpz gksrk gs\ ¼:- 0-00½ ;fn dqn u [kpz gqvk gks rks 0-00 fy[ksa [k.m 9 vuos"kd@i;zos{kd@fujh{k.kdrkz vf/kdkjh dh fvii.kh Page 258

vuos"kd i;zos{kd fujh{k.kdrkz vf/kdkjh Page 259