Monitoring Poverty in Uttar Pradesh A Report on the Second Poverty and Social Monitoring Survey (PSMS-II) Joint Report June, 2006 Directorate of Economics and Statistics Planning Department Government of Uttar Pradesh and The World Bank Acknowledgements This report is a product of collaboration between Directorate of Economic and Statistics (DES) of the Planning Department Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the World Bank. The report was prepared under the guidance of Mr. Sunil Kumar, Secretary, Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and Kapil Kapoor, Sector Manager, South Asia Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, World Bank. Dr. R. Tiwari, Director, DES and Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Additional Director, DES provided monitoring and supervision of the administrative and technical aspects related to this report. Mr. S. D. Verma, Deputy Director, DES contributed to multiplier generation and pooling of data sets. The main authors of the report are Dr. R.K. Chauhan from the DES side and Salman Zaidi and Elena Glinskaya from the World Bank side. Dr. R. K. Chauhan, Economics & Statistics officer, DES and Dr. N.K. Singh, World Bank Consultant, implemented most of the computations including generation of multipliers, pooling of data sets, and carrying out statistical analysis of data. The data entry packages were prepared by the Software Development Section of the DES. Efforts of Mr. G.S. Pandey, the then Programmer of DES were considerable in dealing with the in-house production of software and providing related training. Data cleaning was undertaken by Ms. Vartika Srivastava and Ms. Neelam Singh, Economic and Statistical Inspectors of DES, which require earnest acknowledgement. Acknowledgements are also due to Mr. Ish Dutt Verma, Assistant Economics and Statistics Officer DES for rendering all round assistance in day-to-day work on this report. We are thankful to Economics and Statistics Inspectors, Assistant Economics and Statistics Officers and Supervisory Officers posted in the field for collecting Schedule-99 data and then entering this information. (Annex 1 presents the names of staff who were involved in the implementation of PSMS-II.) Helpful comments at the final stages of the report were provided by World Bank colleagues Ihsan Ajwad, Arpita Chakraborty, Dipak Dasgupta, Branko Milanovic, Philip B. O'Keefe, V. J. Ravishankar, and Binayak Sen. Editorial and logistical help has been provided by Sapna John, Thelma Rutledge, Rita Soni and Christine van der Zanden. Last, but not least, thanks are also due to respondents who extended their co-operation to the field staff and replied to difficult and tedious questions patiently during the survey. Mr. V. Venkatachalam Principal Secretary Planning Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Foreword Uttar Pradesh is the most populous State of India and all-round development of the State is critical to sustainable high growth rate of the country as a whole. The State is slowly emerging from the period of fiscal stress and has succeeded in controlling the spiraling fiscal deficit and reducing revenue deficit. In the year 2005-06, Uttar Pradesh successfully emerged as a `revenue surplus' State ­ almost two years ahead of the targeted date under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act. State Government has also, after almost two decades, succeeded in mobilizing resources for the Annual Plan 2005-06 and also fully spending the same. Investment in roads, power, agriculture, irrigation, education, health, poverty alleviation and other related sectors is increasing and it is expected that the outcomes will be commensurate with increasing investment. The challenge of poverty alleviation is, however, still critical as almost 20 percent of the country's poor are residing in Uttar Pradesh. Despite impressive strides being made in the field of poverty alleviation, as brought out in the Second Poverty and Social Monitoring System Report, 48.8 million people still remain below the poverty line in 2002-03. Apart from material deprivation, deficiency in using publicly provided services such as health and education by the poor is a cause for concern. State Government has initiated steps to attain universal enrolment under the `Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' and impressive results have been obtained in the last three years. Steps are also being taken to improve service delivery in the health sector. The State Government recognizes that in the light of improvement in the fiscal position of the State and creation of an environment conducive to increased investment and rapid development of the State, a window of opportunity has opened up wherein a decisive thrust can be provided to poverty alleviation programmes. Through effective implementation of self-employment schemes, wage employment schemes under the National Employment Guarantee Act and increased investment in rural infrastructure, it is expected that significant reductions in poverty rates can be achieved. State Government has also taken a host of initiatives such as `Bhoomi Sena' (Land Army) scheme, Kanya Vidya Dhan Yojna etc., which are expected to benefit the poor. It is recognized that the poor are unevenly distributed among the four regions and districts in the State. In order to evolve a more focused strategy to combat poverty, need to have reliable, independent district level data is being felt. State has initiated steps to build the district level data sets of socio-economic indicators. It is expected that by 2007 useful data sets would be available at least at the district level. Efforts to gather and provide targeted data (and analysis as well) by the Economics and Statistics Division of the Planning Department, which began in late nineties through the First Poverty and Social Monitoring System Report, are now beginning to bear fruit. The Economics and Statistics Division has received valuable support and technical guidance from the World Bank. It may be noted that as a part of the overall program of fiscal and sectorial reforms "Poverty and Social Monitoring System" project was designed and conducted by the Economics and Statistics Division of the Planning Department, which has tremendous experience in conducting socio-economic surveys, with the assistance of the World Bank. Under the project, a set of monitoring indicators was developed and baseline survey was conducted during 1999-2000 along with 55th round of National Sample Survey. Based on the data collected through this specific survey two reports namely "Poverty and Social Monitoring in Uttar Pradesh: A Baseline Report 1999-2000" and "Poverty in India: The Challenges of Uttar Pradesh" were published by Economics & Statistics Division, Planning Department and the World Bank respectively. As a follow-up to the baseline survey, another multi-purposes survey was undertaken during 2002-2003 and the Second Poverty and Social Monitoring Report is based on the findings of the aforesaid survey. This report not only shows the findings based on the survey of 2002-2003 but also draws comparisons between two survey results. This Report is a collaborative report of the Economics & Statistics Division, Planning Department and the World Bank. I hope the findings of the report would be useful to policy makers, implementing agencies and researchers dealing with reform programmes for poor and weaker sections of society and further analysis would be carried out based on the needs of specific Government departments. Dated: 16th May, 2006 (V. Venkatachalam) Principal Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh Planning Department Table of Contents Summary 11 1. Introduction and Background 15 1.1 The Poverty and Social Monitoring System in UP 15 1.2 List of Monitoring Indicators 15 1.3 The PSMS Surveys, Rounds I and II 16 1.4 Objectives and Scope of Analysis of the Report 17 2. Income and Poverty 19 2.1 State Domestic Product 19 2.2 Per Capita Consumption 19 2.3 Poverty Incidence 20 2.4 Inequality and Distribution of Expenditures 21 3. Basic Education 25 3.1 Introduction 25 3.2 School Attendance, Completion and Drop-out Rates 26 3.3 Characteristics of School Enrollment by Region, Income and Gender 27 3.4 Government-Private School Attendance Rates and Expenditures 28 3.5 Government Education Programs 30 4. Health 37 4.1 Introduction 37 4.2 Infant and Child Mortality 37 4.3 Antenatal and Postnatal Care, Family Planning Services 37 4.4 Morbidity 39 4.5 Anganwadi Attendance 40 4.6 Disability 41 5. Asset Ownership, Housing and Access to Amenities 51 5.1 Introduction 51 5.2 Ownership of Assets and Consumer Durables 51 5.3 Structure of Dwelling 52 5.4 Access to Water 52 5.5 Sanitation Facilities 52 5.6 Access to Electricity 53 6. Government Programs 59 6.1 Introduction 59 6.2 Coverage and Targeting of the Public Distribution System 59 6.3 Coverage and Targeting of Other Public Programs for the Poor 60 6.4 Awareness of Government-sponsored Services 61 Annex I...............................................................................................................65 Annex II...............................................................................................................68 Annex III............................................................................................................104 List of Tables Table 1.1: The PSMS-I and PSMS-II Samples 16 Table 1.2: PSMS Household Questionnaires for PSMS-I and PSMS-II 17 Table 2.1: Per Capita Net State Domestic Product at Current/Constant Prices 22 Table 2.2: Average Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group 22 Table 2.3: Poverty Estimates for Uttar Pradesh: 1993/94 and 2002/03 22 Table 2.4: Absolute Number of Poor in Uttar Pradesh: 1993/94 and 2002/03 23 Table 2.5: Distribution of Real Per Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group 23 Table 2.6: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group 23 Table 3.1: Literacy ­ Population 7 Years and Older 30 Table 3.2: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years 31 Table 3.3: Highest Educational Attainment ­ Population Aged 18 Years and Older 31 Table 3.4: Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years 31 Table 3.5: School Attendance Profile by Single-Year Age Group 32 Table 3.6: Main Reasons for Not Attending School (PSMS-II) 32 Table 3.7: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years ­ by Region 32 Table 3.8: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years ­ by Income Level 33 Table 3.9: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years ­ by Income Level 33 Table 3.10: Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools 33 Table 3.11: Percentage Attending Government Schools ­ by Region and Income Level 34 Table 3.12: Average Expenditure Per Pupil on Education ­ PSMS-II 34 Table 3.13: Receipt of Government Scholarships (PSMS-II) ­ by Income Level 34 Table 3.14: Receipt of Free Text Books (PSMS-II) ­ by Income Level 35 Table 4.1: Infant Mortality Rate in Uttar Pradesh 42 Table 4.2: Distribution of Expectant Women by Receipt of Antenatal Care 42 Table 4.3: Distribution of Expectant Receiving Antenatal Care by Source 42 Table 4.4: Women Delivering During Past One Year by Place of Delivery 42 Table 4.5: Married Women Reporting Delivery in Last One Year 43 Table 4.6: Percentage of Deliveries by Place 43 Table 4.7: Percentage of Women Giving Birth at Home by Person Conducting Delivery 43 Table 4.8: Percentage of Safe Deliveries by Income Level and Social Group 44 Table 4.9: Distribution of Eligible Couples by Use of Family Planning Method 44 Table 4.10: Distribution of Eligible Couples Using Family Planning Method by Type 44 Table 4.11: Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) 45 Table 4.12: Population Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom 45 Table 4.13: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level 46 Table 4.14: Population Not Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Reason 46 Table 4.15: Population Not Consulting Doctor/Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom 46 Table 4.16: Percentage of Persons (Age 6 and above) by Number of Days Unable to Work Normally Due to Illness 47 Table 4.17: Percentage of Households by Knowledge of Existence of Anganwadi in the Village 47 Table 4.18: Percentage of Children (0­6 Years) Attending Anganwadi in UP 47 Table 4.19: Percentage of Children (0­6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional Supplement 48 Table 4.20: Percentage of Children (0­6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional Supplement 48 Table 4.21: Prevalence of Disability per 1000 Population by Disability Type and Sex 49 Table 4.22: Prevalence of Disability per 1000 Population by Disability Type and Sex 49 Table 5.1: Asset Ownership ­ by Location 54 Table 5.2: Asset Ownership ­ by Income Group 54 Table 5.3: Structure of Dwelling 55 Table 5.4: Main Source of Drinking Water 55 Table 5.5: Households with Main Source of Drinking Water within their Premises 55 Table 5.6: Type of Sanitation System 56 Table 5.7: Households Connected to Covered/Open Drains 56 Table 5.8: Type of Latrine in the Household Premises 56 Table 5.9: Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises 56 Table 5.10: Households with Electricity Connection 57 Table 5.11: Average Hours per Day of Electricity Supply 57 Table 6.1: Households with APL and BPL Cards 61 Table 6.2: Households with Antyodaya and BPL Cards (PSMS-II) 61 Table 6.3: Households with BPL Cards ­ By Income and Social Group 62 Table 6.4: Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop 62 Table 6.5: Coverage of Other Government Programs 62 Table 6.6: Coverage of Other Government Programs ­ by Income and Social Group 63 Table 6.7: Coverage of Other Government Programs in Rural Areas ­ by Income and Social Group 63 Table 6.8: Coverage of Other Government Programs in Urban Areas ­ by Income and Social Group 64 Table 6.9: Awareness of Government-sponsored Services 64 List of Figures Figure 2.1: Average MPCE in Uttar Pradesh by Decile Group 19 Figure 2.2: Headcount Poverty Rate in UP (percent) 20 Figure 2.3: Absolute Number of Poor in UP (million) 20 Figure 2.4: UP Poverty Incidence (rural and urban) 21 Figure 3.1: Children's School Enrollment in UP (percent) 26 Figure 3.2: Highest Educational Attainment for Population Aged 18 and Above 26 Figure 3.3: School Attendance Profile by Age (PSMS-II) 27 Figure 3.4: Rural-Urban Gap in Enrollment (percent) 27 Figure 3.5: Enrollment Rates for Children Aged 6­15 Years by Income Level 28 Figure 3.6: School Enrollment (percent) 28 Figure 3.7: Share of Private School Enrollment (percent) 28 Figure 3.8: Private School Enrollment (Children 6-10 years) 29 Figure 3.9: Government School Enrollment for Children Aged 6­10 Years by Income Level 29 Figure 3.10: Government Scholarships (PSMS-II) 30 Figure 3.11: Government Free Textbook Program (PSMS-II) 30 Figure 4.1: Infant Mortality Rate in UP 37 Figure 4.2: Percentage Reporting Home Deliveries 38 Figure 4.3: Distribution of Deliveries by Person 38 Figure 4.4: Percentage of Safe Deliveries 38 Figure 4.5: Percentage of Reporting Fever 39 Figure 4.6: Proportion Consulting Government Health Facility/Doctor by Income Level 39 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Figure 4.7: Proportion of Persons by Number of Days Unable to Function Normally 40 Figure 4.8: Prevalence of Disability by District of Uttar Pradesh (Census 2001) 41 Figure 5.1: Ownership of Assets (PSMS-II) 51 Figure 5.2: Dwelling of Pucca Building Material 52 Figure 5.3: Main Drinking Water Source by Access and Type: PSMS-II 52 Figure 5.4 : Type of Latrine (PSMS-II) 53 Figure 5.5: Flush Latrine within Premises (PSMS-II) 53 Figure 5.6: Sanitation System (PSMS-II) 53 Figure 5.7: Electricity Connection (PSMS-II) 53 Figure 5.8: Electricity Supply per Day (PSMS-II) 54 Figure 6.1: Type of PDS Card (PSMS-II) 59 Figure 6.2: Distribution of PDS Beneficiaries in UP (PSMS-II) 59 Figure 6.3: Median Price of Wheat and Rice 60 Figure 6.4: Coverage of the Other Government Programmes 60 Figure 6.5: Awareness of Government-sponsored Services 61 10 Summary Context The Uttar Pradesh Poverty and Social Monitoring changes in living conditions of the UP population System (UP PSMS) was established by the and assessing performance of current policies and Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) in 1999, programs with respect to their impacts on the poor. under the direction of the Directorate of Economics It is envisaged that the Planning Department of the and Statistics (DES), Planning Department. A broad GoUP and the Bank will embark on the preparation set of economic and social monitoring indicators of an analytical report after this PSMS-II report is (measures of economic growth and poverty, as well completed and disseminated. as human development outcomes, access to basic services and antipoverty programs, and measures of Highlights of the Findings consumer awareness and satisfaction) was agreed Income and Poverty (trends between upon at the outset of the project, and a special- 1993/94 and 2002/03) purpose module (Poverty Module) was added to the state sample of the 55th Round National Sample Per capita net state domestic productin Uttar Survey (NSS) to measure these indicators. The first Pradesh in current prices doubled from Rs. 5,066 survey (henceforth PSMS-I) was completed between in 1993/94 to Rs. 10,289 in 2002/03. February and June 2000. Drawing upon the salient NSS UP data show that the pattern of growth findings of PSMS-I, in October 2002 DES prepared between 1993/94 and 2002/03 was pro-poor, a baseline report on poverty and living conditions, meaning that per capita expenditures of the which painted a broad picture of the status of the poorest one-tenth of the population increased poor in Uttar Pradesh. PSMS-I report was widely faster (by 109 percent in nominal terms) than disseminated and discussed throughout Uttar that of the richest one-tenth (which increased Pradesh, within the government as well as outside by 62 percent in nominal terms). of it. The second survey (henceforth PSMS-II) The headcount poverty rate for UP fell from entailed adding a similar module to the 58th and 40.9 percent to 29.2 percent between 1993/94 59th rounds of the state samples NSS and was and 2002/03. completed in 2002­03. Both PSMS rounds were In absolute terms, the absolute number of administered to large samples of households that poor in UP declined from 59.3 million in 1993/ were representative of the UP state as a whole, as 94 to 48.8 million in 2002/03. well as for the rural and urban areas, and the "NSS regions" separately. The poverty rate in rural areas of UP fell from 42.3 percent to 28.5 percent, while that in urban Drawing on the PSMS-I and II indicators as well as areas declined only slightly from 35.1 to 32.3 other sources, this current PSMS-II report has been percent. In this way the urban poverty rate in prepared jointly by the Planning Department of the UP is now higher than rural poverty in the state. GoUP and the World Bank. The report aims to Other poverty measures such as the poverty gap provide a quick statistical update on changes in and the squared poverty gap also show similar poverty and living conditions and access to services declines for UP during this period. between these two data points. At the same time, Education (trends between 1999/2000 the GoUP requested the Bank's support for a and 2002/03) preparation of a joint report with a wider and deeper scope of analysis focusing on determinants and Literacy rates in Uttar Pradesh have increased 11 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank from 56 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2003. Health (trends in the late 1990s early The percentage of the population over 18 that 2000) has ever attended school, increased from 46 The Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) in UP fell percent in 2000 to 51 percent in 2003. Still, in from 85 to 80 deaths per 1,000 live births 2003, 15 percent of children aged 6­11 years between 1998 and 2002. has never attended school. About 40 percent (61 percent in urban and 35 Enrollment rates at the primary level (i.e., percent in rural areas) of those persons, who among children aged 6­10 years) stood at 78 consulted any medical practitioner, consulted a percent in 2003, up sharply from around 67 formal private health provider, and 10 percent percent in 2000; these rates are up in all regions, (10 percent in rural and 14 in urban areas) visited for both boys and girls, and among all income a government health facility. The rest sought groups. consultations from private informal providers The urban-rural enrollment gap has been (quacks, traditional healers, etc.). eliminated among children aged 6­10 years, and Both in rural and urban areas, the poor were has narrowed considerably among those aged less likely than the non-poor to seek consultation 11­15 years. in the government health facilities. Among children in UP who never enrolled in One-third of those who reported being ill school, the main reasons cited for this were during the two weeks preceding the PSMS-II "cannot afford" (60 percent) and "education survey did not lose a single workday, while not useful" (14 percent). one-sixth reported a loss of more than eight Some 7 percent of ever enrolled children left workdays. The rest of the respondents lost from school before completing the primary level. one to seven workdays. Enrollment in private schools increased from Almost 63 percent of all deliveries in UP were 31 to 37 percent for those 6 to 10 years old and assisted by trained or traditional dai. Only 16 from 37 to 45 percent for those 11 to 13 years percent of all deliveries were institutional, with old during 2000­2003. Government schools urban areas and rich individuals being more likely continue to be an important source of education to report institutional delivery. Accordingly, for the poor, especially in rural areas. almost 80 percent of all deliveries in the State could be considered safe deliveries. The Average per pupil expenditures on education proportion of safe deliveries in urban areas was are much higher for children enrolled in private about 90 percent compared to about 77 percent vs. government schools, the gap being in rural areas. particularly high at the primary level. Even for those children attending government schools in Between 1999­2000 and 2002­2003 UP, the total non-fee costs (books, uniforms, anganwadi attendance increased from nearly private tutoring) are quite high and constitute no attendance to 10 percent of all children the bulk of the cost. eligible by age. The anganwadi attendance among the poor is higher than among the rich In 2003, the government's scholarship and free (11.4 vs. 7.4 percent). textbooks programs were reaching, respectively, 18 and 27 percent of all students. These More than two-thirds of anganwadi-attending programs were reasonably well-targeted to the children receive food supplements `often', 18 poor, though there appears to be some scope percent get them `sometimes', and 5 percent for reducing leakage to high-income groups. `never'. 12 Summary The prevalence of disability was measured as had below-the-poverty-line (BPL) cards, and 13 0.21 percent among the general population percent did not have any PDS card. This (2001 Census) and as 0.13 percent (NSS 58). represents a decline in the share of BPL- cardholders in UP, and an increase in the Access to Amenities (trends between proportion of the population without any cards 1999/2000 and 2002/03) compared to 1999/2000. In 2002/03, 57 percent of all dwellings were of pucca construction material, up from 42 Out of all BPL-cardholders, 40 percent came percent in 1999/2000. Improvements in housing from the poorest one-third of the population, structure are registered both in urban and rural 31 percent came from the middle third and 29 areas and across all income groups. percent from the richest third. The Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) scheme, which benefits 3 Hand-pumps increased in importance as the percent of the population, is better targeted most common drinking water supply source towards the poor. in UP, with about three-quarters of the population in 2002/03 reporting this as their Overall, there has been some decline in the main water source. proportion of beneficiaries of various There have been virtually no improvements in government programs (such as old age pension, access to sanitation in UP over the period in disability pension, widowhood pension, benefits question. Some 71 percent of UP's population for pregnancy, subsidized credit and Jawahar (85 in rural and 19 in urban) do not have access Rozgar Yojana (JRY)/employment generation to latrines of any type. schemes). In 2002/03, 35 percent of the state's population The targeting of the subsidized credit program had access to electricity, reflecting a much higher to the poor in rural areas has substantially coverage rate of 80 percent in urban areas, but worsened, while JRY/other employment only 23 percent in rural areas. This represents a programs tend to serve more poor and socially slight decline from 1999­2000 when 39 percent deprived in rural areas of the state. Their (84 in urban and 28 in rural) of the population targeting has actually improved. had reported having electricity connection. Almost 80 percent of the population is aware Only 10 percent of UP's population reported of the benefits of vaccination, 70 percent of having access to electricity for 15 or more hours the benefits of child immunizations, 73 percent per day in 2002/03. This also represents a slight know of family planning and 54 and 39 percent worsening from 1999­2000 when 13 percent of know the importance of iodized salt and ORS, the population reported so. The rates in rural respectively. There are large variations between areas are considerably lower than in urban areas. urban and rural areas of the state, with urban Government Programs (trends areas having better knowledge. between 1999/2000 and 2002/03) Awareness of HIV/AIDS was found to be 50.1 In 2002/03, 66 percent of UP's population had percent in the state, showing a large gap in above-the-poverty-line (APL) cards, 21 percent awareness between urban and rural areas. 13 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank 14 1. Introduction and Background During most of India's post-independence period, at all levels of government for making better economic growth in Uttar Pradesh (UP) has lagged informed decisions regarding poverty reduction and behind other states. The gap between UP and the social development initiatives. The objectives of the rest of India widened substantially during the 1990s, UP PSMS are fourfold: as the annual growth rate of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) slowed down to over two To measure and monitor progress in key areas percentage points per year slower than for India as related to poverty and living standards of the a whole. Power shortages, low rates of capital population in the state; formation and low productivity of existing irrigation In the context of ongoing reforms, to identify systems and road networks, along with the emerging problems that may have adverse underdevelopment of human capital were among impacts on the poor or other vulnerable groups; the main causes of economic stagnation in UP, particularly in the agricultural sector. In 1999 the To use this information to aid in making more Government of Uttar Pradesh embarked upon a informed policy decisions, also to improve the comprehensive reform program with assistance from performance and accountability of public sector the World Bank. Wide-ranging fiscal, governance, entities, particularly those providing services to as well as sectoral reforms were initiated by the the poor; government. While the primary objective of the To keep the public better informed about reform program was to address the fiscal crisis facing progress as well as difficulties linked to achieving the state government,1 the reforms undertaken were key development objectives in the state. also expected to have a significant impact on raising incomes and the standard of public service delivery, A broad set of economic and social monitoring as well as on reducing poverty in the state. Since the indicators was agreed upon at the outset of the actual impacts of reforms on the poor are complex project. These indicators--which include and can be difficult to anticipate, a carefully designed conventional measures of economic growth and monitoring system was needed to track changes both poverty, as well as human development outcomes, in outcomes (e.g., incomes, literacy, morbidity, etc.) access to basic services and antipoverty programs, as well as in key intermediate variables (e.g., access and measures of consumer awareness and to services, infrastructure, etc.) that have an impact satisfaction--were to be used to track progress at on living standards. In response, the GoUP, with combating poverty in the state. the help of the WB, set up a Poverty Monitoring System (UP PSMS) in the UP, Department of 1.2 List of Monitoring Indicators Planning with the mandate to collect and process data on living standards and report the results. A specific set of poverty and social performance indicators reflecting the various dimensions of well- 1.1 The Poverty And Social being was identified by the GoUP Planning Monitoring System In UP Department following consultation with relevant line departments. Where feasible, it was agreed that The establishment of the PSMS by the GoUP was indicators should be disaggregated by gender, social an important reform in itself, as it provided an group, urban/rural and geographic region. These important source of information to policymakers included: 1 Cutbacks in grants from the central government, coupled with the adverse impact of a rising wage bill due to the 5th Pay Commission award, resulted in serious fiscal crisis for the UP government. 15 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Consumption and Income Measures Distance to Key Services and Facilities GSDP growth rates Measure of Service Quality and Composition of household expenditures Satisfaction (food, priority non-food items) Health, education, water and sanitation Poverty headcount index, depth and severity of poverty 1.3 The PSMS Surveys, Rounds I Employment and Wages and II Wages for agricultural laborers, unskilled workers After several years of operation, the UP PSMS boasts Prices for key food commodities, price index a number of noteworthy achievements. The for poor statistical capacity in the state has been substantially Employment status increased through a number of capacity-building Education activities (e.g., staff training, hardware and software Literacy rates upgrading), and district level data entry units have School enrollments been set up. These measures have led to substantial School drop-out rates, school completion rates improvements in the quality and timeliness of survey Health and district level administrative data. Percent immunized Two special purpose surveys have been conducted Infant mortality rates by the PSMS. The first survey (a baseline) entailed Housing and Infrastructure adding a special purpose module (Poverty Module) Proportion living in slums, unregulated to the state sample of the National Sample Survey settlements (NSS) 55th Round and was completed from Access to clean water and sanitation February­June 2000 (henceforth PSMS-I). Drawing Access to electricity upon the salient findings of PSMS-I, in October Participation in Government 2002 DES prepared a baseline report on poverty Programs and living conditions that painted a broad picture Access to anti-poverty programs, social welfare of the status of the poor in Uttar Pradesh and how schemes well they were being served by government services and programs. This report was widely disseminated Safe motherhood, use of antenatal care, and discussed throughout Uttar Pradesh, within and deliveries attended by trained birth attendants outside the government, to stimulate discussion on Enrollment in adult, non-formal education the performance of current policies and programs Use of ICDS (anganwadi, balwadi program) with respect to impacts on the poor. The second Public Health Knowledge, Awareness survey (henceforth PSMS-II) entailed adding a of Social Rights similar module to both the 58th and 59th rounds of the state sample and was completed in 2002/03. Table 1.1: The PSMS-I and PSMS-II Samples NUMBER OF FIRST STAGE UNITS 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II LOCATION FSUS HOUSEHOLDS PERSONS FSUS HOUSEHOLDS PERSONS UP OVERALL 1,181 14,142 83,636 2,076 14,243 83,593 Rural Areas 789 9,454 57,754 1,433 9,769 57,963 Urban Areas 392 4,688 25,882 643 4,474 25,630 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 16 Introduction and Background Table 1.2: PSMS Household Questionnaires for PSMS-I and PSMS-II PSMS-I (1999/2000) PSMS-II (2002/03) 1. INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION 1. Household Roster A: Household Roster 2. Education B: Education 3. Health C: Information on Children 0­5 years 4. Maternal and Child Health D: Maternity History ­ All women aged 15­49 years 5. Activities ­ All persons 10 years and older E: Activities: All persons 10 years and older 6. Housing and Amenities 2. HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION 7. Vulnerability and Asset Ownership A: Housing and Amenities 8. Government Programs and Services B: Vulnerability and Asset Ownership 9. Irrigation and Extension Services C: Government Programs and Services 10. Access to Facilities BothPSMSroundswereadministeredinlargesamples 1.4 Objectives and Scope of Analysis that were representative of the UP state as a whole, as of the Report well as at the rural and urban levels. Questionnaires were canvassed in over 14,000 households in each of Data collected by the PSMS surveys provide a thetworounds(Table1.1).ThePSMS-IIquestionnaire valuable source of information to study a number is presented here in Annex 3. of topics of interest from a policy perspective. In the interest of publishing the PSMS results as early At the individual and household level, the PSMS as possible, this report is descriptive rather than surveys collected information on a wide range of analytic in its approach. It highlights the main activities using an integrated questionnaire (Table changes in socioeconomic indicators that took place 1.2). The questionnaire comprised a number of between the two PSMS surveys. Thus, indicators for different modules, each of which collected primary education, primary health, water supply and information on a particular aspect of household sanitation, housing and amenities, etc. derived from behavior and welfare. In particular, data were the 2002/03 PSMS-II are compared with the 2000 collected on the educational attainment, health status PSMS-I. Given that the two PSMS rounds are large, and employment activities of all household complex household surveys that collect information members. In addition, information was also collected on a number of different topics, main tabulations on housing and amenities, vulnerability and asset are presented in the main report and supplementary ownership, and on household awareness and use of tabulations are in Annex 2. These tabulations various government programs and services. Finally, comprise only a subset of the larger number of tables the NSS schedule 1.0, which was canvassed with the that could be prepared using data from these two PSMS schedules, collected data on the household's surveys. consumption of goods and services in the past year. This allows for the creation of aggregate In addition to collating PSMS-I and PSMS-II data, consumption indicators and a ranking of individuals this report uses a number of other data sources-- into different income groups (i.e., bottom one-third, the 50th round of the central sample of the National middle one-third and top one-third as ranked by per Sample Survey (NSS), 1992­93 and 1998­99 capita annual household expenditures, separately for National Family Health Survey (NFHS-I and II), the urban and rural areas). This, in turn, permits an 2001 Population Census, and the 1998­1999 analysis of how the above socioeconomic Reproductive and Child Health Survey (RCH)--to characteristics vary across different income groups bring additional insights to a wide range of poverty in Uttar Pradesh. and human development indicators in Uttar Pradesh. In the following five chapters, the report presents 17 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank salient findings pertaining to data collected through Has access to basic services improved in the these surveys on various sectors (education, health, 2000s? What is the role of the private sector in access to various government services and amenities, delivering these services? etc.). The questions underlying the contents of this Have education and health outcomes improved? report are the following: If so, did they improve for the poor as well? Were the patterns of growth in Uttar Pradesh Did the housing situation improve? pro-poor? Do the government-targeted programs reach Has headcount poverty declined over the 1990s their intended beneficiaries? and 2000s? Has the absolute number of poor declined? 18 2. Income and Poverty 2.1 State Domestic Product While during the 1980s UP's economy grew at a useful indication of changes in average living roughly the same rate as India overall (5.0 vs. 5.6 standards over a given period, data from percent per annum growth of GSDP and GDP, household surveys is needed to better ascertain respectively), its growth rate decelerated to 3 percent how this increased aggregate output is distributed per annum over the 1990­95 period. Since then, the across the state's population. In India, there is a rate of growth of the state economy has picked up longstanding tradition of using National Sample somewhat. As per data on State income provided Survey data on consumer expenditure to assess by the UP DES, per capita net state domestic product changes over time in living conditions. An for UP (UP NSDP) in current prices almost doubled appropriate comparator for the 2002/03 PSMS from Rs. 5,066 in 1993/94 to Rs. 9,870 in 2002/03 Round II is the UP central sample of the 50th (table 2.3).2 Taking into account the increase in price round of NSS.3 To infer about the changes in level over this period, the NSDP increased from Rs. living standards, the nominal monthly per capita 5,066 to Rs. 5,830, amounting to an increase of 1.4 expenditure MPCE needs to be adjusted for percent per annum in real per capita terms--prima changes in the price level. This report uses the facie an indication of some improvement in average UP state-specific consumer price index for living standards in the state. agricultural workers (CPIAL) for rural households, and the state-specific consumer price 2.2 Per Capita Consumption index for industrial workers (CPIIW) for urban While data from the National Accounts provides households to adjust 2002/03 expenditure Figure 2.1: Average MPCE in Uttar Pradesh by Decile Group 800 600 ntho m per 400 capita per 200 Rupees 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2002/03 1993/94 Source: 2002/03 PSMS Round 2, 1993/94: NSS 50th Round central sample for UP. 2http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2004-05/chapt2005/tab18.pdf. 3The Central or State samples of the 55th NSS round conducted in 1999­2000 are not directly comparable with the 50th NSS round or with the PSMS-II because of the data recall issue in the consumption section. The 50th NSS round and PSMS-II are fully comparable. 19 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Figure 2.2: Headcount Poverty Rate in UP Figure 2.3: Absolute Number of Poor in (percent) UP (million) 45 60 40 35 50 30 40 25 20 30 15 20 10 10 5 0 0 OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN 1993/94 2002/03 1993/94 2002/03 aggregates in rural and urban areas, respectively, headcount poverty ratio in 1993/94 at 40.9 percent into 1993/94 prices. Comparison of MPCE in of UP's population (42.3 percent rural, 35.1 percent real prices shows that average real MPCE has urban).5 increased by 5 percent (5 percent in rural and by 4 percent in urban areas). For the purposes of this report, the poverty line for 2002/03 has been derived using the procedure Thepatternsof increaseinMPCEwerepro-poor:data recently prescribed by the GoI Planning show that the MPCE for the poorest one-tenth of Commission. The procedure entails taking the UP's population increased by almost 30 percent from Lakdawala Committee poverty line for UP and Rs. 118 per capita per month in 1993/94 to Rs. 151 in updating it by using the state-specific consumer price 2002/03. At the same time, real MPCE of the richest index for agricultural workers (CPIAL) for rural one-tenthofthepopulationinUPhadactuallydeclined households, and the state-specific consumer price by 5 percent from Rs. 746 to Rs. 705 per capita per index for industrial workers (CPIIW) for urban month over the same period (table 2.2). households (Table 2.3).6 These updated poverty lines were then used in conjunction with the 2002/03 2.3 Poverty Incidence MPCE distribution to estimate the headcount poverty rate for this year. As per the official methodology of the GoI Planning Commission, the population with MPCE (as Following this procedure, 29.2 percent of UP's estimated by the NSS household consumption population (28.5 percent rural, 32.3 percent urban) surveys) below the level defined by the official was found to be below the poverty line in 2002/03 poverty line is counted as poor. The ratio of the (Figure 2.2). A stronger fall in rural poverty as population below the poverty line to the total compared to urban poverty resulted in the pattern population is called the poverty ratio, also known as that urban poverty rate in the state now surpasses the headcount ratio.4 Based on the official poverty the rural poverty rate.7 Other measures of the depth line of Rs. 213.01 and Rs. 258.65 for rural and urban and severity of poverty, such as the poverty gap and areas of UP respectively, official estimates placed squared poverty gap measure, also show a clear fall 4Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, July 1993. 5Indian Planning Experience: A Statistical Profile. Please see http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/data/dataf.htm. 6Poverty Estimates for 1999­00, Government of India Planning Commission Press Release: 22 February 2001. 7Following the recommendations of the Lakdawala Committee, this report used CPIAL and CPIIW published by the Reserve Bank of India to update, respectively, rural and urban poverty lines. During the period between 1993/94 and 2002/03 these indexes showed a faster change in the price level for urban (78 percent) as compared to rural (62 percent) areas. Work is underway to calculate alternative rural and urban price indexes based on the data collected by the UP DES. 20 Income and Poverty between 1993/94 and 2002/03, both in rural as well of wealth in the upper deciles of the distribution in as in urban areas of Uttar Pradesh (Table 2.4). rural areas, and the increased concentration in urban areas. Based on the poverty headcount rates derived above and population estimates for the two years, the There has been a decline in the proportion of change in the absolute number of people below the expenditure spent on food for both rural and urban poverty line (in addition to the headcount poverty areas, which according to the Engel's law is consistent rate) can be estimated from the two survey rounds. with the increase in income in UP (Engel's law states These data show that the absolute number of poor that as incomes increase, the proportion of income in UP fell from an estimated 59.3 million in 1993/ spent on food falls). As expected, the food shares 94 to 48.8 million in 2002/03 (table 2.4), with most are higher in rural areas compared to urban areas of this decrease taking place in rural areas (see Figure (Table 2.6), but the magnitude of decline was lower 2.3). in rural compared to urban areas. In terms of the change in the proportion of expenditure spent on 2.4 Inequality and Distribution of food across expenditure deciles, in rural areas the Expenditures decline was somewhat higher for the low-income households, while in urban areas the decline was Consistent with the trends in change in real MPCE higher for the higher-income households (Table 2.6). across expenditure deciles, the Gini coefficient in UP overall declined from 0.305 to 0.282 between Figure 2.4 shows the poverty incidence curves for 1993­94 and 2002­03. Gini in rural areas declined the two surveys--i.e., the headcount poverty rate from 0.293 to 0.221, while Gini in urban areas on the y-axis and different poverty lines on the x- increased from 0.287 to 0.311. These patterns of axis. In other words, for every possible poverty line similar growth in average MPCE across rural and drawn up from the x-axis to the poverty incidence urban areas and declining inequality in rural areas, curve, the corresponding point of intersection on with increasing inequality in urban areas explain the the y-axis gives the poverty headcount rate for this patterns of poverty trends across urban and rural particular poverty line. The poverty incidence curve areas. for rural UP for 2002/03 is everywhere to the right of that for 1993/94, indicating that no matter where Another measure of inequality, i.e., the distribution the poverty line is drawn, the headcount rate is of total MPCE across deciles (table 2.5), confirms unambiguously lower in 2002/03 than in 1993/94. the patterns already seen: a decline in concentration Using a poverty line of Rs. 213.01 in 1993/94 prices, Figure 2.4: UP Poverty Incidence (rural and urban) UP Poverty Incidence Curves (Rural) UP Poverty Incidence Curves (Urban) 1 1 8. 8. Rate Rate 6. 6. 4. 4. Headcount Headcount 2 2 0. 0. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Poverty Line (1993/94 prices) Poverty Line (1993/94 prices) 2002/03 1993/94 2002/03 1993/94 Source: 1993/94: NSS 50th Round central sample for UP, 2002/03: PSMS Round 2 21 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank the headcount rate in rural UP fell from 42.3 percent Using a poverty line of Rs. 258.65 in 1993/94 prices, in 1993/94 to 28.5 percent in 2002/03. However the decline in urban poverty between the two data the urban poverty incidence curves for 1993/94 and points is therefore lower--from 35.4 percent in 2002/03 are quite close to one another (especially 1993/94 to 32.3 percent in 2002/03--than that in comparison to the rural poverty incidence curves). observed in rural areas of UP. Table 2.1: Per Capita Net State Domestic Product at Current/Constant Prices Per capita Net State Domestic Product (Rs. per person per year) State 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 Uttar Pradesh (CURRENT) 5,066 5,767 6,331 7,476 7,826 8,470 8,970 9,162 9,322 9,870 Uttar Pradesh (CONSTANT) 5,066 5,209 5,256 5,706 5,518 5,432 5,675 5,575 5,603 5,830 Source: Revised Bulletin Number 292 "Estimates of State Income 1993/94­2003/04", DES, UP. Summer 2004. Table 2.2: Average Monthly Real Per Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group Mean MPCE (Rs./person per month) by Decile Group Rural Urban Overall YEAR/DECILE 93/94 02/03 Increase 93/94 02/03 Increase 93/94 02/03 Increase Poorest 118 152 29% 118 138 17% 118 151 28% 2 154 190 24% 154 174 13% 154 188 23% 3 179 212 19% 180 196 9% 179 210 18% 4 204 236 16% 204 215 5% 204 234 15% 5 231 257 11% 231 234 1% 231 253 10% 6 260 282 9% 261 258 -1% 260 279 7% 7 296 313 6% 295 286 -3% 295 308 4% 8 345 360 4% 345 331 -4% 345 353 2% 9 429 437 2% 432 403 -7% 430 428 0% Richest 717 672 -6% 787 735 -7% 746 705 -5% Average 274 289 5% 389 404 4% 296 311 5% Source: NSS 50th round Central sample & PSMS-II. Table 2.3: Poverty Estimates for Uttar Pradesh: 1993/94 and 2002/03 POVERTY ESTIMATES 1993/94 (50TH ROUND) 2002/03 (PSMS-II) POVERTY MEASURE OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Poverty Line (in nominal rupees) - 213.01 258.65 - 346.37 460.21 Headcount Poverty Rate (%) 40.9 42.3 35.1 29.2 28.5 32.3 Poverty Gap 10.1 10.4 9.0 5.1 4.7 6.5 Squared Poverty Gap 3.5 3.5 3.3 1.3 1.2 1.9 Source: NSS 50th round Central sample & PSMS-II. 22 Income and Poverty Table 2.4: Absolute Number of Poor in Uttar Pradesh: 1993/94 and 2002/03 POVERTY ESTIMATES 1993/94 (50th ROUND) 2002/03 (PSMS-II) POVERTY MEASURE OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Headcount Poverty Rate (%) 40.9 42.3 35.1 29.2 28.5 32.3 Number of Poor (millions) 59.3 49.5 9.9 48.8 38.4 10.3 Source: NSS 50th round Central sample & PSMS-II. Table 2.5: Distribution of Real Per Capita Expenditures in UP by Decile Group Distribution of MPCE (share of the total MPC in the sample) by Decile Group Rural Urban Overall YEAR/DECILE 1993/94 2002/03 Increase 1993/94 2002/03 Increase 1993/94 2002/03 Increase Poorest 4.4 5.2 17% 4.3 4.1 -5% 4.4 4.9 11% 2 5.6 6.4 14% 5.4 5.2 -4% 5.6 6.1 9% 3 6.5 7.2 11% 6.2 5.9 -5% 6.4 6.9 7% 4 7.0 7.7 9% 7.0 6.6 -6% 7.0 7.4 5% 5 8.0 8.6 7% 7.8 7.5 -4% 7.9 8.3 4% 6 8.8 9.4 7% 8.8 8.4 -4% 8.8 9.1 4% 7 9.5 10.2 8% 10.1 9.8 -3% 9.6 10.1 5% 8 10.8 11.4 6% 11.7 11.7 0% 11.0 11.5 5% 9 12.6 13.7 8% 14.7 14.9 1% 13.1 14.0 7% Richest 26.8 20.2 -25% 23.9 25.9 8% 26.1 21.7 -17% Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: NSS 50th round Central sample & PSMS-II. Table 2.6: Share of Total Expenditure Spent on Food in UP by Decile Group Food Share by the Decile Group Rural Urban Overall YEAR/DECILE 1993/94 2002/03 Increase 1993/94 2002/03 Increase 1993/94 2002/03 Increase Poorest 72 61 -16% 69 60 -13% 72 61 -15% 2 73 61 -16% 68 57 -16% 72 61 -16% 3 72 60 -17% 67 55 -17% 71 60 -17% 4 71 59 -17% 65 55 -15% 70 58 -16% 5 70 59 -16% 63 53 -15% 69 58 -15% 6 69 58 -15% 61 52 -15% 67 58 -14% 7 67 57 -15% 58 50 -14% 65 55 -15% 8 65 56 -15% 56 46 -17% 62 55 -11% 9 62 55 -10% 53 44 -18% 58 53 -9% Richest 53 50 -5% 44 37 -17% 49 45 -9% Total 67 57 -15% 60 50 -18% 66 56 -15% Source: NSS 50th round Central sample & PSMS-II. 23 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank 24 3. Basic Education 3.1 Introduction In terms of human development indicators, Uttar and seeks to bridge social, regional and gender Pradesh lags behind most Indian states. As per gaps in educational attainments.8 Important the 2001 Population Census, UP's literacy rate (57 objectives of the program include ensuring: percent) was lower than the national average (65 percent), and female literacy (43 percent) in that all children complete five years of primary particular was lower than all major states of India, schooling by 2007 except Bihar. At the same time, however, a that all children complete eight years of comparison of the 1991 and 2001 census findings elementary schooling by 2010 provides some grounds for optimism, as literacy rates in UP have been increasing faster than in a bridging of all gender and social gaps at the India overall. The two PSMS survey rounds primary stage by 2007, and corroborate these findings of rising literacy universal retention by 2010. among the population. Data from these surveys show that the literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh among This chapter presents education data for Uttar the population aged 7 years and older rose from Pradesh with respect to: literacy, school attendance, around 55 percent in PSMS-I to almost 60 percent drop-outs and non-attendance, and general school in Round II (Table 3.1). Moreover, the rise characteristics. While most state education observed in rural areas was slightly higher than departments typically maintain elaborate education that in urban areas, thus leading to a reduction management information systems (EMIS) to track overall in the rural-urban gap in literacy rates. such information, household survey-based estimates provide a very useful means to cross-check the The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is the accuracy of reported statistics. In fact, the latter Government of India's flagship program to estimates have three main advantages over the universalize Elementary Education in the country, former with respect to overall quality. First, unlike and is being implemented in partnership with state most EMIS where the coverage of private school governments. The program seeks to open new tends to be much poorer than that of government schools in those habitations which do not have schools, the survey-based estimates include data on schooling facilities and strengthen existing school private as well as government schools. Second, infrastructure through the provision of additional because EMIS use school-based data, they can only class rooms, toilets, drinking water, maintenance guess the number of children who ought to be in grants and school improvement grants. Existing school, but who are not (typically using projections schools with inadequate teacher strength are based on census data). Third, since departmental provided additional teachers, while the capacity and school budgets tend to be linked to the total of existing teachers is being strengthened by number of children in the system, lower-level extensive training, grants for developing teaching- government officials have an incentive to exaggerate learning materials and strengthening of the the number of enrolled children when reporting to academic support structure at the cluster, block the EMIS (household survey interviewers don't have and district levels. The SSA has a special focus any such adverse incentive). on girl's education and children with special needs, 8For more details on the SSA, please see http://ssa.nic.in/. 25 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank 3.2 School Attendance, Completion Figure 3.1: Children's School Enrollment in and Drop-out Rates UP (percent) Data from the two PSMS rounds provide some 80 encouraging findings with regard to rising school 70 enrollment among the target-age children at the 60 50 primary, middle and secondary levels in Uttar 40 Pradesh (Figure 3.1).9 School enrollment among 30 children aged 6­10 years increased by about 12 20 percentage points, from 67 percent in Round I to 10 0 79 percent in Round II. Similarly, school enrollment 6 -10 years 11-13 years 14 -15 years among 11­13-year-olds increased from 71 to 77 PSMS -I PSMS -II percent, while that for children aged 14­15 years crept up from 58 to 60 percent over the same period. India complete at least five years of schooling by School enrollment rates have increased in both the year 2007 (i.e., that they attain at least a primary urban and rural areas, and for both boys and for school level of education). Clearly getting all children girls (Table 3.2). to enroll in school is an important first step towards achieving this goal, but is not enough by itself: all The pattern of rising school enrollment in the state children who start school must be retained in the is supported by evidence of the improved schooling system until they have completed the educational attainment of the population as a whole requisite primary school cycle. Data from both PSMS (Figure 3.2). For instance, among UP's overall rounds indicates that the educational system in UP population aged 18 years and older, the share that is doing quite well in this respect. Defining the has never attended school fell from 54 percent to 49 primary school drop-out rate as the proportion of percent between Rounds I and II. Similarly, the school-starters who leave school before completing proportion of the adult population that has primary school, the primary school drop-out rate completed secondary or higher (i.e., class 10 and among children aged 11­15 years was found to be above) increased from 20.3 percent to 21.5 percent 4.8 and 7.2 percent in PSMS I and II respectively (Table 3.3) during this period. (Table 3.4). Accordingly, to achieve universal primary school completion rates by 2007, the key policy Prominent among the various monitoring targets set challenge for GoUP policymakers is not necessarily by the GoI Planning Commission for the 10th Plan school retention per se, but rather one of ensuring period is the goal of ensuring that all children in that all children in the state start school. Figure 3.2: Highest Educational Attainment for Population Aged 18 and Above PSMS-I PSMS-II 20.3 21.5 6.3 10.4 10.0 5.8 53.6 12.5 10.4 49.3 Never Attended < Primary Primary Middle Secondary or Higher Never Attended < Primary Primary Middle Secondary or Higher 9As per the official definitions, the target age groups at the primary, middle and secondary level are taken to be children aged 6­10 years, 11­13 years, and 14­15 years, respectively. 26 Basic Education Figure 3.3: School Attendance Profile by Age (PSMS-II) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 9 yrs 10 yrs 11 yrs Currently attending Attended in the past Never attended school Do enrollment rates of 78­79 percent among 6­ has also narrowed somewhat over this period (Figure 10-year-olds mean that one-fifth of all children in 3.4). Finally, while the rural-urban gap in enrollment UP receive no schooling? Not necessarily--as Figure has actually risen for children aged 14­15 years 3.3 shows, the age of entry into schooling in the during the two rounds, this is mainly because of a state appears to be a bit higher than the six year sharp rise in enrollment in urban areas rather than target of policymakers. By age 9, roughly 85 percent due to a decline in enrollment in rural areas (Table of children in UP enroll in school (Table 3.5). 3.7). Why do 15 percent of children in UP never attend As one might expect, the survey data from both schools? In the PSMS-II round, all children aged 5 rounds clearly show that there is a strong positive to 18 years who never attended school were asked relationship in UP between school attendance and the two main reasons why they did not. `Cannot household income (see Figure 3.5). In other words, afford it' (59.7 percent) and `education not useful' the richer the household, the more likely it is that its (14.4 percent) were the two main reasons cited for members are attending school. For example, on not attending school (Table 3.6). dividing the overall population of rural Uttar Pradesh into three equal groups ranked by income level,10 3.3 Characteristics of School Enrollment by Region, Income and Figure 3.4: Rural-Urban Gap in Enrollment Gender (percent) 15 An encouraging finding of PSMS-II has been the 13 virtual elimination of the rural-urban gap in 11 enrollment rates in UP among children aged 6­10 9 years (i.e., from a 9 percent gap in Round I to less 7 than one percent in Round II). Similarly, the rural- 5 urban enrollment gap for children aged 11­13 years 3 10Throughout this report, per capita monthly household 1 expenditures derived from the NSS schedule 1.0 are used as the -1 preferred welfare metric to rank households by income level in 6-10 years 11-13 years 14-15 years rural and urban areas separately. PSMS -I PSMS - II 27 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Figure 3.5: Enrollment Rates for Children Aged 6­15 Years by Income Level Rural Areas Urban Areas 90 100 years 80 years 90 80 6-10 70 6-10 70 60 aged aged 60 50 50 40 children children 40 of 30 of 30 20 20 Percent 10 Percent 10 0 0 Poor Middle Income Rich Poor Middle Income Rich PSMS-I Round-II PSMS-I Round-II only 72 percent of children aged 6­10 years from gender gap in enrollment has remained more or less the poorest one-third (first quintile) of UP's rural unchanged among children aged 11­13 and 14­15 population was found to be attending school, years, it has narrowed somewhat among the primary compared to 86 percent of children from the richest school target age group. If enrollment rates for girls one-third (third quartile). An even sharper aged 6­10 years continue to catch up with those for differential pattern is evident in urban areas of the boys, the gap in educational attainment of the female state. Closer examination of the enrollment rate and male population of UP will likely also disappear estimates, presented in Table 3.8, reveals that in rural over time. areas, the rise in enrollment rates for the poor over this period have been somewhat higher than for the 3.4 Government-Private School rich, particularly among the primary and middle Attendance Rates and Expenditures target age groups. The estimates of school enrollment of children of An important policy objective of the 10th Plan different age groups can be broken down by sector targets set by the GoI Planning Commission is to to investigate how the government and non- boost school enrollment of girls. As illustrated by government sectors have been performing in recent Figure 3.6, the two surveys show girls' school years. Analysing school enrollment in the state by enrollment in UP to have increased considerably for type of school reveals that the share of children all age groups of children (Table 3.2). While the attending private schools in UP has increased quite Figure 3.7: Share of Private School Figure 3.6: School Enrollment (percent) Enrollment (percent) 60 90 80 50 70 60 40 50 40 30 30 20 20 10 0 10 Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys 6-10 years 11-13 years 14-15 years 0 6-10years 11-13 years 14-15 years PSMS Round 1 Round 2 PSMS -I PSMS -II 28 Basic Education rapidly for all age groups (see Figure 3.7). For Figure 3.8: Private School Enrollment instance, the survey data show that the share of (Children 6-10 years) children aged 6­10 years attending private schools 80 in UP rose from around 31 percent to 37 percent 70 between the two rounds. The proportion of children 60 attending private schools rises with age level: half 50 the children aged 14­15 years covered in Round II 40 Percent were found to be enrolled in private schools (Table 30 3.10). 20 10 Focusing on children aged 6­10 years, both PSMS 0 Rural Areas Urban Area rounds show a sharp contrast in the share of private PSMS-I PSMS-II school enrollment across rural and urban areas of the state (Figure 3.8). In rural areas of UP, the share of government schools have continued to remain an total enrollment accounted for by private schools is important source of education for poor children in still quite low compared to urban areas, but has UP. A similar pattern is evident for children aged increased quite rapidly in recent years (from around 22 11­13 and 14­15 years (Table 3.11). percentinRoundIto30percentinRoundII).Inurban areas, the total share of private enrollment is The PSMS-II collected detailed information on considerablyhigherthanthatinruralareas:aboutthree- education expenses for all children currently enrolled fourths of children aged 6­10 years in urban UP were in school. These data reveal a number of interesting enrolled in private schools in Round II (Table 3.10). insights into the pattern of expenditure on education inUP(Table3.12).Forinstance,thesedatahelpexplain The two PSMS rounds also show a sharp contrast why government schools continue to be such an in the pattern of school enrollment across different important source of education for children from poor income groups (Figure 3.9). Thus, while about four- economic backgrounds. Average per-pupil annual fifths of children from the poorest one-third of rural expenditure on education is much higher for students UP were enrolled in government schools in Round enrolledinprivateschoolscomparedtothoseattending II, the corresponding rate for children among the government schools (Rs. 1,680 vs. Rs. 534). This richest one-third of the urban population of UP differential is particularly high among students at the was only about 11 percent. Despite the decline noted primary level. As one would expect, per-pupil above in the share of total enrollment accounted expendituresoneducationriseswithlevelof education for by government schools, as figure 3.9 shows, (i.e.,attheprimary,middle,secondaryandhigherlevels), Figure 3.9: Government School Enrollment for Children Aged 6­10 Years by Income Level Rural Areas Urban Areas 90 90 yrs. 80 yrs. 80 70 70 6-10 6-10 60 60 aged aged 50 50 40 40 children children of 30 of 30 20 20 Percent 10 Percent 10 0 0 Poor Middle Income Rich Poor Middle Income Rich PSMS - I PSMS - II PSMS - I PSMS - II 29 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Figure 3.10: Government Scholarships Figure 3.11: Government Free Textbook (PSMS-II) Program (PSMS-II) 30 40 35 (percent) 25 30 20 (%) 25 20 scholarships 15 books 15 text 10 10 receiving getting 5 5 0 Students 0 Students UPoverall Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich Rural Poor Rich overall Urban Middle UP and in general is much higher in urban areas compared By Region By Income Level to rural areas of UP (Rs. 2,203 vs. Rs. 723). The data show that, on average, non-fee schooling 3.5 Government Education Programs expenses(uniforms,booksandsupplies,privatetuition, transport, etc.) formed a relatively high share of total Over a span of time, the Government of UP education expenses compared to expenditure on introduced a scholarship to pupils from economically admission, tuition and examination fees. Thus, in the and socially deprived strata of society. Data from case of pupils enrolled in government schools at the the PSMS-II show that this program was reasonably primary level, while students pay only a very nominal well targeted towards the poor, though there is still fee to attend school (about Rs. 60 per annum), the scope to reduce leakage to those from higher income addition of non-fee expenditures that have to be paid groups. While only 8.5 percent of the students in for these children means that the average annual cost urban areas received this scholarship, about one-fifth of sending a child to a government primary school is of students in rural areas were found to be benefiting about four times this amount. from the scholarship program (Table 3.13). Table 3.1: Literacy ­ Population 7 Years and Older LITERACY RATE (PERCENT) TARGET AGE-GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II AND LOCATION MEN WOMEN BOTH MEN WOMEN BOTH UP OVERALL 66.6 41.3 54.9 71.7 46.4 59.7 Rural Areas 64.2 36.6 51.4 69.5 41.7 56.3 Urban Areas 76.6 61.6 69.7 80.2 65.0 73.0 By Region Western 65.8 42.8 55.4 71.8 48.9 61.1 Central 63.7 42.3 53.9 68.0 46.6 58.0 Eastern 68.8 39.5 54.9 72.9 44.0 58.7 Southern 65.9 41.0 54.9 75.7 46.3 62.1 By Income Level Bottom third 56.0 31.0 44.3 61.6 37.6 49.9 Middle third 67.3 41.7 55.4 72.0 44.7 59.0 Top third 75.3 50.6 64.1 79.9 56.2 68.8 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 30 Basic Education Table 3.2: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years ENROLLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN GROUP (PERCENT) TARGET AGE GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II AND LOCATION BOYS GIRLS OVERALL BOYS GIRLS OVERALL Primary (6­10 years) UP Overall 69.7 63.5 66.9 81.0 75.1 78.2 Rural Areas 68.7 61.4 65.4 81.2 74.8 78.1 Urban Areas 74.4 73.3 73.9 80.0 76.6 78.4 Middle (11­13 years) UP Overall 76.3 64.2 70.8 82.0 72.0 77.4 Rural Areas 76.4 61.6 69.7 82.4 69.7 76.6 Urban Areas 75.9 74.4 75.2 79.9 80.9 80.4 Secondary (14­15 years) UP Overall 63.4 49.5 57.5 66.4 51.3 59.6 Rural Areas 63.0 46.5 56.1 65.9 45.6 57.1 Urban Areas 64.7 60.6 62.9 68.5 67.8 68.1 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Under the District Primary Education Programme poor: 37 percent of the poorest one-third of the (DPEP) and SSA, GoUP intends to provide free population as compared to 17 percent of the richest textbooks to all girls and schedule cast and schedule one-third of the population. Overall, 5.4 percent and tribe boys studying in the primary and upper primary 32.4 percent of students in urban and rural areas government schools. Once again, the PSMS-II shows received free text books in UP (Table 3.14). that this program is quite well targeted towards the Table 3.3: Highest Educational Attainment ­ Population Aged 18 Years and Older SHARE OF POPULATION AGED 18 AND OLDER (PERCENT) HIGHEST LEVEL OF 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT MEN WOMEN BOTH MEN WOMEN BOTH Never Attended School 38.6 70.3 53.6 33.4 66.6 49.3 Less than Primary 6.8 4.7 5.8 7.4 5.1 6.3 Primary 11.6 8.2 10.0 12.7 7.8 10.4 Middle 14.5 5.7 10.4 17.1 7.6 12.5 Secondary or Higher 28.5 11.1 20.3 29.4 12.9 21.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 3.4: Drop-out Rate of Children Aged 6 to 15 Years DROP-OUT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN AGE GROUP (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II GROUP 6­10 years 11­15 years 6­10 years 11­15 years UP Overall 2.2 4.8 4.1 7.2 Rural Areas 2.3 4.8 4.0 7.8 Urban Areas 2.1 4.9 4.3 5.3 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 31 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 3.5: School Attendance Profile by Single-Year Age Group PROPORTION OF CHILDREN (PERCENT) ATTAINMENT LEVEL 5 yrs 6 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 9 yrs 10 yrs 11 yrs PSMS-I Never attended school 67.0 46.3 33.3 26.9 23.4 23.1 17.7 Currently attending 31.7 52.3 65.9 71.7 74.2 72.6 77.8 Attended in the past 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.4 2.4 4.3 4.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 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 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 3.6: Main Reasons for Not Attending School (PSMS-II) 1st REASON GIVEN 2nd REASON GIVEN MAIN REASON GIVEN OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Too young 1.4 1.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 0.7 School too far 6.0 6.9 1.2 4.8 5.5 0.0 Cannot afford 59.7 57.7 69.2 11.2 9.8 22.5 Looking after siblings 3.7 4.1 1.7 6.6 6.5 7.5 For working at home 4.2 4.4 3.3 11.0 12.1 2.7 For working at farm 0.6 0.4 1.3 1.6 1.6 0.9 Working for wage/salary 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.9 3.4 Education not considered useful 14.4 14.9 12.0 41.0 41.8 35.3 Admission procedure cumbersome 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.4 0.0 Disability 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 Other 8.9 9.5 6.0 20.7 19.8 27.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 100 Source: PSMS-II. Table 3.7: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years ­ by Region ENROLLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN AGE GROUP (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY REGION 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs UP OVERALL 66.9 70.8 57.5 78.2 77.4 59.6 Rural Areas 65.4 69.7 56.1 78.1 76.6 57.1 Urban Areas 73.9 75.2 62.9 78.4 80.4 68.1 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 32 Basic Education Table 3.8: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years ­ by Income Level ENROLLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN IN AGE GROUP (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II LOCATION AND PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY INCOME GROUP 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs UP OVERALL 66.9 70.8 57.5 78.2 77.4 59.6 RURAL AREAS 65.4 69.7 56.1 78.1 76.6 57.1 Poor 58.2 59.5 39.8 72.2 69.0 42.6 Middle 66.8 72.3 57.3 79.4 75.8 56.0 Rich 74.2 77.9 68.9 85.9 85.8 72.4 URBAN AREAS 73.9 75.2 62.9 78.4 80.4 68.1 Poor 60.4 59.3 42.7 65.2 65.3 49.1 Middle 77.5 78.2 63.7 84.8 80.9 64.8 Rich 89.9 92.1 85.6 95.1 97.8 91.1 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 3.9: Enrollment Rate of Children Aged 6 To 15 Years ­ by Income Level LOCATION AND ENROLLMENT RATE AMONG CHILDREN 6-15 YEARS (PERCENT) INCOME GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II RURAL AREAS 64.9 74.3 Poor 56.0 67.1 Middle 66.6 74.6 Rich 74.1 83.2 URBAN AREAS 72.2 76.8 Poor 57.1 62.4 Middle 75.0 79.5 Rich 89.6 94.9 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 3.10: Proportion of Students Attending Different Types of Schools SHARE OF TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE AGE GROUP (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY TYPE OF SCHOOL 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs UP OVERALL Government 68.0 61.9 54.6 60.7 53.8 48.8 Private 30.7 36.9 44.6 37.5 44.9 50.2 Other 1.4 1.2 0.8 1.8 1.2 1.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 RURAL AREAS Government 76.9 69.3 59.3 68.1 59.7 51.7 Private 21.9 29.5 40.0 30.1 38.9 47.4 Other 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.8 1.4 1.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 URBAN AREAS Government 29.6 33.6 38.2 24.4 30.9 40.3 Private 68.3 65.3 60.5 73.7 68.2 58.5 Other 2.1 1.1 1.3 1.9 0.8 1.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 33 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 3.11: Percentage Attending Government Schools ­ by Region and Income Level SHARE OF TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE AGE GROUP (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II LOCATION AND PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY PRIMARY MIDDLE SECONDARY INCOME GROUP 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs 6­10 yrs 11­13 yrs 14­15 yrs UP OVERALL 67.9 61.9 54.6 60.7 53.8 48.8 RURAL AREAS 76.9 69.3 59.3 68.1 59.7 51.7 Poor 82.0 75.1 59.6 81.7 68.5 64.9 Middle 76.8 70.2 62.6 66.7 63.5 54.3 Rich 71.3 63.6 56.6 52.0 48.4 41.9 URBAN AREAS 29.6 33.6 38.2 24.4 30.9 40.3 Poor 41.8 43.9 44.4 38.2 44.2 54.3 Middle 29.7 32.9 41.3 19.9 30.9 41.0 Rich 16.9 25.8 31.9 11.2 20.4 32.1 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 3.12: Average Expenditure Per Pupil on Education ­ PSMS-II AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE IN RUPEES LOCATION AND GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS PRIVATE SCHOOLS OVERALL: ALL SCHOOLS SCHOOL LEVEL FEES OTHER TOTAL FEES OTHER TOTAL FEES OTHER TOTAL UP OVERALL 176 357 534 834 847 1680 455 565 1021 Primary level 62 172 234 629 613 1242 272 335 607 Middle level 223 497 720 887 864 1751 557 681 1239 Secondary level 530 1010 1540 965 1226 2191 774 1131 1905 Higher level 1046 1423 2470 1993 1876 3869 1531 1655 3186 RURAL AREAS 126 294 420 540 719 1258 275 447 723 Primary level 52 161 214 426 508 934 163 264 426 Middle level 171 455 625 543 737 1280 339 582 922 Secondary level 474 902 1377 740 1124 1865 626 1029 1654 Higher level 813 1216 2029 1048 1533 2581 931 1375 2305 URBAN AREAS 573 854 1427 1454 1118 2572 1170 1033 2203 Primary level 192 325 517 1036 825 1861 819 697 1516 Middle level 551 760 1311 1703 1165 2868 1341 1038 2379 Secondary level 664 1271 1936 1574 1503 3077 1157 1397 2554 Higher level 1420 1756 3176 3346 2367 5714 2438 2079 4517 Source: PSMS-II. Table 3.13: Receipt of Government Scholarships (PSMS-II) ­ by Income Level PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS GETTING SCHOLARSHIPS BOYS GIRLS OVERALL UP OVERALL 16.8 18.4 17.5 UP Rural 18.9 21.0 19.8 UP Urban 7.8 9.3 8.5 By Income Level Poor 23.7 26.8 25.1 Middle 17.3 18.5 17.8 Rich 10.3 9.8 10.1 Source: PSMS-II. 34 Basic Education Table 3.14: Receipt of Free Text Books (PSMS-II) ­ by Income Level PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS GETTING FREE TEXTBOOKS BOYS GIRLS OVERALL UP OVERALL 24.2 30.4 26.9 UP Rural 28.7 37.3 32.4 UP Urban 4.6 6.4 5.4 By Income Level Poor 33.9 40.6 37.0 Middle 24.8 31.1 27.5 Rich 15.1 19.2 16.8 Source: PSMS-II. 35 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank 36 Health 4.1 Introduction One important lesson learned from the analysis of Notwithstanding the observed decline in IMR in UP, PSMS-I data was that the most appropriate tools itremainedconsiderablyhigherthanthecorresponding for the collection of information on most health- all-India average (63 deaths per 1,000 live births), both related indicators are specialized rather than statistics based on SRS. Moreover, IMR in rural areas multipurpose surveys. Accordingly, health-related is considerably higher than that in urban areas (83 vs. questions that did not show accurate responses in 58).12 Similarly, the gender differentials in the IMR (76 the PSMS-I were dropped from the PSMS-II, and many of the indicators presented in this section are Figure 4.1: Infant Mortality Rate in UP collected from the 1992/93 and 1998/99 National Family Health Surveys (NFHS-I and II)11 and the 99.9 1995 and 2002 Reproductive Child Health Surveys 100 86.7 79.4 (RCH). Some of the health-related questions (e.g., 80 morbidity, maternity-related care and use of Anganwadi centers) did show accurate response rates 60 and were kept in the PSMS-II. Indicators based on 40 these questions are presented in this section. 20 Disability was also the subject of the survey of the NSS 58th round conducted in 2002, and so some 0 NFHS - I NFHS -II RCH - II findings from the state sample of this NSS round Deaths per 1000 live births are also presented in this chapter. male, 84 female) in UP was considerably higher than 4.2 Infant and Child Mortality that in India overall (62 male, 65 female).13 Sample Registration System (SRS) data show that the infant mortality rate (IMR) in UP has fallen from 4.3 Antenatal and Postnatal Care, 85 to 80 deaths per 1,000 live births between 1998 Family Planning Services and 2002 (Table 4.1). This trend of declining infant Only slightly more than half of all expectant mothers mortality is confirmed by the NFHS-I and II amongthepoorestone-fifthof thepopulationreceived surveys, which show that the IMR in UP declined full or some antenatal care. The coverage among the from 99.9 deaths per 1,000 live births for the five- wealthiest one-fifth was reported at 80 percent, which year period preceding the 1992/93 survey, to 86.7 is still far from full coverage (Table 4.2). On the other deaths per 1,000 live births for the corresponding hand, awareness of the benefits of some of the five-year time interval preceding the 1998­99 survey elementsof antenatalcarewasfoundtobehighamong (Figure 4.1). 11The principal objective of the National Family Health Surveys (NFHS-I and II) is to provide state and national estimates of fertility, the practice of family planning, infant and child mortality, maternal and child health and the utilization of health services provided to mothers and children. The first survey (NFHS-I) was conducted in 1992/93 and the second (NFHS-II) in 1998­99. NFHS-II covered a representative sample of about 91,000 ever-married women aged 15­49 years from 26 states in India in two phases, the first starting in November 1998 and the second in March 1999. Reproductive Child Health Surveys have been launched in 1995 with the objective to collect data on antenatal care and immunization services, the extent of safe deliveries, contraceptive prevalence, unmet need for family planning, awareness about RTI/STI and HIV/AIDS and utilization of government health services and user's satisfaction. 12SRS Bulletin, Volume 38, No. 1, April 2004. Registrar General of India. 13RCH-II, which covered only rural areas, confirms that the IMR in UP had fallen further to 79.4 deaths per 1,000 live births by 2002. 37 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank thepopulationof ruralUP.Useof antenatalcarefrom Figure 4.3: Distribution of Deliveries by privateproviders,includingbythepoor,wasquitehigh Person Conducting Delivery (Table4.3).Thelowuseof antenatalservicesprovided bythepublicsectorsuggeststhatgovernmentservices may not be widely available, or their perceived quality 13.4% 21.3% 11.2% may be low. An overwhelming majority of deliveries still occur at home, although women from the wealthiest population strata increasingly choose to deliver in government, and especially private hospitals (Table 4.4). 54.1% Doctor Nurse/ANM Trained/Traditional Dai Friends/Relatives Table 4.5 presents the proportion of married women that delivered a baby at any time during be much more common than in rural areas (38 vs. the one-year period preceding the date of 12 percent respectively). As one would expect, the interview. As the table shows, about 80 percent proportion of institutional deliveries was found to women in UP in the age group 15 to 49 years rise with income and to be relatively low among who were ever married. This percentage for rural socially disadvantaged groups. and urban areas was 82 and 69 percent respectively. While the proportion of the age In general, deliveries at medical institutions are group that was married did not vary much by considered to be safer than those at home. The PSMS income level, within this group there was a clear questionnaire included a question on `who pattern in the share of women reporting a delivery conducted the delivery'. Table 4.7 presents the in the past year (18 percent among the poorest breakdown of births by type of person conducting one-third vs. 9 percent among the richest one- the delivery. As these data show, over half the third). deliveries in UP are conducted by trained/traditional dais, followed by 10 percent by doctors/nurses/ Table 4.6 presents data on the place of delivery by ANMs, and friends/relatives in 25 percent of the income level and social group in UP. Only 16 percent cases. Clearly deliveries conducted by friends/ of deliveries were institutional deliveries, while the relatives are not as safe as those conducted by trained rest (i.e., 84 percent) were non-institutional. professionals. This percentage in rural areas is almost Institutional deliveries in urban areas were found to double than that in urban areas. Figure 4.2: Percentage Reporting Home Figure 4.4: Deliveries Percentage of Safe Deliveries 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 area area Poor Rich OBC overall Middle SC/ST area area Poor Rich OBC General overall Middle SC/ST UP Rural General Urban UP Rural Urban Location Income level Social group Location Income level Social group 38 Health Figure 4.5: Percentage of Reporting Fever by income or social group. Table 4.12 reports the breakdown of self-reported symptoms for 60 consulting a doctor/quack or any health service. 50 More than half of the persons visiting a health facility reported doing so because of fever. Clearly, 40 fever could be indicative of a variety of ailments, 30 ranging from a minor infection to major health 20 problems. Other reasons reported for seeking health care included stomachache, diarrhea, cough and 10 injury. There appeared to be no marked differences 0 among rural and urban areas in most regards, except UP Rural Urban Poor Middle Rich overall that the share of the population reporting a Residence Income level consultation for the reasons of delivery, antenatal/ postnatal services and health check-up in urban areas Consideringallinstitutionaldeliveriesassafealongwith was twice that in rural areas. The propensity to report deliveries at home by trained personnel, the extent of a fever or diarrhea fell with the respondents' income safe deliveries was analyzed (Table 4.8). In UP, the level. prevalence of safe deliveries was estimated to be 78.7 Those who reported seeking health care for their percent (90 percent urban, 77 percent rural). The gap illness were also asked about whom they consulted between the rich and poor was found to be about 8 (i.e., the type of consultation) for treatment. Their percent. Similarly, SC/ST women reported a lower responses have been regrouped as: government, incidenceof safedeliveries(66.7percent)ascompared private, risky (private informal) and others (Table to the OBC and general population (80.3 percent and 4.13). The government and private consultation 88.5 percent respectively). type include trained doctors in the health facilities The use of family planning in UP is generally low. run by public and private sectors respectively. The Only a third of all eligible couples in rural UP use risky group of consultation type includes faith any family planning method, and the poor are even healers and untrained practitioners/quacks. less likely to utilize a method than the wealthy (Table Government type consultation was taken by 10.3 4.9). Among couples who do use family planning, percent (9.6 rural, 13.5 percent urban). About 40 female sterilization is still the most common method. Other modern methods such as the oral pill and Figure 4.6: Proportion Consulting condom/nirodh are used by only 14 percent of the Government Health Facility/Doctor by family planning users in the poorest 20 percent of Income Level the population, and by 25 percent of all users among 16 the wealthiest 20 percent (Table 4.10). The most 14 common non-modern method is periodic 12 abstinence. 10 4.4 Morbidity 8 6 A question on morbidity was asked in the PSMS-II 4 with reference to the last 15 days preceding the interview. Overall, about 10.6 percent of the 2 population reported experiencing some illness during 0 area area Poor Rich OBC this period (Table 4.11). The incidence of self- overall Middle SC/ST General UP Rural reported illness in UP did not appear to vary much Urban UP overall Rural areas Urban areas 39 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank percent reported consulting private health reasons were cough (13.2 percent) and stomachache services for treatment in the last 15 days. In urban (11.3 percent), for which no consultation was sought areas about 61 percent relied on private health (Table 4.15). services compared to 35 percent in rural areas. The risky type consultation was more prevalent To get an indication of loss of man-days due to in rural areas (50.2 percent) though a sizeable reported illness, the PSMS-II included a question percentage (20.2 percent) was also found in urban on the number of days a person was unable to areas. When looking at the income levels and function normally. One-third reported that despite consultation type it was found that in both rural the illness there was not a single day when they and urban areas, poor were less likely to go to a abstained from normal working, while an equal government-type consultation compared to other proportion reported a loss of 3 to 7 days during the income classes. In this regard, the gap between prior 15 days (Table 4.16). About one-sixth of the rich and poor was almost double in rural areas persons reported a loss of 8 to 15 days, while 19 (4.8 percent) compared to urban areas (2.5 percent reported a loss of up to 2 days. About 7 percent). The private type consultation had percent more persons in urban areas reported `no increasing trends with the income levels for loss' as compared to their rural counterparts. The overall UP, rural areas and urban areas. The risky propensity to report 7 to 15 days grew with the consultation remained more or less static for the increase in income level. poor and middle income levels, but then declined among the rich. 4.5 Anganwadi Attendance About 1 percent of the persons who reported some Anganwadi centers have been established across illness or other but did not consult for their illness India for the welfare of children aged 0­6 years, in were asked to describe the reasons why they did not particular to improve nutritional status, for regular consult (Table 4.14) and the symptoms of the illness. health check-ups, immunization awareness and About 79 percent reported three main reasons, preschool education. The two PSMS rounds namely: `problem not serious', `resorted to home included questions on awareness and current remedy' and `repeated old prescription', reported by attendance of these centers. The specific question 73, 77 and 85 percent, respectively, by poor, middle `does an Anganwadi exist within your village/block' and rich income levels. Going by symptoms, about was asked to those households who had at least one one-third reported fever with decreasing propensity child of age 0­6. About 18 percent of households by income levels. About 30 percent reported other had no idea about the existence of an Anganwadi in symptoms of the illness. Among other prominent their village/block (Table 4.17). Among the rest, an equal proportion of households reported having and not having an Anganwadi in their village/bock. Figure 4.7: Proportion of Persons by Awareness levels were found to be higher in rural Number of Days Unable to Function areas, and among relatively better-off households Normally as well as in the SC/ST group. 14.6% The two PSMS rounds corroborate great success in 33.2% improving Anganwadi attendance: whilst almost negligible in Round I, attendance rose to 9.8 percent in Round II. Moreover, the program appeared to be well-targeted towards the state's poor and socially 33.1% 4.9% disadvantaged groups [attendance of 11.4 percent 14.1% for the poor vs. 7.4 percent for the rich; 3 percent None One Two Three to seven Eight to fifteen more SC/ST children attended the Anganwadi 40 Health Figure 4.8: Prevalence of Disability by District of Uttar Pradesh (Census 2001) Rural Female Rural Male Legend Legend under 2.00 % under 2.00 % 2.00 to 2.49 % 2.00 to 2.49 % 2.50 or more 2.50 or more Urban Male Urban Female Legend Legend under 2.00 % under 2.00 % 2.00 to 2.49 % 2.00 to 2.49 % 2.50 or more 2.50 or more compared to other social groups (Table 4.18)]. The there appears to be fairly close agreement between survey also gathered specific information on these two estimates of prevalence for `speech and nutritional supplements received by children. More hearing' and `mental' disability types, while the than three-quarters of the children attending the variation in visual and locomotor disabilities may be Anganwadi reported receiving the food supplement due to definitional and operational differences. The `always', followed by 17.8 percent who got it prevalence of disability was found to be 20.8 and `sometimes', whilst only 4.9 percent reported `never' 13.2 per thousand, as per census 2001 and the NSS receiving it (Table 4.19). 58 round respectively. In both cases males had higher prevalence compared to females. Table 4.22 presents 4.6 Disability number of districts by prevalence categories. More The persistence and prevalence of disability is an than half the districts had prevalence levels below 2 important factor affecting the overall health status percent, followed by 18 and 16 districts with of the population. In the 2001 Population Census, prevalence 2­2.49 percent and 2.5 percent and above. questions on disability status were asked of About three quarters of the districts reported a male respondents, and the results of these are available at prevalence of disability of 2 percent and above. the district level (see figure 4.8). The NSS 58th round also inquired about purpose schedule during July­ December 2002. Table 4.21 presents prevalence of disability per 1000 population by disability type for Census 2001 and the NSS 58th round. In general 41 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 4.1: Infant Mortality Rate in Uttar Pradesh IMR (Deaths per 1,000 live births) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 UP OVERALL 85 84 83 83 80 UP Rural 89 88 87 86 83 UP Urban 65 66 65 62 58 Source: Sample Registration System Statistical Report 2002, Office of the Registrar General, India. Table 4.2: Distribution of Expectant Women by Receipt of Antenatal Care PERCENT RECEIVED ANTENATAL CARE INCOME CLASS FULL ANY NONE 1 LOWEST 3.3 52.0 44.7 2 4.2 51.6 44.2 3 5.3 54.8 39.9 4 6.0 60.5 33.5 5 HIGHEST 13.9 66.0 20.4 Source: RCH, rural UP only. Table 4.3: Distribution of Expectant Receiving Antenatal Care by Source SOURCE OF ANTENATAL CARE (PERCENT) GOVT. GOVT. PHC SC PRIVATE OTHERS HOSPITAL DISPENSARY 1 LOWEST 26.9 1.4 26.1 21.4 21.3 2.9 2 30.8 1.8 22.8 17.7 25.9 1.0 3 31.8 1.7 21.1 15.0 28.9 1.6 4 34.4 1.9 16.9 11.0 34.3 1.5 5 HIGHEST 32.8 1.4 5.5 2.8 56.9 0.7 Source: RCH, rural UP only. Table 4.4: Women Delivering During Past One Year by Place of Delivery PLACE OF DELIVERY (PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN) GOVT. PRIVATE PHC SC HOME OTHERS INFO. HOSPITAL/ HOSPITAL NOT INCOME CLASS CHC/RH AVAILABLE 1 LOWEST 2.9 2.8 0.8 0.4 92.6 0.3 0.2 2 3.6 3.6 1.5 0.3 90.5 0.2 0.2 3 3.9 3.7 0.3 0.7 91.2 0.3 0.3 4 4.9 7.0 0.6 0.4 86.4 0.4 0.4 5 HIGHEST 8.1 16.8 0.9 0.6 73.1 0.5 0.5 Source: RCH, rural UP only. 42 Health Table 4.5: Married Women Reporting Delivery in Last One Year PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN AGE 15­49 YEARS EVER MARRIED GIVEN BIRTH IN LAST 1 YEAR AMONG MARRIED UP overall 79.4 13.7 Rural areas 82.3 14.3 Urban areas 69.0 10.8 By income level Poor 80.5 18.0 Middle 80.9 14.2 Rich 77.0 9.4 By social group SC/ST 82.2 14.5 OBC 80.1 14.1 Other 75.6 12.1 Table 4.6: Percentage of Deliveries by Place PLACE OF DELIVERIES INCOME LEVEL AND HOME GOVERNMENT PRIVATE FACILITY TOTAL SOCIAL GROUP HEALTH FACILITY 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 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.7: Percentage of Women Giving Birth at Home by Person Conducting Delivery WHO CONDUCTED DELIVERY INCOME LEVEL AND DOCTOR NURSE/ ANM TRAINED/ FRIENDS/ TOTAL SOCIAL GROUP TRADITIONAL DAI RELATIVES UP overall 3.1 7.2 64.4 25.3 100 Rural areas 2.9 6.7 64.2 26.2 100 Urban areas 4.4 11.2 66.4 18.0 100 By income level Poor 2.9 5.6 64.4 27.1 100 Middle 3.3 6.4 66.5 23.9 100 Rich 3.1 12.0 61.1 23.9 100 By social group SC/ST 3.7 5.5 54.1 36.7 100 OBC 2.6 5.6 68.7 23.1 100 Other 3.5 13.4 67.5 15.6 100 Source: PSMS-II. 43 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 4.8: Percentage of Safe Deliveries by Income Level and Social Group INCOME LEVEL AND SOCIAL GROUP PERCENTAGE OF SAFE DELIVERIES UP overall 78.7 Rural areas 76.9 Urban areas 88.9 By income level Poor 74.9 Middle 80.1 Rich 83.2 By social group SC/ST 66.7 OBC 80.3 Other 88.5 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.9: Distribution of Eligible Couples by Use of Family Planning Method USE OF FP METHOD INCOME CLASS YES NO 1 LOWEST 25.2 74.8 2 29.0 71.0 3 31.2 68.8 4 33.8 66.2 5 HIGHEST 43.7 56.3 Source: RCH, rural UP only Table 4.10: Distribution of Eligible Couples Using Family Planning Method by Type Type of FP method FEMALE MALE IUC/CT/ ORAL CONDOM/ RHYTHM/ WITH- OTHER OTHER INCOME STERILI- STERILI- LOOP PILL NIRODH ABSTI- DRAW- MODERN TRADI- CLASS ZATION ZATION NENCE AL TIONAL 1 LOWEST 44.1 0.9 1.6 6.1 7.5 32.9 5.3 0.9 0.9 2 42.4 1.0 2.5 6.5 7.9 33.0 5.4 0.4 0.9 3 47.3 0.8 2.8 4.6 9.3 27.8 5.5 0.9 1.0 4 49.7 1.3 3.7 5.7 12.0 21.8 4.8 0.3 0.8 5 HIGHEST 46.0 1.4 6.9 9.0 16.1 16.0 3.8 0.4 0.6 Source: RCH, rural UP only. 44 Health Table 4.11: Percentage Reporting Illness (During 15 Days Preceding Survey) PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS BY STATUS DID NOT CONSULTED CONSULTED DID NOT TOTAL CONSULT FOR ILLNESS FOR MATERNAL/ FEEL ILL OTHER REASONS 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 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 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.12: Population Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom PERCENT REPORTING SELF-REPORTED BY RESIDENCE BY INCOME LEVEL SYMPTOMS UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN POOR MIDDLE RICH Fever 54.2 54.7 52.3 59.3 56.6 49.1 Diarrhea 7.0 7.2 6.1 8.3 6.6 6.5 Vomiting 2.0 2.1 1.5 2.2 1.8 1.9 Spinning 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.4 1.3 Cough 4.8 4.4 6.4 4.5 5.0 4.7 Stomach ache 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.6 8.3 Injury 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.5 REASONS Delivery 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 ANC/PNC 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 Health check-up 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.5 1.0 Immunization 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 Family planning services 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 Others 17.7 17.4 19.2 14.0 16.6 21.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-II. 45 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 4.13: Percentage Consulting by Consultation Type and Income Level TYPE OF CONSULTATION LOCATION AND GOVERNMENT PRIVATE PRIVATE OTHERS TOTAL INCOME LEVEL FORMAL INFORMAL UP overall 10.3 39.9 44.6 5.2 100 Poor 7.8 36.5 49.9 5.8 100 Middle 10.1 34.9 50.1 4.9 100 Rich 12.2 46.1 36.8 4.9 100 Rural areas 9.6 35.2 50.2 5.1 100 Poor 6.9 34.3 53.4 5.5 100 Middle 9.4 29.3 56.3 5.0 100 Rich 11.7 40.2 43.3 4.8 100 Urban areas 13.5 60.7 20.2 5.6 100 Poor 12.2 46.9 33.6 7.3 100 Middle 13.1 58.9 23.2 4.8 100 Rich 14.7 70.5 9.8 5.1 100 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.14: Population Not Consulting Doctor/ Quack/ Health Facility by Reason PERCENT REPORTING REASONS FOR NOT BY RESIDENCE BY INCOME LEVEL CONSULTING UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN POOR MIDDLE RICH Problem not serious 30.4 28.8 39.5 32.4 31.1 28.3 Home remedy 24.5 24.8 23.0 20.5 25.7 26.7 Treatment expansive 11.0 11.4 8.6 11.8 13.2 8.4 Other reasons clubbed 4.8 5.0 3.5 8.2 3.6 3.0 Repeated old prescription 24.0 24.1 23.0 19.8 20.6 30.3 Others 5.4 5.9 2.4 7.2 5.9 3.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.15: Population Not Consulting Doctor/Quack/ Health Facility by Symptom PERCENT REPORTING SELF REPORTED BY RESIDENCE BY INCOME LEVEL SYMPTOM UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN POOR MIDDLE RICH Fever 33.2 33.6 30.8 36.1 36.2 28.3 Diarrhea 4.9 5.1 3.8 4.9 5.8 4.1 Vomiting 3.9 3.0 9.0 3.4 2.8 5.2 Dizziness 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.2 2.4 0.6 Cough 13.2 12.8 15.7 15.1 9.8 14.7 Stomach ache 11.3 11.0 12.7 5.4 14.0 13.6 Injury 2.6 2.7 2.4 3.1 1.7 3.1 Others 29.3 30.5 23.1 30.0 27.4 30.5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-II. 46 Health Table 4.16: Percentage of Persons (Age 6 and above) by Number of Days Unable to Work Normally Due to Illness PERCENT REPORTING BY RESIDENCE BY INCOME LEVEL NUMBER OF DAYS UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN POOR MIDDLE RICH None 33.2 31.9 38.7 35.2 31.5 33.2 One 5.0 5.2 3.9 5.6 5.0 4.5 Two 14.1 14.0 14.5 12.7 15.6 13.9 Three to seven 33.1 33.7 30.6 34.3 34.3 31.6 Eight to fifteen 14.7 15.2 12.2 12.2 13.7 16.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.17: Percentage of Households by Knowledge of Existence of Anganwadi in the Village INCOME LEVEL AND DOES AN ANGANWADI EXIST WITHIN THE VILLAGE/ BLOCK SOCIAL GROUP YES NO DON'T KNOW TOTAL UP overall 40.9 40.7 18.4 100 Rural areas 46.4 37.8 15.8 100 Urban areas 14.3 54.7 31.1 100 By income level Poor 36.6 42.8 20.6 100 Middle 41.7 40.5 17.8 100 Rich 45.9 38.0 16.2 100 By social group SC/ST 46.3 37.3 16.4 100 OBC 40.4 40.7 18.9 100 Other 36.2 44.3 19.5 100 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.18: Percentage of Children (0­6 Years) Attending Aganwadi in UP INCOME LEVEL / SOCIAL GROUP PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN UP overall 9.8 Rural areas 10.0 Urban areas 5.9 By income level Poor 11.4 Middle 9.8 Rich 7.4 By social group SC/ST 12.0 OBC 9.1 Other 8.5 Source: PSMS-II. 47 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 4.19: Percentage of Children (0­6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional Supplement INCOME LEVEL AND INTENSITY OF RECEIVING THE NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT SOCIAL GROUP ALWAYS SOMETIMES NEVER TOTAL UP overall 77.3 17.8 4.9 100 Rural areas 77.2 17.7 5.1 100 Urban areas 78.6 21.2 0.2 100 By income level Poor 77.5 18.5 4.0 100 Middle 76.0 19.4 4.6 100 Rich 78.8 13.6 7.6 100 By social group SC/ST 81.3 12.1 6.5 100 OBC 74.8 19.7 5.6 100 Other 76.1 24.0 0.0 100 Source: PSMS-II. Table 4.20: Percentage of Children (0­6 Years) Receiving the Nutritional Supplement INCOME LEVEL AND INTENSITY OF RECEIVING THE NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT SOCIAL GROUP ALWAYS SOMETIMES NEVER TOTAL UP Rural 77.2 17.7 5.1 100 By income level Poor 77.4 18.5 4.2 100 Middle 76.1 19.2 4.8 100 Rich 78.8 13.6 7.6 100 By social group SC/ST 81.3 12.1 6.6 100 OBC 73.8 20.4 5.8 100 Other 78.3 21.7 0.0 100 UP Urban 78.6 21.2 0.2 100 By income level Poor 80.5 19.3 0.3 100 Middle 74.7 25.3 0.0 100 Rich 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 By social group SC/ST 83.4 16.6 0.0 100 OBC 93.9 5.8 0.3 100 Other 10.1 89.9 0.0 100 Source: PSMS-II. 48 Health Table 4.21: Prevalence of Disability per 1000 Population by Disability Type and Sex DISABLED PER 1000 POPULATION TYPE OF UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN DISABILITY PERSON MALE FEMALE PERSON MALE FEMALE PERSON MALE FEMALE Census 2001 Total 20.8 23.7 17.5 20.6 23.5 17.3 21.6 24.5 18.4 In seeing 11.1 11.9 10.3 11.0 11.7 10.2 11.8 12.7 10.7 In speech & hearing 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.1 In movement 5.6 7.1 3.9 5.6 7.2 3.9 5.4 6.7 4.0 Mental 1.7 2.1 1.3 1.6 2.0 1.2 2.2 2.6 1.6 NSS 58 state sample At least one disability 13.2 16.2 9.9 14.0 17.0 10.6 10.1 12.8 7.2 Visual 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 In speech & hearing 2.3 2.7 1.8 2.5 2.9 1.9 1.5 1.9 1.1 Locomotor 8.0 10.3 5.3 8.2 10.6 5.5 6.9 9.0 4.5 Mental 1.4 1.8 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.7 Source: Census 2001 and NSS 58 round state sample. Table 4.22: Prevalence of Disability per 1000 Population by Disability Type and Sex NUMBER OF DISTRICTS ACCORDING TO PREVALENCE CATEGORIES PREVALENCE UP OVERALL RURAL URBAN CATEGORIES PERSON MALE FEMALE PERSON MALE FEMALE PERSON MALE FEMALE Less than 2 percent 36 16 51 36 17 51 29 19 46 2-2.49 percent 18 30 13 18 28 13 19 21 14 More than 2.5 percent 16 24 6 16 25 6 22 30 10 Total 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Source: Census 2001. 49 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank 50 5. Asset Ownership, Housing and Access to Amenities 5.1 Introduction The various types of consumer durables and assets fact that two sets of estimates derived from two owned by households are useful not only for the independent PSMS rounds are in fact quite close to stream of consumption services they provide their one another increases our confidence in the accuracy owners, but also because they are an important store and reliability of the PSMS-derived estimates. of wealth that can be liquidated in times of distress. In developing countries, the single most important The chapter starts with an examination of asset asset owned by households is often the dwelling in ownership by households in UP and then proceeds which they live. Hence, the type of dwelling in which with an examination of the structure of dwellings, a household lives is an important indicator of its access to water, sanitation and electricity. welfare level. Similarly, access to water, sanitation and electricity is a key dimension of living standards. 5.2 Ownership of Assets and Narrowly defined measures of household welfare Consumer Durables that focus on household consumption or income Estimates of the percentage of the population that alone do not capture households' use of these owns various types of assets as reported by the two publicly provided services, as households often do PSMS surveys are in fact very similar across the two not pay for such services, or the payments that they rounds (Table 5.1). In both surveys, the pattern of make are partial and irregular. Access to public ownership in the rural and urban population is quite services is usually far from universal, so those different (Figure 5.1). It is clear that livestock assets households that have access to these services enjoy such as cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep and other such levels of well-being that may be considerably higher animals are far more common in rural areas than in than those that do not have access to these services, urban areas, while assets such as motor cycles/ even though their consumption or income levels scooters and sewing machines are more common in look similar. urban areas. More surprising perhaps is that the Accordingly, when examining changes in living incidence of consumer durables such as televisions conditions between two points in time, it is important should be so much higher in urban areas than in to also pay attention to changes in the level of rural areas (66 percent versus 18 percent in Round provision of publicly provided services and II). As will be seen below, access to electricity is much amenities, such as the quality of the dwelling, water, higher in urban than in rural areas, which may help sanitation and electricity. This chapter examines Figure 5.1: Ownership of Assets (PSMS-II) changes in several such important non-monetary indicators of living standards using data from the 70 two PSMS rounds. In general the findings from the 60 two rounds are somewhat mixed, though this is partly 50 (percent) to be expected given the relatively short time period 40 of only two to three years between the two rounds 30 population (several of the indicators covered change quite slowly of 20 over time): while modest improvements are evident Share 10 in a few dimensions, in most areas the general picture 0 Cows / Goats / TV M. cycle / Sewing appears mostly to have remained unchanged, or even Buffaloes / Sheep Scooter machine to have worsened in a few areas. In addition, the Rural Areas Urban Areas 51 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Figure 5.2: Dwelling of Pucca Building population in terms of access to drinking water (Table Material(PSMS-II) 5.4). Households with tap water access are those that benefit from water provided through a piped network. 90 80 Hand-pumps remain the most common source of (%) 70 drinking water supply in UP, with about three-fourths 60 50 of thepopulationof thestatereportingthistobetheir Population 40 of 30 maindrinkingwatersource(Figure5.3).Overall,about 20 Share three-fifths of the population of UP have their main 10 0 source of drinking water within the premises of their Rural Poor Rich overall Urban Middle own dwelling. As one would expect, access to drinking UP watersupplyismuchbetterinurbancomparedtorural By Region By Income Level in Rural Areas areas in UP. About half the urban population obtains its drinking water supply from taps in urban areas, and explain the sharp contrast in the pattern of over four-fifths have their main water source within ownership of durable goods across rural and urban the premises of their dwelling (Table 5.5). Data from areas. While it is possible to operate some electrical both survey rounds confirm that the rich are more appliances with generators, such as televisions, in likely to have access to water within their premises general this is not such an uncommon sight in rural compared to the middle and poorest one-third areas of UP. population group. 5.3 Structure of Dwelling 5.5 Sanitation Facilities Turning to an examination of housing conditions Possibly as important to the welfare of households in Uttar Pradesh, data from PSMS-II shows that as access to safe drinking water is a sanitary more than half of all dwellings in UP are now made environment, where the risk of contaminated water of Pucca construction material (Figure 5.2). As one is minimized. Breaking down the population of UP would expect, the incidence of Pucca house by access to type of latrine, the first point that ownership is markedly higher in urban areas emerges on an examination of PSMS-II data is that compared to rural areas of UP, and among the rich in the state as a whole, some 71 percent of the compared to the middle one-third and poorest one- population does not have access to latrines of any third of the population in both urban as well as in type (Figure 5.4). This figure is as high as 84 percent rural areas of the state (Table 5.3). in rural areas, but only 19 percent in urban areas 5.4 Access to Water (Table 5.8). Arguably, access to latrines is more urgent in urban areas as congested living arrangements raise The PSMS allows a breakdown of the Uttar Pradesh considerably the health risks associated with a lack Figure 5.3: Main Drinking Water Source by Access and Type: PSMS-II Main Source of Drinking Water Distance to Water Source 0.4 14.0 38.4 0.6 8.9 76.8 61.0 Tap Well Hand Pump Other Within Premises < 0.5 km. > 0.5 km. 52 Asset Ownership, Housing and Access to Amenities Figure 5.4 : Type of Latrine (PSMS-II) Figure 5.5: Flush Latrine within Premises (PSMS-II) 13.0 7.7 60 50 40 (%) 7.9 30 71.4 population 20 Flush system Septic Tank Other No Latrine of 10 Share of sanitation infrastructure. Flush latrines are much 0 more prevalent in urban areas compared to rural Poor Rich overall Rural Urban Middle areas, reflecting the fact that expansion of wastewater UP removal networks into rural areas is not as advanced as in urban areas (Figure 5.5). Furthermore, within By Region By Income Level in Urban Areas urban areas, there is much variation across different income groups: while only around 24 percent of provided by the state government in UP is electricity. the population from the poorest one-third of the The key issue here is not only having a connection population has access to flush latrines, this share rises to the electricity grid, but also the reliability of power to around 57 percent among the rich (Table 5.9). flows. Data from PSMS-II show that overall access Over two-thirds of UP's population were connected to the electricity network is just over one-third of to either a covered or open drains sanitation system, the population in the state, reflecting a much higher while about 29 percent was not connected to any rate of 81 percent in urban areas but only 23 percent system (Figure 5.6). The share of the population in rural areas (Table 5.10). Furthermore there is large with no sanitation system was much higher in urban variation in connection rates between the rich and areas compared to rural areas (35 percent vs. 5 the poor: for example, around 95 percent of the percent; see Table 5.6). Access to covered/open richest one-third of urban residents had access to drains in urban areas across UP is quite high, even electricity in UP, compared to only about 12 percent among the poor: close to 89 percent of the poorest among the poorest one-third in rural areas. one-third of the urban population in UP was connected to such facilities, compared to around 56 The two PSMS rounds indicate that the proportion percent of the poor in rural areas (Table 5.7). of UP's population that had access to electricity 5.6 Access to Electricity Figure 5.7: Electricity Connection (PSMS-II) 90 An important basic infrastructure service publicly 80 (%) 70 Figure 5.6: Sanitation System (PSMS-II) 60 50 population 2.4 40 of 29.4 30 Share 20 10 0 Poor Rich 1.6 overall Rural Urban Middle UP 56.6 By Region By Income Level in Covered Drains Open Drains Soak Pit/Other No System Rural Areas 53 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Figure 5.8: Electricity Supply per Day declined from around 39 percent in Round I to 35 (PSMS-II) percent in Round II, possibly a reflection of the austerity drive that was being pursued during this 8.7 7.1 14.4 period by the state government. Similarly, power shortages appeared virtually to be the rule in UP during this period, with only 10.4 percent of the 4.0 population reporting having access to power for 15 65.7 or more hours per day (Table 5.11). No connection Less than 5 hrs 5­ 10 hours 10 ­ 15 hours 15 + hours Table 5.1: Asset Ownership ­ by Location PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN PERCENT OF HHS. OWNING 30.8 30.7 31.1 31.0 30.5 33.2 Cows/buffaloes 58.8 70.5 10.0 55.9 67.2 10.6 Goats/sheep 15.8 18.3 5.2 16.7 19.4 5.8 Other animals 3.4 4.1 0.8 3.6 3.9 2.3 Radio 43.5 41.7 51.4 37.1 35.5 43.6 TV 26.6 17.9 63.1 27.1 17.5 65.6 Cycle 72.8 74.4 66.2 74.8 76.6 67.5 Motor cycle/scooter 8.0 5.4 18.9 12.0 8.3 26.7 Sewing machine 17.1 13.2 33.6 21.1 15.5 43.6 HHS. REPORTING EMERGENCY SALES OF ASSETS (%) 5.2 5.7 3.2 5.0 5.6 2.9 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 5.2: Asset Ownership ­ by Income Group PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II LOCATION POOR MIDDLE RICH POOR MIDDLE RICH RURAL: % OF HHS. OWNING Cows/buffaloes 67.0 73.3 71.2 60.9 70.2 69.2 Goats/sheep 22.8 17.4 14.6 22.1 21.6 15.8 Other animals 5.3 3.9 2.9 3.7 4.7 3.5 Radio 33.3 42.8 49.1 24.7 34.3 43.9 TV 8.6 16.9 28.1 9.3 14.8 25.3 Cycle 74.7 77.5 71.0 76.3 77.4 76.1 Motor cycle/scooter 2.1 4.4 9.5 3.8 6.3 13.1 Sewing machine 6.9 11.8 21.0 10.6 13.8 20.0 HHS. REPORTING EMERGENCY SALES OF ASSETS (%) 6.8 5.7 4.7 5.9 5.2 5.6 URBAN: % OF HHS. OWNING Cows/buffaloes 14.1 10.8 5.2 16.1 10.6 7.1 Goats/sheep 8.7 6.0 0.9 12.9 6.0 1.2 Other animals 1.5 0.5 0.3 3.5 3.1 0.9 Radio 41.9 49.9 62.4 33.6 41.5 51.4 TV 47.2 67.3 74.9 37.7 62.9 84.9 Cycle 65.1 69.9 63.6 65.1 70.5 66.9 Motor cycle/scooter 5.1 14.9 36.9 3.8 15.1 49.7 Sewing machine 22.9 37.0 40.8 27.8 38.4 57.3 HHS. REPORTING EMERGENCY SALES OF ASSETS (%) 4.2 3.4 2.0 3.9 3.8 1.6 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 54 Asset Ownership, Housing and Access to Amenities Table 5.3: Structure of Dwelling LOCATION AND PUCCA DWELLING (PERCENT) INCOME GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II UP OVERALL 41.7 56.7 RURAL AREAS 33.8 49.3 Poor 21.1 38.3 Middle 32.8 48.3 Rich 47.6 57.8 URBAN AREAS 74.8 86.4 Poor 58.9 72.2 Middle 75.2 86.5 Rich 90.3 95.2 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 5.4: Main Source of Drinking Water PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS DRINKING WATER 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN MAIN SOURCE Tap 18.9 10.8 52.8 14.0 5.3 49.0 Well 12.6 14.9 3.0 8.8 10.6 1.7 Hand-pump 67.6 73.3 43.8 76.8 83.7 49.0 Other 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 DISTANCE Within premises 61.6 57.4 79.6 61.0 55.5 83.1 < 0.5 km 36.9 41.0 19.8 38.4 43.8 16.7 0.5 ­ 1 km 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.0 More than 1 km 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 WATER AVAILABLE ALL 12 MONTHS (%) 99.9 100.0 99.8 98.3 98.5 97.5 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 5.5: Households with Main Source of Drinking Water within their Premises LOCATION AND HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) INCOME GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II UP OVERALL 61.6 61.0 RURAL AREAS 57.4 55.5 Poor 54.1 50.8 Middle 57.1 54.0 Rich 60.8 59.9 URBAN AREAS 79.6 83.0 Poor 69.3 72.2 Middle 78.8 81.1 Rich 90.6 91.2 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 55 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 5.6: Type of Sanitation System PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS TYPE OF 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II SANITATION SYSTEM OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Covered drains 9.5 24.2 6.0 12.4 29.7 8.2 Open drains 57.9 67.9 55.5 56.5 64.0 54.7 Soak pit 1.9 1.2 2.0 1.2 0.9 1.3 Other 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.4 No system 29.9 6.3 35.6 29.4 5.2 35.4 Overall 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 5.7: Households Connected to Covered/Open Drains LOCATION AND HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) INCOME GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II UP OVERALL 67.4 69.0 RURAL AREAS 61.5 62.8 Poor 54.5 55.9 Middle 63.1 61.3 Rich 67.0 68.8 URBAN AREAS 92.1 93.6 Poor 89.4 88.7 Middle 92.3 93.6 Rich 94.8 96.6 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 5.8: Type of Latrine in the Household Premises PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS TYPE OF 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II LATRINE OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Flush system 12.2 5.5 40.0 13.0 5.6 42.4 Septic tank 7.8 4.4 22.0 7.7 4.1 22.3 Other 11.8 9.3 22.4 8.0 5.9 16.1 No latrine 68.3 80.9 15.6 71.4 84.3 19.2 Total: 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 5.9: Households with Flush Latrines within their Premises LOCATION AND HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) INCOME GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II UP OVERALL 12.2 12.9 RURAL AREAS 5.5 5.6 Poor 2.4 2.1 Middle 4.6 4.7 Rich 9.7 8.7 URBAN AREAS 40.0 42.4 Poor 21.6 23.7 Middle 37.8 38.7 Rich 60.6 56.8 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 56 Asset Ownership, Housing and Access to Amenities Table 5.10: Households with Electricity Connection LOCATION AND HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) INCOME GROUP 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II UP OVERALL 38.8 34.8 RURAL AREAS 28.1 23.3 Poor 17.8 12.4 Middle 27.1 20.6 Rich 39.6 32.9 URBAN AREAS 83.6 80.7 Poor 70.9 60.7 Middle 85.7 78.9 Rich 94.1 94.6 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 5.11: Average Hours per Day of Electricity Supply PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS HOURS PER DAY 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II OF ELECTRICITY OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN No connection 61.2 71.9 16.4 65.2 76.7 19.3 Less than 5 hrs 2.9 3.3 1.3 2.2 2.7 0.4 5­10 hours 12.2 12.7 10.2 13.7 13.7 13.6 10­15 hours 11.1 7.9 24.5 8.5 4.7 23.6 15 + hours 12.7 4.3 47.6 10.4 2.3 43.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 57 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank 58 6. Government Programs 6.1 Introduction ThePSMS-IandIIcollectedinformationonhousehold Government of India launched the Antyodaya Anna access to government-sponsored programs such as Yojana scheme, entitling the poorest sixth of the credit programs (IRDP, SRSJY, etc), employment population (about 10 of 65 million BPL--below- programs (JRY) and government benefits such as the-poverty-line--households nationwide) to retirement,oldage,disability,widowhoodpensionsand purchase 25 kg of food grains at highly subsidized pregnancy benefits. In addition, the survey also issue prices (Rs. 2 and 3 per kg for wheat and rice, collecteddetailedinformationonpatternsof thePublic respectively, compared to Rs. 4.15 and Rs. 5.65 Distribution System (PDS) utilization, including the respectively for BPL households) from fair-price types of ration cards (BPL, APL) possessed by shops. About 3 percent of UP's population reported households, as well as the kinds of goods purchased being beneficiaries of this scheme in 2002­03 (Table from PDS shops. 6.1). PSMS-II shows that this new scheme was reasonably 6.2 Coverage and Targeting of the well-targeted towards poor households (Figure 6.2). Public Distribution System About 53 percent of Antyodaya beneficiaries were In 2002/03, about 66 percent of UP's population selected from among the poorest one-third of UP's had above-the-poverty-line (APL) cards and 21 population. Still, about 23 percent of all Antyodaya percent had below-the-poverty-line (BPL) cards, beneficiaries were from the richest one-third of the while about 13 percent did not have any PDS card population. Targeting of Antyodaya is better than of any type whatsoever (Figure 6.1). Commensurate targeting of BPL: 39 percent of BPL beneficiaries with the higher poverty level in rural areas, rural were selected from the poorest one-third, while 30 households were much more likely than urban percent from the richest group. As can be seen from dwellers to have BPL cards. Overall the share of the figure 6.2, both these schemes performed better at UP population who possessed BPL cards declined targeting than if the cards had been distributed at from 26 to 21 percent between 1990­2000 and 2002­ random among the population, so in this sense, both 03 (Table 6.1). schemes can be described as being targeted towards the poor. A major policy change related to the PDS was In both PSMS-I and II the relationship between the introduced in December 2000, when the low income status and possession of a BPL card is Figure 6.1: Type of PDS Card Figure 6.2: Distribution of PDS (PSMS-II) Beneficiaries in UP (PSMS-II) 60 12.86 50 21.27 40 30 20 10 65.87 0 Poor Middle Income Rich No card APL BPL Antyodaya Other BPL Overall population 59 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Figure 6.3: Median Price of Wheat and Figure 6.4: Coverage of the Other Rice(per kg price in Rs) Government Programmes 7 6 7 5 6 4 benefit 5 any 3 4 2 reporting 3 1 Hhs 2 0 of card card card card 1 holders holders Overall holders holders Overall holders Overall holders Overall BPL BPL BPL BPL Antyodaya Antyodaya 0 card card Percentage Overall Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Purchase of wheat Purchase of rice Purchase of Purchase of PSMS-I PSMS-II wheat rice PSMS-II PSMS- I quite strong in urban and rural areas alike--the government programs. These programs include old percentage having cards in the lowest one-third of age pension, disability pension, widowhood pension, households ranked by income level is more than benefits for pregnancy, subsidized credit and Jawahar double that in the highest quintile in urban areas Rozgar Yojana (JRY) and are intended for the welfare and is 35 percent higher in rural areas. The of the poor and other vulnerable groups. The distribution of cards also reflects social factors. proportion of households benefiting from one of Scheduled caste and scheduled tribal households are the above schemes has gone down from 5.6 to 4.2 more likely to have BPL cards, reflecting the fact percent between 1999­2000 and 2002­03. This that their income levels tend to be lower than the decline is observed both in rural and urban areas of average (Table 6.3). the state (Table 6.5). This decline may be partly explained by the administrative cap kept on the Another respect in which the performance of the number of beneficiaries in any district under these PDS program appears to have improved schemes, while the number of households has grown considerably between 1999­2000 and 2002­2003 is resulting in the proportion falling. Concerned the amount of food grains (i.e., wheat and rice) that departments would be better placed to provide a the population purchased from the shops (Table 6.4). factual answer to the phenomenon of decline in the The average amount of wheat purchased per month proportion of beneficiaries. by a beneficiary household increased from 12.9 to 21 kg. per month, while average purchases of rice Also, the overall targeting of these programs towards from the PDS shop remained unchanged, between the poor has worsened over the short span of time 12.3 to 11.4 kg per month. Moreover, the price paid (Table 6.6). While in 1999­2000, 37 percent of all per unit charged for both these commodities at the beneficiaries were from the lowest income group, in PDS shop actually fell dramatically, even in nominal 2002­03 this number declined to 24 percent. The terms. The median nominal wheat price fell from targeting in rural areas was slightly worse than in Rs. 4.4 to Rs. 2.5 per kg, while the median nominal urban areas. It is consolable that these programs have rice price fell from Rs. 5.0 to Rs. 3.5 per kg. done relatively better in identifying the socially deprived groups in the state, but this also has 6.3 Coverage and Targeting of Other worsened over time. Public Programs for the Poor To investigate whether the worsening of targeting There has been a sizable decline in the proportion occurred for all government social programs, the of the population that benefits from other analysis was also carried out for each scheme 60 Government Programs separately for rural and urban areas (Tables 6.7 and Figure 6.5: Awareness of Government- 6.8). In rural areas the largest covered scheme has sponsored Services been a subsidized credit scheme followed by JRY/ 100 other employment generation programs. Results reveal that it is the worsening of the targeting of 80 the subsidized credit in rural areas that is mainly responsible for worsening in the overall targeting. 60 Targeting of JRY/other employment programs has 40 actually improved in serving the poor and socially deprived in rural areas of the state. In urban areas 20 the subsidized credit is the most prevalent scheme 0 among all listed here. The targeting remained nearly Vaccination Family Measles Iodized salt AIDS Use of ORS of pregnant Planning Immunization unchanged during the years. mothers PSMS - I PSMS - II 6.4 Awareness of Government- sponsored Services vaccination, immunization and use of iodized salt, while awareness about family planning and use of Awareness of the government-sponsored public ORS has improved (Table 6.9). Awareness about health services was investigated. In 2002­03 a AIDS was found to be 50.1 percent in the state, with question on the awareness of HIV/AIDS was also a large gap in knowledge between urban (71 percent) added to the inquiry. The figure shows that there and rural (45 percent) areas of the state. has been slight decline in the awareness of Table 6.1: Households with APL and BPL Cards SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II TYPE OF CARD OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN No cards 9.6 8.3 15.0 12.9 10.4 22.6 APL cards 64.7 62.6 73.4 65.9 64.5 71.3 BPL cards 25.8 29.1 11.6 21.3 25.1 6.1 (of which Antyodaya) - - - (3.3) (3.9) (0.7) Total: 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 6.2: Households with Antyodaya and BPL Cards (PSMS-II) SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE GROUP (PERCENT) INCOME GROUP Antyodaya Beneficiaries Other BPL Beneficiaries Overall Population Poorest 53.1 38.5 33.30% Middle 24.2 31.9 33.30% Richest 22.8 29.6 33.30% Total: 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: PSMS-II. 61 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 6.3: Households with BPL Cards ­ By Income and Social Group SHARE OF BPL HOUSEHOLDS (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II HOUSEHOLD GROUP OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Income Group Poorest 45.4 45.1 48.7 40.5 39.8 51.5 Middle 31.5 31.3 32.9 30.8 31.0 27.6 Richest 23.2 23.6 18.4 28.7 29.2 20.9 OVERALL 100 100 100 100 100 100 Social Group SC/ST 41.2 42.8 24.5 44.4 45.6 23.6 OBC 40.4 40.5 39.4 45.0 44.9 46.9 Other 18.4 16.8 36.1 10.6 9.5 29.5 OVERALL 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 6.4: Purchases of Wheat and Rice from the PDS Shop PURCHASES DURING PAST 30 DAYS 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II Amount Median price Amount Median price HOUSEHOLD GROUP (Kilograms) (per kg) (Kilograms) (per kg) Purchases of Wheat BPL cardholders 7.8 3.5 18.5 5.0 Antyodaya cardholders --- --- 22.6 2.3 Overall 12.9 4.4 21.0 2.5 Purchases of Rice BPL cardholders 4.5 5.0 10.1 6.2 Antyodaya cardholders --- --- 12.3 3.0 Overall 12.3 5.0 11.4 3.5 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 6.5: Coverage of Other Government Programs HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING BENEFIT (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II TYPE OF BENEFIT OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Old-age pension 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.2 Disability pension 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Widow pension 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 Other pensions 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 Pregnancy benefit 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Subsidized credit 2.7 3.2 0.7 2.5 2.9 0.8 JRY/employment program 1.1 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.4 0.0 Any of the above 5.6 6.4 2.6 4.2 4.8 1.7 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 62 Government Programs Table 6.6: Coverage of Other Government Programs ­ by Income and Social Group SHARE OF BENEFICIARIES FROM GROUP (PERCENT) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II HOUSEHOLD GROUP OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Income Group 1 Poorest 37.4 37.5 36.9 23.8 23.6 25.5 2 Middle 32.3 31.3 40.8 28.9 28.4 35.1 3 Richest 30.3 31.2 22.3 47.3 48.0 39.4 OVERALL 100 100 100 100 100 100 Social Group SC/ST 42.8 44.9 23.8 34.5 35.7 21.0 OBC 33.7 32.7 42.7 38.9 38.8 40.7 Other 23.6 22.4 33.5 26.6 25.6 38.2 OVERALL 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 6.7: Coverage of Other Government Programs in Rural Areas ­ by Income and Social Group HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING BENEFIT (PERCENT) INCOME SOCIAL GROUP TYPE OF BENEFIT POOR MIDDLE RICH SC/ST OBC OTHER TOTAL 1999/2000 PSMS-I Old-age pension 0.89 0.69 1.43 1.66 0.54 0.77 0.92 Disability pension 0.43 0.10 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.19 Widow pension 0.79 0.62 0.74 1.21 0.38 0.52 0.65 Other pensions 0.06 0.19 0.34 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.15 Pregnancy benefit 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.10 Subsidized credit 3.11 3.15 3.35 4.65 2.25 2.78 3.07 JRY/employment program 1.44 1.24 1.18 1.43 0.47 0.45 0.74 2002/2003 PSMS-II Old-age pension 0.94 0.83 0.74 1.29 0.62 0.68 0.82 Disability pension 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.03 Widow pension 0.73 0.72 0.77 1.26 0.57 0.45 0.74 Other pensions 0.01 0.20 0.41 0.14 0.10 0.65 0.23 Pregnancy benefit 0.19 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.04 0.10 0.11 Subsidized credit 2.15 2.56 3.67 3.10 2.42 3.73 2.90 JRY/employment program 1.78 1.64 0.91 2.91 1.01 0.18 1.38 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. 63 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 6.8: Coverage of Other Government Programs in Urban Areas ­ by Income and Social Group HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING BENEFIT (PERCENT) INCOME SOCIAL GROUP TYPE OF BENEFIT POOR MIDDLE RICH SC/ST OBC OTHER TOTAL 1999/2000 PSMS-I Old-age pension 0.94 0.70 0.36 1.88 0.55 0.45 0.72 Disability pension 0.16 0.33 0.03 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.19 Widow pension 0.89 0.72 0.29 0.96 1.02 0.32 0.67 Other pensions 0.20 0.44 0.40 0.17 0.32 0.48 0.37 Pregnancy benefit 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.04 Subsidized credit 0.59 0.73 0.78 0.84 1.07 0.36 0.68 JRY/employment program 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.07 2002/2003 PSMS-II Old-age pension 0.40 0.25 0.00 0.39 0.22 0.09 0.19 Disability pension 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Widow pension 0.24 0.71 0.09 0.81 0.39 0.10 0.32 Other pensions 0.00 0.38 0.49 0.13 0.27 0.45 0.33 Pregnancy benefit 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.02 0.06 0.06 Subsidized credit 1.01 0.59 0.90 1.09 0.74 0.84 0.83 JRY/employment program 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Table 6.9: Awareness of Government-sponsored Services HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE (PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS) 1999/2000 PSMS-I 2002/2003 PSMS-II KNOWLEDGE OF... OVERALL RURAL URBAN OVERALL RURAL URBAN Measles immunization 90.8 89.8 95.0 68.0 64.0 83.8 Vaccination of pregnant mothers 86.0 84.7 91.5 78.9 76.6 88.2 Use of iodized salt 59.8 55.2 78.7 54.0 48.3 76.6 Use of ORS 30.0 25.7 48.1 39.1 33.2 62.8 Family planning 67.9 65.3 78.5 72.9 70.5 82.4 AIDS --- --- --- 50.1 44.9 71.1 Source: PSMS-I & PSMS-II. Note: Percentages for the two rounds are not comparable due to some difference in definition of knowledge. 64 Annex I: List of persons involved in data collection and analysis List of investigators who undertook the field work of PSMS-II Survey and subsequently entered the data at various district offices 83. Mr Ram Naresh 1. Mr Adil Faiz 42. Mr Jeet Lal 84. Mr Ram Prakash 2. Mr Aditya Narayan 43. Mr Jitendra Kumar Mishra 85. Mr Ramvir Singh Pal 3. Mr Alok Kumar Kushwaha 44. Mr Kamlesh Babu 86. Mr Ranjeet Singh 4. Mr Amod Kumar Mishra 45. Mr Kapil Dev 87. Mr Ratnesh Kumar 5. Mr Anand Kumar 46. Mr Kiran Kumar Tiwari 88. Mr RN Mishra 6. Mr Anar Singh 47. Mr Kiran Maurya 89. Mr RP Singh 7. Mr Aneeshi Mani Pandey 48. Mr Krishna Kumar Singh 90. Mr SK Shivhare 8. Mr Anil Kumar 49. Mr Manak Chand 91. Mr Sagar Singh 9. Mr Anil Kumar Singh 50. Mr Manoj Kumar Pandey 92. Mr Sanjay Kumar 10. Mr Anuj Mishra 51. Mr Manoj Sharma 93. Mr Sanjeev Kumar Duvey 11. Mr Arun Kumar 52. Mr Masroor Ahmad 94. Mrs Sashi Pandey 12. Mr Arun Kumar Singh 53. Mr Mohd. Parvez 95. Mr Satish Kumar 13. Mr Arvind Chandvaria 54. Mr Mohd. Sadullah 96. Mr Satyendra Kumar 14. Mr Arvind Kumar Duvey 55. Mr Mratunjaya Chaturvedi 97. Mr Shailesh Kumar Maurya 15. Mr Arvind Singh Rajput 56. Mr Mukesh Kumar 98. Ms Sonia Srivastava 16. Mr Aslam Parvez 57. Mr Muneesh Kumar Singh 99. Mr Sudheer Kumar 17. Mr Atul Rathour 58. Mr Munna Lal 100. Mr Sudhir Giri 18. Mr Atul Yadav 59. MrNaresh Chand Durgapal 101. Mrs Sugandha Chaturvedi 19. Ms Babita Singh 60. Mr Neeraj Kumar 102. Mr Sumant Yadav 20. Mr Bhan Pratap 61. Mr Neeraj Sharma 103. Mr Suneet Kumar 21. Mr Bhawani Prasad Shukla 62. Mr Neeraj Srivastava 104. Mr Sunil Kumar Jaiswal 22. Mr Bhupal Singh 63. Mr Nirankar 105. Mr Surendra Singh 23. Mr Bijendra Kumar Yadav 64. Mr Om Prakash 106. Mr Suresh Kumar Maurya 24. Mr Birendra Singh 65. Mr Om Prakash Gupta 107. Mr Suresh Kumar Shivhare 25. Mr Brajpal 66. Mr Om Prakash Singh 108. Mr Surya Prakash 26. Mr Chandrabhan Chaudhary 67. Mr Omkar Singh 109. Mr Swapna Pandey 27. Mr Chhotelal Tiwari 68. Mr Phoolchand Kushwaha 110. Mr UC Agrawal 28. Mr Davendra Kumar 69. Mr Prabhat Ranjan 111. Mr Umesh Singh 29. Mr Davendra Singh 70. Mr Pradeep Kumar 112. Mr Vashudev Bharti 30. Mr Devanand 71. Mr Pratap Singh 113. Mr Vijay Bahadur Yadav 31. Mr Dharmendra 72. Mr Pratibha Shalya 114. Mr Vijay Kumar Tiwari 32. Mr Dileep Kumar 73. Mr Praveen Kumar 115. Mrs Vijaya Rani 33. Mr Dinesh Pal Sharma 74. Mr Praveen Kumar Tripathi 116. Mr Vijendra Singh 34. Mr Ekhlakh Ahmad 75. Mr Puneet Kumar 117. Mr Vinay Kumar Verma 35. Mr Gama Singh Yadav 76. Mr Radheyshyam 118. Mr Vinod KM Tripathi 36. Mr Ganesh Datt Shukla 77. Mr Rajendra Kumar 119. Mr Vinod Kumar Mishra 37. Ms Ganga Ahirwal 78. Mr Rajendra Sain 120. Dr Vinod Kumar Tripathi 38. Mr Habibulrab 79. Mr Rajesh Kumar 121. Mr Vishnu Kumar Singh 39. Mr Hari Om 80. Mr Rakesh Kumar 122. Mr YP Singh 40. Mr Indrabhusan Prasad 81. Mr Ram Ashish Yadav 41. Mr Jamuna Das Gujrati 82. Mr Ram Narayan Mishr 65 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank List of supervisors who were engaged in field supervision and filed scrutiny of PSMS-II Survey at various district offices 1. 1. Mr Abdus Salam 26. Mr HKD Baijal 51. Mr Ramveer Singh Rana 2. Mr Achchhelal Verma 27. Mr Isharar Ahmed 52. Mr Ravindra Pratap Singh 3. Mr Adil Jamal 28. Mr Jitendra Kumar Singh 53. Mr RB Singh 4. Mr Ajaz Ahmad Khan 29. Mr Jitendra Singh 54. Mr RK Gupta 5. Mr Anil Kumar Srivastava 30. Mr Karanjeet Singh 55. Mr RK Singh Yadav 6. Mr Ashok Chandra 31. Mr KK Mishra 56. Mr RP Gupta 7. Mr Ashok Kumar 32. Mr KP Tripathi 57. Mr RP Mishra 8. Mr Ashok Kumar Madan 33. Mr Kunju Ram 58. Mr RS Yadav 9. Mr Ashok Kumar Mishra 34. Mr Lallan Ojha 59. Mr Sada Shiv Pandey 10. Mr Ashok Kumar Tiwari 35. Mr Laxman Prasad 60. Mr Sanjeev Kumar 11. Mr Atul Saxena 36. Mr LK Singh 61. Mr Satyendra Kumar 12. Mr Atul Soti 37. Mr Mahendra Singh 62. Mr Shrawan Kumar Singh 13. Mr Awadh Bihari Singh 38. Mr MK Dwivedi 63. Mr SK Maurya 14. Mr BD Sharma 39. Dr Narendra Kumar 64. Mr SK Sharma 15. Mr Bhimsen 40. Mr NB Bhardwaj 65. Mr SK Srivastava 16. Mr BR Yadav 41. Mr Neeraj Srivastava 66. Mr SP Dixit 17. Mr Brij Bihari Tripathi 42. Mr Om Prakash 67. Mr Styapal Singh 18. Mr Chandrabhan 43. Mr Pradeep Saxena 68. Mr Sudhir Om Nigam 19. Mr Chandrashekhar Prasad 44. Mr Radheyshyam Rai 69. Mr Suresh Chandra 20. Mr Davendra Kumar 45. Mr Rahmat Ali 70. Mr Uday Bhan Mishra 21. Mr Devsharan Yadav 46. Mr Raj Bahadur Singh 71. Mr Vijay Singh 22. Mr DK Agrawal 47. Mr Rajnath Ram 72. Mr Vinod Kumar Kushwaha 23. Mr Gokaran Prasad 48. Mr Ram Singh Ahirwal 73. Mr Vinod Kumar Sharma 24. Mr Haricharan Lal 49. Mr Ramesh Chandra 74. Mr Vishram Singh 25. Mr Harishchandra 50. Mr Ramnath Singh 75. Mr VS Katiyar List of District Economics and Statistics officers who supervised the PSMS-II Survey at various district offices 1. Mr AA Ansari 21. Mr Darmaveer Saxena 41. Mr KC Pandey 2. Mr AK Srivastava 22. Mr Deepak Pandey 42. Mr Kripal Singh 3. Mr Amar Nath Yadav 23. Mr Deviprasad 43. Mr Lallu Prasad 4. Mr Amit Kumar 24. Mr Dharmadev Singh 44. Ms Laxmi 5. Mr Amlendu Rai 25. Mr Dinesh Kr Singh 45. Mr LK Singh 6. Mrs Anula Verma 26. Mr DL Srivastava 46. Mr Mahatam Rai 7. Mrs Archana Singh 27. Mrs Dumnesh Kumari 47. Mrs Malvika Ghoshal 8. Mr Ashok Kumar 28. Mr Edal Singh 48. Mrs Manju Ashok 9. Mr Ashok Kumar Arvind 29. Mr Ehsaan Ullah 49. Mr Manmohan Pathak 10. Mr Ashthabhuja P. Srivastava 30. Mr Fakire Lal Shakya 50. Mr Md Naseem Ansari 11. Mr Babu Lal 31. Mr Gajendra Datt Sharma 51. Dr Md Naseh 12. Mr Banvari Lal 32. Mr GD Chaturvedi 52. Mr Mohanlal Sahu 13. Mr Bhagwaan Singh 33. Mr Gokaran Prasad 53. Mr Moti Lal 14. Mrs Bharati Goyal 34. Mr Gopal Sharma 54. Mr MP Singh 15. Mr Bhola Ram 35. Mr Hemanta Kumar 55. Mr Munnilal Sonkar 16. Mr BN Singh 36. Mr HL Yadav 56. Mr Munnu Ram Sharma 17. Mr Brij Mohan Lal 37. Mr Jaideep Singh 57. Mr Narendra Yadav 18. Mr BS Yadav 38. Mr Jitendra Kumar Yadav 58. Mr NN Rai 19. Mr Chhinha Singh 39. Mr Kalanath Tiwari 59. Mr Om Prakash Yadav 20. Mr Chiranjilal Tiwari 40. Mr Kamla Prasad Pandey 60. Mr Panna Lal 66 Annexures 61. Mr PK Jain 85. Mr Ram Nihor Verma 109. Mr Sheesh Kumar 62. Mrs Poonam 86. Mr Ram Prabhakar Singh 110. Mr Shiv Narain Tripathi 63. Mr Pradeep Kr Srivastava 87. Mr Ram Singh 111. Mr Shri Ram 64. Mr Pradeep Kumar 88. Mr Ramakant Gupta 112. Mr Shyam Lal Saini 65. Mr Pramod Kumar 89. Mr Ramdhani 113. Mr SK Kar 66. Mr Prashant 90. Mr Ramesh Chandra 114. Mr SP Sharma 67. Mr Praveen Kumar 91. Mr Ramnath Dohre 115. Mr Srikrishna 68. Mr Prem Nath Singh 92. Mr Ravindra Singh 116. Mr Suhail Ahmed 69. Mr Radha Krishna Gupta 93. Mr RC Bajpai 117. Mr Sunil Kumar Bhanj 70. Mr Raj Bahadur Singh 94. Mr RC Sharma 118. Mr Surendra Singh Gaur 71. Mr Rajaram Yadav 95. Mr RK Agrawal 119. Mr Taukeer Husain 72. Mr Rajeev Kumar Srivastava 96. Mr RK Singh 120. Mr TP Gupta 73. Mr Rajendra Kumar 97. Mr RK Trivedi 121. Mr V V Singh 74. Mr Rajesh Kr Singh 98. Mr RP Sachdev 122. Mr Ved Prakash Kaushik 75. Mr Rajeshwar Kr Mishra 99. Mr RP Saxena 123. Mr Veer Singh 76. Mr Ram Bahadur Singh 100. Mrs Sangeeta Saxena 124. Mr Vijay Shankar 77. Mr Ram Briksha Singh 101. Mr Sanjay Kr Srivastava 125. Mr Vijay Singh 78. Mr Ram Chandra 102. Mr Sanjeev Kumar Baghel 126. Mr Vikram Singh 79. Mr Ram Chandra Tripathi 103. Mr Sant Giri 127. Mr Vinod Kr Sharma 80. Mr Ram Kumar 104. Mr Sant Pal Verma 128. Dr Vinod Kumar Sharma 81. Mr Ram Narain 105. Mr Santosh Kumar 129. Dr Vinod Kumar Singh 82. Dr Ram Narain Yadav 106. Mr Satya Prakash 130. Mr Vivek Rajvanshi 83. Mr Ram Narain Yadav 107. Mr SD Maurya 131. Mr VK Jain 84. Mr Ram Nath 108. Mr SG Saiyaden 132. Mr Yashwant Singh List of Dy. Director (Economics & Statistics) who supervised the PSMS-II Survey at various divisions 1. Mr AK Pawar 7. Mr Girija Sankar Katiyar 13. Mr Shri Ram 2. Mr Arvind Kumar Pandey 8. Mr Jairam Ram 14. Dr Surendra Nath Tripathi 3. Mr Banarasi Ram 9. Mr MA Ansari 15. Mr VD Pandey 4. Mr BN Lal 10. Dr Rajendra Tiwari 16. Mr Vrajesh Kumar Garg 5. Mr Chandra Prakash Gupta 11. Mr Rohan Lal 6. Mr Gajendra Singh 12. Mr RS Mathur List of assistants who contributed at UP DES Headquarters Assistant Economics & Statistics Officers 1. Mr Bagwan Singh Verma 5. Mr Ish Dutt Verma 9. Mr NC Pandey 2. Mr Chetan Kr Srivastava 6. Mr JP Chaurasia 10. Mr PK Joshi 3. Mr Dheerendra Yadav 7. Mr JP Verma 11. Mr RS Pradhan 4. Mr HP Dubey 8. Mr Laaljee 12. Mr Sambhulal Economic & Statistics Inspectors 1. Mr Amresh Singh Chauhan 6. Ms Neelam Singh 10. Dr Santosh Kr Srivastava 2. Mr Ashutosh Srivastava 7. Ms Poonam Singh 11. Ms Vartika Srivastava 3. Mrs Gunjan 8. Mrs Preeti Kumari 12. Mr Vishwendra Pal 4. Mrs Monica Pathak 9. Mr Sanjay Yadav 13. Mr VK Sahu 5. Mr Narendra Kumar List of officers who were involved at Headquarters 1. Mr Om Kumar Saxena 3. Mr AK Tiwari 6. Dr RK Chauhan, Economics & 2. Dr S N Yadav, Economics & 4. Mr SD Verma, Deputy Director Statistics Officer Statistics Officer 5. Mr PNS Yadav 7. Dr Rajendra Tiwari 67 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Annex II ­ Supplementary Tables Table A1a: Per cent literate persons aged 7 years and above by sex S.No. Sector Person Male Female Combined PSMS-I 1 Rural 51.1 65.1 36.0 2 Urban 70.1 77.6 61.4 3 Combined 55.2 67.8 41.4 Combined PSMS-II 1 Rural 56.8 70.0 42.2 2 Urban 73.1 80.3 65.2 3 Combined 60.0 72.0 46.8 Table A1b: Per cent literate persons aged 7 and above years by sex and MPCE class S.No. MPCE Class Person Male Female Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 34.5 46.9 23.2 2 225-255 41.0 56.9 25.2 3 255-300 42.7 57.1 27.9 4 300-340 44.5 60.0 27.6 5 340-380 47.8 61.6 33.2 6 380-420 49.4 63.4 34.4 7 420-470 51.8 65.7 36.6 8 470-525 54.3 67.8 39.1 9 525-615 56.3 69.7 41.6 10 615-775 61.2 73.8 46.6 11 775-950 64.7 77.8 48.3 12 Above 950 69.8 81.1 56.8 13 All 51.1 65.1 36.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 40.5 54.9 25.6 2 225-255 43.7 55.2 32.2 3 255-300 46.6 59.0 33.7 4 300-340 55.0 66.6 42.7 5 340-380 51.5 66.0 35.7 6 380-420 58.8 71.9 44.1 7 420-470 57.7 73.2 40.8 8 470-525 58.7 72.9 43.0 9 525-615 60.1 72.9 45.3 10 615-775 68.1 79.5 54.8 11 775-950 67.8 81.5 51.1 12 Above 950 75.2 84.4 64.4 13 All 56.8 70.0 42.2 68 Table A1c: Per cent literate persons aged 7 and above years by sex and MPCE class S.No. MPCE Class Person Male Female Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 225 49.4 59.3 37.3 2 225-255 48.4 56.0 40.4 3 255-300 56.3 64.9 46.8 4 300-340 60.9 70.5 49.9 5 340-380 69.4 77.2 61.3 6 380-420 74.8 82.3 65.8 7 420-470 81.8 88.4 74.5 8 470-525 80.5 87.3 71.6 9 525-615 84.9 90.3 78.4 10 615-775 92.1 94.9 88.0 11 775-950 95.0 97.7 90.9 12 Above 950 93.1 93.4 92.7 13 All 70.1 77.6 61.4 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 225 41.7 50.2 32.6 2 225-255 54.6 63.7 44.8 3 255-300 59.9 67.5 51.6 4 300-340 68.0 77.3 57.9 5 340-380 71.7 80.6 62.2 6 380-420 78.8 86.2 70.6 7 420-470 82.6 88.5 76.4 8 470-525 87.5 93.1 81.2 9 525-615 92.0 96.0 87.4 10 615-775 92.3 96.9 87.2 11 775-950 93.8 96.0 91.6 12 Above 950 96.8 99.8 93.1 13 All 73.1 80.3 65.2 69 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank PSMS-I Total 100 100 100 PSMS-II Total 100 100 100 99 54.3 36.0 50.9 99 44.3 28.6 41.1 Professional 16 0.2 0.5 0.3 16 0.1 0.1 0.1 15 0.1 0.7 0.2 15 0.6 3.1 1.1 Ma/MsSc-14, 14 0.4 2.4 0.7 14 0.5 3.4 1.1 BA/BSc-13, education 13 1.3 6.3 2.2 education 13 1.7 6.4 2.6 education of education of of level 12 2.9 6.8 3.6 of level 12 3.7 6.9 4.4 Class12-12, level 11 0.6 0.9 0.7 level 11 0.8 1.4 0.9 highest highest Class11-11, to to highest 10 4.2 7.6 4.8 highest 10 4.6 8.1 5.3 0-10, to to according 9 2.0 2.4 2.1 according 9 Class1 3.2 3.7 3.3 Class9-9, according 8 persons 6.1 7.1 6.3 according 8 persons 8.5 9.1 8.6 of of 7 1.9 2.1 2.0 7 2.4 2.6 2.5 Class8-8, persons persons of 6 of 2.1 2.6 2.2 6 2.7 3.0 2.8 Class7-7, distribution distribution 5 7.1 7.4 7.2 5 8.7 8.8 8.7 Class6-6, distribution Percentage distribution 4 5.0 5.7 5.1 Percentage 4 4.5 4.1 4.4 Class5-5, 3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3 4.7 4.0 4.6 Class4-4, Percentage Percentage 2 3.7 3.4 3.7 2 4.7 3.9 4.5 A2a: Class3-3, A2b: 1 3.4 3.0 3.3 1 4.4 2.8 4.1 school-99. Table Table Class2-2, 0 1.1 1.6 1.2 0 attended Class1-1, Never & Nursery-0, Others-16 Sector Rural Urban Sector Rural Urban education: of Combined Sl.No. 1 2 Combined Combined Sl.No. 1 2 Combined Level Degree-15, 70 Total PSMS-I 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 PSMS-II 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99 67.7 64.9 62.3 59.9 56.1 55.0 52.8 49.9 48.3 41.3 39.1 37.9 54.3 100.00 54.8 52.9 47.1 49.0 43.8 43.1 42.0 40.3 33.3 31.9 26.2 44.3 16 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.2 59.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 15 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.8 3.3 0.6 education of 14 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.2 2.3 0.5 education level of 13 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.7 3.8 5.8 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.7 3.9 1.3 1.4 1.9 3.6 3.0 4.3 1.7 level 12 0.7 1.4 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 2.9 3.1 4.3 5.3 6.4 7.4 2.9 0.0 1.1 1.6 4.4 2.3 3.5 3.2 4.0 3.7 6.4 6.7 11.4 3.7 highest and highest 11 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.7 0.8 to Class 10 1.1 1.6 2.1 3.0 3.7 4.3 4.9 5.6 5.0 7.0 7.5 7.9 4.2 0.1 2.2 2.6 3.4 3.1 4.2 4.9 6.0 6.2 7.5 8.1 8.7 4.6 according 9 MPCE 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.5 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.7 3.6 4.3 4.2 4.9 5.4 3.2 to persons 8 2.8 3.9 4.9 4.6 5.9 6.4 6.5 7.1 7.7 8.6 8.1 8.0 6.1 1.1 5.6 5.3 8.4 7.8 8.1 9.3 9.0 10.2 10.9 12.1 10.9 8.5 of All 7 All 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 3.3 2.0 1.9 4.4 2.7 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.7 3.4 2.4 according 6 distribution 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.7 2.8 2.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.4 4.1 2.9 2.7 persons of 5 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.7 7.0 7.4 7.0 7.4 7.5 8.8 8.5 8.0 7.1 1.7 6.5 7.4 9.7 8.1 8.2 8.8 10.6 9.0 9.6 9.2 8.7 8.7 Percentage 4 3.7 3.9 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.0 4.9 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.0 7.0 4.7 5.3 4.2 4.8 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.4 3.9 3.6 4.5 distribution 3 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.1 3.0 2.2 3.7 4.5 4.4 5.5 4.3 5.1 5.4 5.2 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.0 3.5 4.7 2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.3 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.1 2.5 2.5 3.7 6.3 7.0 5.5 4.8 5.6 4.9 5.0 4.4 3.8 3.0 2.9 1.9 4.7 Percentage 1 4.8 4.0 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.0 3.4 4.9 5.8 6.2 5.3 4.6 5.5 3.9 3.0 3.6 2.4 2.2 1.8 4.4 A2c: 0 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 5.9 Table Class 225 950 225 950 MPCE Below 225-255 255-300 300-340 340-380 380-420 420-470 470-525 525-615 615-775 775-950 Above Below 225-255 255-300 300-340 340-380 380-420 420-470 470-525 525-615 615-775 775-950 Above No. Sl. Rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total 71 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Total PSMS-I 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Degree- PSMS-II 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99 57.3 54.0 52.1 49.6 45.6 44.6 42.1 40.2 37.0 30.5 28.7 30.2 43.8 45.1 42.5 41.4 34.4 34.5 31.3 27.9 27.5 27.7 21.5 17.5 17.0 31.1 Professional 16 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 15 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 3.4 0.2 Ma/MsSc-14, 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.9 2.9 5.4 1.0 education of 14 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.6 2.4 2.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 2.0 1.9 3.7 0.8 BA/BSc-13, BA/BSc-13, level 13 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.2 2.1 1.7 1.9 education 2.5 4.0 5.5 5.8 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 1.3 7.2 2.1 2.3 3.0 5.4 4.4 5.5 2.8 of 12 1.1 2.4 2.0 2.7 3.6 4.1 4.4 4.4 6.3 7.6 9.2 8.9 4.3 Class12-12, 0.7 2.0 2.2 8.4 3.6 3.8 4.9 5.7 5.5 8.4 10.0 13.5 5.4 Class12-12, highest level 11 and 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.0 highest Class11-11, Class11-11, Class to 10 1.8 2.6 3.5 4.6 5.9 6.0 7.0 8.3 6.9 9.8 9.3 9.1 6.1 0-10, 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.8 4.9 6.4 8.6 8.0 9.6 10.8 8.8 6.1 0-10, 9 Class1 Class1 MPCE 1.0 1.8 2.1 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.0 3.4 4.7 4.1 4.0 3.1 1.6 2.9 4.1 3.7 4.2 4.3 5.7 4.8 6.3 6.3 5.9 8.0 4.8 according to 8 Class9-9, Class9-9, 4.4 6.2 6.7 6.2 7.8 8.6 8.3 9.4 10.2 9.9 9.5 10.1 8.0 6.9 8.8 7.6 11.0 10.5 9.9 12.2 11.5 12.3 11.7 13.9 11.0 10.7 persons Boy of 7 1.4 2.4 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.5 2.5 3.2 2.5 2.4 Class8-8, Boy 2.8 2.4 2.4 3.0 3.4 2.6 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.2 Class8-8, according 6 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.7 3.0 2.2 2.7 2.9 3.4 2.5 2.0 2.4 Class7-7, 3.0 2.7 3.3 2.4 3.1 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.8 4.7 2.6 3.3 Class7-7, persons distribution of 5 8.3 8.4 7.1 7.7 8.0 8.2 7.8 7.5 7.6 8.9 8.0 7.0 7.9 Class6-6, 9.1 8.7 8.7 12.0 9.8 9.7 9.6 11.5 9.1 8.1 9.7 8.1 9.7 Class6-6, 4 Percentage 4.6 4.5 6.4 6.3 6.1 5.4 5.3 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.1 5.6 Class5-5, 4.7 5.7 6.7 5.0 5.8 4.3 6.1 5.8 4.8 5.1 4.6 3.1 5.3 Class5-5, school-99. distribution 3 4.7 3.8 4.5 4.3 4.6 3.5 4.4 3.4 4.1 3.0 3.2 2.4 4.0 Class4-4, 9.2 5.7 6.3 4.8 6.2 6.3 5.6 4.3 4.1 4.7 3.1 3.8 5.4 Class4-4, attended 2 5.3 4.4 4.7 4.1 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 2.7 2.6 2.8 4.0 6.1 5.7 6.1 5.2 6.2 5.0 5.9 4.7 4.0 3.5 3.7 1.6 5.1 Never Class3-3, Class3-3, & Percentage 1 5.2 5.2 4.0 4.3 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.3 2.8 1.9 1.6 3.6 6.8 7.9 5.8 4.4 4.6 6.1 3.8 3.2 4.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 4.4 Class2-2, Class2-2, A2d: Others-16 0 1.8 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.2 school-99. Class1-1, Class1-1, Table Degree-15, attended Class 225 950 Nursery-0, 225 950 Nursery-0, Never & Professional MPCE Below 225-255 255-300 300-340 340-380 380-420 420-470 470-525 525-615 615-775 775-950 Above Below 225-255 255-300 300-340 340-380 380-420 420-470 470-525 525-615 615-775 775-950 Above education: education: of of No. Others-16 Sl. Rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Level 15, Rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Level Ma/MsSc-14, 72 Total PSMS-I 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 PSMS-II 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99 79.0 76.8 73.9 71.8 67.5 67.0 65.2 61.6 61.2 53.9 52.8 48.3 66.5 75.1 67.2 64.9 60.7 64.9 57.8 59.7 57.6 54.8 47.4 49.0 36.8 58.9 16 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 education education of of 14 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 BA/BSc-13, level level 13 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.3 1.5 5.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.3 2.9 0.5 highest 12 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.8 5.3 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.8 3.1 1.4 2.2 1.7 4.1 2.6 9.0 1.8 Class12-12, highest to 11 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.6 1.6 0.7 and Class11-11, Class according 10 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.0 3.8 5.1 6.1 2.0 0.2 0.6 1.3 2.8 1.3 3.5 3.1 3.1 4.1 4.9 4.9 8.6 3.0 0-10, 9 Class1 MPCE persons 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.9 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 3.7 2.3 1.4 to of 8 Class9-9, 1.0 1.5 2.8 2.8 3.8 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.8 7.1 6.2 5.2 3.9 1.8 2.4 2.9 5.6 4.9 6.1 6.1 6.3 7.8 9.9 9.9 10.8 6.0 Girl 7 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.4 3.4 1.4 1.4 Girl 0.5 3.0 1.2 1.2 2.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 2.1 1.9 3.8 3.1 1.6 Class8-8, according distribution 6 0.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.3 1.2 1.6 0.5 2.9 1.5 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.9 3.3 3.2 2.0 Class7-7, persons of Percentage 5 3.1 3.4 4.9 5.4 6.0 6.4 6.1 7.4 7.3 8.7 9.1 9.4 6.2 4.9 4.3 6.2 7.2 6.2 6.5 7.9 9.7 8.8 11.5 8.5 9.5 7.6 Class6-6, 4 2.8 3.3 3.7 3.4 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.4 6.0 4.2 4.3 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.0 3.3 4.2 3.4 3.2 4.3 3.6 Class5-5, school-99. distribution 3 3.3 4.0 2.9 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.4 4.4 3.6 3.1 2.7 1.9 3.3 3.3 3.2 4.7 3.8 3.9 4.4 4.7 3.8 4.2 3.6 2.9 3.1 4.0 Class4-4, attended 2 3.1 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.5 2.3 2.1 3.5 3.6 8.4 4.8 4.4 4.9 4.9 3.9 4.1 3.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 4.2 Never Class3-3, & Percentage 1 4.3 2.7 3.5 3.0 4.1 2.9 3.0 3.5 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.5 3.2 5.1 3.7 6.5 6.3 4.5 4.7 4.0 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.5 1.5 4.3 Class2-2, A2e: Others-16 0 1.8 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 Class1-1, Table Degree-15, Class 225 950 225 950 Nursery-0, Professional MPCE Below 225-255 255-300 300-340 340-380 380-420 420-470 470-525 525-615 615-775 775-950 Above Below 225-255 255-300 300-340 340-380 380-420 420-470 470-525 525-615 615-775 775-950 Above education: of No. Sl. Rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Level Ma/MsSc-14, 73 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Total PSMS-I 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 PSMS-II 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Degree- 99 61.3 51.0 45.2 40.2 36.4 30.2 25.4 19.6 18.4 10.0 8.4 6.1 36.0 61.4 47.1 42.5 33.9 29.6 22.2 19.5 13.9 9.3 8.6 7.3 4.8 28.6 Professional 16 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 15 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.6 3.1 3.9 6.9 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.5 3.5 2.7 5.2 5.6 8.3 9.8 18.1 3.1 Ma/MsSc-14, education of 14 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 2.0 3.1 4.9 4.3 9.0 20.1 9.4 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.8 1.2 2.9 1.9 4.7 7.4 10.8 15.9 20.2 3.4 BA/BSc-13, education 13 0.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 4.9 7.4 8.2 level of 13.2 15.3 18.1 18.1 18.6 6.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 2.2 4.1 5.3 7.5 10.9 17.3 15.0 23.2 17.1 6.4 level 12 0.9 2.5 3.5 4.5 6.9 8.7 10.2 12.1 12.4 12.9 13.4 21.8 6.8 2.7 1.4 2.7 4.7 5.1 7.9 11.2 11.1 13.2 13.4 8.7 10.1 6.9 Class12-12, highest 11 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.8 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.5 1.4 and highest Class11-11, to 10 2.5 5.4 5.4 6.9 8.7 9.4 Class 11.0 10.4 10.7 11.1 7.3 7.9 7.6 2.7 4.3 5.1 6.3 8.6 10.3 13.2 12.0 10.9 9.9 7.8 8.2 8.1 0-10, according 9 Class1 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 2.9 1.7 2.4 2.1 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.4 1.3 2.7 3.5 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.8 3.9 4.2 2.7 3.8 1.4 3.7 MPCE to 8 Class9-9, persons 3.9 5.9 6.9 7.3 9.0 6.5 8.0 9.5 7.6 6.9 6.4 5.1 7.1 4.5 8.0 8.7 9.6 11.3 12.0 9.4 10.0 8.9 8.3 4.3 6.2 9.1 of All 7 1.2 1.9 1.9 2.5 1.9 2.9 2.0 2.1 2.6 3.1 1.4 0.5 2.1 All 0.9 1.5 2.5 2.7 3.6 3.0 2.8 3.0 1.9 3.5 0.7 3.4 2.6 Class8-8, according 6 2.4 2.3 2.7 3.2 2.7 3.1 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.4 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.5 3.1 4.0 3.4 2.3 2.8 3.8 2.7 3.2 3.5 1.6 3.0 Class7-7, distribution persons of 5 6.2 9.1 8.1 8.6 6.7 7.6 7.1 7.2 6.2 5.6 5.6 6.9 7.4 7.2 10.0 9.8 10.7 10.2 9.3 10.8 7.3 6.0 5.9 3.3 3.3 8.8 Class6-6, Percentage 4 6.4 5.7 6.8 6.0 6.3 6.1 5.4 5.0 4.4 3.0 2.6 2.9 5.7 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.1 4.8 3.5 4.4 2.5 3.3 1.7 1.2 4.1 Class5-5, distribution 3 3.9 3.1 4.3 4.5 3.8 3.8 4.3 2.1 3.7 2.4 2.2 2.1 3.7 3.9 6.1 4.5 6.0 4.2 3.6 3.3 2.9 3.1 2.1 3.2 0.6 4.0 Class4-4, 2 3.1 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.5 3.1 4.4 1.8 2.9 3.2 0.9 2.5 3.4 4.5 5.8 5.3 5.5 4.1 4.1 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.5 1.1 3.9 Class3-3, Percentage 1 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.1 2.4 3.1 3.2 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.0 3.0 2.9 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.2 2.8 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.2 2.5 0.1 2.8 Class2-2, A2f: 0 2.1 0.9 1.4 2.3 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.6 1.6 school-99. Class1-1, Table attended Class 300 1925 300 1925 Nursery-0, Never & MPCE Below 300-350 350-425 425-500 500-575 575-665 665-775 775-915 915-1120 1120-1500 1500-1925 Above Below 300-350 350-425 425-500 500-575 575-665 665-775 775-915 915-1120 1120-1500 1500-1925 Above education: of No. Others-16 Sl. Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Level 15, 74 Total PSMS-I 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Degree- PSMS-II 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Degree- 99 52.7 43.0 37.4 32.9 30.2 22.5 20.0 17.6 14.5 8.3 5.5 3.7 29.5 53.1 38.1 34.7 23.9 20.5 14.8 13.5 8.1 4.8 3.8 5.0 2.6 21.2 Professional Professional 16 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 15 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.7 3.1 4.9 6.0 9.5 1.2 Ma/MsSc-14, 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.5 2.0 3.9 3.2 6.2 7.7 12.8 16.3 25.5 4.2 Ma/MsSc-14, education of 14 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.4 2.7 3.2 5.1 5.2 10.4 22.6 9.7 2.9 0.4 0.3 1.2 0.9 1.5 3.3 1.7 4.8 7.6 BA/BSc-13, 12.2 12.6 20.6 3.7 BA/BSc-13, level education 13 0.4 2.8 2.7 3.0 6.2 8.3 9.3 of 15.0 19.1 18.2 17.7 16.1 7.2 0.7 0.9 1.1 2.7 5.2 6.5 9.6 12.5 18.3 15.1 24.2 14.9 7.1 level 12 1.5 3.0 4.0 4.9 7.8 10.8 11.5 12.7 13.1 12.3 13.8 24.1 7.7 Class12-12, 2.8 2.0 3.3 6.5 6.8 9.3 12.5 11.1 15.9 15.4 9.2 8.9 8.1 Class12-12, highest 11 0.3 and 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.9 1.6 1.3 0.8 2.7 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.4 1.0 2.1 2.1 1.2 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.3 1.4 highest Class11-11, Class11-11, to Class 10 3.4 7.4 6.0 8.3 10.0 11.5 12.3 10.1 9.9 11.6 7.4 9.1 8.6 0-10, 3.2 6.2 6.8 7.2 9.0 12.9 16.0 12.7 11.9 9.6 6.0 7.5 9.3 0-10, Class1 Class1 MPCE according 9 2.2 2.2 2.6 3.4 3.4 3.7 1.7 2.7 1.9 3.2 3.7 4.0 2.8 2.2 4.1 3.6 5.9 5.0 5.5 5.4 4.7 4.0 2.8 4.5 1.9 4.4 to 8 Class9-9, Class9-9, persons 5.9 6.4 8.4 8.6 10.2 6.4 8.1 9.5 7.8 6.2 4.7 4.2 7.8 6.4 9.5 11.1 11.8 13.6 11.3 10.8 11.0 7.4 7.1 3.6 7.5 10.2 of Boy 7 1.3 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.8 1.7 1.9 2.6 2.7 1.1 0.2 2.2 Class8-8, Boy 1.2 1.6 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.4 3.3 2.0 3.6 0.6 0.9 2.6 Class8-8, according 6 3.1 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.3 3.6 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.6 0.9 2.2 2.7 Class7-7, 3.2 2.0 3.6 4.1 3.9 2.9 2.6 3.9 3.0 3.3 2.6 0.0 3.2 Class7-7, distribution persons of 5 8.6 10.5 10.2 9.9 6.4 7.8 7.6 5.1 5.1 5.7 5.2 6.9 8.0 Class6-6, 9.1 11.6 10.1 11.1 11.2 10.2 8.5 5.7 5.9 4.1 3.4 3.6 8.9 Class6-6, Percentage 4 7.6 6.3 7.5 6.1 7.1 6.5 5.9 4.8 3.7 3.8 2.0 2.2 6.1 Class5-5, 4.6 6.3 5.4 5.1 4.4 4.1 4.1 5.5 3.2 2.8 1.5 0.5 4.5 Class5-5, distribution 3 4.6 3.1 4.4 5.4 3.7 3.3 4.4 2.3 3.4 2.5 2.6 2.0 3.9 Class4-4, 4.7 7.8 4.5 6.9 4.0 3.7 2.6 3.5 2.3 1.8 3.6 1.1 4.2 Class4-4, 2 2.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.3 4.2 1.9 3.1 3.0 0.6 2.7 3.4 5.3 5.4 6.2 5.6 4.4 3.4 2.6 3.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 2.0 4.0 Class3-3, Class3-3, Percentage 1 3.4 3.9 3.6 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 3.0 2.9 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.1 2.9 2.6 2.5 1.2 1.5 2.9 0.1 3.0 Class2-2, Class2-2, A2g: 0 2.1 1.1 1.7 2.3 1.2 1.5 2.3 2.5 0.8 1.7 0.3 0.4 1.7 school-99. school-99. Class1-1, Class1-1, Table attended attended Class 300 1925 Nursery-0, Never 300 1925 Nursery-0, Never & & MPCE Below 300-350 350-425 425-500 500-575 575-665 665-775 775-915 915-1120 1120-1500 1500-1925 Above education: Below 300-350 350-425 425-500 500-575 575-665 665-775 775-915 915-1120 1120-1500 1500-1925 Above education: of of No. Others-16 Others-16 Sl. Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Level 15, Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Level 15, 75 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Total PSMS-I 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 PSMS-II 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Degree- 99 70.8 60.4 54.0 48.5 43.9 38.8 31.4 21.9 22.7 12.1 12.9 9.6 43.5 70.3 56.8 50.9 44.6 39.4 30.4 25.9 20.4 14.4 14.0 9.6 7.7 36.7 Professional 16 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.6 3.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.9 3.1 2.2 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.9 8.7 1.9 Ma/MsSc-14, education of 14 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 1.3 3.0 4.8 3.2 7.4 16.1 8.9 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 2.3 2.1 4.6 7.2 9.2 19.4 19.8 3.1 BA/BSc-13, education level 13 of 0.0 1.7 1.9 1.5 3.5 6.3 7.0 11.0 11.2 17.9 18.6 22.4 5.2 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.7 3.0 4.0 5.3 9.1 16.1 14.8 22.1 19.9 5.6 level 12 0.3 1.8 2.9 4.0 5.9 6.2 8.6 11.4 11.7 13.6 12.7 18.3 5.9 2.5 0.7 2.2 2.9 3.3 6.3 9.8 11.1 10.1 11.2 8.1 11.6 5.7 Class12-12, highest 11 and highest 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.9 1.5 3.1 3.1 2.4 2.9 2.8 1.3 to Class11-11, Class 10 1.6 3.0 4.7 5.2 7.1 7.1 9.6 10.6 11.7 10.5 7.2 6.1 6.4 2.2 2.2 3.4 5.3 8.1 7.4 10.4 11.2 9.8 10.2 9.6 9.1 6.8 0-10, Class1 MPCE according 9 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 2.5 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.4 3.4 2.1 0.9 1.9 0.2 1.2 3.4 2.6 3.8 3.4 4.1 2.9 4.4 2.6 3.0 0.7 2.9 to Class9-9, persons 8 1.7 5.4 5.3 5.8 7.5 6.7 7.8 9.5 7.4 7.7 8.9 6.4 6.2 2.5 6.4 6.0 7.2 8.7 12.7 7.9 8.9 10.7 9.7 5.1 4.5 7.8 of Girl 7 1.1 0.9 1.5 2.5 1.3 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.6 3.7 1.8 1.0 2.0 Girl 0.6 1.4 2.3 2.2 4.2 2.9 3.3 2.7 1.8 3.3 0.7 6.5 2.6 Class8-8, according 6 distribution 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.3 1.2 2.4 1.4 2.5 1.5 3.0 2.5 3.7 2.9 1.7 3.0 3.7 2.5 3.0 4.4 3.6 2.8 Class7-7, persons of 5 3.6 7.4 5.8 7.2 7.1 7.3 6.5 9.8 7.4 5.6 6.4 7.0 6.7 5.2 8.3 9.5 10.3 9.2 8.2 13.2 9.1 6.2 7.8 3.2 2.8 8.7 Class6-6, Percentage 4 5.1 5.0 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.6 4.9 5.2 5.3 2.0 3.4 3.8 5.3 4.6 3.3 4.2 4.1 3.7 5.5 2.9 3.1 1.7 3.8 2.0 2.0 3.7 Class5-5, distribution 3 3.1 3.1 4.1 3.5 4.0 4.4 4.2 1.8 4.1 2.4 1.6 2.1 3.6 3.0 4.3 4.6 5.1 4.4 3.5 4.0 2.3 3.9 2.6 2.9 0.0 3.8 Class4-4, 2 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 4.7 1.7 2.7 3.4 1.4 2.2 3.3 3.7 6.2 4.3 5.4 3.7 4.9 2.5 1.7 2.6 1.4 1.9 0.1 3.7 Class3-3, Percentage 1 3.2 2.7 3.6 3.1 1.7 3.3 3.7 2.6 2.3 3.9 2.5 2.9 3.0 2.9 4.5 3.6 3.2 2.2 2.8 2.0 1.7 2.3 0.9 2.1 0.1 2.6 Class2-2, A2h: 0 2.1 0.7 1.0 2.3 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.2 2.4 0.9 3.3 1.4 school-99. Class1-1, Table attended Class 300 1925 300 1925 Nursery-0, Never & MPCE Below 300-350 350-425 425-500 500-575 575-665 665-775 775-915 915-1120 1120-1500 1500-1925 Above Below 300-350 350-425 425-500 500-575 575-665 665-775 775-915 915-1120 1120-1500 1500-1925 Above education: of No. Others-16 Sl. Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Urban 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Level 15, 76 Table A3a: Enrolment rate of children of age 5 to 14 years Sl.No. Sector Enrolment rate Boys Girls Children PSMS-I 1 Rural 66.4 56.2 61.8 2 Urban 71.7 69.4 70.6 Combined 67.3 58.6 63.4 PSMS-II 1 Rural 75.8 68.5 72.4 2 Urban 77.2 75.3 76.3 Combined 76.0 69.8 73.1 Table A3b: Enrolment rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to MPCE class Sl. No. MPCE Class Enrolment rate Boys Girls Children Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 56.9 39.5 49.1 2 225-255 60.3 45.4 53.1 3 255-300 58.3 47.9 53.6 4 300-340 61.9 48.9 56.1 5 340-380 67.5 61.0 64.4 6 380-420 66.7 53.7 60.8 7 420-470 72.2 57.1 65.2 8 470-525 66.2 66.6 66.4 9 525-615 69.3 63.7 66.8 10 615-775 79.0 69.6 74.6 11 775-950 87.2 82.6 85.2 12 Above 950 79.2 78.4 78.9 Total 66.4 56.2 61.8 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 64.8 42.6 54.0 2 225-255 65.8 60.3 63.0 3 255-300 68.7 63.3 66.1 4 300-340 72.4 66.0 69.2 5 340-380 74.1 65.8 70.3 6 380-420 76.4 71.3 74.1 7 420-470 78.5 72.9 76.1 8 470-525 80.2 74.0 77.4 9 525-615 78.7 79.5 79.1 10 615-775 88.1 80.7 85.0 11 775-950 92.9 86.5 90.1 12 Above 950 94.8 83.3 89.2 Total 75.8 68.5 72.4 77 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A3c: Enrolment rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to MPCE class Sl.No. MPCE Class Enrolment rate Boys Girls Children Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 50.8 42.2 46.8 2 300-350 56.4 46.9 52.1 3 350-425 66.7 61.1 64.2 4 425-500 72.9 72.0 72.5 5 500-575 71.5 76.8 73.9 6 575-665 84.7 84.9 84.8 7 665-775 83.1 80.3 81.7 8 775-915 83.8 90.9 87.2 9 915-1120 92.9 86.7 89.9 10 1120-1500 96.1 97.0 96.5 11 1500-1925 93.6 95.9 94.6 12 Above 1925 98.6 83.0 93.1 Total 71.7 69.4 70.6 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 48.6 41.3 44.9 2 300-350 61.6 67.2 64.3 3 350-425 68.7 66.2 67.5 4 425-500 75.3 70.2 72.8 5 500-575 82.1 80.8 81.5 6 575-665 89.8 87.7 88.8 7 665-775 92.4 88.0 90.2 8 775-915 93.8 97.2 95.3 9 915-1120 96.6 96.7 96.6 10 1120-1500 98.1 98.0 98.1 11 1500-1925 95.4 100.0 97.6 12 Above 1925 92.5 99.3 96.1 Total 77.2 75.3 76.3 78 Table A4a: Drop out rate of children of age 5 to 14 years Sl.No. Sector Enrolment rate Boys Girls Children PSMS-I 1 Rural 5.7 7.5 6.5 2 Urban 6.2 6.4 6.3 Combined 5.8 7.3 6.5 PSMS-II 1 Rural 4.0 6.2 5.0 2 Urban 4.5 4.6 4.6 Combined 4.1 5.9 4.9 Table A4b: Dropout rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to MPCE class Sl. No. MPCE Class Enrolment rate Boys Girls Children Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 8.4 12.2 9.8 2 225-255 4.7 7.6 5.9 3 255-300 7.5 8.2 7.8 4 300-340 7.0 10.7 8.5 5 340-380 4.4 5.3 4.8 6 380-420 3.9 8.4 5.8 7 420-470 5.2 8.3 6.4 8 470-525 8.0 6.9 7.5 9 525-615 5.9 6.6 6.2 10 615-775 4.7 4.3 4.5 11 775-950 1.5 5.6 3.2 12 Above 950 1.8 6.2 3.6 Total 5.7 7.5 6.5 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 5.7 10.2 7.6 2 225-255 4.8 10.4 7.6 3 255-300 4.3 5.5 4.9 4 300-340 3.9 4.9 4.4 5 340-380 5.0 6.1 5.5 6 380-420 3.7 6.5 4.9 7 420-470 4.3 7.2 5.6 8 470-525 3.9 5.9 4.8 9 525-615 4.5 4.5 4.5 10 615-775 1.4 5.1 2.9 11 775-950 2.4 4.7 3.4 12 Above 950 2.5 5.6 3.9 Total 4.0 6.2 5.0 79 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A4c: Dropout rate of children of age 5 to 14 years according to MPCE class Sl.No. MPCE Class Enrolment rate Boys Girls Children Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 10.5 12.5 11.4 2 300-350 13.6 10.9 12.5 3 350-425 7.8 10.4 8.9 4 425-500 6.2 5.1 5.7 5 500-575 7.1 5.6 6.4 6 575-665 2.5 3.4 3.0 7 665-775 4.7 7.5 6.0 8 775-915 2.6 2.5 2.5 9 915-1120 1.0 1.7 1.4 10 1120-1500 0.3 0.6 0.4 11 1500-1925 0.6 3.8 2.0 12 Above 1925 0.4 3.3 1.3 Total 6.2 6.4 6.3 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 4.9 6.2 5.5 2 300-350 10.0 4.0 7.2 3 350-425 5.1 7.0 6.0 4 425-500 7.9 9.7 8.8 5 500-575 5.7 4.8 5.2 6 575-665 1.5 3.9 2.7 7 665-775 2.1 1.0 1.6 8 775-915 1.0 0.8 0.9 9 915-1120 0.0 0.3 0.2 10 1120-1500 0.6 1.0 0.8 11 1500-1925 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 Above 1925 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 4.5 4.6 4.6 80 Table A5a: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above Person Sl. No. Sector Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-I 1 Rural 24.2 24.9 17.0 20.5 86.6 2 Urban 14.3 15.3 17.3 43.1 90.0 Combined 21.6 22.3 17.0 26.6 87.5 Person PSMS-II 1 Rural 23.5 28.7 15.8 22.1 90.1 2 Urban 15.7 18.4 16.7 43.3 94.0 Combined 21.3 25.8 16.0 28.1 91.2 Table A5b: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above Male Sl. No. Sector Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-I 1 Rural 20.6 26.2 18.8 22.9 88.5 2 Urban 13.5 15.7 17.5 43.5 90.3 Combined 18.9 23.7 18.5 27.9 88.9 Male PSMS-II 1 Rural 21.3 28.8 15.7 24.7 90.5 2 Urban 14.6 19.1 16.7 43.4 93.8 Combined 19.6 26.4 16.0 29.4 91.4 Table A5c: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above Female Sl. No. Sector Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary PSMS-I 1 Rural 33.8 21.5 12.2 14.2 81.6 2 Urban 15.7 14.6 16.8 42.4 89.4 Combined 27.7 19.2 13.7 23.7 84.3 Female PSMS-II 1 Rural 29.2 28.5 15.9 15.5 89.0 2 Urban 17.4 17.1 16.6 43.1 94.2 Combined 25.0 24.5 16.1 25.3 90.9 81 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table 6A 5d: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to MPCE class Rural Person PSMS-I Sl. No. MPCE Class Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary 1 Below 225 35.4 22.3 10.8 7.6 75.9 2 225-255 34.2 24.1 10.6 14.7 83.6 3 255-300 27.4 28.3 13.7 12.3 81.7 4 300-340 27.6 26.2 16.2 14.0 84.0 5 340-380 26.0 26.9 17.6 15.7 86.1 6 380-420 24.4 25.7 17.7 19.1 86.8 7 420-470 23.5 26.9 18.9 18.6 87.9 8 470-525 24.7 25.5 19.5 18.1 87.7 9 525-615 21.9 25.3 17.0 23.5 87.7 10 615-775 20.9 22.4 17.8 28.0 89.0 11 775-950 19.4 19.0 18.1 34.4 90.9 12 Above 950 15.5 19.2 16.3 39.0 89.9 Total 24.2 24.9 17.0 20.5 86.6 Rural Person PSMS-II Sl. No. MPCE Class Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary 1 Below 225 35.4 27.5 12.0 6.6 81.5 2 225-255 26.8 35.2 14.3 11.1 87.4 3 255-300 29.9 29.5 13.0 12.5 85.0 4 300-340 25.8 32.1 13.6 19.4 90.8 5 340-380 27.8 30.7 13.4 15.2 87.2 6 380-420 21.9 27.2 14.9 25.2 89.2 7 420-470 24.0 29.6 16.6 18.6 88.7 8 470-525 25.5 26.1 17.9 22.0 91.6 9 525-615 19.5 28.4 18.3 24.8 91.0 10 615-775 18.2 23.3 19.6 33.1 94.2 11 775-950 16.0 20.2 17.3 41.5 95.0 12 Above 950 9.0 12.8 13.3 61.9 97.0 Total 21.3 25.8 16.0 28.1 91.2 82 Table A5e: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to MPCE class Rural Male PSMS-I Sl. No. MPCE Class Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary 1 Below 225 36.6 23.7 11.3 8.5 80.0 2 225-255 31.5 25.3 11.4 16.2 84.4 3 255-300 24.5 29.1 15.9 13.5 83.1 4 300-340 24.4 27.7 17.9 15.7 85.7 5 340-380 22.1 27.8 19.8 17.4 87.0 6 380-420 20.4 28.0 19.4 21.6 89.3 7 420-470 19.3 27.6 21.4 21.3 89.6 8 470-525 19.5 26.8 23.3 20.8 90.3 9 525-615 17.3 27.2 18.8 26.5 89.8 10 615-775 16.9 22.7 19.4 32.7 91.7 11 775-950 14.9 19.3 18.9 39.5 92.5 12 Above 950 12.1 21.8 15.7 42.7 92.3 Total 20.6 26.2 18.8 22.9 88.5 Rural Male PSMS-II 1 Below 225 34.9 26.2 12.6 8.1 81.8 2 225-255 26.0 35.3 14.8 12.0 88.1 3 255-300 26.4 32.5 13.8 11.6 84.3 4 300-340 26.5 30.1 10.9 23.7 91.2 5 340-380 25.4 31.7 14.5 16.8 88.5 6 380-420 21.6 27.0 13.3 27.5 89.4 7 420-470 21.6 30.8 16.2 20.3 89.0 8 470-525 23.3 26.9 18.6 23.4 92.2 9 525-615 16.8 28.9 19.0 27.1 91.7 10 615-775 13.5 23.1 21.6 36.4 94.6 11 775-950 13.4 20.4 18.0 43.1 94.8 12 Above 950 7.4 11.9 12.5 65.8 97.5 Total 19.6 26.4 16.0 29.4 91.4 83 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A5f: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to MPCE class Rural Female PSMS-I Sl. No. MPCE Class Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary 1 Below 225 30.7 16.9 8.9 3.9 60.4 2 225-255 45.8 18.7 7.4 8.0 79.9 3 255-300 37.3 25.5 6.3 8.0 77.0 4 300-340 37.3 21.6 11.0 9.1 79.0 5 340-380 38.5 24.1 10.5 10.2 83.3 6 380-420 34.2 20.0 13.4 13.2 80.8 7 420-470 34.7 25.0 12.3 11.3 83.3 8 470-525 37.9 22.2 9.9 11.2 81.2 9 525-615 32.8 20.8 12.7 16.3 82.7 10 615-775 29.2 21.8 14.3 17.9 83.2 11 775-950 30.6 18.5 16.0 21.9 86.9 12 Above 950 21.8 14.2 17.4 32.1 85.4 Total 33.8 21.5 12.2 14.2 81.6 Rural Female PSMS-II 1 Below 225 37.4 32.4 9.6 0.6 80.1 2 225-255 30.5 35.0 12.0 6.6 84.1 3 255-300 40.6 20.7 10.6 15.2 87.0 4 300-340 23.5 38.6 22.2 5.2 89.5 5 340-380 35.4 27.8 10.0 10.2 83.4 6 380-420 22.7 27.7 18.9 19.7 88.9 7 420-470 30.3 26.4 17.5 14.0 88.1 8 470-525 31.0 24.2 16.3 18.7 90.2 9 525-615 25.0 27.3 17.0 20.3 89.6 10 615-775 26.6 23.5 16.1 27.3 93.5 11 775-950 20.7 19.7 16.1 38.7 95.2 12 Above 950 11.3 14.2 14.5 56.3 96.3 Total 25.0 24.5 16.1 25.3 90.9 84 Table A5g: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to MPCE class Urban Person PSMS-I Sl. No. MPCE Class Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary 1 Below 300 30.8 22.0 15.2 8.4 76.4 2 300-350 24.5 20.5 18.6 21.8 85.4 3 350-425 21.2 22.1 16.8 24.0 84.1 4 425-500 20.5 21.4 20.1 25.5 87.4 5 500-575 14.4 18.8 19.3 35.6 88.2 6 575-665 14.4 12.3 19.8 44.1 90.6 7 665-775 10.0 12.8 19.3 47.3 89.4 8 775-915 10.4 12.7 15.8 56.7 95.6 9 915-1120 7.4 9.4 16.6 61.4 94.7 10 1120-1500 5.8 10.2 14.7 66.9 97.6 11 1500-1925 4.7 4.7 8.9 79.3 97.7 12 Above 1925 4.8 6.2 7.8 76.7 95.5 Total 14.3 15.3 17.3 43.1 90.0 Urban Person PSMS-II 1 Below 300 30.2 30.4 13.1 11.2 84.9 2 300-350 26.3 32.2 13.6 18.4 90.5 3 350-425 24.0 28.4 14.4 21.6 88.4 4 425-500 24.2 28.5 17.4 19.4 89.4 5 500-575 21.9 27.7 18.0 24.3 91.8 6 575-665 18.9 27.2 18.5 27.7 92.3 7 665-775 18.4 21.2 20.0 34.8 94.3 8 775-915 15.5 21.5 16.9 40.4 94.4 9 915-1120 12.8 14.9 17.2 52.2 97.0 10 1120-1500 9.9 12.8 12.5 62.0 97.2 11 1500-1925 5.0 9.4 10.6 69.8 94.8 12 Above 1925 3.9 8.3 8.5 78.3 98.9 Total 21.3 25.8 16.0 28.1 91.2 85 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A5h: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to MPCE class Urban Male PSMS-I Sl. No. MPCE Class Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary 1 Below 300 32.8 25.2 14.5 8.3 80.8 2 300-350 24.6 19.7 21.9 21.4 87.6 3 350-425 22.3 23.4 16.7 22.2 84.6 4 425-500 19.8 23.3 20.3 25.1 88.5 5 500-575 12.5 19.8 19.0 36.8 88.0 6 575-665 11.9 10.7 21.8 45.2 89.6 7 665-775 8.8 12.0 18.9 48.4 88.1 8 775-915 7.0 13.6 15.8 60.7 97.2 9 915-1120 5.3 7.8 15.2 67.8 96.1 10 1120-1500 4.6 8.7 15.4 69.4 98.1 11 1500-1925 3.0 3.3 9.1 82.9 98.4 12 Above 1925 0.7 6.7 8.6 82.0 98.0 Total 13.5 15.7 17.5 43.5 90.3 Urban Male PSMS-II 1 Below 300 27.8 32.0 13.8 11.1 84.8 2 300-350 26.5 30.6 11.8 21.8 90.6 3 350-425 23.0 29.0 13.6 23.6 89.2 4 425-500 21.7 29.8 17.3 21.2 89.9 5 500-575 19.5 27.4 18.2 26.9 92.0 6 575-665 15.4 27.6 20.0 29.7 92.7 7 665-775 13.3 21.0 22.4 38.5 95.1 8 775-915 12.9 22.6 17.1 41.5 94.1 9 915-1120 11.5 12.0 17.6 56.4 97.6 10 1120-1500 7.6 13.1 10.5 66.7 97.9 11 1500-1925 3.9 7.6 10.1 74.8 96.4 12 Above 1925 2.0 8.4 9.8 78.5 98.6 Total 19.6 26.4 16.0 29.4 91.4 86 Table A5i: Rate of completion of highest level of education of persons in age group 18 years and above according to MPCE class Urban Female PSMS-I Sl. No. MPCE Class Rate of Completion of Educational Level Primary Middle High School Other At least Primary 1 Below 300 24.6 12.1 17.4 8.7 62.8 2 300-350 24.4 22.0 12.6 22.4 81.4 3 350-425 19.1 19.7 16.9 27.6 83.2 4 425-500 21.7 18.0 19.6 26.2 85.4 5 500-575 17.8 17.2 20.0 33.7 88.7 6 575-665 18.8 15.1 16.3 42.2 92.4 7 665-775 11.7 14.0 19.7 45.7 91.2 8 775-915 14.7 11.5 15.9 51.4 93.5 9 915-1120 10.2 11.5 18.4 52.6 92.7 10 1120-1500 7.3 12.2 13.9 63.7 97.1 11 1500-1925 7.6 7.1 8.6 73.2 96.4 12 Above 1925 10.6 5.5 6.6 69.0 91.8 Total 15.7 14.6 16.8 42.4 89.4 Urban Female PSMS-II 1 Below 300 38.4 24.9 10.7 11.5 85.4 2 300-350 25.6 37.5 19.7 7.3 90.1 3 350-425 26.5 27.0 16.4 16.3 86.2 4 425-500 30.8 25.0 17.5 14.9 88.2 5 500-575 26.6 28.4 17.4 19.1 91.5 6 575-665 25.9 26.4 15.5 23.5 91.4 7 665-775 27.1 21.5 15.8 28.6 93.0 8 775-915 20.2 19.6 16.6 38.5 94.9 9 915-1120 14.6 19.3 16.7 45.7 96.3 10 1120-1500 13.2 12.5 15.6 55.0 96.3 11 1500-1925 6.4 11.5 11.2 63.8 92.9 12 Above 1925 6.9 8.1 6.5 78.0 99.5 Total 25.0 24.5 16.1 25.3 90.9 87 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A6a: Percentage distribution of households according to type of structure of dwelling Sl.No. Sector Percentage distribution of households according to type of structure of dwelling Kutcha Semi Pucca Pucca House less Total Pucca (housing scheme for weaker Section) PSMS-I 1 Rural 40.5 25.7 1.8 32.0 0.0 100.0 2 Urban 8.9 16.3 1.1 73.7 0.0 100.0 Combined 34.4 23.9 1.7 40.0 0.0 100.0 PSMS-II 1 Rural 25.0 24.7 1.6 48.6 0.0 100 2 Urban 4.0 8.8 0.8 86.3 0.0 100 Combined 20.8 21.5 1.5 56.2 0.0 100 Table A6b: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE Class and type of structure of dwelling Sl.No. MPCE Class Percentage distribution of households according to type of structure of dwelling Kutcha Semi Pucca Pucca House less Total Pucca (housing scheme for weaker Section) Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 63.9 20.7 3.7 11.6 0.0 100.0 2 225-255 63.4 21.8 3.0 11.8 0.0 100.0 3 255-300 54.1 25.5 1.8 18.6 0.0 100.0 4 300-340 49.5 25.3 2.4 22.8 0.0 100.0 5 340-380 46.9 26.6 1.5 25.0 0.0 100.0 6 380-420 40.2 27.8 2.0 30.0 0.0 100.0 7 420-470 38.5 28.5 1.3 31.8 0.0 100.0 8 470-525 36.1 25.6 2.4 35.8 0.0 100.0 9 525-615 30.1 25.8 1.7 42.4 0.0 100.0 10 615-775 24.9 26.7 0.7 47.7 0.0 100.0 11 775-950 24.5 24.7 0.7 50.2 0.0 100.0 12 Above 950 16.1 20.9 1.2 61.8 0.0 100.0 Total 40.5 25.7 1.8 32.0 0.0 100.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 42.7 25.2 1.1 31.0 0.0 100 2 225-255 29.4 36.9 1.3 32.4 0.0 100 3 255-300 32.6 28.4 0.8 38.3 0.0 100 4 300-340 26.4 30.8 1.4 41.5 0.0 100 5 340-380 25.8 27.8 2.0 44.5 0.0 100 6 380-420 27.4 22.2 2.2 48.2 0.0 100 7 420-470 25.3 24.4 1.4 48.7 0.1 100 8 470-525 22.2 23.4 2.1 52.4 0.0 100 9 525-615 20.1 23.4 1.4 55.1 0.1 100 10 615-775 21.8 19.9 1.8 56.5 0.0 100 11 775-950 17.1 17.8 2.2 62.9 0.0 100 12 Above 950 11.6 15.4 1.2 71.5 0.2 100 Total 25.0 24.7 1.6 48.6 0.0 100 88 Table A6c: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE Class and type of structure of dwelling Sl.No. MPCE Class Percentage distribution of households according to type of structure of dwelling Kutcha Semi Pucca Pucca House less Total Pucca (housing scheme for weaker Section) Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 23.3 30.2 1.3 45.3 0.0 100.0 2 300-350 15.8 25.4 1.0 57.8 0.0 100.0 3 350-425 13.7 24.5 0.7 61.2 0.0 100.0 4 425-500 9.1 23.4 1.1 66.4 0.0 100.0 5 500-575 9.2 13.8 0.6 76.5 0.0 100.0 6 575-665 7.2 15.3 1.4 76.1 0.0 100.0 7 665-775 5.2 13.8 1.2 79.7 0.0 100.0 8 775-915 3.6 9.4 1.4 85.6 0.0 100.0 9 915-1120 5.1 7.6 0.8 86.5 0.0 100.0 10 1120-1500 2.5 5.4 1.8 90.3 0.0 100.0 11 1500-1925 0.6 3.1 1.0 95.3 0.0 100.0 12 Above 1925 1.6 2.7 2.5 93.3 0.0 100.0 Total 8.9 16.3 1.1 73.7 0.0 100.0 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 15.3 21.7 0.0 63.1 0.0 100 2 300-350 11.3 20.1 1.0 67.7 0.0 100 3 350-425 5.6 16.0 1.1 77.0 0.3 100 4 425-500 5.3 9.1 0.3 85.3 0.0 100 5 500-575 4.7 8.3 0.4 86.6 0.0 100 6 575-665 2.8 8.3 1.7 87.2 0.0 100 7 665-775 1.2 6.0 1.1 91.8 0.0 100 8 775-915 1.1 5.2 1.0 92.7 0.0 100 9 915-1120 0.2 3.0 0.6 96.2 0.0 100 10 1120-1500 1.2 1.4 0.6 96.8 0.0 100 11 1500-1925 0.0 1.1 0.9 98.0 0.0 100 12 Above 1925 0.2 1.1 0.0 98.7 0.0 100 Total 4.0 8.8 0.8 86.3 0.0 100 89 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A7a: Percentage distribution of households according to type of latrine used Sl.No. Sector Percentage of Percentage distribution of households households according to use of latrine having latrine No. Flush Septic tank Service Others Total facility Latrine Latrine Latrine Latrine Rural PSMS-I 1 Rural 19.1 80.9 5.5 4.4 3.4 5.8 100.0 2 Urban 84.4 15.6 40.0 22.0 14.6 7.8 100.0 3 Combined 31.7 68.3 12.2 7.8 5.6 6.2 100.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Rural 15.7 84.3 5.6 4.1 3.1 2.9 100.0 2 Urban 80.8 19.2 42.4 22.3 11.9 4.3 100.0 3 Combined 28.7 71.4 13.0 7.7 4.8 3.2 100.0 Table A7b: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE class and type of latrine used Sl.No. MPCE Class Percentage of Percentage distribution of households households according to use of latrine having latrine No. Flush Septic tank Service Others Total facility Latrine Latrine Latrine Latrine Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 8.2 91.8 0.8 1.3 1.0 5.1 100.0 2 225-255 10.6 89.4 2.0 1.5 1.4 5.7 100.0 3 255-300 9.2 90.8 2.5 1.5 1.4 3.7 100.0 4 300-340 12.6 87.4 3.0 2.1 2.8 4.8 100.0 5 340-380 17.2 82.8 3.0 3.5 3.6 7.1 100.0 6 380-420 17.1 83.0 4.9 3.6 3.3 5.2 100.0 7 420-470 17.4 82.6 3.1 4.6 2.7 7.0 100.0 8 470-525 20.2 79.8 6.7 4.1 4.0 5.5 100.0 9 525-615 24.7 75.4 6.1 6.0 5.7 6.9 100.0 10 615-775 26.0 74.0 9.7 5.9 5.0 5.4 100.0 11 775-950 34.1 65.9 13.3 9.5 4.5 6.8 100.0 12 Above 950 47.0 53.0 21.2 14.4 3.3 8.2 100.0 Total 19.1 80.9 5.5 4.4 3.4 5.8 100.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 6.4 93.6 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.8 100.0 2 225-255 10.7 89.3 0.5 2.6 4.3 3.3 100.0 3 255-300 8.8 91.2 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.9 100.0 4 300-340 9.3 90.7 2.8 1.1 2.9 2.6 100.0 5 340-380 12.5 87.5 4.3 2.8 2.8 2.7 100.0 6 380-420 11.7 88.3 3.6 2.6 3.4 2.1 100.0 7 420-470 15.9 84.1 5.8 3.9 2.9 3.3 100.0 8 470-525 15.9 84.1 6.4 3.9 2.6 3.0 100.0 9 525-615 19.1 80.9 6.8 5.2 3.5 3.6 100.0 10 615-775 23.3 76.7 9.7 7.0 4.1 2.5 100.0 11 775-950 28.0 72.0 11.0 9.7 4.0 3.3 100.0 12 Above 950 37.0 63.0 15.8 14.6 3.0 3.7 100.0 Total 15.7 84.3 5.6 4.1 3.1 2.9 100.0 90 Table A7c: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE class and type of latrine used Sl.No. MPCE Class Percentage of Percentage distribution of households households according to use of latrine having latrine No. Flush Septic tank Service Others Total facility Latrine Latrine Latrine Latrine Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 67.5 32.5 14.2 10.9 30.3 12.1 100.0 2 300-350 75.8 24.3 19.1 10.7 32.8 13.2 100.0 3 350-425 74.8 25.2 22.7 16.7 23.0 12.4 100.0 4 425-500 80.9 19.1 30.5 22.1 17.5 10.7 100.0 5 500-575 82.9 17.1 36.1 23.4 15.1 8.3 100.0 6 575-665 86.7 13.3 39.6 29.2 10.0 8.0 100.0 7 665-775 88.8 11.2 45.3 27.3 10.8 5.5 100.0 8 775-915 93.3 6.7 51.2 32.1 5.1 4.8 100.0 9 915-1120 90.6 9.4 53.7 25.8 8.6 2.6 100.0 10 1120-1500 96.5 3.5 69.9 21.2 3.0 2.5 100.0 11 1500-1925 99.0 1.1 78.1 19.5 0.4 0.9 100.0 12 Above 1925 97.2 2.9 82.1 14.4 0.6 0.1 100.0 Total 84.4 15.6 40.0 22.0 14.6 7.8 100.0 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 51.2 48.8 13.5 7.6 20.8 9.4 100.0 2 300-350 56.9 43.1 17.3 16.1 16.9 6.7 100.0 3 350-425 68.9 31.1 30.5 11.1 22.1 5.2 100.0 4 425-500 74.7 25.3 33.6 20.6 17.0 3.5 100.0 5 500-575 80.1 19.9 38.9 21.1 13.9 6.3 100.0 6 575-665 84.7 15.3 44.9 24.3 11.4 4.0 100.0 7 665-775 88.7 11.4 47.5 28.8 8.8 3.5 100.0 8 775-915 89.5 10.5 55.4 23.5 7.0 3.6 100.0 9 915-1120 95.9 4.1 52.6 35.0 4.9 3.5 100.0 10 1120-1500 94.3 5.7 56.4 34.2 1.9 1.8 100.0 11 1500-1925 96.9 3.2 68.8 24.3 3.3 0.5 100.0 12 Above 1925 98.8 1.2 78.3 19.5 0.2 0.8 100.0 Total 80.8 19.2 42.4 22.3 11.9 4.3 100.0 91 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A8a: Percentage distribution of households according to source of drinking water generally used Sl.No. Sector Percentage of Percentage distribution of households according to source of households drinking water generally used having source Tap Well Hand Tank/ River/ Other Total of drinking pump Pond/ Canal/ water in their Reservoir Lake premises (0.0) PSMS-I 1 Rural 57.4 10.8 14.9 73.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 100.0 2 Urban 79.6 52.8 3.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 Combined 61.6 18.9 12.6 67.6 0.1 0.2 0.6 100.0 PSMS-II 1 Rural 55.5 5.3 10.6 83.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 100.0 2 Urban 83.0 49.0 1.7 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 Combined 61.0 14.0 8.8 76.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 100.0 Table A8b: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE Class and source of drinking water generally used Sl.No. MPCE Class Percentage of Percentage distribution of households according to source of households drinking water generally used having source Tap Well Hand Tank/ River/ Other Total of drinking pump Pond/ Canal/ water in their Reservoir Lake premises (0.0) Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 50.7 4.1 21.1 74.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 2 225-255 55.3 6.4 22.6 70.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0 3 255-300 55.0 5.8 19.1 73.9 0.1 0.4 0.7 100.0 4 300-340 55.5 7.4 18.0 73.7 0.0 0.7 0.3 100.0 5 340-380 54.7 8.4 15.1 76.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 100.0 6 380-420 57.2 10.4 14.3 74.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 100.0 7 420-470 56.7 9.7 11.6 77.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 100.0 8 470-525 57.5 12.6 13.0 73.8 0.1 0.0 0.4 100.0 9 525-615 57.5 13.4 11.5 73.5 0.2 0.3 1.1 100.0 10 615-775 62.7 14.0 13.7 70.5 0.6 0.1 1.1 100.0 11 775-950 61.0 17.1 12.5 68.3 0.3 0.3 1.5 100.0 12 Above 950 70.0 28.8 9.5 59.2 0.3 0.0 2.2 100.0 Total 57.4 10.8 14.9 73.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 100.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 43.6 1.6 8.1 89.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 225-255 59.8 1.9 8.4 88.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 3 255-300 45.6 5.1 12.7 82.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 4 300-340 54.5 3.9 13.6 82.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 100.0 5 340-380 49.1 4.5 12.9 82.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 100.0 6 380-420 57.3 4.9 8.7 86.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 100.0 7 420-470 54.0 6.5 11.4 81.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 100.0 8 470-525 57.0 4.8 10.2 84.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 100.0 9 525-615 59.5 6.4 9.0 84.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 100.0 10 615-775 58.9 5.6 8.2 86.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 11 775-950 65.1 7.7 11.2 80.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 100.0 12 Above 950 69.1 11.3 9.7 78.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 Total 55.5 5.3 10.6 83.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 100.0 92 Table A8c: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE Class and source of drinking water generally used Sl.No. MPCE Class Percentage of Percentage distribution of households according to source of households drinking water generally used having source Tap Well Hand Tank/ River/ Other Total of drinking pump Pond/ Canal/ water in their Reservoir Lake premises (0.0) Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 56.9 39.5 6.7 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 2 300-350 68.7 34.9 1.6 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0 3 350-425 75.2 31.7 3.5 64.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 4 425-500 72.6 46.8 5.3 46.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 100.0 5 500-575 78.9 52.7 3.5 43.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 6 575-665 80.0 53.2 2.5 43.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 7 665-775 84.3 54.6 1.1 44.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 8 775-915 88.2 64.3 3.4 32.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 9 915-1120 84.8 63.0 1.8 34.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 100.0 10 1120-1500 95.0 69.5 0.5 29.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 11 1500-1925 98.4 87.7 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 12 Above 1925 97.3 90.1 0.4 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Total 79.6 52.8 3.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 61.4 21.5 5.0 73.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 100.0 2 300-350 69.8 33.5 1.8 64.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 3 350-425 77.4 31.3 2.7 65.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 100.0 4 425-500 77.4 38.4 1.3 59.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 5 500-575 82.8 43.8 1.4 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0 6 575-665 82.4 50.8 2.0 46.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 100.0 7 665-775 87.2 51.1 1.2 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 8 775-915 87.7 57.9 2.4 39.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 9 915-1120 93.0 68.3 0.2 31.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 10 1120-1500 94.7 64.5 1.2 34.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11 1500-1925 93.3 74.2 0.4 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 12 Above 1925 97.1 89.5 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 Total 83.0 49.0 1.7 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 93 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A9a: Percentage distribution of households according to availability of electricity Sl. No. Sector Percentage of Percentage distribution of households according to availability households of electricity (hour/day) consuming Less than 5 to 10 10 to 15 More than All electricity five hours hours hours 15 hours but less than 24 hours PSMS-I 1 Rural 28.14 11.56 45.07 32.99 10.38 100 2 Urban 83.59 1.54 12.23 39.17 47.06 100 Combined 38.85 7.4 31.43 35.56 25.61 100 PSMS-II 1 Rural 23.3 11.27 58.74 22.38 7.61 100 2 Urban 80.72 0.49 16.9 37.01 45.6 100 Combined 34.75 6.27 39.36 29.16 25.21 100 Table A9b: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE class and availability of electricity Sl. No. MPCE class Percentage of Percentage distribution of households according to availability households of electricity (hour/day) consuming Less than 5 to 10 10 to 15 More than All electricity five hours hours hours 15 hours but less than 24 hours Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 12.9 20.7 27.2 47.1 5.0 100.0 2 225-255 12.8 14.1 44.8 29.4 11.7 100.0 3 255-300 16.6 9.0 51.8 29.3 9.9 100.0 4 300-340 21.2 14.9 40.3 35.5 9.4 100.0 5 340-380 23.4 15.2 38.9 36.2 9.7 100.0 6 380-420 28.3 13.3 46.4 32.4 8.0 100.0 7 420-470 26.2 10.0 47.2 32.1 10.7 100.0 8 470-525 29.1 11.6 48.3 28.1 12.1 100.0 9 525-615 34.0 10.7 46.8 34.4 8.2 100.0 10 615-775 40.2 8.6 51.5 29.9 10.0 100.0 11 775-950 48.3 6.7 43.1 36.6 13.7 100.0 12 Above 950 56.9 14.7 34.7 34.8 15.8 100.0 Total 28.1 11.6 45.1 33.0 10.4 100.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 6.1 2.1 97.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 225-255 9.2 5.3 87.0 3.3 4.4 100.0 3 255-300 9.8 5.4 67.8 24.1 2.8 100.0 4 300-340 17.7 40.0 39.5 17.9 2.6 100.0 5 340-380 16.1 5.7 72.5 16.2 5.7 100.0 6 380-420 23.6 9.3 67.9 16.8 6.1 100.0 7 420-470 21.7 5.8 60.0 24.1 10.1 100.0 8 470-525 24.5 10.6 61.6 18.4 9.4 100.0 9 525-615 30.2 10.7 60.5 20.6 8.2 100.0 10 615-775 34.5 8.3 58.2 24.1 9.4 100.0 11 775-950 43.9 11.8 43.4 32.4 12.4 100.0 12 Above 950 46.8 6.7 50.0 37.8 5.5 100.0 Total 23.3 11.3 58.7 22.4 7.6 100.0 94 Table A9c: Percentage distribution of households according to MPCE class and availability of electricity Sl. No. MPCE class Percentage of Percentage distribution of households according to availability households of electricity (hour/day) consuming Less than 5 to 10 10 to 15 More than All electricity five hours hours hours 15 hours but less than 24 hours Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 56.5 1.3 19.4 49.7 29.5 100.0 2 300-350 70.7 3.5 20.0 47.7 28.8 100.0 3 350-425 75.2 1.1 18.9 46.6 33.5 100.0 4 425-500 81.9 1.4 12.7 43.6 42.4 100.0 5 500-575 82.7 3.4 12.6 46.7 37.3 100.0 6 575-665 88.0 2.3 12.8 36.1 48.8 100.0 7 665-775 88.8 1.5 13.7 34.4 50.5 100.0 8 775-915 91.8 0.5 7.1 38.2 54.2 100.0 9 915-1120 93.6 0.6 7.0 37.2 55.3 100.0 10 1120-1500 95.0 1.1 10.9 35.8 52.1 100.0 11 1500-1925 99.7 0.0 2.9 15.4 81.7 100.0 12 Above 1925 99.0 0.5 3.6 19.6 76.3 100.0 Total 83.6 1.5 12.2 39.2 47.1 100.0 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 43.5 0.0 30.4 48.0 21.6 100.0 2 300-350 59.9 0.6 24.9 48.4 26.1 100.0 3 350-425 66.9 0.6 27.8 40.6 31.0 100.0 4 425-500 70.9 0.4 22.9 45.2 31.5 100.0 5 500-575 80.2 0.0 16.3 50.3 33.4 100.0 6 575-665 85.8 0.2 18.1 40.8 41.0 100.0 7 665-775 90.0 0.3 15.8 32.0 51.9 100.0 8 775-915 92.6 1.0 11.4 38.9 48.7 100.0 9 915-1120 95.9 0.2 11.4 26.9 61.4 100.0 10 1120-1500 96.6 1.7 11.3 24.5 62.5 100.0 11 1500-1925 98.7 0.1 10.8 30.3 58.9 100.0 12 Above 1925 99.7 0.1 5.3 16.1 78.6 100.0 Total 80.7 0.5 16.9 37.0 45.6 100.0 95 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A10a: 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 Sl. No. 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 PHC/ CHC/ Govt. Non Govt. Non Govt. Others All Sub-centre hospital dispensary/ hospital nursing home PSMS-I 1 Rural 85.13 5.89 4.28 2.12 1.99 0.59 100 2 Urban 53.43 7.77 14.87 12.16 11.48 0.29 100 Combined 80.24 6.18 5.91 3.67 3.45 0.54 100 PSMS-II 1 Rural 87.45 0.79 1.09 3.43 6.7 0.53 100 2 Urban 61.3 0.45 3.79 6.79 27.34 0.33 100 Combined 83.55 0.74 1.49 3.93 9.78 0.5 100 Table A10b: 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 MPCE class Sl. No. MPCE class 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 PHC/ CHC/ Govt. Non Govt. Non Govt. Others All Sub-centre hospital dispensary/ hospital nursing home Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 90.3 4.5 1.6 1.8 0.6 1.2 100.0 2 225-255 86.3 7.9 2.6 1.0 1.5 0.6 100.0 3 255-300 86.8 6.5 4.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 100.0 4 300-340 87.4 4.4 4.1 2.5 1.5 0.1 100.0 5 340-380 87.2 6.7 2.1 1.8 1.7 0.5 100.0 6 380-420 86.6 4.5 5.3 1.4 2.2 0.0 100.0 7 420-470 84.2 6.2 5.6 2.1 0.9 1.1 100.0 8 470-525 84.2 5.4 5.6 2.0 1.8 1.0 100.0 9 525-615 81.6 6.5 4.2 3.4 3.5 0.8 100.0 10 615-775 79.9 5.9 6.4 3.4 4.0 0.3 100.0 11 775-950 72.2 8.0 7.3 5.7 6.8 0.0 100.0 12 Above 950 72.5 6.5 7.8 5.0 8.0 0.2 100.0 Total 85.1 5.9 4.3 2.1 2.0 0.6 100.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 90.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.0 1.9 100.0 2 225-255 95.0 0.2 0.4 3.3 1.1 0.0 100.0 3 255-300 89.8 0.2 0.6 3.2 3.4 2.8 100.0 4 300-340 95.2 0.0 0.7 1.3 2.8 0.0 100.0 5 340-380 90.5 0.4 0.5 2.8 5.7 0.1 100.0 6 380-420 89.0 1.6 0.9 2.8 5.8 0.0 100.0 7 420-470 80.6 0.0 2.4 6.2 10.1 0.7 100.0 8 470-525 88.6 2.3 1.2 2.7 5.2 0.0 100.0 9 525-615 79.1 0.9 1.0 2.5 16.1 0.4 100.0 10 615-775 71.3 2.8 1.9 7.4 16.0 0.7 100.0 11 775-950 70.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 26.2 0.0 100.0 12 Above 950 60.8 0.0 0.0 17.5 21.7 0.0 100.0 Total 87.5 0.8 1.1 3.4 6.7 0.5 100.0 96 Table A10c: 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 MPCE class Sl. No. MPCE class 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 PHC/ CHC/ Govt. Non Govt. Non Govt. Others All Sub-centre hospital dispensary/ hospital nursing home Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 70.1 5.6 14.2 2.7 7.5 0.0 100.0 2 300-350 73.9 3.8 11.6 2.1 6.9 1.8 100.0 3 350-425 64.9 6.8 10.8 8.1 9.2 0.2 100.0 4 425-500 59.5 11.0 12.3 9.1 7.9 0.2 100.0 5 500-575 51.1 8.6 17.7 14.3 8.3 0.0 100.0 6 575-665 48.1 6.3 14.8 16.6 14.0 0.2 100.0 7 665-775 36.6 11.7 18.8 15.7 17.2 0.0 100.0 8 775-915 31.5 7.2 16.1 22.2 23.0 0.0 100.0 9 915-1120 23.2 9.4 25.1 18.0 24.3 0.0 100.0 10 1120-1500 14.3 5.8 25.5 38.8 15.7 0.0 100.0 11 1500-1925 10.9 14.6 10.1 55.2 6.9 2.2 100.0 12 Above 1925 16.5 0.0 17.4 45.9 20.3 0.0 100.0 Total 53.4 7.8 14.9 12.2 11.5 0.3 100.0 Urban PSMS-II Sl. No. MPCE class 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 PHC/ CHC/ Govt. Non Govt. Non Govt. Others All Sub-centre hospital dispensary/ hospital nursing home 1 Below 300 83.5 0.0 0.0 6.8 9.7 0.0 100.0 2 300-350 89.6 1.6 0.0 7.4 1.4 0.0 100.0 3 350-425 75.7 0.0 13.2 5.2 5.9 0.0 100.0 4 425-500 73.5 0.4 0.0 4.8 21.3 0.0 100.0 5 500-575 77.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 21.4 0.0 100.0 6 575-665 35.9 0.3 0.0 17.2 46.5 0.0 100.0 7 665-775 40.7 0.0 9.9 7.0 42.5 0.0 100.0 8 775-915 24.1 2.7 0.0 1.5 71.7 0.0 100.0 9 915-1120 9.7 0.0 9.5 9.0 66.3 5.6 100.0 10 1120-1500 20.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 72.5 0.0 100.0 11 1500-1925 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 71.6 0.0 100.0 12 Above 1925 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 61.3 0.5 3.8 6.8 27.3 0.3 100.0 97 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A11a: Percentage of children of age group 0-5 years attending Anganvadi/Balvadi center and their percentage distribution according to level of services received Sl. No. Sector Percentage of children Percentage Distribution of children according to of age 0-5 years attending days complementary food received Anganvadi/ Balvadi centre Almost Only few days Never Total all days PSMS-I 1 Rural 2.07 2.3 1.5 96.2 100.0 2 Urban 0.51 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Combined 1.83 2.2 1.4 96.4 100.0 PSMS-II 1 Rural 9.98 77.21 17.70 5.09 100.00 2 Urban 5.92 78.59 21.23 0.19 100.00 Combined 9.76 77.26 17.82 4.92 100.00 Table A11b: 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 MPCE Class Sl. No. MPCE Percentage of children Percentage Distribution of children according to Class of age 0-5 years attending days complementary food received Anganvadi/ Balvadi centre Almost Only few days Never Total all days Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 3.43 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 225-255 0.95 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 255-300 1.31 9.4 0.0 90.6 100.0 4 300-340 2.52 0.0 4.2 95.9 100.0 5 340-380 1.07 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6 380-420 2.68 4.6 0.0 95.4 100.0 7 420-470 2.9 5.0 0.0 95.0 100.0 8 470-525 2.25 0.9 0.0 99.1 100.0 9 525-615 1.71 0.0 12.8 87.2 100.0 10 615-775 2.14 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 11 775-950 2.22 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 12 Above 950 0.93 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Total 2.07 2.3 1.5 96.2 100.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 13.3 65.8 13.1 21.1 100 2 225-255 6.2 60.2 39.8 0.0 100 3 255-300 12.8 82.5 15.9 1.6 100 4 300-340 12.5 78.9 19.6 1.6 100 5 340-380 8.8 69.3 24.8 5.9 100 6 380-420 11.8 76.2 18.5 5.2 100 7 420-470 8.1 84.4 13.5 2.1 100 8 470-525 8.9 82.1 4.4 13.5 100 9 525-615 8.1 71.0 25.3 3.7 100 10 615-775 7.2 87.7 12.3 0.0 100 11 775-950 10.9 64.3 18.0 17.7 100 12 Above 950 3.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 Total 10.0 77.2 17.7 5.1 100 98 Table A11c: 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 MPCE Class Sl. No. MPCE Percentage of children Percentage Distribution of children according to Class of age 0-5 years attending days complementary food received Anganvadi/ Balvadi centre Almost Only few days Never Total all days Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 0.34 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 2 300-350 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3 350-425 0.96 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 4 425-500 0.59 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 5 500-575 1.57 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 6 575-665 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 665-775 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 775-915 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 915-1120 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 1120-1500 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 1500-1925 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 Above 1925 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.51 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 0.91 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 2 300-350 15.23 82.6 17.4 0.0 100 3 350-425 4.7 56.9 43.1 0.0 100 4 425-500 11.18 99.4 0.0 0.6 100 5 500-575 4.23 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 6 575-665 4.39 0.0 100.0 0.0 100 7 665-775 1.59 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 8 775-915 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 9 915-1120 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 10 1120-1500 1.67 100.0 0.0 0.0 100 11 1500-1925 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 12 Above 1925 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Total 5.92 78.6 21.2 0.2 100 99 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A12a: Percentage of households having knowledge of social rights and health programmes Sl. No. Sector Immunisation Vaccination Use of Use of Oral Use of AIDS of Children of Pregnant Iodinised Dehydration Contraceptive Women Salt Therapy PSMS-I 1 Rural 89.8 84.7 55.2 25.7 65.3 N/A 2 Urban 95.0 91.5 78.7 48.1 78.5 N/A Combined 90.8 86.0 59.8 30.0 67.9 N/A PSMS-II 1 Rural 64.0 76.6 48.3 33.2 70.5 44.9 2 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 Table A12b: Percentage of households having knowledge of social rights and health programmes according to MPCE Class Sl. No. MPCE Class Immunisation Vaccination Use of Use of Oral Use of Knowledge of Children of Pregnant Iodinised Dehydration Contra- of AIDS Women Salt Therapy ceptive Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 90.4 82.6 40.3 20.9 55.9 N/A 2 225-255 85.3 78.5 39.1 20.2 53.4 N/A 3 255-300 88.3 81.6 40.1 18.8 56.3 N/A 4 300-340 90.2 84.0 45.4 18.8 62.4 N/A 5 340-380 88.6 85.0 53.3 22.0 63.1 N/A 6 380-420 90.5 84.9 56.5 22.9 64.5 N/A 7 420-470 89.2 84.2 57.0 24.4 63.3 N/A 8 470-525 91.1 85.8 57.9 28.1 71.6 N/A 9 525-615 89.3 85.4 61.8 27.9 68.4 N/A 10 615-775 91.5 88.4 69.9 35.8 74.1 N/A 11 775-950 91.8 88.5 69.9 39.0 74.8 N/A 12 Above 950 92.1 86.4 72.9 40.7 77.5 N/A Total 89.8 84.7 55.2 25.7 65.3 N/A Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 38.7 50.5 23.8 16.6 57.8 24.0 2 225-255 51.2 66.7 38.3 23.4 67.7 36.9 3 255-300 60.3 75.0 39.2 23.9 64.2 36.3 4 300-340 62.6 77.6 43.3 26.5 68.4 40.9 5 340-380 62.3 75.3 45.8 27.6 68.2 37.7 6 380-420 65.7 79.9 48.9 33.7 67.9 42.3 7 420-470 65.8 77.9 47.2 30.7 70.3 44.2 8 470-525 64.0 77.8 48.3 33.1 71.7 45.8 9 525-615 66.2 77.8 54.4 39.2 73.3 49.9 10 615-775 68.6 78.6 56.4 42.6 77.0 54.8 11 775-950 72.3 80.2 62.6 49.1 81.5 62.2 12 Above 950 77.8 84.4 69.0 58.3 79.0 68.0 Total 64.0 76.6 48.3 33.2 70.5 44.9 100 Table A12c: Percentage of households having knowledge of social rights and health programmes according to MPCE Class Sl. No. MPCE Class Immunisation Vaccination Use of Use of Oral Use of Knowledge of Children of Pregnant Iodinised Dehydration Contra- of AIDS Women Salt Therapy ceptive Urban PSMS-I 1 0-300 91.5 86.2 46.8 21.1 53.3 N/A 2 300-350 95.5 92.4 66.1 27.8 67.9 N/A 3 350-425 92.5 88.7 66.3 30.8 68.4 N/A 4 425-500 93.5 90.9 75.4 40.0 76.2 N/A 5 500-575 95.4 89.9 82.3 45.8 81.8 N/A 6 575-665 94.2 90.5 81.1 46.6 79.8 N/A 7 665-775 94.5 90.1 83.5 56.6 82.3 N/A 8 775-915 96.2 94.7 89.4 59.5 86.3 N/A 9 915-1120 97.8 95.3 90.8 63.2 86.3 N/A 10 1120-1500 96.8 94.9 92.1 71.0 91.1 N/A 11 1500-1925 99.7 96.8 99.2 89.7 93.9 N/A 12 1925+ 100.0 98.8 96.7 76.6 99.4 N/A Total 95.0 91.5 78.7 48.1 78.5 N/A Urban PSMS-II 1 0-300 66.4 67.4 46.7 32.2 57.8 41.5 2 300-350 70.3 77.2 56.3 34.7 70.9 51.4 3 350-425 73.9 80.0 59.7 39.8 68.9 47.7 4 425-500 76.2 84.8 63.6 42.1 74.1 57.8 5 500-575 80.9 86.9 74.6 54.5 77.5 64.7 6 575-665 87.1 92.5 79.7 69.3 86.3 77.5 7 665-775 89.4 92.5 86.6 71.2 89.7 79.6 8 775-915 91.2 93.9 91.3 83.0 92.6 85.7 9 915-1120 94.0 96.5 92.8 87.9 96.0 91.7 10 1120-1500 95.8 96.4 95.1 89.5 96.0 93.5 11 1500-1925 96.3 97.3 95.7 91.5 94.0 95.3 12 1925+ 97.9 99.9 98.0 94.9 100.0 97.5 Total 83.8 88.2 76.7 62.8 82.4 71.1 101 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh and World Bank Table A13a: 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 Sl. No. Sector Percentage of households Percentage distribution of households not getting drinking water according to duration of availability of from drinking water water from drinking water source in the year source throughout upto 6 6-9 months 9-11 months All the year months PSMS-I 1 Rural 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 Urban 0.2 85.2 14.8 0.0 100.0 Combined 0.0 85.2 14.8 0.0 100.0 PSMS-II 1 Rural 1.5 19.6 25.2 55.3 100.0 2 Urban 2.4 13.5 23.4 63.0 100.0 Combined 1.7 17.9 24.7 57.5 100.0 Table A13b: 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 MPCE class Sl. No. MPCE Class Percentage of households Percentage distribution of households not getting drinking water according to duration of availability of from drinking water water from drinking water source in the year source throughout upto 6 6-9 months 9-11 months All the year months Rural PSMS-I 1 Below 225 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 225-255 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 255-300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 300-340 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 340-380 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 380-420 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 420-470 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 470-525 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 525-615 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 615-775 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 775-950 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 Above 950 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rural PSMS-II 1 Below 225 0.9 65.8 4.4 29.9 100.0 2 225-255 1.3 0.0 75.0 25.0 100.0 3 255-300 1.3 14.2 46.6 39.3 100.0 4 300-340 1.4 13.4 17.0 69.6 100.0 5 340-380 1.6 16.9 7.2 75.9 100.0 6 380-420 1.0 27.1 2.8 70.2 100.0 7 420-470 1.7 32.2 23.3 44.4 100.0 8 470-525 0.8 9.6 16.8 73.6 100.0 9 525-615 2.1 31.9 12.4 55.6 100.0 10 615-775 2.2 17.8 32.3 49.9 100.0 11 775-950 2.2 3.0 69.9 27.0 100.0 12 Above 950 2.0 0.0 25.2 74.8 100.0 Total 1.5 19.6 25.2 55.3 100.0 102 Table A13c: 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 MPCE class Sl. No. MPCE Class Percentage of households Percentage distribution of households not getting drinking water according to duration of availability of from drinking water water from drinking water source in the year source throughout upto 6 6-9 months 9-11 months All the year months Urban PSMS-I 1 Below 300 0.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2 300-350 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 350-425 0.6 91.9 8.1 0.0 100.0 4 425-500 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 5 500-575 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 575-665 0.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 7 665-775 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 775-915 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 915-1120 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 1120-1500 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11 1500-1925 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 Above 1925 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.2 85.2 14.8 0.0 100.0 Urban PSMS-II 1 Below 300 0.8 35.3 16.6 48.1 100.0 2 300-350 2.9 0.0 28.4 71.6 100.0 3 350-425 3.7 13.0 28.9 58.1 100.0 4 425-500 3.1 15.3 27.9 56.8 100.0 5 500-575 2.1 0.0 11.7 88.3 100.0 6 575-665 1.8 7.0 0.2 92.8 100.0 7 665-775 2.3 0.0 90.1 9.9 100.0 8 775-915 2.1 54.7 4.7 40.6 100.0 9 915-1120 1.4 52.7 15.3 32.0 100.0 10 1120-1500 2.0 7.0 8.4 84.6 100.0 11 1500-1925 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 12 Above 1925 5.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Total 2.4 13.5 23.4 63.0 100.0 103 Annex - III NSS 58th Round SCHEDULE 99: POVERTY MODULE FOR UTTAR PRADESH HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE (2002- 2003) SECTOR SECOND STAGE STRATUM No. SAMPLE UNIT No. SAMPLE HOUSEHOLD No. SEGMENT HOUSEHOLD SIZE 104 105 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 HOUSEHOLD ROSTER......................................................................................................................................................................................................106 SECTION 2 EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................107 PART A ­ PAST ENROLLMENT, AGE GROUP: 5-18 YEARS .................................................................................................................................107 PART B ­ CURRENT ENROLLMENT, AGE-GROUP: 5-18 YEARS .......................................................................................................................108 PART B ­ CURRENT ENROLLMENT, AGE-GROUP: 5-18 YEARS (CONT.) ....................................................................................................109 SECTION 3 HEALTH..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................110 SECTION 4 MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH ...............................................................................................................................................................................111 FOR WOMEN 15-49 YEARS.............................................................................................................................................................................................111 FOR CHILDREN 0-6 YEARS .............................................................................................................................................................................................111 SECTION 5 ACTIVITIES--ALL PERSONS 10 YEARS AND OLDER.............................................................................................................................................112 SECTION 5 ACTIVITIES--ALL PERSONS 10 YEARS AND OLDER (CONT.) ..........................................................................................................................113 SECTION 6 HOUSING AND AMENITIES............................................................................................................................................................................................114 SECTION 7 VULNERABILITY AND ASSETS OWNERSHIP............................................................................................................................................................115 SECTION 8 GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES............................................................................................................................................................116 SECTION 8 GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (CONT.) .........................................................................................................................................117 SECTION 9 IRRIGATION AND EXTENSION SERVICES (FOR RURAL HOUSEHOLDS ONLY) .......................................................................................118 SECTION 10 ACCESS TO FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................................................................................................119 INVESTIGATOR NAME: : ______________________________________________________________________ DISTRICT : ______________________________________________________________________ DATE OF INTERVIEW (dd/mm/yyyy): : _____________________ / ______________________ / ________________________ TIME OF INTERVIEW : START ___________________________ FINISH ______________________________ SIGNATURE : ______________________________________________________________________ SCRUTINY STAFF NAME : ______________________________________________________________________ DISTRICT : ______________________________________________________________________ DATE OF INSPECTION (dd/mm/yyyy) : ________ /______/ _______ DATE OF SCRUTINY: ______/ ________ /________ SIGNATURE : _________________________ SIGNATURE: ________________________________ SECTION 1: HOUSEHOLD ROSTER AGE-GROUP 7 YEARS AND ABOVE I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 D COPY THE AGE COPY THE SEX COPY THE NAMES FROM Can ..[NAME].. read What is the highest level of education that ..[NAME].. has FROM SCHEDULE FROM SCHEDULE SCHEDULE 1.0 [BLOCK 4, and write? completed? C 1.0 [BLOCK 4, 1.0 [BLOCK 4, COLUMN No. 2 ] O COLUMN No. 5] COLUMN No. 4] YES, CAN NO CLASS PASSED ..98 PROFESSIONAL D READ ONLY ....... 1 NEVER ATTENDED..99 CERTIFICATE............................13 E CLASS 1 ........................01 PROFESSIONAL AGE IN YEARS MALE.................... 1 YES, CAN BOTH CLASS 2 ........................02 DIPLOMA ...................................14 FEMALE ............... 2 READ AND CLASS 3 ........................03 NON PROFESSIONAL WRITE ................... 2 CLASS 4 ........................04 GRADUATE...............................15 CLASS 5 ........................05 PROFESSIONAL NO.......................... 3 CLASS 6 ........................06 GRADUATE...............................16 CLASS 7 ........................07 NON PROFESSIONAL CLASS 8 ........................08 POST-GRADUATE ..................17 CLASS 9 ........................09 PROFESSIONAL CLASS 10 ......................10 POST-GRADUATE ..................18 CLASS 11 ......................11 OTHER ........................................19 CLASS 12 ......................12 YRS SEX NAME OF PERSON 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 106 11 12 107 SECTION 2: EDUCATION PART A ­ PAST ENROLLMENT, AGE GROUP: 5-18 YEARS I 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 D Has ..[NAME].. Is ..[NAME].. Has ..[NAME].. What are the two main reasons why ..[NAME].. What type of school When did ..[NAME].. What are the two main reasons why ever attended an currently ever attended is not currently attending school? did ..[NAME].. last drop out of the school? ..[NAME].. never attended school? C Anganwadi attending school? school? attend? TOO YOUNG...................................0 centre? ILL ................................................................................ 1 LESS THAN 1 SCHOOL IS TOO FAR ...................1 O GOT/GETTING MARRIED ................................... 2 GOVERNMENT .. 1 YEAR AGO ............ 1 CANNOT AFFORD IT ...................2 D SCHOOL IS TOO FAR .......................................... 3 PRIVATE ................ 2 HAVE TO LOOK AFTER E CANNOT AFFORD IT .......................................... 4 ALTERNATIVE >1 to <= 2 YRS YOUNGER SIBLINGS ......................3 YES .................. 1 HAVE TO LOOK AFTER SCHOOL............... 3 AGO ......................... 2 HAVE TO WORK AT HOME ....4 YOUNGER SIBLINGS ............................................. 5 EDUCATION HAVE TO WORK ON NO.................. 2 YES ................. 1 YES ...................... 1 HAVE TO WORK AT HOME .............................. 6 GUARANTEE >2 to <= 3 YRS OWN FARM / LIVESTOCK CARE ( PART B, HAVE TO WORK ON OWN FARM / CENTER ................ 4 AGO ......................... 3 / FAM. ENTREPRISE .........................5 2.8) NO...................... 2 LIVESTOCK CARE / HH ENTERPRISE .............. 7 RELIGIOUS NON- HAVE TO WORK FOR WAGE/ ( 2.7) HAVE TO WORK FOR WAGE/SALARY ....... 8 FORMAL ............... 5 MORE THAN SALARY ...............................................6 NO................. 2 CHILD NOT INTERESTED................................... 9 3 YEARS AGO ...... 4 EDUCATION NOT CONSIDERED FAILED IN EXAMS ............................................... 10 USEFUL ................................................7 TEACHER BEHAVIOUR NOT GOOD .......... 11 ADMISSION PROCEDURES EDUCATION NOT USEFUL............................. 12 CUMBERSOME..................................8 COMPLETED DESIRED LEVEL ......................... 13 DISABILITY.........................................9 AWAITING ADMISSION TO NEXT LEVEL 14 OTHER ............................................. 10 OTHER .................................................................... 15 NEXT CHILD NEXT CHILD FIRST SECOND FIRST SECOND 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 SECTION 2: EDUCATION PART B ­ CURRENT ENROLLMENT, AGE-GROUP: 5-18 YEARS I 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 D What class is ..[NAME].. currently What type of school is In the 7 days, for how In the 7 days, for how Did ..[NAME].. receive What is the amount of attending? ..[NAME].. currently many days was many days did any private tutoring / the scholarship C attending? ..[NAME]'s.. class open? ..[NAME].. actually coaching in the last 12 ..[NAME].. received O NURSERY .....00 PROFESSIONAL attend class? months? during the past 12 D CLASS 1.........01 CERTIFICATE .............13 GOVERNMENT ..... ..1 IF CLOSED FOR A months? E CLASS 2.........02 PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE ..................... 2 LONG TIME LIKE REFER TO LAST Yes.............1 CLASS 3.........03 DIPLOMA ....................14 ALTERNATIVE SUMMER / WINTER WEEK AS IN CLASS 4.........04 NON PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLING HOLIDAYS, REFER TO QUESTION 2.10 No..............2 IF NONE RECEIVED, CLASS 5.........05 GRADUATE ................15 CENTERS ................... 3 LAST WEEK SCHOOL WRITE 0.00 CLASS 6.........06 PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION WAS OPEN CLASS 7.........07 GRADUATE ................16 GUARANTEE CLASS 8.........08 NON PROFESSIONAL CENTER ..................... 4 CLASS 9.........09 POST-GRADUATE ...17 RELIGIOUS NON- CLASS 10 ......10 PROFESSIONAL FORMAL .................... 5 CLASS 11 ......11 POST-GRADUATE ...18 CLASS 12 ......12 OTHER .........................19 RUPEES (0.00) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 108 11 12 109 SECTION 2: EDUCATION (PART B CONTD.) CURRENT ENROLLMENT, AGE-GROUP: 5-18 YEARS I 2.14 2.15 2.16 D How much grain ration did ..[NAME].. Has ..[NAME].. How much did your household spend during the past 12 months on the ..[NAME]'s.. .schooling? receive during the past 30 days? received free text- C books in this academic O IF SCHOOL CLOSED FOR SUMMER year? D HOLIDAYS, REFER TO THE LAST E MONTH WHEN IT WAS OPEN IF NONE RECEIVED YES 1 WRITE 0.00 NO 2 KG (0.00) IN RUPEES (0.00) WHEAT RICE A. B. C. D. E. F. School, Uniforms Text- books / Private Others TOTAL admission and Stationery tuitoring / examination fees coaching 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 SECTION 3: HEALTH I 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 D Has ..[NAME].. Did ..[NAME].. What were the Why ..[NAME].. did not visit a doctor, What is the reason why Which of the following were consulted INTERVIEWER:ASK visited a doctor,suffer from any symptoms of this quack or any health facility? ..[NAME].. visited this for this illness / disability (in the order ONLY FOR quack, chemist symptoms of illness/disability? PROBLEM WAS NOT doctor or health facility? in which they were consulted)? MEMBERS 5 YEARS C or any health illness / disability SERIOUS........................................................ 1 OLD AND ABOVE: O facility in the / injury in the last FEVER ...................... 1 USED HOME REMEDY ............................. 2 FEVER................................ 1 FAITH HEALER/ RELIG. PERSON......1 For how many days D last 15 days? 15 days (for LOOSE MOTIONS/ TREATMENT COST TOO MUCH....... 3 LOOSE MOTIONS / JHOLACHAP DOCTOR / QUACK...2 was ..[NAME].. unable E example fever, DIARRHEA ............ 2 DISTANCE IS TOO LONG ..................... 4 DIARRHEA...................... 2 ISM DOCTORS (Ayurveda, Unani, etc.) 3 to carry out his/her YES 1 vomiting or pain)? VOMITING ............ 3 AFRAID TO FIND HAVING A VOMITING...................... 3 CHEMIST.................................................. 4 usual activities due to ( 3.5) DIZZINESS ............ 4 SERIOUS CASE ............................................ 5 DIZZINESS.......................4 ANGANWADI WORKER.................. 5 illness(es), injury(ies) YES 1 COUGH ................. 5 AFRAID TO TAKE COUGH........................... 5 ANM / MALE HEALTH WORKER..... 6 or symptoms in the STOMACH PAIN . 6 FOLLOW-UP ACTION ............................ 6 STOMACH PAIN........... 6 GOVERNMENT DOCTOR - PHC.....7 last 15 days? NO 2 NO 2 INJURY ................... 7 NOBODY AT HOME PAID INJURY..............................7 GOVT. DOCTOR - CHC / DISTRICT OTHERS ANY ATTENTION..................................... 7 DELIVERY.........................8 HOSPITAL................................................ 8 ( NEXT (SPECIFY) ............... 8 NO ONE WAS THERE TO PRE/POST NATAL GOVT. DOCTOR ELSEWHERE.........9 PERSON) ACCOMPANY ............................................ 8 CARE................................. 9 PRIVATE ALLOPATHIC DOCTOR.10 WRITE ZERO IF IT IS A HASSLE TO GO OUTSIDE ........ 9 MEDICAL EXAMINA- CHARITABLE / NGO DOCTOR.....11 NONE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO GO ......10 TION............................... 10 MOBILE DISPENSARY.........................12 PREVIOUS INEFFECTIVE IMMUNIZATION.........11 OTHER....................................................13 EXPERIENCES ...........................................11 FAMILY PLANNING ALREADY FOLLOWING A SERVICES....................... 12 IF ONLY ONE WAS CONSULTED TREATMENT .............................................12 OTHERS (SPECIFY)...13 FILL IN FIRST COLUMN ONLY OTHERS ................................................... 132 3.7 FIRST SECOND DAYS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 110 11 12 111 SECTION 4: MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH FOR WOMEN 15-49 YEARS FOR CHILDREN 0-6 YEARS FIRST COPY 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Does an Anganwadi exist within this village / Block? THE ID CODE Is / has ever Has.. [NAME].. Where did Who conducted the FROM ROS- been ..[NAME].. delivered in the ..[NAME].. delivery? TER FOR married? last 12 months? deliver? YES 1 ALLWOMEN DOCTOR ............ 1 NO 2 ( NEXT SECTION) IN THE AGE YES 1 YES ................. 1 AT HOME ........ 1 NURSE/ANM....... 2 DON'T KNOW 3 ( NEXT SECTION) GROUP 15-49 NO 2 NO................. 2 SUBCENTRE ... 2 DAI / TRADI- YEARS, AND PHC.....................3 TIONAL FIRST COPY THE 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 THEN ASK ( NEXT ( NEXT CHC/DISTRICT BIRTH ID CODE FROM Is ..[NAME].. In the last 30 In the last 30 days In the last 30 days, QUESTIONS WOMAN) WOMAN) GOVT. HOSPI- ATTENDANT ..... 3 ROSTER FOR attending an days, for how for how many days for how many days 4.1 - 4.4 TAL .................... 4 FRIEND/ ALL CHILDREN Anganwadi many days was did ..[NAME].. did ..[NAME].. PRIVATE RELATIVE ............. 4 AGED 0-6 YEARS, center? the Anganwadi actually attend the receive food HOSPITAL ....... 5 NONE ................... 5 AND THEN center open? Anganwadi center? supplements? OTHER ............. 6 ASK QUESTIONS YES 1 4.6 - 4.9 NO 2 ( NEXT NEXT WOMAN CHILD) NEXT CHILD ID CODE ID CODE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF DAYS DAYS DAYS SECTION 5 : ACTIVITIES - ALL PERSONS 10 YEARS AND OLDER A I 5.1 List all ..[NAME]'s.. activities over the past 5.2 5.3 5.4 C D 12 months? In the last 12 In the last 12 CASUAL LABOR AND SALARIED JOB: months for how months for how T OWN FARM ACTIVITIES ................................... 1 many months did many days per How much wages/salary did ..[NAME].. typically receive in the past 12 month? I C CASUAL LABOUR FARM ................................... 2 ..[NAME].. carry months did V O CASUAL LABOUR NON-FARM ....................... 3 out this activity? ..[NAME].. typically LONG-TERM AGRI. EMPLOYEE ....................... 4 I D carry out this SALARIED EMPLOYMENT ................................. 5 activity? T E PERSONAL (JAJMANI) SERVICES ..................... 6 TIME UNIT Y PETTY BUSINESS/TRADE/ HOURLY .......... 1 MANUFACTURING............ ........................... 7 DAILY ............... 2 S MAJOR BUSINESS/TRADE/ WEEKLY .......... 3 E MANUFACTURING........... ............................. 8 MONTHLY ...... 4 R COLLECTION / FORAGING ............................. 9 YEARLY ............ 5 I CHARITY/ALMS ................................................... 10 UNEMPLOYED ................................ 11( NEXT) A STUDENT .......................................... 12( NEXT) L DOMESTIC DUTIES ....................... 13( NEXT) RETIRED/TOO OLD ...................... 14( NEXT) DISABLED/HANDICAPPED ......... 15( NEXT) SICK .................................................... 16( NEXT) NOT WORKING.............................. 17( NEXT) CASH VALUE OF IN KIND NUMBER OF MEALS DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CODE MONTHS DAYS/MONTH Rs. (0.00) Time Unit Rs. (0.00) Time Unit # Time Unit A B C D E F G H I J K 112 L M 113 SECTION 5 : ACTIVITIES - ALL PERSONS 10 YEARS AND OLDER A I 5.1 List all ..[NAME]'s.. activities over the past 5.2 5.3 5.4 C D 12 months? In the last 12 In the last 12 CASUAL LABOR AND SALARIED JOB: months for how months for how T OWN FARM ACTIVITIES ................................... 1 many months did many days per How much wages/salary did ..[NAME].. typically receive in the past 12 month? I C CASUAL LABOUR FARM ................................... 2 ..[NAME].. carry months did V O CASUAL LABOUR NON-FARM ....................... 3 out this activity? ..[NAME].. typically LONG-TERM AGRI. EMPLOYEE ....................... 4 I D carry out this SALARIED EMPLOYMENT ................................. 5 activity? T E PERSONAL (JAJMANI) SERVICES ..................... 6 TIME UNIT Y PETTY BUSINESS/TRADE/ HOURLY .......... 1 MANUFACTURING............ ........................... 7 DAILY ............... 2 S MAJOR BUSINESS/TRADE/ WEEKLY .......... 3 E MANUFACTURING........... ............................. 8 MONTHLY ...... 4 R COLLECTION / FORAGING ............................. 9 YEARLY ............ 5 I CHARITY/ALMS ................................................... 10 UNEMPLOYED ................................ 11( NEXT) A STUDENT .......................................... 12( NEXT) L DOMESTIC DUTIES ....................... 13( NEXT) RETIRED/TOO OLD ...................... 14( NEXT) DISABLED/HANDICAPPED ......... 15( NEXT) SICK .................................................... 16( NEXT) NOT WORKING...............................17( NEXT) CASH VALUE OF IN KIND NUMBER OF MEALS DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CODE MONTHS DAYS/MONTH Rs. (0.00) Time Unit Rs. (0.00) Time Unit # Time Unit N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z SECTION 6: HOUSING AND AMENITIES 1. What type of rights do you have to the land on which you live? 7. How far is this source from your dwelling? OWNED .......................................................... 1 WITHIN PREMISES ....................................... 1 PATTA .............................................................. 2 LESS THAN 100 MT ..................................... 2 RENTED .......................................................... 3 100 TO 500 MTS ........................................... 3 PROVIDED FREE ........................................... 4 500 MTS TO 1 KM ........................................ 4 ENCROACHED ............................................. 5 MORE THAN 1 KM ...................................... 5 OTHER ............................................................. 6 2. Type of structure of dwelling? ................................ Roof 8. Is water available from this source all 12 months of the year? KATCHA ......................................................... 1 YES ..................................................................... 1 ( 10) PUCCA, THROUGH WEAKER NO ..................................................................... 2 SECTOR HOUSING SCHEMES................. 2 PUCCA ............................................................. 3 Walls 9. How many months of the year is water available from this source? NO STRUCTURE .......................................... 4 MONTHS PER YEAR 3. INTERVIEWER: IS THE DWELLING PART OF A SLUM AREA (OBSERVE)? YES ..................................................................... 1 10. Do you treat water before drinking it? NO ..................................................................... 2 YES, BOIL ......................................................... 1 4. What type of latrine do you use in your household premises? YES, FILTER ..................................................... 2 NO LATRINE ................................................. 1 NO ..................................................................... 3 FLUSH SYSTEM .............................................. 2 SEPTIC TANK ................................................ 3 11. Is there any source of public drinking water in this community that SERVICE LATRINE ........................................ 4 your household is not permitted to use? PIT LATRINE .................................................. 5 YES ..................................................................... 1 OTHER LATRINE (SPECIFY ) .................... 6 NO ..................................................................... 2 5. What type of sanitation system is your dwelling connected to? THERE IS NOT PUBLIC SOURCE ........... 3 COVERED DRAINS ...................................... 1 OPEN DRAINS............................................... 2 12. Do you have electricity connection in your house? SOAK PIT ........................................................ 3 YES ..................................................................... 1 OTHER ............................................................. 4 NO ..................................................................... 2( NEXT SECTION) NO SYSTEM .................................................... 5 6. Where does your drinking water generally come from? 13. During the last 7 days, how many hours per day of electricity was TAP .................................................................... 1 available? PUBLIC WELL ................................................ 2 HRS / DAYS PRIVATE WELL .............................................. 3 HANDPUMP MARK II.................................. 4 OTHER HANDPUMP ................................... 5 14. How much did you pay/is payable for electricity consumed in the TANK / POND / RESERVOIR .................... 6 last two months? RIVER / CANAL / LAKE............................... 7 RUPEES (0.00) 114 WATER SELLER ............................................. 8 OTHER ............................................................. 9 115 SECTION 7: VULNERABILITY AND ASSETS OWNERSHIP 1. How many ...[ASSET]... do you own? 2. In the past two years, have you found it necessary to sell or mortgage some WRITE ZERO IF NONE of your assets to meet emergency expenses, or to repay a loan? YES, FOR ILLNESS ....................................................1 YES, FOR MARRIAGE / DEATH ...........................2 ASSET NUMBER YES, FOR OTHER EMERGENCY .........................3 YES, TO REPAY LOAN ...........................................4 1 Cows / Buffaloes / Bullocks (including draught animals) NO ...............................................................................5 ( 4) 2 Goats / Sheep 3. What did you have to sell or mortgage? 3 Chickens JEWELRY .....................................................................1 4 Other animals (donkeys, mules, horses, camels) HOUSEHOLD UTENCILS / FURNITURE ..........2 5 Handpump LIVESTOCK ................................................................3 PRODUCTIVE ASSETS (TOOLS, 6 Diesel pumpset IMPLEMENTS, RICKSHAW, ETC.).......................4 7 Storage Bin for agriculture product LAND / HOUSE.........................................................5 OTHER .........................................................................6 8 Tractor 9 Other agricultural implements (plough, thresher, etc.) 4. Which of the following statements best characterizes the financial position of your household (for the most recent 30 days)? 10 Tubewell (other than handpump) 11 Fan Very bad, some days we did not eat at all...........1 Bad, we eat 2 meals or less for 12 Kerosene stove most of the time ........................................................2 Average, we manage to eat 2 meals a day 13 Radio all the time ...................................................................3 14 TV (Black and White) Good, we have some savings..................................4 Very good, we have considerable savings ...........5 15 TV (Color) 16 Refrigerator 17 Cycle 18 Sewing machine 19 LPG stove 20 Motor cycle / scooter SECTION 8: GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES 1. Do you have a ration shop card? 7. How much in total did you borrow from this source? YES, APL CARD (YELLOW) ......................... 1 WRITE TOTAL AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED RUPEES (0.00) YES, BPL CARD (WHITE) .............................. 2 YES, ANNAPURNA (GREEN ) ..................... 3 8. In the past 12 months, did you borrow (cash or in-kind) from any other source? YES, ANTYODAYA (RED ) ........................... 4 YES ............................................................... 1 NO ........................................................................ 5 ( 6) NO ............................................................... 2 ( 10) LIST OF ITEMS 2. 3. 4. 9. Whom did you borrow from? Was ..[ITEM].. How much ..[ITEM].. did How much did EMPLOYER / LANDLORD ................... 1 FIRST available over the last you buy over the last 30 you pay in TRADER / MONEY LENDER ............... 2 30 days in your days? total? RELATIVE (KIN OR IN-LAWS) ........... 3 nearest PDS shop? WRITE 0.00 CREDIT GROUPS ................................... 4 YES ........................... 1 WRITE 0.00 IF IF NOTHING INSTITUTIONAL SOURCES NO........................... 2 NOTHING (BANKS, COOPERATIVES, ETC) ....... 5 ( NEXT) OTHER .................................................... 67 SECOND DON'T KNOW ... 3 10. How much does your household currently owe in total? ( NEXT) WRITE ZERO IF NOTHING AMOUNT UNIT QUANTITY Rs. (0.00) OUTSTANDING (0.00) (Rs. 0.00) Rice KG 11. Did any person(s) in your household work for the Jawahar Gram Samriddhi Yojana Wheat KG (JGSY)/Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana or other such public works program Sugar KG during the past 12 months? Kerosene LTR YES ............................................................... 1 NO ............................................................... 2 ( 14) Edible oil LTR TOTAL PAID 12. How many days in total did that person(s) work for such a program in the past 12 months? INTERVIEWER: IF WHEAT AND/OR RICE WAS BOUGHT IN QUESTION 3, NUMBER OF DAYS THEN 6 5. During the past 6 months, did you buy any foodgrains at a PDS shop? MALE FEMALE YES..........................................................................................1 NO........................................................................................ 2 13. What was the average wage per day received from this program, in cash and in-kind? 6. Have you obtained a loan from a government-sponsored credit program in the past 12 months? AVERAGE WAGE PER DAY YES, SWARNJAYANTI GRAM SWAROZGAR YOJANA / CASH FOOD GRAINS SWARNJAYANTI SHAHARINROZGAR YOJANA..1 RUPPES (0.00) KILOGRAMS (0.00) YES, DWACUA...................................................................2 YES, PRADHAN MANTRI ROZGAR YOJANA.........3 MALE 116 YES, KISAN CREDIT CARD............................................4 YES, OTHERS............ ....................................................... 56 FEMALE NO ....................................................................................... 67 ( 8) 117 SECTION 8: GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (CONTD.) 14. 19. Do you know about the following: 20. How much did you receive What is the principal source from over the past 12 months ? YES ................................... 1 where learned about this? NO ................................... 2 ( NEXT) FRIENDS / FAMILY ........................ 1 IF NOTHING WRITE ZERO TEACHER ......................................... 2 CODE Rs. (0.00) RADIO............. ................................. 3 TELEVISION..................................... 4 01 Retirement pension NEWSPAPER / PRINT MEDIA .... 5 02 Old age pension NGO / ACTIVIST ........................... 6 03 Disability pension LOCAL GOVT. WORKER .......... 7 DISPENSARY ................................... 8 04 Widow pension OTHERS ........................................... 9 05 Social security benefit 06 Other pensions 01 Measle immunization of Children? 07 Maternal benefit 02 Vaccination of pregnant mothers? 15. Did you or any member of your household participate in a literacy program over the past 12 months 03 Use of iodized salt? YES .......................................................................1 04 Use of Oral Rehydration Solution NO .......................................................................2 (ORS)? 16. Do you know the name of the ward member representing your neighborhood? 05 Family planning? YES .......................................................................1 06 AIDS? NO .......................................................................2 ( 19) 17. Have you (or any other group you belong to) ever approached him / her for assistance of any kind? YES .......................................................................1 NO .......................................................................2 ( 19) 18. Was a satisfactory response received? YES .......................................................................1 NO .......................................................................2 SECTION 9: IRRIGATION AND EXTENSION SERVICES (FOR RURAL HOUSEHOLDS ONLY) 1. Did you cultivate any crops in the last cropping season? 7. YES ..................................................... 1 How much did you pay/is payable NO ..................................... ...........2 ( NEXT SECTION) during the last cropping season for each source of irrigation? 2. How much land did you cultivate in the last cropping season (Kharif/Rabi/Zaid)? In which cropping season? THE REFERENCE SEASON CROPPING SEASON SHOULD BE SAME AS IN QUESTION 2 HECTARES (0.00): KHARIF ............................................. 1 WRITE 0.00 IF NONE RABI ................................................... 2 RUPEES (0.00) ZAID .................................................. 3 Season: 01 Canal Irrigation 3. Did you use irrigation in your farm in the last cropping season? 02 Electricity charges (for own pumpset) YES ..................................................... 1 03 Diesel charges (for own pumpset) NO ..................................... ...........2 ( 8) 04 Purchased tubewell water 4. What was the total irrigated area in last cropping season? 05 Government lift irrigation HECTARES (0.00): 06 Other 8. What are the two principal sources of advice on seed, fertilizer, crop diseases, 5. How many electric pump does your household own for irrigation? etc.? WRITE ZERO IF NOTHING GOVERNMENT EXTENSION AGENT ...............1 IF NONE 7 NUMBER NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION .........2 FIRST INPUT DEALERS ........................................................3 COMMISSION AGENT ............................................4 6. During the last 7 days, how many hours per day was electricity available for the PRIVATE EXTENSION AGENT .............................5 SECOND electric pump? RADIO... ......................................................................6 TELEVISION .................................................................7 HOURS/DAY NEWSPAPER/PAMPHLETS ......................................8 OTHER FARMERS ......................................................9 NONE ......................................................................... 10 OTHER ....................................................................... 11 118 SPECIFY________________________________ 119 SECTION 10: ACCESS TO FACILITIES FOR RURAL HOUSEHOLDS FOR URBAN HOUSEHOLDS 10.1 10.2 10.3 Is there a How far is the nearest How far is the nearest [FACILITY] ..[FACILITY].. from your ..[FACILITY].. from your house? within this house? village? LESS THAN 0,5 KM ........... 1 LESS THAN 0,5 KM ..................... 1 YES ..................1 0,5 KM TO 1 KM ................ 2 NO..................2 MORE THAN 1 KM........... 3 0,5 KM TO 1 KM .......................... 2 DON'T KNOW ................... 4 MORE THAN 1 KM..................... 3 FACILITIES CODE DON'T KNOW ............................. 4 Goverment primary school 01 Private primary school 02 FACILITIES CODE Secondary school 03 Government primary school 01 Government doctor 04 Private primary school 02 Government health facility 05 Government secondary school 03 Private doctor 06 Private secondary school 04 PDS shop 07 Government doctor 05 All weather black-top road 08 PDS shop 06 Post-office 09 Bank 07 Bank 10 Local bus 08 Mandi 11 Tempo 09 Local bus 12 Family planning center 10 Tempo 13 Fertilizer sales centre. 14 Telephone / P.C.O 15 Public hand pump 16