Budget for Children in Orissa 2001-02 to 2005-06

Centre
for
Child
Rights
BudgetforChildren
inOrissaPrepared by HAQ: Centre for Child Rights in partnership with Open Learning System
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
208, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi - 110 049
T +91 11 2649 0136 | F+ 91 11 2649 2551
E haqcrc@vsnl.net | W www.haqcrc.org
Open Learning System
Plot No.G-3, A/1,Gadakana Mauza,
P.O.Mancheswar Railway colony,
Near Press Chahak, Bhuvneshwar - 17, Orissa
T +91 0674 2301626 | E kasturi_m@hotmail.com
A non-profit society founded in 1999, HAQ: Centre for Child Rights is dedicated to the recognition, promotion and protection
of the rights of all children.
HAQ focuses on children in a holistic way – as Actors in society, as Citizens of today, and as Adults of tomorrow. We at
HAQ strive to propel child rights into all mainstream efforts, governmental and non-governmental, and place it on the
centrestage of national debate.
HAQ while recognising the indivisiblilty of all rights, believes that the rights of Survival, Childhood, Equal Opportunity are
the basis of every other right.These rights form the cornerstone of our work.
HAQ aims at :
n Building a holistic understanding of Child Rights and exploring areas of concern that affect children and their rights
n Engaging with children and giving them a voice
n Placing child rights on the centrestage of public debate in order to influence the Influential
n Generating wider ownership to the cause through a strong Child Rights movement
n Serving as a Resource Centre and Support Base

Printed and Published in 2007
© HAQ: Centre For Child Rights
Permission to reproduce any part of this document is required from:
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
208 Shahpur Jat
New Delhi 110049
Telephone: 91-11-26490136
Telefax: 91-11-26492551
www.haqcrc.org
or
Open Learning Systems
275/A Sahid Nagar,
Bhubaneswar 751007
Orissa
Telephone: 91-11-674- 2301806
Telefax: 91-11-674 2301626
olsbbsr_org@yahoo.com
ISBN 81-901638-7-6
Credits
Research Team
At HAQ | Enakshi Ganguly Thukral
Bharti Ali
Madhumita Purkayastha
Abhijeet Nirmal
Open Learning Systems | Kasturi Mahapatra
Pratap Kumar Rath (PhD)
Rudra
Editing and Analysis | Tripta Batra
Photo Credit | Cover Vasant Dave / sxc.hu
Cover Rear Hagit / sxc.hu
Inside Frans Devriese: foto_morgana / flickr.com
Design and Typesetting | Aspire Design
Supported by | Ford Foundation

1
Preface
The team at HAQ in Delhi, as well as the teams with our partners in the states have seen a lot of changes since this project
began in 2002. Indeed, the team that has finally put together this report is completely different from the one that initiated
the process, both at HAQ and in the partner states. Each person however, has helped in taking the work a little further.
The current team members are the final baton bearers in the last leg of this relay. We thank all those who carried the baton
before us.
This study would not have been possible without the support of Ford Foundation and UNDP. We would particularly
want to thank Dr Mark Robinson (then Programme Officer at the Foundation) and Dr Neera Burra, (then Assistant
Resident Representative UNDP), who believed in our ideas and in us, when no one else did.
The biggest handicap in undertaking budget analysis work is to do with accessing documents and data. As always,
Dr Vinay Bhatnagar, Joint Director, Press and Public Relations, in the Lok Sabha Secretariat has been our saviour.
Although Dr Biswajit Dhar has not been able to engage with us on this phase of the project, it is his ideas and suggestions
from the earlier phase that we have carried forward into this phase as well.
This analysis was initiated with the support of Open Learning Systems (OLS). In 2004, OLS organised a one-day advocacy
programme on Budget for Children based on the preliminary findings. Government officials, members of the legislative
assembly (MLAs) and NGO representatives participated in this programme, in which a preliminary report was presented.
Since then, the data has had to be revised substantially. This final report was prepared by the HAQ team. We are thankful
to Tripta Batra for editing our report and reworking it in its current form.
We want to thank all our partner organisations, campaigns and networks who have used our findings and validated our
belief that an analysis of the budget for children is an important tool for advocacy on child rights. Nishant and Bittoo of
Aspire Design have always taken on the challenge of producing HAQ’s publications at short notice and multiple changes.
This has been no different. Most importantly, it is the children of this country we have to thank. It is because of their
inherent resilience in the face of any adversity, and the joy they bring to us that we do not lose hope and heart.
Enakshi Ganguly Thukral Bharti Ali

3
During the past 15 years or so, several countries across the world – including India – have introduced and made major
changes in the way their economies function. The earlier economic models have given way to market forces and its
attendant processes of liberalization, privatization and globalization. Over the years, this process – which continues – has
seen a boom in markets, mega-mergers of huge companies, the accumulation of wealth, and the growth of information
technology.
While some people have undeniably become richer, the fact is that disparities between the rich and the poor – particularly
in countries hitherto considered under-developed have widened. Natural resources continue to be depleted at an unsus-
tainable rate, many people across the globe have lost their traditional livelihood, and larger numbers of people are forced
to migrate for economic survival. Both consumerism and violence have increased during this period. Alongside all this – in
India for example – the ongoing privatization of services has worsened the situation for the economically disadvantaged.
It was in this context and with the aim of providing a voice to the most vulnerable section of the human population – chil-
dren – that HAQ began its work on a decadal analysis of the Union Budget in India in 2000, through a child rights
Children and
the Budget for Children (BfC)

4
perspective. Published in 2002, and being the first endeavour of its kind in the country, HAQ’s work on the Budget for
Children (BfC) established the need for such analysis and set the initial direction for developing a methodology to do this
more effectively.
Post its decadal analysis, the HAQ team realized that while it is important to monitor and understand the Union Budget
and the financial commitment of the government towards children at the national level, in itself this was not enough. An
analysis of BfC at the level of the states was critical for in-depth and on-the-ground understanding which could, possibly
open up the possibilities of responding to children’s needs more effectively. To do this, it was important to build partner-
ships with local NGOs, to develop a common methodology and to provide the requisite technical assistance. It was envis-
aged that if such analysis could be carried out by a state-based organization, it would become possible to use the findings of
the study for effective advocacy at the state, district and local levels of governance.
In partnership with NGOs in three states therefore, HAQ started on the state-level analysis of BfC in 2002. The partners
were M V Foundation in Andhra Pradesh, Open Learning Systems in Orissa, and the Himachal Pradesh Voluntary Health
Association in HP. This report is an outcome of the analysis of BfC in each of these three states as well as the Union Bud-
get.
To prevent the analysis and monitoring of BfC from turning into yet another number game, it is crucial to use it for advo-
cacy at several levels. Since the publication of HAQ’s 2002 decadal analysis for instance, work related to BfC has indeed,
come a long way. Having decided to take up BfC analysis as an important mandate, the Ministry of Women and Child
Development has acknowledged that its efforts are based on HAQ’s initial work. Currently, UNICEF and the Centre for
Budget and Governance Accountability are engaged in BfC analysis for the Ministry of WCD.
In September 2004, the World Bank report titled ‘Reaching out to the Child: An Integrated Approach to Child Develop-
ment’ included a chapter on public spending related to the child, which drew upon HAQ’s methodology.
While advocacy and lobbying with GoI has institutionalized BfC analysis at the national level, HAQ’s work has been used
by its partner organizations in the states as well as by other human rights networks and campaigns. At the grassroots level,
BOX 1
There are more than enough reasons to show us why budgeting for children deserves priority attention in India:
• Nineteen per cent of world’s children live in India. They make up 42 per cent of the country’s total population.
By way of international comparisons in terms of the status and condition of children, India continues to rank
poorly on several key counts. Large numbers of Indian children still suffer from poor nutrition, inadequate
health services, clean water, sanitation and basic education.
• Children are voiceless and are at a particularly vulnerable stage of life. They do not form a powerful political
lobby, and cannot advocate for themselves for more effective delivery of socio-economic services that meet
their needs. Thus, the lack of a detailed assessment of how much the government is spending on children
inhibits the effective improvement of the basic living standards of children.
• Budgetary programmes, particularly socio-economic expenditure, affect the well-being of children directly.
• The well-being of any society depends on the investment in its human resource development, particularly the
development of children and youth.
• India ratified the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992; thus, it has promised to
place Children’s Rights at the forefront of development. The country is committed to give greater priority to
children’s concerns than what was being given before this ratification.

5
MVF’s Telegu translation of HAQ’s report – ‘What does
Budget 2005-06 have for children?’ – was used effectively for
advocacy with elected representatives in AP. At the national
level, HAQ’s BfC documents have been used in filing legal
petitions, for strengthening the work of the Right to Food
campaign, for raising questions in Parliament and debating on
pending bills such as that of the 93rd Constitutional Amend-
ment.
And at the international level, findings from HAQ’s BfC
work have been used to make submissions to, and prepare
shadow reports for the UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child.
It is scarcely possible to realize the rights of children unless the Government of India genuinely endeavours and works
towards its commitments and stated intentions on CRC, whether through legal reform and enforcement, and programme
development. At the same time, it is clear that all changes brought in through law and policy can be worthwhile only when
these are implemented in everyday situations, and when there is adequate provision of financial and human resources.
It is only when the political will of the country’s government conjoins with its stated commitments that an analysis of the
budget for children and its monitoring can become “a powerful tool”i
that can catalyse it into “taking actions to improve
its measures”.
Currently, in India, both national and international documents serve as significant instruments to set the direction for a
realization of children’s rights through budget analysis.
The Government of India’s National Plan of Action for Children 2005, for instance, specifically includes a section on
budgeting for children. It states, “Ministries and Departments with specific child budgets and plans should ensure 100 per
cent spending and should also enhance the budget in view of the large child population. Where no overt child budget is
available, the demarcation should be made of child budget, spending and monitoring…”ii
BOX 2
WHY BUDGET ANALYSIS?
The budget is the most important economic instrument of the government. It reflects the countries socio-economic
priorities by translating policies and political commitments into expenditures and taxations. In this way the budget
emphasises constraints and trade-offs in policy choices
The Budget: A Tool for Change - IDASA budget information service 1998
“The process of preparing and overseeing budgets opens the door to a number of important processes, and can
become an integral part of a human rights-based approach to programming. It demands an important capacity-
building component, especially for civil society groups, local governments, and private and public agencies
addressing issues of child rights. Advocacy around budgets calls for the empowerment of rights-holders to demand
that duty-bearers—in both the legislative and executive branches of government—allocate the funding necessary
to implement social policies. Too frequently, the announcement of grand social policies is not followed by the
allocation of sufficient resources to put them into practice. Once ordinary citizens understand the impact of the
budgetary process on their day-to-day lives and learn the points at which they can intervene and how to do so, they
are in a far better position to hold governments accountable to the realisation of child rights.”
From UNICEF Brazil Budget Paper. Alison Raphael 2002
Sharing information on BfC analysis with the
gram sabha helps to build pressure on the
sarpanch, who in turn, is able to use the in-
formation to negotiate with Block and District
Officials for better grants. Now, the officials get
worried when they see our Child Protection
Committee members because they know that
they can no longer be fooled. The panchayat
members carry the BfC information in their
pocket when they go for discussions.
M V Foundations’s experience in using BfC analysis

6
In ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the country has committed itself to allocat-
ing “maximum available resources” towards this end. Quite obviously then, the responsibility of ensuring that adequate
resources are made available, rests with GoI.
In its concluding observations of 2004, pertaining to India, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child stated, “While
noting the efforts undertaken to increase the budget allocation for some social services, the Committee is concerned at
the slow increase of the budget allocations for education and at the stagnation or even the decrease of expenses allocated
to other social services. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Make every effort to increase the propor-
tion of the budget allocated to the realization of children’s rights to the “maximum extent … of available resources” and,
in this context, to ensure the provision, including through international cooperation, of appropriate human resources and
to guarantee that the implementation of policies relating to social services provided to children remain a priority; and (b)
Develop ways to assess the impact of budgetary allocations on the implementation of children’s rights, and to collect and
disseminate information in this regard.”
BfC analysis and its markers
The analysis of BfC in India – both at the level of the Union and a particular Indian state – entails a rather complex exer-
cise at disaggregating from various heads of account in the overall
union or state budget to arrive at a comprehensive understanding
of how financial allocation is impacting the lives of children. Both
the methodology and the analysis need to be refined and revised
continuously in order to meet the challenges of the year-on-year
changes and the possibilities that arise, of responding more effec-
tively to the needs of children.
However, there are various markers – in terms of questions, reference points and perspective – that are fundamental to any
serious analysis of BfC in India. These are:
n National and International commitments made for children, particularly constitutional guarantees and their imple-
mentation
n The overall policy framework in the country and how the whole or its parts impact the lives of children
n The ways and the extent to which policies are translated into programmes and activities for realizing children’s rights
n The extent of the country’s dependence on external aid for the realization of the rights of children
n Is financial planning and allocation moving in accordance with the needs and rights of children?
n Is a conscious effort being made to link allocation and expenditure for children with the stated commitments of the
government? And is there an effort to address the existing gaps in a planned, coordinated way?
When all of these factors are taken into consideration, it becomes possible to move into more detailed and comprehensive
analysis of BfC. For instance, specific sector and programmatic patterns of expenditure can be observed and analysed with
a view to assess the impact on certain groups of children. Such assessment could yield key understanding related to the age,
gender or ability of various groups of children across the country.
The Budget for Children (BfC) is not a
separate budget. It is merely an attempt
to disaggregate from the overall bud-
get, the allocations made specifically for
programmes that benefit children.

7
BfC analysis – past, present and future
When HAQ began its work on analysing the Union Budget in the year 2000, several organizations were already involved
in analysing state level budgets with respect to the needs of dalits, tribals or rural development. The focus on children
however, was missing.
With initial training inputs from HAQ, the Indian Council for Child Welfare, Tamil Nadu also began a state level analysis
of the budget for children in the year 2000. Their report, titled ‘Children of Tamil Nadu and the State Budget, An Analy-
sis: 1998-2003’ was published in 2003.
And in 2005, the Ministry of Women and Child Development announced its intention to undertake an analysis of the
budget for children on a regular basis, in the centre as well as the states, in partnership with UNICEF and the Centre for
Budget and Governance Accountability. The first report of this partnership was released recently.
While these developments augur well for bringing the agenda of the needs and rights of children to centre-stage, the fact
remains that the work of analysing and monitoring the budget for children is still at a nascent stage. As the number of
actors and stake-holders in BfC analysis increases, it is imperative that due consideration is given to arrive at a minimum
common understanding and methodology, to serve the needs of children more effectively.
HAQ’s experience in working with local partners for this document (in Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh),
and for its current work with partners in Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand, has brought up several sig-
nificant learnings with respect to BfC analysis. These are:
n While working with partners in the states, special emphasis needs to be placed on a common methodology, a com-
mon definition of the child, agreed upon parameters for sectoral analysis, and the selection of schemes and pro-
grammes.
n Although the overall budgeting process is the same in all the states, certain peculiarities are seen in terms of heads of
account and the departments responsible for allocation. The differences need to be understood thoroughly and the
methodology therefore customized for data collection and entry.
n The choice of a particular partner in the state (an NGO for instance) is crucial, keeping the interest and the capacity
of the NGO staff to undertake and persist with the required research. After the initial enthusiasm has worn off, the
laborious task of number-crunching often becomes difficult for NGOs to commit themselves to. It was because of
this that HAQ had to undertake the final data entry and analysis for both Orissa and HP, which resulted in delaying
the completion of this document.
n For long-term changes to occur in policy, allocation and expenditure, BfC cannot be a one-off effort; it must be
integrated into the regular, ongoing work of the organization.
BfC analysis and advocacy
Since the primary purpose of BfC analysis is to raise the bar in the process of realizing the rights of children in India by
holding the government accountable to its stated intentions and commitments, perhaps the most important recent occur-
rence is the acceptance of BfC work by GoI, and its regular inclusion in the government’s own child-related planning.
There are many ways in which BfC analysis can be used for advocacy in the current Indian context. Since 2002, HAQ’s
reports have been used by and for the following:
n Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha (a network focusing on education), the Forum for Crèche and Child Care Services, and the
India Alliance For Child Rights used data from the HAQ study to file a petition with the National Commission for

8
Core Reflection: More Tears than Smiles
n India’s children live in a country that has the tenth highest GDP in the world but stands 127th in terms of the
human development index; in the Global Hunger Index, India stands at number 117 out of 119 countries.
n Only 35 per cent births in India are registered, impacting name and nationality issues.
n One out of 16 children die before they attain one year of age, and one out of 11 die before they attain five
years of age.
n Two and-a-half million children die in India every year, accounting for one in five deaths in the world, with
girls being fifty percent more likely to die.
n According to a report of the state of India’s newborns, the health challenge faced by the newborn child in
India is bigger than that experienced by a newborn in any other country.
n Thirty-five per cent of the developing world’s low birth-weight babies are born in India.
n According to the Global Hunger Index, 47.5 per cent children are under-weight in India, making it worse than
the situation in conflict-plagued and drought-stricken Sub-Saharan Africa.
n The reducing number of girls in the 0-6 age group causes alarm. For every 1000 boys there are only 927
females – even lesser in several parts of the country.
n Of every 100 children, 19 continue to be out of school. Of those who enrol, almost 53 per cent drop out
before reaching Class VIII.
n Of every 100 children who are enrolled, 70 drop out by the time they reach secondary level.
n Of every 100 children who drop out of school, 66 are girls.
n Despite the promise of education for all, 46 per cent of the children from scheduled tribes and 38 per cent
from scheduled castes continue to be out of school, as against 34 per cent in the case of others.
n One in every 10 children is born with, or acquires some physical, sensory or mental impairment by the first
year of life. Based on this estimate, the world population of disabled children is about 140 million, of which
25 million are in India.
n According to the 2001 Census Report, amongst all persons living with disability, 35.9 per cent (46,38,26,702)
are children and young adults in the 0-19 age group. Three out of five children in the age group of 0-9 years
have been reported to be visually impaired. Movement disability has the highest proportion (33.2 per cent)
in the age group of 10-19. This is largely true of mental disability also.
n India has the second highest national total of people living with HIV/AIDS after the Republic of South Africa.
According to NACO, there were an estimated 0.55 lakh HIV-positive 0-14 year old children in India, in 2003.
n Sixty-five per cent of girls in India are married by the age of 18 and become mothers soon after.
n India is home to the highest number of child labourers in the world.
n According to the National Crime Records Bureau, crimes against children have increased by an average of
12.97 per cent during the period 2002-2005.
n India has the world’s largest number of sexually-abused children: a child below 16 years is raped every 155th
minute, a child below 10 every 13th hour, and one in every 10 children is sexually abused at any point in
time.
n Most subtle forms of violence against children such as child marriage, economic exploitation, practices like
the ‘Devadasi’ tradition (dedicating young girls to gods and goddesses), and genital mutilation in some parts
of the country, are justified on grounds of culture and tradition.
n Physical and psychological punishment is rampant in the name of disciplining children, and is culturally ac-
cepted.
n Forced evictions, displacement due to development projects, war and conflict, communal riots, natural disas-
ters – all of these take their own toll on children in India.

9
Women on the status of the girl child in India. Along with HAQ, all of the three groups also filed another petition
with the National Human Rights Commission on the Right to Education for all children, including those in the 0-6
age group. HAQ’s findings on the budget for children were used as supporting evidence.
n HAQ’s partner – NGOs in the states are using the reports for advocacy with their elected representatives. The M V
Foundation in Andhra Pradesh, which translated HAQ’s report into Telugu is one example. In HP, the HPVHA
printed the HAQ report and organised an event attended by MLAs, journalists and NGO representatives.
n The inclusion of HAQ’s BfC analysis information in the Shadow Report given to the Committee on the Rights of the
Child led to a specific recommendation in the Committee’s concluding observations, 2005. This recommendation was
also used by NGOs to provide inputs into GoI’s Draft National Plan of Action for Children, and the election manifes-
toes of political parties.
Over the years, HAQ has learned that BfC analysis can be turned into a more effective advocacy tool when it is combined
with other initiatives. Towards this end, HAQ produced a situational analysis of children in the country, titled ‘Children
in Globalising India: Challenging Our Conscience’ in 2002. This was followed up with another status report in 2005.
If the laws, policies and budget-related priorities are to change in India in favour of children’s rights, it is our legislators and
parliamentarians who need to be influenced, and who require a greater understanding of what the country’s children need.
The question is: Are the MLAs and MPs in the country child-friendly enough? Who, among these, can we advocate to and
work with?
HAQ’s intervention in this direction is the annual exercise of analysing parliamentary questions and debates, and the
production of a document titled, ‘Says a Child…Who Speaks for My Rights?’ While the more perceptive and enterprising
among our MPs can use this document for critical self-reflection and performance, child-rights activists can use it for bet-
ter advocacy.

11
Rationale for the study of the Budget for Children (BfC)
HAQ began its work in the year 1998 (formally in 1999), with the overall aim and purpose of working for the benefit
of children both at the national and international levels. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 and the
subsequent ratification of it by the Government of India in 1992 forms a basic point of departure in HAQ’s work.
A systematic monitoring and analysis of the budget for children in India was first undertaken by HAQ in the year 2000.
The basic idea behind this laborious, number-crunching task was (and is) to draw adequate attention to the needs of the
country’s children, to examine the government’s financial commitment and the utilization of resources for children, and
finally, to hold the government accountable towards the well-being of its young citizens.
The annual budget is a concrete expression of the government’s intention, its policies and priorities, its decisions and per-
formance. At the national level or at the state level, the budget is essentially a political rather than a technical instrument.
Then, as now, there was no separate part of the Union Budget (or a particular state budget) categorized or specifically
marked for children in India. However, focusing on the financial resources earmarked for the benefit of children – by dis-
aggregating the budget – serves the purpose that HAQ set out to fulfill, even though there is scope for refinement.
Budget for Children in
Orissa

12
Up until now, the term in use – both nationally and internationally – for such analysis was Child Budget or Children’s
Budget. From this point onwards however, the more appropriate term ‘Budget for Children’ (BfC) will be used by HAQ.
While the meaning of the earlier description could be taken to suggest the participation of children – which is not the case
at all – the term now chosen does away with this unintended suggestion.
The Child, in BfC
In accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in consonance with the definition of a child in
the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 of India, the child in this study is an individual up to the age of 18 years.
Although several Indian laws, programmes and schemes – at the national or state level – address the needs of children up
to the age of 14, this study includes all programmes related to children up to the age of 18.
Time-frame of the study
The Orissa Budget for Children analysis is based on five financial years – 2001-2002 to 2005-2006. While Budget Esti-
mates are available for all of the above years, Revised Estimates are available up till 2004-05 and Actual Expenditure till
2003-04. The comparison of BE, RE and AE therefore is on the basis of the three years for which Actual Expenditure
figures are available.
Sectors, Schemes and Programmes and Departments
Survival, development, protection and participation are the four basic rights of children, according to CRC. While
schemes and programmes directly related to the right of participation do not yet form a part of GoI’s budgetary exercise
(or that of any Indian state), there are several social sector schemes and programmes that can be categorized within the
broad ambit of the rights to survival, development and protection.
In keeping with the way in which schemes and programmes related to children are planned and implemented at the
national and state level in India, this study addresses its concerns through the identification of four sectors – development,
education, health and protection – in the analysis of the Budget for Children. Put together, these four sectors are directly
linked to the rights of survival, development and protection of CRC.
On the basis of the demand for grants prepared for the annual budget in Orissa during the period of the study, a total of
10 departments were identified with allocations related to children. These departments, from which programmes and
schemes have been taken for analysis, cover four sectors – development, health, education and protection – and include
the following:
Development Department of Women and Child Development
Health Department of Public Health & Family Welfare
Department of Revenue
Department of Women and Child Development
Education Department of School & Mass Education
Department of Women and Child Development
Department of Works
Department of Sports and Youth Services

13
Department of Commerce
Department of Revenue
Department of Tourism and Culture
Department of SC, ST and OBC Development
Department of Industry
Protection Department of Women and Child Development
Data: Sources, Access and Analysis
For the purposes of the study, an overall attempt has been made to separate the programmes and schemes meant for chil-
dren from the rest of the Orissa state budget, and which include both plan and non-plan expenditure. However, as in the
case of the Union Budget and that of the other two states, allocations for certain programmes – RCH for example – have
been taken in entirety even though such programmes are meant to benefit both women and children.
Detailed Demands for Grants: The Detailed Demands for Grants are, as the very name suggests, details of budget alloca-
tion and expenditure under each head. The details of the Budget Estimates (BE) and the Revised Estimates (RE) of the
previous year, the Budget Estimates of the Current financial year. The Actual Expenditure (AE) figures are available only
in the alternate years, and the Detailed Demands for Grants has the figures for the year preceding the last financial year.
For example the Detailed Demands for Grants for 2006-07 has AE for 2004-2005.
Estimates for expenditure in the states are presented to the Legislative Assembly as Demands for Grants. Generally, each
ministry or department presents one Demands for Grant (DfG). However, large ministries or departments may present
more than one Demand. Usually, each DfG includes the total provisions required for a service, which is followed by the
estimates for expenditure under different major heads of account. These DfGs are submitted along with the Annual Fi-
nancial Statement . Detailed Demands for Grants (DDfGs) follow the DfGs after the presentation of the Budget to the
Legislative Assembly, but before the discussion on DfGs begins. The Detailed Demands for Grants show further details
of the provisions included in the DfGs, and the actual expenditure during the previous year .
Budget Estimates, Revised Estimates and Actual Expenditure: To understand budgets in India, one must look at three
levels in the budgeting process – Budget Estimates (BE), Revised Estimates (RE) and Actual Expenditure (AE).
Budget Estimates are prepared by the estimating authorities in accordance with their assessment of financial requirements
for the forthcoming year, keeping in view the actuals of the past years, the overall trend of expenditure in the current year,
and the arrears of previous years.
Revised Estimates are prepared during the current financial year, before the Budget Estimates of the forthcoming year; Re-
vised Estimates are therefore, a stage more complicated in the Indian context. The preparation of RE for the year 2006-07
for example (on the basis of expenditure trends in the first six to seven months of the year), precedes the preparation of BE
for the year 2007-08. To extend the example, RE for the year 2006-07 would be based on the latest figures available of ac-
tual expenditure incurred during 2006-07, actual expenditure incurred during 2005-06 and also during the past few years.
RE in this case would also be based on appropriations or re-appropriations already ordered or which are contemplated
during the remaining part of the year, and any sanction to expenditure already issued or proposed to be issued during the
remaining part of the year.
Actual Expenditure (AE) figures are available after the final accounts have been submitted to the state government. AE
for the year 2006-07, for example, will be available to the public only at the end of the year 2008-09.

14
Seen as a whole, the presentation of BE, RE and AE reflect the government’s announcement of intent, the maintenance
of this intent, and the implementation of this intent. An analysis of the changes that occur from one level to another – in
terms of BE, RE and AE – is quite revealing, and therefore necessary to understand in any particular annual budget.
An analysis of the difference between the Estimates and the Actual Expenditure shows how much of the budget has been
spent in a given financial year. The reasons for under-utilization/under-spending of the Budget Estimates or Revised Es-
timates can be many. This study does not go into the finer details of those reasons. It concentrates only on the budget as a
commitment to children and the trends arising thereof. Some attempt has been made to seek reasons from the Comptrol-
ler and Auditor General’s (CAG) Reports; the Appropriation Accounts of the Accountant General of India and the Per-
formance Budgets brought out by the Ministries and Departments. However, it is not always possible to trace the reasons.
Plan and Non-Plan: The terms Plan and Non-Plan refer to the five-year financial plan period of the Union government.
All expenditure (estimated or actually spent) spelt out in a particular Plan (i.e. a five-year plan) is called Plan Expenditure
(PE), which is subsequently divided into yearly plans. In other words, Plan Expenditure is a part of the total expenditure
meant to be utilized in the implementation of the schemes and programmes framed in a given Five-year Plan. PE also
includes the amount to be incurred on the unfinished tasks of previous Plans.
In addition, when a particular programme in a given Plan completes its duration, the recurring expenses on the assets
created and staff recruited in the future, are not regarded as Plan Expenditure. If such a programme continues beyond a
given Plan, all expenses incurred for it are included in Non-Plan Expenditure. This study covers both Plan and Non-Plan
Expenditure of the Union government.
Limitations of the Study
The biggest constraint in Orissa was accessing the budget documents of the years under study and effort; it was not
possible to access the budget documents of 2000-01. The secondary information available ws also not updated.
Children and the Orissa budget 2000-01 to 2005-06
The state of Orissa is home to 3.68 crore people, of which about 47 per cent live below the poverty line. Nearly 85 per
cent of the state’s people live in villages, and are largely dependent on agriculture.v
Children make up about 42 per cent of
Orissa’s population.
The state of Orissa stands at rank 11 in the National Human Development Indexvi
; in comparative terms, its development
indicators are poorer than those of Rajasthan and West Bengal. Given the fact that the past five decades of governance in
Orissa has made little positive impact on the lives of the poor and marginalised, it is obvious that a majority of the children
in the state are a severely neglected lot. And within the large number of underprivileged people in the state, children – and
women – from SCs and STs are the most deprived of their basic rights.
Tables.1 and.2 present the state’s population profile, its sex ratio and other key indicators that reveal the context – and the
lack of basic opportunities – within which children in Orissa struggle.
With almost half of its population living below the poverty line, it is not surprising that Orissa has the highest Infant Mor-
tality Rate (IMR) – 77 per thousand live births in 2004vii
– in the country. The Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) is also
high – at 367 per 100,000 live births.viii

15
Table 1: Population in Orissa
Female Male Total
Actual Per cent Actual Per cent
Population 1,81,44,090 49.30 1,86,60,570 50.70 3,68,04,660
Rural Population 31287422
85 per cent
Urban Population 5517238
14.99 per cent
0-6 age group 2,614,258 2,744,552 5358810
14.56 per cent
Sex ratio 0-6 age 953
Rural Sex ratio 987
Urban Sex ratio 895
Source: Census 2001, Government of India
Table 2: Key Indicators—Orissa and India
Indicators Orissa India
Mean years of female schooling (in years)* 3.06 3.39
Life Expectancy at Birth (in years)* 56.9 60.7
Infant Mortality Rate (per thousand child birth)** 77 58
Birth Registration (%)* 10 35
Child malnutrition (%)* 54 47
Population Below Poverty Line (%)* 47 26
Per capita income per annum in Rs. (SDP at Current Prices of 1998-99) * 8,719 14,712
Per capita expenditure on education (in Rs.)* 438.9 548.7
Per capita expenditure on Health (in Rs.)* 136.3 158.7
Access to potable drinking water to households (%)* 63 84
Sources of drinking water within the premises (%)* 22 42
Households using toilet/latrine facilities (%)* 17 37
Source: *Census 2001, Orissa Health Strategy, Education Vision 2020
**SRS 2004, Government of India
BOX 1:
Low Literacy, Skewed Indicators
Whenever we are talking about Developed Nation, suddenly education comes to picture with other major indicators
like the growth rate of the economy, birth rate, death rate, infant mortality rate (IMR) and literacy rate. These
indicators are all interconnected with each other and the literacy rate has been the major determinant of the rise
or fall in the other indicators. There is enough evidence even in Orissa to show that a low literacy rate, correlates
with high birth rate, high IMR and decrease in the rate of life expectancy. The recognition of this fact has created
awareness on the need to focus upon literacy and elementary education programmes, not simply as a matter of
social justice but more to foster economic growth, social well-being and social stability.
Submitted By: Devi Prasad Mahapatra, http://www.edunews.net/articles/Elementary_Education_in_Orissa_1.asp January 02, 2006

16
Concomitant with the state’s poor IMR and MMR, there is a wide gender disparity in literacy figures. In seven of the 30
districts in Orissa, female literacy is less than 30 per centix
. In schools, the drop out rate for girls is much higher than that
for boys.x
BfC in Orissa – An Overview
During the five-year period of study, children in Orissa have
been allocated an average of 13.25 per cent of the state budget.
Although this average percentage in terms of Budget Estimates
may seem to be somewhat at par with the other two states
included in this study – AP allocates an average of 12.27 per
cent and HP an average of 14.5 per cent of the state budget
for children – Orissa’s context becomes clearer when Actual
Expenditure figures related to children are taken into account.
It is important to note that during the three years for which
AE figures are available (table 3), Actual Expenditure for the
state as a whole has been nearly twice or more than twice the
Budget Estimates. Compared to this, Actual Expenditure in
BfC has been a much poorer 6.69 per cent on the average, over
the three-year period. In terms of actual spending therefore,
Orissa gives far less to its children than what it allocates.
It is possible to argue of course, that in absolute numbers
(table 4), Budget Estimates for children have increased over
the five years of the study period. But when the overall needs
of the state’s children are taken into consideration, the sharp
fall of Rs 60.73 crore – or 2.5 per cent – in 2004-05 defies any
explanation. On the contrary, it is symptomatic of the low
priority given by the state to its children.
Poor planning is predictably accompanied by poor implementation as clarified by the difference between BE, RE and AE
in the period of study.
Table 3: Actual Expenditure and BfC
In Rs Crore and Percentage
Year AE, Orissa AE, BfC AE in BfC as
Budget percentage of AE
(Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) in Orissa Budget
(Per cent)
2001-02 24012.80 1675.3506 6.97
2002-03 27693.25 1905.7585 6.88
2003-04 31449.85 1959.9626 6.23
Average 6.69
Sources: Orissa Budget in Brief 2005-2006
Of every Rs 100 allocated in the state budget
over the five-year period, Orissa’s children
have received an average of Rs 13.25. Howev-
er, of every Rs 100 spent by the state govern-
ment from 2001-02 to 2003-04, children have
accounted for an average of merely Rs 6.69.
Table 4: BfC as percentage of the Orissa Budget
Year Total Orissa Allocation for BfC as percentage
Budget (BE) BfC (BE) of Orissa Budget
(Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) (Per cent)
2001-02 12768.75 1623.1089 12.71
2002-03 14165.08 2038.7993 14.39
2003-04 15363.33 2135.7347 13.90
2004-05 18199.91 2075.0026 11.40
2005-06 16964.21 2349.9051 13.85
Sources: Detailed Demands for Grants, 2001-02 to 2005-06, Government of
Orissa, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, Revenue,
Women and Child Development, School & Mass Education, Works,
Sports and Youth Services, Commerce, SC, ST and OBC Development
and Department of Industry
13.25
BfC
86.75
Other than
BfC
Figure 1: BfC as percentage of Orissa Budget Aver-
age Allocation (BE): 2001-02 to 2005-06

17
To begin with, AE is higher than BE in 2001-02, but in the following two years it falls far short of BE. More significantly,
when all three years are considered, AE has actually declined by an average of 3.8 per cent (see table 6).
Since Revised Estimates are higher than Budget Estimates in two of the three years for which all three figures are avail-
able, a comparison between RE and AE is also appropriate here. From 2001-02 to 2003-04, a total provision (RE) of Rs
5957.08 crore was made for children in the state. Actual Expenditure however, fell short of this figure by Rs 416.02 crore
– almost 7 per cent.
From the state government’s point of view, there may have been a good reason for enhancing RE in 2001-02 and 2003-04.
But if AE does not keep pace with either BE or RE, does enhanced allocation serve any purpose at all?
That an amount of Rs 416 crore could – if utilized effectively – fulfil the development needs of a considerable number of
children in Orissa for a period of three years is tantamount to stating the obvious. So perhaps the questions to be asked
here are: How does an intelligent citizen reconcile herself to overspending by 100 per cent (See tables 3 and 4) or more at
the state budget level with repeated underspending in the budget for children? Is it merely a matter of skewed priorities
that give rise to such sharp contradictions? Doesn’t the malaise run much deeper?
Table 5: BE, RE and AE in BfC in Orissa
In Rs. crore
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 1623.1089 1745.3600 1675.3506
2002-03 2038.7993 2036.9603 1905.7585
2003-04 2135.7347 2174.7647 1959.9626
2004-05 2075.0026 2148.1130
2005-06 2349.9051
Sources: Detailed Demands for Grants, 2001-02 to 2005-06,
Government of Orissa, Department of Public Health & Family
Welfare, Revenue, Women and Child Development, School &
Mass Education, Works, Sports and Youth Services, Commerce,
SC, ST and OBC Development and Department of Industry
Table 6: Difference between BE, RE and AE in BfC, Orissa
In per cent
Year BE – RE RE – AE BE – AE
2001-02 + 7.5 - 4.0 + 3.2
2002-03 - 0.1 - 6.4 - 6.5
2003-04 + 1.8 - 9.9 - 8.2
2004-05 +3.5
Average +3.17 - 6.77 - 3.83
Women and Child Development, School & Mass Education,
Works, Sports and Youth Services, Commerce, SC, ST and OBC
Development and Department of Industry
BOX 2
Retention of Unspent Funds Outside Government Account
In 22 out of the 33 test checked ICDS Projects, Rs 20.22 lakh on 11 components pertaining to the period 1991-2006
had remained unspent and mostly kept in savings bank accounts. The major unspent funds related to referral
services (Rs 8.96 lakh), Anganwadi contingencies (Rs 4.50 lakh), training of adolescent girls (Rs 1.61 lakh), IMR (Rs
0.37 lakh), Malnutrition (Rs 1.30 lakh) and information, education and communication (Rs 1.15 lakh). Often it is the
failure in utilizing the GOI funds within the years of receipt led to loss of central assistance of Rs 35.48 crore during
2001-06.
Source: CAG Report, Orissa, Chapter III, Paragraphs 3.2.7.2, Performance Reviews, 2006

18
BfC in Orissa—Sectoral Allocation
When the state budget as a whole is taken into consideration, Orissa’s priorities towards the needs of its children follow a
predictable pattern, as shown in table 7.
The largest chunk of resources is allocated for children’s education – an average of 11.75 per cent of the state budget. The
development sector of BfC comes next, with a far lower average allocation of 1.33 per cent. In Orissa, children’s health and
protection are the most neglected sectors; the health sector receives an average of 0.14 per cent and the protection sector
an average of 0.03 per cent.
Within BfC, the financial resources are distributed as shown in figure 3.2. While 88.58 per cent of the BfC allocation is
channelled towards education, the development sector receives 10.11 per cent, followed by 1.07 per cent for health and
0.25 per cent for protection. Under-spending however (table 8 and figure 3), takes on a different pattern.
In view of the high poverty levels in Orissa and the poor nutritional status of its children, it is obvious that the scarce
resources allocated for the development sector of BfC need to be utilized optimally. Budget performance however, ignores
the obvious: under-spending at an average of 25.86 is the highest in the development sector over a period of three years.
Table 7: Sectoral Allocation (BE) within BfC as percentage of Orissa Budget
Year Development Health Education Protection Total
2001-02 1.17 0.14 11.37 0.04 12.71
2002-03 1.15 0.15 13.05 0.04 14.39
2003-04 1.50 0.13 12.24 0.03 13.90
2004-05 1.36 0.14 9.87 0.03 11.40
2005-06 1.46 0.15 12.21 0.04 13.85
Average 1.33 0.14 11.75 0.03 13.25
Sources: Detailed Demands for Grants, 2001-02 to 2005-06, Government of Orissa, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, Revenue, Women and
Child Development, School & Mass Education, Works, Sports and Youth Services, Commerce, SC, ST and OBC Development and Department of
Industry
Table 8: Under-spending within the sectors of BfC in Orissa
Average: 2001-02 to 2003-04
In per cent
Sector Unspent amount Unspent amount
of Budget Estimate of Revised Estimate
Development -23.35 -25.86
Protection -12.62 -23.31
Health -16.50 -17.28
Education -2.37 -4.7
Elementary Ed. -4.88 -8.05
Secondary Ed. +3.02 +3.93
Women and Child Development, School & Mass Education,
Works, Sports and Youth Services, Commerce, SC, ST and OBC
Development and Department of Industry
88.58
Education
1.07
Health
10.11
Developments
0.25
Developments
Figure 2: Sectoral Allocation (BE) within BfC, Orissa
Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06

19
While 23.31 per cent of the financial provision for
the protection sector was unspent, 17.28 per cent of
the provision for the health sector remained unuti-
lized.
The education sector may have the least recorded
under-spending but what needs to be seen is the over-
all failure in terms of the required response in both
planning and implementation. When further details
in the development sector are scrutinized, the ICDS
scheme (in various sub-sections) reveals maximum
under-spending . xi
Given the current situation, Orissa’s predicament
– as a state wracked by both natural and man-made
disasters – doesn’t seem to be changing in a hurry.
The budget speech made in the legislative assembly
in 2005-06 (box.4) is a pointer to where things in the
state are headed – for children in particular.
BfC in Orissa — Development Sector
In Orissa, the Department of Women and Child Development (DW&CD) was set up in 1995 as a nodal agency for
the formulation of plans, policies and programmes focused on women and children. The flagship programme of this
department is the ICDS, a centrally sponsored scheme that receives 100 per cent assistance from GoI. (Details of various
programmes under ICDS are given in annexure I).
Children in the 0 to 6 years age group make up 14.93 per cent of the state’s population, and over the five-year study period,
the Orissa government provided an average of 1.17 per cent of the total state budget for them.
Figure 3: Average sectoral under-spending within BfC in Orissa,
as percentage of RE. 2001-02 to 2003-04
0
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-5
Sector
Percentage
Development Protection Health Education
Box 4:
Who is responsible for children in Orissa – the state or GOI?
“I want to point out here that prior to the Financial Year 2005-06, the Central Government was giving Central
Assistance for different Plans and Programmes and in most of these Central Assistance consisted of 70% as loan
and 30% as grant. Central Government was giving this assistance including loan portion on monthly or quarterly
basis. But as per the recommendations of 12 Finance Commission, Central Government will only provide the
grant component of Central Assistance for State Plan and other programmes from 2005-06. Previously the loan
components given by Central Government are not being given from 2005-06 or will not be given to the State
Government in future. For example, out of State Plan assistance of Rs.1000 crore, the Central Government were
giving Rs.700 crore as loan and Rs.300 crore as grant to State Government but from the financial year 2005-06,
Central Government would give only the grant amount of Rs.300 crore and the balance Rs.700 crore loan will be
arranged by State Government from open market or other financial institution as per its ability. While taking loan
from open market or any other financial institution the lending institutions will assess the financial condition of the
loanee and whether the loanee will be able to repay the principal and interest in time and how the loan is going to
be utilized. Only after such assessment if the lending organization is satisfied then only it will release loan to State
Government. So while fixing the outlay for State Plan we shall have to keep this important change in mind”.
Source: Budget speech 2005-06, Government of Orissa

20
89.89
Other than
Develop-
ment in BfC
10.11
Development
BfC
Figure 4: Allocation for Development Sector, as percent-
age of BfC in Orissa Budget Average:2001-02 to 2005-06
98.67
Other than
Develop-
ment in BfC
in Orissa
Budget
1.33
Development
BfC
Figure 5: Allocation for Developmet Sector of BfC as Per-
centage of Orissa Budget Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06
Allocation for child development shows a consistent annual increase until 2004-05 but the following year registers a fall
in BE by about 0.25 per cent. However, the most crucial fact shown in table 10 is that Actual Expenditure falls repeatedly
and substantially short of the provision made. In 2001-02, this unspent balance was 28.35 per cent, in 2002-03 it was
31.33 and in 2003-04 it was 17.90 per cent.
The average negative difference AE to RE – of 25.86 per cent is directly related to serious under-performance in the ICDS
budget. Significantly, ICDS constitutes 66.92 or about two-thirds of the budget for the development sector of BfC in
Orissa, and out of the total allocation on ICDS, 58.66 per cent comes from World Bank Assistance.
A detailed scrutiny of the ICDS scheme, the Special Nutrition Programme and the Balika Samriddhi Yojana (see annexure
I-) reveal the following facts.
n In 2001-02, ICDS accounts for 75.13 per cent of the unutilized amount in the development sector.
n The World Bank Assisted ICDS project shows under-spending to the extent of 31.6 per cent in 2001-02, 30.22 per
cent in the following year, and 18.82 per cent in 2003-04.
n In the Special Nutrition Programme, the AE to BE negative difference stands at an average of 31.45 per cent. In
2001-02, as much as 63.75 per cent of the provision was unspent.
n One of the most well-known programmes meant to benefit the girl child, the Balika Samriddhi Yojana shows that 42
per cent of its Budget Estimates were unspent.
Table .9: BE, RE and AE in Development Sector of
BfC in Orissa (2001-02 to 2005-06)
In Rs. crore
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 149.4134 147.2965 105.5419
2002-03 163.4130 187.0041 128.4134
2003-04 231.0185 222.8299 182.9354
2004-05 248.3901 267.1500
2005-06 247.7738
Table 10: Difference between BE, RE and AE in
Development Sector of BfC in Orissa
In crore and percentage
YEAR AE – BE AE – BE AE – RE AE – RE
crore per cent crore per cent
2001-02 -43.87 -29.36 -41.75 -28.35
2002-03 -35.00 -21.41 -58.59 -31.33
2003-04 -48.08 -20.81 -39.89 -17.90
Average -42.32 -23.86 -46.74 -25.86

21
BfC in Orissa— Health Sectors
When doctors working with the Orissa government are posted to remote areas of the state, their stock response is to go
on leave. The health status of Orissa’s people – and children in particular – can be gauged by drawing attention to only
two crucial facts. First, the state has the highest IMR in the country at 77 per thousand births. Second, the doctor to
population ratio in the state stands at 1: 7,462 as compared to the national ratio of 1:1,916.
The Orissa Health Vision – 2010, states that “the situation in Orissa is similar to the rest of India with low levels of public
expenditure for health falling below accepted per capita norms.” While public financing for health comes from a mix of
tax financing and external aid (mainly through the central government), out-of-pocket expenses by individual households
are very high.
BOX: 5
Against the requirement of 40297 AWCs, 37480 AWCs were sanctioned for the state. However, only 34201 AWCs
were actually functioning and of these drinking water facilities were not available in 21847 AWCs (64 per cent) and
toilet facilities were almost non-existent in any of the AWCs.
Source: CAG Report, Orissa, Chapter III, Performance Reviews, (Paragraphs 3.2.8 and 3.2.8.1), 2006
The National Advisory Council (NAC) estimates that a total of 74,367 Anganwadi Centres (AWCs) are required in the
state; as many as 26,213 of this number should be in ST dominated habitations. In the urban areas of the state, the
number of AWCs required to universalize ICDS is 5,714.
Source: National Advisory Council, Recommendations on ICDS, (based on deliberations of the National Advisory Council on 28 August 2004),
Annexure V, www.nac.nic.in
Under-nutrition among young children continues to be a serious challenge in Orissa. About 58 per cent of
children fall in Grade I to IV in 0-6 years, which means they require special attention for their mental and physical
development. Despite the large number of programmes initiated to address this reality, implementation continues
to be poor and more than a quarter of the financial allocation is unutilised.
Source: http://www.orissa.gov.in/wcd
98.93
Other than
Health in
BfC
1.07
Health in
BfC
Figure 6: Allocation for Health Sector, as percentage of
BfC in Orissa. Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06
99.86
Other than
Health in
BfC
in Orissa
Budget
0.14
Health in
BfC
Figure 7: Allocation for Health Sector of BfC as percent-
age of Orissa Budget. Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06

22
Besides the high IMR, children in Orissa experience
chronic and acute under-nutrition. Only 60 per cent of the
state’s children between 12 and 36 months are completely
immunizedxiii
, and the coverage of immunization is the
poorest in tribal areas. High need, poor allocation and even
poorer Actual Expenditure are the main characteristics of the
health sector of BfC in Orissa.
Poor allocation amidst high need apart, what is inexplicable
in Orissa’s health budget for children is the fall in BE from
Rs 21.40 crore in 2002-03 to Rs 19.92 crore in the following
year. And the average negative difference between AE and
BE (17.14 per cent) or between AE and RE (17.28 per cent)
only widens the terrain of inexplicability.
In the case of the programme titled ‘IMR Reduction’ – a
crying need in the state – Budget Estimates have been
reduced from Rs 1.44 crore in 2001-02 to Rs 0.5 crore in
2005-06 (See annexure II).
The sharp increase of Rs 7.3 crore in the Revised Estimates of 2002-03 is directly related to the addition of three new
components by the central government to the programme titled ‘Post Partum Centres’ – PPC-Tribal Area Sub-Plan, PPC-
Additional Central Assistance and PPC-PMGY (see annexure II).
It is important to point out that the introduction of a single programme or scheme necessarily reflects a major change
in Budget Estimates. But this does not usually mean any matching increase in range or reach, that is, an improvement in
health indicators or the actual delivery of health services. Once again, poor budget performance arises out of the chasm
between the three critical stages – needs assessment, planning and effective implementation.
BfC in Orissa— Education Sector
In this section both elementary and secondary education have been included. However, it is important to also examine
them separately in view of the government’s commitment to elementary education for children in the age group of 6-14
years.
According to the norms set by the government of Orissa for itself,
the state must have one primary school within one kilometre and one
upper primary school within three kilometres of every habitation
that has a population of 500. The reality however, is markedly
different from the norms set.
According to NIEPA’s report of 2005xiii
the state has a total of 47,969 government schools for 56,337 habitations.
However, the number of primary schools is far less than the norm of one per habitation: with a total of 33,969 primary
schools, Orissa has a clear shortfall of as many as 22,438 schools at the primary level alone.
While the infrastructure-related shortfall is of course much more serious than the mere lack of an adequate number of
schools, there are many other factors that prevent children in Orissa from accessing their right to education. Box 6 presents
a telling factual picture.
Table: 11 BE, RE and AE in Health Sector of BfC in Orissa
In Rs crore
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 17.31 17.94 11.87
2002-03 21.40 28.76 17.73
2003-04 19.92 16.08 19.36
Table: 12 Difference between BE, RE and AE in Health Sec-
tor of BfC in Orissa
In crore and percentage
YEAR AE –BE AE -BE AE – RE AE – RE
Rs crore per cent Rs crore per cent
2001-02 -5.44 -31.44 -6.07 -33.86
2002-03 -3.67 -17.14 -11.03 -38.34
2003-04 -0.57 -2.85 +3.28 20.37
Average -3.22 -17.14 -4.60 -17.28
Of every Rs 100 in the Orissa budget, the
education sector of BfC received an average
of Rs 11.75 during the five-year period.
Within BfC, an average of Rs 88.58 of every
Rs 100 was allocated to education.

23
BOX 6
Poor infrastructure, low pupil teacher ratio plagues education
After the introduction of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), the District Inspector of School (DIS) was made in charge of
an education district overseeing the functioning of the schools. The SSA, a centrally sponsored scheme, envisaged
providing useful and relevant elementary education to all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years by 2010.
Review of the working of SSA and four District Inspector of School (DIS) situated at Berhampur, Chatrapur, Aska
and Bhanjanagar revealed several infrastructure related deficiencies, low teacher pupil ratio affecting quality of
education discussed below.
• 62 schools were without buildings, 76 possessed kutcha buildings and 1846 had partially pucca buildings.
• As of march 2004, 2563 schools were without electricity, 1950 schools without toilets, 2572 schools without girls’
toilets, 2045 schools without playground and 2109 without medical check up.
• 807 (29 per cent) school premises did not have drinking water facility
• Instead of serving mid-day meals, the children were provided with dry ration of three kilograms every month.
• 937 schools were without teaching equipment, 1613 without play materials, 937 without science kits, and 1126
without library facilities.
• Against the sanctioned strength of 10157, there were 9091 teachers in position as of March 2004.
• Teacher pupil ratio was 1:56 against the norm of 1:40 and 16 schools did not have teachers at all.
• There was a shortfall of 36 per cent in school inspections during 1999-2004. The shortfall was attributed (March-
July 2004) by the DIS to engagement of sub inspectors in non-educational work such as election, enumeration,
distribution of old age pension, ration etc.
• Of the 0.60 lakh out-of-school children, 0.38 lakh (64 per cent) remained to be brought under EGS.
• The District Project Co-ordinator (DPC), Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) paid 4.17 crore to 2990 schools for repair
work and to 2980 schools for replacement of school equipment during 2002-04. There was no follow up by the DPC
regarding the actual utilisation of money.
Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004. pg. 73-74
88.25
Other than
Education
in BfC
11.75
Education Sec-
tor BfC
Figure 8: Allocation for Education Sector of BfC, as per-
centage of Orissa Budget. Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06
11.42
Education
Sector, BfC
88.58
Other than
Education,
BfC in Orissa
Budget
Figure 9 : Allocation for Education Sector, as percentage
of BfC in Orissa. Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06

24
In absolute numbers, allocation for the education sector has risen annually (BE or RE) over the five-year period. The year
2005-06 records a rise of 15.28 per cent over the previous year (BE) which is primarily due to an increase of Rs 150 crore
in the non-plan allocation of SSA, and a grant of Rs 14.82
crore for NFE under SSA.
While an annual enhancement of allocation for education
is necessary, even though the increase is inadequate by far
for UEE in Orissa, Actual Expenditure provides little hope
for improvement in the utilization of resources. Over a
three-year period for instance (table 13), AE does not keep
pace with RE. Of major concern is the fact that the extent
of under-spending becomes higher each year: in 2001-02
the unspent amount is Rs 21.68 crore, the following year Rs
63.67 crore is unutilized, and in 2003-04, under-spending is
as high as Rs 177.84 crore.
It is important to note that elementary education receives
67.26 per cent of the resources available for education
within BfC in Orissa, while the remaining percentage –
32.74 – is channelled towards secondary education.
While there has been a 6 per cent rise in the allocation for
elementary education from 2001-02 to 2005-06, the BE has
declined by 74 crores in 2004-05 over the preceding year
as a consequence of the merging of DPEP and Non-formal
education in SSA. There is also an under spending reflected
in all three years (see annexure- III A ).
The allocation and expenditure for administrative expenses for secondary schools in Orissa has fallen since 2001-02. In
2001-02 the allocation for this was 60 crore, which has come down to 50 crore in 2005-06, a decrease of 38 per cent. The
actual expenditure has also declined against the expenditure of 68.93 crore in 2001-02, only 36.58 crore has been spent in
2002-03. In 2003-04, the expenditure rose marginally to 37.75 crore.
Infrastructure-wise, Orissa needs to build more than 20,000 primary schools to meet its own norms. Despite this,
approximately 57 per cent of the Budget Estimates for the construction of schools (see annexure III B) remains unutilized
in 2002-03 and 2003-04.
High under-spending in programmes for the girl child – such as the establishment of residential facilities at the primary
level for girls in KBK districts – is symptomatic of the general neglect of the girl child (see annexure III A) in the state.
Financial data on the ‘Integrated Education for the Disabled’ (IED) programme tells a peculiar story. First introduced
through DPEP in 1997-98, IED was up-scaled to 16 districts in January 2000, and later to all 30 districts of the state.
Budget Estimates for IED range from Rs 4.1 crore to Rs 4.89 crore annually, during the five-year period. In 2002-03, about
36 per cent of BE was unspent. The government claims that a higher number of disabled children have been enrolled in
schools in the past five years but strangely enough, Budget Estimates don’t seem to have risen accordingly.
Table 13: BE, RE and AE in Education Sector of BfC in Orissa
In Rs crore
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 1451.3426 1575.0746 1553.3902
2002-03 1849.1911 1815.8290 1752.1541
2003-04 1880.1483 1929.9945 1752.1528
2004-05 1796.2177 1851.1530
2005-06 2070.7689
Table. 14 Difference between BE, RE and AE in Education
Sector of BfC in Orissa
In Rs crore and percentage
(Rs Crore) (per cent) (Rs Crore) (per cent)
2001-02 +102.04 +7.03 -21.68 -1.38
2002-03 -97.04 -5.25 -63.67 -3.51
2003-04 -128.00 -6.81 -177.84 -9.21
Average -41.00 -1.68 -87.73 -4.7

25
BfC in Orissa— Protection Sector
The state of Orissa has been declared disaster-affected in 95 of the past 105 years. Heat waves, cyclones, droughts and
floods have taken their toll on an already impoverished population, and the situation has only worsened when projects
ostensibly meant for development have resulted in large-scale displacement of and forced migration by several communi-
ties. If anything, such circumstances have made children even more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.
The protection sector of BfC in Orissa has received an
average of 0.03 paise out of every Rs 100 in the state budget
during the five-year study period. And within BfC, an aver-
age of 0.24 paise has been allocated to protection.
Over the five-year period, Budget Estimates for the protec-
tion sector (table 15) stand at an average of Rs 4.73 crore.
At complete variance with the protection needs of children
in the state, BE figures have registered a fall in 2002-03 and
2003-04. And the marginal rise in the following two years
is still short of BE for the year 2001-02.
On the other hand, budget performance from 2001-02 to
2003-04 (table 15) reveals short-comings on several counts.
While Revised Estimates in two of the three years are higher
than Budget Estimates, Actual Expenditure once again
points towards serious problems at the implementation stage.
As much as 37.43 per cent of RE was unspent in 2002-03,
and over the three-year period, the average under-spending is
23.31 per cent (AE to RE).
Since funds released for the National Child Labour Project
(NCLP) are not reflected in the state’s budget documents,
99.76
Other than
Protection
in BfC
0.24
Protection, BfC
Figure 10: Allocation for Protection Sector, as percent-
age of BfC in Orissa Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06
99.97
Other than
Protection,
BfC in Orissa
Budget
.03
Protection,
BfC in Orissa
Budget
Figure11: Allocation for the Protection sector of BfC in
the State Budget of Orissa. Average: 2001-02 to 2005-06
Table 15: BE, RE and AE in Protection Sector of BfC in Orissa
In Rs crore
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 5.0456 5.0475 4.1665
2002-03 4.5818 5.3102 3.3225
2003-04 4.4732 5.6880 4.8324
2004-05 4.5952 6.3863
2005-06 4.9095
Table. 16 Difference between BE, RE and AE in Protection
Sector of BfC in Orissa
(Rs Crore) (Per cent) (Rs Crore) (Per cent)
2001-02 -0.88 -17.42 -0.88 -17.45
2002-03 -1.26 -27.48 -1.99 -37.43
2003-04 +0.36 +8.03 -0.86 -15.04
Average -0.60 -12.29 -1.24 -23.31

26
actual expenditure in the protection sector is somewhat higher than the figures included in this study. But, even in the case
of NCLP, the fact is that under-spending is often accompanied by financial and programmatic mismanagement.
NCLP is directly funded by GoI and is implemented by the Collectors-cum-Chairmen of the NCLP societies (called Proj-
ect Societies). The activity of these societies is reviewed and monitored by the state government through the organizational
hierarchy of the State Labour and Employment Department. As of June 2004, there were 18 such societies functioning in
18 of the 30 districts in Orissa. Of these 18, two became functional in 1994-95, 13 in 1995-96 and one each in 1996-97,
1999-2000 and 2000-01. While 710 special schools had been sanctioned in Orissa, 681 were operational as of June 2004.
Among the operational schools, 287 (or 42 per cent) were managed by Project Societies directly, 389 (or 57 per cent) by
NGOs, and five (one per cent) by the National Advisory Council (NAC). This was the case even though the scheme calls
for such schools to be managed by NGOs rather than Project Societies.xiv
The Audit Report (Civil) of 2004 observes, “A review of the implementation of the Child Labour Prohibition and Regu-
lation Act (1986) during the period 1999-2004 revealed serious deficiencies in the enforcement of the Act in both its
prohibitory and regulatory aspects. There was no well-focused target-oriented approach. The surveys for identification of
child labour were not reliable, inspections ineffective and monitoring deficient and almost non-existent. Prosecution was
finally launched in only three per cent of the cases show-caused. The rationale behind sanction of National Child Labour
Projects (NCLPs) by Government of India (GOI) as a part of rehabilitation programme was not transparent. Children
employed in non-hazardous occupations and processes and children below the prescribed age limit were enrolled in over-
whelming proportions to justify sanction of the projects and opening of special schools. About 60 per cent of the children
enrolled in the special schools and due for mainstreaming could not be mainstreamed.”
The crucial fact to be noted here is that the problems of under-spending apart, available financial resources are being
grossly misappropriated.
The Audit Report states that the receipt and expenditure figures of the Project Societies in Orissa – for the period
1999-2004 – were neither available at the Department not at the Labour Commissioner’s Office as of June 2004. In
November 2004, the Orissa government said that it did not maintain the figures because it did not receive the grants-in-
aid. Finally, information for the Audit Report was accessed through the Project Directors.
The table below presents the receipt and expenditure of all 18 Project Societies from 1999 to 2004.
The Audit Report goes on to note that the annual unspent amount ranged from 34 to 41 per cent of the available funds
because the requirement was inflated and the amounts were sanctioned without reference to actual expenditure. The
Table. 17 NCLP funds in Orissa
Year Opening Grants-in-aid Interest/Other Total Funds Expenditure Closing Unspent
Balance received Receipts Balance percentage
(Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) (Rs. Crore) (Per cent)
1999-00 3.41 7.92 0.18 11.51 6.98 4.53 39
2000-01 4.53 7.00 0.28 11.81 6.96 4.85 41
2001-02 4.85 13.67 0.30 18.82 11.01 7.81 41
2002-03 7.81 8.98 0.43 17.22 11.28 5.94 34
2003-04 5.94 10.86 0.24 17.04 10.56 6.48 38
Total 3.41 48.43 1.43 46.79 6.48

27
release of Rs 24.46 lakh to NCLP in Sambalpur during 2002-03 for instance, was unnecessary because the entire expendi-
ture of Rs 1.16 crore incurred during that year could have been met from the funds already available.
The report also records instances of delay in the release of stipend by the Project Societies to schools – a six-year delay in
Sambalpur, and a one- to three-year delay in Malkangiri and Rayagada districts. In Ganjam district, 27 NGOs were not
given the stipend amount. Other irregularities were observed in the supply and administration of mid-day meals; health
check-ups were not conducted and vocational training was ineffective. “Thus,” states the Audit Report (2004) xv
, “it was
apparent that 60 per cent of the total children due for mainstreaming were not effectively mainstreamed.”
BOX 7. NCLP in Orissa—A five-year story
“The economic rationale of child labour is the contribution it makes to household income in the case of poor
households. In such a situation, it becomes important to know the nature of work in which a child labourer is
engaged and how hazardous it is. Since child labour means educational deprivation, it also becomes equally
important to facilitate access to non-formal schooling for child labourers. In Orissa, as per the Child Labour
Surveys of 1997, there were altogether 2.15 lakh child labourers in the state working in 1.75 lakh establishments.
Out of this, 56.5 per cent were males and 43.5 per cent were females. Female child labourers outnumber male
child labourers in five districts—Sambalpur, Angul, Jharsuguda, Deogarh, and Keonjhar. Of the total number of
child labourers (2.15 lakh), 11 per cent were engaged in hazardous occupations and the rest in non-hazardous
occupations. Under the National Child Labour Project, a total of 675 special learning centres had been opened
till December 2002 in which 37,614 child labourers were admitted. Out of this, 35,054 had been mainstreamed
to formal schools. Thus, only about 17.5 per cent of child labourers in the state were admitted to special learning
centres.
Source: Government of Orissa (2004), Labour Statistics in Orissa, 2003, Labour Commission, Bhubaneswar. Orissa Human Development Report. Govt
of Orissa Pg.27

28
End Notes
i Judith Streak (compiled). Monitoring Government Budgets to Advance Child Rights. A Guide for NGOs. Chil-
dren’s Budget Unit, Budget Information Service, Institute for Democracy. IDASA. South Africa
ii National Plan of Action for Children, 2005. Ministry of Women and Child Development . Government of India
ii Santosh Desai. Last Word. Blinded by Shanghai. The Week. August 28 2005
ii S.P. Ganguly. Fundamentals of Government Budgeting in India . Third Revised Edition. 2000. Concept Publishing
Company. New Delhi
ii Judith Streak (compiled). Monitoring Government Budgets to Advance Child Rights. A Guide for NGOs. Chil-
dren’s Budget Unit, Budget Information Service, Institute for Democracy. IDASA. South Africa
iii The estimates of expenditure from the Consolidated Fund included in the Annual Financial Statement and required
to be voted by the Lok Sabha are submitted in the form of Demands for Grants in pursuance of Article 113 of the
Constitution.
iv Each Demand normally includes the total provisions required for a service, that is, provisions on account of revenue
expenditure, capital expenditure, grants to State and Union Territory Governments and also loans and advances re-
lating to the service. With regard to Union Territories without Legislature, a separate Demand is presented for each
Union Territory. Where the provision for a service is entirely for expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund,
for example, interest payments, a separate Appropriation, as distinct from a Demand, is presented for that expendi-
ture and it is not required to be voted by Parliament. Where, however, expenditure on a service includes both ‘voted’
and ‘charged’ items of expenditure, the latter are also included in the Demand presented for that service but the
‘voted’ and ‘charged’ provisions are shown separately in that Demand.)
v 2001, Census of India
vi Planning Commission , Government of India, 2001
vii SRS, 2004 (SRS-Volume-40, No.1, April 2006
viii http://orissagov.nic.in/health/healthindicator.htm
ix International Institute of Population Sciences (IIPS) and ORC Macro 2001, NFHS-2, 1998-99, Orissa
x Government of India (2001), Census of India: Provisional Population Totals, Series-22: Orissa, Paper 1, Directorate
of Census Operations, Orissa, Bhubaneswar
xi See annexure 1
xii Health Vision 2020, Orissa, www.orissa.gov.in
xiii Arun C. Mehta, Elementary Education in India, Progress towards UEE, NIEPA, 2005
xiv Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended March 2004
xv Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended March 2004, p33, 41, 45 & 48

29
Annexure I
Child Development
Emergency Feeding Programme – Admin
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 83235 83235 64559
2002-03 67787 67787 43055
2003-04 67823 67823 10432
2004-05 19104 19104
2005-06 19038
ICDS
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2000-01 645994
2001-02 1027016 1005947 697403
2002-03 1035770 1018781 726440
2003-04 1566521 1566605 1404584
2004-05 1669906 1897155
2005-06 1660120
World Bank Assisted ICDS-III
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 606967 606967 415148
2002-03 597143 597143 416630
2003-04 1019089 1019089 827306
2004-05 1044224 1296473
2005-06 1078568
Supplementary Nutrition Programme
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 24969 3900 13114
2002-03 22100 5100 0
2003-04 50000 50000 90317
2004-05 50000 50000
2005-06 40000
Nutrition
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 41957 7944
2002-03 42670 164370 59725
2003-04 117001 186916 5473
2004-05 188416 154616
2005-06 122955
Special Nutrition Programme
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 276813 213426 100343
2002-03 302561 383761 229606
2003-04 351740 278405 328939
2004-05 370625 370625
2005-06 420625
Special Nutrition in KBK Districts
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2000-01 96332
2001-02 89570 95900 139285
2002-03 150000 200000 215308
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
Emergency Feeding Programme in KBK Districts
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04 157100 78550 79321
2004-05 185850 180000
2005-06 190000

30
Balika Samriddhi Yojana
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2000-01 22141
2001-02 17500 32500 45885
2002-03 35342 35342 10000
2003-04 50000 50000 605
2004-05 50000 50000
2005-06 65000
Emergency Feeding Programme – Administration
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2000-01 66025
2001-02 83235 83235 64559
2002-03 67787 67787 43055
2003-04 67823 67823 10432
2004-05 19104 19104
2005-06 19038

31
Annexure II
Child Health
Reproductive and Child Health
Rs Thousands
YEAR BE RE AE
2001-02 10 10 0
2002-03 40000 40000 20000
2003-04 36900 0 1470
2004-05 9984 4984
2005-06 7500
Training
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 22860 23195 17636
2002-03 25800 25800 19652
2003-04 25990 25990 19155
2004-05 29729 30829
2005-06 32451
Institute of Paediatrics – Cuttack – Hospitals and
Dipesaries
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 17586 24135 19712
2002-03 20006 20497 16366
2003-04 19272 20813 17968
2004-05 21311 20552
2005-06 30264
Post Partum Centres
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 94387 94387 62211
2002-03 96220 169043 92432
2003-04 70000 70000 119794
2004-05 150000 127600
2005-06 130000
IMR Reduction
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 14460 13917 29
2002-03 10000 10001 8900
2003-04 10000 10000 12011
2004-05 10000 3000
2005-06 5000
Reduction of Child Malnutrition & Child Mortality in
KBK under RLTAP
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 0 0 0
2002-03 0 0 0
2003-04 11500 11500 6136
2004-05 11500 23000
2005-06 23000
Maternity and Child Welfare Centres
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 23753 23753 18799
2002-03 22007 22294 19989
2003-04 25584 22519 17044
2004-05 23771 23771
2005-06 22956

32
Government Upper Primary Schools (Government
Upper Primary Schools + Assistance to Upper Primary
Schools)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 2311384 2519362 2114099
2002-03 2514055 2529312 2092495
2003-04 2250476 2409795 1434734
2004-05 2394995 2449355
2005-06 2418769
Inspection – Elementary Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 209570 250508 227320
2002-03 254084 258384 252636
2003-04 245121 261793 318444
2004-05 258048 261652
2005-06 260100
Annexure III - A
Education
Child Education - Orissa
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 14513426 15750746 15533902
2002-03 18491911 18158290 17521541
2003-04 18801483 19299945 17521528
2004-05 17962177 18511530
2005-06 20707689
Secondary Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 353.0406 414.4743 486.5582
2002-03 649.2163 586.2649 611.6286
2003-04 642.6942 662.2997 596.4505
2004-05 632.7092 636.421
2005-06 684.3283
Technical Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 154652 154083 161053
2002-03 177176 172303 16.4577
2003-04 162552 169392 15.9380
2004-05 163921 175667
2005-06 165058
Child Education – Elementary
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 10976766 11599749 10656406
2002-03 11987668 12283061 11393510
2003-04 12368791 12666798 11546326
2004-05 11628289 12130200
2005-06 13857259
Direction, Administration and Inspection Elementary
Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 221310 265990 239586
2002-03 268064 272770 264696
2003-04 258218 275041 330760
2004-05 271597 275202
2005-06 273290
Government Primary Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 7252409 7341884 7227133
2002-03 7489364 7741099 7682647
2003-04 7706687 8020402 8692826
2004-05 7803424 7913024
2005-06 7854617

33
Promotion of MIL in Madarsa
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 32135 33485 21386
2002-03 33660 32081 12866
2003-04 24520 24032 10864
2004-05 30708 30734
2005-06 20405
Education of Disabled Children
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 42202 43723 42248
2002-03 44478 45032 28391
2003-04 41146 45649 41142
2004-05 42294 54900
2005-06 48921
Training (DIETs + Teachers Training)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 157470 170640 75881
2002-03 171782 168061 118448
2003-04 169506 171106 116909
2004-05 174631 179136
2005-06 168659
Teachers Training
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 101409 114579 43346
2002-03 116665 112944 89534
2003-04 98333 99933 95696
2004-05 99949 104454
2005-06 95722
Assistance to Non Government Upper Primary Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 60407 94143 79249
2002-03 135293 64465 75374
2003-04 95372 98194 105182
2004-05 72534 72534
2005-06 67139
Direction And Administration – Elementary Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 11740 15482 12266
2002-03 13980 14386 12060
2003-04 13097 13248 12316
2004-05 13549 13550
2005-06 13190
Promotion of Sanskrit (Sanskrit Education)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 6473 6473 1321
2002-03 6537 6582 1203
2003-04 3666 3751 15190
2004-05 3697 3715
2005-06 3723
Mid Day Meal
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 5.0000 2.0000 13.2800
2002-03 12.0000 13.9328 11.4480
2003-04 9.5000 9.5000 9.3352
2004-05 28.5000 43.4994
2005-06 81.9300

34
Upper Primary Scholarship
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 22297 22297 12176
2002-03 13191 13042 5721
2003-04 12966 12266 25337
2004-05 36818 36818
2005-06 38818
Language Promotion schemes (Promotion of Sanskrit +
Hindi + MIL in Madrassa + Other Language)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 4.5623 4.7473 2.8981
2002-03 4.9469 4.5557 1.9605
2003-04 3.4522 3.3619 3.0296
2004-05 3.8256 3.8300
2005-06 2.7979
Promotion of Other Language
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 3992 4492 3687
2002-03 6160 3782 3437
2003-04 4451 3951 4242
2004-05 3851 3851
2005-06 3851
Text Books
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 12.3241 12.6007 11.7910
2002-03 13.5140 18.5140 17.7916
2003-04 13.0007 13.2907 12.6154
2004-05 13.1969 15.2627
2005-06 8.9431
Training (Research cum Training + Diets + Teachers
Training)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 18.2799 19.5969 9.3944
2002-03 18.5446 18.2011 12.9769
2003-04 19.0858 19.2459 12.8001
2004-05 19.4995 19.9651
2005-06 18.7228
DIETs
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 56061 56061 32535
2002-03 55117 55117 28914
2003-04 71173 71173 21213
2004-05 74682 74682
2005-06 72937
Scholarship and Incentives
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 51.7942 51.5548 66.3516
2002-03 68.1636 48.6319 72.2570
2003-04 76.8192 72.2325 67.4237
2004-05 67.5243 67.0719
2005-06 72.7336
Promotion of Hindi Language
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 3023 3023 2587
2002-03 3112 3112 2099
2003-04 1885 1885 0
2004-05
2005-06

35
Assistant to Non Government Primary Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 39245 41783 33365
2002-03 47826 43826 29051
2003-04 44479 44617 44439
2004-05 33389 33389
2005-06 31836
Assistant to Non Government Upper Primary Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 2250977 2425219 2034850
2002-03 2378762 2464847 2017121
2003-04 2155104 2311601 1329552
2004-05 2322461 2376821
2005-06 2351630
Primary Scholarship and Incentives
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 240 240 240
2002-03 240 240 240
2003-04 240 240 631
2004-05 240 240
2005-06 240
Post Matric Scholarships
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 199652 226849 125028
2002-03 204630 206586 92806
2003-04 162211 156444 128786
2004-05 153570 153570
2005-06 153570
Residential Schools Facilities (Sevashram + Ashram
schools + Estb. Of Residential Facilities at Primary
Level for Girls in KBK districts (JRY) + Residential
schools Facilities)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 33.4216 41.1315 36.2454
2002-03 44.4556 60.4046 36.5319
2003-04 31.3121 34.7770 31.4867
2004-05 35.3994 35.8818
2005-06 36.0630
Hostel (Includes Establishment of Residential facilities-
at primary level for Girls in KBK districts – JRY)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 25843 93914 70874
2002-03 95990 232054 58093
2003-04 4254 4404 3807
2004-05 7030 16317
2005-06 8864
Research cum Training
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 25329 25329 18063
2002-03 13664 13950 11321
2003-04 21352 21353 11092
2004-05 20364 20515
2005-06 18569
Pre Matric Scholarships
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 295753 266162 526072
2002-03 463575 266451 623803
2003-04 592775 553375 519483
2004-05 484615 480091
2005-06 534708

36
Primary Schools (Government + Non Government
Primary Schools)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 7291654 7383667 7260498
2002-03 7537190 7784925 7711698
2003-04 7751166 8065019 8737265
2004-05 7836813 7946413
2005-06 7886453
Construction of Schools (Primary + Elementary)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 191089 270070 275808
2002-03 201002 150258 74522
2003-04 420377 213002 200000
2004-05 01002 01002
2005-06 01002
Sevashram Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 280891 290891 260195
2002-03 310891 328343 256895
2003-04 255728 273795 234460
2004-05 279655 283511
2005-06 283051
Ashram Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 53324 53324 50159
2002-03 63665 75703 68424
2003-04 57393 73975 80398
2004-05 74339 75307
2005-06 77579

37
Direction and Administration – Head Quarter Organisa-
tion
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 20645 21499 24404
2002-03 22578 23048 20887
2003-04 20354 21774 22044
2004-05 22333 22689
2005-06 22625
Direction, Administration, Inspection and Secretariat
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 107247 111724 109868
2002-03 114594 11.7463 109161
2003-04 109482 115230 121899
2004-05 121071 122866
2005-06 65156
Secretariat – School and Mass Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 41725 41725 36406
2002-03 43466 43966 38035
2003-04 41460 42460 38813
2004-05 42366 42749
2005-06 42531
Inspection – Secondary Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 44877 48500 49058
2002-03 48550 50449 50239
2003-04 47668 50996 61042
2004-05 56372 57428
2005-06 0
High Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 600360 706223 689347
2002-03 577584 472942 365847
2003-04 356009 373322 377469
2004-05 511635 429638
2005-06 501746
Government Secondary Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 1673801 2067296 2807338
2002-03 4244632 4175033 4270381
2003-04 3939621 4213194 4172039
2004-05 4361157 4479379
2005-06 4865854
Assistance to Non Government Secondary Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 226827 307470 281958
2002-03 426942 175105 280920
2003-04 365723 305406 302501
2004-05 299250 286250
2005-06 344030
Annexure III - B
Secomdary Education

38
Annexure III - C
Technical Education
Technical Education
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 154652 154083 161053
2002-03 177176 172303 164577
2003-04 162552 169392 159380
2004-05 163921 175667
2005-06 165058
Training
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 8137 8206 9648
2002-03 11398 9003 9116
2003-04 9343 9653 9167
2004-05 9485 9590
2005-06 9369
Scholarship and Stipend for ITI’s Student
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 1153 1153 930
2002-03 1153 1153 1038
2003-04 908 908 655
2004-05 840 840
2005-06 840
Engineering Schools
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 39981 38001 45043
2002-03 59112 56360 54124
2003-04 53313 54973 52995
2004-05 56267 56022
2005-06 53300
Women Polytechnics
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 21496 22951 26848
2002-03 20214 19141 19197
2003-04 18839 19774 18565
2004-05 19746 19859
2005-06 19996
Polytechnics and ITIs
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 78582 78431 73897
2002-03 78682 79684 74735
2003-04 74005 77601 71211
2004-05 70904 81919
2005-06 73276

39
Gratuitous Relief - Relief of Old Infirm and Destitute
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 10104 10104 0
2002-03 10104 10104 01281
2003-04 10104 10104 01496
2004-05 10104 10104
2005-06 10104
Care and Protection of Street Children
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2000-01 0
2001-02 300 300 0
2002-03 1 1 0
2003-04 1 1 0
2004-05 1 1
2005-06 1
Orissa State Council for Child Welfare
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 00002 00002 0
2002-03 00101 00102 0
2003-04 00101 00101 00160
2004-05 00101 00101
2005-06 00401
Central Homes
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 932 932 0
2002-03 734 785 742
2003-04 747 787 552
2004-05 804 877
2005-06 854
Rehabilitation of Neglected Delinquent Juveniles
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 4668 4668 2710
2002-03 4491 3869 2706
2003-04 3583 3798 3548
2004-05 3710 3710
2005-06 3000
Setting of Commissioner for Disabled
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 90 90 50
2002-03 110 110 110
2003-04 110 110 24
2004-05 110 110
2005-06 110
Adoption of Orphan and Destitute Children
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
15
2001-02 15 15 983
2002-03 15 15 15
2003-04 50 50 139
2004-05 50 50
2005-06 50
Administration (Head Quarter + Secretariat depart-
ment of women and child development)
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 17511 17530 16416
2002-03 17928 18283 17107
2003-04 17972 18765 17274
2004-05 17966 18341
2005-06 17591
Annexure IV
Child Protection

40
Maintenance of Orphan and Destitute Children
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 16334 16334 20968
2002-03 11834 19334 10764
2003-04 11564 22664 24720
2004-05 12606 30069
2005-06 12641
Campaign, Seminar and Sports
Rs Thousands
Year BE RE AE
2001-02 500 500 538
2002-03 500 500 500
2003-04 500 500 411
2004-05 500 500
2005-06 1200

Budget for Children in Orissa 2001-02 to 2005-06

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Budget for Children in Orissa 2001-02 to 2005-06

Similar to Budget for Children in Orissa 2001-02 to 2005-06 (20)

More from HAQ: Centre for Child Rights

More from HAQ: Centre for Child Rights (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Budget for Children in Orissa 2001-02 to 2005-06