Budget for Children in Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to 2008-09

BUDGET FOR
CHILDREN
Centre
for
Child
Rights
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
B 1/2, Malviya Nagar, Ground Floor, New Delhi - 110017, India
T: +91-11-26677412/3599 | F: +91-11-26674688
E: info@haqcrc.org | W: www.haqcrc.org
Centre for Rural Education and Development Action
490, Awas Vikas Colony, Mirzapur-231001
T: +05442-220285 (Off) +05442-220284 (Res)
E: we@credaindia.org | W: www.credaindia.org
Prepared by HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi, in partnership with Centre for Rural Education and Development Action, Mirzapur
2004-05 to 2008-09in Uttar Pradesh
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights is a ten-year old New Delhi-based civil society organisation
that works towards the recognition, promotion and protection of rights of all children.
It aims at contributing to the building of an environment where every child’s rights
are recognised and promoted without discrimination and in an integrated manner.
HAQ believes that child rights and children’s concerns have to be mainstreamed into
all developmental planning and action and must also become a core development
indicator.
To carry forward this mandate, HAQ undertakes research and documentation and is
actively engaged in public education and advocacy. In India, HAQ pioneered the Budget
for Children analysis in 2001. Over the years, it has developed skills for quick and incisive
scanning of law and policy documents and commenting on them. It works with existing
networks, builds alliances and partnerships with other actors/stakeholders such as the
bureaucrats, parliamentarians, judges and lawyers, police and media.
HAQ seeks to serve as a resource and support base for individuals and groups dealing
with children at every level. It not only provides information and referral services but
also undertakes training and capacity building for all those working with children or on
issues concerning them, and for the children themselves.
HAQ works on children and governance, violence and abuse of children, child trafficking
and juvenile justice. It provides legal support to children in need, particularly those who
are victims of abuse and exploitation or are in conflict with the law.
Publications | Kandhamal’s Forgotten Children: A Status Report. | India’s Childhood in
the “Pits”: A Report on the Impacts of Mining on Children in India | Blind Alley: Juvenile
Justice in India (2009) | Still out of focus: Status of India’s children (2008) | Handbook on
Children’s right to adequate housing | Combating Child Trafficking (A User’s Handbook)
| Budget for Children (set of four publications on child budget analysis) for India,
Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa (2007) | Child Protection: A handbook for
Panchayat Members (English and Hindi) | Status of Children in India Inc. 2005 | Says a
Child...Who Speaks for my Rights? ( A series of books analysing parliamentary questions
and debates from 2003 to 2008 in English and Hindi) | My God is a Juvenile Delinquent
(Not a HAQ publication but is available in HAQ) | Stop Child Trafficking: A handbook for
Parliamentarians | Children in Globalising India: Challenging our Conscience (2003)
| Children bought and sold: We can stop it! (Hindi and English)(2003) | Children and
Right to Adequate housing: A guide to international legal resources (2002) | India`s
Children and the Union Budget (2001)

A study by
In Partnership With:
Centre for Rural Education and Development Action (CREDA)
CHILDREN’S SHARE IN THE UTTAR PRADESH BUDGET
An Analysis from a Child Rights Perspective
2004-05 to 2008-09

Printed and Published in 2009
© Centre for Rural Education and Development Action (CREDA) and HAQ: Centre for Child Rights
Reproduction of any part of this publication for educational or other non-commercial
purposes is authorised only with prior permission from
Centre for Rural Education and Development Action (CREDA)
490, Awas Vikas Colony, Mirzapur-231001
Phone: 05442-220285 (Off) 05442-220284 (Res)
Email: we@credaindia.org
Website: www.credaindia.org
or
B 1/2, Malviya Nagar, Ground Floor
New Delhi-110017, India
Phone: 91-11-26677412/3599
Fax: 91-11-26674688
Email: info@haqcrc.org
Website: www.haqcrc.org
978-81-906548-5-2
Credits
Research Team
At HAQ | Paromita Shastri
Madhumita Purkayastha
Indarilin Dkhar
At CREDA | Vinod Singh
Photo Credit | Cover Gunnar Geir Petursson
Inside Campaign against Child Labour (CACL)
Dolon Bhattacharya
Design and Typesetting | Aspire Design, New Delhi
Supported by | Sir Dorabji Tata Trust

i
A budget is an estimate of the resources that will be available during a specified financial year to be spent on a set of
projects that give shape to the nation/state’s long-term development plan. Through an annual budget, which breaks
down into several sectoral and departmental budgets, the Government allocates money to achieve various social and
economic goals such as education, health care, water and power supply, building roads, dams, etc. Thus the budget is the
most important economic policy statement in any country, more so in a welfare state like India that still has miles to go in
achieving a decent human development record.
Since the size of the allocation of funds determines, at first glance, the level of priority accorded to a programme, a
budget is also the best reflection of how seriously the government takes its policies and their implementation. As a result,
tracking the allocations in the annual financial statement, right from the printed numbers in the budget document to
the expenditures detailed in the demands for grants, becomes an indispensable tool in monitoring if the government is
keeping the promises made to the citizens. Children are bona fide citizens with full human rights but since they lack the
all-important vote, they are neglected even in national budgets that are full of programmes that ostensibly benefit children.
It is to make the government walk its talk about children that in 2002, HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, a civil society
organisation based in New Delhi, embarked on a decadal analysis (1990-91 to 1999-2000) of the Union Budget from a
child rights perspective. This unique endeavour was followed up by the Centre for Rural Education and Development
Action (CREDA), which started child budget analysis work in Uttar Pradesh in 2006 in partnership with HAQ. The first
time-series budget analysis of this partnership was published in 2008 as “Budget for Children in Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to
2007-08.”
The present report, the second in this phase, extends the analysis by one more year to offer a five-year review of state
budgets from the perspective of child rights from 2004-05 to 2008-09. We seek to make the analysis more exhaustive
by including the latest actual expenditure figures that are usually available with a two-year lag. The objective, as before,
Foreword

ii
is to evaluate the budget provisions made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh towards ensuring the rights of children
in the areas of survival, protection and development and examine how far the financial commitments have fallen short
of fulfilling these rights. This year, we have also undertaken a special ear-to-the ground financial tracking analysis of the
government’s flagship Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme, to evaluate how far it has succeeded in achieving its broad
objectives.
This project would not have come about without Sir Dorabji Tata Trust who supported our budget work for three years.
The BfC report was written by Vinod Singh of CREDA, while Dolon Bhattacharya of MV Foundation helped out with
the SSA study and field tours and wrote the second part of the report. Both the reports were edited at HAQ by Paromita
Shastri with assistance from Madhumita Purkayashtha and Indarilin Dkhar. The project has been affected by staff shortage
at CREDA, resulting in their inability to devote much time to it. However, HAQ takes full responsibility for all facts and
figures. Reader reactions, including those about any inadvertent mistakes, will be appreciated.
In disseminating the budget analysis, our purpose is to engage diverse stakeholders at the state and local levels, as well as all
those involved in the process of preparing budgets in generating a wide discussion and debate. We hope it will serve as an
effective tool for all child rights activists and organisations and help in holding governments accountable for the changing
allocation and expenditure patterns in child-focused programmes. Write in to us at info@haqcrc.org
Enakshi Ganguly Thukral & Bharti Ali Shamshad Khan
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights Centre for Rural Education and Development Action
New Delhi Mirzapur

iii
SECTION I
Children’s Potential Untapped by Callous State 1
Methodology & Overview of BfC Analysis 5
Despite Rising Enrolment, Education Remains ‘Unaffordable’ 15
Funds Lie Idle Even as Development Needs Remain Unmet 20
Poor Allocation Dogs Health Sector 25
Allocation for Protection Dips Despite Extreme Vulnerability 29
References 33
Annexure 34
SECTION II
Tracking SSA Implementation in Uttar Pradesh 41
Annexure 72
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 74
Contents

v
Section I
Budget for Children

1
India’s largest state in terms of population, Uttar Pradesh is a glaring example
of underutilised and undeveloped human potential. With 166.2 million
people, the state has a 17 per cent share of India’s population and is bigger
than most countries of the world, including Russia, Germany and Japan. It
also has double the population density of India—689 persons per square km
against 324 persons for India. UP is also India’s seventh poorest state, with
32.8 per cent of the people living below the poverty line. 1
Because of its large population, UP also has the biggest share of the child
population in India. Almost every fifth child in India lives in UP. Within
the state, children account for close to half -- 49.6 per cent2
-- of the state’s
population.
With the highest share of scheduled tribe population among states and
high backwardness, the state is also considered as one of the worst states in
1 http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/news/prmar07.pdf The poverty threshold/line is the minimum level of income deemed necessary to have an adequate
standard of living in a given country. The international poverty line has been drawn by The World Bank at $1.25 a day, while it is Rs 538.60 per month for urban areas
and Rs 356.35 in rural areas in India and Rs 483.26 and Rs 365.84 respectively in Uttar Pradesh
2 UP 2006, Information and Public Relation Department, Government of UP, pp. 152
Table 1.1: A Proﬁle of UƩar Pradesh
Divisions 17
Districts 70
Zilla Panchayat 70
Tehsil 300
Development Blocks 823
Nyaya Panchayat 8,814
Nagar Panchayat 417
Gram Panchayat 51,855
Inhabited villages 97,134
Lok Sabha seats 80
Rajya Sabha seats 31
Vidhan Sabha 404
consƟtuencies
Vidhan Parishad 100 members
Total geographical area 236,286 sq km
Forest coverage 17,001 sq km
Children s Potential
Untapped by Callous State

2
India in terms of human development. At the beginning of this decade, UP had a human development index of close to
half of that of Kerala3
. Because of regional disparities, human development indicators are far behind in the eastern and
Bundelkhand regions that are home to bulk of the poor people, compared to those in western UP where there has been
industrial development and agricultural production is good. This lopsided development fuels migration out of the poorer
districts and even the state as a whole. The worst affected in any such situation are the children, helpless and voiceless.
Due to high population and poverty figures, the state receives the largest share of central government funds as well as
that of the centrally sponsored schemes. Also, since only about a fifth of the people live in urban areas and most live in
numerous small villages, it requires a large spread of social and economic infrastructure and, in turn, resources. Despite
the central largesse, a matching commitment of funds and implementation has not been forthcoming from the state
government.
For instance, government statistics show UP has received the
maximum allocation among all states under the flagship education
programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Yet, the state’s per child
expenditure remains lower than that in Bihar or Chhattisgarh, states
which are poorer and also received less central funds.
It has been argued that historical and structural reasons, especially a
population of largely illiterate voters, limited access to information,
gender inequity, and rampant social discrimination against backward
castes, have had a role to play in the state continuing to remain behind
most other states in improving its human development indicators.
Economist Jean Dreze has written how a rural school in UP can be
nonfunctional for years, with teachers absent or shirking but without
any civic protest.4
Since the eighties, electoral competition has been
intensely socially polarised, with voting decisions overwhelmingly
based on a candidate’s caste identity, a status that has changed little
even after the backward castes started enjoying political supremacy.
To add to its woes, the state’s financial condition too has not really improved. The state has been the biggest producer in
India of foodgrain (wheat), sugarcane, pulses and potatoes, says the UP State Development Report, 2006, with two-thirds
of the people engaged in agriculture which contributes over 13 per cent to the total agricultural state domestic product.5
But agriculture’s bane has been a low yield, keeping per capita production low. This factor has combined with low and
skewed industrialisation to keep the gross SDP low. UP’s per capita income in 2002-03 at current prices was Rs 11,856,
almost half of the all-India average of Rs 21,373. Health and development expenditure has always been low, with much
of the budget going in meeting revenue expenditure, or in other words, maintaining a huge government. The state tops in
3 National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission, Government of India 2002
4 Dreze, Jean and Haris Gazdar. 1996. “Uttar Pradesh: The Burden of Inertia.” In Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, eds., Indian Development: Selected Regional
Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Probe Team in Association with Centre for Development Economics (1999)
5 UP State Development Report, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2006. This and all statistics used later in this chapter are from this report.
UP tops in maternal deaths
In-country dispariƟes in maternal mortality
are huge, with UƩar Pradesh in north India
having one of the highest MMRs, with nearly
three Ɵmes as much as southern Tamil Nadu
state. Even within a state, the access to and
uƟlisaƟon of maternal healthcare varies
based on region (rural or urban), caste,
religion, income and educaƟon. For instance,
a 2007 UNICEF study in six northern states
in India revealed that 61 per cent of the
maternal deaths documented by it occurred
in Dalit (so-called “untouchables”) and tribal
communiƟes.
No Tally of the Anguish: Accountability in Maternal
Health Care in India, Human Rights Watch,
October 2009
Government staƟsƟcs show UP has received the maximum allocaƟon among all states under the ﬂagship
educaƟon programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Yet, the state’s per child expenditure remains lower than that
in Bihar or Chhaƫsgarh, states which are poorer and also received less central funds.

3
birth rate—a fact directly connected to its infant mortality which too is the highest in the country-- and also has the third
highest death rate, with average life expectancy lower than the national average.
Literacy rate too is lower than the national average. In fact, the lack of a good educational base among its people as well
as lack of quality educational institutions is one of the main reasons why the information technology and related services
industry has not flourished in the state and fuelled job growth.
Most of the child indicators in the state, as table 1.2 shows, are worse than their national average. At the turn of the
century, one in three girls in Uttar Pradesh had never been to school, even when there was universal enrolment in Kerala.
While enrolment has improved along with the number of schools, the state and quality of school education still remains
dismal. This combines with poverty to create an extremely vulnerable environment for children.
Table 1.2: How children fare in UP compared to India
Indicators UP India
Child populaƟon 0-6 years (million)* 31.62 163.82
Share of child populaƟon 0-6 years in total populaƟon (%)* 19.03 15.92
Share of child populaƟon 6-14 years in total populaƟon (%)* 25.11 21.99
Share of child populaƟon 0-18 years) in total populaƟon (%)* 49.56 43.79
Sex RaƟo (female per thousand male)* 898 933
Infant Mortality Rate (per thousand live births)** 72.7 57
Maternal Mortality Rate*** 707 540
Under-ﬁve Child Mortality Rate** 96.4 74.3
Low birth weight babies (in per cent)** 25.1 21.5
Underweight children under ﬁve** 42.4 42.5
Life Expectancy at birth***
Male 59.9 62.1
Female 59.0 63.7
Percentage of children in the age group 3-5 years with 25.6 37.7
pre-school educaƟon****
Net Enrolment RaƟo in Primary School# - -All 97.74 84.53
Boys 97.92 95.01
Girls 97.87 95.32
CompleƟon rate of Upper Primary Schooling#
Boys 97.37 87.58
Girls 97.41 88.55
Child Labour Incidence Rate (per cent)* 4.08 5.00
Disability Incidence Rate* 1.78 1.67
Crime rate against children (per lakh populaƟon)$ 2.1 2.0
Crime against UP children as %age of total crimes in India 18.1 -
Note: *Census 2001, Government of India; **NFHS-III 2005-06, Government of India
***SRS 2004; ****MulƟple Indicator Survey (MICS) 2000 ; #NUEPA 2007; $NCRB 2008

4
Uttar Pradesh also has a high number of child workers, who are mostly concentrated in the cottage industries that have
made the state famous, especially the hand-knit woolen carpets industry in Bhadohi and Mirzapur, chikan work in
Lucknow, brassware in Moradabad, glassware in Firozabad, wood carvings in Saharanpur, footwear in Agra, hand-printing
in Farrukhabad, and zari and embroidery work in several towns. According to the publication Crime Against Children
2008,6
Uttar Pradesh accounted for 43 per cent of infanticides, 24.4 per cent of murders of children, 16.5 per cent of cases
of rape of children and 29 per cent of kidnapping of children in 2008. These indicators underscore the importance the
state government needs to give its children by taking up urgently the task of developing, nurturing and protecting them for
a socially and economically secure future of the state.
6 Crime Against Children, 2008, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India

5
The BfC study is an attempt to analyse the financial priorities of the state government of Uttar Pradesh with respect to
its declared commitments for the children. It seeks to understand and question the extent to which promises made by the
government have been translated into policies and programmes that protect children’s rights, mainly through an analysis of
the state budget and other government review documents.
It is important to remember that the Budget for Children (BfC) is not a separate budget. It is just an exercise to separate
the allocations made for all programmes and schemes that benefit children in the state. Child budget analysis can be
undertaken for all kinds of national, sectoral and departmental budgets. Here, we analyse UP state government annual
budgets for five years.
Deﬁning the Child
In keeping with the definition of the child under the UN Convention on Rights for Children (CRC) and the Juvenile
Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, we have defined a child as a person aged 0-18 years and selected
programmes catering to this age group. Indian legislation also makes 18 years the general age of majority in India.7
7 Union Ministry for Women and Child Development, Definition of the Child, http://wcd.nic.in/crcpdf/CRC-2.PDF, uploaded: 10 August 2009.
Methodology & Overview of
the BfC Analysis

6
RaƟonale for the Study
By throwing light on how much the government allots and spends on programmes and schemes for children, a child
budget analysis works as a tool to determine how significant children are for policymakers. National and international
commitment for attainment of child rights can only be translated into action when programmes and schemes are equipped
adequately with resources and utilised optimally. Budget analysis findings could go a long way towards providing people
and the civil society with the ammunition we require to hold the government accountable for its action or inaction and
exert pressure on it for course correction in current policies and bringing about improved policies and programmes.
The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines the four basic rights of a child as the rights to Survival,
Development, Protection and Participation. In consonance with the CRC, this study analyses the Budget from the angle
of these four sectors – development, health, education and protection – which are directly linked to the first three CRC
rights. The Right to Participation is not covered by any programme.
ObjecƟves of the Study
The goal of the study is to undertake a critical assessment and analysis of the state budget provisions in accordance with the
needs of the children and from the perspective of their rights to education, health, development and protection.
The objectives are:
To critically analyse if the allocations for programmes and schemes aimed at children are able to meet the needs of
children. That is, matching needs with allocation.
To examine the trends in allocation and expenditure and thereby the implications for children’s programmes and
schemes. In other words, to evaluate if they are increasing or decreasing and if they are gaining or losing priority.
To assess the utilisation of funds allocated for these programmes and thus evaluate utilisation versus allocation to
see if children are getting their just share of the state’s resources.
Timeframe of the Study
The study reviews the budget figures for five consecutive financial years, 2004-05 to 2008-09. These comprise the budget
estimates, revised estimates and actual expenditure for all child-related programmes and schemes. However, actual expen-
diture has been taken into account only for the first three years, from 2004-05 to 2006-07. There are two reasons for this,
the first of which is that actual estimates are available with a two-year lag. Secondly, due to the General and state elections,
the full budget for 2009-10 was presented only in end June, 2009, and thus we couldn’t incorporate the actual expenditure
figures for 2007-08.
Budget EsƟmates, Revised EsƟmates and Actual Expenditure
In the Indian budgeting process, Budget Estimate, Revised Estimate and Actual Expenditure are key phases in the process
of resource generation, allocation and spending. Since the BfC analysis involves government spending, we discuss below
only the expenditure figures, both plan and non-plan, and not the revenues.
The main budget, which is prepared by the finance ministry, is a balanced total of various budgets and demands from
all the ministries as well as representation from various lobbies, including the private corporate sector. The final Budget

7
Estimates (BE) are prepared by the finance ministry on the basis of numbers sent in by each department under each
ministry, which does its own assessment of the requirements for the ensuing year basing it on the actual numbers of
the previous years, the trend of budget estimates and utilisation, and the revised numbers for the immediate past year. The
finance ministry usually has the last word on the final budget estimates following its discussions with all departments and
ministries, upon taking into account the revenues expected in a year. The Budget Estimates define the money the govern-
ment is able or willing to commit in a particular year under various heads of expenditure. For the purpose of our study, we
look at the budget estimates in relation to the various ministries and departments that implement programmes for chil-
dren.
The Revised Estimates (RE) take into account any change in budget estimates for the year, such as additional or lowered
allocations following any new or change in policy or programme. It is the most up-to-date version of the budget estimate
of a fiscal year (April-March) at the time of preparing the next year’s budget, the process of which starts in the last six
months of the year. Thus, it is on the basis of both the Budget and the Revised Estimates for a fiscal year that the next fis-
cal’s budget estimates are prepared. However, in the case of many programmes, the BE and RE may remain the same.
The Actual Expenditure (AE) figures are the final version of the budget estimates for any particular fiscal year. In other
words, the actual on-the-ground spending for any programme (or all programmes) for that fiscal year which may be more
or less than the initial budget estimate. However, these are available to the general public with a time lag of two years. This
is why our budget analysis has actual estimates for only the first three years from 2004-05 to 2006-07.
The difference between Budget Estimates and the Actual Expenditure shows how much of the budget, more or less, has
been spent in a given financial year. Overspending is rare in government-implemented schemes. On the contrary, under-
utilisation or underspending of the budget allocation is rampant among child-related programmes. Although the scope of
the study does not cover reasons for such underspending, we discuss them whenever the reasons are easily known to us.
We have taken into account both Plan and Non-Plan Expenditures. Plan expenditure is the expenditure already planned
out in the on-going five-year plan/s, which are subsequently divided into annual plans. Our study period covers a bit of
both the Tenth and the Eleventh five-year plans. Plan expenditure is to be utilised within the time period set by the plan. If
the schemes or programmes extend beyond that time period, then the future expenditure to be incurred on the project is
called non-plan expenditure. This includes, for example, the maintenance expenditure needed to maintain an asset created
by plan expenditure. Often, during austerity drives or due to inadequate allocation by either the Centre or state govern-
ments in relation to a scheme, the non-plan expenditure portion is axed or curtailed as these are typically considered to be
inessential. This is one of the commonest reasons for waste of assets created by plan investments. For instance, hand pumps
for water lying defunct all over the countryside could very well be the result of maintenance funds not being sanctioned
anymore.
Research Design and Analysis
We began by identifying departments that run programmes that are directly concerned with children, such as the Ministry
of Women and Child Development, as well as departments that run programmes having child-related components such
as Department of Health and Family Welfare. The identification was done by studying the expense heads in the Detailed
Demands for Grants (DDG).
All the expenditure data have been taken from the DDG, which are available at both the State as well as the Centre.
Generally, each ministry or department presents one list of Demands for Grants, and large ministries or departments may
present more than one list. Each such list includes the total provisions required for a service, followed by the estimates for

8
expenditure under different major heads of account. These demands are submitted along with the Annual Financial State-
ment8
. DDG are released after the presentation of the Budget but before the discussion on the Demands begins. These
have further details of the provisions/schemes and the heads under which a demand (an allocation) will be spent as well
as the actual expenditure in the past.9
For example, the DDG for 2008-09 have AE for 2006-07. This is why our budget
analysis has actual estimates for only the first three years from 2004-05 to 2006-07.
After selecting the child-related expense heads from among the demands submitted by all departments concerned, we
segregate all the data (Budget Estimate, Revised Estimate and Actual Expenditure) under the selected heads to enter them
and tabulate in various forms for comparison and analysis.
The state departments selected were:
Department of Health
Department of Planning
Department of Technical education
Department of Minority Welfare and Waqf
Department of Women and Child development
Department of Education
Department of Labour
Department of Social Welfare
Department of Agriculture
The next step involved identifying schemes concerning children. We divided the provisions made for children under
different schemes and programmes into four sectors keeping in mind the CRC child rights framework which describes
the four basic Rights as the Rights to survival, development, protection and participation. However, because of the way
the programmes and schemes are distributed in different ministries (at the Centre) and departments in the states, it was
important to follow the same distribution, though the analysis has been done from the perspective of these rights. All the
child-focused schemes that we include in the analysis address all the four rights except for the Right to Participation. For
instance, under
Education, we include elementary (6 to 14) and secondary (15 to 18 years) education programmes. In India, the school-
leaving age is 18 years.
Development consists of programmes on early childhood care and education-- for instance, the Integrated Child Develop-
ment Scheme (ICDS) – and some other general programmes aimed at the overall development of children.
Health includes programmes aimed at meeting the health care needs of children.
Protection covers interventions aimed at the following groups of children: child labour, physically or mentally challenged
children, children in need of care and protection such as children in need of adoption, homeless or street children, and
neglected children among others, and those in conflict with law.
8 The estimates of expenditure from the Consolidated Fund included in the Annual Financial Statement and required to be voted by the Lok Sabha are submitted in
the form of Demands for Grants in pursuance of Article 113 of the Constitution.
9 Each Demand normally includes the total provisions required for a service, that is, provisions on account of revenue expenditure, capital expenditure, grants to State
and Union Territory Governments and also loans and advances relating to the service. With regard to Union Territories without Legislature, a separate Demand is
presented for each Union Territory. Where the provision for a service is entirely for expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund, for example, interest payments, a
separate Appropriation, as distinct from a Demand, is presented for that expenditure and it is not required to be voted by Parliament. Where, however, expenditure
on a service includes both ‘voted’ and ‘charged’ items of expenditure, the latter are also included in the Demand presented for that service but the ‘voted’ and
‘charged’ provisions are shown separately in that Demand.)

9
Analysis Structure
For preparing the final report, we began by calculating the total allocation and expenditure for a particular scheme/pro-
gramme. In the second stage, the total of all programmes in a sector was made for each of the four sectors and thus the
total Budget for Children (BFC) was calculated. Then the BfC along with the sector totals, their growth and composition
were compared with the total state budget.
In the third stage, the Need vs Allocation analysis was done by comparing the quantum and growth of allocations against
the quantitative and qualitative status of the children in the state. At this stage, secondary data and analysis from different
government and non-government reports and publications were used.
In the fourth stage, the analysis of Allocation vs Spending was made on the basis of the data on actual expenditure (AE)
available from the DDG for the first three years and comparing them with the budget and revised expenditure figures to
assess how well government money was being utilised for the children.
Thus, the focus of analysis was identification of gaps at multiple levels:
Between needs of the children to fulfil their rights and the commitments made by the state, both national and
international;
Between the commitments made by the state and the actual programmes/schemes under the various ministries
and departments;
Between the objectives of the programmes/schemes and the financial allocations towards them;
Between the allocations and actual expenditures; and
Between the outlays and the outcomes.10
Constraints and LimitaƟons
The study posed various challenges listed below, limiting our efforts to gain a better and more complete understanding of
how allocations for children are being made and spent.
The first challenge was the reluctance of the government departments in general to share information with non-
government people. Getting information from them was not only time-consuming but sometimes, the answers too
were not satisfactory. Often we had to seek recourse to the Right to Information Act to get the information.
Sometimes, the figures in the documents accompanying the DDGs did not tally. For example, some figures under
same heads in the ‘Summary of Financial Position’ and ‘Annual Statement of Accounts’ for 2006-07 differ.
We did not get complete accounts of certain schemes. Lack of proper document-keeping and lack of transparency
were also observed. As a result, we had to depend on personal meetings with the officials. This led to further delay
since the officials concerned were not always available, while some of those available were unwilling to part with the
information.
Not all allocations are reflected in the budget documents. A lot of the health and protection-related allocation/ex-
penditure is made through autonomous societies set up by the state. This applies to all centrally sponsored schemes
which have a higher share in development expenditure in UP than in other states. To the extent it is difficult to
include such allocations the study is unable to capture the full extent of spending on children.
10 The Government of India has begun the practice of presenting the outcome budget in addition to outlays since 2005-06.

10
Sector-based Analysis
In keeping with the methodology adopted by HAQ in its BfC analysis, the allocations for different schemes have been
categorised under four sectors viz. Education, Health, Protection and Development.
1. Education comprises various schemes introduced by the Union and the State Governments either for giving educa-
tion to children of 4-18 years or benefiting school-going children or any other educational institution coming under
this sector. It is divided into Elementary and Secondary depending on the age of the children. Allocations for schemes
such as technical, non-formal and special education for handicapped children are also included in these categories.
2. Development consists of all schemes introduced by the government for the development of children in the 0-6 years age
group. Any scheme that cannot be easily included under the other three categories has also been included in this sector.
3. Health comprises allocations for schemes targeted at meeting the health needs of children and expectant and
new mothers, such as Reproductive child health (RCH), pre-and post-natal care, National Rural Health Mission
(NRHM) etc.
4. Protection consists of allocations made for certain schemes provided for protecting the children from abuse and
exploitation.
Budget for Children in UƩar Pradesh
The children of Uttar Pradesh have received on an average
13.63 per cent of the total budget of the state. Among the six
states whose budgets were analysed, UP has the third highest
share of the budget for children (see table 2.2).
While the budget for UP increased by 75.78 per cent between
2004-05 and 2008-09, the social sector budget increased
by 153.15 per cent. Matching this, the BfC in UP Budget
showed an increase of 67.7 per cent in this period and an aver-
age annual rate of increase of 15.28 per cent.
Table 2.1 gives the State budget as well as the BfC figures in
detail. We can see that the share of BfC went up from almost
13 per cent in 2004-05 to 15.58 per cent in 2006-07, but
dropped after that year. The increase in BfC in 2005-06 and
2006-07 was mainly due to increased allocations to a few
schemes, such as the Kanya Vidya Dhan Scheme11
, Provision
for the Construction of New Schools Building (elementary
education) in the education sector, ICDS III, and Supply of
Nutrition Supplements among 0-6 years. It is a matter of seri-
ous concern that the share of the BfC in the state budget has
declined sharply between 2006-07 and 2008-09 from 15.58
per cent to 11.42 per cent.
11 To encourage girls’ education in UP, the State government started a new scheme, “Kanya Vidya Dhan Yojna”, in 2004-05 in state sector. Under this scheme, a sum
of Rs 20,000 was to be given to every girl from a BPL family in rural or urban area who had passed intermediate examination under the State Board of Education.
(planning.up.nic.in/annualplan0506).
UƩar Pradesh allocates 13.63 per cent of its own
Budget to its children. The maximum allocaƟon goes
to educaƟon and development, while children’s
protecƟon and health needs have been largely
neglected.
13.63
BfC in State
Budget
86.37
State Budget
Other than
BfC
Figure 2.1: Share of BfC in UP State Budget (2004-05 to
2008-09)

11
Children’s Share in Social Sector
Since most schemes for children come out of the social sectors, it is
a good idea to look at how much of the social sector budget is going
to children. On an average, we found that 54.66 per cent of the
social sector budget in UP went to children between 2004-05 and
2008-09. Within the time period of the study, however, the share of
the BfC in the social sector was the largest in 2005-06 (64.27 per cent), after which it started declining. Matching the fall-
ing BfC, this share also fell to 61.05 per cent in 2006-07, 54.03 per cent in 2007-08 and 42.17 per cent in 2008-09.
AllocaƟon and Expenditure: BE, RE and AE
It is not enough to just isolate the allocation for children. The government also needs to spend it fully for the allocation
to impact the situation of the children on the ground and make a difference to their lives. When we look at the spending
figures, as outlined in table 2.3, we find a major underspending in BfC only in 2006-07. This underspending to the extent of
21.36 per cent is owing to underspending in two sectors–education, where there is underspending of 19.8 per cent and de-
velopment, with underspending of 55.2 per cent. While the Revised Estimates (RE), which occur when the original budget
estimate is changed any time during the fiscal year, have been higher than the Budget Estimates (BE) in two of the four years,
actual estimate has been less than BE only in one year–2006-07. In that year, even the RE was lower than the BE.
On an average, out of every hundred rupees
allocated in the UP social sector budget during
2004-05 to 2008-09, Rs 54.66 has gone to the
children.
Table 2.2: How the six states fared: A comparison of BfC and Sector AllocaƟon Shares, 2004-05 to 2008-09
State BfC as percentage Sector AllocaƟons as percentage of the State Budget
of State budget
EducaƟon Health Development ProtecƟon
Assam 7.7 6.8 0.08 0.81 0.01
Andhra Pradesh 14.07 11.80 0.17 2.15 0.13
Himachal Pradesh 14.14 13.5 0.003 0.58 0.06
Odisha 13.51 11.54 0.54 1.38 0.05
UƩar Pradesh 13.63 11.64 0.19 1.29 0.03
West Bengal 13.48 12.04 0.34 1.07 0.03
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants, various departments, State budgets of HP, AP, UP, Odisha, Assam and West Bengal, 2004-05 to 2008-09
Table 2.1: Budget EsƟmates for Social Sector and Children in UP
Year Total State AllocaƟon to AllocaƟons Share of BfC Share of BfC Annual Rate Annual Rate
Budget Social Sector to BfC in total State in Social of Change in of Change
Budget Sector State Budget in BfC
(per cent) (per cent) (per cent) (per cent
2004-05 63,983.63 12,028.75 7,656.13 11.97 63.65 - -
2005-06 69,295.19 16,043.87 10,311.38 14.88 64.27 8.30 34.68
2006-07 82,849.96 21,151.31 12,911.97 15.58 61.05 19.56 25.22
2007-08 100,911.41 27,426.67 14,819.26 14.68 54.03 21.80 14.77
2008-09 112,472.72 30,450.45 12,839.65 11.42 42.17 11.46 -13.36
Average 85,902.58 21,420.21 11,707.68 13.63 54.66 15.28 15.33

12
Although perplexing, most governments are seen to be
revising budgets in the middle of the year, even if they
are not sure that the full funds would be spent. What else
explains the underspending in all the three years (AE-RE)?
The average underspending (AE-RE) in these years was
13.13 per cent, the highest being in 2006-07 when it was
21.36 per cent.
The share of the BfC shows a 15.33 per cent average rate
of increase over the five year period (see table 2.1). While
the rate of increase in 2005-06 over the previous year was
34.68 per cent, this was 25.22 per cent in 2006-07 and
14.77 per cent in 2007-08. In 2008-09, we see a decline in
the allocation by 13.36 per cent. The rise and fall in the rate
of change of the BfC can be traced to the changes in the
sectoral share within the budget for children.
AllocaƟon and Expenditure Across
Sectors
Across the four sectors within BfC, education gets the
highest allocation with an average of 85.44 per cent and
protection the least share with 0.19 per cent. While devel-
opment receives 9.43 per cent, the health sector remains
neglected with 4.9 per cent.
Table 2.3: Diﬀerence in UP BfC at BE, RE and AE Level
(per cent)
Year AE–BE RE–BE AE–RE
2004-05 8.65 17.15 -7.25
2005-06 0.92 10.49 -8.66
2006-07 -21.36 -0.25 -21.16
Average for -6.48 7.65 -13.13
2004-05 to 2006-07
2007-08 NA -18.51 NA
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants, 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP Government
45.34
Social
Sector
54.66
BfC
Figure 2.3: Share of BfC in Social Sector Budget over
2004-05 to 2008-09
24.94
Share of
social sec-
tor in state
Budget
75.06
State Budget
Figure 2.2: Share of Social Sector in State Budget over
2004-05 to 2008-09
Figure 2.4: BE, RE and AE of BfC (2004-05 to 2008-09)
(Rs crore)
0
2000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
BE RE AE
6000
4000

13
The share of BfC in the state budget showed an increasing
trend, with the share rising from 11.97 per cent in 2004-05
to 15.58 per cent in 2006-07. The share then fell to 14.69
per cent in 2007-08 and further to 11.42 per cent in 2008-
09, which is the lowest in the five years of study. However, a
sector-wise analysis of the share of the state budget does not
show a consistent increase. The share of the education sector
in the state budget is the highest always, recording an average
of 11.64 per cent for the five years, though it fluctuates from
year to year. There was a rise in the share of education between 2005-06 and 2006-07, but it fell in 2007-08 to 12.30 per
cent and to an even lower 9.22 per cent in 2008-09.
As for the other sectors, the average share for the development sector in the state budget is 1.29 per cent, the second high-
est. This is followed by health with 0.19 per cent and protection with only 0.03 per cent. Among the six states studied, UP
makes the second highest allocation to education and the third highest to health. This is obviously related to the number
of children in the state. Yet, by the same count, the state should have allocated more money to development and protection
schemes. Sadly, it does not, leaving most of them unprotected and malnourished.
Despite the priority given to education in the state, the improvement in the necessary infrastructure such as primary
schools in all villages and teachers for all classes is not commensurate with the allocation. Even though the allocation for
SSA in the state is the largest among all states, large numbers of children are switching from government schools to private
education or getting enrolled in private schools. Taking advantage of this situation, private schools of indifferent quality
are mushrooming in urban as well as rural areas.
The highest average rate of increase in allocation, as seen from table 2.6, has happened in the development sector–23.99
Table 2.4: Sector-wise AllocaƟon within BfC (BE) (per cent)
Year EducaƟon Health Development ProtecƟon
2004-05 90.06 5.26 4.47 0.21
2005-06 87.90 4.42 7.53 0.15
2006-07 87.33 3.90 8.64 0.12
2007-08 83.77 4.63 11.41 0.19
2008-09 80.74 6.52 12.43 0.31
Average 85.44 4.93 9.43 0.19
Table 2.5: Sector-wise Share of BfC in the UP State Budget and within Social Sector, BE per cent
Sector-wise AllocaƟon in State budget Sector-wise AllocaƟon in Social Sector* budget
Year EducaƟon Health Development ProtecƟon EducaƟon Health Development ProtecƟon
2004-05 10.78 0.63 0.53 0.03 57.32 3.35 2.84 0.13
2005-06 13.08 0.66 1.12 0.02 56.49 2.84 4.84 0.09
2006-07 13.61 0.61 1.35 0.02 53.31 2.38 5.28 0.08
2007-08 12.30 1.35 1.68 0.03 45.26 2.50 6.16 0.10
2008-09 9.22 0.61 1.42 0.03 34.04 2.75 5.24 0.13
Average 11.64 0.19 1.29 0.03 46.70 2.69 5.15 0.11
*Budget for Social Sector includes the budget for educaƟon, games, arts and culture, health and family welfare, social welfare and nutriƟon
4.90
Health
9.43
Development
0.19
ProtecƟon
85.44
EducaƟon
Figure 2.5: Sectoral share in Budget for Children (2004-
05 to 2008-09)

14
per cent. However, between 2007-
08 and 2008-09, growth in alloca-
tion has declined from 34.12 per
cent to 19.68 per cent. Allocation
in the health and protection sec-
tors, on the other hand, increased
very slowly in the first two years
and then picked up sharply be-
tween 2006-07 and 2007-08. This
is followed by a slower growth rate
in both health and development
sectors in 2008-09. However, in health and protection, it doesn’t matter how sharply the allocations have risen in the later
years, as they constitute a fraction of the state budget as well as BfC.
Average underutilisation in BfC was 6.48 per cent during
the period of study. Education, which has the lion’s share
in the state budget as well as within BfC, has an average
underspending of 6.25 per cent. Protection, which in any
case had the least share in the state budget, shows up an
underutilisation of 3.11 per cent (table 2.7 and figure 2.6).
This sector showed an underspending of 5.15 per cent in
2006-07 due to unspent balances against three schemes-
-Organising Homes under Kishore Nyay Adhiniyam,
Implementation of JJ Act Monitoring Cell, and Establishment of Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).
In 2006-07, the education sector showed the highest underspending of 19.75 per cent. This is because allocations for
schemes such as Hostels for boys and girls from SC/ST and minority community (both in elementary and secondary),
Ashram Schools, Welfare of Handicapped, Book Bank, and Providing uniform and bicycle were not spent at all. The de-
velopment sector shows an average underspending of 12.83 per cent in the three years.
Table 2.6: Annual rate of change in Sectors within Budget for Children
In per cent
Year EducaƟon Health Development ProtecƟon Budget for
Children
2005-06 31.45 13.21 32.48 -6.02 34.68
2006-07 24.41 10.39 9.71 6.67 25.22
2007-08 10.09 36.37 34.12 73.73 14.77
2008-09 -16.49 21.94 19.68 42.01 -13.36
Average 12.36 20.48 23.99 29.1 15.33
Table 2.7: Average Sectoral Spending in BfC in per cent
(2004-05 to 2006-07)
Sector AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
Development -12.83 24.85 -30.18
Health -0.73 1.38 -2.08
EducaƟon -6.25 6.56 -12.02
ProtecƟon -3.11 -0.63 -2.5
BfC 6.48 7.65 -13.12
Expansion of ICDS in UP
• 2004-05: Honararia of the Anganwadi workers (AWWs) and
Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) increased by Rs 200 and Rs 100
respecƟvely.
• 2005-06: 32,188 new Anganwadi centres (AWCs)
sancƟoned, pushing up the total number of AWCs in the
state to 138,299.
• 2006-07: 13,170 AWCs sancƟoned in the state, taking the
total to 151,469.
• 2008-09: In addiƟon to the 151,469 AWCs, 14604 new
addiƟonal AWCs and 22,186 addiƟonal mini AWCs were
sancƟoned by the Centre in December, 2008. As per latest
informaƟon available in the website of the Union MWCD,
up to 31 March 2009, 187,517 AWCs and mini AWCs were
sancƟoned in UƩar Pradesh and 150,936 are operaƟonal*.
Source: Chronology of Programme EvoluƟon, hƩp://www.icdsupweb.org/
english/chronology.htm
*This informaƟon is taken from the table SancƟoned/OperaƟonal AWCs
as on 30.09.09 (updated as on 10.11.09) on www.wcd.nic.in
Figure 2.6. Sectoral Average Diﬀerence at BE to AE and
RE to AE stage (2004-05 to 2005-06) (per cent)
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
AE-BE AE-RE
EducaƟon Health Development ProtecƟon

15
India’s Constitution reposes in the state the responsibility
to provide free and compulsory education to all children
in the age group of 6-14 years. The recent 93rd Constitu-
tion amendment making education a fundamental right has
increased the scope for working towards the goal of uni-
versalising primary education, especially with civil society
actors as watchdogs.
With an 11.64 per cent share of the UP budget, educa-
tion (elementary and secondary) receives the largest share
among all child-related sectors in the state. Even within the
budget for children (BfC), education receives 85.44 per
cent, while its share in the total state social sector budget it is 46.70 per cent. Clearly, the primacy of education in the UP
budget is not in doubt.
As against an increase of 67.7 per cent in BfC, the budget for education went up by 50.34 per cent over the five years of
Despite Rising Enrolment, Education
Remains Unaﬀordable
“The empowerment value of basic
educaƟon is so obvious that there is
something puzzling in the fact that the
promoƟon of educaƟon has received so
liƩle aƩenƟon from social and poliƟcal
leaders in the post independence
period.”
“India: Development and ParƟcipaƟon” by Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen

16
study (2004-05 to 2008-09). The revised allocation (RE) was
higher in the first two of the four years for which data was
available (2004-05 and 2005-06), but lower in the other years
2006-07 and 2007-08. In 2006-07, the actual expenditure
(AE) too was lower than the BE, while in a pleasant departure
from trend, it was more than the allocated (BE) in the
remaining two years for which estimates were available.
However, even in this sector, actual expenditure lagged behind
the revised estimates in all the three years.
As table 3.2 shows, average underspending in education
sector was 6.25 per cent. However, this is only because of
one single year, 2006-07, when there was 19.76 per cent
underspending. A programme head-wise analysis shows that in 2006-07, there were quite a few programmes in which the
14.56
Share of
EducaƟon in
BfC
85.44
BfC
Figure 3.2: Share of EducaƟon witnin Budget for Children
Average AllocaƟon 2004-05 to 2008-09
11.64
Share of
EducaƟon
in State
Budget
88.36
State Budget
Figure 3.1: Share of EducaƟon in UP State Budget--
Table 3.1: Budget AllocaƟon for EducaƟon Sector
Rs crore
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 6,895.21 7,784.7 7,312.19
2005-06 9,063.76 10,138.02 9,172.43
2006-07 11,276.19 11,099.72 9,048.33
2007-08 12,413.88 10,489.64 NA
2008-09 10,366.30 NA NA
Source: Detailed Demand for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09,
UP State GovernmentBeneficiary Survey Report on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
With regard to coverage of schools in UƩar Pradesh,
5.5 per cent of the villages and 7.7 per cent of the
urban blocks are sƟll not covered under Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan. Among the children in the age group of 6-14
years, about 83 out of every 1,000 children are sƟll out
of school in the state. The average number is 90 for girls
and 78 for boys.
In UP, the main reason for parents not enrolling their
children in schools as well for not sending them
to school ever aŌer enrolment, was reported as
“affordability”. Overall, about 4.8 per cent of the parents
opined that they were not saƟsfied with the quality of
the educaƟon in the schools.
Table 3.2 : Difference between BE, RE and AE in
EducaƟon Sector, BfC
Rs crore
Year AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
2004-05 6.05 12.90 -6.07
2005-06 1.208 11.85 -9.52
2006-07 -19.76 -1.56 -18.48
Average -6.25 6.56 -12.02
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP
Government

17
allocations were left untouched. These were: Scholarships and Stipends, Hostels, Ashram Schools, Welfare of Handicapped,
Education of Orphans and Children of Widow in elementary education, Schemes of distribution of Uniform and Bicycle,
Hostels and Book Bank. There was more than 90 per cent underspending in Direction and Administration in elementary
education, and 99 per cent underspending in scholarships and stipends for secondary education.
However, it is not enough to simply undertake an analysis of the allocations and expenditure but also measure these
against the outcomes. To encourage girls’ education, the UP Government started a new scheme called Kanya Vidya Dhan
Yojna in 2004-05 in the state sector. Under the scheme, a sum of Rs 20,000 was to be provided to each girl who passed
intermediate examination under the state board of education, provided she was also from a family living below the poverty
line (BPL). In the annual plan 2005-06, a sum of Rs 200 crore had been proposed to benefit one lakh girls belonging to
the family living below the poverty line in rural and urban areas12
. As per the budget document, a sum of Rs 63 crore was
allocated in 2005-06 of which Rs 45.34 crore was utilised, resulting in an underspending of 28 per cent. There has been no
allocation under the scheme after 2005-06.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) observed that under Kanya Vidya Dhan Yojna, Rs
12.61 crore remained unutilised in 22 districts due to delay in the finalisation of the list of beneficiaries, “which further led
12 http://planning.up.nic.in/annualplan0506/part2/chapter-09.htm
Table 3.3: A ComparaƟve Picture of UƟlisaƟon of SSA allocaƟons among States (Rs lakh)
Audited Shorƞall in UƟlisaƟon
Year States AWPB Expenditure Shorƞall in per cent per cent
Bihar 90,002.02 21,817.78 68,184.24 76 24
Chhaƫsgarh 55,068.11 42,442.29 12,625.82 23 77
Jharkhand 59,519.33 20,359.59 39,159.74 66 34
MP 142,279.62 85,452.05 56,827.57 40 60
Rajasthan 854,22.30 75,529.10 9,893.20 12 88
UP 264,189.00 223,818.21 40,370.79 15 85
2005-06 UƩarakhand 16,850.70 14,644.61 2,206.09 13 87
Bihar 241,407.75 80,221.60 161,186.15 67 33
Chhaƫsgarh 82,131.67 65,392.34 16,739.332 20 80
Jharkhand 104,284.99 50,404.36 53,880.63 52 48
MP 186,987.60 134,576.10 52,411.50 28 72
Rajasthan 125,337.14 105,729.31 19,607.83 16 84
UP 367,851.44 282,912.57 84,938.87 23 77
2006-07 UƩarakhand 24,820.50 18,893.81 5,926.69 24 76
Bihar 333,929.74 195,292.51 138,637.23 42 58
Chhaƫsgarh 78,478.32 68,720.81 9,757.51 12 88
Jharkhand 132,191.92 85,627.91 46,564.01 35 65
MP 179,824.44 123,037.26 56,787.18 32 68
Rajasthan 159,999.36 136,945.00 23,054.36 14 86
UP 344,1452.52 297,777.48 46,375.04 13 87
2007-08 UƩarakhand 25,283.56 18,761.37 6,522.19 26 74
Source: Annual Audited Reports of RespecƟve States

18
to non-distribution of incentives to 6,305 beneficiaries, and no provision was made to monitor the scheme at any level or
to assess its impact.”13
The CAG expressed displeasure over “expenditure incurred on organising functions to distribute
incentives”.
Despite what seems like a very large portion of the budget going towards education, the outcomes remain dismal. Accord-
ing to the Elementary Education Report of the National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUE-
PA), enrolment of children in primary class was 25.6 million in 2006-07 and 25.1 million and 24.9 million in 2007-08
and 2008-09 respectively14
. In upper primary, the enrolment increased from 6.51 million in 2006-07 to 7.41 million in
2008-09. The sharp fall in enrolment is clearly because of several students dropping out after completion of primary level
due to several factors: affordability (lack of mid-day meal in some cases), distance from school, poor results and teaching,
and economic conditions.
According to the NUEPA report, average dropout rate15
at the primary level in 2007-08 was 12.65. More than 52 per cent
of these children are involved in domestic work, 12 per cent involved in sibling care, 3.75 per cent children do not have
access to schools and 20 per cent are out due to other reasons. The children who were never enrolled include 44 per cent
from OBCs, 24.3 per cent from SCs, 23 per cent from minorities and 6.55 per cent from general class.16
Following the auditing of the programmes for the education sector, particularly SSA, the CAG report observes:
Based on the implementation of the programmes in the education sector, particularly the Benefits of Book Banks
scheme could not reach the beneficiaries as neither was the need of books assessed nor were these distributed prop-
erly. (Paragraphs 3.1.10.1 and 3.1.10.2)
69 hostels were not functional as staff was not sanctioned, 6 girls’ hostels were under unauthorised occupation
and boys’ hostels constructed in 1993-94 remained non-functional due to non-availability of students and were in
dilapidated condition. (Paragraphs 3.1.12.1 and 3.1.12.2)
There were gaps in delivery of services at the grassroots level as child growth monitoring was virtually absent and
supply of supplementary nutrition was very erratic despite provision of sufficient funds for the purpose. (Paragraphs
3.5.15 to 3.5.18)
Pre-examination coaching to SC/ST students was not run to its full capacity and was not effective in view of poor
success rate of students who participated in coaching courses. Residential coaching centres constructed at a cost of
Rs. 7.48 crore were non-functional for want of staff. (Paragraphs 3.1.12.1 and 3.1.12.2)
13 The Economic Times, 3 March 2008
14 Elementary Education in India, Progress towards UEE, Flash Statistics 2008-09. National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA).
15 In the NUEPA report, average repetition and drop-out rates have been computed based on data of common schools and states showing negative dropout rates have
not been reported.
16 Ibid
Some facts about educaƟon in UP
Only 48.04 per cent of schools had boundary walls in 2008-09, slightly up from 46.62 per cent in 2007-08.
Percentage of teachers in government schools was 67.47 in 2008-09, declining from 71.72 in 2006-07.
Average number of teachers per school is 3.5 in all types of school.
Pupil-teacher raƟo is 52 in primary level and 45 in upper primary level.
Percentage of para teachers to total teachers has risen from 25.9 per cent in 2007-08 to 26.26 per cent in
2008-09.
Source: Elementary EducaƟon in India, Progress towards UEE, Flash StaƟsƟcs 2008-09.

19
To be a teacher in UP, barely make pass grade
Subodh Varma, TNN, May 2, 2010, 03.25 am IST
NEW DELHI: The chaos prevailing in the teachers’ educaƟon system of the country just got worse with the country’s
largest state UƩar Pradesh openly violaƟng eligibility norms for teachers’ educaƟon set by the naƟonal regulatory
body.
On May 5, over 6.92 lakh students will appear for a joint entrance examinaƟon (JEE) for admission to about 1 lakh
seats of the Bachelor of EducaƟon (B.Ed) programme available in the state’s 730 teacher training colleges. The eligi-
bility condiƟon for this hugely popular course has been fixed by the NaƟonal Council for Teachers EducaƟon (NCTE)
as a graduate degree with at least 50% marks. But acƟng under orders from the state government, the eligibility has
been reduced to 45% in UP.
EducaƟonists are describing this move as a blow to teachers’ quality standards while the applicants are worried that
the examinaƟon or their degree may be derecognized later by judicial intervenƟon, as happened in Bengal.
Professor Akhilesh Choubey of Lucknow University, who is in charge of conducƟng the exam, told TOI, “We are acƟng
as per a direcƟve received from the state government to fix the minimum eligibility at 45%.”
hƩp://Ɵmesofindia.indiaƟmes.com/India/To-be-a-teacher-in-UP-barely-make-pass-grade/arƟcleshow/5881883.cms

20
Early childhood care and development is another important area for which the state has to provide adequate resources. At
the initial stages of his or her life, the child needs more care and protection, necessitating the need for state aid and inter-
vention for disadvantaged families. Early childhood is a time of remarkable brain development that lays the foundation for
later learning because 80 per cent of brain development happens before the age of three.
So children need to be provided with opportunities that help them
explore and learn at their own pace. A lack of proper link between
early child care and the formal school system may lead to slow
learning, poor performance in tests, lack of self confidence and
eventually high dropouts.
The National Policy for Children announced in 1974 reaffirmed
the constitutional obligations to the children and declared that
it shall be the policy of the State to provide adequate services to
the children both before and after birth and through the period
of growth to ensure their full physical, mental and social develop-
ment and that the State shall progressively increase the scope of
such services so that within a reasonable time, all children in the
country can enjoy optimum conditions for their balanced growth.
“It is now a clearly established reality that even
aŌer gaining high growth rate and increasing
per capita income, we have failed to protect
our children from hunger and diseases. I feel
the quesƟon of resources is not the biggest
one, a lot of money is being spent but the
situaƟon is not improving in accordance with
the expenditure because our delivery systems
are worst, un-accountable and non-responsive
towards the most marginalized, like children,”
Nobel laureate Prof Amartya Sen, at the Bal
Adhikar Sambad ConvenƟon, 19 December 2006,
New Delhi
Funds Lie Idle even as Development
Needs Remain Unmet

21
In this sector, we have included the programmes and schemes for
children in the age group of 0-6 years, mainly the flagship Inte-
grated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) as well as some other
general schemes and programmes aimed at the overall development
of children.
AllocaƟons and Spending for Development
Within the larger state budget, the share of the development sector was an average of 1.29 per cent in our period of study,
while it constituted 5.15 per cent of social sector allocations and 9.43 per cent of the budget for children (BfC). As table
4.1 shows, there has been a steady increase in allocation for the development needs of children in UP, especially after the
first year of study, 2004-05.
Table 4.1: AllocaƟon for Development Sector in State Budget, Social Sector Budget and Budget for Children (BE)
Year Percentage in Percentage in Budget Percentage in Budget for
State Budget for Social Sector Children
2004-05 0.53 2.84 4.47
2005-06 1.12 4.84 7.53
2006-07 1.35 5.28 8.64
2007-08 1.68 6.16 11.41
2008-09 1.42 5.24 12.43
Average 1.29 5.15 9.43
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP Government
Out of every 100 rupees spent in the total state
budget during the years 2004-05 to 2008-09,
the government of UP has allocated one rupee
and twenty nine paisa for the development
needs of children.
1.28
Share of De-
velopment
in State
Budget
85.44
BfC
Figure 4.1: Share of Development in UP State Budget.
9.43
Share of
Develop-
ment within
BfC
90.57
BfC
Figure 4.2: Share of Development within Budget for
Children. Average AllocaƟon 2004-05 to 2008-09

22
As the table shows, the share of the development sector in the Budget for Children in UP has jumped almost three times
from only 4.47 per cent in that year, to 12.43 per cent in 2008-09. However, the increase has not been as much in the case
of the share of development schemes in the total state budget or in the total social sector budget. The share has just about
doubled in these areas. This implies that the rise in share for development in the BfC has been achieved at the expense of
some other sector, in this case, education and to some extent, protection.
Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show there has been 12.83 per cent
underspending of budget funds in the development
sector on an average over the first three years of the
study period for which actual estimates are available.
And this has happened despite mid-year upward
revisions of the budget estimates. In fact, compared
with the RE, the underspending is even more—30.18
per cent on average. Interestingly, funds could not be
utilised even after the need was felt to raise the budget
estimate by 24.85 per cent on average over the three-
year period.
Even the various allocations show major fluctuations,
reflecting either poor planning of funds allocation
or lack of funds at the state level or change of policy
or mind. For instance, the budget allocation of Rs
351.95 crore was doubled in the revised budget in
2004-05, while in 2007-08, this was cut to a little less
than half—over 43 per cent.
The drama of the absurd reaches its highest level in
2006-07, when the allocation is raised by 42 per cent
over the previous year’s (2005-06) level, raised again marginally later in the year to Rs 1,254.17 crore, and then more than
half of it is not spent. This huge unspent balance of about 55 per cent is simply because of non-utilisation of allocations in
the Nutrition Programme of ICDS in that year by up to 92.6 per cent. Going into the details of the programme, we find
that the allocation of Rs 603.81 crore for a component of
the Nutrition programme, related to supply of materials,
was fully unutilised. This was accompanied by a 93.23 per
cent underspending in a World Food Programme Project as
well as a small underspending of 2.71 per cent in the ICDS
in 2006-07.
The allocations and expenditure for development must be
analysed against the requirements of children as well as
the deficit in the existing services. According to NFHS-
III data, infant mortality is the highest in Uttar Pradesh
(73 per thousand live births) and 47 per cent children
are underweight. Less than one-third of children are fully
vaccinated.17
To address this situation, the Supreme Court
17 NFHS III. Volume 1 2005–06. Summary of Findings. Xxxv, xxxix September 2007
Table 4.2: Budget AllocaƟon for Development Sector at BE, RE
and AE level
Rs crore
Year BE AE RE
2004-05 351.95 759.44 690.54
2005-06 786.41 776.33 757.36
2006-07 1,116.19 1,254.17 499.99
2007-08 1,690.79 959.53 NA
2008-09 1,596.30 NA NA
Table 4.3: Diﬀerence between BE, RE and AE in Development
Sector of BfC
Per cent
2004-05 101.94 122.09 -9.07
2005-06 -2.454 -0.01 -2.44
2006-07 -55.21 12.36 -60.13
Average -12.83 24.85 -30.18
2007-08 NA -43.25 NA
Figure 4.3: BE, RE and AE in Development Sector of BfC
(2004-05 to 2008-09) (Rs crore)
0
1000
1500
2000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
BE RE AE
500
Rscrore

23
had asked the central and state governments to open more anganwadi centres as well as to increase the budget provision
per child.
As a compliance of the Supreme Court order in PUCL vs. Government of India case, Government of India via De-
partment of WCD and the Union Government’s Letter to Commissioners (No NO19-5/2003CD-1 (Vol III) dated
28.08.06) accepted the following shortfalls:
The ICDS-3 programme, an externally aided project
started in the state in 1999-2000, aimed at improve-
ment of nutritional and health status of children
under six years of age and their holistic development
through pre-school education and anganwadi activi-
ties in 14,698 new anganwadi centres in 110 blocks
and 22,310 existing centres in 190 blocks. Following
the Court’s direction, the State Government increased
allocation for ICDS and supplementary nutrition and
additional ICDS projects and anganwadi centres were
sanctioned.
The relevance and efficient use of the resources allocated are reflected in the implementation of the scheme on the ground.
The Audit Report18
of the Auditor General of Uttar Pradesh has made the following observations on the implementation
of programmes for the development sector:
18 Audit Report Civil Year 31 March 2005
Table 4.4: Shorƞall in UP ICDS
State Total AllocaƟon PopulaƟon of 0-6 Necessary provision for Shorƞall in
(Union + State) years according populaƟon of 0-6 years per cent
(in Rs crore)# to Census (Union+ according to Census
State) 2001 (lakh) 2001 (in Rs crore)#
UƩar Pradesh 67,569.73 304.7 182,832.252 63.04
There were gaps in delivery of services at the grassroots
level as child growth monitoring was virtually absent and
supply of supplementary nutriƟon was very erraƟc despite
provision of suﬃcient funds for the purpose.
(Paragraphs: 3.5.15 to 3.5.18)
Accountant General - Audit Report (civil) for the year ended 31 March
2005
Expansion of ICDS
2004: Honararium of the anganwadi workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) increased by Rs. 200
and Rs 100 respecƟvely.
2005: 32,188 new anganwadi centres (AWCs) sancƟoned in the state making the total number of AWCs to be
138,299.
2006-07: 13,170 AWCs were sancƟoned in the state making the total AWCs to be 151,469.
2008-09: In addiƟon to the 151,469 AWCs, 14,604 new addiƟonal AWCs and 22,186 addiƟonal MINI AWCs
are sancƟoned by GOI in December, 2008. And as per latest informaƟon available on the website of Ministry
of Women and Child Development, Ɵll 31 March 2009, 187,517 anganwadi centres and mini anganwadi
centres were sancƟoned in UƩar Pradesh and 150,936 are operaƟonal*.
Source: Chronology of Programme EvoluƟon, hƩp://www.icdsupweb.org/english/chronology.htm
*This informaƟon is taken from the table SancƟoned/OperaƟonal AWCs as on 30.09.09 (Updated as on 10.11.09) on www.wcd.nic.in

24
Only one per cent of the expenditure was incurred on medicines and medical supplies against its allocated share of
15 per cent of the total project cost.
Audit scrutiny revealed that against the provision of Rs 9.11 crore, the State Project Management Unit (SPMU)
procured Early Child Education (ECE) kit for Rs 1.69 crore only. ECE kit was not available at 56 out of 103 angan-
wadi centres with the result that writing and play materials were out of reach of majority of the beneficiaries.
Against the allocation norm of 16 per cent towards establishment expenditure, the expenditure till March 2005 was
much in excess--56 per cent. (Paragraph 3.5.7)
Despite availability of funds, SPMU failed to educate the community properly about the benefits of the projects as
it did not arrange information, education and communication materials in 92 per cent of the project area. (Para-
graph 3.5.32)
Some of the essential components of the project such as innovative activities for improvement in system of deliv-
ery of services, formation of mahila mandals for promoting health awareness etc. were left uncovered. (Paragraph
3.5.28, 3.5.30)

25
Although health is wealth, most governments forget the maxim when it comes to framing policies for the disadvantaged
and poorer section of citizens, accounting for the persistent demand in general to increase public expenditure in health
and improve the quality and volume of services. Every citizen has a right
to good health. Child health status is one of the most sensitive indicators
of development and an important determinant of the quality of life as well
because weak people cannot make a strong nation.
Investment in public health is a top priority in every big nation. One of the
primary goals of the Eleventh Five year Plan is to achieve good health for the
people, especially the poor and underprivileged. Most states in India spend
around two per cent of their total budget money in this area . The health
sector has several programmes, the most important of which is the flagship
centrally sponsored National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).
For analysis of allocation and expenditure on health sector for children, we
have selected only those schemes and programmes specifically meant for
children as also those that have child specific component. However, it is not
possible to disaggregate the budget exclusively for children in the case of schemes such as Mother and Child Health Pro-
gramme, Child Survival and Safe Motherhood Programme, and the Reproductive and Child Health Programme which
cover both women and children health. In such cases, the entire allocation and expenditure has been included for the
analysis on the rationale that mother’s health forms the foundation stone of the child’s health.
Among all Indian states, UP has the
second highest malnutriƟon among
children.
Among illiterate mothers, 56 per
cent children are born underweight.
About 49 per cent women are of
below 45 kg weight, while 57 per
cent children born to malnourished
mother are underweight.
Less than three per cent of moth-
ers receive less than 100 tablets of
iron/folic acid.
Poor Allocation Dogs Health Sector

26
Despite a physical increase in the size of the budget alloca-
tion in the health sector—it more than doubled from Rs
402.85 crore in 2004-05 to Rs 837.22 crore in 2008-09—
we find a decline in the actual allocation for health needs of
children as a proportion of the state budget in all the years
except 2008-09.
During 2004-05 to 2008-09, the BfC in health sector
received an average of 0.19 per cent of the total state budget
and 2.69 per cent of the social sector budget. The share
of health in the overall state budget remained unchanged
at 0.6 per cent during the five-year study, except in 2007-
08 when it went up significantly to 1.35 per cent. This is
inexplicable considering the health situation of the children
in UP.
The share of allocations for the health of children
was only 0.63 per cent of the state budget in 2004-
05, with the singular exception of 1.35 per cent
in 2008-09. This is despite the fact that the infant
mortality rate in Uttar Pradesh is almost 73 per
thousand live births and the under-five child mor-
tality rate is 96.4, as per NFHS-III data (2005-06).
Even as share of the budget for children, the aver-
age share of the health sector is a mere 4.93 per
cent. What is more, this share has been dropping.
Table 5.1: AllocaƟon for Health Sector in State Budget,
Social Sector Budget and BfC (BE)
per cent
Year Share in State Share in Social Share in BfC
Budget Sector Budget
2004-05 0.63 3.35 5.26
2005-06 0.66 2.84 4.42
2006-07 0.61 2.38 3.90
2007-08 1.35 2.50 4.63
2008-09 0.61 2.75 6.52
Average 0.19 2.69 4.93
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP Government
Figure 5.1: BE, RE and AE in Health Sector of BfC (2004-05
to 2008-09) (Rs crore)
0
4000
6000
8000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
BE RE AE
2000
0.19
Share of
Health in
State Budget
99.81
State Budget
Figure 5.2: Share of Health in UP State budget. Average
AllocaƟon 2004-05 to 2008-09
4.93
Share of
Health
within BfC
95.07
BfC
Figure 5.3: Share of Health within BfC. Average Alloca-
Ɵon 2004-05 to 2008-09

27
While this was 5.26 per cent in 2004-05, it fell in
2006-07 to as low as 3.9 per cent, rising to 6.52 per
cent again in 2008-09. Clearly, improved budget
allocations under health sector are required for the
survival and good health of children in the State.
The allocation by state budget for health sector
for children has been used for schemes such as
assistance to hospitals, construction of sub-centre,
Mother and Child health programme including
child survival and safe motherhood, Post-Partum
Programme, running of resource centre for vital in-
dicators, and supply of medical kit to ICDS centre.
In three of the four years for which data was avail-
able, there has been a mid-year increase in the
allocations, leading to a higher Revised Estimate
of the budget. Yet, on an average, 0.73 per cent of
the allocated budget for health remained unspent.
In 2004-05, the underspending was 25.34 per cent,
while there was a marginal excess spending of 1.14
per cent next year (see table 5.3). The actual expendi-
ture in 2004-05 and 2005-06 was less than the mid-
year increase in allocations (RE), though in 2005-06
it was only 0.46 per cent.
In 2004-05, the scheme called Mother and Child
Health showed an underspending up to 28.3 per
cent. Mother and Child Health also includes expenses towards the establishment and running cost of Family Welfare cen-
tres in rural and urban areas and sub-centres as these are the first points of reference for any health complications in rural
or semi-urban areas. However, in the case of another scheme, Post Partum Centre, money has consistently remained
unspent. In 2004-05, over 16.4 per cent of the allocation was not spent, while in the later years, the underspending re-
duced to 6.7 per cent in 2005-06 and 1.75 per cent in 2006-07.
It was worse in the case of Child survival and Safe Motherhood Programme, which showed almost a total underspend-
ing of 95.1 per cent. In 2005-06, we see that the budget allocation for the scheme drops drastically by 94.5 per cent from
Rs.73.69 crore in 2004-05 to Rs 3.69 crore. The programme was discontinued in the following year, though curiously, an
allocation of Rs. 3.7 crore was made under a new component, Establishment of units in state and districts for Child Sur-
vival and Safe Motherhood Programme.
Of the total population of 166.2 million in the state, 31.6 million persons are in the 0-6 years age group, making up 19 per
cent of the total population. Some 33 per cent children are born underweight, while only 22 per cent deliveries in UP are
institutional.19
The poor status of Mother and Child Health has been discussed above. Yet, the state seems to be missing
the woods for the trees here. Even in the case of basic schemes such as Child Survival and Safe Motherhood Programme,
allocations show a very erratic trend, reflecting the lack of interest by the state government. Poor budget provisions often
end up causing a downgrade of the health status of children.
19 S.R.S. 2007
Table 5.3: Diﬀerence between BE, RE and AE in Health Sector, BfC
per cent
2004-05 -25.34 1.42 -26.38
2005-06 1.14 1.60 -0.46
2006-07 17.28 1.14 15.95
Average -0.73 1.38 -2.08
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, UP government
Table 5.2: Budget AllocaƟon for Health Sector at BE, RE and AE
Rs crore
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 402.85 408.57 300.78
2005-06 456.08 463.39 461.26
2006-07 503.45 509.21 590.43
2007-08 686.55 599.83 NA
2008-09 837.22 NA NA
According to NFHS-III data, only 23 per cent of children be-
tween 12 to 23 months age received all the necessary immuni-
saƟon in the survey period of 2005-06, whereas 47 per cent
of children up to three years’ old were found malnourished.
During the same period, close to 73 children out of 1,000 live
births in UP did not survive for one year, while it was only 57 at
the all-India level.

28
Under the umbrella programme of Medical and Public Health, allocations are made for children’s hospitals and maternity
hospitals (Prasuti Chikitsalaya). Along with these, we have also included in the study, allocations made towards construc-
tion and renovation of Health sub-centres. Altogether, four such hospitals received an average allocation of Rs 42.5 crore
during 2004-05 to 2008-09. Spending under these hospitals have been more than the allocation in two years of the study,
but in 2007-08, 78.5 per cent of the money meant for one of the hospitals remained unspent. According to the findings
of Common Review Mission 2008, sub centres are in bad shape physically and the maintenance of old buildings is poor.
Some of the sub centres, because of having met the accreditation standards, were not eligible for the Janani Suraksha Yo-
jana (JSY) scheme and hence are performing poorly.
RouƟne ImmunisaƟon neglected due to overemphasis on Pulse Polio, says Common Review Mission 2008
The state of immunsaƟon of under-ﬁve children against vaccine preventable diseases is abysmal. The reasons
idenƟﬁed are:
Over-enthusiasm and excess deployment of health personnel for Pulse Polio ImmunisaƟon acƟvity
Too many rounds of pulse polio programme leading to lack of Ɵme for rouƟne immunisaƟon
Irregular Vaccine Supply by the Government of India
ReporƟng is of extremely poor quality
There was no DPT (Diphtheria , Pertussis & Tetanus) vaccine available for 4 months and TT (Tetanus Toxin) for 3
months in 2007
Poor micro planning
Source: Second Common Review Mission, UƩar Pradesh, 25 November to 5 December 2008

29
Children are more vulnerable to various forms of abuse and exploita-
tion than any other group in society and are naturally in need of a
protective environment that respects their fundamental rights. Chil-
dren disadvantaged by their social, economic, physical or mental
conditions are placed in the category of children in difficult circum-
stances. They comprise several groups of children in India in need of
special care and protection, such as abused children, street children,
trafficked children, working children, girls married young, children
without parents or family, and so on.
In India as well as in states such as UP, lack of availability of data
on children affected by abuse and exploitation hampers research,
planning as well as implementation of programmes for them. For
instance, the data on child labour should ideally include – but do
not – children who are out of school and engaged out of home–in
the fields supplementing family work or at home taking care of work
or siblings. This includes girls engaged in domestic as well as non-
domestic activities, such as looking after infants, cooking, cleaning,
washing, fetching water, gathering dung, fodder and firewood,
“The CommiƩee recommends that the State
Party develop a system of data collecƟon and
indicators consisted with the convenƟon and
disaggregated by gender, age, social status
(Scheduled castes and tribes, or religious com-
munity) and urban and rural area and make it
publicly available. This system should cover all
children up to the age of 18 years with specific
emphasis on those who are parƟcularly vulner-
able. It further encourages the State Party to
use these indicators and data for formaƟon
of policies and programmes for the effecƟve
implementaƟon of the ConvenƟon”
CRC/C/15/Add.228, 30 January 2004, Com-
miƩee on the Rights of the Child, Thirty-fiŌh
session, ConsideraƟon of Reports submiƩed by
States ParƟes under ArƟcle 44 of the Conven-
Ɵon, Concluding ObservaƟons: India
Allocation for Protection Dips
Despite Extreme Vulnerability

30
accompanying mother to the market, grazing cattle, and so on. In the same way, domestic violence against children are un-
derplayed and unaccounted for, because these are seldom reported to police, as are child marriages, one of the worst forms
of violence against girls, exposing them to sexual violence and unsafe motherhood, resulting often in death.
Uttar Pradesh is home to some of the highest child labour intensive industries. The little workers are mostly concentrated
in the cottage industries that have made the state famous, especially the hand-knit woolen carpets industry in Bhadohi
and Mirzapur, chikan work in Lucknow, brassware in Moradabad, glassware in Firozabad, wood carvings in Saharanpur,
footwear in Agra, hand-printing in Farrukhabad, and zari and embroidery work in several towns. Even according to the
government’s own records, Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of working children in the country. As per Census 2001,
there are 19,27,997 working children in the 5-14 years in the state, though the government claims much less than this
number (The Hindu, 24 September 2005).
According to the publication Crime Against Children 2008,20
Uttar Pradesh accounted for 43 per cent of infanticides, 24.4 per
cent of murders of children, and 29 per cent of kidnapping of
children in 2008. UP also accounted for 16.5 per cent of the rape
of children cases registered in the country in 2008, sharply up
from 9.3 per cent in 2007 and 7.4 per cent in 2006.21
According
to Crime in India, 200722
, crimes committed against children make up 11 per cent of the total in India, the highest among
states. Although infanticide is listed separately, it applies mainly to the girl child who is seen as so undesirable that she is
not allowed to live after birth, assuming she is allowed to be even born.
AllocaƟon and Expenditure in ProtecƟon
Despite such an unprotected environment for children, the allocation of funds in the budget for protection has been, on
average during the five-year period of our study, as little as 0.03 per cent of the state budget, 0.11 per cent of social sector
budget and 0.19 per cent of the total budget for children. This
can only be seen as an instance of gross neglect of the rights of
children.
Average allocation in protection sector during 2004-05 to
2008-09 has been Rs 23.05 crore, though it seems that the
budget has more than doubled from Rs 16 crore in 2004-05
to almost Rs 40 crore in 2008-09. However, in a tacit ac-
knowledgement of the spending capacity of the state govern-
ment, the actual estimate has stayed constant around Rs 15
crore in all the three years.
What is more, between 2006-07 and 2007-08, this pathetic share for protection in the state budget went even lower. As a
share of the BfC too, the study period saw wild fluctuations in the allocation for protection, falling sharply from 0.21 per
cent in 2004-05 to 0.12 per cent in 2006-07 and then rising even higher in the next two years.
20 Crime Against Children, 2008, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
21 Ibid 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
22 Crime in India 2008, National Crime Research Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
Table 6.1: BE, RE and AE in ProtecƟon Sector, BfC
Rs crore
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 16.10 16.10 15.12
2005-06 15.13 14.83 15.46
2006-07 16.14 16.14 15.31
2007-08 28.04 27.88 NA
2008-09 39.82 NA NA
During the ﬁve-year period of 2004-05 to 2008-09,
the UƩar Pradesh government spent only three
paisa on protecƟon, out of every hundred rupees
it spent on the state budget on average.

31
Over the five years from 2004-05 to
2008-09, there has been a 147.3 per
cent increase in the allocation for
protection. However, in 2005-06, the
budget went down by Rs 0.97 crore,
or 6.02 per cent, only to again go up
by Rs 1 crore in 2006-07. This increase
coincided with the introduction of the
new programme, Organising Homes
under Kishore Nyay Adhiniyam with
an allocation of Rs 14.87 crore.
The steep increase in allocations for
2007-08 from Rs 16.14 crore to Rs
28.04 crore, implying a 73.73 per cent increase, was due to the
introduction of several programmes, such as Integrated Child
Development Protection Unit for Child Protection, Adoption
Unit at District level for Child Protection, Grant in Aid to NGOs
for State Juvenile Homes, State Juvenile Homes (Boys and Girls),
State Post Care Organisation Expenses, Expense on Kishore Nyaya
Nidhi (Juvenile Justice Fund), Survey for Child Labour Eradica-
tion, and Conditional Cash Transfer Yojana under Child Labour Eradication.
The two flagship programmes of the government to stop and rehabilitate child labour are the INDUS project and the
National Child Labour Project (NCLP). Unfortunately, these programmes are centrally sponsored and are run through
autonomous bodies set up by the government which directly receive the funds, thereby bypassing state budget. These pro-
grammes also engage independent NGOs as part of the process, a practice that has become popular with the government,
which makes it difficult for researchers to track and monitor the budget and fix accountability.
Table 6.2: Share of ProtecƟon (BE) Sector in State Budget,
Social Sector udget and within Budget for Children
per cent
Year Percentage in Percentage in Social Percentage in Total
State Budget Sector Budget Budget for Children
2004-05 0.025 0.13 0.21
2005-06 0.02 0.09 0.15
2006-07 0.02 0.08 0.12
2007-08 0.03 0.10 0.19
2008-09 0.04 0.13 0.31
Average 0.03 0.11 0.20
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09, U.P. Government
Table 6.3: Total Expenditure on Child Labour (in Rs)
Year NCLP INDUS
2004-05 70,736,376 38,884,026
2005-06 151,892,537 40,064,507
2006-07 186,647,881 45,135,853
Source: Ministry of Labour, Government of India
0.03
Share of
ProtecƟon in
State Budget
99.97
State Budget
Figure 6.1: Share of ProtecƟon in UP Budget -- Average
AllocaƟon 2004-05 to 2008-09
0.19
Share of
ProtecƟon
in BfC
99.81
BfC
Figure 6.2: Share of ProtecƟon within Budget for Children

32
Some 8,563 children in 2004-05,
34,171 children in 2005-06 and 28,401
children in 2006-07 were enrolled in
special schools under NCLP. Of them,
only 3,429 children in 2004-05 and
5,876 children (9-14 years) in 2005-06
were mainstreamed under NCLP. The
effort has clearly been a drop in the
ocean so far.
Underspending in ProtecƟon
Looking at the actual estimates, as seen from table 6.4, it is clear that even the small amounts of money allocated have not
been spent fully. However, the underutilisation, although not as big as in other sectors such as development, have hap-
pened more in 2004-05 and 2006-07. The average budget money unspent in these schemes was about 3.11 per cent in the
three years for which figures are available.
Table 6.4: Difference between BE, RE and AE in ProtecƟon Sector
per cent
YEAR AE-BE RE-BE AE-RE
2004-05 -6.07 0 -6.07
2005-06 2.20 -1.98 4.27
2006-07 -5.15 0 -5.15
Average -3.11 -0.63 -2.50
Source: Detailed Demands for Grants 2004-05 to 2008-09
UTTAR PRADESH SCORES POORLY IN CHECKING CHILD LABOUR
No systematic survey for identification of working children, says CAG report
ALLAHABAD: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has criticised Uttar Pradesh government for failing to put a check on child labour through
effective enforcement of Child Labour (prohibition and regulation) Act.
In its report for the year ended March 31, 2004, the CAG has noted with concern that in the State, famous the world over for its carpet industry that is
heavily dependent upon child labour, there was no systematic survey for identification of working children.
In fact, the data on child labour in the State also appeared to be grossly understated at 66,000 as of March 2004, against 19.28 lakh working children as
per the 2001 Census report, says the CAG.
Besides, there appeared to be laxity on part of the State labour department in implementing the provisions of the Child Labour Act.
Cases involving penalty of Rs 7.28 crore for employing child labour in hazardous industries were either withdrawn or cancelled by the labour depart-
ment till December 31, 2004. Besides, there were stay orders in cases involving Rs 9.86 crore till the above date and this indicated inadequate or defec-
tive documentation of cases for initiating legal action and recovery of penalty, the CAG report said.
The State has also fared badly in terms of rehabilitation of children withdrawn from various industries. The report pointed out that many of the NGOs
selected to run national child labour project (NCLP) special schools discontinued the work after receiving grants-in-aid.
Most of the special schools, which continued to be functional, did so without adequate infrastructure and the essential health care facilities, it said.
The State Government also failed to comply with Supreme Court directions regarding withdrawal of children from hazardous jobs. The apex court had
ordered creation of a corpus fund into which Rs. 20,000 was to be deposited by the employer of child labourers for each withdrawn child.
However, the CAG noted with dismay that Rs 49.59 lakh earned as interest on the corpus fund was not utilised for providing relief to families of the
children withdrawn from hazardous industries.
Another factor that affected the implementation of child labour welfare projects adversely was non-appointment of full-time project directors and failure
to fill up vacancies of teachers and instructors. –PTI
The Hindu, Saturday, Sep 24, 2005

33
References
• Census 2001, Government of India
• Uttar Pradesh 2006, Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of UP
• Uttar Pradesh 2007, Arthik Samiksha, Department of Information and Public Relation, Government of UP
• UP State Development Report, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2006
• NFHS-III, 2005-06, International Institute of Population Studies.
• SRS, Government of India, 2004
• Multiple Indicator Survey (MICS), 2000
• NUEPA, 2007
• Crime in India, NCRB, various years
• Economic Times, 3 March 2008
• Detailed Demands for Grants, 2004-05 to 2008-09, Government of UP
• Accountant General’s Accounts Audit Report Civil Year 31 March 2005 and 31 March 2006
• National Plan of Action, 2005, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India
• Monitoring Government Budget to Advance Child Rights, A Guide for NGO, Children’s Budget Unit, Budget
Information Series, Institute for Democracy, IDASA, South Africa
• The Hindu, Saturday, September 24, 2005
• Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India
• Social Watch Report, UPVAN
• Annual Plan, 2005-06, Department of Planning, Government of UP

34
BE, RE and AE in EducaƟon Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 6895.21 7784.70 7312.19
2005-06 9063.76 10138.02 9172.43
2006-07 11276.19 11099.72 9048.33
2007-08 12413.88 10489.64 NA
2008-09 10366.30 NA NA
Mid-Day Meal
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 1 204.00 182.90
2005-06 340.00 268.75 327.56
2006-07 350.00 350.00 574.15
2007-08 875.00 1310.80 NA
2008-09 1114.13 NA NA
Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Yojana
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 2.08 2.25
2005-06 5.00 5.00 1.69
2006-07 1.50 1.50 12.17
2007-08 20.00 20.00 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Elementary EducaƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 4271.40 4706.33 4328.25
2005-06 5891.30 6635.28 5545.52
2006-07 6615.33 6736.16 5788.51
2007-08 8140.35 7670.33 NA
2008-09 7325.63 NA NA
Ashram Schools
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 34.66 36.69 32.11
2005-06 80.79 84.32 12.55
2006-07 43.20 50.40 0
2007-08 99.44 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 536.31 402.64 322.90
2005-06 1094.36 1048.28 850.19
2006-07 749.04 749.13 747.16
2007-08 1340.00 1340.00 NA
2008-09 1360.00 NA NA
Scholarship and SƟpend
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 460.70 571.44 457.27
2005-06 531.71 960.95 513.97
2006-07 586.46 584.09 0
2007-08 688.85 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Secondary EducaƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 2564.93 3019.57 2927.68
2005-06 3114.75 3439.85 3565.04
2006-07 4571.46 4276.96 3256. 30
2007-08 4143.33 2812.11 NA
2008-09 3038.81 NA NA
Annexure
(Figures are in Rs crore. Data sourced from DDGs of various departments, Government of UP)
Education

35
Scholarship for SE Student
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 111.20 376.52 172.62
2005-06 341.94 458.60 413.51
2006-07 958.71 1165.52 1.35
2007-08 545.04 3.20 NA
2008-09 3.20 NA NA
BE, RE, and AE in Development Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 341.95 759.44 690.54
2005-06 776.41 776.33 757.36
2006-07 1116.19 1254.17 499.99
2007-08 1690.79 959.53 NA
2008-09 1596.30 NA NA
Technical EducaƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 58.89 58.80 56.25
2005-06 57.71 62.88 61.88
2006-07 89.40 86.61 3.52
2007-08 130.20 7.20 NA
2008-09 1.87 NA NA
Assistance to Government Colleges
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 175.93 175.62 167.47
2005-06 176.40 176.40 183.30
2006-07 193.15 193.15 223.01
2007-08 262.62 262.62 NA
2008-09 288.25 NA NA
Grant for Family and Child Welfare Projects
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.10 0.10 0
2005-06 0.08 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Assistance to Non-Government Secondary Schools
and Inter Colleges
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 2140.60 2328.61 2392.94
2005-06 2366.46 2562.52 2724.04
2006-07 3188.37 2686.13 2814.96
2007-08 3048.98 2310.19 NA
2008-09 2503.19 NA NA
WCD Directorate Insurance, Gratuity and Other Exp.
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.02 0.02 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0 0.03 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Development
AdministraƟve Expenses for Pariveksha Seva Kshetra
(Supervisor)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 3.63 3.63 3.53
2005-06 3.69 3.69 3.83
2006-07 4.32 4.32 5.37
2007-08 5.91 5.96 NA
2008-09 9.12 NA NA

36
Integrated Child Development Scheme
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 228.45 316.46 314.34
2005-06 277.94 277.94 283.98
2006-07 459.16 597.14 446.71
2007-08 450.41 436.05 NA
2008-09 533.95 NA NA
Capital Expenditure (Medical and Public Health)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.35 3.38 3.17
2005-06 22.91 26.59 26.59
2006-07 25.76 25.76 25.26
2007-08 75.00 75.00 NA
2008-09 17.50 NA NA
BE, RE and AE in Health Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 402.85 408.57 300.78
2005-06 456.08 463.39 461.26
2006-07 503.45 509.21 590.43
2007-08 686.55 599.82 NA
2008-09 837.22 NA NA
NutriƟon Programme for ICDS
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 109.76 439.23 372.67
2005-06 494.70 494.70 469.55
2006-07 652.71 652.71 47.92
2007-08 1234.47 517.49 NA
2008-09 1053.23 NA NA
AllocaƟons for Hospital under Medical and Public
Health (MPH)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 13.28 15.96 15.08
2005-06 37.28 41.20 41.16
2006-07 41.25 41.25 10.73
2007-08 97.37 22.37 NA
2008-09 23.15 NA NA
DirecƟon & AdministraƟon / Demography and
Resource Centre
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.02 0.02 0.02
2005-06 0.02 0.02 0
2006-07 0.02 0.02 0.01
2007-08 0.03 0.03 NA
2008-09 0.03 NA NA
Family Welfare - Mother and Child Health
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 363.08 363.08 260.36
2005-06 283.66 288.16 286.74
2006-07 316.42 316.42 431.34
2007-08 364.52 358.40 NA
2008-09 632.98 NA NA
Health
Post-partum Centres
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 23.63 23.63 19.75
2005-06 109.72 104.92 102.41
2006-07 117.50 117.51 115.44
2007-08 141.34 135.73 NA
2008-09 154.48 NA NA

37
ImplementaƟon of Juvenile JusƟce Act. - Monitoring
Cell
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.09 0.09 0.18
2005-06 0.09 0.09 1.14
2006-07 0.11 0.11 0
2007-08 0.13 0 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
Integrated Child Development ProtecƟon Unit for
Child ProtecƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 1.30 1.30 NA
2008-09 5.58 NA NA
Protection
Supply of Medical Kits
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 2.50 2.50 2.42
2005-06 2.50 2.50 4.37
2006-07 2.50 8.26 7.65
2007-08 8.30 8.30 NA
2008-09 9.08 NA NA
Establishment of Juvenile JusƟce Boards
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0.99 0.99 0.95
2005-06 1.04 1.04 0.94
2006-07 1.16 1.16 0.67
2007-08 1.87 1.82 NA
2008-09 3.34 NA NA
Organising Homes under Kishore Nyay Adhiniyam
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 14.87 14.87 11.68
2007-08 2.10 2.13 NA
2008-09 2.25 NA NA
Establishment of Homes and InsƟtuƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 15.02 15.02 13.99
2005-06 13.99 13.69 13.39
2006-07 0 0 2.95
2007-08 18.51 18.51 NA
2008-09 24.13 NA NA
BE, RE and AE in ProtecƟon Sector
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 16.10 16.10 15.12
2005-06 15.13 14.83 15.46
2006-07 16.14 16.14 15.31
2007-08 28.04 27.88 NA
2008-09 39.82 NA NA
AdopƟon Unit at District Level for Child ProtecƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.07 0.07 NA
2008-09 0.03 NA NA

38
CondiƟonal Cash Transfer Yojana under Child labour
EradicaƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.07 0.07 NA
2008-09 0.08 NA NA
GIA to NGOs for State Juvenile homes
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 3.25 3.25 NA
2008-09 3.25 NA NA
AllocaƟons for Kishore Nyay Nidhi
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.25 0.25 NA
2008-09 0.25 NA NA
State Post -Care OrganisaƟon Expenses
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.15 0.15 NA
2008-09 0.43 NA NA
Survey for Child Labour EradicaƟon
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.12 0.12 NA
2008-09 0 NA NA
State Juvenile Homes (Boys and Girls)
Year BE RE AE
2004-05 0 0 0
2005-06 0 0 0
2006-07 0 0 0
2007-08 0.22 0.22 NA
2008-09 0.22 NA NA

39
Section II
A Half-hearted Quest for
Quality Education for All

Budget for Children in Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to 2008-09

Budget for Children in Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to 2008-09

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 Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to 2008-09

Similar to Budget for Children in Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to 2008-09 (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 Uttar Pradesh 2004-05 to 2008-09