1. Mid Day Meal Scheme MDM-PAB Meeting – UTTAR PRADESH On 09.04.2009
Ministry of HRD
Government of India
MDM-PAB Meeting – UTTAR PRADESH On

2. Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
Part-I
Review of Implementation of MDMS in Uttar Pradesh (Primary + Upper Primary) ( to )
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

3. Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
Questions?
What is the level of coverage – Institution-wise, No. of children-wise, in terms of No. of meal served?
What is the level of unspent balances (Inventory) as on as well as ?
How regular the lifting of food grains? Is there any disruption/shortage in availability of food grains?
What is the level of lifting?
How about cooking cost? Was disbursed to Districts? What is the level of utilisation at school level?
How synchronous utilisation of food grains and cooking cost?
How utilisation of foodgrains reconcile with number of meal served?
…… contd
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

4. Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
Contd ….., Questions?
How much MME was utilized? Under what activities?
What is the progress in construction of Kitchen Sheds and procurement of kitchen devices?
Part –II
What is the trend in Enrollment and No. of children availing MDM from 2007 to 2008?
How well MDM data compares with SSA data and Census data?
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

5. Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
Benchmarks
Target Coverage: 100% (Institution-wise, No. of children-wise, in terms of No. of meal served)
Desirable stock in hand : 15% (+ or - 5%)
Lifting of foodgrains [ to ]: 85% (+ or – 10%)
Utilisation of foodgrains and cooking cost [ to ]: 73% (+ or – 10%)
Every month 1/12th of foodgrains is lifted & distributed.
Utilisation of foodgrains & cooking cost is synchronous.
State’s AWP&B is in accordance with M/HRD’s guidelines.
Data in the AWP&B is authentic, reliable & based on the records.
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

6. NON-COVERAGE : Institutions (Primary)
(3% Not Covered)
(3% Not Covered)
No. of Institutions
(17% NC)
(7% NC)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

7. NON-COVERAGE : Institutions (Primary) –Dist-wise
Sl. No.
Districts
No. of Institutions
No. of Institution serving MDM
NON-COVERAGE
No. % 1
Balrampur
1,343
1,073
270
20% 2
Santkabir Nagar
992
842
150
15% 3
Sonbhadra
1,514
1,373
141 9% 4
Siddharthnagar
1,700
1,549
151
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

8. NON-COVERAGE : Institutions ( Upper Primary)
(9% Not Covered)
(9% Not Covered)
No. of Institutions
(10% NC)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

9. NON-COVERAGE : Institutions ( Up. Primary) –Dist-wise
Sl. No.
Districts
No. of Institutions
No. of Institution serving MDM
NON-COVERAGE
No. % 1
Hameerpur
745
361
384
52% 2
Balrampur
689
434
255
37% 3
Siddharthnagar
722
542
180
25% 4
Sultanpur
909
695
214
24% 5
Bahraich
939
741
198
21% 6
Fatehpur
554
141
20% 7
Hardoi
983
784
199 8
Rai Bareily
659
529
130
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

10. Plan Vs Performance: (No. of children in Q1+Q2+Q3)
( 26% Less)
(22% Less)
No. of children (In lakh)
(39% Less)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

11. No. of Children availing MDM (Primary)
MDM-PAB Approval (Target) Vs Average no. of Children Availed MDM (Achievement)
Sl. No.
Districts
Target as per MDM-PAB Approval for
Average No. of children availing MDM as on
Difference
No. of children %
LOW 1
Kaushambi
1,48,903
62,725
-86,178
-58% 2
Etah
2,71,129
1,15,825
-1,55,304
-57% 3
Lakhimpur Kheri
3,78,349
1,86,253
-1,92,096
-51% 4
Shravasti
91,372
50,363
-41,009
-45% 5
Kushinagar
2,30,133
1,27,784
-1,02,349
-44% 6
Jhansi
1,37,639
78,011
-59,628
-43% 7
Gonda
2,57,555
1,47,058
-1,10,497 8
Ambedkar nagar
1,58,845
92,790
-66,055
-42% 9
Aligarh
2,21,098
1,30,746
-90,352
-41% 10
Santkabir Nagar
1,47,938
90,274
-57,664
-39%
Excess 11
Faizabad
95,871
1,36,222
40,351
42% 12
Barabanki
2,19,487
2,54,451
34,964
16%
Probable Reasons: -
Over / Under Budgeting, Non-coverage, Disruptions, Poor Quality of meals .

12. No. of Children availing MDM ( Upper Primary)
MDM-PAB Approval (Target) Vs Average no. of Children Availed MDM (Achievement)
Sl. No.
Districts
Target as per MDM-PAB Approval for
Average No. of children availing MDM as on
Difference
No. of children %
LOW 1
Kushinagar
94,139
21,573
-72,566
-77% 2
Shravasti
21,495
7,535
-13,960
-65% 3
Meerut
38,541
13,516
-25,025 4
Etah
83,760
30,117
-53,643
-64% 5
Balrampur
46,705
17,468
-29,237
-63% 6
Gonda
62,126
23,992
-38,134
-61% 7
Sultanpur
1,44,247
56,099
-88,148 8
Santkabir Nagar
64,812
27,673
-37,139
-57% 9
Ambedkar nagar
74,139
32,611
-41,528
-56% 10
Sitapur
99,901
43,985
-55,916 11
Badaun
69,105
31,429
-37,676
-55% 12
Ballia
1,12,477
54,220
-58,257
-52%
Cntd...
Probable Reasons: -
Over / Under Budgeting, Non-coverage, Disruptions, Poor Quality of meals .

13. No. of Children availing MDM ( Upper Primary)
MDM-PAB Approval (Target) Vs Average no. of Children Availed MDM (Achievement)
Sl. No.
Districts
Target as per MDM-PAB Approval for
Average No. of children availing MDM as on
Difference
No. of children %
LOW 13
Mathura
61,204
29,706
-31,498
-51% 14
Lucknow
54,856
26,929
-27,927 15
Azamgarh
1,42,611
70,196
-72,415 16
Jhansi
55,288
27,452
-27,836
-50% 17
Mahoba
29,987
14,927
-15,060
EXCESS 18
Firozabad
2,709
38,479
35,770
1320% 19
Mainpuri
10,485
37,819
27,334
261% 20
Farrukhabad
25,634
33,976
8,342
33% 21
Agra
40,814
53,130
12,316
30%
Probable Reasons: -
Over / Under Budgeting, Non-coverage, Disruptions, Poor Quality of meals .

14. Plan Vs Performance (No. of Working Days in Q1+Q2+Q3)
(12% more)
No. of Working days
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

15. Plan Vs Performance (No. of Meal in Q1+Q2+Q3)
(Primary + Upper Primary)
17% Less
No. of Meal (in Crore)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

16. Number of Meals ( PY + U PY)
MDM-PAB Approval (Target) Vs Meals actually served (Achievement)
Sl. No.
Districts
Target as per MDM-PAB Approval for ( In Cr.)
Meals actually served as on ( In Cr.)
Short-served
No. of meals % 1
Gonda
7.85
2.65
-5.20
-66% 2
Pilibheet
5.01
1.83
-3.19
-64% 3
Etah
7.09
2.62
-4.48
-63% 4
Azamgarh
10.28
3.88
-6.40
-62% 5
Lakhimpur Kheri
11.26
4.26
-7.00 6
Shravasti
2.60
0.99
-1.61 7
Sitapur
11.33
4.44
-6.90
-61% 8
Lucknow
5.12
2.04
-3.08
-60% 9
Ballia
7.80
3.14
-4.67 10
Mahrajganj
5.93
2.57
-3.35
-57% 11
Badaun
8.07
3.51
-4.56 12
Bhadohi
3.97
1.78
-2.19
-55% 13
Meerut
3.08
1.47
-52% 14
Sultanpur
8.93
4.29
-4.64 15
Bahraich
6.86
3.33
-3.53
-51%
Probable Reasons: -
Over / Under Budgeting, Non-coverage, Disruptions, Poor Quality of meals .

17. Analysis: Foodgrains lifting (Month-wise cumulative)
Foodgrains (in MTs)
*: Including unspent balance of MTs as on
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

18. Analysis: Foodgrains lifting (Month-wise)
Foodgrains (in MTs)
*: Including unspent balance of MTs as on
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

19. Huge Unspent Balance of foodgrains
(Foodgrains in MTs)
As on
Sl. No.
Districts
USB as on
Annual Requirement
USB as % of Annual Requirement 1
Lakhimpur Kheri
116% 2
Mathura
75% 3
Hameerpur
68% 4
Sitapur
59% 5
Mirzapur
58% 6
Shahjahanpur
49% 7
Baghpat
996.83
46% 8
Shravasti 9
Mahrajganj
45%

20. Analysis: Foodgrains Availability (1.4.08 to 31.12.08)
Foodgrains (in MTs)
100%
80%
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

21. Foodgrains lifting (Availability) – Dist. wise
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

22. Foodgrains Utilisation (1.4.08 to 31.12.08)
Benchmark : 73%
4.10 Lakh MTs
3.27 Lakh MTs
2.37 Lakh MTs
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

23. Foodgrains Utilization– Dist. wise
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

24. Cooking Cost Disbursed and Utilisation (1.4.2008 to 31.12.2008)
Benchmark :73%
Cooking Cost (in % Disbursed and utilisation.)
Rs Cr.
Rs Cr.
Rs Cr.
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

25. Cooking Cost Utilisation – Dist. wise
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

26. Mismatch in Utilisation of foodgrains and cooking cost (District-wise)
State average: 58%(FG) & 57%(CC)
% Utilisation
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

27. Mismatch in Utilisation of foodgrains and cooking cost (District-wise)
State average: 58%(FG) & 57%(CC)
% Utilisation
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

28. Reconciliation : No. of meals Vs Qty of foodgrains
Sl. No
District
No. of Meals served
Expected consumption of food grains (MTs)
Actual Consumption of food grains (MTs)
Deficit in %
Deficit Consumption 1
Muradabad
5.72 Cr.
-31% 2
Rampur
2.75 Cr. 3
Saharanpur
2.55 Cr.
-19% 4
Hathras
1.90 Cr.
-17% 5
Ambedkar nagar
2.59 Cr.
-15% 6
Kanpur Nagar
1.65 Cr.
-14% 7
Sitapur
4.44 Cr. 8
Kannauj
2.50 Cr.

29. Reconciliation : No. of meals Vs Cooking Cost
(Rs. In Lakhs)
Sl. No
District
No. of Meals served
Expected consumption of Cooking cost
Actual Consumption of Cooking cost
Deficit in %
Deficit Consumption 1
Chandauli
627.55
217.09
-65% 2
Fatehpur
805.79
494.35
-39% 3
Ambedkar nagar
550.33
361.83
-34% 4
Barabanki
984.96
708.83
-28% 5
Rai Bareily
805.83
609.46
-24% 6
Faizabad
684.28
531.00
-22% 7
Ghaziyabad
455.85
359.84
-21% 8
Kanpur Nagar
523.03
424.36
-19% 9
Meerut
317.50
260.30
-18% 10
Gautambuddh ngr.
222.03
186.82
-16% 11
Saharanpur
565.92
480.83
-15%

30. Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
MME Utilisation ( to )
Utilisation(Rs. In lakhs)
27%
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

31. Transport Assistance Utilisation (1.4.08 to 31.12.08)
Utilisation(Rs. In lakhs)
(100%)
(76%)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

32. Achievement during 2008-09 (Kitchen Sheds)
Progress (in %)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

33. Achievement during 2008-09 (Kitchen Devices)
Progress (in %)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

34. Performance Score card – A Summary
Sl. No.
Component
Achievement
Benchmark 1.
Foodgrains Availability
80%
85% 2.
Foodgrains Utilisation
58%
73% 3.
Cooking Cost Utilisation
57% 4.
MME Utilisation
27%
100% 5.
Kitchen Shed construction
65% 6.
Kitchen Devices procurement
76% 7
QPRs received
2 nos.
3 nos.
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

35. Analysis of State’s Proposal for 2009-10
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

36. Time Series – No. of Children (PRIMARY)
(down by 7%)
No. of children (in lakhs)
(down by 17%)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

37. Primary School Enrolment – SSA [Govt. + Govt.-aided + LB) Vs MDM
No. of children (in lakhs)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

38. Population Vs Enrolment Vs Availing MDM (PRIMARY)
No. of children (in lakhs)
(Proposed)
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

39. Population Vs Enrolment Vs Availing MDM during 2008-09 (UPPER PRIMARY)
No. of children (in lakhs)
(Proposed)
*:SSA= Govt+LB+GA
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

40. No. of School Working Days (Pry & U Pry) DISE Vs MDM
Sl. No
Year
As per DISE Data
As per MDM Sanctions 1
191
235 3
195
220 4
Not available
205 5
233
(State’s claim for )
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India

41. Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
Thank You
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India