1 st HALF YEARLY MONITORING REPORT OF (JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA) on MDM for the State of UTTAR PRADESH

Transcription

1 Annexure V 1 st HALF YEARLY MONITORING REPORT OF (JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA) on MDM for the State of UTTAR PRADESH Perod: 1 st Aprl 2013 to 30 st September 2013 Dstrcts Covered 1. BARABANKI 2. LUCKNOW 3. SANT KABIR NAGAR 4. SITAPUR 5. UNNAO Sponsored by MHRD, Govt. of Inda Prof. Shoeb Abdullah, MI Coordnator, SSA Insttute of Advanced Studes n Educaton (IASE) Faculty of Educaton 0

2 INDEX Sl.No. Partculars/Detals Page No. 1. Forward Acknowledgement General Informaton Executve Summary of all the Dstrcts Annexures (b), (c) and (d) Dstrct (Barabank) 1 - Report Annexure Lst of Schools (Barabank) MI Impressons MI for Barabank Dstrct (Lucknow) 2 - Report Annexure Lst of Schools (Lucknow) MI Impressons for Lucknow Dstrct (Sant Kabr Nagar) 3- Report Annexure Lst of Schools (Sant Kabr Nagar) MI Impressons for Sant Kabr Nagar Dstrct (Stapur) 4- Report Annexure Lst of Schools (Stapur) MI Impressons for Stapur Dstrct (Unnao) 5- Report Annexure Lst of Schools (Unnao) MI Impressons for Unnao

3 Forward F O R E W O R D Jama Mlla Islama Montorng Insttute n charge of montorng of fve dstrcts of Uttar Pradesh feels prvleged to be one of the Montorng Insttuton across the country for broad based montorng of SSA, RTE and MDM actvtes. Ths s the 1st half yearly report for the year 2013 and s based on the data collected from fve dstrcts of Uttar Pradesh namely Barabank, Lucknow, Sant Kabrnagar, Stapur and Unnao dstrcts. I hope the fndngs of the report would be helpful to both the Govt. of Inda and the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to understand the grass root level problems as well as achevement and functonng of SSA-RTE n the State and to plan further necessary nterventons. In ths context I extend my hearty thanks to Prof. Shoeb Abdullah, Nodal Offcer, Montorng SSA-RTE and hs team members who have rendered a good servce by takng pans to vst the schools located n the most naccessble areas and preparng the report n tme. I am extremely thankful to the authortes of the State offce and the dstrct offces for ther unhestatng cooperaton durng the tme of data collecton. Name: Prof. Shoeb Abdullah Head Insttute of Advanced Studes n Educaton, Faculty of Educaton, Jama Mlla Islama, New Delh

4 Acknowledgements The montorng report on actvtes of MDM n the fve dstrcts of Uttar Pradesh s the result of collectve effort put by the team members of the Department of Teacher Tranng and Non Formal Educaton (Insttute of Advanced Studes n Educaton), F/O Educaton, Jama Mlla Islama, New Delh , and feld nvestgators. Montorng team, consstng of one faculty member and 20 feld nvestgators vsted 40 schools of each of the fve dstrcts and collected emprcal evdences on the status of SSA and MDM actvtes. Ths montorng report has taken the present shape wth the actve and constructve support extended by SSA functonares of Uttar Pradesh. The team s grateful to Mr. Harendra Veer Sngh, State Project Drector and Mr. B. D. Sharma, Addtonal Drector, SSA Uttar Pradesh, for hs tmely gudance and facltaton durng our feld work. The team expresses heartfelt thanks to Dr. Rajendra Sngh, BSA, Barabank, Sh. Sarvoda Nand, BSA, Lucknow, Sh. Ram Sngh, BSA, Sant Kabr Nagar, Sh. Sash Kumar, AAO, Sant Kabr nagar, Sh. T. K. Gupta, BSA, Stapur, Dr. Mukesh Kumar, BSA, Unnao, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sngh, ABSA HQ Unnao and other SSA functonares of all fve dstrcts of Uttar Pradesh for ther cooperaton and Support. The followng nodal MI montored the above dstrcts. Dr. Ansar Alam Dr. Jasm Ahamad Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan Dr. Kartar Sngh Dr. M H Quasm (Barabank) (Lucknow) (Sant Kabr Nagar (Khallabad)) (Stapur) (Unnao) 3

5 1 st Half Yearly Montorng Report of IASE, Jama Mlla Islama New Delh On MDM for the State of Uttar Pradesh for the perod of 1 st Aprl, 2013 to 30 th September, General Informaton Sl. No. Informaton Detals Name of the montorng 1. nsttute Jama Mlla Islama 2. Perod of the report 1 st Aprl 2013 to 30 th September 2013 Fund Released for the 3. perod Rs. 10,35000/- 4. No. of Dstrcts allotted Fve 5. Dstrcts name 1. Barabank 2. Lucknow 3. Sant Kabr Nagar 4. Stapur 5. Unnao Date of vst to the Dstrcts / Schools (Informaton s to be gven dstrct wse.e Dstrct 1, Dstrct 2, Dstrct 3 etc) Total number of elementary schools (prmary and upper prmary to be counted separately) n the Dstrcts Covered by MI (Informaton s to be gven dstrct wse.e Dstrct 1, Dstrct 2, 1. Barabank to Lucknow to Sant Kabrnagar to Stapur to Unnao to Dstrct Name Type of School Mddle Prmary Total 1. Barabank Lucknow Sant Kabr Nagar

6 Dstrct 3 etc.) 4. Stapur Unnao Total Number of elementary schools montored (prmary and upper prmary to be counted separately) Informaton s to be gven for dstrct wse.e Dstrct 1, Dstrct 2, Dstrct 3 etc) 9. Types of school vsted a) Specal tranng centers (Resdental) Dstrct Name Type of School Mddle Prmary Total BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO Total Barabank School 40,NPGEL 4, KGB 10, BRC 8, NPRC 5, DIET 1 2. Lucknow School 40, KGB 5, NPGEL 1, BRC 5, NPRC 5 3. Sant Kabrnagar School 40, NPGEL 3, KGB 7, BRC 6, NPRC 1, 4. Stapur School 40, NPGEL 2, KGB 5, BRC 8, NPRC 8 5. Unnao School 40, NPEGEL 3, KGB 4, BRC 5, NPRC 7, NRBC 1, Total School 200, NPEGEL 13, KGB 31, BRC 32, NPRC Barabank = 0 2. Lucknow = 0 3. Sant Kabrnagar = 0 4. Stapur = 0 5. Unnao = 0 b) Specal tranng centers (Non Resdental) 1. Barabank = 0 2. Lucknow = 6 3. Sant Kabrnagar = 9 4. Stapur = 2 5. Unnao = 0 c) Schools n Urban Areas 1. Barabank = 4 2. Lucknow = 8 3. Sant Kabrnagar = 0 4. Stapur = 1 5. Unnao = 2 d) School sanctoned wth Cvl Works 1. Barabank = 03 5

7 e) School from NPEGEL Blocks f) Schools havng CWSN 2. Lucknow = Sant Kabrnagar = Stapur = Unnao = Barabank = Lucknow = Sant Kabrnagar = Stapur = Unnao = Barabank = Lucknow = Sant Kabrnagar = Stapur = Unnao = 01 g) School covered under CAL programme 1. Barabank = 5 2. Lucknow = 4 3. Sant Kabrnagar = 8 4. Stapur = 1 5. Unnao = 1 h) KGBVs 1. Barabank = Lucknow = Sant Kabrnagar =07 4. Stapur = Unnao = Number of schools vsted by Nodal Offcer of the Montorng Insttute Whether the draft report has been shared wth the SPO : YES / NO After submsson of the draft report to the SPO whether the MI has receved any comments from the SPO: YES / NO Before sendng the reports to the GOI whether the MI has shared the report wth SPO: YES / NO 15 Yes Yes Yes 14. Detals regardng dscusson held wth state offcals: No remarks sent 6

8 15. Selecton Crtera for Schools The followng crtera were used n the selecton of schools: (a) Hgher gender gap n enrolment, (b) Hgher proporton of SC/ST students, (c) Low retenton rate and hgher drop-out rate (d) The school has a mnmum of three CWSN. (e) The habtaton where the school s located at has szeable number of OoSC. (f) The habtatons where the school s located at wtnesses n-bound and out-bound seasonal mgraton, (g) The ward/unt of plannng where the school s located at s known to have szeable number of urban deprved chldren. (h) The school s located n a forest or far flung area. () The habtaton where the school s located at wtnesses recurrent floods or some other natural calamty. (j) (k) The MIs also ensured that at least 8 out of 40 schools are from urban areas, 6 are wth Specal Tranng Centers (3 resdental and 3 non-resdental) attached to t, 2 have cvl works sanctoned for them, 2 are from NPEGEL blocks 3 have a mnmum of 3 CWSN (prorty to those havng other than OI chldren) and 3 each are covered under the Computer Aded Learnng (CAL) and KGBV scheme. The selecton of schools was done on the bass of the latest school report card generated through DISE, HHS data and consultaton wth the dstrct SSA functonares. 16. Items to be attached wth the report: a) Lst of Schools wth DISE code vsted by MI. b) Name, Desgnatons & address of persons contacted. c) Copy of Offce order, notfcaton etc. dscussed n the report. d) Any other relevant documents. See Annexure 6(a)s attached wth each dstrct report andannexur6 (b) and (C) attached wth executve summery. 7

9 Executve summary of MDM Report Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Buffer stock for one month avalable 11.2 Delvered by lftng agency Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 38 (95%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools 23 (57.5%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month SANT KABIR Out of 40 schools 36 NAGAR (90%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month SITAPUR Out of 40 schools 17 (42.5%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month UNNAO Out of 40 schools 35 (87.5%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) reported that foodgran s delvered at school by lftng agency. Only 2 schools reported that they have not buffer stock Only 17 (42.5%) schools reported that they have not buffer stock Only 4 (10%) schools reported that they have not buffer stock Only 23 (57.5%) schools reported that they have not buffer stock Only 5 (10.5%) schools reported that they have not buffer stock 10 (25%) schools reported that foodgrans s not delvered by lftng agency. In case of no lftng agency the foodv gran was delvered by Contractor n 2 (5%) schools, lftng by self 2 (5%) and by VEC 8

10 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses members n 3 (7.5%) schools LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools 19 (47.5%) reported that foodgran s delvered at school by lftng agency. SANT NAGAR KABIR Out of 40 schools 37 (92.5%) reported that foodgran s delvered at school by lftng agency. SITAPUR Out of 40 schools 11 (27.5%) reported that foodgran s delvered at school by lftng agency. 21 (52.5%) schools reported that foodgrans s not delvered by lftng agency. In case of no lftng agency the food gran was delvered by Contractor n 5 (12.5%) schools, lftng by self 4 (10%) and by VEC members n 5 (12.5%) schools 3 (7.5%) schools reported that foodgrans s not delvered by lftng agency. In case of no lftng agency the food gran was delvered by Contractor n 1 (2.5%) schools, lftng by self 1 (2.5%) and by VEC members n 1 (2.5%) schools 29 (72.5%) schools reported that foodgrans s not delvered by lftng agency. 9

11 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 11.3 Qualty of food gran Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses UNNAO Out of 40 schools 34 (85%) reported that foodgran s delvered at school by lftng agency. BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 37 (92.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools 18 (45%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. SANT NAGAR KABIR Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. In case of no lftng agency the food gran was delvered by Contractor n 3 (7.5%) schools, lftng by self 15 (37.5%) and by VEC members n 11 (27.5%) schools 6 (15%) schools reported that foodgrans s not delvered by lftng agency. In case of no lftng agency the foodv gran was delvered by Contractor n 1 (2.5%) schools, lftng by self 2 (5%) and by VEC members n 3 (7.5%) schools Only 3 (7.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. Only 22 (55%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. Only 10 (25%) schools have reported that qualty of food 10

12 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses gran s not good Food gran released after adjustment SITAPUR Out of 40 schools 21 (52.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. UNNAO Out of 40 schools 28 (70%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 36 (90%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools 18 (45%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery SANT KABIR Out of 40 schools 27 NAGAR (67.5%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery Only 19 (47.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. Only 12 (30%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. 4 (10%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 22 (55%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 13 (32.5%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 11

13 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 11.5 State releasng fund to dstrcts n advnce Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SITAPUR Out of 40 schools 14 (35%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery UNNAO Out of 40 schools 28 (70%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery BARABANKI Out of 40 schools only 4 (10%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance 26 (65%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 12 (30%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 36 (90%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. Perod of delay from state to dstrct s reported by 3 months by 1 (2.5%) school. Perod of delay from dstrct to block s reported for 2 months by 5 (12.5%) schools and 3 months by 3 (7.5%) schools. Smlarly, perod of delay from block to school s reported as 2 months by 4 (10%) schools and 3 months by 1 (2.5%) school. 12

14 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW SANT NAGAR KABIR Out of 40 schools only 25 (62.5%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance Out of 40 schools only 28 (70%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance 15 (37.5%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. Perod of delay from state to dstrct s 6 months reported by 1 (2.5%) school. Perod of delay from dstrct to block s reported for 3 months by 3 (7.5%) schools. Smlarly, perod of delay from block to school s reported as 6 months by 1 (2.5%) schools and 7 months by 1 (2.5%) school. 12 (30%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. No school has reported perod of delay from state to dstrct No perod of delay s mentoned by from dstrct to block and from block to school. 13

15 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 11.5 Who engages cook. Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SITAPUR UNNAO Out of 40 schools only 16 (40%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance Out of 40 schools only 27 (67.5%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 12 (30%) schools reported that VEC engages cook and 9 (22.5%) schools reported that cooked s apponted by SMC 24 (60%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. No school has reported perod of delay from state to dstrct. No perod of delay s mentoned by from dstrct to block and from block to school. 13 (32.5%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. 1 school has reported perod of delay by 3 months from state to dstrct and another school has reported perod of delay as 6 months. No perod of delay s mentoned by from dstrct to block and from block to school. In case of no cook 1 (2.5%) school has reported that to engage self help group (SHG). Another 1 (2.5%) school reported to 14

16 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses engage daly wager as cook. LUCKNOW SANT KABIR NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO Out of 40 schools cook s engaged by VEC n 8 (20%) schools, by SMC n 7 (17.5%) schools, PRI n 3 (7.5%) schools and by NGO n 1 (2.5%) school. Out of 40 schools cook s engaged by VEC n 14 (35%) schools, by SMC n 11 (27.5%) schools, PRI n 9 (22.5%) schools and by Self n 1 (2.5%) school and by contractor n 2 (5%) schools. Out of 40 schools cook s engaged by VEC n 22 (55%) schools, by SMC n 1 (2.5%) schools, PRI n 10 (25%) schools and by NGO n 4 (10%) school. Out of 40 schools cook s engaged by VEC n 24 (60%) schools, by PRI n 12 In case of no cook 1 (2.5%) school has reported that to engage self help group (SHG). In case of no cook 15 (45.5%) school has reported that to engage self help group (SHG). 8 (20%) schools reported to engage cook on bass of contract and 4 (10%) schools reported to engage daly wager as cook. In case of no cook 11 (27.5%) school has reported that to engage self help group (SHG). 1 (2.5%) school reported to engage cook on contract. In case of no cook 11 (27.5%) school has reported that to engage self help 15

17 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 11.6 Appontment of cook and honorarum Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses (30%) schools and by Contractor n 1 (2.5%) school. BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 10 (25%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. All 40 schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook. The mode of payment to cook s by Cheque n 38 (95%) schools. LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools 13 (32.5%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 35 (87.5%) schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook, 1 (2.5%) school reported that Rs s pad to cook. The mode of payment to cook s group (SHG). 14 (35%) schools reported to engage the cook on contract. 3 (7.5%) schools engage daly wager as cook. 30 (75%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. The cooks are not pad regularly n 29 (72.5%) schools. 27 (67.5%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. The cooks are not pad regularly n 25 (62.5%) schools. 16

18 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses by Cheque n 36 (90%) schools. SANT NAGAR KABIR Out of 40 schools 39 (97.5%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 39 (97.5%) schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook. The mode of payment to cook s by Cheque n 30 (75%) schools, 2 (5) schools by e-payment and 6 (15%) schools by cash. SITAPUR Out of 40 schools 31 (77.5%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 35 (87.5%) schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook. The mode of payment to cook s by Cheque n 23 (57.5%) schools, 3 (7.5%) schools by e- payment and 9 Only 1 (2.5%) school have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. The cooks are not pad regularly n 11 (27.5%) schools. 9 (225%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. The cooks are not pad regularly n 9 (22.5%) schools. 17

19 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses (22.5%) by cash Socal Composton of cook and health check up of cook UNNAO Out of 40 schools 38 (95%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 39 (7.5%) schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook. The mode of payment to cook s by Cheque n 30 (75%) schools, 5 (12.5%) schools by cash. BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 4 (10%) schools have engaged OBC as cook and 1 (2.5%) engaged SC as cook. Health check up of cook s done n 27 (67.5%) schools. LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools 9 (22.5%) schools have engaged OBC as cook and 6 (15%) schools engaged SC 2 (5%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. The cooks are not pad regularly n 11 (27.5%) schools. Tranng to cook s provded only n 13 (32.5%) schools and tranng module s avalable n 12 (30%) schools. Almost n 70% schools tranng s not provded nor tranng module s avalable. Tranng to cook s provded only n 13 (32.5%) schools and tranng module s avalable 18

20 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT KABIRNAGAR as cook and 2 (5%) schools engaged mnorty persons as cook. Health check up of cook s done n 9 (22.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools 8 (20%) schools have engaged OBC as cook and 16 (40%) engaged SC as cook and ST as cook n 6 (15%) schools and Mnorty as cook n 5 (12.5%) schools and general as cook n 1 (2.5%) school. Health check up of cook s done n 19 (47.5%) schools. SITAPUR Out of 40 schools 9 (22.5%) schools have engaged OBC as cook and 16 (40%) engaged SC as cook, ST as cook n 6 (15%) schools and Mnorty as cook n 2 (5%) schools. Health check up of cook s done n 4 (10%) schools. UNNAO Out of 40 schools 20 (50%) schools have engaged OBC as cook and 15 (37.5%) n 12 (30%) schools. Almost n 70% schools tranng s not provded nor tranng module s avalable. Tranng to cook s provded only n 15 (37.5%) schools and tranng module s avalable n 15 (37.5%) schools. Almost n 62.5% schools tranng s not provded nor tranng module s avalable. Tranng to cook s provded only n 1 (2.5%) schools and tranng module s avalable n 1 (2.5%) schools. Almost n 97.5% schools tranng s not provded nor tranng module s avalable. Tranng to cook s not provded n any school nether tranng module s 19

21 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Quantty and Qualty of meal Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses BARABANKI engaged SC as cook and ST as cook n 3 (7.5%) schools and Mnorty as cook n 2 (5%) schools. Health check up of cook s done n only 1 (2.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 18 (45%) schools. Qualty of s good n 21 (52.5%) schools and average n 17 (42.5%) schools. Quantty of meal s suffcent n 11 (27.5%) schools. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 25 gm. n 21 (52.5%) schools, 30 gm. n 14 (35%) schools, 40 gm n 1 (2.5%) and 50 gm. n 3 (7.5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 25 gm. n 10 (25%) schools, 30 gm n 10 (25%) schools, 45 gms. In 5 (12.5%) schools and 50 gm. n 2 (5%) schools and 70 gms n 7 (17.5%) avalable. Hot cooked meal s not served daly n 22 (55%) schools. Quantty of meal s not suffcent n 29 (72.5%) schools. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 10 (25%) schools. 20

22 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW schools. Double fortfed salt s provded n 34 (85%) schools. Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 6 (15%) schools. Qualty of s good n 22 (55%) schools and average n 8 (20%) schools. Quantty of meal s suffcent n 28 (70%) schools. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 30 gm. n 18 (45%) schools and 50 gm. n 9 (22.5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 25 gm. n 6 (15%) schools, 30 gm n 3 (7.5%) schools, 50 gms. n 4 (10%) schools and 60 gm. n 1 (2.5%) schools and 70 gms n 1 (2.5%) schools. Double fortfed salt s provded n 30 (75%) schools. Hot cooked meal s not served daly n 34 (85%) schools. Quantty of meal s not suffcent n 29 (72.5%) schools. Quantty of meal s not suffcent n 12 (30%) schools. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 22 (55%) schools. 21

23 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 9 (22.5%) schools. Qualty of s good n 26 (65%) schools and average n 13 (32.5%) schools. Quantty of meal s suffcent n 39 (97.5%) schools. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 25 gm. n 1 (2.5%) schools, 30 gm. n 15 (37.5%) schools, 40 gm n 2 (5%) and 50 gm. n 9 (22.5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 30 gm n 9 (22.5%) schools, 50 gm. n 10 (25%) schools, 60 gm. n 3 (7.5%) schools and 70 gms n 7 (17.5%) schools. Double fortfed salt s provded n 37 (92.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 4 (10%) schools. Qualty of s good n 6 (15%) schools and Hot cooked meal s not served daly n 31 (77.5%) schools. Quantty of meal s not suffcent n 1 (2.5%) schools. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 8 (20%) schools. Hot cooked meal s not served daly n 36 (90%) schools. Quantty of meal s not suffcent n 1 (2.5%) schools. 22

24 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses UNNAO average n 33 (82.5%) schools. Quantty of meal s suffcent n 39 (97.5%) schools. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 25 gm. n 8 (20%) schools, 30 gm. n 12 (30%) schools, 40 gm n 5 (12.5%) and 50 gm. n 2 (5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 30 gm n 11 (27.5%) schools, 45 gms. In 1 (2.5%) schools and 50 gm. n 1 (2.5%) schools, 60 gms. n 13 (32.5%) schools and 70 gms n 3 (7.5%) schools. Double fortfed salt s provded n 21 (52.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 11 (27.5%) schools. Qualty of s good n 2 (5%) schools and average n 35 (87.5%) schools. Quantty of meal s suffcent n 37 Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 22 (55%) schools. Hot cooked meal s not served daly n 29 (72.5%) schools. Quantty of meal s not suffcent n 3 (7.5%) schools. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 14 (35%) schools. 23

25 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 12.2 Acceptance of meal and menu Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR (92.5%) schools. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 25 gm. n 29 (72.5%) schools, 40 gm n 1 (2.5%) and 50 gm. n 3 (7.5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 25 gm. n 1 (2.5%) schools, 30 gm n 23 (57.5%) schools, 50 gm. n 4 (10%) schools, and 60 gms n 3 (7.5%) schools. Double fortfed salt s provded n 33 (82.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools the chldren of 35 (87.5%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. Out of 40 schools the chldren of 24 (60%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. Out of 40 schools the chldren of 35 (87.5%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed The chldren of 5 (12.5%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. The chldren of 16 (40%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. The chldren of 5 (12.5%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not 24

26 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses wth the quantty. satsfactory Menu of MDM SITAPUR Out of 40 schools the chldren of 18 (45%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. UNNAO Out of 40 schools the chldren of 30 (75%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. BARABANKI Out of 40 schools 39 (97.5%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty. It was observed that menu was dsplayed n all 40 (100%) schools. Menu was followed unformly n 39 (97.5%) schools. Menu ncluded local gradents and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 38 (95%) schools. Smlarly, menu was dsplayed at notce board n 18 (45%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 2 (5%) schools. The chldren of 22 (55%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. The chldren of 10 (25%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. Menu was not unformly followed n 1 (2.5%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 3 (7.5%) schools. Smlarly nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 2 (5%) schools. 25

27 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty and by teachers n 2 (5%) schools. It was observed that menu was dsplayed n all 37 (92.5%) schools. Menu was followed unformly n 34 (85%) schools. Menu ncluded local gradents 32 (80%) and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 31 (77.5%) schools. Smlarly, menu was dsplayed at notce board n 11 (27.5%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 1 (2.5%) schools. Menu was not unformly followed n 6 (15%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 8 (20%) schools. Smlarly nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 9 (22.5%) schools. SANT KABIRNAGAR Out of 40 schools 13 (32.5%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty, by teachers n 6 (15%) schools and by VSS n 5 (12.5%) schools. It was observed that Menu was not unformly followed n 4 (10%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 5 (12.5%) schools. Smlarly nutrtonal calorfc value was not 26

28 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses menu was dsplayed n all 39 (97.5%) schools. Menu was followed unformly n 36 (90%) schools. Menu ncluded local gradents 35 (87.5% and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 35 (87.5%) schools. Smlarly, menu was dsplayed at notce board n 28 (70%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 1 (2.5%) schools. ncluded n 5 (12.5%) schools. SITAPUR Out of 40 schools 22 (55%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty, by teachers n 1 (2.5%) schools and by VSS n 11 (27.5%) schools. It was observed that menu was dsplayed n all 39 (97.5%) schools. Menu was followed unformly n 36 (90%) schools. Menu ncluded local gradents 35 (87.5%) schools and Menu was not unformly followed n 12 (30%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 19 (47.5%) schools. Smlarly nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 21 (52.5%) schools. 27

29 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 35 (87.5%) schools. Smlarly, menu was dsplayed at notce board n 25 (62.5%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 1 (2.5%) schools. UNNAO Out of 40 schools 22 (55%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty, by VSS 10 (25%). It was observed that menu was dsplayed n all 33 (82.5%) schools. Menu was followed unformly n 29 (72.5%) schools. Menu ncluded local gradents 22 (55%) schools and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 25 (62.5%) schools. Smlarly, menu was dsplayed at notce board n 33 (82.5%) schools. Menu was not unformly followed n 11 (27.5%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 18 (45%) schools. Smlarly nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 15 (37.5%) schools Dsplay of MDM logo BARABANKI Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 37 (92.5%) schools. 28

30 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Trends of enrolment and chldren avalng MDM Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO BARABANKI Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 28 (70%) schools. Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 35 (87.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 33 (82.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 34 (85%) schools. The total enrolment of the sampled school s 5185 (2113 n PS and 2872 n UPS). As per no. of chldren avalng MDM s 2506 (1202 prmary chldren and 1304 upper prmary chldren). Out of total enrolment 2506 (48.33%) students are gven MDM.e (23.18%) Prmary students and 1304 (25.15%) Upper prmary students. Out of total enrolment 2563 chldren (

31 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR students of prmary and 1339 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. The total enrolment of the sampled school s 3948 (2428 n PS and 1520 n UPS). As per no. of chldren avalng MDM s 2454 (1506 prmary chldren and 948 upper prmary chldren). Out of total enrolment 2606 (66%) students are gven MDM.e (38.14%) Prmary students and 1100 (27.86%) Upper prmary students. Out of total enrolment 2325 chldren (1345 students of prmary and 980 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. The total enrolment of the sampled school s 7747 (4323 n PS and 3424 n UPS). As per no. of chldren avalng MDM s 4458 (

32 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SITAPUR prmary chldren and 1281 upper prmary chldren). Out of total enrolment 2953 (38.12%) students are gven MDM.e (21.64%) Prmary students and 1276 (16.47%) Upper prmary students. Out of total enrolment 4640 chldren (3193 students of prmary and 1447 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. The total enrolment of the sampled school s 5744 (4570 n PS and 1174 n UPS). As per no. of chldren avalng MDM s 2768 (2235 prmary chldren and 533 upper prmary chldren). Out of total enrolment 3706 (64.52%) students are gven MDM.e (48.9%) Prmary students and 897 (15.6%) Upper prmary students. Out of total 31

33 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 13.2 Servng and sttng arrangement Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses UNNAO BARABANKI enrolment 2820 chldren (2236 students of prmary and 584 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. The total enrolment of the sampled school s 4124 (2756 n PS and 1368 n UPS). As per no. of chldren avalng MDM s 2739 (1916 prmary chldren and 823 upper prmary chldren). Out of total enrolment 2757 (66.85%) students are gven MDM.e (49.39%) Prmary students and 720 (17.45%) Upper prmary students. Out of total enrolment 2413 chldren (1669 students of prmary and 744 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 18 (45%) schools, on ground n 17 32

34 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses (42.5%) schools and on bench and desk n 1 (2.5%) school. LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 5 (12.5%) schools, on ground n 10 (25%) schools, on tat-patt n 2 (5%) schools and on bench and desk n 2 (5%) school. Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 10 (25%) schools, on ground n 10 (25%) schools, on tat patt n 2 (5%) schools. Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 12 (30%) schools, on ground n 10 (25%) schools, on tat patt n 1 (2.5%) school and on bench and desk n 3 (7.5%) school. Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 15 (37.5%) 33

35 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 13.3 Dscrmnaton Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses BARABANKI schools, on ground n 10 (25%) schools, on tat patt n 3 (7.5%) schools and on bench and desk n 3 (7.5%) school. Out of 40 schools no gender dscrmnaton s observed n any schools. No caste dscrmnaton was observed n any school Communty dscrmnaton was not found n any school. LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR Out of 40 schools no gender dscrmnaton s observed n any schools. No caste dscrmnaton was observed n any school Communty dscrmnaton was not found n any school. Out of 40 schools no gender dscrmnaton s 34

36 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses observed n any schools. No caste dscrmnaton was observed n any school Communty dscrmnaton was not found n any school. SITAPUR UNNAO Out of 40 schools no gender dscrmnaton s observed n any schools. No caste dscrmnaton was observed n any school Communty dscrmnaton was not found n any school. Out of 40 schools no gender dscrmnaton s observed n any schools. No caste dscrmnaton was observed n any school Communty dscrmnaton was not found n any 35

37 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses school Comments n Inspecton Regster Convergence wth SSA BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO No comments was gven n nspecton regster Comment was gven n nspecton regster of 2 (5%) schools. Comment was gven n nspecton regster of 3 (7.5%) schools. Comment was gven n nspecton regster of 1 (2.5%) schools. Comment was gven n nspecton regster of 2 (5%) schools. Out of 4 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 23 (57.5%) schools. Out of 4 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 23 (57.5%) schools. Out of 4 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 12 (30%) schools. Out of 4 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 11 (27.5%) schools. Out of 4 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 2 36

38 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses (5%) schools Convergence wth health programme 14.3 School health card mantaned BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO BARABANKI LUCKNOW MDM was converged wth health programme n 20 (50%) schools. MDM was converged wth health programme n 16 (40%) schools. MDM was converged wth health programme n 12 (30%) schools. MDM was converged wth health programme n 11 (27.5%) schools. MDM was converged wth health programme n 2 (5%) schools. School health card mantaned n 34 (85%) schools and frequency of health check up was yearly n 1 (2.5%) school, half yearly n 13 (32.5%) schools, quarterly n 1 (2.5%) and occasonal 9 (22.5%). School health card mantaned n 27 (67.5%) schools and 37

39 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO frequency of health check up was yearly n 1 (2.5%) school, half yearly n 4 (10%) schools, quarterly n 1 (2.5%), monthly n 8 (20%) and occasonal 4 (10%). School health card mantaned n 37 (92.5%) schools and frequency of health check up was yearly n 18 (45%) school, half yearly n 12 (30%) schools, quarterly n 3 (7.5%), monthly n 3 (7.5%) and occasonal 2 (5%). School health card mantaned n 30 (75%) schools and frequency of health check up was yearly n 18 (45%) school, half yearly n 15 (37.5%) schools, month n 1 (2.5%) and occasonal 2 (5%). School health card mantaned n 29 (72.5%) schools and frequency of health check up was yearly 38

40 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses n 40 (100%) school Mcronutrents and dewormng medcne gven 14.5 Admnstraton BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO BARABANKI Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 38 (95%) schools and dewormng medcne was gven n 5 (12.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 27 (67.5%) schools and dewormng medcne was gven n 2 (5%) schools. Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 14 (35%) schools and dewormng medcne was gven n 12 (30%) schools. Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 15 (37.5%) schools and dewormng medcne was gven n 15 (37.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 10 (25%) schools and dewormng medcne was gven n 10 (25%) schools. Out of 40 schools medcne s 39

41 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty and frequency of medcne Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW SANT KABIRNAGAR SITAPUR admnstered by Govt. doctors n 20 (50%) schools and by teacher n 1 (2.5%) school. The frequency of medcne s yearly n 4 (10%) schools and half yearly n 4 (10%) schools. Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 17 (42.5%) schools and by any other n 4 (10%) school. The frequency of medcne s yearly n 4 (10%) schools and half yearly n 5 (12.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 35 (87.5%). The frequency of medcne s yearly n 21 (52.5%) schools and half yearly n 1 (2.5%) schools and quarterly n 1 (2.5%). Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 35 40

42 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 14.6 Instances of emergency Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses (87.5%) schools and by NGO n 2 (5%) schools. The frequency of medcne s yearly n 7 (17.5%) schools and half yearly n 1 (2.5%) schools and quarterly n 1 (2.5%) school. UNNAO Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 30 (75%) schools. The frequency of medcne s yearly n 10 (25%) schools and half yearly n 15 (37.5%) schools and quarterly n 3 (7.5%) schools. BARABANKI No nstances of emergency was mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 7 (17.5%) schools. LUCKNOW No nstances of emergency was mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 4 (10%) schools. 41

43 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 14.7 Dental & eye check up Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT No nstances of KABIRNAGAR emergency was mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 13 (32.5%) schools. SITAPUR No nstances of emergency was mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 10 (25%) schools. UNNAO No nstances of emergency was mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 5 (12.5%) schools. BARABANKI The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 39 (97.5%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 22 (55%) schools. Dental and eye check up was not performed n 1 (2.5%) schools. 42

44 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 26 (65%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 5 (12.5%) schools SANT The dstrct KABIRNAGAR admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 28 (70%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 7 (17.5%) schools SITAPUR The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and Dental and eye check up was not performed n 14 (35%) schools. Dental and eye check up was not performed n 12 (30%) schools. Dental and eye check up was not performed n 11 (27.5%) schools. 43

45 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 14.8 Avalablty of frst ad Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 29 (72.5%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 12 (30%) schools UNNAO The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 24 (60%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 10 (25%) schools BARABANKI The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 32 (80%) schools. Dental and eye check up was not performed n 16 (40%) schools. Medcal kt was not avalable n 8 (20%) schools. 44

46 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 34 (85%) schools. The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 35 (87.5%) schools. The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 21 (52.5%) schools. Medcal kt was not avalable n 10 (25%) schools. Medcal kt was not avalable n 6 (15%) schools. Medcal kt was not avalable n 5 (12.5%) schools. Medcal kt was not avalable n 19 (47.5%) schools. 45

47 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Potable water avalablty 15.2 Drnkng water scheme Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR BARABANKI LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 35 (87.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 23 (57.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 20 (50%) schools. Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by MPLAD n 3 (7.5%) schools and by others n 4 (10%) schools Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by MLA n 3 (7.5%) schools and by MPLAD n 1 (2.5%) schools No potable water was avalable n 5 (12.5%) schools. No potable water was avalable n 17 (42.5%) schools. No potable water was avalable n 10 (25%) schools. No potable water was avalable n 10 (25%) schools. No potable water was avalable n 20 (50%) schools. A large tract of 5 blocks have bracksh water even after a deep borng. 46

48 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Ktchen constructon and condton Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR BARABANKI LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by Department n (5%) schools and by others n 1 (2.5%) schools Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by MLA n 5 (12.5%) schools, by MPLAD n 8 (20%) schools and by NGO n 1 (2.5%) school. Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by MPLAD n 2 (5%) schools and by others n 2 (5%) schools Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 35 (87.5%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 1 (2.5%) school. Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 33 (82.5%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 2 (5%) school. Ktchen shed was not sanctoned n 2 (5%) schools. Ktchen shed was not sanctoned n 2 (5%) schools. Sanctoned but not started n 3 (7.5%) schools. 47

49 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 16.2 Under whch Scheme constructed Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR BARABANKI LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 36 (90%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 4 (10%) school. Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 35 (87.5%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 3 (7.5%) school. Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 28 (70%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 3 (7.5%) school. MI observed that few schools were havng nformaton about the scheme under whch the ktchen was constructed. The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 21 (52.5%) schools and under SSA n 7 (17.5%) schools. MI observed that few schools were havng nformaton about the scheme under whch Ktchen shed was not sanctoned n 2 (5%) schools. Sanctoned but not started n 3 (7.5%) schools. Ktchen shed was not sanctoned n 2 (5%) schools. 12 (30%) schools have no nformaton under whch the ktchen was constructed. 23 (57.5%) schools have no nformaton under whch the ktchen 48

50 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR the ktchen was constructed. The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 6 (15%) schools and under SSA n 11 (27.5%) schools. MI observed that few schools were havng nformaton about the scheme under whch the ktchen was constructed. The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 7 (17.5%) schools and under SSA n 14 (35%) schools. MI observed that few schools were havng nformaton about the scheme under whch the ktchen was constructed. The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 4 (10%) schools and under SSA n 29 (72.5%) schools and 1 (2.5%) school by other scheme. MI observed that few schools were havng nformaton about the was constructed. 19 (47.5%) schools have no nformaton under whch the ktchen was constructed. 6 (15%) schools have no nformaton under whch the ktchen was constructed. 22 (55%) schools have no nformaton under 49

51 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 16.3 In absence of ktchen shed where MDM s prepared 16.4 Storage of food gran Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses scheme under whch the ktchen was constructed. The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 2 (5%) schools and under SSA n 14 (35%) schools and 2 (5%) schools by other schemes. BARABANKI Only 1 (2.5%) school has reported to prepare MDM n open space LUCKNOW No school has reported to prepare MDM n open space. SANT KABIR No school has NAGAR reported to prepare MDM n open space. SITAPUR No school has reported to prepare MDM n open space. UNNAO 2 (5%) school have reported to prepare MDM n open space BARABANKI Food gran s stored at the house of Pradhan or VSS members home LUCKNOW Food gran s stored at the house of Pradhan or VSS members home whch the ktchen was constructed. 50

52 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 16.5 Ktchen hygenc condton Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR 3 (7.5%) schools have reported that food gran s stored at the house of Pradhan. MI observed that food gran was stored n class n 1 (2.5%) school. Food gran s stored at the house of Pradhan or VSS members home. MI observed that food gran s stored n scence room n 1 (2.5%) school. Food gran s stored at the house of Pradhan or VSS members home. MI observed that food gran s stored n scence room n 1 (2.5%) school and n other room n 1 (2.5%) school. BARABANKI MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 34 (85%) schools. LUCKNOW MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class 51

53 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 16.6 Types of fuels used Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses room and havng hygenc condton n 33 (82.5%) schools. SANT KABIR MI observed that NAGAR ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 36 (90%) schools. SITAPUR MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 35 (87.5%) schools. UNNAO MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 28 (70%) schools. BARABANKI Out of 40 schools LPG was n 33 (82.5%) schools and wood was used n 2 (5%) schools. LUCKNOW Out of 40 schools LPG was n 19 (47.5%) schools and wood was used n 4 (10%) schools. SANT KABIR Out of 40 schools NAGAR LPG was n 8 (20%) schools and wood MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 10 (25%) schools. MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 5 (12.5%) schools. MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 52

54 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 16.7 Cookng utensls avalable & source of fundng Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SITAPUR UNNAO BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT NAGAR KABIR was used n 27 (67.5%) schools Out of 40 schools LPG was n 26 (65%) schools, wood was used n 8 (20%) schools and coal was used n 2 (5%) schools. Out of 40 schools LPG was n 21 (52.5%) schools and wood was used n 5 (12.5%) schools Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 39 (97.5%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 14 (35%) schools and by others n 11 (27.5%) schools. Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 31 (77.5%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 6 (15%) schools and by others n 6 (15%) schools. Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 21 (52.5%) schools and 9 (22.5%) schools. MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 10 (25%) schools. MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 7 (17.5%) schools. 14 (35%) schools dd not know from where cookng utensls were purchased. 19 (47.5%) schools dd not know from where cookng utensls were purchased. 6 (15%) schools dd not know from where cookng utensls were 53

55 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 16.8 Avalablty of storage bn and source of ts fundng Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SITAPUR UNNAO BARABANKI LUCKNOW source of fundng was by MME n 13 (32.5%) schools and by others n 2 (5%) schools. Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 33 (82.5%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 29 (72.5%) schools and by others n 5 (12.5%) schools and by SSA n 1 (2.5%) school. Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 22 (55%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 17 (42.5%) schools and by others n 5 (12.5%) schools. MI found storage bn was avalable only n 8 (20%) schools. The source of fundng was not known to Head masters/teachers. MI found storage bn was avalable only n 12 (30%) schools. The source of fundng was by MDM n 1 (25.%) purchased. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. 54

56 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR school and by MME n 1 (2.5%) school. MI found storage bn was avalable n 16 (40%) schools. The source of fundng was by BRC n 1 (2.5%) school, by KDF n 4 (10%) schools, by MDM n 3 (7.5%) schools, by MME n 3 (7.5%) schools by school grant n 1 (2.5%) school, by VEC n 1 (2.5%) school and by others n 2 (5%) schools. MI found storage bn was avalable n 14 (35%) schools. The source of fundng was by MME n 1 (2.5%) school, by NGO n 1 (2.5% schools, by VEC n 1 (2.5%) schools and by others n 3 (7.5%) schools. MI found storage bn was avalable only n 10 (25%) schools. The source of fundng was by MME n 3 (7.5%) schools, PRI n 1 In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. 55

57 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 16.7 Avalablty of plates and ts fundng Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses BARABANKI LUCKNOW SANT NAGAR SITAPUR UNNAO KABIR (2.5%) school, by VEC n 3 (7.5%) schools and by others n 3 (7.5%) schools. Plates were avalable n 3 (7.5%) schools and the source of ts fundng was MME n 1 (2.5%) school. Plates were avalable n 15 (37.5%) schools and the source of ts fundng was MME n 4 (10%) schools and by others n 5 (12.5%) schools. Plates were avalable n 15 (37.5%) schools and the source of ts fundng was MME n 12 (30%) school and by others n 1 (2.5%) school. Plates were avalable n 26 (65%) schools and the source of ts fundng was MME n 25 (62.5%) school and by other n 1 (2.5%) school. Plates were avalable n 30 (75%) schools and the source of ts fundng was MME n 18 (45%) school and In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. 56

58 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Safety and hygene Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses by others n 5 (12.5%) schools. BARABANKI MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 34 (95%) schools and take meal n orderly manner n 36 (90%) schools, conserve water n 37 (92.5%) schools and the cookng process s safe n 34 (95%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 36 (90%) schools LUCKNOW MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 26 (65%) schools and take meal n orderly manner n 24 (60%) schools, conserve water n 24 (60%) schools and the cookng process s safe n 26 (65%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 30 (75%) schools SANT KABIR MI observed that NAGAR chldren washed ther 57

59 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses hands before takng meals n 22 (55%) schools and take meal n orderly manner n 20 (50%) schools, conserve water n 19 (47.5%) schools and the cookng process s safe n 14 (35%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 31 (77.5%) schools SITAPUR MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 24 (60%) schools and take meal n orderly manner n 21 (52.5%) schools, conserve water n 17 (42.5%) schools and the cookng process s safe n 15 (37.5%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 34 (85%) schools UNNAO MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 37 (92.5%) schools and take meal n orderly manner n 37 58

60 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 17.2 Communty Partcpaton Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses BARABANKI LUCKNOW (92.5%) schools, conserve water n 38 (95%) schools and the cookng process s safe n 38 (95%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 30 (75%) schools Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 4 (10%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 4 (10%) schools and parents partcpaton on monthly was observed n 3 (7.5%) schools. Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 3 (7.5%) schools, Panchayat partcpaton was very rare n most of the schools. It was yearly n 1 (2.5%) school. VEC/SMC partcpaton was rare n most of the schools and no parents meetng was held n 3 (7.5%) schools. Panchayat partcpaton was very rare n most of the schools. It was yearly n 3 (7.5%) school. VEC/SMC partcpaton was rare n most of the schools. It was observed that 59

61 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses SANT NAGAR SITAPUR KABIR SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 3 (7.5%) schools and parents partcpaton on monthly was observed n 3 (7.5%) schools and on daly bass n 1 (2.5%) school and Urban Body partcpaton was observed n 3 (7.5%) schools. Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 5 (12.5%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 5 (12.5%) schools and parents partcpaton on monthly was observed n 7 (17.5%) schools. Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found VMC/SMC met yearly n 3 (7.5%) schools and no parents meetng was held n 2 (5%) schools. Panchayat partcpaton was very rare n most of the schools. It was yearly n 1 (2.5%) school. VEC/SMC partcpaton was rare n most of the schools. It was only once n 1 (2.5%) school and no parents meetng was held n 3 (7.5%) schools. Panchayat partcpaton was very rare n most of the schools. It was yearly n 1 (2.5%) school. VEC/SMC 60

62 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 17.2 Frequency of SMC meetng and ssue of MDM dscussed Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses UNNAO BARABANKI that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 19 (47.5%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 22 (55%) schools and parents partcpaton on monthly was observed n 18 (45%) schools. Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 3 (7.5%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 9 (22.5%) schools and parents partcpaton on monthly was observed n 7 (17.5%) schools. SMC meetng held once n 1 (2.5%), thrce n 1 (2.5%) school, 5 tmes n 4 (10%) schools, 6 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 7 tmes n partcpaton was rare n most of the schools. It was held yearly n 1 (2.5%) school and no parents meetng was held n 1 (2.5%) schools. In most of the schools SMC regster s mantaned n all schools but ther category wse attendance n the 61

63 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses 1 (2.5%) school. The ssue of MDM was dscussed 3 tmes n 9 (22.5%) schools, 5 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 6 tmes n 2 (5%) schools. LUCKNOW SMC meetng held 5 tmes n 2 (5%) schools, 6 tmes n 2 (5%) school. The ssue of MDM was dscussed 4 tmes n 4 (10%) schools. SANT NAGAR SITAPUR KABIR SMC meetng held 2 tmes n 4 (10%) school, 5 tmes n 1 (2.5%) schools, 6 tmes n 3 (7.5%) school and 11 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school. The ssue of MDM was dscussed 2 tmes n 5 (12.5%) schools, 4 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 6 tmes n 1 (2.5%) schools and 11 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school. SMC meetng held once n 2 (5%), thrce n 3 (7.5%) school, 4 tmes n 4 (10%) schools, 5 tmes n 4 (10%) school, 6 meetng could not be dentfed In most of the schools SMC regster s mantaned n all schools but ther category wse attendance n the meetng could not be dentfed In most of the schools SMC regster s mantaned n all schools but ther category wse attendance n the meetng could not be dentfed In most of the schools SMC regster s mantaned n all schools but ther category wse 62

64 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty 17.3 Socal Audt mechansm Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 8 tmes n 3 (7.5%) school. The ssue of MDM was dscussed 2 tmes n 2 (5%) schools, 4 tmes n 3 (7.5%) schools, 6 tmes n 4 (10%) school and 10 tmes n 1 (2.5%) schools. UNNAO SMC meetng held 4 tmes n 1 (2.5%) schools, 5 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school, 8 tmes n 3 (7.5%) schools. The ssue of MDM was dscussed 3 tmes n 1 (2.5%) schools, 4 tmes n 2 (5%) school, 6 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 7 tmes n 2 (5%) schools. BARABANKI As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 2 (5%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. attendance n the meetng could not be dentfed In most of the schools SMC regster s mantaned n all schools but ther category wse attendance n the meetng could not be dentfed 63

65 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses LUCKNOW SANT NAGAR SITAPUR KABIR As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 6 (15%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 7 (17.5%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 17 (42.5%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. 64

66 Sl No Interventon & sub actvty Dstrct Strengths Weaknesses UNNAO As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 4 (10%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. 65

67 6 (b) Name, Desgnatons & address of persons contacted. Shree. Harendra Veer Sngh State Project Drector (SPD) U.P Educaton for all Projects. Lucknow, U.P 2. Shree. B.D. Sharma Addtonal State Project Drector (ASPD) U.P For educaton for all Projects 3. Dr. Rajendra Sngh Basc Shksha Adhkar(BSA) Barabank, U.P 4. Shree Sarvoda Nand Basc Shksha Adhkar(BSA) Lucknow U.P 5. Shree Ram Sngh Basc Shksha Adhkar(BSA) Sant kabr Nagar (khallabad),u.p 6. Shree Shash Kumar (AAO) Assstant Account Offcer Sant kabr Nagar (khallabad),u.p 7. Shree T.K.Gupta Basc Shksha Adhkar(BSA) Stapur, U.P 8. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Basc Shksha Adhkar(BSA) Unnao, U.P 9. Shree Rajesh Kumar Assstant Basc Shksha Adhkar(ABSA) Unnao, U.P 66

68 Annexures 6 (C) Copy of Offce order, notfcaton etc. dscussed n the report. Md Day Meal Scheme F.No. 8-9/2009 MDM 2-1 Government of Inda Mnstry of Human Resource Development Department of School Educaton & Lteracy MDM Dvson **************** Shastr Bhavan, New Delh Dated 6 th February, 2013 Subject: Renewal of Terms of Reference and MOU wth Montorng Insttute under SarvaShkshaAbhyan and Md Day Meal Scheme for the perod from to Objectves: Assessment and analyss of the mplementaton of the Md Day Meal Scheme as per the MDM gudelnes. 2. Duraton of the ToR: The duraton of the Terms of Reference may be for a perod of 2 years from the date of approval of the competent authorty nstead of from 1 st October, 2013 to 30 th September, Scope of work: The MDM Bureau endorsed the proposal. 4. Scale of Work:No comments to offer 5. Reports: 6. Terms of payment: 7. Task of the MIs: 67

69 1. Access 2. Interventons for out of school 3. Qualty 4. Grls Educaton NPEGEL and KGBV 5. Inclusve Educaton 6. Cvl Work 7. Communty Moblzaton 8. MIS 9. Fnancal Management 10. Md Day Meal Scheme The Montorng Insttutes would send ther reports to the Drector, Md Day Meal Scheme of the respectve Government at the draft level and after dscusson fnalze ther report. The Drector, Md Day Meal Scheme of the State Government on recept of the draft report would gve hs / her comments wthn 15 days. If the MIs receves no comments n ths perod the report wll be treated as fnal. The Montorng Insttute shall thereafter be send the report to the Prncpal Secretary / Secretary of the Nodal Department and Drector, Md Day Meal Scheme of the State / UT wth a copy to Drector, Md Day Meal, Government of Inda. 68

70 69

71 70

72 71

73 72

74 73

75 74

76 75

77 76

78 77

79 6 (D) Other relevant documents MI Ispectng MDM at PS Chtah, Sant Kabrnagar MDM scene at KGB Ganeshpur, Ramnagar, Barabank 78

80 Cover Page of the Dstrct (Barabank) 1 Report 1st Half Yearly Montorng Report of on MDM for the State of UTTAR PRADESH for the perod of 1 st Aprl, 2013 to 30 th September, Dstrcts Montored/Covered 1. (BARABANKI) 79

81 1. At school level 1 Avalablty of Food Grans Whether buffer stock of food grans for one month s avalable at the school? v v Out of 40 schools 38 (95%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month. Only 2 schools reported that they have no buffer stock. Whether food grans are delvered n school n tme by the lftng agency? Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) reported that food gran s delvered at the house of Pradhan by lftng agency and then to school. 10 (25%) schools reported that food grans s not delvered by lftng agency. If lftng agency s not delverng the food grans at school how the food grans s transported up to school level? In case of no lftng agency the food gran was delvered by Contractor n 2 (5%) schools, lftng by self n 2 (5%) and by VEC members n 3 (7.5%) schools Whether the food grans are of FAQ of Grade A qualty? Out of 40 schools 37 (92.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. Only 3 (7.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. Whether food grans are released to school after adjustng the unspent balance of the prevous month? Out of 40 schools 36 (90%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 4 (10%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 2 Tmely releases of funds Whether State s releasng funds to Dstrct / block / school on regular bass n advance? If not, a) Perod of delay n releasng funds by State to dstrct. b) Perod of delay n releasng funds by Dstrct to block / schools. c) Perod of delay n releasng funds by block to schools. Out of 40 schools only 4 (10%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance. 36 (90%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. a) Perod of delay from state to dstrct s reported by 3 months by 1 (2.5%) school. b) Perod of delay from dstrct to block s reported for 2 months by 5 (12.5%) schools and 3 months by 3 (7.5%) schools. c) Smlarly, perod of delay from block to school s reported as 2 months by 4 (10%) schools and 3 months by 1 (2.5%) school. Any other observatons. In most of the school perod of delay s not more than 15 to 20 days from block to school. 80

82 3. Avalablty of Cookng Cost v Whether school / mplementng agency has recevng cookng cost n advance regularly? Out of 40 schools 32 (80%) receve cookng cost n advance regularly, whereas 8 (20%) schools reported not to receve cookng cost regularly. Perod of delay, f any, n recept of cookng cost. 5 (12.5%) reported that perod of delay s days and 3 (7.5%) reported the perod of delay as more than one month. In case of non-recept of cookng cost how the meal s served? 4 (10%) schools reported that they adjust from other fund whereas 2(5%) take help from VSS members. Mode of payment of cookng cost (Cash / cheque / e-transfer)? Out of 40 schools 38 (95%) stated the mode pf payment though cheque, whereas 2 (5%) schools reported mode of payment through e-transfer. 4. Avalablty of Cook-cum-helpers v v v v v x Who engaged Cook-cum-helpers at schools (Department / SMC / VEC / PRI / Self Help Group / NGO /Contractor)? Out of 40 schools 12 (30%) schools reported that VEC engages cook and 9 (22.5%) schools reported that cooked s apponted by SMC. If cook-cum-helper s not engaged who cooks and serves the meal? In case of no cook 1 (2.5%) school has reported that to engage self-help group (SHG). Another 1 (2.5%) school reported to engage daly wager as cook. Is the number of cooks-cum-helpers engaged n the school as per GOI norms or as per State norms? Out of 40 schools 10 (25%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 30 (75%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. Honorarum pad to cooks cum helpers. All 40 schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook. Mode of payment to cook-cum-helpers? The mode of payment to cook s by Cheque n 38 (95%) schools. Are the remuneraton pad to cooks cum helpers regularly? The cooks are not pad regularly n 29 (72.5%) schools. Socal Composton of cooks cum helpers? (SC/ST/OBC/Mnorty) Out of 40 schools 4 (10%) schools have engaged OBC as cook and 1 (2.5%) engaged SC as cook. Is there any tranng module for cook-cum-helpers? Tranng module s avalable n 12 (30%) schools. Whether tranng has been provded to cook-cum-helpers? Tranng to cook s provded only n 13 (32.5%) schools. Almost n 70% schools tranng s not provded nor s any tranng module avalable. 81

83 x x In case the meal s prepared and transported by the Centralzed ktchen / NGO, whether cook-cum-helpers have been engaged to serve the meal to the chldren at school level. No central Ktchen observed Whether health check-up of cook-cum-helpers has been done? Health checkup of cook s done n 27 (67.5%) schools. 5. Regularty n Servng Meal Whether the school s servng hot cooked meal daly? If there was nterrupton, what was the extent and reasons for the same? Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 18 (45%) schools. 6. Qualty &Quantty of Meal v v v v Feedback from chldren on Qualty of meal Qualty of s good n 21 (52.5%) schools and average n 17 (42.5%) schools. Quantty of meal Quantty of meal s suffcent n 11 (27.5%) schools. Quantty of pulses used n the meal per chld. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 25 gm. n 21 (52.5%) schools, 30 gm. n 14 (35%) schools, 40 gm n 1 (2.5%) and 50 gm. n 3 (7.5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetables used n the meal per chld. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 25 gm. n 10 (25%) schools, 30 gm n 10 (25%) schools, 45 gm. In 5 (12.5%) schools and 50 gm. n 2 (5%) schools and 70 gm. n 7 (17.5%) schools. Whether double fortfed salt s used? Double fortfed salt s provded n 34 (85%) schools. Acceptance of the meal amongst the chldren. Out of 40 schools the chldren of 35 (87.5%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. The chldren of 5 (12.5%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. Method / Standard gadgets / equpment for measurng the quantty of food to be cooked and served. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 10 (25%) schools. 82

84 7. Varety of Menu v v Who decdes the menu? Out of 40 schools 39 (97.5%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty. Menu was followed unformly n 39 (97.5%) schools. Whether weekly menu s dsplayed at a promnent place notceable to communty, It was observed that menu was dsplayed at a promnent place n all 40 (100%) schools. Menu was dsplayed at notce board n 20 (50%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 2 (5%) schools. Is the menu beng followed unformly? Menu was not unformly followed n 1 (2.5%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 3 (7.5%) schools. Whether menu ncludes locally avalable ngredents? Menu ncluded local gradents and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 38 (95%) schools. Whether menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld? Menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld. But nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 2 (5%) schools. a) 8. Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 at the school level at promnent place Quantty and date of food grans receved Out of sampled schools, no school has provded nformaton about the quantty of food gran receved and the date of recevng. As food gran n most cases s delvered drectly at the house of Pradhan and then comes to school as per daly requrement. b) Balance quantty of food grans utlzed durng the month. Yes, 9 (22.5) reported that balance quantty was utlzed durng the month c) Other ngredents purchased, utlzed Yes, other ngredents purchased, utlzed d) Number of chldren gven MDM About 2500 chldren are gven MDM n the dstrct, out of whch 2438 chldren taken MDM on the day of Vst e) Daly menu Daly menu dsplayed on notce board n 20 (50%) school Dsplay of MDM logo at promnent place preferably outsde wall of the school. Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 37 (92.5%) schools. 83

85 9. Trends Extent of varaton (As per school records vs-à-vs Actual on the day of vst). v Enrolment The total enrolment of the sampled school s 5185 (2113 n PS and 2872 n UPS). No. of chldren present on the day of the vst. Out of total enrolment 2563 chldren (1224 students of prmary and 1339 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. No. of chldren avalng MDM as per MDM Regster. As per MDM regster number of chldren avalng MDM s 2506 (1202 prmary chldren and 1304 upper prmary chldren). No. of chldren actually avalng MDM on the day of vst as per head count Out of total enrolment 2438 (47.02%) students are gven MDM.e (47.9%) Prmary students and 1270 (52.09%) Upper prmary students. 10. Socal Equty What s the system of servng and seatng arrangements for eatng? Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 18 (45%) schools, on ground n 17 (42.5%) schools and on bench and desk n 1 (2.5%) school. Dd you observe any gender or caste or communty dscrmnaton n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements? v No any dscrmnaton of gender, caste or communty was observed n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements. The name of the school where dscrmnaton found of any knd may be mentoned n the man body of the report along wth date of vst. N.A. If any knd of socal dscrmnaton s found n the school, comments of the team may be gven n the nspecton regster of the school. No any sort of socal dscrmnaton found 11. Convergence Wth Other Scheme 1 Sarva Shksha Abhyan Out of 40 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 23 (57.5%) schools. 2 School Health Programme Is there school Health Card mantaned for each chld? MDM was converged wth health programme n 20 (50%) schools. School health card mantaned n 34 (85%) schools What s the frequency of health check-up? Frequency of health check up was yearly n 1 (2.5%) school, half yearly n 13 (32.5%) schools, quarterly n 1 (2.5%) and occasonal 9 (22.5%). Whether chldren are gven mcronutrents (Iron, folc acd, vtamn A dosage) 84

86 v v v v v x x 2 and de-wormng medcne perodcally? Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 38 (95%) schools and de-wormng medcne was gven n 5 (12.5%) schools. Who admnsters these medcnes and at what frequency? Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 20 (50%) schools and by teacher n 1 (2.5%) school. The frequency of medcne s yearly n 4 (10%) schools and half yearly n 4 (10%) schools. Whether heght and weght record of the chldren s beng ndcated n the school health card. Yes, heght and record of the chldren s beng ndcated n school health card of 34 (85%) schools Whether any referral durng the perod of montorng. No any referral durng the perod of montorng Instances of medcal emergency durng the perod of montorng. No nstances of emergency were mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 7 (17.5%) schools. Avalablty of the frst ad medcal kt n the schools. The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 32 (80%) schools. Dental and eye check-up ncluded n the screenng. The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 39 (97.5%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 22 (55%) schools. Dstrbuton of spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error. Spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error dstrbuted n 22 (55%) schools. Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme Whether potable water s avalable for drnkng purpose n convergence wth Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 35 (87.5%) schools. 3 MPLAD / MLA Scheme Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by MPLAD n 3 (7.5%) schools and by others n 4 (10%) schools 4 Any Other Department / Scheme. N.A. 85

87 1 a v v v v b c d e Infrastructure Ktchen cum store Is there a pucca ktchen shed-cum-store Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 35 (87.5%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 1 (2.5%) school. Constructed and n use Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 35 (87.5%) schools and t s n use. Under whch Scheme Ktchen-cum-store constructed -MDM/SSA/Others The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 21 (52.5%) schools and under SSA n 7 (17.5%) schools. Constructed but not n use (Reasons for not usng) All ktchen sheds were n use Under constructon N.A. Sanctoned, but constructon not started N.A. Not sanctoned Ktchen shed was not sanctoned n 2 (5%) schools. MS SANDAULI UMARPUR n Bank block and MS WADIPUR n Harak block In case the pucca ktchen-cum-store s not avalable, where s the food beng cooked and where the foodgrans /other ngredents are beng stored? Only 1 (2.5%) school has reported to prepare MDM n open space. Food grans stored at the house of Pradhan. Ktchen-cum-store n hygenc condton, properly ventlated and away from classrooms. MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 34 (85%) schools. Whether MDM s beng cooked by usng frewood or LPG based cookng? Out of 40 schools LPG was n 33 (82.5%) schools and wood was used n 2 (5%) schools. Whether on any day there was nterrupton due to non-avalablty of frewood or LPG? MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 10 (25%) schools. Whether cookng utensls are avalable n the school? Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 39 (97.5%) schools. Source of fundng for cookng and servng utensls Ktchen Devces fund / MME / Communty contrbuton / others. v Source of fundng was by MME n 14 (35%) schools and by others n 11 (27.5%) schools. 14 (35%) schools dd not know from where cookng utensls were purchased. Whether eatng plates etc. are avalable n the school? Plates were avalable n 3 (7.5%) schools. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. Source of fundng for eatng plates - MME / Communty contrbuton / others? 86

88 The source of ts fundng was MME n 1 (2.5%) school. 3 Ktchen Devces Out of 40 schools ktchen devces were avalable n 39 (97.5%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 14 (35%) schools and by others n 11 (27.5%) schools Avalablty of storage bns Whether storage bns are avalable for food grans? If yes, what s the source of ther procurement? MI found storage bn was avalable only n 8 (20%) schools. The source of fundng was not known to Head masters/teachers. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. Tolets n the school Is separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable? Yes, separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable n 33 (82.5%) schools. Are tolets usable? Tolets are usable n 33 (82.5%) schools. Avalablty of potable water Is Tap water / tube well / hand pump / Well / Jet pump avalable? Potable water s avalable n 37 (92.5%) schools. Out of whch jet pump was avalable n 1 (2.5%) school, tube well avalable n 5 (12.5%) schools and hand pump was avalable n 31 (77.5%) schools. Any other source Nl 7 Avalablty of fre extngushers Fre extngushers were avalable n 36 (90%) schools. 8 a b c 4. IT nfrastructure School level Number of computers avalable n the school (f any). 9 Computers were avalable n the 9 (22.5%) schools. Avalablty of nternet connecton (If any). Internet connecton was avalable n 2 (5%) schools. Usng any IT / IT enabled servces based solutons / servces (lke e-learnng etc.) (f any) IT enable servces were used n 1 (2.5%) schools. 13. Safety & hygene v General Impresson of the envronment, Safety and hygene: The cookng process s safe n 34 (95%) schools as they have proper ventlaton. The fre extngusher was avalable n 36 (90%) schools. Are chldren encouraged to wash hands before and after eatng MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 34 (95%) schools conserve water n 37 (92.5%) schools. Do the chldren take meals n an orderly manner? Chldren take meal n orderly manner n 36 (90%) schools. Conservaton of water? 87

89 v MI observed that chldren conserve water n 37 (92.5%) schools. Is the cookng process and storage of fuel safe, not posng any fre hazard? The cookng process s safe n 34 (95%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 36 (90%) schools. 14. Communty Partcpton Extent of partcpaton by Parents / SMC / VEC / Panchayats / Urban bodes n daly supervson and montorng. v v Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 4 (10%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 4 (10%) schools and parent s partcpaton on monthly bass was observed n 3 (7.5%) schools. Is any roster of communty members beng mantaned for supervson of the MDM? Yes, Is there any socal audt mechansm n the school? As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 2 (5%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. Number of meetngs of SMC held durng the montorng perod. SMC meetng held once n 1 (2.5%), thrce n 1 (2.5%) school, 5 tmes n 4 (10%) schools, 6 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 7 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school. In how many of these meetngs ssues related to MDM were dscussed? The ssue of MDM was dscussed 3 tmes n 9 (22.5%) schools, 5 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 6 tmes n 2 (5%) schools. 15. Inspecton and Supervson v Is there any Inspecton Regster avalable at school level? Inspecton regster was avalable n 26 (65%) schools. Whether school has receved any funds under MME component? 14 (35%) schools have receved funds under MME component Whether State / Dstrct / Block level offcers / offcals nspectng the MDM Scheme? The nspecton was done by block level offcers n 8 (20%) schools The frequency of such nspectons? The frequency of such nspectons was more than thrce n 4 (10%) schools. 16. Impact Has the md day meal mproved the enrollment, attendance, retenton of chldren n school? MDM has mproved enrolment n 35 (87.5%) schools, mproved attendance n 36 (90%) schools, and mproved retenton n 35 (87.5%) schools. 88

90 v Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the socal harmony? Yes, t has mproved socal harmony n 35 (87.5%) schools. Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the nutrtonal status of the chldren? Yes, MDM has mproved nutrtonal status n 35 (87.5%) schools. Is there any other ncdental beneft due to servng of meal n schools? No ncdental beneft was observed due to servng of meal n schools. 17. Grevance Redressal Mechansm Is any grevance redressal mechansm n the dstrct for MDMS? No grevance redressal mechansm was seen any sampled school. Whether the dstrct / block / school havng any toll free number? Toll free number was avalable n 14 (35%) schools. 89

91 6 (a) Lst of Schools Vsted n Dstrct BARABANKI Sl. No. Name of the school ncludng block name Block name DISE CODE Prmary/Upper Prmary School 1. PRIMARY SCHOOL DHARAULI BANIKODAR Prmary 2. MIDDLE SCHOOL BANIKODAR BANIKODAR Upper Prmary 3. MS MIRZA KA PURVA DARIYABAD Prmary PS MIYAN GANJ DARIYABAD Prmary PS SARAI SIGAIEE DARIYABAD Prmary MS MIYANGANJ DARIYABAD Upper Prmary PS MEEN NAGAR DARIYABAD Prmary PS DULHDE PUR BANIKODAR Prmary PS DEEHA DARIYABAD Prmary UPS GANGOLI DARIYABAD Upper Prmary PS DEWA DEWA Prmary PS MAHOLIYA DEWA Prmary UPS BARETHI DEWA Upper Prmary MS MUJEEBPUR DEWA Upper Prmary PS DEVKALIYA DEWA Prmary MS AJGANA DEWA Upper Prmary UPS DEWA DEWA Upper Prmary PS DEWA II DEWA Prmary PS MUZAFFAR MAU DEWA Prmary 20. UPS MUSTAFABAD DESHI DEWA Upper Prmary Annexures Date of vst of the school to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

92 21. MS CHEDA NAGAR BANKI Upper Prmary 22. PS SHUKLAI BANKI Prmary 23. MS MOHAMMAD PUR BANKI Upper Prmary 24. PS SARAI AKBARABAD BANKI Prmary 25. PS MOHAMADPUR BANKI Prmary 26. M.S.SANDAULI UMAPUR BANKI Upper Prmary 27. M.S.BADEL BANKI Upper Prmary 28. M.S.PATMAU BANKI Upper Prmary 29. P.S.PALHARI 1 BOYS BANKI Prmary 30. M.S.BHANAULI BANKI Upper Prmary 31. M.S.UDHWAPUR HARKH Upper Prmary 32. M.S.SATRIKH HARKH Upper Prmary 33. P.S.SIKANDAR PUR HARKH Prmary 34. P.S.MOTILAL PURVA HARKH new Prmary 35. P.S.GULAHARIHA HARKH Prmary 36. P.S.ABDULLAHPUR HARKH Prmary 37. M.S.TAMRASEPUR HARKH Upper Prmary 38. P.S.UDHWAPUR HARKH Prmary 39. M.S.BADIPUR HARKH Upper Prmary 40. M.S.ZAIDPUR HARKH Upper Prmary to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

93 MI Impressons MDM Montorng Report Dstrct Barabank (Dr. Ansar Alam) Dr. Ansar Alam MI representatve vsted Dstrct Barabank durng 18 th to 27 th of January, 2014 wth the purpose to montor the mplementaton of SSA and MDM n the dstrct. Around 20 schools (ncludng prmary and upper prmary) were vsted by us and all SSA and MDM related actvtes were observed. The team members and MI representatve extensvely consulted wth HM, teachers, students, parents, VEC/SMC members, BEO, NPRCC, BSA and ABSA to gather qualtatve data. The fndngs and MI observaton as well as expresson are as follows: 1. MDM was functonal almost n all school, except n few where there was a break for one or two days due to shortage of rce or fuel. 2. Buffer stock was avalable n most of the schools other than PS Dharaul n Ban koda block and PS Sara Sngha n Daryabad block. Date of food gran receved was not avalable n most of the school as t was receved by Pradhan. 3. Hot cooked meal s served daly to the chldren almost n all schools. 4. Attendance n the MDM regster does not tally to the enrolled students for MDM. For example total enrolment was 101 but actual head count at the tme of MDM was 32 at PS Dharaul n Bankoda block, smlarly at PS Dewa and UPS Sandaul the head count was 20 and 58 out of enrolled 152 and 160 respectvely. The reason explaned as openng of school after wnter vacaton. 5. Pucca Ktchen sheds are constructed n most of the schools. It s not constructed n PS Meen Nagar n Daryabad block, UPS Sandaul n Bank block and UPS Udhwapur n Harak bloc. 6. Ktchen devces are avalable n all schools but plates were not avalable n many schools as no any grant s gven for purchasng of plates. In some schools Head Master has arranged plates from the students and kept n schools. 92

94 7. Prescrbed storage bns are not avalable n any schools. Grans are stored n sacks ether n ktchen store or at the house of Pradhan. Many tmes t s torn out and grans are wasted. 8. When grans are delvered at school, many HM have clamed a 50 kg sac does not contan more than 45 kg of rce or wheat. It causes problems n mantanng balance of buffer stock adjustment for next month requrement. 9. Dsplayed MDM logo was seen only n few schools. Note: Grls enrolled n Kasturba Gandh Balka Vdhyala (KGBV) were demanded for educaton up to Xth Standard. (Dr. M. Ansar Alam) 93

95 Cover Page of the Dstrct (Lucknow) 2 Report 1st Half Yearly Montorng Report of on MDM for the State of UTTAR PRADESH for the perod of 1 st Aprl, 2013 to 30 th September, 2013 Dstrcts Montored/Covered 1. (Lucknow) 94

96 1. At school level 1 Avalablty of Food Grans Whether buffer stock of food grans for one month s avalable at the school? v v Out of 40 schools 23 (57.5%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month. Only 17 (42.5) schools reported that they have no buffer stock. Whether food grans are delvered n school n tme by the lftng agency? Out of 40 schools 19 (47.5%) reported that food gran s delvered at school by lftng agency and then to school. 21 (52.5%) schools reported that food grans s not delvered by lftng agency. If lftng agency s not delverng the food grans at school how the food grans s transported up to school level? In case of no lftng agency the food gran was delvered by Contractor n 5 (12.5%) schools, lftng by self n 4 (10%) and by VEC members n 5 (12.5%) schools Whether the food grans are of FAQ of Grade A qualty? Out of 40 schools 18 (45%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. Only 22 (55%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. Whether food grans are released to school after adjustng the unspent balance of the prevous month? Out of 40 schools 18 (45%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 22 (55%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 2 Tmely releases of funds Whether State s releasng funds to Dstrct / block / school on regular bass n advance? If not, d) Perod of delay n releasng funds by State to dstrct. e) Perod of delay n releasng funds by Dstrct to block / schools. f) Perod of delay n releasng funds by block to schools. Out of 40 schools only 25 (62.5%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance. 15 (37.5%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. d) Perod of delay from state to dstrct s reported by 6 months by 1 (2.5%) school. e) Perod of delay from dstrct to block s reported for 3 months by 3 (7.5%) schools. f) Smlarly, perod of delay from block to school s reported as 6 months by 1 (2.5%) schools and 7 months by 1 (2.5%) school. Any other observatons. In most of the school perod of delay s not more than 15 to 20 days from block to school. 95

97 18. Avalablty of Cookng Cost v Whether school / mplementng agency has recevng cookng cost n advance regularly? Out of 40 schools 24 (60%) receve cookng cost n advance regularly, whereas 16 (40 %) schools reported not to receve cookng cost regularly. Perod of delay, f any, n recept of cookng cost. 6 (15%) reported that perod of delay s days and 5 (12.5%) reported the perod of delay as more than one month. In case of non-recept of cookng cost how the meal s served? 5 (12.5%) schools reported that they adjust from other fund whereas 2 (5%) take help from VSS members. Mode of payment of cookng cost (Cash / cheque / e-transfer)? Out of 40 schools 36 (95%) stated the mode of payment though cheque. 19. Avalablty of Cook-cum-helpers v v v v v x Who engaged Cook-cum-helpers at schools (Department / SMC / VEC / PRI / Self Help Group / NGO /Contractor)? Out of 40 schools 8 (20%) schools reported that VEC engages cook and 7 (17.5%) schools reported that cooked s apponted by SMC, 3 (7.5%) schools reported that PRI appont the cooks and 1 (2.5%) school reported that cook s apponted by NGO. If cook-cum-helper s not engaged who cooks and serves the meal? In case of no cook 1 (2.5%) school has reported that to engage self-help group (SHG). Is the number of cooks-cum-helpers engaged n the school as per GOI norms or as per State norms? Out of 40 schools 13 (32.5%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 27 (67.5%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. Honorarum pad to cooks cum helpers. All 35 (87.5%) schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook and 1 (2.5%) school reported payment of honorarum to cook as Rs. 1500/-. Mode of payment to cook-cum-helpers? The mode of payment to cook s by Cheque n 36 (90%) schools. Are the remuneraton pad to cooks cum helpers regularly? The cooks are not pad regularly n 25 (62.5%) schools. Socal Composton of cooks cum helpers? (SC/ST/OBC/Mnorty) Out of 40 schools 9 (22.5%) schools have engaged OBC as cook, 6 (15%) engaged SC as cook and 2 (5%) schools have engaged cook from mnorty. Is there any tranng module for cook-cum-helpers? Tranng module s avalable n 12 (30%) schools. Whether tranng has been provded to cook-cum-helpers? Tranng to cook s provded only n 13 (32.5%) schools. Almost n 70% schools tranng s not 96

98 x x provded nor s any tranng module avalable. In case the meal s prepared and transported by the Centralzed ktchen / NGO, whether cook-cum-helpers have been engaged to serve the meal to the chldren at school level. No central Ktchen observed Whether health check-up of cook-cum-helpers has been done? Health checkup of cook s done n 9 (22.5%) schools. 20. Regularty n Servng Meal Whether the school s servng hot cooked meal daly? If there was nterrupton, what was the extent and reasons for the same? Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 6 (15%) schools. 21. Qualty &Quantty of Meal v v v v Feedback from chldren on Qualty of meal Qualty of food s good n 22 (55%) schools and average n 8 (20%) schools. Quantty of meal Quantty of meal s suffcent n 28 (70%) schools. Quantty of pulses used n the meal per chld. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 30 gm. n 18 (45%) schools, 50 gm. n 9 (22.5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetables used n the meal per chld. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 25 gm. n 6 (15%) schools, 30 gm n 3 (7.5%) schools, 50 gm. n 4 (10%) schools and 60 gm. n 1 (2.5%) school and 70 gm. n 1 (2.5%) school. Whether double fortfed salt s used? Double fortfed salt s provded n 30 (75%) schools. Acceptance of the meal amongst the chldren. Out of 40 schools the chldren of 24 (60%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. The chldren of 16(40%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. Method / Standard gadgets / equpment for measurng the quantty of food to be cooked and served. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 22 (55%) schools. 97

99 22. Varety of Menu v v Who decdes the menu? Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty and by teachers n 2 (5%) schools. Menu was followed unformly n 34 (85%) schools. Whether weekly menu s dsplayed at a promnent place notceable to communty, It was observed that menu was dsplayed at a promnent place n all 37 (92.5%) schools. Menu was dsplayed at notce board n 11 (27.5%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 1 (2.5%) school. Is the menu beng followed unformly? Menu was not unformly followed n 6 (15%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 8 (20%) schools. Whether menu ncludes locally avalable ngredents? Menu ncluded local gradents and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 32 (80%) schools. Whether menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld? Menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld. But nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 31 (77.5%) schools. a) 23. Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 at the school level at promnent place Quantty and date of food grans receved Out of sampled schools, no school has provded nformaton about the quantty of food gran receved and the date of recevng. As food gran n most cases s delvered drectly at the house of Pradhan and then comes to school as per daly requrement. b) Balance quantty of food grans utlzed durng the month. Yes, 7 (17.5%) reported that balance quantty was utlzed durng the month c) Other ngredents purchased, utlzed Yes, other ngredents purchased, utlzed d) Number of chldren gven MDM About 2606 chldren are gven MDM n the dstrct, out of whch 2325 chldren taken MDM on the day of Vst. e) Daly menu Daly menu dsplayed on notce board n 12 (30%) school Dsplay of MDM logo at promnent place preferably outsde wall of the school. Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 28 (70%) schools. 98

100 24. Trends Extent of varaton (As per school records vs-à-vs Actual on the day of vst). v Enrolment The total enrolment of the sampled school s 3948 (2428 n PS and 1520 n UPS). No. of chldren present on the day of the vst. Out of total enrolment 2325 chldren (1345 students of prmary and 980 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. No. of chldren avalng MDM as per MDM Regster. As per MDM regster number of chldren avalng MDM s 2454 (1506 prmary chldren and 948 upper prmary chldren). No. of chldren actually avalng MDM on the day of vst as per head count Out of total enrolment 2325 (58.89%) chldren were present on the day of vst. 25. Socal Equty What s the system of servng and seatng arrangements for eatng? Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 5 (12.5%) schools, on ground n 10 (25%) schools, on tat-pat n 2 (5%) schools and on bench and desk n 2 (5%) school. Dd you observe any gender or caste or communty dscrmnaton n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements? v No any dscrmnaton of gender, caste or communty was observed n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements. The name of the school where dscrmnaton found of any knd may be mentoned n the man body of the report along wth date of vst. N.A. If any knd of socal dscrmnaton s found n the school, comments of the team may be gven n the nspecton regster of the school. No any sort of socal dscrmnaton found 26. Convergence Wth Other Scheme 1 Sarva Shksha Abhyan Out of 40 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 23 (57.5%) schools. 2 School Health Programme Is there school Health Card mantaned for each chld? MDM was converged wth health programme n 16 (40%) schools. School health card mantaned n 34 (85%) schools What s the frequency of health check-up? Frequency of health check up was yearly n 1 (2.5%) school, half yearly n 4 (10%) schools, quarterly n 1 (2.5%), monthly n 8 (20%) schools and occasonal 4 (10%). Whether chldren are gven mcronutrents (Iron, folc acd, vtamn A dosage) 99

101 v v v v v x x 2 and de-wormng medcne perodcally? Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 27 (67.5%) schools and de-wormng medcne was gven n 2 (5%) schools. Who admnsters these medcnes and at what frequency? Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 17 (42.5%) schools and by others n 4 (10%) school. The frequency of medcne s yearly n 4 (10%) schools and half yearly n 5 (12.5%) schools. Whether heght and weght record of the chldren s beng ndcated n the school health card. Yes, heght and record of the chldren s beng ndcated n school health card of 27 (67.5%) schools Whether any referral durng the perod of montorng. No any referral durng the perod of montorng Instances of medcal emergency durng the perod of montorng. No nstances of emergency were mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 4 (10%) schools. Avalablty of the frst ad medcal kt n the schools. The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. Dental and eye check-up ncluded n the screenng. The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 26 (65%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 5 (12.5%) schools. Dstrbuton of spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error. Spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error dstrbuted n 5 (12.5%) schools. Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme Whether potable water s avalable for drnkng purpose n convergence wth Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 23 (57.5%) schools. 3 MPLAD / MLA Scheme Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by MPLAD n 1 (2.5%) schools and by MLA n 3 (7.5%) schools 4 Any Other Department / Scheme. N.A. 27. Infrastructure 100

102 1 a v v v v b c d e 2 Ktchen cum store Is there a pucca ktchen shed-cum-store Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 33 (82.5%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 2 (5%) school. Constructed and n use Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 33 (82.5%) schools and t s n use. Under whch Scheme Ktchen-cum-store constructed -MDM/SSA/Others The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 6 (15%) schools and under SSA n 11 (27.5%) schools. Constructed but not n use (Reasons for not usng) Ktchen n 7 (17.5%) schools constructed but not n use. Under constructon Ktchen n 2 (5) schools were under constructon. Sanctoned, but constructon not started Ktchen shed was sanctoned but constructon not started n 3 (7.5%) schools. Not sanctoned Ktchen shed was not sanctoned n 2 (5%) schools. MS RAIPUR IN CHINHAT BLCOK AND PS DEVRI RUKHARA-II IN BLOCK BKT. In case the pucca ktchen-cum-store s not avalable, where s the food beng cooked and where the foodgrans /other ngredents are beng stored? No school has reported to prepare MDM n open space. Food grans stored at the house of Pradhan or VSS. Ktchen-cum-store n hygenc condton, properly ventlated and away from classrooms. MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 33 (82.5%) schools. Whether MDM s beng cooked by usng frewood or LPG based cookng? Out of 40 schools LPG was n 19 (47.5%) schools and wood was used n 4 (10%) schools. Whether on any day there was nterrupton due to non-avalablty of frewood or LPG? MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 5 (12.5%) schools. Whether cookng utensls are avalable n the school? Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 31 (77.5%) schools. Source of fundng for cookng and servng utensls Ktchen Devces fund / MME / Communty contrbuton / others. v Source of fundng was by MME n 6 (15%) schools and by others n 6 (15.5%) schools. 19 (47.5%) schools dd not know from where cookng utensls were purchased. Whether eatng plates etc. are avalable n the school? Plates were avalable n 15 (37.5%) schools. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. Source of fundng for eatng plates - MME / Communty contrbuton / others? 101

103 The source of ts fundng was MME n 4 (10%) schools and by other n 5 (12.5) schools. 3 Ktchen Devces Out of 40 schools ktchen devces were avalable n 31 (77.5%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 6 (15%) schools and by others n 6 (15%) schools Avalablty of storage bns Whether storage bns are avalable for food grans? If yes, what s the source of ther procurement? MI found storage bn was avalable only n 12 (30%) schools. The source of fundng was not known to Head masters/teachers. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. Tolets n the school Is separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable? Yes, separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable n 34 (85%) schools. Are tolets usable? Tolets are usable n 33 (82.5%) schools. Avalablty of potable water Is Tap water / tube well / hand pump / Well / Jet pump avalable? Potable water s avalable n 26 (65%) schools. Out of whch tap water was avalable n 6 (15%) schools, jet pump was avalable n 5 (12.5%) school, tube well avalable n 2 (5%) schools. Any other source In 13 (32.5%) schools there was other source of water. 7 Avalablty of fre extngushers Fre extngushers were avalable n 30 (75%) schools. 8 a b c 5. IT nfrastructure School level Number of computers avalable n the school (f any). 4 Computers were avalable n the 2 (5%) schools. Avalablty of nternet connecton (If any). Internet connecton was avalable n 2 (5%) schools. Usng any IT / IT enabled servces based solutons / servces (lke e-learnng etc.) (f any) IT enable servces were used n 2 (5%) schools. 28. Safety & hygene v General Impresson of the envronment, Safety and hygene: The cookng process s safe n 33 (82.5%) schools as they have proper ventlaton. The fre extngusher was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. Are chldren encouraged to wash hands before and after eatng MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 26 (65%) schools conserve water n 24 (60%) schools. Do the chldren take meals n an orderly manner? Chldren take meal n orderly manner n 24 (60%) schools. Conservaton of water? 102

104 v MI observed that chldren conserve water n 24 (60%) schools. Is the cookng process and storage of fuel safe, not posng any fre hazard? The cookng process s safe n 26 (65%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. 29. Communty Partcpton Extent of partcpaton by Parents / SMC / VEC / Panchayats / Urban bodes n daly supervson and montorng. v v Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 3 (7.5%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 3 (7.5%) schools and parent s partcpaton on monthly bass was observed n 3 (7.5%) schools, on daly bass n 1 (2.5%) school and Urban Body partcpaton was observed n 3 (7.5%) schools. Is any roster of communty members beng mantaned for supervson of the MDM? Yes, roster of communty members s beng mantaned for supervson of the MDM n 8 (20%) schools. Is there any socal audt mechansm n the school? As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 6 (15%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. Number of meetngs of SMC held durng the montorng perod. SMC meetng held 5 tmes n 2 (5%) schools, 6 tmes n 2 (5%) schools. In how many of these meetngs ssues related to MDM were dscussed? The ssue of MDM was dscussed 4 tmes n 4 (10%) schools. 3. Inspecton and Supervson v Is there any Inspecton Regster avalable at school level? Inspecton regster was avalable n 11 (27.5%) schools. Whether school has receved any funds under MME component? 6 (15%) schools have receved funds under MME component Whether State / Dstrct / Block level offcers / offcals nspectng the MDM Scheme? The nspecton was done by block level offcers n 1 (2.5%) schools The frequency of such nspectons? The frequency of such nspectons was twce n 1 (2.5%) school, thrce n 1 (2.5%) school and more than thrce n 1 (2.5%) schools. 4. Impact 103

105 v Has the md day meal mproved the enrollment, attendance, retenton of chldren n school? MDM has mproved enrolment n 11 (27.5%) schools, mproved attendance n 11 (27.5%) schools, and mproved retenton n 10 (25%) schools. Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the socal harmony? Yes, t has mproved socal harmony n 10 (25%) schools. Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the nutrtonal status of the chldren? Yes, MDM has mproved nutrtonal status n 10 (25%) schools. Is there any other ncdental beneft due to servng of meal n schools? No ncdental beneft was observed due to servng of meal n schools. 5. Grevance Redressal Mechansm Is any grevance redressal mechansm n the dstrct for MDMS? Grevance redressal mechansm was seen n 1 (2.5%) school. Whether the dstrct / block / school havng any toll free number? No toll free number was avalable n any sampled school.. Proforma for Centralzed ktchen, Lucknow 104

106 (Two to be covered n a report) a) Date of vst: b) Name: Dr. Jasm Ahmad and Presdent NGO Ms Ran Gupta c) Address: MI representatve, IASE, Faculty of Educaton, Jama Mlla Islama, New Delh d) Run by an NGO, namely, Shubhkamna Samaj Seva Sansthan, Reg. No. 2237/ , e) MDM supply started: 2004 f) Total no. of schools caterng to: 27 g) Total no. of chldren caterng to: 4700 h) Approxmate ktchen area: 25 square feet ) Locaton of the ktchen : longtudnal j) Surroundngs: Urban Habtatons at Kalcharan Inter College Campus, Chowk, Lucknow. k) Accessblty : Easy INFRA STRUCTURAL FACILITIES.N. Area of workng + Adequate space Cleanlness* Dryness Well lt Ventlaton Recevng Food grans/food artcles Storng Pre-preparaton Cookng Food assembly/servng Washng Cleanlness wth respect to pest and rodent nfestaton cracks /crevces, fles/vermn s, dust/webs. +To be rated on 3 pont scale 1. Poor 2. Far 3. Good 2. PROCUREMENT AND STORAGE OF FOOD ITEMS Key: Daly-1 Weekly-2 Fortnghtly-3 Monthly-4 2(a) S.N Raw materals Quantty (kg) How Contaners/Bag used for storage 105

107 1 Purchased at one tme often Metal Plastc Gunny Bags Any Other Jute Lamnated Specfy Cereals 90 quntals monthly 2 Pulses 2 quntals Weekly 3 Vegetable 80 quntals Monthly 4 Spces 50 k.g. Monthly 5 Fats and ols 60 k.g. Weekly 6 Any other specfy (mlk) 800 letres Monthly 3 (a) Do you check for the followng parameters of qualty n the raw ngredents? 1. Stones 2. Insects 3. Over rpeness 4. Bad odour 5. Any other (specfy) 3 (b) where are the contaners /bags contanng raw ngredents placed? 1 On a rased platform 2 Floors 3 Any others (specfy) 4. Water: Source, Avalablty, Storage 4 (a) Source of water 1. Tap 2. Bore Well 3. Pump 4(f) Are water-storng utensls covered? Y/N 5(e) Are all food tems washed before preparaton? Y/N 6. PREPARATION 6 (a) What are the food tems cooked on the day of the vst? Tahr Y/N (Frday) 6(b) what s the fuel used for cookng? 1. LPG 2. Any other specfy 6(d) Are prepared food tems kept covered? Y/N 6(e) What s the tme lapse between preparaton and packng? 1 hour 106

108 2 hours 3 hours More than three hours 6(f) How s the food packed? 1. Cartons 2. Tffn carrer 3. Patlas 4. Steel drums 5. Alumnum drums 6. Steel dols 7. Sacks 8. Basket 9. Patla/basket lned wth newspaper 10. Any other (specfy) 6(g) Is the packagng materal clean? Y/N 7. MANAGEMENT OF THE LEFTOVER FOOD What the supplers do wth the food left uneaten by chldren of dfferent schools? 1. Consumed by supplers 2. Packed and taken home by cooks/handler 3. Thrown away 4. Dstrbuted among the poor n the nearby slums 8. DISHWASHING 8 Utensls are cleaned wth 1. Only water 2. Water+ Detergent/soap 3. Scrubber+ detergent/soap +water 4. Any other (specfy) 9. ORGANIZATION CHART Employees Number (n) 1.Ktchen-n-charge Store-n-charge Purchase-n-charge Head cook Cooks 5 6. Helpers for servng at the school level 6 7. Handlers and dstrbutors 7 107

109 8. Cleaners/sweepers 2 9. Any other helpter at centralzed ktchen level Total 33 KEY- 0-N.A 1-NO 2-YES 3- not observed 10. PERSONAL HYGIENE PRACTICES 1 Cleanlness of unforms Average 2 Wearng headgears No 3 Well groomed No 4 Fngernals short and clean Average FOOD HANDLER 5 Sufferng from cold, cough, sore throat, vomtng, darrhea, bols, cuts, or any other skn dsease. no 10 (b) Do they have any tolet faclty? Y/N 10 (c) Do they carry gloves whle handlng food? Y/N 10 (e) Do you observe any unhygenc practces followed by the food handlers? Y/N f yes, specfy 11.KITCHEN WASTE DISPOSAL 1 Garbage bns provded? Y/N 2 Are garbage bns equpped wth lds? Y/N 3 Is garbage lyng around n vcnty? Y/N 4 Are garbage bns cleaned well after they are empted? Y/N 5 Is garbage removed from premses at frequent ntervals? Y/N 12. FOOD TRANSPORTATION 12(a) Mode of transportng the food 1 Car 2 Matador 3 Van 4 Refrgerated/ Insulated vehcles 12(b) Are the food contaners kept n the vehcle covered properly? Y/N 108

110 12(c) Is food compartment of the vehcle clean and dry? Y/N 12(d) Does any person accompany the packed food n the vehcle? 13. FOOD EVALUATION Key- Poor-1 Far-2 Good-3 S.N Sensory evaluaton Ratng a) Appearance Good b) Taste Good c) Smell Good d) Texture Good e) Overall Acceptablty Good Procurement of pulses and condments 1. Packed spces wth Agmark seal Yes, ISI Agmark (Goldy) 2. Unfastened packets - 3. Double fortfed salt (Iron and odnee) Yes, Tata salt Y/N See MI Impresson 109

111 6 (a) Lst of Schools Vsted n Dstrct LUCKNOW Sl. No. Name of the school ncludng block name 1. UPS KILA MOHAMMADI NAGAR 2. JEO GUREDA 3. PS JAGANNATH GANJ PS MAU I UPS MAU PS Bhnol 7. MS UTTAR DHAUNNE 8. MS RAIPUR 9. MSALLUNAGAR DIGURIA PS TIWANGANJ PS KAKOLI 12. MS KHASARWARA ARE SA ROJN NAGAR 13. PS KHASKHARA SAROJNI NAGAR 14. Block name DISE code Prmary/Uppe r Prmary School HAZRATGANJ HAZRATGANJ MOHANLALGA NJ MOHANLALGA NJ MOHANLALGA NJ CHINHAT CHINHAT CHINHAT CHINHAT CHINHAT CHINHAT SAROJNI NAGAR Upper Prmary 3 Prmary 1 Prmary 3 Prmary 5 Upper Prmary 1 Prmary 3 Upper Prmary 1 Upper Prmary 4 Upper Prmary 1 Prmary 1 Prmary Upper Prmary Date of the vst of the school to to to to to to to to to to to to SAROJNI to NAGAR 1 Prmary SAROJNI to PS JAITI KHEDA NAGAR 1 Prmary SAROJNI to MS JAITI KHEDA NAGAR 2 Upper Prmary to MS SHANKAR PUR MAAL 1 Upper Prmary to PS AKBARPUR MAAL 1 Prmary to MS ATARI MAAL MAAL 3 Upper Prmary to PS SUKHA KHEDA MAAL 1 Prmary to PS MADARPUR GOSAIGANJ 2 Prmary MS JOKHANDI GOSAIGANJ Upper Prmary to 110

112 22. PSKUTUBPUR 23. PS HASNAPUR 24. MS UJRIYAN GOMTI NAGAR 25. PS PUREGORI 26. PS KANAR 27. MS KANAR 28. MS TIKETGANJ MANDOLI 29. PS TIKETGANJ MANDOLI 30. PS BASHA NO MS SURAJPUR GADHA 32. PS DEVRIRUKHARA MS BASHA 34. PS DARYAPUR 35. MS GOSALALPUR 36. MS SARAI ALIPUR 37. PS SARAI ALIPUR 38. MS GOPRAMAU 39. PS SARSANDA 40. PS PANKHERA GOSAIGANJ GOSAIGANJ SAHADATGANJ SAHADATGANJ MALIHABAD MALIHABAD MALIHABAD MALIHABAD BAKSHI KA TALAB BAKSHI KA TALAB BAKSHI KA TALAB BAKSHI KA TALAB KAKORI KAKORI KAKORI KAKORI KAKORI KAKORI KAKORI to 1 Prmary to 1 Prmary to 2 Upper Prmary to 1 Prmary to 1 Prmary to 2 Upper Prmary to 2 Upper Prmary to 1 Prmary to 1 Prmary to 2 Upper Prmary to 2 Prmary to 3 Upper Prmary to 1 Prmary to 2 Upper Prmary to 2 Upper Prmary to 1 Prmary to 2 Upper Prmary to 1 Prmary to 1 Prmary

113 MI IMPRESSIONS MDM Montorng Report Dstrct: Lucknow, U.P. Dstrct Lucknow was vsted durng 18 th to 27 th of Janurary 2014 wth the purpose to montor the mplementaton of SSA and MDM n the dstrct. Around 50 schools (ncluddng prmary and upper prmary) were vsted by us and all SSA and MDM related actvtes were observed. It was found that n all the schools MDM was beng run properly. No any school was found n whch MDM was not runnng. It was found that n cty zones MDM was beng suppled by centralzed ktchen. There were 13 central ktchen n the dstrct (cty zone) all run by 13 dfferent NGOs. In the rural areas the servces were beng provded by respectve schools. No any anomales were observed durng MDM dstrbuton. Ktchens of several schools were vsted and dscusson wth the heads of schools and cooks were also done. It was found that the cooks were not pad the remuneraton on a regular bass, as nformed by many cooks. There were ample space and utensls for cookng the meals. In most of the schools there were pakka shades (ktchen) constructed n the school premses. In all the schools tube well/ bore well was the man source of drnkng/cookng water. As far as the hygene s concerned, more attenton s needed on ths ssue. Chldren are subjected to eat the meal on floor, as there were no satsfactory provsons for sttng and eatng the meal n an organzed and dscplned manner. One central ktchen of cty zone area was personally vsted and was observed holstcally durng MDM preparaton. It was not so hygenc but satsfactory. Cooks were busy n cookng meals. They were wearng the gloves but ther clothes were not that much clean. Ths central ktchen was 112

114 beng run by an NGO, namely, Shubhkamna Samaj Seva Sansthan, Reg. No. 2237/ , located at Kalcharan Inter College Campus, Chowk, Lucknow. Presdent of the NGO, Ms. Ran Gupta was present. Ths NGO was servng the meal to 27 schools havng 4700 students gettng the MDM. It was reported by the presdent of the NGO that percent of all the students enrolled n these schools generally attend school daly and receve the md day meals. These NGO clams that they serve hot cooked MDM to all chldren but on cross questonng t was found that t s not only dffcult but even mpossble to serve hot cooked meals to all chldren from central ktchen, especally n the cases where they use man-pulled trolley to carry meals to the schools. Overall mpresson of cookng and servng the Md Day Meal was found satsfactory. (Dr. Jasm Ahmad) 113

115 Cover Page of the Dstrct (Sant Kabr Nagar) 3 Report 1st Half Yearly Montorng Report of on MDM for the State of UTTAR PRADESH for the perod of 1 st Aprl, 2013 to 30 th September, 2013 Dstrcts Montored/Covered 1. (SANT KABIR NAGAR) 114

116 1. At school level 1 Avalablty of Food Grans Whether buffer stock of food grans for one month s avalable at the school? v v Out of 40 schools 36 (90%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month. Only 4 (10%) schools reported that they have no buffer stock. Whether food grans are delvered n school n tme by the lftng agency? Out of 40 schools 37 (92.5%) reported that food gran s delvered at the house of Pradhan by lftng agency and then to school. 3 (7.5%) schools reported that food grans s not delvered by lftng agency. If lftng agency s not delverng the food grans at school how the food grans s transported up to school level? In case of no lftng agency the food gran was delvered by Contractor n 1 (2.5%) schools, lftng by self n 1 (2.5%) and by VEC members n 1 (2.5%) schools Whether the food grans are of FAQ of Grade A qualty? Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. Only 10 (25%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. Whether food grans are released to school after adjustng the unspent balance of the prevous month? Out of 40 schools 27 (67.5%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 13 (32.5%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 2 Tmely releases of funds Whether State s releasng funds to Dstrct / block / school on regular bass n advance? If not, g) Perod of delay n releasng funds by State to dstrct. h) Perod of delay n releasng funds by Dstrct to block / schools. ) Perod of delay n releasng funds by block to schools. Out of 40 schools only 28 (70%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance. 12 (30%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. g) Perod of delay from state to dstrct s not reported by any school. h) Perod of delay from dstrct to block s not reported any school. ) Smlarly, perod of delay from block to school s not reported by any school. Any other observatons. No, delay n releasng fund by any school. 115

117 6. Avalablty of Cookng Cost v Whether school / mplementng agency has recevng cookng cost n advance regularly? Out of 40 schools 35 (87.5%) receve cookng cost n advance regularly, whereas 5 (12.5%) schools reported not to receve cookng cost regularly. Perod of delay, f any, n recept of cookng cost. 4 (10%) reported that perod of delay s days and 1 (2.5%) reported the perod of delay as more than one month. In case of non-recept of cookng cost how the meal s served? 3 (7.5%) schools reported that they adjust from other fund whereas 2(5%) take help from VSS members. Mode of payment of cookng cost (Cash / cheque / e-transfer)? Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) stated the mode of payment though cheque, whereas by e- payment n 2 (5%) schools and by cash n 6 (15%) schools. 7. Avalablty of Cook-cum-helpers v v v v v Who engaged Cook-cum-helpers at schools (Department / SMC / VEC / PRI / Self Help Group / NGO /Contractor)? Out of 40 schools 14 (35%) schools reported that VEC engages cook and 11 (27.5%) schools reported that cooked s apponted by SMC and n 9 (22.5%) schools reported that cook s apponted by PRI and by Contractor cook n 2 (5%) schools. If cook-cum-helper s not engaged who cooks and serves the meal? In case of no cook 15 (45.5%) school has reported that to engage self-help group (SHG), 8 (20%) schools reported on contract bass and 4 10%) schools reported to engage cook on daly wages. Is the number of cooks-cum-helpers engaged n the school as per GOI norms or as per State norms? Out of 40 schools 39 (97.5%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 1 (2.5%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. Honorarum pad to cooks cum helpers. Out of 40 schools 39 ((7.5%) schools reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook. Mode of payment to cook-cum-helpers? Out of 40 schools 30 (75%) stated the mode pf payment though cheque, whereas by e- payment n 2 (5%) schools and by cash n 6 (15%) schools. Are the remuneraton pad to cooks cum helpers regularly? The cooks are not pad regularly n 29 (77.5%) schools. Socal Composton of cooks cum helpers? (SC/ST/OBC/Mnorty) Out of 40 schools 8 (20%) schools have engaged OBC as cook, 16 (40%) engaged SC as cook, ST as cook n 6 (15%) schools and mnorty as cook n %) schools. Is there any tranng module for cook-cum-helpers? Tranng module s avalable n 15 (37.5%) schools. 116

118 x x x Whether tranng has been provded to cook-cum-helpers? Tranng to cook s provded only n 15 (37.5%) schools. Almost n 62.5% schools, tranng s not provded nor s any tranng module avalable. In case the meal s prepared and transported by the Centralzed ktchen / NGO, whether cook-cum-helpers have been engaged to serve the meal to the chldren at school level. No central Ktchen observed Whether health check-up of cook-cum-helpers has been done? Health checkup of cook s done n 19 (47.5%) schools. 8. Regularty n Servng Meal Whether the school s servng hot cooked meal daly? If there was nterrupton, what was the extent and reasons for the same? Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 9 (22.5%) schools. 9. Qualty &Quantty of Meal v v v v Feedback from chldren on Qualty of meal Qualty of s good n 26 (65.5%) schools and average n 13 (32.5%) schools. Quantty of meal Quantty of meal s suffcent n 39 (97.5%) schools. Quantty of pulses used n the meal per chld. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 25 gm. n 11 (2.5%) schools, 30 gm. n 15 (37.5%) schools, 40 gm n 2 (5%) and 50 gm. n 9 (22.5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetables used n the meal per chld. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 30 gm. n 9 (22.5%) schools, 50 gm n 10 (25%) schools, 60 gm. n 3 (7.5%) schools and 70 gm. n 7 (17.5%) schools. Whether double fortfed salt s used? Double fortfed salt s provded n 37 (92.5%) schools. Acceptance of the meal amongst the chldren. Out of 40 schools the chldren of 35 (87.5%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. The chldren of 5 (12.5%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. Method / Standard gadgets / equpment for measurng the quantty of food to be cooked and served. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 8 (20%) schools. 10. Varety of Menu 117

119 v v Who decdes the menu? Out of 40 schools 13 (97.5%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty, by teachers n 6 (15%) and by VSS n 5 (12.5%). Whether weekly menu s dsplayed at a promnent place notceable to communty, It was observed that menu was dsplayed at a promnent place n 39 (97.5%) schools. Menu was dsplayed at notce board n 28 (70%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 1 (2.5%) schools. Is the menu beng followed unformly? Menu was followed unformly n 36 (90%) schools. Whether menu ncludes locally avalable ngredents? Menu ncluded local gradents and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 35 (87.5%) schools. Whether menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld? Menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld. But nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 5 (7.5%) schools. a) 11. Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 at the school level at promnent place Quantty and date of food grans receved Out of sampled schools, no school has provded nformaton about the quantty of food gran receved and the date of recevng. As food gran n most cases s delvered drectly at the house of Pradhan and then comes to school as per daly requrement. b) Balance quantty of food grans utlzed durng the month. Yes, 6 (15%) reported that balance quantty was utlzed durng the month c) Other ngredents purchased, utlzed Yes, other ngredents purchased, utlzed d) Number of chldren gven MDM About chldren are gven MDM n the dstrct, out of whch 4640 chldren taken MDM on the day of Vst e) Daly menu Daly menu dsplayed on notce board n 28 (70%) school Dsplay of MDM logo at promnent place preferably outsde wall of the school. Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 35 (87.5%) schools. 118

120 12. Trends Extent of varaton (As per school records vs-à-vs Actual on the day of vst). v Enrolment The total enrolment of the sampled school s 7747 (4323 n PS and 3424 n UPS). No. of chldren present on the day of the vst. Out of total enrolment 4640 chldren (3193 students of prmary and 1447 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. No. of chldren avalng MDM as per MDM Regster. As per MDM regster number of chldren avalng MDM s 2953 (1677 prmary chldren and 1276 upper prmary chldren). No. of chldren actually avalng MDM on the day of vst as per head count Out of total enrolment 4640 (59.89%) chldren actually avalng MDM on the day of vst. 13. Socal Equty What s the system of servng and seatng arrangements for eatng? Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 10 (25%) schools, on ground n 10 (25%) schools and on tat-pat n 2 (5%) school. Dd you observe any gender or caste or communty dscrmnaton n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements? v No any dscrmnaton of gender, caste or communty was observed n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements. The name of the school where dscrmnaton found of any knd may be mentoned n the man body of the report along wth date of vst. N.A. If any knd of socal dscrmnaton s found n the school, comments of the team may be gven n the nspecton regster of the school. No any sort of socal dscrmnaton found 14. Convergence Wth Other Scheme 1 Sarva Shksha Abhyan Out of 40 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 12 (30%) schools. 2 School Health Programme Is there school Health Card mantaned for each chld? MDM was converged wth health programme n 12 (30%) schools. School health card mantaned n 37 (92.5%) schools What s the frequency of health check-up? Frequency of health check up was yearly n 18 (45%) school, half yearly n 12 (30%) schools, quarterly n 3 (7.5%), monthly n 3 (7.5%) schools and occasonal 2 (5%). Whether chldren are gven mcronutrents (Iron, folc acd, vtamn A dosage) and de-wormng medcne perodcally? 119

121 v v v v v x x 2 Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 14 (35%) schools and de-wormng medcne was gven n 12 (30%) schools. Who admnsters these medcnes and at what frequency? Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 35 (87.5%) schools. Whether heght and weght record of the chldren s beng ndcated n the school health card. Yes, heght and record of the chldren s beng ndcated n school health card of 37 (92.5%) schools Whether any referral durng the perod of montorng. No any referral durng the perod of montorng Instances of medcal emergency durng the perod of montorng. No nstances of emergency were mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 13 (27.5%) schools. Avalablty of the frst ad medcal kt n the schools. The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 34 (85%) schools. Dental and eye check-up ncluded n the screenng. The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 28 (70%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 7 (12.5%) schools. Dstrbuton of spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error. Spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error dstrbuted n 7 (12.5%) schools. Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme Whether potable water s avalable for drnkng purpose n convergence wth Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. 3 MPLAD / MLA Scheme MPLAD / MLA scheme was not avalable for potable water n any school out of 40 schools. 4 Any Other Department / Scheme. Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by Department n 2 (5%) schools and by others n 1 (2.5%) schools. 15. Infrastructure 120

122 1 a v v v v b c d e 2 Ktchen cum store Is there a pucca ktchen shed-cum-store Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 36 (90%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 4 (10%) school. Constructed and n use Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 36 (90%) schools and t s n use. Under whch Scheme Ktchen-cum-store constructed -MDM/SSA/Others The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 7 (17.5%) schools and under SSA n 14 (35%) schools. Constructed but not n use (Reasons for not usng) Ktchen was constructed but not n use n 7 (17.5%) schools. Under constructon Ktchen was under constructon n 4 (10% schools. Sanctoned, but constructon not started In 4 (10%) schools ktchen was sanctoned but constructon not started. Not sanctoned In 2 (5%) schools ktchen was not sanctoned. P.S. Naran Pur block Mehdawal and Kanya Prmary School, Baghaul n Baghaul block. In case the pucca ktchen-cum-store s not avalable, where s the food beng cooked and where the foodgrans /other ngredents are beng stored? No school has reported to prepare MDM n open space. Food grans stored at the house of Pradhan n 3 (7.5%) schools but observed that food gran was stored n class n 1 (2.5%) school. Ktchen-cum-store n hygenc condton, properly ventlated and away from classrooms. MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 36 (90%) schools. Whether MDM s beng cooked by usng frewood or LPG based cookng? Out of 40 schools LPG was n 8 (20%) schools and wood was used n 27 (67.5%) schools. Whether on any day there was nterrupton due to non-avalablty of frewood or LPG? MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 9 (27.5%) schools. Whether cookng utensls are avalable n the school? Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 21 (52.5%) schools. Source of fundng for cookng and servng utensls Ktchen Devces fund / MME / Communty contrbuton / others. v Source of fundng was by MME n 13 (32.5%) schools and by others n 2 (5%) schools. 6 (15%) schools dd not know from where cookng utensls were purchased. Whether eatng plates etc. are avalable n the school? Plates were avalable n 15 (37.5%) schools. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. Source of fundng for eatng plates - MME / Communty contrbuton / others? The source of ts fundng was MME n 12 (30%) schools and by others n 1 (2.5%) school. 3 Ktchen Devces 121

123 4 5 6 Out of 40 schools ktchen devces were avalable n 21 (52.5%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 13 (32.5%) schools and by others n 2 (5%) schools. Avalablty of storage bns Whether storage bns are avalable for food grans? If yes, what s the source of ther procurement? MI found storage bn was avalable only n 16 (40%) schools. The source of fundng was by BRC n 1 (2.5%) school, by KDF n 4 (10%) schools, by MDM n 3 (7.5%), MME n 3 (7.5%), by school grant n 1 (2.5%) by VEC n 1 (2.5%) and by others n 2 (5%) schools. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. Tolets n the school Is separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable? Yes, separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable n 32 (80%) schools. Are tolets usable? Tolets are usable n 35 (87.5%) schools. Avalablty of potable water Is Tap water / tube well / hand pump / Well / Jet pump avalable? Potable water s avalable n 35 (87.5%) schools. Out of whch tap water was avalable n 1 (2.5%) school, jet pump was avalable n 28 (70%) school, tube well avalable n 2 (5%) schools and hand pump was avalable n 3 (7.5%) schools. Any other source In 1 (2.5%) school there was other source for water. 7 Avalablty of fre extngushers Fre extngushers were avalable n 31 (77.5%) schools. 8 a b c 6. IT nfrastructure School level Number of computers avalable n the school (f any). 21 Computers were avalable n the 13 (32.5%) schools. Avalablty of nternet connecton (If any). Internet connecton was avalable n 4 (10%) schools. Usng any IT / IT enabled servces based solutons / servces (lke e-learnng etc.) (f any) IT enable servces were used n 3 (7.5%) schools. 16. Safety & hygene v General Impresson of the envronment, Safety and hygene: The cookng process s safe n 22 (55%) schools as they have proper ventlaton. The fre extngusher was avalable n 31 (77.5%) schools. Are chldren encouraged to wash hands before and after eatng MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 22 (55%) schools conserve water n 19 (47.5%) schools. Do the chldren take meals n an orderly manner? Chldren take meal n orderly manner n 20 (50%) schools. Conservaton of water? 122

124 v MI observed that chldren conserve water n 19 (47.5%) schools. Is the cookng process and storage of fuel safe, not posng any fre hazard? The cookng process s safe n 14 (35%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 36 (90%) schools. 17. Communty Partcpton Extent of partcpaton by Parents / SMC / VEC / Panchayats / Urban bodes n daly supervson and montorng. v v Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 5 (12.5%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 5 (12.5%) schools and parent s partcpaton on monthly bass was observed n 7 (17.5%) schools. Is any roster of communty members beng mantaned for supervson of the MDM? Yes, Is there any socal audt mechansm n the school? As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 7 (17.5%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. Number of meetngs of SMC held durng the montorng perod. SMC meetng held 2 tmes n 4 (10%) schools, 5 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school, 6 tmes n 3 (7.5%) schools, 11 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school. In how many of these meetngs ssues related to MDM were dscussed? The ssue of MDM was dscussed 2 tmes n 5 (12.5%) schools, 4 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 6 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school and 11 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school. 3. Inspecton and Supervson v Is there any Inspecton Regster avalable at school level? Inspecton regster was avalable n 7 (17.5%) schools. Whether school has receved any funds under MME component? 13 (32.5%) schools have receved funds under MME component Whether State / Dstrct / Block level offcers / offcals nspectng the MDM Scheme? The nspecton was done by block level offcers n 5 (12.5%) schools, by dstrct offcer n 2 (5%) schools and by state offcer n 3 (7.5%) schools. The frequency of such nspectons? The frequency of such nspectons was once n 6 (15%) and twce n 4 (10%) schools. 123

125 4. Impact v Has the md day meal mproved the enrollment, attendance, retenton of chldren n school? MDM has mproved enrolment n 13 (32.5%) schools, mproved attendance n 17 (42.5%) schools, and mproved retenton n 14 (35%) schools. Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the socal harmony? Yes, t has mproved socal harmony n 11 (27.5%) schools. Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the nutrtonal status of the chldren? Yes, MDM has mproved nutrtonal status n 11 (27.5%) schools. Is there any other ncdental beneft due to servng of meal n schools? No ncdental beneft was observed due to servng of meal n schools. 5. Grevance Redressal Mechansm Is any grevance redressal mechansm n the dstrct for MDMS? Grevance redressal mechansm was seen n 1 (2.5%) school. Whether the dstrct / block / school havng any toll free number? Toll free number was avalable n 3 (7.5%) schools. 6 (a) Lst of Schools Vsted n Dstrct SANT KABIRNAGAR 124

126 Sl. No. 1 2 Name of the school ncludng block name PS JIUDHARA MS LANGRAVAR 3 PS MANJHARIYA PATAHAN 4 5 Block name DISE code Prmary/Uppe r Prmary School BELAHAR KALA Prmary BELAHAR KALA Upper Prmary BELAHAR KALA Prmary PS BAYARA KHALILABAD Prmary PS SIARA SATHA KHALILABAD Prmary 6 PS KHALILABAD FIRST KHALILABAD Prmary 7 MS BIYARA VIDHALAYA CHETRA KHALELABAD KHALILABAD Upper Prmary MS KHALILABAD KHALILABAD Upper Prmary PS HANSDADI MS BABHNAULI HAIRER BAZAR Prmary HAIRER BAZAR Upper Prmary PS ROSYA BAZAR PAULI 0 Prmary MS GOBIND GANJ PAULI 0 Upper Prmary MS MADPAUNA PAULI Upper Prmary PS KHEVASIYA PAULI Prmary 15 SEMRIYAWA PS MADARPUR N Prmary 16 SEMRIYAWA MS BAGH NAGAR N Upper Prmary 17 MS BHANGURA SEMRIYAWA AHIRANI N Upper Prmary 18 MS ADARSH SANTHA SANTHA Upper Prmary 19 PS YOGIVEER SANTHA Prmary 20 PS KHAJURIYA MISHRA SANTHA Prmary 21 PS DHARMSINHWA SANTHA Prmary Date of vst of the school to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

127 PS LODHWASHRIPAL SANTHA Prmary MS NANDAUR MEHDAWAL Upper Prmary PS NARAYANPUR MEHDAWAL Prmary MS MEHDAWAL MEHDAWAL Upper Prmary 25 PS BADHAIYA THATHAR MEHDAWAL Prmary PS RASH HARA BAGHAULI Prmary PS PACHPOKHARI BAGHAULI Prmary 28 MS GIRLS PMS BAGAULI BAGHAULI Upper Prmary PS JHUNGIYA BAGHAULI Prmary MS BAGAULI BAGHAULI Upper Prmary PS CHHITAHI NATH NAGAR 0 Prmary PS JASHOWAR NATH NAGAR Prmary 33 MS KALIJAGDEESH PUR NATH NAGAR Upper Prmary PS BAIDRWA NATH NAGAR Prmary MS MUKHLISPUR NATH NAGAR Upper Prmary MS AURADAND HANSAR 0 Upper Prmary MS KATAR MISHRA HANSAR Upper Prmary PS KATAR MISHRA HANSAR Prmary PS TULSIPUR MEHDAWAL Prmary PS JIUDHARA BELAHAR KALA Prmary to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

128 MI Impressons MDM Montorng Report Dstrct: Santkabr Nagar (Khallabad), U.P. I vsted Sant kabr Nagar (khallabad) dstrct durng 19 th to 28 th January,2014 for montorng the mplementaton of SSA & MDM n the dstrct. Around 25 schools (ncludng Junor & mddle schools) were vsted by me. It was found that almost n all the schools MDM was beng run properly. Only one Prmary School Jasowar n Nath nagar Block was found n whch MDM was not runnng whle school was runnng from Many of the schools MDM servces were beng provded by respectve schools n whch MDM qualty was good and also hygenc. Some school has found no storage facltes. The MDM qualty was not good n the schools where food gran were suppled by Pradhan. I dscussed ths matter wth concern authorty and also wth headmaster. One school n Mehdawal block, namely UPS Nandaur reported fake attendance on MDM regster. Total 310 chldren were present only 144 chldren were avalng MDM. Headmaster has gven reason that chldren were not havng plates. Another school namely JPS Bodha Bandh n Semaryawan block reported fake attendance of the chldren on MDM regster. When I vsted on regster shows 113 chldren but MDM was prepared only for 48 chldren. I nform ths matter to BSA and MDM n charge. In ths school also Pardhan was supplyng Food gran. Some school found bad qualty of MDM where food gran stored n Pradhan house. Ktchen of several schools were vsted and dscussed wth the head of schools and cooks. t was found that the cooks were not pad remuneraton 127

129 for last two month as nform by many cooks. Chldren s take ther meal on the floor. One mportant thng I found n the entre dstrct no plates were provded to the chldren from the schools except a few schools where headmaster have managed the plate from other grant. In MDM despte of the above menton problems and rregulartes Overall mpresson of cookng and servng the MDM was found satsfactory. Shakeel Ahmad Khan 128

130 Cover Page of the Dstrct (Stapur) 4 Report 1st Half Yearly Montorng Report of on MDM for the State of UTTAR PRADESH for the perod of 1 st Aprl, 2013 to 30 th September, 2013 Dstrcts Montored/Covered 1. (SITAPUR) 129

131 1. At school level 1 Avalablty of Food Grans Whether buffer stock of food grans for one month s avalable at the school? v v Out of 40 schools 17 (42.5%) reported that they have buffer stock for one month. Only %) schools reported that they have no buffer stock. Whether food grans are delvered n school n tme by the lftng agency? Out of 40 schools 11 (27.5%) reported that food gran s delvered at the house of Pradhan by lftng agency and then to school. 29 (7.25%) schools reported that food grans s not delvered by lftng agency. If lftng agency s not delverng the food grans at school how the food grans s transported up to school level? In case of no lftng agency the food gran was delvered by Contractor n 3 (7.5%) schools, lftng by self n 15 (37.5%) and by VEC members n 11 (27.5%) schools Whether the food grans are of FAQ of Grade A qualty? Out of 40 schools 21 (52.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s good. Only 19 (47.5%) schools have reported that qualty of food gran s not good. Whether food grans are released to school after adjustng the unspent balance of the prevous month? Out of 40 schools 14 (35%) schools have reported that food gran s released after adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 26 (65%) schools reported that food gran s released wthout adjustment of unspent food gran of prevous delvery. 2 Tmely releases of funds Whether State s releasng funds to Dstrct / block / school on regular bass n advance? If not, j) Perod of delay n releasng funds by State to dstrct. k) Perod of delay n releasng funds by Dstrct to block / schools. l) Perod of delay n releasng funds by block to schools. Out of 40 schools only 16 (40%) schools reported that state s releasng funds n advance. 24 (60%) schools reported that state s not releasng funds n advance. j) Perod of delay from state to dstrct s reported by 3 months by 1 (2.5%) school and another 1 (2.5%) school reported delay of 6 months. k) Perod of delay from dstrct to block s not reported by any school. l) Smlarly, perod of delay from block to school s not reported by any school. Any other observatons. No. 130

132 Avalablty of Cookng Cost v Whether school / mplementng agency has recevng cookng cost n advance regularly? Out of 40 schools 18 (45%) receve cookng cost n advance regularly, whereas 22 (55%) schools reported not to receve cookng cost regularly. Perod of delay, f any, n recept of cookng cost. 4 (10%) reported that perod of delay s days and 5 (12.5%) reported the perod of delay as more than one month. In case of non-recept of cookng cost how the meal s served? 1 (2.5%) schools reported that they adjust from other fund whereas 2(5%) take help from VSS members. Mode of payment of cookng cost (Cash / cheque / e-transfer)? Out of 40 schools 23 (57.5%) stated the mode of payment though cheque, whereas 3 (7.5%) schools reported mode of payment through e-transfer and 9 (22.5%) schools reported mode of payment n cash. 18. Avalablty of Cook-cum-helpers v v v v v Who engaged Cook-cum-helpers at schools (Department / SMC / VEC / PRI / Self Help Group / NGO /Contractor)? Out of 40 schools 22 (55%) schools reported that VEC engages cook, by PRI n 10 (25%) schools, by NGO n 4 (10%) schools and 1 (2.5%) schools reported that cooked s apponted by SMC. If cook-cum-helper s not engaged who cooks and serves the meal? In case of no cook 11 (27.5%) school has reported that to engage self-help group (SHG). Another 1 (2.5%) school reported to engage cook on Contract. Is the number of cooks-cum-helpers engaged n the school as per GOI norms or as per State norms? Out of 40 schools 31 (77.5%) schools have reported that cook s apponted as per Government of Inda norms. 9 (22.5%) schools have reported that cook s not apponted as per Government of Inda norms. Honorarum pad to cooks cum helpers. Out of 40 schools 35 (87.5%) reported that honorarum Rs s pad to cook. Mode of payment to cook-cum-helpers? Out of 40 schools 23 (57.5%) stated the mode of payment though cheque, whereas 2 (5%) schools reported mode of payment through e-transfer and 9 (22.5%) schools reported mode of payment n cash. Are the remuneraton pad to cooks cum helpers regularly? The cooks are not pad regularly n 9 (22.5%) schools. Socal Composton of cooks cum helpers? (SC/ST/OBC/Mnorty) Out of 40 schools 9 (22.5%) schools have engaged OBC as cook, 16 (40%) schools engaged SC as cook, n 6 (15%) schools ST as cook and n 2 n(5%) schools as cook. Is there any tranng module for cook-cum-helpers? 131

133 x x x Tranng module s avalable n 1 (2.5%) schools. Whether tranng has been provded to cook-cum-helpers? Tranng to cook s provded only n 1 (2.5%) schools. Almost n 97.5% schools tranng s not provded nor s any tranng module avalable. In case the meal s prepared and transported by the Centralzed ktchen / NGO, whether cook-cum-helpers have been engaged to serve the meal to the chldren at school level. No central Ktchen observed Whether health check-up of cook-cum-helpers has been done? Health checkup of cook s done n 4 (10%) schools. 19. Regularty n Servng Meal Whether the school s servng hot cooked meal daly? If there was nterrupton, what was the extent and reasons for the same? Out of 40 schools hot cooked meal s served daly n 4 (10%) schools. 20. Qualty &Quantty of Meal v v v v Feedback from chldren on Qualty of meal Qualty of s good n 6 (15%) schools and average n 33 (82.5%) schools. Quantty of meal Quantty of meal s suffcent n 39 (97.5%) schools. Quantty of pulses used n the meal per chld. Quantty of pulses per chld s reported as 25 gm. n 8 (20%) schools, 30 gm. n 12 (30%) schools, 40 gm n 5 (12.5%) and 50 gm. n 2 (5%) schools. Quantty of green leafy vegetables used n the meal per chld. Quantty of green leafy vegetable per chld s gven as 30 gm n 11 (27.5%) schools, 45 gm. n 1 (2.5%) school and 50 gm. n 1 (2.5%) school, 60 gm. n 13 (32.5%) schools and 70 gm. n 3 (7.5%) schools. Whether double fortfed salt s used? Double fortfed salt s provded n 21 (47.5%) schools. Acceptance of the meal amongst the chldren. Out of 40 schools the chldren of 18 (45%) schools have happly accepted and they are satsfed wth the quantty. The chldren of 22 (55%) schools dd not accept the meal and quantty of meal was not satsfactory. Method / Standard gadgets / equpment for measurng the quantty of food to be cooked and served. Standard Gadget measurng quantty s found n 22 (55%) schools. 132

134 21. Varety of Menu v v Who decdes the menu? Out of 40 schools 22 (55%) schools stated that menu s decded by authorty. Menu was followed unformly n 18 (55%) schools. Whether weekly menu s dsplayed at a promnent place notceable to communty, It was observed that menu was dsplayed at a promnent place n all 39 (97.5%) schools. Menu was dsplayed at notce board n 25 (62.5%) schools and located centrally on the wall n 1 (2.5%) schools. Is the menu beng followed unformly? Menu was not unformly followed n 36 (90%) school and local gradents were not ncluded n 3 (7.5%) schools. Whether menu ncludes locally avalable ngredents? Menu ncluded local gradents and nutrtonal calorfc value was ncluded n 35 (87.5%) schools. Whether menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld? Menu provdes requred nutrtonal and calorfc value per chld. But nutrtonal calorfc value was not ncluded n 35 (87.5%) schools. a) 22. Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 Dsplay of Informaton under Rght to Educaton Act, 2009 at the school level at promnent place Quantty and date of food grans receved Out of sampled schools, no school has provded nformaton about the quantty of food gran receved and the date of recevng. As food gran n most cases s delvered drectly at the house of Pradhan and then comes to school as per daly requrement. b) Balance quantty of food grans utlzed durng the month. Yes, 9 (22.5%) reported that balance quantty was utlzed durng the month c) Other ngredents purchased, utlzed Yes, other ngredents purchased, utlzed d) Number of chldren gven MDM About 3706 chldren are gven MDM n the dstrct, out of whch 2820 chldren taken MDM on the day of Vst e) Daly menu Daly menu dsplayed on notce board n 25 (62.5%) school Dsplay of MDM logo at promnent place preferably outsde wall of the school. Out of 40 schools MDM logo was dsplayed n 33 (82.5%) schools. 133

135 23. Trends Extent of varaton (As per school records vs-à-vs Actual on the day of vst). v Enrolment The total enrolment of the sampled school s 5744 (4570 n PS and 1174 n UPS). No. of chldren present on the day of the vst. Out of total enrolment 2820 chldren (2236 students of prmary and 584 students of upper prmary) were present on the day of vst. No. of chldren avalng MDM as per MDM Regster. As per MDM regster number of chldren avalng MDM s 2768 (2235 prmary chldren and 533 upper prmary chldren). No. of chldren actually avalng MDM on the day of vst as per head count Out of total enrolment 2820 (49.09%) chldren were avalng MDM on the day of vst. 24. Socal Equty What s the system of servng and seatng arrangements for eatng? Out of 40 schools chldren were served meal sttng on mat n 12 (30%) schools, on ground n 10 (25%) schools, on tat patt n 1 (2,5%) school and on bench and desk n 3 (7.5%) school. Dd you observe any gender or caste or communty dscrmnaton n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements? v No any dscrmnaton of gender, caste or communty was observed n cookng or servng or seatng arrangements. The name of the school where dscrmnaton found of any knd may be mentoned n the man body of the report along wth date of vst. N.A. If any knd of socal dscrmnaton s found n the school, comments of the team may be gven n the nspecton regster of the school. No any sort of socal dscrmnaton found 25. Convergence Wth Other Scheme 1 Sarva Shksha Abhyan Out of 40 schools convergence wth SSA was found n 11 (27.5%) schools. 2 School Health Programme Is there school Health Card mantaned for each chld? MDM was converged wth health programme n 11 (27.5%) schools. School health card mantaned n 30 (75%) schools What s the frequency of health check-up? Frequency of health check up was yearly n 18 (45%) school, half yearly n 15 (37.5%) schools, monthly n 1 (2.5%) and occasonally 2 (5%). 134

136 v v v v v x x 2 Whether chldren are gven mcronutrents (Iron, folc acd, vtamn A dosage) and de-wormng medcne perodcally? Out of 40 schools mcronutrents gven n 15 (37.5%) schools and de-wormng medcne was gven n 15 (37.5%) schools. Who admnsters these medcnes and at what frequency? Out of 40 schools medcne s admnstered by Govt. doctors n 35 (87.5%) schools and by NGO n 2 (5%) school. The frequency of medcne s yearly n 7 (17.5%) schools and half yearly n 1 (2.5%) schools and quarterly n 1 (2.5%) school. Whether heght and weght record of the chldren s beng ndcated n the school health card. Yes, heght and record of the chldren s beng ndcated n school health card of 30 (75%) schools Whether any referral durng the perod of montorng. No any referral durng the perod of montorng Instances of medcal emergency durng the perod of montorng. No nstances of emergency were mentoned at dstrct level but MI found nstances of emergency n 10 (25%) schools. Avalablty of the frst ad medcal kt n the schools. The dstrct level data reveals that frst ad box s avalable n each and every school. The physcal verfcaton by MI revealed that t was avalable n 35 (87.5%) schools. Dental and eye check-up ncluded n the screenng. The dstrct admnstraton has mentoned that dental and eye check up s done n each and every school and spectacles were dstrbuted to needy students. However, MI found that dental and eye check up was done n 29 (72.5%) schools and spectacles were dstrbuted n 12 (30%) schools. Dstrbuton of spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error. Spectacles to chldren sufferng from refractve error dstrbuted n 12 (30%) schools. Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme Whether potable water s avalable for drnkng purpose n convergence wth Drnkng Water and Santaton Programme. Out of 40 schools potable water was avalable n 30 (75%) schools. 3 MPLAD / MLA Scheme Out of 40 schools drnkng water scheme was sponsored by MPLAD n 8 (30%) schools and by MLA n 5 (12.5%) schools and by NGO n 1 (2.5%) school. 4 Any Other Department / Scheme. N.A. 135

137 1 a v v V V b c d e Infrastructure Ktchen cum store Is there a pucca ktchen shed-cum-store Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 35 (87.5%) schools. Ktchen shed was under constructon n 1 (2.5%) school. Constructed and n use Out of 40 schools ktchen pucca shed s constructed n 35 (87.5%) schools and t s n use. Under whch Scheme Ktchen-cum-store constructed -MDM/SSA/Others The ktchen was constructed under MDM scheme n 4 (10%) schools and under SSA n 29 (72.5%) schools and by others n 1 (2.5%) school. Constructed but not n use (Reasons for not usng) Ktchen n 10 (25%) schools constructed but not n use. Under constructon In 8 (20%) schools ktchen was under constructon. Sanctoned, but constructon not started Ktchen n 7 (17.5%) schools sanctoned but constructon not started. Not sanctoned Ktchen shed was not sanctoned n 3 (7.5%) schools. PS KULTAPUR IN BLOCK LAHARPUR, PS BIDORA IN ALIA BLOCK AND PS PURAN PUR IN KASMANDA BLOCK. In case the pucca ktchen-cum-store s not avalable, where s the food beng cooked and where the foodgrans /other ngredents are beng stored? No school has reported to prepare MDM n open space. Food grans stored at the house of Pradhan. Ktchen-cum-store n hygenc condton, properly ventlated and away from classrooms. MI observed that ktchen sheds are well ventlated, away from class room and havng hygenc condton n 35 (87.5%) schools. Whether MDM s beng cooked by usng frewood or LPG based cookng? Out of 40 schools LPG was n 26 (65%) schools, wood was used n 8 (20%) schools and coal was used n 2 (2.5%) schools. Whether on any day there was nterrupton due to non-avalablty of frewood or LPG? MDM was nterrupted due to shortage of fuel n 10 (25%) schools. Whether cookng utensls are avalable n the school? Out of 40 schools cookng utensls was avalable n 33 (82.5%) schools. Source of fundng for cookng and servng utensls Ktchen Devces fund / MME / Communty contrbuton / others. Source of fundng was by MME n 29 (72.5%) schools, by SSA n 1 (2.5%) school and by others n 5 (7.5%) schools. Whether eatng plates etc. are avalable n the school? Plates were avalable n 26 (65%) schools. In most of the schools the chldren brng plates from home. 136

138 v Source of fundng for eatng plates - MME / Communty contrbuton / others? The source of ts fundng was MME n 25 (62.5%) school and by other n 1 (2.5%) school. 3 Ktchen Devces Out of 40 schools ktchen devces were avalable n 13 (32.5%) schools and source of fundng was by MME n 29 (72%) schools, by SSA n 1 (2.5%0 school and by NGO n 3 (7.5%) schools. 4 Avalablty of storage bns Whether storage bns are avalable for food grans? If yes, what s the source of ther procurement? MI found storage bn was avalable only n 14 (35%) schools. The source of fundng was by MME n 1 (2.5%) school, NGO n 1 (2.5%) school, by VEC n 1 (2.5%) and by others n 3 (7.5%) schools. The source of fundng was not known to Head masters/teachers. In most of the schools storage bn was not avalable. The food grans were stored n sacks. 5 6 Tolets n the school Is separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable? Yes, separate tolet for the boys and grls are avalable n 33 (82.5%) schools. Are tolets usable? Tolets are usable n 33 (82.5%) schools. Avalablty of potable water Is Tap water / tube well / hand pump / Well / Jet pump avalable? Potable water s avalable n 39 (97.5%) schools. Out of whch jet pump was avalable n 33 (82.5%) school, tube well avalable n 3 (7.5%) schools and well was avalable n 1 (2.5%) schools. Any other source There was other source of water n 2 (5%) schools. 7 Avalablty of fre extngushers Fre extngushers were avalable n 34 (85%) schools. 8 a b c 7. IT nfrastructure School level Number of computers avalable n the school (f any). 12 computers were avalable n the 5 (12.5%) schools. Avalablty of nternet connecton (If any). Internet connecton was avalable n 2 (5%) schools. Usng any IT / IT enabled servces based solutons / servces (lke e-learnng etc.) (f any) IT enable servces were used n 2 (5%) schools. 27. Safety & hygene General Impresson of the envronment, Safety and hygene: The cookng process s safe n 35 (87.5%) schools as they have proper ventlaton. The fre extngusher was avalable n 34 (85%) schools. Are chldren encouraged to wash hands before and after eatng MI observed that chldren washed ther hands before takng meals n 24 (60%) schools conserve water n 17 (42.5%) schools. 137

139 v v Do the chldren take meals n an orderly manner? Chldren take meal n orderly manner n 21 (52.5%) schools. Conservaton of water? MI observed that chldren conserve water n 17 (42.5%) schools. Is the cookng process and storage of fuel safe, not posng any fre hazard? The cookng process s safe n 15 (37.5%) schools. The fre extngusher was avalable n 34 (85%) schools. 28. Communty Partcpton Extent of partcpaton by Parents / SMC / VEC / Panchayats / Urban bodes n daly supervson and montorng. v v Dstrct has reported that VEC/SMC meetngs are regularly held on monthly bass. However, MI found that Panchayat partcpaton on monthly bass only n 19 (47.5%) schools, SMC/VEC partcpaton was monthly n 22 (550%) schools and parent s partcpaton on monthly bass was observed n 18 (45%) schools. Is any roster of communty members beng mantaned for supervson of the MDM? Yes, Is there any socal audt mechansm n the school? As per the dstrct nformaton socal audt mechansm exsts n every school. But MI observed that socal audt mechansm exsted only n 17 (42.5%) schools where jan wachan about MDM was practced. Number of meetngs of SMC held durng the montorng perod. SMC meetng held once n 2 (5%), thrce n 3 (7.5%) school, 4 tmes n 4 (10%) schools, 5 tmes n 4 (10%) school, 6 tmes n 1 (2.5%) schools and 8 tmes n 3 (7.5%) school. In how many of these meetngs ssues related to MDM were dscussed? The ssue of MDM was dscussed 2 tmes n 2 (5%) schools, 4 tmes n 3 (7.5%) school, 6 tmes n 4 (10%) schools and 10 tmes n 1 (2.5%) school. 3. Inspecton and Supervson v Is there any Inspecton Regster avalable at school level? Inspecton regster was avalable n 15 (37.5%) schools. Whether school has receved any funds under MME component? 29 (72.5%) schools have receved funds under MME component Whether State / Dstrct / Block level offcers / offcals nspectng the MDM Scheme? The nspecton was done by block level offcers n 12 (30%) schools, dstrct offcers n 4 (10%) schools, by NGO n 3 (7.5%) schools, by Pradhan n 3 (7.5%) schools and by state offcers n 11 (27.5%) schools. The frequency of such nspectons? The frequency of such nspectons was once n 27 (67.5%) schools and twce n 3 (7.5%) schools. 138

140 4. Impact v Has the md day meal mproved the enrollment, attendance, retenton of chldren n school? MDM has mproved enrolment n 15 (37.5%) schools, mproved attendance n 21 (52.5%) schools, and mproved retenton n 16 (40%) schools. Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the socal harmony? Yes, t has mproved socal harmony n 14 (35%) schools. Whether md day meal has helped n mprovement of the nutrtonal status of the chldren? Yes, MDM has mproved nutrtonal status n 14 (35%) schools. Is there any other ncdental beneft due to servng of meal n schools? No ncdental beneft was observed due to servng of meal n schools. 5. Grevance Redressal Mechansm Is any grevance redressal mechansm n the dstrct for MDMS? Grevance redressal mechansm was seen n 4 (10%) schools. Whether the dstrct / block / school havng any toll free number? Toll free number was avalable n 12 (30%) schools. 139

141 Proforma for Centralzed ktchen, Stapur (Two to be covered n a report) l) Date of vst: m) Name: Dr. Kartar Sngh observer and Incharge Deepak Kumar Shukla n) Address: MI representatve, IASE, Faculty of Educaton, Jama Mlla Islama, New Delh o) MDM supply started: 2001 p) Total no. of schools caterng to: 46 q) Total no. of chldren caterng to: 4600 r) Approxmate ktchen area: square feet s) Locaton of the ktchen : longtudnal t) Surroundngs: Habtatons near to Ralway lnes; Kachchar halt, Stapur u) Accessblty : Dffcult INFRA STRUCTURAL FACILITIES.N. Area of workng + Adequate space Cleanlness* Dryness Well lt Ventlaton Recevng Food grans/food artcles Storng Pre-preparaton Cookng Food assembly/servng Washng Cleanlness wth respect to pest and rodent nfestaton cracks /crevces, fles/vermn s, dust/webs. +To be rated on 3 pont scale 4. Poor 5. Far 6. Good 2. PROCUREMENT AND STORAGE OF FOOD ITEMS Key: Daly-1 Weekly-2 Fortnghtly-3 Monthly-4 2(a) S.N Raw materals Quantty (kg) How Contaners/Bag used for storage 140

142 1 Purchased at one tme often Metal Plastc Gunny Bags Any Other Jute Lamnated Specfy Cereals 90 quntals monthly 2 Pulses 2 quntals Weekly 3 Vegetable 80 quntals Monthly 4 Spces 50 k.g. Monthly 5 Fats and ols 60 k.g. Weekly 6 Any other specfy (mlk) 800 letres Monthly 3 (a) Do you check for the followng parameters of qualty n the raw ngredents? 6. Stones 7. Insects 8. Over rpeness 9. Bad odour 10. Any other (specfy) 3 (b) where are the contaners /bags contanng raw ngredents placed? 1 On a rased platform 2 Floors 3 Any others (specfy) 4. Water: Source, Avalablty, Storage 4 (a) Source of water 1. Tap 2. Bore Well 3. Pump 4(f) Are water-storng utensls covered? Y/N 5(e) Are all food tems washed before preparaton? Y/N 6. PREPARATION 6 (a) What are the food tems cooked on the day of the vst? Tahr Y/N (Frday) 6(b) what s the fuel used for cookng? 3. LPG 4. Any other specfy 6(d) Are prepared food tems kept covered? Y/N 6(e) What s the tme lapse between preparaton and packng? 1 hour 141

143 2 hours 3 hours More than three hours 6(f) How s the food packed? 11. Cartons 12. Tffn carrer 13. Patlas 14. Steel drums 15. Alumnum drums 16. Steel dols 17. Sacks 18. Basket 19. Patla/basket lned wth newspaper 20. Any other (specfy) 6(g) Is the packagng materal clean? Y/N 7. MANAGEMENT OF THE LEFTOVER FOOD What the supplers do wth the food left uneaten by chldren of dfferent schools? 5. Consumed by supplers 6. Packed and taken home by cooks/handler 7. Thrown away 8. Dstrbuted among the poor n the nearby slums 8. DISHWASHING 8 Utensls are cleaned wth 5. Only water 6. Water+ Detergent/soap 7. Scrubber+ detergent/soap +water 8. Any other (specfy) 9. ORGANIZATION CHART Employees Number (n) 1.Ktchen-n-charge Store-n-charge Purchase-n-charge Head cook Cooks 2 6. Helpers for servng at the school level 6 7. Handlers and dstrbutors 4 142

144 8. Cleaners/sweepers 1 9. Any other helpter at centralzed ktchen level Total 26 KEY- 0-N.A 1-NO 2-YES 3- not observed 10. PERSONAL HYGIENE PRACTICES 1 Cleanlness of unforms Average 2 Wearng headgears No 3 Well groomed No 4 Fngernals short and clean Average FOOD HANDLER 5 Sufferng from cold, cough, sore throat, vomtng, darrhea, bols, cuts, or any other skn dsease. no 10 (b) Do they have any tolet faclty? Y/N 10 (c) Do they carry gloves whle handlng food? Y/N 10 (e) Do you observe any unhygenc practces followed by the food handlers? Y/N f yes, specfy 11.KITCHEN WASTE DISPOSAL 1 Garbage bns provded? Y/N 2 Are garbage bns equpped wth lds? Y/N 3 Is garbage lyng around n vcnty? Y/N 4 Are garbage bns cleaned well after they are empted? Y/N 5 Is garbage removed from premses at frequent ntervals? Y/N 12. FOOD TRANSPORTATION 12(a) Mode of transportng the food 5 Car 6 Matador 7 Van 8 Refrgerated/ Insulated vehcles 12(b) Are the food contaners kept n the vehcle covered properly? Y/N 143

145 12(c) Is food compartment of the vehcle clean and dry? Y/N 12(d) Does any person accompany the packed food n the vehcle? 13. FOOD EVALUATION Key- Poor-1 Far-2 Good-3 S.N Sensory evaluaton Ratng f) Appearance Good g) Taste Good h) Smell Good ) Texture Good j) Overall Acceptablty Good Procurement of pulses and condments 4. Packed spces wth Agmark seal Yes, ISI Agmark (Goldy) Y/N 5. Unfastened packets - 6. Double fortfed salt (Iron and odnee) Yes, Tata salt Note: Convergence cost may please be ncrease up to meet current prce rse condtons. 2. Runnng at schools comprses of PV Prvate. But needs own modern buldng. 144

146 6 (a) Lst of Schools Vsted n Dstrct SITAPUR Sl. No Name of the school ncludng block name P.S.DALEL NAGAR P.S.BELANDAPUR P.S.SADILA P.S.AKKILPUR P.S.PRADE P.S.HUSAINGUNJ M.S.HUSAINGUNJ P.S.BIJWAR P.S.BADORA P.S.PARSEHRA P.S.BELGAON 11 P.S.KHAGESIYA MAU P.S.LAHARPUR II P.S.BASANTIPUR P.S.DINGURAPUR P.S.KULTAJPUR P.S.HUSAIN GUNJ P.S.BAHADURPUR P.S.SINH PUR U.P.S.HUSSAINGUNJ Block name DISE code Prmary/Upp er Prmary School MACHREHTA MACHREHTA MACHREHTA MACHREHTA NAGAR NIGAM SITAPUR NAGAR NIGAM SITAPUR NAGAR NIGAM SITAPUR NAGAR NIGAM SITAPUR ALIYA ALIYA ALIYA ALIYA LAHARPUR LAHARPUR LAHARPUR LAHARPUR SIDHAULI SIDHAULI SIDHAULI SIDHAULI 5 Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Upper Prmary 2 Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Upper Prmary Date of vst of the school to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

147 20 P.S.TARSANWA 21 U.P.S.KUNERA 22 P.S.NAHOIYA 23 P.S.RAMGARH 24 P.S.GADHI HUSSAINPUR 25 P.S.MUSEPUR 26 M.S.AMORA MOTI SINGH 27 P.S.CHANDPUR 28 P.S.KARAMSEPUR 29 P.S.LAKADIYA MAU 30 P.S.SARASAI 31 U.P.S.WADAEYA 32 P.S.DAUDPUR 33 P.S.KASMANDA II 34 U.P.S.KOKNAMAU 35 P.S.PURAN PUR 36 P.S.CHITHALA 37 U.P.S.PELAKISA 38 P.S.BAGHA 39 P.S.PITAMPUR 40 P.S.DALEL NAGAR GONDLA MAU GONDLA MAU GONDLA MAU GONDLA MAU PERSENDI PERSENDI PERSENDI PERSENDI MISHRIKH MISHRIKH MISHRIKH MISHRIKH KASMANDA KASMANDA KASMANDA KASMANDA MAHOLI MAHOLI MAHOLI MAHOLI MACHREHTA Prmary Upper Prmary 1 Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Upper Prmary 1 Prmary Prmary Prmary Prmary Upper Prmary 1 Prmary Prmary Upper Prmary 1 Prmary Prmary Upper Prmary 1 Prmary Prmary Prmary to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

148 MDM Montorng Report Dstrct: Stapur (U.P.) A school Purva Madhyamk Vdyalaya stuated at vllage Bud was vsted on (Wednesday) to collect data n respect of MDM and general envronment of school. Apart of Prncpal, (HM) Smt. Chandra Mohn, she came very late after my enterng n school, there were other four teachers n the school; (a) Ms. Geeta pandey (Temporary Teacher & VI class teacher) (2) Sh. Santosh (Temporary teacher & class teacher VII), (3) Smt. Kran Dxt (full tme teacher & class teacher VIII) and (4) Sh. Abhshekh Srvastava (Temporary teacher & he was absent on that day). The followng observatons were made by me: (1) There were two females (1) Smt. Ram Rat; she has been not pad from July 13 to January Her honorarum s Rs (2) Smt. Raj Kumar she has also not been pad for November Her honorarum s also Rs (2) MDM was cookng & that was as per meal (kheer). (2) Separately tolets were avalable. (3) There was ktchen shed but not properly mantaned so t was not n use. MDM was cooked outsde of the ktchen shed. (4) wood s used to cook the MDM (5) Utensls were not adequate. (6) MDM was functonal n each and every school. (7) No dscrmnaton on caste, creed or sex. (8) MDM menu dsplayed n every school. (9) Health check up of students done half yearly. (10) Health check up of cook-cum helper was done only n few schools. (11) Tranng of cook was not conducted n most of the schools. (12) Hot cooked meals suppled n schools. (13) Students were satsfed wth the MDM Dr. Kartar Sngh 147

149 Cover Page of the Dstrct (Unnao) 5 Report 1st Half Yearly Montorng Report of on MDM for the State of UTTAR PRADESH for the perod of 1 st Aprl, 2013 to 30 th September, 2013 Dstrcts Montored/Covered 1. (UNNAO) 148