THE STATE OF INDIA’S PUBLIC SERVICES BENCHMARKS FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM PAC April 17, 2002

OBJECTIVES  To provide a well focused and independent assessment of key public services using citizen feedback & direct observation of facilities;  To create an independent database & benchmarks to measure progress and performance over time  Stimulate state - civil society dialogues on critical issues

APPROACH  Survey of households to get a rating of services across various measures of quality, reliability, satisfaction etc.  Assessment of service infrastructure on indicators of their functioning. Selected services  Drinking water  School education & child care  Health & sanitation  PDS (fair price shop)  Public Transport

SAMPLE  24 states, 115 districts, 36,542 Households – 26,796 Rural & 9,746 Urban  2,304 villages profiled & 12,256 public facilities observed  Stratified by Rural/Urban, Village Size & Town Class; Rural Sample further stratified by Socio Cultural Regions (SCR)  Reliability of findings at 90% confidence at lowest cut (SCR)  Analysis by Rural / Urban, SCRs, Village Class, Caste & Income-Capability Index

COMPARISONS ACROSS SERVICES Dimensions of Probe  Ease of Access to facilities  Usage of public services  Quality/Reliability  Satisfaction

PHYSICAL ACCESS TO FACILITIES (all India)  Access to a protected public drinking water source within 100 mts: 55%  Access to a Fair Price Shop within the village / area: 87%  Access to a medical facility within 3 kms: 73%  Access to an educational facility within 1 km: 66%  Access to a public bus throughout the year: 54%

USAGE OF PUBLIC SERVICES (all India)  Users of protected public drinking water sources: 62%  Users of a government medical facility: 52%  Users buying items from a FPS: 87%  Users of government schools: 78%  Users of public buses: 35%

QUALITY / RELIABILITY (all India)  No breakdown of public drinking water sources: 76%  Presence of doctors at public health facilities: 70%  Full satisfaction with the behaviour of government primary school teachers: 16%  Regular availability of staple food grain: 23%  Full satisfaction with punctuality of public buses: 20%

SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES (all India)  Full satisfaction with adequacy & quality of drinking water: 22%  Full satisfaction with behaviour of doctors: 15%  Full satisfaction with availability of supplies, quality of supplies & fairness of fair price shopkeepers: 8%  Full satisfaction with quality of physical infrastructure in primary schools: 10%  Full satisfaction with frequency of public buses & behaviour of conductors: 21%  Dissatisfaction highest for PDS & Primary Schools

KEY FINDINGS  Substantial variations between services  Across services, Drinking Water comes out ahead; lags behind on ease of access  Dependence on public sources is high for PDS and primary education  Scores on full satisfaction generally low.  Large proportion of users are partially satisfied (a mixed picture)  Services with high human interaction report lower satisfaction (eg. Drinking water vs health care)  Satisfaction scores more closely linked to quality/reliability of service

COMPARISON ACROSS STATES Access, Usage, Quality/Reliability & Satisfaction How States Compare with respect to Access, Usage, Quality/Reliability & Satisfaction in the five services

DRINKING WATER SECTOR RANKS TOP 5 : Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, West Bengal BOTTOM 5 : Punjab*, Kerala*, Bihar, Assam, Rajasthan *High use of private facilities

SCHOOL EDUCATION SECTOR RANKS TOP 5 : Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Karnataka & Andhra Pradesh BOTTOM 5 : Punjab, Kerala, Bihar, Assam, Himachal Pradesh

HEALTH SERVICES SECTOR RANKS TOP 5 : Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, West Bengal & Orissa BOTTOM 5 : Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Kerala, Bihar & Madhya Pradesh

PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SECTOR RANKS TOP 5 :Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Gujarat & Karnataka BOTTOM 5 :Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Maharashtra & Bihar

TRANSPORT SECTOR RANKS TOP 5 :Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh,Maharashtra, Gujarat & Karnataka BOTTOM 5 :Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa & Assam

PUBLIC SERVICES & WEAKER SECTIONS THE FRAMEWORK Separate assessments in relation to:  Households with Income-Capability Disadvantage ( Thatched house, chief wage earner illiterate and works in primary sector)  Households in small villages (Class C)  Households in rural areas vis a vis urban areas

PUBLIC SERVICES & WEAKER SECTIONS: Households with Income-Capability Disadvantage Positive findings vis a vis better off segments:  No major difference in ownership of ration card  No major difference in ease of access to public protected drinking water, school, fair price shop Negative findings vis a vis better off segments:  Less ease in access to health facility & public bus  More breakdowns of drinking water facilities  Less satisfaction with behaviour of medical personnel & shopkeeper in fair price shops

PUBLIC SERVICES & WEAKER SECTIONS: Households in rural areas Positive findings vis a vis urban households:  No major difference in availability of public bus  No major difference in easy access to public protected drinking water or fair price shop  Better ease of access to schools Negative findings vis a vis urban households:  Less ease in access to health facility  More breakdowns of drinking water facilities  Less satisfied with behaviour of medical personnel

PUBLIC SERVICES & WEAKER SECTIONS: Households from smaller villages (Class C) Positive findings vis a vis bigger villages:  No major difference in availability of doctor at time of visit to govt. health facility  No major difference in ease of access to public protected drinking water Negative findings vis a vis bigger villages:  Less ease in access to health facility & public bus, fair price shop and school  More breakdowns of drinking water facilities

PUBLIC SERVICES & WEAKER SECTIONS MAIN POSITIVE FINDINGS  No Variation in Access to protected Public Water Source  Same Proportion Possess Ration Cards & Use Fair Price Shops  Get Foodgrains from Fair Price Shops with Same Regularity as Others

INTER REGIONAL VARIATIONS WITHIN STATES Extent of variations in Access to Services (incl. All 5)  Low Variation (Highly Equitable – CoV range ? To ?): Maharashtra, Punjab & Haryana  High Variation (Not Equitable – CoV range ? To ?): Uttar Pradesh, Bihar & Kerala

MEASURING THE QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE (Public Services) Criteria used: ò EFFECTIVENESS / EFFICIENCY ò TRANSPARENCY ò RESPONSIVENESS ò EQUITY

MEASURING THE QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE OF STATES

IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION  Access vs. Quality of services: Redress the imbalance  Redefine State’s role: Financing vs. delivery issues  Serving the poor: Search for innovative partnerships and practices  Institutionalize user feedback as aid to policy/program monitoring  Be proactive on governance: Public expenditure not enough  Competition not sufficient to ensure govt. responsiveness  Strengthen mechanisms for transfer of knowledge & best practices

THANK YOU