Lok Sabha Question No. 151 (STARRED), answered on 2015-07-30
Subject: Identification of BPL Families
Ministry: RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Asked by: RAJESH VERMA, RANGASWAMY DHRUVANARAYANA

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

## LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 151 TO BE ANSWERRED ON 30.07.2015

## IDENTIFICATION OF BPL FAMILIES

## *151. SHRI RAJESH VERMA: SHRI R DHRUVA NARAYANA:

Will the Minister of RURAL DEVELOPMENT be pleased to state:

- (a) the existing methodology used for identification of BPL families including the number of people Below Poverty Line (BPL) in the country based on Below Poverty Line (BPL) last census, State/UT-wise; living
- C) whether the Government has reviewed the methodology used for the purpose, if the details thereof including the drawbacks identified and the corrective measures taken by the Government in this regard; and SO,
- (b) the manner in which the above list is used in determining the beneficiaries under poverty alleviation programmes; being
- (d) whether any task forcelcommittee has been constituted for evol effective process for verifying the indicators, analyzing the data and identification of beneficiaries under various rural development programmes and if so, the details thereof? ving

## ANSWER MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (SHRI BIRENDER SINGH)

- (a) to (d): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House.

Statement Referred to in Reply to Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 151 due for Answer on 30th July, 2015.

(a) (b): The Ministry of Rural Development provides financial and technical support to the States/UTs for conducting Census to identify the deprivation and poverty of households in the rural areas who could be targeted under its programmes. The first BPL Census was conducted in 1992 for the Eighth Five Year Plan. Subsequently, BPL census was conducted in 1997, for the Ninth Five Year Plan. The last BPL Census for the Tenth Five Year Plan was conducted in 2002 using the methodology of score based ranking of rural households for which 13 socio-economic indicators/parameters/criteria were used on the recommendation of an Expert Group constituted by this Ministry. These 13 indicators were (i) size of land holding; (ii) type of houses, (iii) clothing (iv) food security (v) sanitation (vi) ownership of consumer durables (vii) literacy status (viii) Status of household labour force   (ix) means of   livelihood (x) Status of  children  (xi) indebtedness   (xii) migration and (xiii) preference of assistance. For each of these thirteen indicators, the households were awarded scores in a five-point scale from 0-4. The scores were inversely related to the poverty and deprivation of the household. A low score indicate a higher level of poverty and deprivation and vice-versa. For each household, the scores from these 13 indicators were summed up to aggregate score of the household. The aggregate score of a household could range from a minimum of zero to a maximum of 52. The households were arranged in ascending order to\_ the BPL list. period get get

A decision was taken to a ceiling on the number of BPL households in each states for which states were also given the option of deciding the total number of BPL households equal to the Poverty Estimates of 1999-2000 of the Planning Commission or the Adjusted Share computed by the Planning Commission, whichever was higher: In addition, the States were also the flexibility of another 10% to account for the transient poor: put given

statement showing rural BPL families identified by the States/UTs as per the BPL Census 2002 is at Annexure:

- (c ): Keeping in view the multidimensional aspect of poverty and the need to ensure evidence based development intervention by appropriate government, a decision was taken in 2011 to undertake Socio Economic and Caste Census -2011 (SECC-2011) for identifying deprivation and for automatic inclusion of households as poor in the rural development programmes aimed at alleviating poverty. Provisional data of SECC-2011 has been released on 3rd July, 2015. Decision to use SECC data for rural development programmes has been taken by the Department: This Ministry has decided to use SECC-2011 data and to accordingly deploy its resources in planning and implementation of rural development programmes and schemes.
- (d): Appropriate   Government would select beneficiaries by  using the list of  automatically included households and by using households reporting on 1-7 deprivation in the SECC-201 in each Panchayat as per the requirement of the Centrally Sponsored Schemes

8*****

Annexure referred to part (a) in reply to Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 151 to be answered on 30.07.2015

No. of Rural BPL families identified by the States/UTs under BPL Census, 2002

| SL. No.   | States[UTs        | No. of BPL families identified (in lakhs)   |
|-----------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|           | Andhra Pradesh    | 29.893                                      |
| 2         | Arunachal Pradesh | 0.830                                       |
| 3         | Assam             | 18.728                                      |
| 4         | Bihar             | 113.410                                     |
| 5         | Chhattisgarh_     | 17.892                                      |
| 6         | Delhi             | RD Programmes are not implemented           |
| 7         | Goa               | 0.071                                       |
| 8         | Gujarat           | 14.512                                      |
| 9         | Haryana           | 8.583                                       |
| 10        |                   | 2.823                                       |
| 11        | J & K             | 6.179                                       |
| 12        | Jharkhand         | 25.480                                      |
| 13        | Karnataka         | 18.306**                                    |
| 14        | Kerala            | Not Available                               |
| 15        | Madhya Pradesh    | 54.684**                                    |
| 16        | Maharashtra       | 45.023**                                    |
| 17        | Manipur           | 1.693                                       |
| 18        | Meghalaya         | 2.052                                       |
| 19        | Mizoram           | 0.395**                                     |
| 20        | Nagaland          | 1.558                                       |
| 21        | Orissa            | Not Available                               |
| 22        | Punjab            | 3.445                                       |
| 23        | Rajasthan         | 17.362                                      |
| 24        | Sikkim            | Not Available                               |
| 25        | Tamil Nadu        | 34.848                                      |
| 26        | Tripura           | Not Available                               |
| 27        | Uttar Pradesh     | 100.271                                     |
| 28        | Uttarakhand       | 6.211**                                     |
| 29        | West Bengal       | 68.005**                                    |
| 30        | A & N Island*     | 0.107                                       |
| 31        | Chandigarh        | RD Programmes are not implemented           |
| 32        | D&N Haveli        | 0.160                                       |
| 33        | Daman & Diu       | 0.005                                       |
| 34        | Lakshadweep       | Not Available                               |
| 35        | Puducherry        | Not Available                               |