# **Box 2  Migrants and Public Services: Survey results**

During the last decade, the Chinese migrant population, generally moving from rural areas to work in cities without an official urban residential status ( _hukou_ ), has been expanding in size and gradually benefiting from policies to ensure their basic rights and reduce discrimination. The survey in five cities conducted for this report has illustrated the progress and revealed several remaining challenges in governance for public service delivery in urban areas from the perspective of migrant workers and their children.

Not all migrants are poor. The survey indicated that in 2006 the poorest quintile in the surveyed five cities contained 50% migrants and 50% urban residents. The richest quintile comprised of 25% migrants and 75% urban residents.

_Education_ The survey revealed problems in the schooling of migrant children. Discrimination by urban public schools against migrant children has been officially abolished by the State Council Decisions on Basic Education Reform and Development of 2001, and follow-up circulars and plans issued by Ministry of Education. The student information management system, however, is yet to be fully developed and funding is yet to follow students. As a consequence, local governments have used various means, such as ceilings and school financing requirements, to constrain and discourage the enrollment of migrant children in public schools. School selection fees charged by public schools in the surveyed cities in 2006, for instance, on average reached RMB1,100 for the registered urban residents and RMB3,650 for migrants. Over 30% of migrants whose child enrolled in public schools reported difficulties in enrollment, such as discrimination, rejection and payment request. Among migrants who failed to enroll their child in public schools, over 70% reported rejection by the schools (out of which 98% reported the rejection as unjustified) and 12% reported excessive fees as the reason. As a result, 10% of migrant children ended up in private “migrant schools”, which have been commonly criticized and occasionally shut down by the government as they fail to meet basic standards and performance requirements. For instance, in Beijing, out of its 500 migrant schools in 2004, only 46 met the government standards in 2004 (Center for Educational Research, 2006). Unlike public schools, migrant schools have not benefited from any government financial contribution. Hence, ironically, in spite of their generally low quality, migrant schools charge higher fees (averaging RMB2,400 per year) compared to the fees charged by public schools for a registered urban child (averaging about RMB900 per year) in the surveyed cities in 2006. According to the survey, an average migrant household during one year spent 13% of its income on schooling, compared to 9% of household income for the registered urban households. In the survey, Dalian treated migrant children most fairly, enrolling nearly all migrant children in public schools compared to only 60% in Shenzhen. In terms of satisfaction with education services, Dalian received the highest and Shenzhen the lowest marks from migrants.

_Health and healthcare_ According to the survey, migrants are generally younger (on average 28 years old compared 40 years of average age for the registered urban residents), perceive themselves healthier than the officially registered urban population, and are less likely to have health insurance compared to the registered urban residents. Although the Labor Law demands local governments to facilitate the employer-subsidized basic medical insurance for all employees, only 21% of migrant employees (compared to 80% of registered urban employees) benefited in the surveyed cities in 2006. To fill the gap, 4% of migrant employees (compared to 2% of registered urban employees) bought private health insurance. Partly as a result of low health insurance coverage, migrants paid high out-of-pocket fees (91% and 71% of medical bills for outpatient and inpatient care, respectively, compared to 58% and 44% of medical bills for outpatient and inpatient care, respectively, paid by the registered urban residents). Out-of-pocket payment on a single outpatient visit accounted for 90% of migrant monthly income per capita, and on a single hospitalization episode for 90% of migrant annual income per capita. These shares were a double of income share paid out of pocket by the registered urban residents. Among the five surveyed cities, although the income gap between the registered urban residents and migrants was largest in Shenzhen, Shenzhen showed the smallest disparity between migrants and the registered urban residents with respect to healthcare. The disparity was greatest in Dalian and Xi’an.

_Water_ While problems in access of migrants to essential healthcare and schooling have stemmed from the weaknesses in the implementation and enforcement of central government policies and regulations, problems in access to piped water have related to the migrants’ often temporary lodging arrangements. In the surveyed cities, 10% of migrants (compared to 0.6% of the registered urban residents) were without piped water. The worst situation is in Xi’an and Dalian, where 29% and 14% of migrants, respectively, reported no access to piped water, compared to 2-4% in Shanghai, Chengdu and Shenzhen.

_Overall_ Rural migrants have been coming to pursue jobs in cities voluntarily to raise their incomes. They have been a major driving force of many industries, construction and consumer services, and of continued urbanization, poverty alleviation and economic development in China. While there may be important reasons for managing migration carefully, the barriers in access to basic public services have appeared unnecessarily pronounced and possibly threatening social cohesion and harmony particularly if many migrant children grow up with an acute perception of missed opportunities, inequality and discrimination.

22