sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alipur Tehsil, Chiniot Tehsil, Chunian Tehsil, Dera Ghazi Khan Tehsil, Dunyapur Tehsil, Hasilpur Tehsil

Latest Trends in Enrolment June 2015

August 12, 2015 Agenda

Detailed Nielsen analysis

Observations from the field

1 Agenda

Detailed Nielsen analysis

Observations from the field

2 Enrolment for 5-9 year olds has increased by 1.1%

School participation rate 5-9 year olds (%)

90.4%

89.3% 1.1%

88.2%

86.8% 86.1% 85.9%

84.8%

Nov-11 Jun-12Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 3 Enrolment ( Nov 2011 - Jun 2015)

School participation rate – Urban Areas 5-9 year olds (%)

94.7%

92.9% 93.1% 93.1% 92.7% 92.6% 92.2%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 School participation rate – Rural Areas 5-9 year olds (%)

88.7% 87.8% 86.5% 84.4% 83.5% 83.2% 81.9%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 4 Enrolment has increased significantly over the last 4 years, with a proportionate increase observed for across all age groups Enrolment Percent Jun 2015 100% Nov 2011

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Age No. of years

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011; June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 5 35 districts in show improvement since November 2011

District % Change since November 2011 15.4% 13.1% Bahawalnagar 13.0% 12.1% 10.9% Sheikhupura 9.9% <3.1 % Layyah 9.7% >3.1% Sahiwal 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 25 districts show a % 8.2% change in enrolment Bhakkar 7.7% 7.5% since Nov 2011 which is 6.5% greater than the margin 6.5% of error of 3.1 % Vehari 5.7% 5.7% 5.0% 4.8% 4.6% Okara 4.4% 4.3% 3.9% 3.7% Gujrat 3.2% 2.8% 2.5% Attock 2.3% Narowal 2.2% Chakwal 2.1% 1.9% 1.6% 1.5% Hafizabad 1.4% Sialkot 0.1% Jhelum

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2011; June 2015; Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval Enrolment by District – (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % June 2015 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85%

District Performance Chakwal 98.0 Gujrat 96.8 Narowal 96.8 Attock Attock 96.6 Rawalpindi Gujranwala 96.5 Jhelum 96.4 Chakwal Jhelum Rawalpindi 96.2 Sheikhupura 95.6 Mianwali Gujrat Toba Tek Singh 95.4 M.B. Din Sialkot 95.4 Sialkot Khushab Sargodha Khushab 95.3 Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Mandi Bahauddin 95.3 Lahore 94.9 Bhakkar Chiniot Shekhupura Sargodha 94.5 Nankana Kasur 93.8 Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Jhang Mianwali 93.2 Hafizabad 92.7 Kasur T T Singh Bahawalnagar 92.4 Pakpattan 91.3 Okara Muzaffargarh Sahiwal Jhang 91.3 D.G. Khan Khanewal Okara 91.3 Pakpattan Nankana Sahib 91.1 Vihari Faisalabad 90.9 Bahawalnagar Sahiwal 90.2 Multan Lodhran Bhakkar 90.0 Layyah 89.9 35 Multan 88.7 Chiniot 87.9 Rajanpur Bahawalpur Bahawalpur 87.6 Vehari 86.1 Rahimyar Khan Khanewal 85.0 Punjab Participation Lodhran 84.9 Rahim Yar Khan 82.1 Rate ( June 2015) Muzaffargarh 81.6 90.4 % Dera Ghazi Khan 78.8 Rajanpur 64.7

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 7 Enrolment by District – (Nov 2014) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % November 2014 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85%

District Performance Chakwal 97.9 Jhelum 97.4 Attock 97.0 Attock Gujrat 96.6 Rawalpindi Narowal 96.3 Sialkot 96.0 Chakwal Jhelum Gujranwala 95.2 Rawalpindi 95.0 Mianmali Gujrat Mandi Bahauddin 94.9 M.B. Din Toba Tek Singh 93.8 Sialkot Khushab Sargodha Hafizabad 93.0 Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Nankana Sahib 93.0 Kasur 92.8 Bhakkar Chiniot Shekhupura Sheikhupura 92.7 Nankana Sargodha 92.4 Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Jhang Bhakkar 91.7 Layyah Lahore 91.7 Kasur T T Singh Okara 91.3 Sahiwal 90.8 Okara Muzaffargarh Sahiwal Mianwali 90.8 D.G. Khan Khanewal Jhang 90.6 Pakpattan Faisalabad 90.4 Vihari Khushab 90.4 Bahawalnagar Layyah 90.0 Multan Lodhran Pakpattan 87.6 Vehari 87.2 35 Chiniot 87.0 Bahawalnagar 85.4 Rajanpur Bahawalpur Khanewal 85.1 Multan 84.6 Rahimyar Khan Bahawalpur 84.2 Punjab Participation Dera Ghazi Khan 83.6 Lodhran 83.5 Rate ( Nov 2014) Muzaffargarh 80.6 89.3 % Rahim Yar Khan 77.9 Rajanpur 65.4

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – November 2014 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 8 24 Districts across Punjab show improvement since November 2014

District Performance % Change since November 2014 98.0 Chakwal 0.1 96.8 Gujrat 0.2 96.8 Narowal 0.4 96.6 Attock -0.4 96.5 Gujranwala 1.3 96.4 Jhelum -1.0 Rawalpindi 96.2 1.2 Sheikhupura 95.6 2.9 95.4 Toba Tek Singh 1.6 Sialkot 95.4 -0.6 Khushab 95.3 5.0 Mandi Bahauddin 95.3 0.4 Lahore 94.9 3.2 Sargodha 94.5 2.2 Kasur 93.8 1.0 Mianwali 93.2 2.5 Hafizabad 92.7 -0.3 Bahawalnagar 92.4 7.0 Pakpattan 91.3 3.7 Jhang 91.3 0.6 Okara 91.3 0 Nankana Sahib 91.1 -1.9 Faisalabad 90.9 0.5 Sahiwal 90.2 -0.6 Bhakkar 90.0 -1.7 Layyah 89.9 -0.1 Multan 88.7 4.2 Chiniot 87.9 0.9 Bahawalpur 87.6 3.4 Vehari 86.1 -1.1 Khanewal 85.0 -0.1 Lodhran 84.9 1.4 Rahim Yar Khan 82.1 4.2 Muzaffargarh 81.6 1.0 Dera Ghazi Khan 78.8 -4.8 Rajanpur 64.7 -0.7

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2014; June 2015; Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 9 Male – Female Split ( Nov 2011 - Jun 2015)

Male - Female split 5-9 year olds (%),

Female Male

47.0% 46.2% 47.8% 46.9% 47.4% 48.0% 47.5%

53.0% 53.8% 52.2% 53.1% 52.6% 52.0% 52.5%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 10 Enrolment by Gender

School participation rate 5-9 year olds (%), Male 91.8% 90.3% 89.4% 88.4% 86.9% 87.6% 87.1%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School participation rate 5-9 year olds (%), Female

87.0% 88.3% 88.9% 84.4% 85.1% 84.6% 82.5%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 11 Enrolment by District – Male (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds – Male , % June 2015 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85%

District Performance Chakwal 98.3 Attock 97.9 Khushab 97.0 Attock Rawalpindi 97.0 Rawalpindi Narowal 97.0 Gujrat 96.9 Chakwal Jhelum Sialkot 96.4 Gujranwala 96.2 Mianwali Gujrat Jhelum 96.2 M.B. Din Toba Tek Singh 95.9 Sialkot Khushab Sargodha Sargodha 95.4 Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Sheikupura 95.3 Bhakkar Shekhupura Mianwali 95.1 Chiniot Hafizabad 94.8 Nankana Sahib Mandi Bahauddin 94.7 Faisalabad Lahore Jhang Lahore 94.7 Layyah Jhang 94.3 Kasur T T Bhakkar 93.9 Singh Kasur 93.2 Okara Muzaffargarh Sahiwal Faisalabad 93.2 D.G. Khan Khanewal Chiniot 92.7 Pakpattan Bahawalnagar 92.5 Vihari Nankana Sahib 92.3 Bahawalnagar Okara 92.1 Multan Lodhran Pakpattan 91.9 Bahawalpur 91.6 35 Layyah 90.8 Sahiwal 89.6 Rajanp Bahawalpur Multan 89.2 ur Vehari 88.1 Khanewal 87.8 Rahimyar Khan Punjab Male Lodhran 85.4 Rahim Yar Khan 85.2 Participation Rate Dera Ghazi Khan 84.1 (June 2015) is 91.8 % Muzaffargarh 83.0 Rajanpur 71.0

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 12 Only a few districts have shown improvements greater than the margin of error 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85% >0% <0%

District Performance % Change since November 2014

Chakwal 98.3 0 Attock 97.9 2.9 Khushab 97.0 6.5 Rawalpindi 97.0 1.0 Narowal 97.0 0.9 Gujrat 96.9 0.1 Sialkot 96.4 -0.1 Gujranwala 96.2 2.1 Jhelum 96.2 -2.0 Toba Tek Singh 95.9 1.1 Sargodha 95.4 2.9 Sheikupura 95.3 2.2 Mianwali 95.1 3.1 Hafizabad 94.8 2.1 Mandi Bahauddin 94.7 -0.5 Lahore 94.7 2.4 Jhang 94.3 1.4 Bhakkar 93.9 0.5 Kasur 93.2 0 Faisalabad 93.2 3.3 Chiniot 92.7 3.2 Bahawalnagar 92.5 5.3 Nankana Sahib 92.3 -0.6 Okara 92.1 -1.4 Pakpattan 91.9 2.6 Bahawalpur 91.6 6.7 Layyah 90.8 -0.8 Sahiwal 89.6 -1.9 Multan 89.2 3.5 Vehari 88.1 0.1 Khanewal 87.8 0.6 Lodhran 85.4 -0.6 Rahim Yar Khan 85.2 3.0 Dera Ghazi Khan 84.1 -3.1 Muzaffargarh 83.0 1.9 Rajanpur 71.0 3.2

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2014; June 2015; 4 Margin of Error 13 Enrolment by District – Female (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds – Female , % June 2015 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85%

District Performance Chakwal 97.7 Gujrat 96.7 Jhelum 96.7 Attock Gujranwala 96.7 Rawalpindi Narowal 96.5 Mandi Bahauddin 95.9 Chakwal Jhelum Sheikupura 95.9 Rawalpindi 95.3 Mianmali Gujrat Lahore 95.2 M.B. Din Toba Tek Singh 95.0 Sialkot Khushab Sargodha Attock 94.9 Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Sialkot 94.4 Bhakkar Kasur 94.4 Chiniot Shekhupura Sargodha 93.6 Nankana Khushab 93.6 Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Jhang Bahawalnagar 92.3 Layyah Mianwali 91.2 Kasur T T Singh Sahiwal 90.9 Pakpattan 90.8 Okara Muzaffargarh Sahiwal Hafizabad 90.7 D.G. Khan Khanewal Okara 90.4 Pakpattan Nankana Sahib 90.0 Vihari Layyah 88.8 Bahawalnagar Faisalabad 88.6 Multan Lodhran Multan 88.2 Jhang 87.9 35 Bhakkar 85.7 Lodhran 84.3 Rajanpur Bahawalpur Vehari 83.8 Bahawalpur 83.6 Chiniot 82.7 Rahimyar Khan Khanewal 82.1 Punjab Female Muzaffargarh 80.0 Participation Rate Rahim Yar Khan 78.8 (June 2015) is 88.9 % Dera Ghazi Khan 73.0 Rajanpur 58.1

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 14 Change in Female Enrolment since November 2014

District Performance % Change since November 2014

Chakwal 97.7 0.2 Gujrat 96.7 0.3 Jhelum 96.7 0.1 Gujranwala 96.7 0.5 Narowal 96.5 -0.1 Mandi Bahauddin 95.9 1.3 Sheikupura 95.9 3.7 Rawalpindi 95.3 1.3 Lahore 95.2 4.1 Toba Tek Singh 95.0 2.1 Attock 94.9 -4.0 Sialkot 94.4 -1.1 Kasur 94.4 2.0 Sargodha 93.6 1.4 Khushab 93.6 3.4 Bahawalnagar 92.3 8.8 Mianwali 91.2 1.8 Sahiwal 90.9 0.9 Pakpattan 90.8 5.0 Hafizabad 90.7 -2.8 Okara 90.4 1.6 Nankana Sahib 90.0 -3.0 Layyah 88.8 0.5 Faisalabad 88.6 -2.4 Multan 88.2 4.9 Jhang 87.9 -0.3 Bhakkar 85.7 -4.1 Lodhran 84.3 3.6 Vehari 83.8 -2.6 Bahawalpur 83.6 0.2 Chiniot 82.7 -1.7 Khanewal 82.1 -0.8 Muzaffargarh 80.0 0.1 Rahim Yar Khan 78.8 5.4 Dera Ghazi Khan 73.0 -6.7 Rajanpur 58.1 -4.6

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey November 2014; June 2015; 15 4 Margin of Error Public – Private Split ( Nov 2011 - Jun 2015)

Public – Private split 5-9 year olds (%),

Public Private

53.4% 54.2% 54.8% 54.3% 54.0% 52.5% 52.9%

46.6% 45.8% 45.2% 45.7% 46.0% 47.5% 47.1%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

Footnote :– Excluding Madrassas

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 16 Public – Private Split ( Nov 2011 - Jun 2015)

Public – Private split, Urban Areas 5-9 year olds (%),

Public Private

29% 31% 30% 31% 30% 33% 33%

71% 69% 70% 69% 70% 67% 67%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15 Public – Private split, Rural Areas 5-9 year olds (%),

64% 64% 65% 65% 65% 61% 62%

36% 36% 35% 35% 35% 39% 38%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

Footnote :– Excluding Madrassas

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 17 Public – Private Split (Jun 2015) District Public – Private split of 5-9 year olds, % June 2015 60%< 50<60% 40-<50% <40%

District Public – Private split

Bahawalnagar 74.2% Chiniot 72.2% Bhakkar 71.2% Attock Pakpattan 68.8% Rawalpindi Rahim Yar Khan 68.7% 66.5% Jhang Chakwal Jhelum Mianwali 66.2% Khushab 65.6% Mianmali Gujrat Hafizabad 65.2% M.B. Din Vehari 63.5% Sialkot Khushab Sargodha Khanewal 63.5% Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Layyah 63.5% Bhakkar Toba Tek Singh 63.4% Chiniot Shekhupura Sahiwal 63.3% Nankana Rajanpur 62.9% Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Jhang Bahawalpur 60.1% Layyah Kasur Nankana Sahib 59.7% T T Singh Gujrat 58.8% Muzaffargarh 58.7% Okara Muzaffargarh Sahiwal Mandi Bahauddin 58.4% D.G. Khan Khanewal Attock 58.3% Pakpattan Lodhran 56.9% Vihari Sargodha 56.8% Bahawalnagar Okara 56.7% Multan Lodhran Chakwal 54.7% Jhelum 52.2% 35 Dera Ghazi Khan 49.5% Multan 49.3% Rajanpur Bahawalpur Kasur 45.8% Faisalabad 45.1% Rawalpindi 44.8% Rahimyar Punjab Public – Private Narowal 42.1% Khan Sheikhupura 41.4% Split (June 2015) is Sialkot 34.6% 52.9 % Public and Gujranwala 32.5% 47.1% Private Lahore 26.8%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 18 Rural – Urban Split ( Nov 2011 - Jun 2015)

Rural – Urban split 5-9 year olds (%),

Urban Rural

30.1% 29.6% 29.8% 30.3% 30.1% 30.4% 29.9%

69.9% 70.4% 70.2% 69.7% 69.9% 69.6% 70.1%

Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 19 Enrolment by District – Urban Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % June 2015 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85%

District Performance

Toba Tek Singh 97.9% Chakwal 97.8% Muzaffargarh 97.4% Attock Kasur 97.4% Rawalpindi Khushab 96.6% Bahawalnagar 96.6% Chakwal Jhelum Sargodha 96.3% Nankana Sahib 95.9% Mianmali Gujrat Sheikhupura 95.7% M.B. Din Lahore 95.7% Sialkot Khushab Sargodha Faisalabad 95.6% Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Gujranwala 95.5% Bhakkar Rawalpindi 95.2% Chiniot Shekhupura Attock 95.1% Nankana Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Narowal 95.1% Jhang Gujrat 95.0% Layyah Kasur Jhang 94.9% T T Singh Layyah 94.9% Jhelum 94.8% Okara Muzaffargarh Sahiwal Mianwali 94.6% D.G. Khan Khanewal Pakpattan Mandi Bahauddin 94.3% Multan 94.1% Vihari Pakpattan 94.0% Bahawalnagar Lodhran Bhakkar 94.0% Multan Sialkot 93.3% Dera Ghazi Khan 93.3% 35 Khanewal 93.2% Rajanpur 92.6% Rajanpur Bahawalpur Okara 92.3% Hafizabad 92.2% Rahimyar Lodhran 92.0% Khan Punjab Urban Rahim Yar Khan 90.8% Vehari 90.4% Participation Rate Bahawalpur 90.3% (June 2015) is 94.7 % Chiniot 89.5% Sahiwal 89.4%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 20 Enrolment by District – Rural Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, % June 2015 95%< 90<95% 85-<90% <85%

District Performance

Chakwal 98.0% Gujrat 97.5% Gujranwala 97.4% Attock Rawalpindi 97.4% Rawalpindi Jhelum 97.2% Narowal 97.0% Chakwal Jhelum Attock 96.9% Sialkot 96.3% Mianmali Gujrat Sheikhupura 95.5% M.B. Din Mandi Bahauddin 95.5% Sialkot Khushab Sargodha Toba Tek Singh 94.9% Gujranwala Narowal Hafizabad Khushab 94.9% Sargodha 93.9% Bhakkar Chiniot Shekhupura Hafizabad 92.9% Nankana Mianwali 92.9% Faisalabad Sahib Lahore Jhang Kasur 92.9% Lahore 92.4% Layyah Kasur T T Singh Bahawalnagar 91.6% Okara 91.0% Okara Muzaffargarh Pakpattan Sahiwal 91.0% D.G. Khan Khanewal Nankana Sahib 90.6% Pakpattan Sahiwal 90.4% Vihari Jhang 90.2% Bahawalnagar Bhakkar 89.3% Multan Lodhran Layyah 89.2% Faisalabad 87.5% 35 Chiniot 87.5% Bahawalpur 86.7% Rajanpur Bahawalpur Vehari 85.4% Multan 85.0% Lodhran 83.6% Rahimyar Khanewal 83.4% Khan Punjab Rural Rahim Yar Khan 80.1% Participation Rate Muzaffargarh 79.6% Dera Ghazi Khan 76.7% (June 2015) is 88.7 % Rajanpur 60.4%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 4% with a 95 % confidence interval 21 Enrolment by District – Urban Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, Males/Females % June 2015

District Performance – Males Performance – Females Khushab 99.2% Khushab 94.0% Toba Tek Singh 99.0% Toba Tek Singh 96.7% Muzaffargarh 98.6% Muzaffargarh 96.3% Mianwali 98.1% Mianwali 91.3% Kasur 97.4% Kasur 97.4% Bahawalnagar 97.3% Bahawalnagar 95.7% Chakwal 97.2% Chakwal 98.4% Attock 97.1% Attock 92.8% Mandi Bahauddin 96.9% Mandi Bahauddin 91.0% Faisalabad 96.2% Faisalabad 94.9% Hafizabad 96.1% Hafizabad 87.7% Gujranwala 95.8% Gujranwala 95.2% Sargodha 95.7% Sargodha 96.7% Rawalpindi 95.6% Rawalpindi 94.7% Layyah 95.5% Layyah 94.0% Nankana Sahib 95.2% Nankana Sahib 96.4% Rajanpur 95.2% Rajanpur 89.8% Bhakkar 95.2% Bhakkar 92.8% Jhang 95.2% Jhang 94.7% Sialkot 95.1% Sialkot 91.6% Sheikhupura 95.0% Sheikhupura 96.5% Narowal 94.7% Narowal 95.4% Jhelum 94.6% Jhelum 95.0% Gujrat 94.5% Gujrat 95.6% Lahore 94.2% Lahore 97.5% Pakpattan 93.9% Pakpattan 94.0% Khanewal 93.3% Khanewal 93.1% Multan 92.7% Multan 95.4% Lodhran 92.7% Lodhran 91.0% Chiniot 92.6% Chiniot 86.1% Okara 92.4% Okara 92.1% Dera Ghazi Khan 92.2% Dera Ghazi Khan 94.7% Bahawalpur 89.8% Bahawalpur 90.7% Vehari 88.3% Vehari 93.1% Rahim Yar Khan 87.5% Rahim Yar Khan 94.3% Sahiwal 86.7% Sahiwal 92.6%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 5% with a 95 % confidence interval 22 Enrolment by District – Rural Areas (Jun 2015) Participation rate of 5-9 year olds, Males/Females % June 2015

District Performance – Males Performance – Females Chakwal 98.5% Chakwal 97.5% Rawalpindi 98.5% Rawalpindi 96.0% Attock 98.1% Attock 95.4% Gujrat 97.9% Gujrat 97.1% Narowal 97.2% Narowal 96.7% Sialkot 96.9% Sialkot 95.7% Jhelum 96.9% Jhelum 97.5% Lahore 96.7% Lahore 87.8% Gujranwala 96.7% Gujranwala 98.1% Khushab 96.4% Khushab 93.4% Sheikhupura 95.4% Sheikhupura 95.6% Sargodha 95.3% Sargodha 92.2% Toba Tek Singh 95.2% Toba Tek Singh 94.7% Mianwali 94.4% Mianwali 91.2% Mandi Bahauddin 94.3% Mandi Bahauddin 96.8% Hafizabad 94.3% Hafizabad 91.6% Jhang 94.1% Jhang 85.8% Bhakkar 93.7% Bhakkar 84.4% Chiniot 92.8% Chiniot 81.9% Bahawalpur 92.1% Bahawalpur 81.2% Kasur 92.1% Kasur 93.6% Nankana Sahib 92.0% Nankana Sahib 89.3% Okara 92.0% Okara 89.9% Pakpattan 91.6% Pakpattan 90.4% Bahawalnagar 91.5% Bahawalnagar 91.7% Faisalabad 90.8% Faisalabad 84.4% Sahiwal 90.1% Sahiwal 90.6% Layyah 90.1% Layyah 88.2% Vehari 88.1% Vehari 82.3% Multan 86.9% Multan 83.1% Khanewal 86.9% Khanewal 79.7% Rahim Yar Khan 84.7% Rahim Yar Khan 75.3% Lodhran 84.0% Lodhran 83.1% Dera Ghazi Khan 82.8% Dera Ghazi Khan 70.2% Muzaffargarh 81.2% Muzaffargarh 77.7% Rajanpur 67.3% Rajanpur 53.3%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 5% with a 95 % confidence interval 23 Households with a higher monthly income are more likely to send their children to school Enrolment Percent Jun 2015 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 Rs 1 – Rs Rs 5,000 – Rs. 10,000 – Rs. 15,000 – Rs. 20,000 – Rs. 25,000 – Rs. 50,000 – Rs. 100,000 Over Rs. 4,999 per Rs. 9,999 Rs. 14,999 Rs. 19,999 Rs. 24,999 Rs. 49,999 Rs. 99,999 – Rs. 200,000 per month per month per month per month per month per month per month 199,999 per month month Monthly Household Income PKR

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey – June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 24 Top three reasons for not enrolling a child in school ( Jun 2015)

Top three reasons for a child not going to school 5-9 year olds, 4 – 16 year olds (%),

Ages 4-16 Ages 5 - 9

21.0% Financial (Prohibitive cost of school uniform and books) 12.9%

10.3% Access (Distance of school from household) 6.0%

10.0% Mindset (Child considered too young for school) 9.3%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 25 Enrolment Trend Lines - ( Nov 2011 – Jun 2015)

Segment A – Consistently performing districts with > 95 % Enrolment in June 2015 5-9 year olds (%),

100.0%

Chakwal 95.0% Gujrat Narowal Attock 90.0% Gujranwala Jhelum Rawalpindi 85.0% Sheikhupura Toba Tek Singh 80.0% Sialkot Khushab Mandi Bahauddin 75.0% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 26 Enrolment Trend Lines - ( Nov 2011 – Jun 2015)

Segment B – Moderate performing districts with 90 < 95% Enrolment in June 2015 5-9 year olds (%),

100.0%

Lahore 95.0% Sargodha Kasur Mianwali 90.0% Hafizabad Bahawalnagar Pakpattan 85.0% Jhang Okara 80.0% Nankana Sahib Faisalabad Sahiwal 75.0% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 27 Enrolment Trend Lines - ( Nov 2011 – Jun 2015)

Segment C – Low performing districts with < 90% Enrolment in June 2015 5-9 year olds (%),

95.0%

90.0% Bhakkar 85.0% Layyah Multan 80.0% Chiniot

75.0% Bahawalpur Vehari 70.0% Khanewal Lodhran 65.0% Rahim Yar Khan 60.0% Muzaffargarh Dera Ghazi Khan 55.0% Rajanpur 50.0% Nov-11 Jun-12 Nov-12 Jun-13 Nov-13 Nov-14 Jun-15

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– November 2011 to June 2015 Margin of Error < 3.1% with a 95 % confidence interval 28 Agenda

Detailed Nielsen analysis

Observations from the field

29 Our approach

Change in enrolment %, 5-9 age group ▪ In order to understand the difference in enrolment between districts, we selected the following set of districts from the Nielsen June 2015 survey : Bahawalnagar 7.0

– 5 districts with increase in enrolment Khushab 5.0 of 3%1 or greater, and Multan 4.2 – 3 control districts with no significant change or decrease in enrolment Rahim yar khan 4.2

▪ DFCs conducted detailed interviews Bahawalpur 3.4 with the EDOs and AEOs in these districts to determine the differences in Khanewal -0.1 enrolment strategies (if any) Sahiwal -0.6

D.G. Khan -4.8

1 Margin of error at district level is 3% SOURCE: Team, Nielsen survey 2014 and 2015 30 Following areas were explored in discussion with district officials

Areas explored

▪ Any specific activities that were used and worked in the enrolment campaign

▪ Any focused strategies for improving enrolment in rural or urban areas

▪ Any focused strategies for improving enrolment for males or females

▪ Any intervention by NGO, community service organisation or external parties

▪ Any extra reward or punishment for teachers imposed by the district for enrolment work

SOURCE: Team 31 Interviews reveal the following set of activities were carried out during the enrolment drive

District officials External parties Teachers

 Began the enrolment drives  NCHD 1 arranged district  Led door-to-door with an inauguration event level meeting of education campaign and made at district and tehsil level officials at regular basis efforts to enrol children  Assigned focal persons at  NCHD provided training to  Collected information on cluster or Markaz level teachers in some districts out of school children  Assigned targets at Tehsil,  UNICEF provided funds to  Engaged with local Markaz and school level teachers to carry out door- community to convince to-door survey in RYK parents  Involved politicians and other notable figures to  Other organisations increase impact printed pamphlets and arranged walks at school  Mobilised school councils in or Markaz level local communities  Followed-up on regular basis  Issued appreciation letter for high performers and show-cause for low performers

1 National commission for human development SOURCE: Survey results 32 With the exception of Rahim Yar Khan where teachers were paid Rs 5/house by UNICEF to identify 1 out of school children, and assignment of teachers to non-functional schools in Bahawalpur, the set of activities carried out during the enrolment drive are largely the same as previous years, for districts showing an increase and for control districts

1 Despite identification, enrolment remained a challenge SOURCE: Team, survey results 33 EDO interview details (1/2)

Question Khushab Bahawalnag R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan -ar

Enrolment % +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% change

Specific list  District level  Show-cause  No special  Cluster and  Targets were  In every UC a  District and  Teachers have of activities inauguration notice for intervention school wise given at school focal person was Division level been sensitized ceremony, teachers who did other than target level based on made collecting inauguration to effectively performed  Tehsil level not meet UNICEF  The only thing last year survey new data, ceremony, execute the during the seminars. enrolment target providing funds new was that the  Enrolment following up with chaired by the campaign campaign  Banners near  Follow-up with to teachers for teachers were walks were old data and DCO and the  NGOs and every school. Head Teachers door-to-door reminded that conducted in all arranging events Commissioner NCHD have  Publicity by and parents. survey enrolment is part the Tehsils  Walks were  Banners in been asked to AEOs and  Awareness  Inauguration of their contract  MNAs, MPAs organized and schools and support teachers by through print event at district  Punjab Barho and NGOs were NGO/Ullema offices  Ceremonies at door-to-door media level with DCO, Punjab also involved in the also helped in  District and district level visits  Enrolment MNAs and played a vital process. this process school wise  Awareness rallies in MPAs as part of role  Local  MNAs were targets through print Marakaz and the event.  DCO and MNA communities and also invited but  Daily reporting media meetings with  Door-to-door played a small school Councils none of enrolment  AEOs local community. campaign role were sensitized. participated. number on daily regularly  Involved MPAs focused on  Weekly  Enrolment basis contacted and met with the enrolling children meetings of data was verified influential people local to school officials were by literacy for support in Namabardaars conducted and schools, focal  Sent teachers progress was person and DEO to areas where tracked schools were non-functional Did you try  We used the  No specific  No, we did not  Nothing was  No specific  Separate  A similar  Overall same anything same strategy strategy have any different strategy targets for male strategy was strategy was targeted between them, and female adopted for both adopted. different for strategy. same DEOs, and males and females or instructions similarly for male females. males? and female (specific AEOs strategies)

SOURCE: Survey results 34 EDO interview details (2/2)

Question Khushab Bahawalnag R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan -ar

Enrolment % +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% change

Did private  Role of private  DEO  Private school  They provided  Private  They provided  They  Private schools play schools is elementary male associations some data schools claim officials with supported the schools provided limited. They held meeting were called for regarding they have enrolment data. education officials with any role in campaign for with private support. enrolment of registered more officials. enrolment data, enrolment themselves. school children in enrolment than and held campaign? association for private schools. compared to meetings. support previous years. What do you  Nothing can  It is increasing  Yes, the  Teachers  Yes it is  It has  Yes,  Overall the think about be confirmed at and number is enrolment is were asked to increasing increased. significantly. enrollment the moment, but greater in definitely attract people significantly remained stable enrolment? it might have government increasing. by telling them and neither Has the increased. schools. However, the the government increased nor enrolment main challenge school decreased increased? is not enrolling teachers are drastically. students, it's new and  We have controlling the qualified. controlled fake dropout rate.  Fake enrolment in our enrolment was registers also controlled.  Nothing definite about results

SOURCE: Survey results 35 AEO interview details (1/2)

Question Khushab Bahawalnag R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan -ar

Enrolment % +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% change

How did you  We were  We were  A target of  Public  Nothing new.  Banners in  Distributed  Survey is execute the assigned a assigned targets 3800 students meetings by Routine schools, walks markaz wise carried out and target of 10 based on the were assigned headmaster, SC banners, walks, and seminars at targets among OSC list is enrolment students per last year survey.  Targets were and numberdar meetings with UC level teachers; compiled. campaign? teacher per  We used to then cascaded  Ullema urged local  Influentials  Accounted for  After data (list of Markaz. check enrolment down to to encourage the communities and numberdars population this collection, activities)  Teachers numbers on teachers people of society took part in the time - higher teachers contact conducted door- daily basis.  School council  Survey events targets for high the parents of to-door meetings were children from the  Ulemas were population areas children for campaign regularly held previous years also approached and vice versa enrollment  Teachers  We focused on for OSC were  Aghai Mohims  Also  We call contacted younger siblings contacted with the help of monitored the members of parents of of children  Meeting NGOs door-to-door school council to children who already going to parents of campaigns and convince parents were absent for schools children in the enrolment 3 days  Banners were community. figures. placed in school Any major  No NGOs or  No NGOs or  No NGOs  STAR  No NGOs  NCHD  No NGOs  NCHD and intervention other parties other parties were involved in engaged in a were involved awareness were involved Sudhar working were involved. were involved in running the media/radio/new events; they but they have a by NGO or my Markaz but enrolment spapers worked very limited impact in other major some were campaign.  Awaz closely with the enrolling out of community active in other foundation & schools school children mobilization Markaz SPO also throughout the created process ? awareness .  Teacher were trained by the NGO, they trained SC, how to get parents involvement

SOURCE: Survey results 36 AEO interview details (2/2)

Question Khushab Bahawalnag R.Y. Khan Multan Bahawalpur Khanewal Sahiwal D.G. Khan -ar

Enrolment % +5.0% +7.0% +4.2% +4.2% +3.4% -0.1% -0.6% -4.8% change

What role  Teachers do  Teachers  The teachers  Teachers  Teachers do  Teacher-wise  Each teacher  Teacher did teachers all the work, we played a carried out the focused more on have a major targets were was assigned compiles the out just guide them. significant role. door-to-door enrolling role to play in given and his/her own of school play in the  They involved Most of the activity students, the enrolment teachers tried to specific target to children data enrolment local influencers teachers have  They compared to campaign. meet these achieve.  Teacher tries campaign? and also used met the target mobilized the collecting data. targets to enrol out of their personal school council  Meetings and school children contacts to meetings. social convince parents mobilizations by teachers.

Any  Appreciation  Just  No reward for  Those who  Few teachers  They have  No such  No reward for penalties or letters to the appreciated outperformers could not meet were penalized been pushed incentive/penalty high outperformers. teachers  Show cause the target have for not achieving and asked to has been performance rewards for  Warnings, verbally. notices for low been asked to the targets but meet the targets imposed so far  Penalties for nd teachers for show cause etc. performers meet the target no rewards were in 2 phase although there is low performance doing for defaulters,  Schools with in second phase given  Appreciation a plan to give enrolment but there hasn't enrolment less  Letter of letter for those out certificates to been any such than 30 have appreciation for who completed teachers who work or for case in my been given those who met the targets. have met their increasing experience. warning notice, the targets targets, once the enrolment in and asked to summer school? increase vacations end. enrolment

SOURCE: Survey results 37 Backup

38 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Attock

5-9 year olds (%), PARTICIPATION RATE LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC (5 -9) DISTRICT ATTOCK 0.11% 40.26% 56.23% 96.59% TEHSIL ATTOCK 0.00% 22.84% 68.53% 91.37% TEHSIL FATEH JANG 0.00% 53.57% 44.90% 98.47% TEHSIL 0.00% 31.40% 68.60% 100.00% TEHSIL JAND 0.00% 34.42% 64.29% 98.70% TEHSIL PINDI GHEB 0.83% 39.67% 58.68% 99.17% CITY CITIES 0.00% 54.05% 41.08% 95.14% CITY ATTOCK MC 0.00% 70.59% 23.53% 94.12% CITY FATEH JANG MC 0.00% 35.29% 58.82% 94.12% GHUR GHUSHTI CITY 0.00% 26.32% 68.42% 94.74% TC CITY HASAN ABDAL MC0.00% 39.29% 46.43% 85.71% CITY HAZRO MC 0.00% 58.33% 41.67% 100.00% CITY JAND TC 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% CITY KAMRA CANTT. 0.00% 70.97% 29.03% 100.00% CITY PINDI GHEB TC 0.00% 12.50% 87.50% 100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 39 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Bahawalnagar

5-9 year olds (%), PARTICIPATION RATE LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC ( 5 -9) DISTRICT BAHAWALNAGAR 3.61% 22.91% 65.87% 92.39% TEHSIL 118 0.94% 14.15% 78.30% 93.40% 3.07% 18.09% 69.28% 90.44% TEHSIL TEHSIL CHISHTIAN TEHSIL 7.63% 20.61% 64.12% 92.37%

TEHSIL HAROONABAD TEHSIL 1.60% 25.53% 64.89% 92.02%

TEHSIL MINCHINABAD TEHSIL 5.84% 18.30% 67.37% 91.51% CITY CITIES 0.97% 41.75% 53.88% 96.60% CITY BAHAWALNAGAR MC 1.47% 30.88% 63.24% 95.59% CITY CHISHTIAN MC 2.17% 50.00% 45.65% 97.83% CITY DONGA BONGA TC 0.00% 36.84% 63.16% 100.00% CITY TC 0.00% 57.89% 42.11% 100.00% CITY FORTABBAS TC 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% CITY HAROONABAD MC 0.00% 41.18% 50.00% 91.18%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 40 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Bahawalpur

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR 7.88% 31.83% 47.89% 87.60% TEHSIL AHMADPUR EAST TEHSIL 11.23% 27.15% 43.86% 82.25% TEHSIL BAHAWALPUR TEHSIL 6.37% 36.27% 46.08% 88.73% TEHSIL TEHSIL 5.59% 37.76% 50.35% 93.71% TEHSIL KHAIRPUR TAMEWALI TEHSIL 27.03% 12.16% 37.84% 77.03% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.63% 25.16% 67.30% 93.08% CITY CITIES 5.02% 39.81% 45.45%90.28% CITY AHMADPUR EAST MC 0.00% 41.67% 50.00% 91.67% CITY BAHAWALPUR M.CORP. 7.45% 36.17% 46.28% 89.89% CITY HASILPUR MC 0.00% 39.47% 50.00%89.47% CITY KHAIRPUR TAMEWALI TC 0.00% 56.25% 37.50% 93.75% CITY SHARIF TC 16.67% 41.67% 25.00% 83.33% CITY YAZMAN MC 0.00% 58.82% 35.29%94.12%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 41 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Bhakkar

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT BHAKKAR 0.44% 25.79% 63.73%89.96% TEHSIL 0.22% 21.34% 65.30% 86.85% TEHSIL DARYA KHAN TEHSIL 1.03% 19.07% 69.07% 89.18% TEHSIL KALUR KOT TEHSIL 0.75% 19.55% 71.43% 91.73% TEHSIL MANKERA TEHSIL 0.56% 14.53% 78.77% 93.85% CITY CITIES 0.00% 63.25% 30.72%93.98% CITY BHAKKAR MC 0.00% 76.92% 21.54%98.46% CITY DARYA KHAN TC 0.00% 56.00% 34.00%90.00% CITY DULLEWALA TC 0.00% 50.00% 35.00%85.00% CITY KALUR KOT TC 0.00% 68.75% 31.25%100.00% CITY MANKERA TC 0.00% 40.00% 53.33%93.33%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 42 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Chakwal

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT CHAKWAL 0.11% 44.31% 53.56%97.98%

TEHSIL CHAKWAL TEHSIL 0.23% 39.21% 58.70% 98.14%

TEHSIL CHOA SAIDAN SHAH TEHSIL 0.00% 50.00% 48.57% 98.57%

TEHSIL TALA GANG TEHSIL 0.00% 47.71% 50.00% 97.71%

CITY CITIES 0.00% 50.00% 47.76%97.76%

CITY CHAKWAL MC 0.00% 37.93% 60.92%98.85%

CITY TALA GANG MC 0.00% 72.34% 23.40%95.74%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 43 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Chiniot

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT CHINIOT 1.08% 24.10% 62.72% 87.91%

TEHSIL 1.04% 18.92% 67.57% 87.53%

CITY CITIES 1.27% 45.15% 43.04% 89.45%

CITY CHINIOT MC 1.76% 47.65% 38.82% 88.24%

CITY TC 0.00% 38.81% 53.73% 92.54%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 44 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - DG Khan

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT DG KHAN 3.85% 37.89% 37.09%78.84% TEHSIL DE-EXCLUDED 0.91% 21.82% 37.27%60.00% TEHSIL 6.27% 31.20% 38.48% 75.95% TEHSIL 1.75% 39.15% 41.65%82.54% CITY CITIES 1.12% 70.79% 21.35%93.26% CITY DERA GHAZI KHAN MC 1.59% 71.43% 20.63% 93.65% CITY TAUNSA TC 0.00% 69.23% 23.08%92.31%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 45 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Faisalabad

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT FAISALABAD 0.18% 49.82% 40.89% 90.89% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% TEHSIL FAISALABAD CITY TEHSIL 0.00% 33.33% 61.11% 94.44% TEHSIL FAISALABAD SADAR TEHSIL 0.00% 54.49% 39.89% 94.38% TEHSIL JARANWALA TEHSIL 0.00% 17.99% 60.43% 78.42% TEHSIL SAMMUNDRI TEHSIL 0.00% 50.00% 48.61% 98.61% TEHSIL TANDLIAN WALA TEHSIL 0.53% 23.53% 55.61% 79.68% CITY CITIES 0.22% 69.08% 26.32%95.61% CITY CHAK JHUMRA TC 0.00% 64.00% 32.00% 96.00% CITY FAISALABAD M.CORP. 0.29% 67.62% 28.08% 95.99% CITY JARANWALA MC 0.00% 78.13% 9.38% 87.50% CITY MAMOON KANJAN TC 0.00% 56.52% 39.13% 95.65% CITY SUMMUNDRI MC 0.00% 92.59% 7.41% 100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 46 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Gujranwala

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT GUJRANWALA 0.48% 64.75% 31.23%96.46% TEHSIL GUJRANWALA TEHSIL 0.54% 69.73% 25.95% 96.22% TEHSIL TEHSIL 2.75% 47.71% 47.71%98.17% TEHSIL NOWSHERA VIRKAN TEHSIL 0.00% 40.41% 56.16% 96.58% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 50.53% 49.47%100.00% CITY CITIES 0.20% 76.23% 19.06%95.48% CITY ALIPUR CHATTA TC 0.00% 82.35% 17.65%100.00% CITY DHONKAL TC 0.00% 83.33% 0.00% 83.33% CITY GHAKKHAR TC 0.00% 43.75% 50.00%93.75% CITY GUJRANWALA M.CORP 0.29% 78.24% 17.35%95.88% CITY KAMOKE MC 0.00% 77.36% 18.87%96.23% CITY LUDHEWALA TC 0.00% 93.75% 0.00% 93.75% CITY NOWSHERA VIRKAN TC 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 100.00% CITY WAZIRABAD MC 0.00% 51.72% 41.38%93.10%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 47 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Gujrat

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT GUJRAT 0.58% 39.65% 56.59%96.82% TEHSIL 0.80% 34.48% 61.80%97.08% TEHSIL 0.00% 31.25% 66.12%97.37% TEHSIL SARAI ALAMGIR TEHSIL 0.00% 29.49% 70.51% 100.00% CITY CITIES 1.07% 58.57% 35.36%95.00% CITY GUJRAT MC 1.54% 59.23% 34.62%95.38% CITY JALALPUR JATTAN MC 0.00% 38.46% 50.00% 88.46% CITY KHARIAN 0.00% 56.76% 35.14%91.89% CITY KUNJAH TC 0.00% 56.00% 36.00%92.00% CITY LALA MUSA MC 0.00% 75.86% 24.14%100.00% CITY SARAI ALAMGIR MC 3.03% 60.61% 36.36%100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 48 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Hafizabad

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT HAFIZABAD 1.00% 31.93% 59.76%92.70% TEHSIL 0.40% 25.25% 66.87%92.53% TEHSIL PINDI BHATTIAN TEHSIL 1.95% 24.68% 66.88% 93.51% CITY CITIES 1.02% 50.85% 40.27%92.15% CITY HAFIZABAD MC 0.00% 71.79% 24.36%96.15% CITY KALEKE TC 2.27% 34.09% 47.73%84.09% CITY PINDI BHATTIAN TC 0.00% 20.00% 68.00%88.00% CITY SUKHEKE TC 4.65% 27.91% 58.14%90.70%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 49 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Jhelum

5-9 year olds (%), LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT JHELUM 0.61% 45.83% 50.00%96.44% TEHSIL JHELUM TEHSIL 0.00% 43.88% 53.96%97.84% TEHSIL PIND DADAN KHAN TEHSIL 0.38% 38.85% 57.31% 96.54% TEHSIL SOHAWA TEHSIL 0.00% 35.51% 61.59%97.10% CITY CITIES 1.62% 58.12% 35.06%94.81% CITY DINA MC 6.52% 52.17% 41.30%100.00% CITY JEHLUM 1.09% 62.30% 31.69%95.08% CITY KHEWRA TC 0.00% 46.15% 42.31%88.46% CITY PIND DADAN KHAN TC 0.00% 37.04% 48.15% 85.19% CITY SOHAWA TC 0.00% 73.08% 26.92%100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 50 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Jhang

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT JHANG 0.33% 30.43% 60.53%91.29% TEHSIL 0.54% 21.30% 67.69%89.53% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 27.73% 63.47% 91.20% CITY CITIES 0.36% 52.35% 42.24%94.95% CITY BAGH TC 0.00% 42.22% 57.78%100.00% CITY TC 0.00% 58.33% 27.78% 86.11% CITY JHANG MC 0.61% 58.54% 36.59%95.73% CITY SHORKOT 0.00% 28.13% 65.63%93.75%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 51 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Kasur

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT KASUR 1.67% 49.96% 42.16%93.78% TEHSIL TEHSIL 2.87% 40.50% 49.46% 92.83% TEHSIL 0.79% 48.55% 42.74%92.08% TEHSIL TEHSIL 1.19% 46.83% 46.03% 94.05% CITY CITIES 2.16% 67.10% 28.14%97.40% CITY CHUNIAN TC 0.00% 51.52% 42.42%93.94% CITY KASUR MC 1.01% 79.80% 19.19%100.00% CITY TC 0.00% 61.29% 35.48% 96.77% CITY PATTOKI MC 0.00% 75.00% 21.43%96.43% CITY TC 10.00% 47.50% 37.50%95.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 52 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Khanewal

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT KHANEWAL 1.98% 30.32% 52.71%85.01% TEHSIL 5.00% 33.13% 53.13% 91.25% TEHSIL 3.24% 27.84% 51.08% 82.16% TEHSIL 0.71% 21.43% 61.43% 83.57% TEHSIL 0.33% 26.33% 54.00% 80.67% CITY CITIES 0.52% 45.55% 47.12%93.19% CITY ABDUL HAKIM TC 4.55% 45.45% 50.00%100.00% CITY KABIRWALA TC 0.00% 56.00% 44.00%100.00% CITY KHANEWAL MC 0.00% 49.30% 42.25%91.55% CITY MIAN CHANNU MC 0.00% 33.33% 40.74%74.07% CITY SARAI SIDHU TC 0.00% 52.63% 47.37%100.00% CITY TULAMBA TC 0.00% 33.33% 66.67%100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 53 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Khushab

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT KHUSHAB 0.30% 32.73% 62.31%95.34% TEHSIL 0.00% 30.83% 64.95%95.78% TEHSIL NOORPUR TEHSIL 1.46% 17.56% 73.66%92.68% CITY CITIES 0.00% 50.21% 46.41%96.62% CITY TC 0.00% 27.59% 70.69%98.28% CITY JAUHRABAD TC 0.00% 54.55% 45.45%100.00% CITY KHUSHAB MC 0.00% 74.12% 22.35%96.47% CITY MITHA TIWANA MC 0.00% 25.93% 62.96%88.89% CITY NOORPUR THAL TC 0.00% 41.18% 52.94%94.12% CITY NOWSHERA TC 0.00% 47.06% 52.94%100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 54 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Lahore

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT LAHORE 0.77% 68.94% 25.22%94.92% TEHSIL LAHORE CANTT TEHSIL 0.00% 52.21% 38.94% 91.15% TEHSIL LAHORE CITY TEHSIL 1.63% 56.91% 34.96% 93.50% CITY CITIES 0.74% 73.11% 21.81%95.66% CITY KAHNA NAU TC 0.00% 76.92% 19.23%96.15% CITY LAHORE M.CORP. 0.79% 73.85% 20.89%95.53% CITY RAIWIND TC 0.00% 40.00% 60.00%100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 55 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Layyah

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT LAYYAH 0.23% 32.74% 56.90%89.87% TEHSIL CHOUBARA TEHSIL 0.61% 20.25% 67.48% 88.34% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 30.67% 60.80% 91.47% TEHSIL 0.17% 29.54% 58.23%87.95% CITY CITIES 0.64% 62.82% 31.41%94.87% CITY MC 0.00% 78.13% 18.75%96.88% CITY TC 0.00% 82.22% 17.78%100.00% CITY LEIAH MC 1.27% 45.57% 44.30%91.14%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 56 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Lodhran

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT LODHRAN 8.64% 32.85% 43.41%84.89% TEHSIL 5.28% 34.51% 50.35% 90.14% TEHSIL 16.17% 26.81% 34.89% 77.87% TEHSIL 9.84% 28.67% 44.21%82.73% CITY CITIES 1.01% 49.75% 41.21%91.96% CITY DUNYAPUR TC 0.00% 49.06% 39.62%88.68% CITY KAHROR PACCA TC 2.90% 40.58% 47.83%91.30% CITY LODHRAN MC 0.00% 58.44% 36.36%94.81%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 57 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Mandi Bahauddin

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT MANDI BAHAUDDIN 0.38% 39.52% 55.38% 95.29% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 46.03% 47.70% 93.72% TEHSIL 0.68% 37.50% 56.76% 94.93% CITY TEHSIL 0.30% 30.51% 66.47%97.28% CITY CITIES 0.57% 51.15% 42.53%94.25% CITY MANDI BAHUDDIN MC 0.96% 59.62% 33.65% 94.23% CITY PHALIA TC 0.00% 35.29% 55.88%91.18% CITY TC 0.00% 41.67% 55.56%97.22%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 58 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Mianwali

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT MIANWALI 0.49% 31.34% 61.41%93.24% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 20.00% 73.55% 93.55% TEHSIL MIANWALI TEHSIL 1.26% 29.90% 61.31% 92.46% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 23.14% 69.87%93.01% TEHSIL TARAG QH 0.00% 52.94% 41.18%94.12% CITY CITIES 0.00% 48.65% 45.95%94.59% CITY TC 0.00% 66.67% 20.83%87.50% CITY KAMAR MASHANI TC 0.00% 55.32% 40.43% 95.74% CITY LIAQUATABAD TC 0.00% 41.46% 58.54%100.00% CITY MIANWALI MC 0.00% 38.37% 56.98%95.35%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 59 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Multan

5-9 year olds (%),

MADRAS LEVEL TITLE PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) AH DISTRICT MULTAN 3.75% 43.05% 41.93%88.74% TEHSIL TEHSIL 5.52% 8.59% 62.58% 76.69% TEHSIL MULTAN CITY TEHSIL 4.51% 38.35% 45.11% 87.97% TEHSIL MULTAN SADDAR TEHSIL 5.90% 26.55% 53.69% 86.14% TEHSIL TEHSIL 7.55% 58.49% 24.53% 90.57% CITY CITIES 0.78% 63.01% 30.33%94.13% CITY MULTAN M.CORP. 0.85% 63.62% 30.00%94.47% CITY QADIRPUR RAN TC 0.00% 66.67% 26.67% 93.33% CITY SHUJABAD MC 0.00% 50.00% 38.46%88.46%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 60 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Muzaffargarh

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT MUZZAFARGARGH 4.86% 31.66% 45.07% 81.59% TEHSIL 0.53% 38.42% 37.37%76.32% TEHSIL JATOI TEHSIL 11.52% 29.84% 36.13%77.49% TEHSIL KOT ADDU TEHSIL 4.95% 28.65% 51.04%84.64% TEHSIL 5.25% 21.92% 50.23% 77.40% CITY CITIES 0.65% 60.65% 36.13%97.42% CITY JATOI TC 0.00% 81.48% 18.52%100.00% CITY KHANGARH TC 2.94% 50.00% 44.12%97.06% CITY KOT ADDU MC 0.00% 54.90% 41.18%96.08% CITY MUZAFFARGARH MC 0.00% 62.79% 34.88%97.67%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 61 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Nankana Sahib

5-9 year olds (%),

MADRAS LEVEL TITLE PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) AH

DISTRICT NANKANA SAHIB 0.70% 36.39% 54.01% 91.10%

TEHSIL NANKANA SAHIB TEHSIL 0.76% 35.11% 54.77% 90.65%

CITY CITIES 0.00% 50.00% 45.92% 95.92%

CITY NANKANA SAHIB MC 0.00% 54.35% 41.30% 95.65%

CITY WARBURTON TC 0.00% 46.15% 50.00%96.15%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 62 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Narowal

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT NAROWAL 0.16% 55.94% 40.66%96.77% TEHSIL NAROWAL TEHSIL 0.00% 48.93% 46.80% 95.73% TEHSIL SHAKARGARH TEHSIL 0.33% 62.00% 35.67% 98.00% CITY CITIES 0.00% 55.74% 39.34%95.08% CITY NAROWAL MC 0.00% 57.45% 40.43%97.87% CITY QILA SOBHA SINGH TC 0.00% 35.48% 48.39% 83.87% CITY SHAKARGARH MC 0.00% 68.18% 31.82%100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 63 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Okara

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT OKARA 1.13% 39.05% 51.09%91.27% TEHSIL DEPALPUR 0.70% 27.92% 61.43%90.05% TEHSIL 1.23% 41.80% 49.18%92.21% TEHSIL RENALA KHURD TEHSIL 0.00% 41.89% 50.68% 92.57% CITY CITIES 2.57% 58.46% 31.25%92.28% CITY BASIRPUR TC 2.86% 57.14% 34.29%94.29% CITY LAKHA WASAWEWALA TC 0.00% 57.89% 34.21% 92.11% CITY HUJRA SHAH MUQEEM TC 6.38% 51.06% 40.43% 97.87% CITY OKARA MC 2.56% 64.10% 22.22%88.89% CITY SADDAR GOGERA TC 0.00% 51.43% 42.86%94.29%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 64 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Pakpattan

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT PAKPATTAN 2.09% 27.84% 61.37%91.30%

TEHSIL ARIF WALA TEHSIL 2.21% 21.18% 69.24% 92.63%

TEHSIL PAKPATTAN TEHSIL 1.92% 23.65% 63.65% 89.23%

CITY CITIES 2.26% 71.43% 20.30%93.98%

CITY ARIF WALA MC 0.00% 70.21% 27.66%97.87%

CITY PAKPATTAN MC 3.49% 72.09% 16.28%91.86%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 65 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Rahimyar Khan

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT RAHIMYAR KHAN 3.85% 24.46% 53.77%82.08% TEHSIL KHANPUR TEHSIL 5.85% 16.59% 60.00%82.44% TEHSIL LIAQUAT PUR TEHSIL 6.09% 14.34% 62.01% 82.44% TEHSIL 3.66% 17.75% 56.06% 77.46% TEHSIL 3.11% 23.53% 52.94%79.58% CITY CITIES 0.80% 52.80% 37.20%90.80% CITY KHANPUR MC 1.64% 57.38% 31.15%90.16% CITY KOT SAMABA TC 0.00% 71.88% 28.13%100.00% CITY LIAQUAT PUR TC 0.00% 37.50% 46.88%84.38% CITY RAHIM YAR KHAN MC 1.06% 51.06% 36.17%88.30% CITY ZAHIRPUR TC 0.00% 45.16% 51.61%96.77%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 66 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Rajanpur

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT RAJANPUR 4.17% 22.43% 38.07%64.67% TEHSIL DE-EXCLUDED 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TEHSIL TEHSIL 4.08% 20.66% 40.69% 65.43% TEHSIL 7.33% 21.33% 41.00% 69.67% TEHSIL TEHSIL 3.76% 4.23% 30.99%38.97% CITY CITIES 0.99% 53.96% 37.62%92.57% CITY FAZILPUR TC 1.89% 58.49% 20.75%81.13% CITY JAMPUR MC 1.37% 47.95% 46.58%95.89% CITY KOT MITHAN TC 0.00% 61.90% 38.10%100.00% CITY RAJANPUR MC 0.00% 54.55% 41.82%96.36%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 67 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Rawalpindi

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT RAWALPINDI 0.92% 52.61% 42.68%96.21% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.76% 53.79% 45.45% 100.00% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 51.61% 48.39% 100.00% TEHSIL KOTLI SATTIAN TEHSIL 2.63% 42.11% 52.63% 97.37% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 65.38% 34.62% 100.00% TEHSIL 0.00% 47.13% 45.86% 92.99% TEHSIL TAXILA TEHSIL 0.00% 19.05% 80.95%100.00% CITY CITIES 1.35% 56.92% 36.92%95.19% CITY GUJAR KHAN 0.00% 61.90% 38.10%100.00% CITY JEHLUM 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% CITY KAHUTA 4.17% 66.67% 25.00%95.83% CITY RWP/ISB 1.43% 58.10% 35.71%95.24% CITY WAH CANTT 0.00% 40.74% 51.85%92.59%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 68 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Sahiwal

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT SAHIWAL 1.06% 32.75% 56.43%90.23%

TEHSIL 119 1.14% 28.31% 58.45%87.90%

TEHSIL 0.91% 29.43% 61.97% 92.32%

CITY CITIES 1.32% 57.62% 30.46%89.40%

CITY CHICHAWATNI MC 0.00% 51.85% 33.33%85.19%

CITY KAMIR TC 3.23% 45.16% 29.03%77.42%

CITY SAHIWAL MC 1.08% 63.44% 30.11%94.62%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 69 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Sargodha

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT SARGODHA 0.68% 40.53% 53.32%94.53% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 46.39% 46.99% 93.37% TEHSIL SAHIWAL TEHSIL 0.00% 30.17% 65.52% 95.69% TEHSIL 2.54% 28.81% 61.44% 92.80% TEHSIL SHAHPUR TEHSIL 0.00% 29.82% 63.16% 92.98% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 34.96% 60.98% 95.93% CITY CITIES 0.37% 58.74% 37.17%96.28% CITY BHALWAL MC 0.00% 76.00% 24.00%100.00% CITY MIANI TC 0.00% 37.04% 59.26%96.30% CITY SAHIWAL TC 0.00% 42.31% 50.00%92.31% CITY SARGODHA 0.62% 60.87% 34.16%95.65% CITY SILLANWALI TC 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%100.00%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 70 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Sheikhupura

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT SHEIKUPURA 0.46% 55.71% 39.41%95.58% TEHSIL FEROZEWALA 0.65% 43.04% 53.07%96.76% TEHSIL SAFDARABAD TEHSIL 0.82% 54.92% 41.80% 97.54% TEHSIL 0.30% 47.58% 45.76% 93.64% CITY CITIES 0.31% 76.31% 19.08%95.69% CITY FEROZEWALA TC 2.56% 71.79% 15.38%89.74% CITY KOT ABDUL MALIK TC 0.00% 93.94% 3.03% 96.97% CITY MC 0.00% 87.18% 10.26%97.44% CITY NARANG TC 0.00% 48.39% 51.61%100.00% CITY SAFDARABAD TC 0.00% 80.77% 15.38%96.15% CITY SANGLA HILL MC 0.00% 76.92% 19.23%96.15% CITY SHAH KOT TC 0.00% 59.26% 33.33%92.59% CITY SHEIKHUPURA MC 0.00% 79.81% 16.35%96.15%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 71 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Sialkot

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9) DISTRICT SIALKOT 0.55% 62.01% 32.88%95.43% TEHSIL 0.00% 55.06% 40.89%95.95% TEHSIL 0.47% 52.36% 44.34%97.17% TEHSIL 0.33% 70.03% 25.73%96.09% CITY CITIES 1.22% 65.96% 26.14%93.31% CITY DASKA MC 0.00% 55.56% 35.19%90.74% CITY JAMKE CHEEMA TC 0.00% 62.50% 33.33%95.83% CITY PASRUR MC 4.35% 26.09% 65.22%95.65% CITY SAMBRIAL MC 0.00% 60.00% 36.67%96.67% CITY SIALKOT M.CORPORATION 1.52% 74.75% 16.67% 92.93%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 72 Backup Sub-district Level Data on Enrolment - Toba Tek Singh

5-9 year olds (%),

LEVEL TITLE MADRASAH PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RATE ( 5 -9)

DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGH 0.27% 34.82% 60.35% 95.44% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.00% 32.33% 64.66%96.98% TEHSIL TEHSIL 0.28% 28.77% 64.67% 93.73% TEHSIL TOBA TEK SINGH TEHSIL 0.31% 24.46% 70.03% 94.80% CITY CITIES 0.53% 67.38% 29.95%97.86% CITY GOJRA MC 0.00% 75.31% 22.22%97.53% CITY KAMALIA MC 0.00% 60.71% 37.50%98.21% CITY TC 0.00% 45.45% 54.55%100.00% CITY TOBA TEK SINGH MC 3.57% 75.00% 17.86% 96.43%

SOURCE: Nielsen Household Survey– June 2015 73