baseline survey report - · web viewat d.v.c colony, behind hanuman mandir, hazaribagh...

Baseline Survey Report (Final Draft)Mahila Kisan Sashaktrikaran Pariyojana

National Rural Livelihood Mission

Baseline Report

Prepared By: SHRISTY www.shristy.org

Baseline Survey Report - MKSP

LEGAL STATUS

Name of the Organization

SUPPORT (Society for Upliftment of People with People’s Organization and Rural Technology)

Registered OfficeAt & Po: Mandu, District: Ramgarh – 825316, Jharkhand

Administrative OfficeAt D.V.C Colony, Behind Hanuman Mandir, Hazaribagh District: Hazaribag - 825301, Jharkhand

Registration Registered under Indian Trust Act 1882

Chief Functionary Mr. Bhawani Shankar Gupta

E-mail [email protected], [email protected]

Website www.supportjharkhand.org

SUPPORT 2

http://www.supportjharkhand.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Glossary & Abbreviations..............................................................................................................................5

Background.......................................................................................................................................................7

Poverty Context......................................................................................................................................7

Status of Rural Women in Jharkhand...............................................................................................7

Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Society............................................................................8

National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM)......................................................................................8

Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP)...........................................................................9

Area Profile.............................................................................................................................................10

NGO Profile.............................................................................................................................................11

The Baseline Survey........................................................................................................................................12

Scope of the Study...............................................................................................................................12

Methodology and Sample Design...................................................................................................13

Sampling & Sample Size................................................................................................................13

Analysis & Findings..........................................................................................................................................16

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Survey Household.....................................................16

Socio Characteristics of Household members.............................................................................................18

Migration Pattern........................................................................................................................................20

Income Expenditure pattern of surveyed household..................................................................................21

Occupation details of household.............................................................................................................21

Average Expenditure of household.........................................................................................................22

Land Details.................................................................................................................................................23

Livestock.....................................................................................................................................................26

Asset Ownership.........................................................................................................................................27

Consumption Exigencies.............................................................................................................................27

Debt Pattern................................................................................................................................................29

Savings Habit...............................................................................................................................................31

Women Participation..................................................................................................................................32

Media Exposure..........................................................................................................................................33

Capacity Building of SHG.............................................................................................................................33

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................34

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................36

Annexures.......................................................................................................................................................37

Study Tools..................................................................................................................................................37

SUPPORT 3


List of TablesTable 1: Proposed Sample size for the survey..................................................................................................................13Table 2: Details of the data collected...............................................................................................................................15Table 3: Percentage distribution of Study Sample according to selected Socio-Demographic Characteristics by village type..................................................................................................................................................................................16Table 4: Percentage distribution of household members Study Sample (HH) according to selected Socio-Demographic Characteristics by village type..........................................................................................................................................18Table 5: Count of household members of study sample (HH) according to household migration and wage rate received by village type..................................................................................................................................................................20Table 6: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to occupation level by village type............................21Table 7: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to expenditure pattern yearly basis by village type...22Table 8: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to land ownership by village type.............................23Table 9: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by block and village type according to livestock owned............26Table 10: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type according to vaccination practice for available livestock...........................................................................................................................................................................26Table 11: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type according to type of asset owned....................27Table 12: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type (Treatment & Control) according to availability of food in a day for the members of the family...............................................................................................................27Table 13: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type (Treatment & Control) according to food security............................................................................................................................................................................ 28Table 14: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type (Treatment & Control) according to loaning practice............................................................................................................................................................................29Table 15: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to saving habits and village type (Treatment & Control)............................................................................................................................................................................31Table 16: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to women empowerment characteristics by village type (Treatment & Control).............................................................................................................................................32Table 17: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to media exposure characteristics by village type (Treatment & Control).....................................................................................................................................................33Table 18: Count of Study Sample (HH) according to training attended on different issues by village type (Treatment & Control)............................................................................................................................................................................33

List of Figures

Figure 1: Percentage distribution of ration card types.....................................................................................................18Figure 2: Comparison between job card holder, got work and payment received under MGNREGA..............................19Figure 3: Percentage distribution of work type during migration....................................................................................20Figure 4: Percentage distribution of yearly income of household....................................................................................21Figure 5: Percentage distribution of monthly expenditure by household........................................................................22Figure 6: Distribution with respect to type of land...........................................................................................................23Figure 7: Distribution of source of irrigation....................................................................................................................24Figure 8: Comparison of single, double and triple crop grown.........................................................................................24Figure 9: Distribution of Seasons of cultivation................................................................................................................25Figure 10: Distribution of agriculture technology adopted..............................................................................................25Figure 11: Percentage distribution of inadequate food availability in last 12 months.....................................................28Figure 12: Percentage distribution of frequency of ration received through PDS............................................................29Figure 13: Comparison of loan taken vs. repayment........................................................................................................31

SUPPORT 4


Glossary & Abbreviations

APL Above Poverty Line

AWC Anganwadi Centre

BPL Below Poverty Line

CBO Community Based Organization

CoI Census of India

CV Control Village

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HCR Head Count Ratio

HDI Human Development Index

HH House Hold

HoH Head of Household

ITI Industrial Training Institute

JSLPS Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion society

KCC Kisan Credit Card

LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Generation Act

MKSP Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojna

MoRD Ministry of Rural Development

MoS&PI Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation

MPCE Monthly Per Capita Expenditure

MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index

SUPPORT 5


NRLM National Rural Livelihood Mission

NSDP Net State Domestic Product

NSSO National Sample Survey Organization

NTFP Non Timber Forest Produce

OBC Other Backward Caste

PIA Project Implementing Agency

PRI Panchayati Raj Institution

PTG Primitive Tribe Group

SC Schedule Caste

SGSY Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana

SHG Self Help Group

SRI System of Rice Intensification

ST Schedule Tribe

ToT Training of Trainers

TV Treatment Village

BACKGROUND

SUPPORT 6


Poverty ContextThe State of Jharkhand, the twenty-eighth State of Indian Union, was carved out of Bihar on 15 November 2000. The state is considered as one of the richest in terms of mineral and natural resources but is at the bottom in all indicators of development. Jharkhand known as ‘‘the land of forests’ is rich in natural resources and native history. About three quarters of the state’s 32.9 million people live in rural areas, many in traditional tribal groups. Lying beneath the forests of one of the poorest states in India, with high child under nutrition and anemia among women. Jharkhand is among India’s poorest and less developed States, the rural poverty headcount ratio (HCR) in the State has consistently exceeded the national average1; the rural monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) has remained about 20-25 percent lower than the corresponding all-India figure over the 2004-05 and 2009-10 period; summary human development indicators such as the Human Development Index (HDI) and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) for Jharkhand are unflattering compared to the national average; and, the per capita Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) in the state.The rural poverty situation in Jharkhand manifests itself in myriad ways at the household-level. Among the most significant of these are high levels of malnutrition, ill-health and low levels of literacy. Issues of malnutrition, ill-health and illiteracy at the household-level are more acute with respect to women and children (particularly girl children) and, among the various social groups, the STs, the SCs and the Muslims.Status of Rural Women in JharkhandWomen currently account for about 49 percent of Jharkhand’s rural population (about 48-50 percent across various districts) and the current rural female population in the State is about 1.2 crore (about 49 percent of the total rural population) (CoI, 2011). This includes about 69 lakh rural working age females (between 15-59 years of age) and about 30 lakh rural female youth (between 20-34 years of age) (NSSO, MoS&PI, GoI 2011). Rain-fed agriculture has traditionally been the core of livelihoods for poor families in rural Jharkhand, supplemented in varying degrees by small livestock rearing, handicrafts, wages and hunting and gathering.

1 The rural poverty HCR estimates over the years have been made according to varying methodologies and approaches and do not lend themselves to systematic trend analyses.

SUPPORT 7


As the economic profile of tribal women of Jharkhand has remained negative so far, it certainly creates a need to strengthen the link between their political status and the development process more firmly.Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion SocietyJharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Society (JSLPS) was formed as an autonomous society in the year 2009 within the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. The society is created to serve as a special purpose vehicle for smooth implementation of poverty reduction schemes and programmes in the state. Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Society (JSLPS) has been designated by the State Government to implement the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) in Jharkhand in the September 2011. The JSLPS has initiated the NRLM activity in the financial year 2012-13.

National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM)Aajeevika or the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) was launched by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of India in June 2011. Aided in part through investment support by the World Bank, the Mission aims at creating efficient and effective institutional platforms of the rural poor enabling them to increase household income through sustainable livelihood enhancements and improved access to financial services.NRLM has set out with an agenda to cover 7 Crore rural poor households, across 600 districts, 6000 blocks, 2.5 lakh Gram Panchayats and 6 lakh villages in the country through self-managed Self Help Groups (SHGs) and federated institutions and support them for livelihoods collectives in a period of 8-10 years. NRLM implementation is in a Mission Mode. This enables (a) shift from the present allocation based strategy to a demand driven strategy enabling the states to formulate their own livelihoods-based poverty reduction action plans, (b) focus on targets, outcomes and time bound delivery, (c) continuous capacity building, imparting requisite skills and creating linkages with livelihoods opportunities for the poor, including those emerging in the organized sector, and (d) monitoring against targets of poverty outcomes.

SUPPORT 8


Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP)Rural women form the most productive work force in the economy of majority of the developing nations including India. Agriculture, the single largest production endeavor in India, contributing to 16% of the GDP is increasingly becoming a female activity. Agriculture sector employs 80% of all economically active women; they comprise 33% of the agricultural labour force and 48% of self-employed farmers. About 18% of the farm families in India, according to NSSO Reports are reported to be headed by women. Beyond the conventional market – oriented, narrower definition of ‘productive workers’, almost all women in rural India can be considered as ‘farmers’ in some sense, working as agricultural labourers, unpaid workers in the family farm enterprises or combination of the two. Women in Agriculture are generally not able to access extension services and production assets like seed, water, credit, subsidy etc. As most of them are not recognized as farmers for want of ownership of land, they are not considered as beneficiaries of various government programmes / services. The wage differentials between men and women being adverse to them, the situation is further aggravated. Some of the tasks performed by the women are not valued adequately and considered less important economically. To improve the present status of women in Agriculture, and to enhance the opportunities for her empowerment, Government of India has announced “Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana” (MKSP), as a sub component of the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) and decided to provide support to the tune of Rs. 100 crore during 2010-11 budget.The primary objective of the MKSP is to empower women in agriculture by making systematic investments to enhance their participation and productivity, as also create and sustain agriculture based livelihoods of rural women. By establishing efficient local resource based agriculture, wherein women in agriculture gain more control over the production resources and manage the support systems, the project seeks to enable them to gain better access to the inputs and services provided by the government and other agencies. Once the production capacities of women in agriculture improve, food security ensues for their families and communities.

SUPPORT 9


Area ProfileRamgarh district is carved out of erstwhile district of Hazaribagh on 12th September 2007. The Latitude and Longitude of district headquarter

is 230 38’ and 850 34’ respectively. It has one Sub-division namely Ramgarh and four Block’s namely Ramgarh, Gola, Mandu and Patratu. The district headquarter is at Ramgarh town. It is situated on National Highway 33, 46 Km away from state’s capital, Ranchi on Northern side and 52 Km away from Hazaribagh on southern side. The total area of Ramgarh district is 1360.08 Sq. Km, out of which 487.93 Sq. Km is forest area. It has 351 revenue village and population as per census 2011 is 949443. Total male population is 494230 and female population is 455213.Mandu block is one of the block of Ramgarh district, the total population being 253032 as per census 2011. The population of male and female is 131486 and 121546 respectively. The total ST population is 514936 and SC population is

SUPPORT 10


35015. It has 80 revenue village and 41 panchayat. 2The total agriculture land is 10073.7 acre and out of which 1032.3 is irrigated land. The total forest land is 45086.8 acre. There is West Bokaro Colliery at Ghantotand.

2 http://ramgarh.nic.in/mandublock.htm

SUPPORT 11


NGO ProfileGenesis of the Organization: The foundation stones of “SUPPORT” were laid on the 10th July 1998 by some of the experienced people who were highly sensitive to the cause of deprivation of the poverty stricken masses highly moved by the condition of the poor people trapped in the vicious circle of poverty they decided to devote their entire lives in the nation building process. With the sole purpose of optimum utilization of the locally available human, natural & institutional resources a voluntary organization “SUPPORT” was initiated. Vision: Establishment of an educated, egalitarian and socially just society based on the values of equality, fraternity and mutual help.Mission: The mission of SUPPORT is to organize and empower the marginalized section of the society, through Self Help initiative and enable them to manage their own economic, social, educational, political affairs in an ethical and sustainable manner.Objectives:

To empower the people by creating awareness among them and install in them a spirit of confidence & self-help through people’s organization.

To enable people become self-reliant, socially and economically, by maximum Integration of their knowledge, Skill and optimum utilization of available resources.

Promotion of sustainable development activity through integral approach.Key Activities/Projects:

Promotion of Women Self Help groups Livelihood Promotion under MADA Proto type SRI/KPS Promotion Livestock development Horticulture Promotion Lead Crop promotion through NABARD Seed village development Capacity building, Training, Research & development Promoting Farmers Clubs Entrepreneurship Development training program MGNREGA-NRLM Cluster Facilitation Team

SUPPORT 12


THE BASELINE SURVEYScope of the StudyThe main purpose of the study is to assess the contribution of the Mission to the livelihoods of the rural poor mediated through efficient and sustainable institutions of the poor, key impact areas need to be explored and evidence based information provided. The areas include:

(i) size, composition and stability household income; (ii) household consumption including consumption expenditure on

health and education;(iii) size and composition of household savings;(iv) access to institutional and other sources of credit and their terms

and conditions;(v) wage and self-employment opportunities and patterns; (vi) food security status; (vii) health and nutrition status of household members; (viii) access of household/members to entitlements;(ix) household livelihood assets and liabilities; (x) risks and vulnerabilities of households; and(xi) Participation of households in PRIs.

In addition, the study should bring out key features of SHGs including their: (i) inclusiveness; (ii) governance and accountability features and practices; (iii) functional effectiveness; (iv) credit/financial and non-financial intermediation facilitated including

role played in promoting the livelihoods of the members; (v) financial and managerial self-reliance;(vi) sustainability features; (vii) relationship with PRIs etc.

Further, the study should track changes in the:(i) levels of awareness of members on their socio-economic reality and

poverty situation, rights and entitlements, and Mission interventions and processes;

(ii) intra-household decision-making and control over the resources;(iii) participation in the community level social and political activities

including participation in PRIs;(iv) levels of empowerment;

SUPPORT 13


(v) solidarity among members and their commitment to the vulnerable and marginalized; and

(vi) perceived changes in the well-being status.Methodology and Sample DesignThe objective of the study is to track changes in the livelihood status of the households targeted by the Mission. As such, the baseline is designed as to effectively capture the changes in the livelihood status of the targeted households not only over time, but also in comparison with similar households not targeted by the Mission (double difference method). However, it was difficult to identify ‘non-target’ (control) households as the state Mission is expected to implement interventions for all rural poor households in the state, in a phased manner. However, given the phased approach adopted by the state Mission, the villages was divided into ‘intensive’ and ‘non-intensive’ categories. Households located in the intensive blocks/villages are expected to receive all benefits envisaged under the Mission over a period of time. Households in the non-intensive blocks, however, do not receive all benefits envisaged under the Mission. Thus, the two categories of households differ in terms of the range of financial and non-financial Mission benefits provided. Under Mahila Kisan Sashakti Karan Pariyojna (MKSP), PIA working in the area were treated as intensive (treatment). Thus, on the basis of the phasing plan adopted by the state Mission, the blocks (and districts) have been identified as ‘treated’ (Mission intensive) and ‘control’ (Non-intensive) areas from which villages and later households were selected for the study.Sampling & Sample SizeThe sample size was provided by the SUPPORT both for treatment (intervention) and control village. Based on the numbers of the respective blocks the SHG was selected randomly from the treatment village. Accordingly control village for data collection was selected equivalent to the scoring of the treatment village. The no of sample for both type were same.Table 1: Proposed Sample size for the survey

Block Treatment Control Total

Village SHG

Sample

Village

SHG

Sample

Village

SHG

Sample

Mandu 11 115 230 11 115 230 22 230 460

ToolsThe baseline study includes quantitative and qualitative techniques both. The respondent for quantitative and qualitative tools were SHG members. FGD was

SUPPORT 14


used as qualitative tool and a set of questionnaire was used for quantitative survey, tools were provided by the respective NGO.Training of investigatorsA state level TOT was conducted at Ranchi for the supervisor who in turn trained the investigators at NGO level. The training was conducted on 27th – 28th Oct’14 at Mandu office. In total 30 investigators were trained.Data Collection & Quality AssuranceThe baseline study covered to collect primary and secondary data to meet the objectives of this survey. Primary data were collected from the SHG members and secondary data were gathered through review of existing documents and reports. The data collection was done through a series of desk reviews, questionnaires and qualitative leads for this survey. The data was collected in two phases, first was from 3rd to 7th Nov 14 and second from 27th to 10th Dec 14 in which both treatment and control village were covered. One FGD with SHG members was conducted on 5th Dec 2014 at Gargali village.A standard validation process was followed for the survey tools i.e. the supervisor of the team validated 20% of all forms filled on that day under the person. Additionally, another 20% of forms were revalidated for reliability and validity of data. In order to maintain the highest standards of data quality, 20% of the main survey forms were rechecked on the 2nd day by the supervisor. Additionally, 100% of the filled survey forms were checked for completeness and correctness of the information. A dedicated person was deployed to control data entry personnel while entering data from questionnaire to electronic records consisted of (1) Dual entry and check in procedure i.e. two data entry operators worked simultaneously, one entering the data the other checking the entry; (2) Built in checks were created in MS Access as safeguard such as duplicate entry pop ups, validation checks with four variables viz. id number, age, sex and place of residence, (3) Rechecking was done for validation of entered data for another 20% of the entries.Final validation checks were carried out while doing the analysis of data using bivariate regression analysis.

Table 2: Details of the data collected

SUPPORT 15


Block Treatment Control Total

Village SHG

Sample

Village

SHG

Sample

Village

SHG

Sample

Mandu 11 117 234 11 113 226 22 230 460

Data AnalysisThe collected quantitative data was entered into MS Access database and analyzed in MS Excel and EPI INFO and presented in charts and tables as required in findings section. Quality assurance for validity and reliability of data was done using statistical techniques. Qualitative data was analyzed using extraction technique and summarization. The field supervisors provided the extract and summary of the FGDs.

SUPPORT 16


ANALYSIS & FINDINGSSocio-Demographic Characteristics of Survey HouseholdAmong the respondents Hindus are in majority across both the treatment and control areas in Mandu Block and caste wise other backward castes are in majority. With respect to accessibility to government schemes, more than 50 percent of the surveyed households possess BPL Cards. There are more BPL families in the treatment areas as compared to the control areas. Both BPL & Ration Cards accessibility is better in treatment areas as compared to control areas. Outreach of Kisan Credit Cards and food security schemes like the Antadoya and Annapurna is not good across any of the areas. 100 percent of the surveyed community stays in the house owned by them. Almost an equal number of houses are kuccha, semi-pucca and pucca across both the treatment and control areas.For most of the households, piped water is not accessible. They are largely dependent on underground water source like dugwells and tubewells or handpumps for drinking water. Access to toilets is also very poor with almost all the houses being devoid of bathroom and hence forced to go for open defecation. Around 16 percent of the houses across both areas have pit latrines. A majority of the houses in the control areas are dependent on coal as cooking fuel (83 percent). In the treatment areas, wood is also used by around 20 percent of the population as fuel wood. Facility of electricity is good across all the areas where about 89 percent of the households have access to electricity and about 10 percent households use kerosene oil lamp. During FGDs women reported that per household is paying Rs. 110/- per month as electricity meter charges but there is no electricity in many houses.Table 3: Percentage distribution of Study Sample according to selected Socio-Demographic Characteristics by village type

CharacteristicTreatme

nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)Designation of SHGMember 57.9 54.2 56.1

Office Bearer 42.1 45.8 43.9

ReligionHindu 92.7 94.6 93.7

SUPPORT 17


Muslim 7.2 5.3 6.3

CasteSC 8.9 8.8 8.9

ST 29.7 18.2 24.1

OBC 53.6 67.5 60.4

General 7.6 5.3 6.5

Ownership of HouseOwned 97.0 95.6 96.3

Owned but mortgaged 1.7 0.4 1.1

Tenant (Paying Cash) 1.3 3.5 2.4

Tenant (Paying in Kind) 0.0 0.4 0.2

Type of HouseKutcha 37.0 33.7 35.4

Pucca 37.8 34.6 36.3

Semi Pucca 24.2 30.2 27.1

Source of drinking waterPiped water in dwelling 5.5 0.8 3.2

Piped water in yard 2.1 0.0 1.0

Tube well /Bore well/ Hand pump

39.5 33.3 36.5

Dug Well 46.8 56.4 54.5

Surface Water 5.9 9.3 7.6

Toilet FacilityOpen Field 64.2 82.2 73.0

Pit Latrine 17.0 15.1 16.0

Flush Toilet 8.5 2.6 5.6

Type Of Fuel Used For CookingElectricity 2.1 1.7 1.9

LPG 0.4 1.7 1.0

Bio Gas 0.4 0.8 0.6

Kerosene 2.5 1.7 2.1

Coal 71.9 83.1 77.3

Charcoal 1.2 1.3 1.3

SUPPORT 18


Wood 20.4 8.4 14.5

Straw/Grass/ Leaves 0.8 0.4 0.6

Cow dung Cake 0.0 0.4 0.2

Main Source Of lightingElectricity 89.7 87.5 88.7

LPG Petromax 0.4 0.0 0.2

Solar Light 0.8 0.0 0.4

Kerosene Oil Lamp 8.9 12.4 10.6

BPL No. 55.3 43.1 49.3

Ration Card 45.5 34.2 40.0

KCC Card 9.7 6.2 8.0

House build under any schemes*

19.2 11.1 15.2

*(Indira Awas /Din Dayal /Birsa Awas Yojna)

Distribution of Ration cardAbout 58 percent families in the treatment areas and 54 percent in the control areas possess BPL Cards. About 21 percent of the families in the treatment areas and 15 percent in the control areas are living below the poverty line. About 24 percent of the households in the treatment areas and 31 percent in the control areas possess the APL card. However outreach of the Antyodaya and Annapurna schemes are poor.Figure 1: Percentage distribution of ration card types

Treatment Control0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

58.1 53

24.8 31.3

14.7 10.82.3 4.8

BPL APL Anapurna Antadoya

SUPPORT 19


Socio Characteristics of Household members

Most of the population is in the age group of 18-45 years. The age group of 0-6 years and 6-17 years forms another major chunk of the population (41 percent), thus showing that the population is largely young and either in the growing age group or in the productive age. Interestingly, there are slightly lesser numbers of males as compared to females in the surveyed households in the treatment areas while there are more males in the control area.The population is either married or unmarried and there are very few individuals who are either separated or divorced. The population is either primary (1-5), middle or High School educated. Very few have been able to carry on further education beyond higher secondary. Aadhar Card is available to a majority of the population. Voter Card is available to only about 66 percent of the population. MGNREGA job card accessibility is very poor. Table 4: Percentage distribution of household members Study Sample (HH) according to selected Socio-Demographic Characteristics by village type


nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)Age Group0-6yrs 12.3 14.8 13.5

6-17yrs 29.7 26.6 28.2

18-45yrs 47.9 49.4 48.7

>45yrs 13.1 11.9 12.5

GenderMale 49.9 52.3 51.1

Female 50.1 47.7 48.9

Marital Status

Married 48.2 48.5 48.3

Unmarried 48.5 47.3 47.9

Widow / Widower 3.1 4.2 3.7

Separated/ Deserted

0.1 0.1 0.1

Divorced 0.1 0.0 0.0

Literacy Status n=972 n=935 n=1907

SUPPORT 20



nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)Primary (1-5) /AWC

28.0 26.2 27.1

Middle(6-8) 18.2 17.3 17.8

High School (9-10)

25.5 29.6 27.5

Secondary (11-12)

9.8 8.7 9.2

Graduation 4.5 7.6 6.0

ITI 0.0 0.1 0.1

Diploma 0.8 1.7 1.3

Illiterate 11.1 7.4 9.3

Disability 3.4 1.9 2.7

Adhar Card 89.7 89.4 89.5

Voter Card n=1047 n=1022

n=2069

67.1 64.5 65.8

MNREGA Job Card

n=829 n=819 n=1648

16.7 15.3 16.0

MGNREGAVery few households possess the MGNREGA job card in both the areas. Of those who possess this card, only about 50-55 percent have got work against this card. However payment was reported to be made against the work done by almost all the beneficiaries (96 percent).Figure 2: Comparison between job card holder, got work and payment received under MGNREGA

SUPPORT 21


Migration Pattern

All the migration from this block is happening to outside the state. A total of 11 households reported to be migrating. The wage rates in the treatment areas were found to be much better than that in the control areas. No household reported to be

getting paid less than the minimum wages.Table 5: Count of household members of study sample (HH) according to household migration and wage rate received by village type

Count Treatment Control TotalHH Migration

8 3 11

Wage Rate

<158 0 0 0

158-211 6 2 8

>211 2 1 3

Most of the migration is happening for both skilled and unskilled work. In the treatment areas a major chunk of the migration is happening for other work also. Migration for service is happening in majority of the households in the control areas. The key reasons quoted for Migration were unavailability of work in village & better wages at migrating destination. Most of the migration is happening in the months of February and June in the treatment and control areas. The return is usually in January or August in both the areas.Figure 3: Percentage distribution of work type during migration

25%

25%12.5%

38%

Treatment

Unskilled worker Skilled workerFarming/Agriculture Other

33%

33%

33%

Control

Unskilled worker Skilled workerServiecs

SUPPORT 22

Treatment Control

18.7 16.8

50.4 55.4

95.7 97.0

Have MGNREGA Job Card Got Work Against CardGot Payment against Work

Perc

enta

ge


Income Expenditure pattern of surveyed household

Occupation details of household

About 34 percent of the population comprises of unskilled workers. Several households are also dependent on service in both the treatment and control areas and the percentage is higher in the control areas. Farming and skilled labor form the third most prevalent means of the occupation in the surveyed areas. Table 6: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to occupation level by village type

Characteristic

ManduTreatme

nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

Farming 11.6 10.7 11.1

Agriculture Labor 0.3 0.8 0.6

Unskilled Worker 38.6 29.6 33.7

Skilled Labor 12.9 10.2 11.4

Livestock / Animal Husbandry

2.3 1.8 2.0

Forest Produce 0.0 0.0 0.0

Services (Job) 27.1 32.9 30.2

Self-employed professional

2.5 3.3 3.0

Petty trader/ shop owner

3.5 8.5 6.2

Pension 0.9 2.1 1.6

Others 0.3 0.2 0.2

The annual income is more than Rs. 50,000 in more than 50 percent of the households. The families residing in the surveyed areas are mostly living above the poverty line with annual income of more than Rs. 50,000/-. About 21 percent of the families have annual income in the range of Rs. 24001-50000/-. Figure 4: Percentage distribution of yearly income of household

SUPPORT 23


Treatment Control0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

21.4 15

20.921.7

58.2 62.8

< 24000 24001-50000 >50000

Average Expenditure of household

Most of the expenses are being made on food and a very small segment of the population is spending it on entertainment and communication also on a monthly basis. Very little expense is being made on paying interest on loan.Figure 5: Percentage distribution of monthly expenditure by household

Treatment Control0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

83 86.2

6 4.89.8 6.41.3 2.6

Food Interest on LoanEntertainment & Communication Alcohol/Gambling

As for the yearly expenses most is spent on festivals especially in the control areas where about 35 percent of the annual expenses are on festivals. Marriage and social occasions, clothing and education constitute the next most important areas where annual expenses are being made across both the areas in Mandu. Health seeking behavior does not seem to be very up to the mark as only about 11 percent are going for institutional health and other treatment facilities.

SUPPORT 24


Table 7: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to expenditure pattern yearly basis by village type

Characteristic Treatment(n=234)

Control(n=226)

Total(n=460)

Festival expenses 28.4 34.6 32.1

Marriage and other social occasion

15.1 17.3 16.4

Clothing 15.3 7.9 10.9

Footwear 6.7 4.6 5.5

House Construction/ Maintenance

6.6 5.5 5.9

Education 12.9 18.3 16.1

Institutional health/treatment 10.8 11.2 11.1

Durable Goods 4.3 0.7 2.1

SUPPORT 25


Land Details

Most of the households have their own agricultural land. A significant number of households in the treatment areas have mortgaged their land and around 4 percent in the control areas have leased land.Table 8: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to land ownership by village type

CharacteristicTreatmen

t(n=234)

Control(n=226)

Total(n=460

)Own agriculture land 67.2 64.4 65.8

(n=126) (n=144) (n=270)

Mortgaged Land 5.5 0.6 2.9

Lease any land 2.9 4.0 3.4

So far type of land is concerned 40 percent of the land is Midland in treatment areas compare to 33 percent in control area. While distribution of lowland, upland and homestead is almost equal in control areas.Figure 6: Distribution with respect to type of land

Treatment Control0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

39.9 33.3

28.0

21.5

16.4

21.9

15.7 23.2

Midland Lowland Upland Homestead

The agriculture is largely rain fed. However in Control areas 37 percent of the agricultural lands and 20 percent in the treatment areas are being irrigated by wells. Other irrigation sources like check dams, bore wells are either not accessible or not being used by the community for irrigation. During FGDs the

SUPPORT 26


women from Mandu said that as they are dependent on monsoon for agriculture, they are forced to engage in labour the rest of the year.

Figure 7: Distribution of source of irrigation

74.6

20.41.81.40.7000000000000010.40.40.4

Treatment

Monsoon Well PondRiver Bore well Check DamDobha Other

59.7

37.11.40.7000000000000

010.7000000000000

010.4

Control

Monsoon Well PondRiver Bore well Check DamDobha

Single cropping is the trend across both the treatment and control though it is more prevalent in the treatment areas. This can be attributed to unavailability of irrigation sources and dependence on monsoons for irrigation. Double cropping is being practiced in about 29 percent of the cultivable land in the control areas. Triple cropping is almost negligible in treatment areas and being followed in some parts of the control areas.Figure 8: Comparison of single, double and triple crop grown

Treatment Control0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

78.666.6

20.728.7

0.7 4.7

Single Crop Double Crop Triple Crop

Seasons of cultivation

SUPPORT 27


In treatment areas, almost 50 percent of the households are cultivating only Kharif and another 43 percent are cultivating both rabi and Kharif. However in the control areas both Rabi and Kharif are being cultivated by more than 60 percent of the householdsFigure 9: Distribution of Seasons of cultivation

Treatment Control0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

50.9

17.3

43.4

66.9

3.7

3.3

1.89

1.61.6

Only Kharif Rabi &Kharif Only RabiAll the there Only Summer Rabi & Summer

The agricultural technology is largely conventional in more than 82 percent of the cultivated areas across both the treatment and control clusters. SRI technique for paddy cultivation is being followed in some areas of treatment villages.Figure 10: Distribution of agriculture technology adopted

Treatment Control0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

80.4 85.5

11.9 4.57.6 9.9

Conventional only SRIConventional & SRI

SUPPORT 28


Livestock

Desi goat, cow and poultry are the most commonly owned livestock in the surveyed community. Improved varieties of domestic animals are generally not being domesticated by the surveyed households. Table 9: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by block and village type according to livestock owned

LivestockTreatme

nt(n=234)

Control(n=226)

Total(n=460)

Pig T&D 4.7 0.9 2.8

Pig Other 6.0 2.2 4.1

Goat Improved 0.9 1.3 1.1

Goat Desi 44.0 41.6 42.8

Cow Improved 1.3 0.9 1.1

Cow Desi 31.6 26.5 29.1

Buffalo 5.6 6.6 6.1

Bullock 35.9 22.1 29.1

Sheep 0.0 0.4 0.2

Poultry Broiler 0.4 0.0 0.2

Poultry Desi 25.6 23.0 24.3

Pigeon 1.7 0.4 1.1

Duck 3.4 1.8 2.6

The vaccination patterns differ in the treatment and control areas. While pigs (T&D) and improved varieties of cows were found to be most commonly vaccinated in treatment areas, all improved varieties of goats were found to be vaccinated in control areas. Besides this, some desi goats, cows and bullocks were also reported to be vaccinated in the treatment and control areas. Ducks and pigs were also reported to be vaccinated in the control areas. Table 10: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type according to vaccination practice for available livestock

Treatment Control Total

Pig T&D 54.5 0.0 46.2

Pig Other 0.0 20.0 5.3

Goat Improved 0.0 100.0 60.0

Goat Desi 12.6 4.3 8.6

SUPPORT 29


Cow Improved 33.3 0.0 20.0

Cow Desi 14.9 16.7 15.7

Buffalo 0.0 6.7 3.6

Bullock 11.9 10.0 11.2

Poultry Desi 8.3 5.8 7.1

Duck 0.0 25.0 8.3

Asset Ownership

Very few households own modern agricultural equipment’s. More than 55 percent of the households in the control areas have television and about 43 percent in the treatment areas own this entertainment device. Lighting facilities and motorcycle are available in about 33 percent of the households in Control areas which is higher as compared to the treatment areas. Accessibility to mobile phones is much higher in the control areas as compared to the treatment areas where about 72 percent households in the former possess mobile phones while about 50 percent possess this device in treatment areas. Fans are present in about 50 percent of the households in both the areas.Table 11: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type according to type of asset owned


nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

Pump Set 5.5 17.3 11.3

Bullock Cart 11.4 4.8 8.2

Tractor 1.2 2.2 1.7

Power Triller 0.8 1.7 1.3

Thresher 1.7 3.1 2.3

Flour/Oil Mills 4.6 5.7 5.2

Sewing Machine 1.7 2.6 2.1

Agriculture Implementers(Weeder, Sprayer, marker)

8.9 7.1 8.0

Television 43.4 55.1 49.1

Gas Connection 5.1 11.9 8.4

SUPPORT 30


Lighting (Lantern/Solar/Invertor/petromax) 14.4 32.8 23.3

Motorcycle 28.5 33.7 31.1

Radio 10.6 10.2 10.4

Phone/Mobile 49.3 72.0 60.4

Fridge 11.0 11.5 11.3

Fan 45.1 50.6 47.8

Consumption Exigencies

Most of the adult males and females are eating more than 2 times a day (about 71 percent). More than 87 percent of the male children are eating more than 2 times a day while about 89 percent female children are eating more than 2 times a day. Table 12: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type (Treatment & Control) according to availability of food in a day for the members of the family


nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

Adult Male (1&2 times) 24.6 32.2 28.2

Adult Male (>2 times) 75.4 67.8 71.8

Adult Female (1&2 times) 25.1 31.9 28.3

Adult Female (>2 times) 74.9 68.1 71.7

Male Children (1&2 times) 16.5 8.9 13.0

Male Children (>2 times) 83.5 91.1 87.0

Female Children (1&2 times) 13.3 8.2 11.1

Female Children (>2 times) 86.7 91.8 88.9

More than 90 percent of the respondents both in treatment and control told food security is ensured for 12 months as reported by most of the surveyed households. Most of the houses reported that they had enough food only for the period of 1-2 months. Very few reported to have mortgaged any assets but few borrowed money for food with highest (8.2 percent) in control village.Table 13: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type (Treatment & Control) according to food security

Characteristic Treatme Contr Total

SUPPORT 31


nt(n=234)

ol(n=22

6)(n=46

0)Food security for 12 months

91.0 90.3 90.7

Mortgage any assets1.7

(n=235)

0.9

(n=216)

1.3

(n=451)

Borrow money5.5

(n=233)

8.2

(n=205)

6.8

(n=438)

Received dry food through PDS

19.8

(n=232)

19.7

(n=198)

19.7

(n=430)

Food was reported to be available inadequately for 1-2 months in most households of both the treatment and control areas. A significant number of households reported to be food deficient for 3-5 months in the last 12 months. Lesser number of households reported to be food insecure for 6-8 months but the numbers were good. Figure 11: Percentage distribution of inadequate food availability in last 12 months

Treatment Control0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

76.9 72.7

15.4 18.2

7.7 9.1

6-8 Months3-5 Months1-2 Months

Ration is usually being received once in a month across both the treatment and control areas. No household is receiving ration more than 4 times a month in the treatment villages but a good number of villages in the control areas are receiving ration for more than 4 times in a month and also some houses are

SUPPORT 32


receiving it once a week. However a very small number of households are receiving ration once a week in the treatment villages. Figure 12: Percentage distribution of frequency of ration received through PDS

Treatment Control0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

97.986.7

2.16.76.7

Once in a Month Once a WeekMore than 4 times a month

Debt Pattern

Almost all the households in the treatment areas have taken loan in the last 12 months in the control areas. About 79 percent of the households in the treatment areas reported to have taken loan in the last 12 months. A larger number of households in the control areas felt the need to take loan as compared to the treatment areas. About 60 percent of the households in the control areas reported that they could not access loan at the time of need which is much higher as compared to the treatment areas (46 percent). Table 14: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) by village type (Treatment & Control) according to loaning practice


nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

Taken Loan 24.6 37.3 30.8

Loan taken in last 12 months68.8

(n=61)

92.5

(n=80)

82.2

(n=141)

Amount of loan taken n=93 n=176 n=269

<1000 54.8 54.0 54.3

1000-4999 11.8 14.2 13.4

5000-9999 10.8 7.4 8.6

10000-49999 22.6 20.5 21.2

SUPPORT 33



nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

≥50000 0.0 4.0 2.6

Loan Purpose n=48 n=90 n=138

Health(HH Member) 14.6 21.1 18.8

Health(Non-Member) 20.8 16.7 18.1

Buy Food 4.2 1.1 2.2

Dowry/Marital Expenses 10.4 2.2 5.1

Funeral 4.2 2.2 2.9

Other Social Ceremony 4.2 1.1 2.2

Education 2.1 20.0 13.8

Buy Land for House 0.0 2.2 1.4

House Repair 4.2 3.3 3.6

House Construction 8.3 4.4 5.8

Buy Land for Farming 2.1 1.1 1.4

Farming Inputs 2.1 8.9 6.5

Start Business 4.2 12.2 9.4

Business Assets 6.3 1.1 2.9

Buy Livestock 10.4 2.2 5.1

Buy HH Durable good 2.1 0.0 0.7

Types of collateral for loan (HH Count)Land Decimal 0 2 2

House 1 0 1

Surety from known person(Guarantor) 0 2 2

Felt need to take loan 28.0 37.1 32.4

Reasons for no outstanding loan n=39 n=64 n=103

No need for a loan 2.6 3.1 2.9

Could not obtain one 46.2 59.4 54.4

Worried that cannot make repayment 41.0 28.1 33.0

Interest rate too high 10.3 14.1 12.6

SUPPORT 34



nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

Don’t have any asset to mortgage 7.7 18.8 14.6

We have insurance and hence no need of loan

5.1 10.9 8.7

Did not get from the bank 0.0 3.1 1.9

Most of the households reported to have taken loan amount of less than Rs.1000 /- in the past one year in both the treatment and control areas. About 21 percent households reported to have taken loan amounting to Rs.10000 - 49999/- in the past one year across both the types of surveyed areas. The loan taken is usually being spent on health needs of non-family members and on dowry/marriages. In the treatment areas, a good number of households are using this money to buy livestock. The collateral in the control areas is land or assurance from a guarantor against the loan taken as reported by majority of the households.

Figure 13: Comparison of loan taken vs. repayment

<1000 1000-4999

5000-9999

10000-49999

≥500000.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.054.8

11.8 10.8

22.6

0.01.1 2.3 1.7 1.10.0

Treatment Village

Loan Taken Loan Repayment

<1000 1000-4999

5000-9999

10000-49999

≥500000.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.054.0

14.2

7.4

20.5

4.01.5 2.6 3.0 2.20.0

Control Village

Loan Taken Loan Repayment

SUPPORT 35


Savings Habit

Almost all the surveyed households reported to be saving. Saving in the last 12 months is mostly between Rs.500-1000 (40 percent) and between Rs.1001-2500 (35 percent). Banks and SHGs are the most popular modes of savings in both areas. About 30 percent of the households in the treatment areas have life insurance while only 13 percent have life insurance in control areas.Table 15: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to saving habits and village type (Treatment & Control)


nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

Any Savings 98.7 99.5 99.1

Savings in the last 12 months (INR)

n=234 n=224 n=458

<500 18.0 9.8 14.0

500 – 1000 36.3 42.0 39.1

1001-2500 31.6 38.0 34.7

2501-5000 11.1 6.7 9.0

5001-10000 1.7 2.2 2.0

>10000 1.3 1.3 1.3

Place of savings n=148 n=156 n=304

In House 19.6 4.5 11.8

Bank 58.8 39.1 48.7

SHG 56.1 41.0 48.4

Relative/ Friend 0.7 0.0 0.3

Type of Insurance n=174 n=221 n=395

Life Insurance 29.9 13.6 20.8

Health Insurance 0.6 0.0 0.3

Livestock insurance 0.0 0.5 0.3

Crop Insurance 0.6 0.5 0.5

No Insurance 64.9 80.6 73.7

Other 4.0 3.6 3.8

Don’t Know 0.0 1.4 0.8

SUPPORT 36


Women Participation

Almost all the family members are attending the meeting of the SHG across all the surveyed households. However the females are generally attending the meetings only once in a month but the treatment areas of Mandu show some exception because of the fact that about 30 percent of the women are attending the meetings about 4 times in a month which is very high as compared to the control areas where only about 20 percent of the women are attending the meeting 4 times in a month.About 45 percent of the women in the treatment areas and about 71 percent in the control areas never attend the Gram Sabha meetings. About 55 percent of the women in the treatment areas and 29 percent in the control areas are attending the Gram Sabha meetings. However the participation of women is good when it comes to casting of votes and about 88 percent of the women reported to have casted vote in the last elections. About 63 percent of the women are also holding either bank or Post Office account. Table 16: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to women empowerment characteristics by village type (Treatment & Control)


nt(n=234)

Control

(n=226)

Total(n=46

0)

Family member attend meetings of SHG 100.0 98.6 99.3

No of times female member attend the meetings of SHG

n=235 n=223 n=458

1 Time 54.5 64.6 59.4

2 Times 15.3 15.7 15.5

4 Times 30.2 19.7 25.1

Any female member part of local panchayat 4.6 4.4 4.5

Female members of house hold participate in Gram Sabha

n=230 n=225 n=455

Never 44.8% 71.1% 57.8%

1-4 Times 55.2% 28.9% 42.2%

Female member part of any committee at village level

28.9 12.0 20.6

Female member cast vote in last election 82.1 95.1 88.4

Actively take part in planning of MGNREGA 27.2 8.4 18.0

Any women in family holds bank or post office A/C 64.2 61.3 62.8

SUPPORT 37


Any women in family hold a property/ fixed asset in her name

18.3 9.3 13.9

Media Exposure

About 80 percent of the households in treatment areas have access to television while only about 53 percent have access to this means of entertainment in the control areas. There is almost negligible exposure to other forms of media like newspapers, magazines, cinema etc. in the surveyed population.Table 17: Percentage distribution of Study Sample (HH) according to media exposure characteristics by village type (Treatment & Control)

Characteristic

Treatment(n=234)

Control(n=226)

Total(n=460)

TV 79.5 53.3 66.7

Radio 3.4 0.0 1.7

Newspaper 5.1 7.1 6.0

Magazines 0.4 0.8 0.6

Cinema 1.7 0.9 1.3

Capacity Building of SHGThe SHGs especially those in the treatment areas have received some capacity building as reported during interaction with them. Paddy cultivation and vegetable cultivation are the key capacity building received in the treatment areas by the SHG women. Some have also received training on animal health care, poultry farming, SHG management and mother and child health care. However in the control areas capacity building has mostly not been received by most of the SHGs. A very few SHGs have received capacity building on SHG management and mother and child health care. Interestingly one SHG in the control areas reported to have received skills training. During FGDs women reported that they wanted to know about fertilizers that could improve productivity, training on seeds and vegetable cultivation.Table 18: Count of Study Sample (HH) according to training attended on different issues by village type (Treatment & Control)

HH Count Treatment

Control

Total

Paddy Cultivation-SRI 22 0 22

Vegetable Cultivation 22 0 22

SUPPORT 38


Animal Health Care 6 0 6

Poultry Farming 4 1 5

SHG Management 4 2 6

Mother & Child Health Care

4 2 6

Exposure Visit 5 0 5

Skill Training 0 1 1

SUPPORT 39


CONCLUSIONHindus are in majority across both the treatment and control areas in Mandu Block and caste wise other backward castes are in majority. There are more BPL families in the treatment areas as compared to the control areas. Both BPL & Ration Cards accessibility is better in treatment areas as compared to control areas. Outreach of Kisan Credit Cards and food security schemes like the Antadoya and Annapurna is not good across any of the areas. 100 percent of the surveyed community stays in the house owned by them. Almost an equal number of houses are kuccha, semi-pucca and pucca across both the treatment and control areas.For most of the households, piped water is not accessible. Access to toilets is also very poor with almost all the houses being devoid of bathroom and hence forced to go for open defecation. A majority of the houses in the control areas are dependent on coal as cooking fuel. Facility of electricity is good across all the areas where about 89 percent of the households have access to electricity. Most of the population is in the age group of 18-45 years. The population is either primary (1-5), middle or High School educated. Very few have been able to carry on further education beyond higher secondary. Aadhar Card is available to a majority of the population. Voter Card is available to only about 66 percent of the population. MGNREGA job card accessibility is very poor. All the migration from this block is happening to outside the state and most of the migration is happening for both skilled and unskilled work. About 34 percent of the population comprises of unskilled workers. Farming and skilled labour form the third most prevalent means of the occupation in the surveyed areas. The annual income is more than Rs. 50,000 in more than 50 percent of the households. Most of the expenses are being made on food. Agriculture is largely rain fed and conventional. Single cropping is the trend across both the treatment and control though it is more prevalent in the treatment areas. Most of the households surveyed owe trees that provide firewood and twigs. Desi goat, cow and poultry are the most commonly owned livestock in the surveyed community. More than 90 percent of the households have food security for about 12 months. Most of the houses reported that they had enough food only for the period of 1-2 months. Ration is usually being received once in a month across both the treatment and control areas. Almost all the households in the

SUPPORT 40


treatment areas have taken loan in the last 12 months in the control areas. The loan taken is usually being spent on health needs and on dowry/marriages. Almost all the surveyed households reported to be saving. Saving in the last 12 months is mostly between Rs. 500-1000 (40 percent) and between Rs. 1001-2500 (35 percent) households. Almost all the family members are attending the meeting of the SHG across all the surveyed households. About 45 percent of the women in the treatment areas and about 71 percent in the control areas never attend the Gram Sabha meetings. However the participation of women is good when it comes to casting of votes also several women reported to be holding either bank or Post Office account. About 80 percent of the households in treatment areas have access to television. The SHGs especially those in the treatment areas have received some capacity building as reported during interaction with them.

SUPPORT 41


RECOMMENDATIONSThe community is a mix of a BPL and APL families with fairly good outreach of PDS and BPL schemes. However basic amenities, MGNREGA, modern agriculture technologies and farmer credit schemes have poor outreach. The SHGs need to be capacitated to increase their effectiveness on income generation and hence empowering the women to be able to participate in community decisions, improving access to quality education and social security schemes is also a key strategy to help the community improve their standard of living and to check migration for livelihood and better wages.

SUPPORT 42


ANNEXURES

Study Tools

SUPPORT 43


SUPPORT 44


SUPPORT 45


SUPPORT 46


SUPPORT 47


SUPPORT 48


SUPPORT 49


SUPPORT 50


SUPPORT 51


SUPPORT 52


SUPPORT 53


SUPPORT 54


SUPPORT 55


SUPPORT 56


SUPPORT 57


SUPPORT 58


SUPPORT 59


SUPPORT 60

baseline survey report - · web viewat d.v.c colony, behind hanuman mandir, hazaribagh...

Documents