This is the second and concluding part of the report of the Pilot Survey conducted by the author and Ms. Abha Bahadur of Sulabh International. 

Survey Summary

 

Beneficiary Selection

The beneficiaries of the surveyed houses are all widowed women belonging to the scheduled castes category.  They are poor.  The selection was made from a list prepared by the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch with the help from the Gramsevak.  No open forum discussion was held in the village for beneficiary selection.  However, the selction appears to be fair and none of the many villagers who accompanied us on the survey complained about being left out or of unfair allotment of funds.  The scheme is known in this area as the house scheme for widows.  There are definitely many more who can benefit from the scheme, is known in this area as the house scheme for widows.  There are definitely many more who can benefit from the scheme, but who do not necessarily fall under the ‘widow’ category.  Villagers have become aware of the scheme only after the construction of the houses for these beneficiaries was initiated. 

Land and site of IAY

All the IAY houses studied had been built on land that was already in possession of the beneficiaries.  In most cases, it was ancestral land.  The beneficiaries had been living here for a long time.  Their original houses that were made of mud (cob) were demolished and the new IAY houses built on the same land. The sites are all within the village abadi.  However, the status of the title to land ownership is uncertain. 

Process and amount of IAY funding

The process of funding, although very simple is clearly not transparent.  The beneficiaries were all provided material, which after a calculation as per market rates is equivalent to approximately Rs. 11,000.00.  Transport cost for each beneficiary would work out at approximately 11,750.00.  Taking the Rs. 12,500.00 funding as was the case in 1994-95, there is a definite gap, which is not explained.  The record of the exact expenditure made for purchase of materials was not available either with the Upsarpanch  or the Gramsevak.  The beneficiaries themselves had no idea of the funds that were originally allotted. 

Besides this, the scheme in this case has assumed that the beneficiary would possess the funds required for construction.  This might not always be the case. 

Planning and design

In most cases the model design provided by the JE has been followed.  The model plan did not provide for any storage spaces, shelves etc.  However, some beneficiaries have attempted to provide these based on their own needs and materials that were available with them.  We felt that in the absence of a motivation process, the beneficiary tends to be a passive recipient of the funds / scheme and does not deviate from the ‘modelplan’ even if a better solution is possible.  Wherever the beneficiaries have exerted their individual choice the results are more to their satisfaction.  A model is, however, a useful guide and facilitates decision making.  Incrementality, whether vertical or horizontal has been kept in mind in all the cases by leaving teeth in the walls or space for a straicase or by  construction of a staircase. 

Construction process and management

The construction process was common in all the cases.  The Upsarpanch (in Kansala) and the Sarpanch (in Assam), with the assistance of the Gram Sevak and the JE, procured all the materials.  The co-ordination in material procurement resulted in bringing down trasport costs and has facilitated the process here.  No contractor was employed for the job and construction was entirely managed by the beneficiaries for their individual houses.  Local masons and unskilled workers were employed and all the beneficiaries have put int heir own labour.  In this respect the scheme has generated considerable beneficiary participation.  Time taken for construction was between 12 to 15 days for each house.  As the original house had been demolished, the speed of construction necessarily had to be fast.  Also, as the materials were delivered after harvest time, work available at the fields was less, and the members of the beneficiary family could contribute labour.  This, however, was not by design. 

Materials and structural quality

The building materials that were provided are all available from Rohtak town that is at a distance of 21 and 15 km. from the two villages.  These are the conventional materials of ‘pucca’ construction in this area.  Although the system of construction is locally known, the structural quality and the workmanship were definitely not up to the mark.  There is lack of technical advice and quality control mechanism in construction.  The beneficiary is at the mercy of the local mason’s capability and willingness to put in his best.  Her own lack of knowledge regarding proper construction means that she cannot check his work, nor ask him to use care in construction.  This survey clearly indicates a need to upgrade local skills.  Construction Technology. 

Technological input to optimise costs is another deficiency of the scheme here.  The technology used is the conventional construction technology of the area and is the same in all the 9 cases studied with minor variations.  No input of any cost saving measures by optimising material used and limit design has been provided.  In reference to an earlier study conducted in this area, it is clear that for any intervention to optimise construction, technology, considerable input to rain local manpower and motivate the beneficiaries will be required.  The need to upgrade local skills, both in terms of workmanship and in order to optimise material use and construction cost, is emphasised again. 

The positive aspect of use of conventional technology is that it is locally known and therefore repairs and extensions are not out of the beneficiary’s reach. 

Sanitation facilities

No toilet facilities have been provided in any of the houses that were studied.  From discussions with the beneficiaries, it was clear that this was not an option that they could choose or reject.  Within the village itself, there are only two or three toilets, though many houses have bathing spaces.  The absence of sanitation facility and the lack of introduction to the concept of sanitation is an unfortunate part of life here. 

Land Development and Infrastructure

The house sites are not in a cluster and are very much integrated within the village, individual land development was not an issue.  However, access in some cases could have been improved.  Water points are at different places within the village and the beneficiaries walk 0.5 to 1 km. to fetch water.  Drainage facility from the house has been the individual’s responsibility and been incorporated in some of the cases. 

Occupancy Status

Amongst the houses that were studied all except two were occupied.  One was vacant, while one had not been constructed due to a land dispute.  Many residents were in the process of plastering, whitewashing etc. to make the house more comfortable. 

Employment Generation

The construction of the IAY houses in this case has not been a source of employment generation per se.  However, IAY crated additional mandays for local masons and unskilled workers. 

The scheme has clearly shown full participation of the beneficiaries, both by input of labour and by management of construction of their houses.  Most of the beneficiaries also put in money through their savings or loans indicating active involvement in the process.  An option to choose technology and materials, however, has not been provided to them.  Wherever the beneficiary has exerted her opinion, she has made a positive input in space planning. 

Vulnerability of Rural Women

The survey exposed the vulnerability of single women in a rural set-up.  Although the ownership of the house is in the name of the woman, status of land ownership is not clear. 

Lack of Available Paperwork

None of the beneficiaries were aware of the paper work other than the forms that they had filled in this process.  The status of the house and of the plot of land is often an issue of conflict with families and illiterate rural women can be easily exploited.  It is important the administrative procedure be transparent and available to the concerned beneficiary. 

Survey Methodology

The methodology followed for the survey was dictated by logistical and time constraints.  It had been decided to conduct a ‘rapid appraisal’ – therefore only one day was reserved for the survey.  This is clearly not enough.  Either two days per survey or reducing the scale of survey may be required.  Enough time is required for discussion with the administration along with the actual field survey. 

The original liaison work with the district and block authorities was conducted by a local NGO, HRDFA.  At a very short notice of one day they managed to contact the BDO, get a detailed list of IAY sites and organised a visit for the survey along with the Gramsevak.  Greater preparedness and notice of visit a week or so in advance is desirable. 

After the survey one must meet the BDO and JE, who can explain the administrative points better than the Gramsevak.  It is also important to talk to the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch or the local contact who facilitated the IAY in the village.  Neighbours are an important source of information and talking to them in a group generates discussion that allows the true picture to emerge.  Besides these, other groups in the village like the mahila mandals, youth groups etc. are also important sources of information regarding people’s perception and satisfaction with the scheme. 

The general cost of construction in the local area must also be noted for comparison with the IAY costs.  This can be found by asking the villagers the construction cost of a standard size room, in this case a 10’ x 10’ room, and by confirming material and labour rates from the local market.  If material ad labour rates from the local market.  If material has been bought in bulk or through the government machinery, it is nromally cheaper than market rates.  This factor must be considered while reviewing the scheme. 

In a given area, the two to three houses should be surveyed in detail.  The rest can be rapid confirmation studies while making a note of any variation or special features. 

It is important to find out the future targets for the IAY in the area so that a followup is possible later. 

Utility of prepared format

The main advantages of a pre-prepared format are two fold.  It provides a reminder of aspects that necessarily have to be studied.  It allows case of information compilation after the survey.  However, the danger of a rigid format is that many aspect may be overlooked.  During the survey, the framework should fulfil the first purpose listed above and also enable on-site assessment (refer guide and criteria for analysis).  Any survey guide should cover the following aspects:

q	Ask questions
q	Seek infromation
q	Enable a discussion with the block officials.

The ‘Proforma’ that has been devised for survey, review and assessment, covers the parameters such as the following:

q	Beneficiary selection
q	Land allotment/location/status
q	Process and amount of funding
q	Planning and design
q	Construction process, management, specifications, building technology costs
q	Structural quality
q	Sanitation and drainage

A specimen page of the proforma is reproduced. 

Back to Contents