Annual Outcome Survey Report. Tejaswini Rural Women Development Programme, Madhya Pradesh 3/21/16

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Annual Outcome Survey Report. Tejaswini Rural Women Development Programme, Madhya Pradesh 3/21/16"

Transcription

1 Annual Outcome Survey Report 16 Tejaswini Rural Women Development Programme, Madhya Pradesh 3/21/16

2 INDEX Sr.. Particular Page. 1 Introduction Annual Outcome Survey & why to do it 3 3 Objectives 3 4 Methodology 3 5 Duration 4 6 Sampling 4 7 Data Entry 4 8 Study Tool 5 9 Data Collection Team 5 1 Data Compilation 5 11 Analysis Activities planned during AWPB

3

4 Introduction The word Tejaswini implies capability and radiance. The Tejaswini Rural Women Empowerment Program aims at empowering poor women to make use of economic, social and political opportunities for their improved well-being. The program will facilitate the social and economic empowerment of 1,9,443 women by supporting around 14,629 SHGs. There are four key aspects of Tejaswini Program are: The development of strong and sustainable SHGs and their apex institutions Access to micro finance services through bank linkages New and improved livelihood opportunities and empowerment of women to use these opportunities Activities for gender equity and empowerment including access to functional literacy, improved health, labor saving infrastructure and participation in local governance Program area Tejaswini Program is being implemented in 6 districts of Madhya Pradesh. The names and basis of selection of these districts are as follows:- Panna, Chhatarpur and Tikamgarh: Districts with a high degree of gender inequality. Dindori, Mandla and Balaghat: Districts with high incidence of poverty and large tribal population. Program Implementation State Level-: To implement the Program a State level program Management unit (SPMU) has been established under the aegis of MPMVVN. The SPMU is headed by the Program Director (PD), who will be assisted by DPD (Deputy Program Director) and 6 Managers. District Level-: District Program Management Units (DMPU) has been set up in all the six districts. The Program envisages:- 1

5 Setting up of a location office for 15- SHGs, to impart training and assistance for the empowerment of SHGs, Intra-group savings and lending, Obtaining finance from banks, MFIs etc. Enhancement of livelihood capacities of the SHGs as well as providing training and support for various social development activities. Federation offices has been set up by the programme. Federation Level-: 6 Federation offices for 15- SHGs has been set up by the programme, main task of Federation offices are - To impart training and assistance for empowerment of SHGs Intra group savings. Obtaining finance from banks Enhancement of livelihoods activities of SHGs as well as providing training and support for various social development activities. 2

6 Annual Outcome Survey This year the survey was undertaken by project staff and covered a sample of households selected randomly. The survey was conducted in villages targeted by the project receiving project interventions, and will include both project beneficiaries ( and non-beneficiaries (the latter used as s). Some nearby villages are also covered to assess the impact of the project interventions. The survey took two months to complete. The main objectives of the survey are: (i) Measure changes happening at the household level in terms of livelihoods and food availability status in the project cycle. (ii) Assess targeting efficiency. (iii) Provide evidence of project success or failure. (iv) Provide timely information necessary to undertake corrective action. (v) Provide qualitative and quantitative data for the subsequent assessment of the project. (vi) Provide information for decision making on strategy and operation of the program for better results and more efficient use of resources. (vii) Provide information to the implementation team while designing the interventions. Methodology The reports compiled after extensive survey in order to collect data for the same. The subjects of the study were target and control group households who resides in the program and adjacent area. 3

7 Duration The entire survey carried out in duration of one and half month in all six districts through federation staffs and about half months to analyze the data for report generation. Sampling Annual Outcome Survey conducted using a random sample design to produce a representative sample of project area. At the first stage, same program villages selected where the last AOS conducted. Households selected on random basis from household list available with panchayat secretary. A total number of 4 households ( from Target and from Control groups) interviewed using a standard interview schedule as prescribed by IFAD. The District wise sample selection is given below. District Target Group Control Group Dindori Mandla Balaghat Panna Chhatarpur 3 32 Tikamgarh 39 4 Data Entry Data entry carried out at District Program Management Unit (DPMU) in the excel sheet. 4

8 Study Tools Annual Outcome Survey data collected through using interview schedule, which is developed by IFAD. Data Collection Team Data collection carried out by Sanghmitra of each federation. One-day detailed orientation organized on sampling of HH and quality data collection organized by SPMU and DPMU senior staff. Data compilation The data collected from the field and entered in the excel file, which was provided by IFAD to facilitate data entry and analysis. The quantitative findings of the survey showcased in the reports that had been generated by the system. Brief note on the qualitative analysis of the findings of different sections have been incorporated in this report. 5

9 Analysis: Findings of the survey The detail analysis along with tables followed by interpretation is as: A. Household details and analysis of project services at beneficiaries level: Total four hundred respondents were interviewed in this survey. The proportion of beneficiaries of the project was 5% whereas the remaining 5% constitute non-project beneficiaries. The table below shows the distribution of the total households based on the head of the household. Table 1: House hold Identification Gender of the head of household Percentage of Female headed household 46% 47% 49% Percentage of Male headed household 54% 53% 51% Percentage of Female headed household 31% 31% 3% Percentage of Male headed household 69% 69% 7% : Gender of the head of household : Gender of the head of household FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE Among these households, sampled for survey, the female headed family were reported as 46% in 14 which has been significant raise of 49% reported in the year 16 from target 6

10 group families. However in control group it is following constant trend. With the above graph and table it can very well infer that women in Tejaswini area are more confident and have leadership quality. Table 2: Participation in program activities Participation in Program Activities Percentage of HH Have heard about the project? 1% 1% 1% Percentage of HH Involved in at least one project activity? 1% 95% 1% : Knowledge about the program and participation (.of HH) Have Heard about the project? Involved in atleast one project activity Scheme is sufficiently popularized that all sampled target households are involved at least one activity of the project. 7

11 Table 3: Major involvement in program activities Major Involvement in Project Activities Percentage of HH involved in Agriculture and Sales of Crops 4% 37% 67% Percentage of HH involved in Fishing and Sales of Fish 32% 33% 5% Percentage of HH involved in Livestock and Sales of animals 28% 31% 29% : Participation in Program Activities(. of HH.) Agriculture and Sales of Crops Fishing and Sales of Fish Livestock and Sales of animals Most of the beneficiaries are involved in activities out of them about 67 percent are involve in agriculture and sale of crops activities. Table shows that Dependency on agriculture and sale of crops are in increasing trend which is a good indicator. 8

12 Table 4: Satisfaction about Project Activity Satisfaction about Project Activity Percentage of Very Satisfied 7% 73% 8% Percentage of Moderately Satisfied 3% 27% % Percentage of t Satisfied at all % % % 9 : Satisfaction about Program Activities Very Satisfied Moderately Satisfied t Satisfied at all The level of satisfaction in 14 was reported 7% which increased up to 8% in a span of 2 year time. 9

13 Table 5: Contact with program staff Contact with Program Staff Percentage of Frequently Contact 92% 95% 93% Percentage of Occasionally Contact 4% 4% 6% Percentage of Rarely Contact 4% 1% 1% : Frequency of visits by Program staff (. of HH.) Frequently Occasionally Rarely Due to change of responsibilities and changes in staff, percentage of frequently contact is increased nominally. Parallely other positive indicators shows increasing. It also shows that federations are now getting independent which is a positive indicator. 1

14 B. Livelihood: Table 6: Number of Income Source Number of Income Source Percentage of HH with At Least one Source 1% 1% 1% Percentage of HH with Two Sources 71% 57% 81% Percentage of HH with Three Sources 28% 22% 47% Percentage of HH with Four Sources 1% 11% 21% Percentage of HH with At Least one Source 99% 98% 99% Percentage of HH with Two Sources 51% 25% 69% Percentage of HH with Three Sources 25% 5% 36% Percentage of HH with Four Sources 14% 1% 16% : Percentage of HH. with Number of Income Sources : Percentage of HH. with Number of Income Sources At Least one Source Three Sources Two Sources Four Sources At Least one Source Three Sources Two Sources Four Sources 11

15 Number of income sources is continuously showing increasing trends in target as well as in control groups. In control increasing percentage of more than one sources of income is showing ripple effect. Table 7: House hold with cash Income House hold with Cash Income Percentage of HH reported YES 84% 86% 94% Percentage of HH reported NO 16% 14% 6% Percentage of HH reported YES 48% 24% 4% Percentage of HH reported NO 52% 76% 6% : Household with cash income : Household with cash income % of households are depending on agriculture.table shows that in target groups people are sowing more cash crops than control groups. 12

16 C. Food availability: Food availability is one of the parameter which is regularly been checked and controlled by various reforms and schemes by state administration. Tejaswini has made efforts to ensure three times availability of food to the target group. Table 8: Food Availability Status Food Availability Status Percentage of HH reported Food Available for 3 times Percentage of HH reported Food Available for less than 3 times Percentage of HH reported Food Available for 3 times Percentage of HH reported Food Available for less than 3 times 94% 1% 1% 6% % % 9% 1% 1% 1% % % : Food Security Status : Food Security Status Food Available for 3 times Food Avalable for less than 3 times Food Available for 3 times Food Avalable for less than 3 times Table shows that there is no shortage of food in the area. This is due to government as well 13

17 as project s involvement. Table 9: Change in Food Availability Status Change in food availability status Percentage of HH reported Improvement 82% 88% 64% Percentage of HH reported Same 17% 11% 34% Percentage of HH reported Situation getting Worse 1% 1% 1% Percentage of HH reported Improvement 22% 14% 18% Percentage of HH reported Same 65% 79% 67% Percentage of HH reported Situation getting Worse 13% 7% 15% : Change in food security situation over past 12 months : Change in food security situation over past 12 months Improvement Same Situation Worse Improvement Same Situation Worse The Situation of food availability is reported as same in many cases and the percentage of house hold reported improvement in situation is also not encouraging, it may be due to shortage of rain this year. Control group is affected more than the target area, may be due to more sources of income in target groups. 14

18 D. Land ownership, Land size and property rights: This section deals with the information of having any land for agriculture cultivation with its area and rights to access with authority. Table 1: Land Ownership Land Ownership Percentage of HH reported having Some Land Percentage of HH reported having Land Percentage of HH reported having Some Land Percentage of HH reported having Land 82% 88% 88% 18% 12% 12% 57% 5% 7% 43% 5% 3% : Land Ownership : Land Ownership Some Land Land Some Land Land The Land ownership is the same as in earlier years in Target groups. On the other hand ownership is increasing in control groups. 15

19 Table 11: House Hold with Property Rights House hold with Property rights Percentage of HH reported YES having Property rights Percentage of HH reported NO having Property rights Percentage of HH reported YES having Property rights Percentage of HH reported NO having Property rights 77% 8% 84% 23% % 16% 79% 79% 21% 21% : Household with Property Rights : Household with Property Rights House hold with Property rights is continuously increasing in target groups although it is same in control groups. 16

20 E. Security of land tenure The security of property (land) is been identified here. Table 12: Security of Land Tenure Security of Land Tenure Percentage of HH reported Very Secure Property Right Percentage of HH reported Moderately Secure Property Right Percentage of HH reported Insecure Property Right Percentage of HH reported Very Insecure Property right Percentage of HH reported Very Secure Property Right Percentage of HH reported Moderately Secure Property Right Percentage of HH reported Insecure Property Right Percentage of HH reported Very Insecure Property right 81% 84% 85% 16% 15% 13% % 1% 1% 3% % 1% 64% 72% 81% 31% 25% 18% 5% 1% 1% % 2% % 1 : Security of Land Tenure : Security of Land Tenure Very Secure Property Right Moderately Secure Property Right Insecure Property Right Very Insecure Property right Very Secure Property Right Moderately Secure Property Right Insecure Property Right Very Insecure Property right Under program beneficiaries group 85% reported that they have secure property rights which is increasing. 17

21 F. Agriculture production target group: Table 13: Land Cultivation Pattern Land Cultivation Pattern Percentage of HH reported Land Cultivated for both consumption and sale Percentage of HH reported not cultivating land Percentage of HH reported Land cultivated for consumption only Percentage of HH reported Land cultivated for Sale only Percentage of HH reported Land Cultivated for both consumption and sale Percentage of HH reported not cultivating land Percentage of HH reported Land cultivated for consumption only Percentage of HH reported Land cultivated for Sale only 49% 52% 55% 12% 7% 11% 34% 36% 31% 5% 5% 3% 32% 34% 43% 14% 14% 12% 52% 48% 43% 2% 4% 2% : Land Cultivation Pattern : Land Cultivation Pattern Land Cultivated for both consumption and sale House hold not cultivating land Land cultivated for consumption only Land cultivated for Sale only Land Cultivated for both consumption and sale House hold not cultivating land Land cultivated for consumption only Land cultivated for Sale only Table 14: in Crop Productivity 18

22 in Crop Productivity Percentage of HH reported 7% 3% 37% Percentage of HH reported Small 38% 32% 37% Percentage of HH reported Medium 38% 29% 24% Percentage of HH reported Large 17% 9% 2% Percentage of HH reported 95% 89% Percentage of HH reported Small 3% 8% Percentage of HH reported Medium 2% 4% Percentage of HH reported Large % % 4 3 : in Crop Productivity : in Crop Productivity Small Medium Large Medium Small Large 2% respondent reported large increase in their crop productivity, last year it was 9%, 24% reported medium increase in their crop productivity and it was 29% in previous year, 37% reported small and 37% reported no increase in their crop productivity compare to last year was 32% and 3% respectively. The crop productivity reduced this year due to sudden calamity of hoarfrost this year. Table 15: in Crop Productivity due to Program Activity 19

23 in Crop Productivity due to Project Activity Percentage of Household reported YES 8% 82% 8% Percentage of Household reported % 18% % : in Crop Productivity due to Program Activities % reported the increase in crop productivity is due to project interventions. Table 16: in Crop Production Area

24 in Crop Production Area Percentage of HH reported 54% 83% 85% Percentage of HH reported Small 18% 5% 1% Percentage of HH reported Medium 24% 11% 5% Percentage of HH reported Large 4% 1% % Percentage of HH reported 97% 97% Percentage of HH reported Small Percentage of HH reported Medium Percentage of HH reported Large 2% 1% 1% 2% % % : in Crop Production Area : in Crop Production Area Medium Small Large Medium Small Large 15% respondent reported increase in crop production area of which 1% reported small increase, 5% reported medium increase and 85% reported no increase. 74% beneficiaries reported project intervention resulted in increment of their crop production area. Table 17: in Crop Production Area due to Program Activity 21

25 in Crop Production Area due to Project Activities Percentage of Household reported YES 74% 73% 74% Percentage of Household reported 26% 27% 26% : in Crop Production Area due to Program Activities % beneficiaries reported project intervention resulted in increment of their crop production area. : in size of Irrigated Area Table 18: in size of Irrigated Area Small Medium Large

26 in size of Irrigated Area Percentage of HH reported 43% 32% 43% Percentage of HH reported Small 31% 39% 3% Percentage of HH reported Medium 23% 26% 23% Percentage of HH reported Large 3% 3% % Percentage of HH reported 85% 88% Percentage of HH reported Small 2% 7% Percentage of HH reported Medium 13% 5% Percentage of HH reported Large % % : in size of Irrigated Area % respondent reported increase in size of irrigated area of which 3% reported small increase, 23% reported medium increase and 43% reported no increase Small Medium Large Table 19: in size of Irrigated Area due to Program Activity 23

27 in size of Irrigated Area due to Program Activity Percentage of Household reported YES 65% 72% 73% Percentage of Household reported 35% 28% 27% : in size of Irrigated Area due to Program Activities % beneficiaries reported project intervention resulted in increment of their irrigation area. Table : in Fish Pond Productivity 24

28 in Fish Pond Productivity Percentage of HH reported 43% 42% 38% Percentage of HH reported Small 31% 23% 25% Percentage of HH reported Medium 23% 33% 38% Percentage of HH reported Large 3% 2% % Percentage of HH reported 7% 6% Percentage of HH reported Small 25% % Percentage of HH reported Medium 5% % Percentage of HH reported Large % % : in Fish Pond Productivity : in Fish Pond Productivity Small Medium Large Small Medium Large 62% respondent reported increase in fish pond productivity of which 25% reported small increase, 38% reported medium increase and 38% reported no increase. 25

29 Table 21: in Fish Pond Productivity due to Program Activity in Fish Pond Productivity due to Program Activity Percentage of Household reported YES 71% 77% 8% Percentage of Household reported 29% 23% % : in Fish Pond Productivity due to Program Activity % beneficiaries reported project intervention resulted in increment of their irrigation area. 26

30 Table 22: in Herd size in Herd Size Percentage of HH reported 43% 42% 38% Percentage of HH reported Small 31% 23% 25% Percentage of HH reported Medium 23% 33% 38% Percentage of HH reported Large 3% 2% % Percentage of HH reported 7% 6% Percentage of HH reported Small 25% % Percentage of HH reported Medium 5% % Percentage of HH reported Large % % : in Herd Size Small Medium Large : in Herd Size Small Medium Large 51% respondent reported increase in herd size of which 2% reported large increase, 28% reported small increase, 21% reported medium increase and 49% reported no increase. 27

31 Table 23: in Herd size due to Program Activity in Herd Size due to Program Activity Percentage of Household reported YES 62% 64% 65% Percentage of Household reported 38% 36% 35% : in Herd Size due to Program Activities % beneficiaries reported project intervention resulted in increment of their irrigation area. 28

32 Other Farmer Characteristics Table 24: House Hold Cultivating Land House Hold Cultivating Land Percentage of Household reported YES 88% 93% 89% Percentage of Household reported 12% 7% 11% Percentage of Household reported YES 86% 87% Percentage of Household reported 14% 13% : Farmer Characteristics: Household Cultivating Land Above Graph shows that the target as well as control group are constantly cultivating land. 29

33 Table 25: Use of Irrigation System Use of Irrigation System Percentage of Household reported YES 62% 69% 62% Percentage of Household reported 38% 31% 38% Percentage of Household reported YES 56% 47% Percentage of Household reported 44% 53% : Farmer Characteristics: Use of Irrigation System : Farmer Characteristics: Use of Irrigation System % in target group are using irrigation system whereas 47% in control group reported using irrigation system. 3

34 Table 26: House Hold raising Fish Pond House Hold Raising Fish Pond Percentage of Household reported YES 7% 26% 4% Percentage of Household reported 93% 74% 96% Percentage of Household reported YES 1% 2% Percentage of Household reported 99% 98% : Farmer Characteristics: Household raising fish ponds : Farmer Characteristics: Household raising fish ponds % in target group are raising fish pond whereas 2% in control group reported raising fish pond. 31

35 Table 27: House Hold owning Livestock House Hold Owning Livestock Percentage of Household reported YES 79% 73% 76% Percentage of Household reported 21% 27% 24% Percentage of Household reported YES 68% 77% Percentage of Household reported 32% 23% : Farmer Characteristics: Household Owning Livestock % in target group owning livestock which is 3 point percent increase as compare to last year whereas in control group there is increase of 9 point percent, which is positive indicators towards income generation activity. 32

36 Table 28: House Hold having adopted technology promoted by Program House Hold having adopted technology promoted by program Percentage of Household reported YES 68% 55% 59% Percentage of Household reported 32% 45% 41% Percentage of Household reported YES 12% 9% Percentage of Household reported 88% 91% : Farmer Characteristics: Household having adopted technology promoted by Program : Farmer Characteristics: Household having adopted technology promoted by Program % of target group reported using technology promoted by program which was 55% last year, however in control group only 9% reported that they are using technology. 33

37 Table 29: Adoption of technology promoted by Program Percentage of Household adopted SRI/SWI 1% 66% 45% Percentage of Household adopted Improved Agriculture 39% 34% 49% Percentage of Household adopted Seed Processing Percentage of Household adopted Improved fertilizers/chemicals Percentage of Household adopted Irrigation Percentage of Household adopted Soil Testing Percentage of Household adopted Other techniques : Adoption of Technology promoted by Program 19% 32% 7% 4% 13% 29% 7% 7% 8% % % 18% 12% 7% 6% SRI/SWI Improved Agriculture Seed Processing Improved fertilizers/chemicals Irrigation Soil Testing Others Compare to last year, this year more beneficiaries reported adoption of improved agricultural practices, use of improved chemicals & fertilizers and other technologies. 34

38 G. Access to market: Table 3: Income from sales of Agriculture production Income from sales of Agriculture production Percentage of Household reported YES 63% 64% 65% Percentage of Household reported 37% 36% 35% Percentage of Household reported YES 44% 46% Percentage of Household reported 56% 54% : Income from sales of Agricultural Production : Income from sales of Agricultural Production % respondent express that, they are generating income from sale of agricultural production. On the other hand merely 46% respondent reported as they are generating income from sale of agricultural production. 35

39 Table 31: Change in Income from sales of Agricultural production Change in income from sales of Agricultural Production Percentage of Household reported d Income Percentage of Household reported Change Percentage of Household reported Decreased Income Percentage of Household reported d Income Percentage of Household reported Change Percentage of Household reported Decreased Income 63% 61% 54% 28% 35% 35% 9% 4% 11% 14% 24% 66% 5% % 26% : Change in Income from sales of Agricultural Production : Change in Income from sales of Agricultural Production d Change Decreased d Change Decreased 65% respondent express that, they are generating income from sale of agricultural production. Out of which 54% reported increase in income, 35% reported same as before and 11% reported decrease in income from sale of agricultural products as compared to last year. Rain and hailstorms cause devastation to vital crops and putting farmers into crippling debts. 36

40 Table 32: Physical Access to Market Improved Physical Access to Market Improved Percentage of Household reported YES 6% 6% 61% Percentage of Household reported 4% 4% 39% Percentage of Household reported YES % 21% Percentage of Household reported 8% 79% : Physical Access to Market improved : Physical Access to Market improved Physical access to market has been reported to be 61% and 39% reported that market access is not easy for them for their agricultural production sale. 37

41 H. Rural Financial services: Table 33: Access to Credit over past 12 months Access to Credit over past 12 months Percentage of Household reported YES 84% 77% 83% Percentage of Household reported 16% 23% 17% Percentage of Household reported YES 58% 55% Percentage of Household reported 42% 45% : Access to Credit over past 12 months : Access to Credit over past 12 months % of respondent reported, accessed credit over past 12 months which was 77% last year. At the same time Control group respondent reported 55% accessed credit in last 12 month which was 58% last year. 38

42 Table 34: Improved Access to Credit Improved Access to Credit Percentage of Household reported YES 87% 87% 87% Percentage of Household reported 13% 13% 13% Percentage of Household reported YES 19% 27% Percentage of Household reported 81% 73% : Improved Access to Credit : Improved Access to Credit % of respondent reported, improved access to credit. At the same time Control group respondent reported 27% who says that improved access to credit in last 12 month which was significantly low as 19% last year. This is positive effect. 39

43 Table 35: Access to Credit Improved Thanks to Program Activity Access to Credit Improved Thanks to Program Activities Percentage of Household reported YES 91% 84% 92% Percentage of Household reported 9% 16% 8% : Access to Credit improved due to Program Activities % of respondent reported, improved access to credit is due to program activities and interventions. 4

44 Table 36: Source of Credit Source of Credit Percentage of Household reported Informal Sources Percentage of Household reported Formal Sources Percentage of Household reported Informal Sources Percentage of Household reported Formal Sources 9% 88% 85% 1% 12% 15% 79% 81% 21% 19% : Source of Credit : Source of Credit Informal Formal Informal Formal 85% of beneficiaries reported that the source of credit was informal whereas only 15% reported that they have taken loan from formal institutions compare to last year figures. Program has taken up successful efforts to form SHGs and make them effective as an informal source of credit for their members. The linkage with bank is yet to be streamlined to a desired extent and program is taking up income generating activities to ensure bankers participation in micro finance sector. 41

45 Table 37: Main use of Credit Main Use of Credit Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Consumption 16% 19% 7% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for IGA 58% 61% 58% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Other Investments 8% 8% 7% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Education 9% 4% 9% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Health 9% 8% 7% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Rituals % % 12% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Consumption 35% 43% 23% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for IGA 25% 21% 25% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Other Investments 14% 12% 11% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Education 3% 4% 5% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Health 23% % 19% Percentage of Household reported use of credit for Rituals % % 17% : Use of Credit Consumption Income generating activities Other investments Education Health Rituals like marriage etc : Use of Credit Consumption Other investments Health Income generating activities Education Rituals like marriage etc. 42

46 Table 38: Loan Repayment Status Loan Repayment Status Percentage of Household reported Loan Repaid 7% 62% 54% Percentage of Household reported, But will repay soon 28% 37% 44% Percentage of Household reported, Cannot repay 2% 1% 2% Percentage of Household reported Loan Repaid 28% 29% Percentage of Household reported, But will repay soon 65% 6% Percentage of Household reported, Cannot repay 7% 11% : Loan been repaid : Loan been repaid , But will repay soon, Cannot repay, But will repay soon, Cannot repay Very optimistically 54% of the respondent repaid the Loan amount in time and 44% are willing to maintain their credit credibility, however 2% respondent express that they are not in a position to repay the Loan amount. 43

47 I. Enterprise development and Employment: This section deals with project providing support and assistance to establish / expand / extend their enterprise or to get employment. Table 39: Own n-farm Enterprise Own n-farm enterprise Percentage of Household reported 26% 37% 36% Percentage of Household reported 74% 63% 64% Percentage of Household reported 19% 19% Percentage of Household reported 81% 81% : Own nfarm Enterprise : Own nfarm Enterprise

48 Table 4: Project Support in finding Job Project Support in finding Job Percentage of Household reported 64% 73% 74% Percentage of Household reported 36% 27% 26% : Program Support in finding Job Few of the beneficiaries group is without any land so scope for the non-form enterprise is initially limited to that extent. Moreover, the beneficiaries have initiated availing loan for income generation activities. Program has started to focus on collection of forest produce and promote manufacturing of some daily consuming products like washing powder, Candles, Bakery and Scent stick. These products are tie-up with Vindhya Valley (A brand of govt. of M.P. under Khadi and Village Industry Board) for marketing. 45

49 Table 41: SME Establishment and type of Program Support SME Establishment and type of program support Percentage of Household reported Project Helped Established 78% 61% 6% Percentage of Household reported Project Helped Expansion 22% 31% 33% Percentage of Household reported Support % 8% 7% Percentage of Household reported Project Helped Established 14% % Percentage of Household reported Project Helped Expansion 1% 13% Percentage of Household reported Support 76% 88% : Program Support in SME Establishment Project Helped Established Project Helped Expansion Support Project has extended its support from establishment of SME s to expansion of enterprise. 6% respondent reported project extended support for establishment of SME and 33% reported for expansion support provided by the Project. Rest 7% reported that without project support they established. 46

50 Activities planned during AWPB to achieve the desire outcomes: In Programme is focusing n strengthening the federation and mobilizing the 4 WSHGs of left out families in the programme villages. Major focus is given to training and exposure of federation board members and staff who are working with the federation. The formation of new WSHGs will be taken by federation and federation would get revenues in this process. Audit of WSHGs for the year 13-14,14-15 and shall be done in this year. Programme has developed disease specific training plan for community outreach. Training programme and health camp shall be organized according to plan. Federation shall be developed as resource/knowledge centers for WSHGs and its members. Looking to the top up assistance programme has developed preparation and implementation guideline for cluster based livelihood plan covering most of the WSHGs members. It is envisaged that support services for livelihood shall be provided by programme. Federation on its own base taken innovative action in livelihood such as collective farming, contract farming and check Dams. Programme will support to these federation 47