chapter v analysis and interpretation of...

P a g e | 186

CHAPTER – V

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with the descriptive and statistical analysis and

interpretation of the primary data collected from the members of the Self

Help Groups functioning in Chennai District of Tamil Nadu. The

hypotheses framed are tested with the help of the relevant statistical

tools, results are interpreted and inferences are drawn

Socio Economic back ground of the Respondents

This section provides useful insight in to the socio-economic

characteristics of the respondents and the various dimensions of socio-

economic empowerment and also the analysis of the opinion towards

the functioning of SHGs in empowering women, resulting in awareness

to the members of the SHGs.

P a g e | 187

The table given below depicts age wise classification of the

respondents

Table 5.1

Age wise classification of the respondents

S. No. Particulars No. of respondents

(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Below 30years 196 32.7

2 31 to 40years 210 35

3 41 to 50years 146 24.3

4 Above 50 years 48 8

Source: Primary Data

The above table shows that out of the total number of

respondents 35 per cent belong to the age group of 31-40 years of age,

followed by 32.7 per cent belonging to the age group of below 30 years.

24.3 per cent are in the age group of 41-50 years and only 8 per cent

belongs to the age group of above 50 years.

It is clear that respondents in the age group of 31-40 years of age

constituting 35 per cent is the highest where as respondents in the age

group of above 50 years constitute only 8 per cent which is the lowest

per cent. It is also inferred that members who are below 40 years are

interested in their socio economic improvement prompted in joining and

promoting SHGs.

P a g e | 188

Chart 5.1a

Age wise classification of the respondents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Below 30 years 31 to 40 years 41 to 50 years 51 years & above

32.7% 35%

24.3%

8%

Per

cen

ta g

e

Age of the respondents

P a g e | 189

The table given below indicates the religion wise classification of the

respondents.

Table 5.2

Religion wise classification of the respondents


(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Hindu 306 51

2 Muslim 84 14

3 Christian 210 35


The above data shows that 51 per cent of the sample

respondents belong to Hindu religion, 35 per cent belong to Christianity

and 14 per cent belong to Islam. Thus, the highest percentage of the

respondents belongs to Hindu religion exhibiting 51 per cent.

It is inferred that Christian members are relatively higher in

percentage than Muslim members in Chennai district which is a peculiar

feature. For all categories of religion, respondents are interested in

joining and promoting SHGs.

P a g e | 190

Chart 5.2a


51%

14%

35%


Hindu Muslim Christian

P a g e | 191

The table given below depicts mother tongue wise classification of the

respondents.

Table 5.3

Classification based on mother tongue


(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Tamil 466 77.7

2 Telugu 118 19.7

3 Others 16 2.7


The above table reveals that out of the total number of

respondents 77.7 per cent of the respondents’ mother tongue is Tamil,

19.7 per cent of the respondents’ mother tongue is Telugu and 2.7 per

cent of the respondents belongs to other mother tongue. Thus, the

highest number of respondents’ mother tongue is Tamil.

P a g e | 192

Chart 5.3a

Mother Tongue wise classification of the respondents

P a g e | 193

The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on

Community.

Table 5.4

Community wise classification of the respondents


(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 OC 88 14.7

2 BC 284 47.3

3 MBC 44 7.3

4 SC/ST 184 30.7



respondents, 47.3 per cent belong to BC, followed by 30.7 per cent

belonging to SC/ST category, 14.7 per cent belonging to OC category

and 7.3 per cent belonging to MBC category. Thus, the highest

number of respondents belongs to BC category and the lowest number

of respondents belongs to MBC category indicating 47.3 per cent and

7.3 per cent respectively.

P a g e | 194

Chart 5.4a


OC14.7%

BC47.3%

MBC7.3%

SC/ST30.7%


P a g e | 195


educational qualification.

Table 5.5

Classification based on the educational qualification


(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Illiterate 155 25.8

2 Primary 234 39

3 High School 171 28.5

4 H.Sec.School 27 4.5

5 Graduate 13 2.2


The above table indicates that 39 per cent of respondents have

completed Primary School education; 28.5 per cent of respondents

have completed High School education; 25.8 per cent of respondents

are illiterate; 4.5 per cent of respondents have completed Higher

Secondary School education and only 2.2 per cent of respondents have

completed Under Graduation.

It is clear that 39 per cent of respondents are possessing primary

school education which is the highest among various other

qualifications and 2.2 per cent of respondents are Under Graduates

which is the least of all.

It is observed that SHG members who are qualified less than

under graduation are interested in the formation and management of

SHGs resulting in empowerment.

P a g e | 196

Chart 5.5a

Classification based on the educational qualification

Illiterate

Primary

High school

Hsc

Graduate

25.8%

39%

28.5%

4.5%

2.2%

Percentage

Edu

cati

on

al Q

ual

ific

atio

n

Classification based on the Educational Qualification

P a g e | 197


marital status.

Table 5.6

Classification of the respondents based on marital status


(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Married 573 95.5

2 Unmarried 9 1.5

3 Separated 18 3


The above table reveals that 573 respondents are ‘married’

constituting 95.5 per cent. There are 18 per cent of the respondents

who are separated and a meagre 9 per cent of the respondents are

unmarried.

It is inferred from the above table that the majority of the

respondents (95.5 per cent) are married. Therefore, it could be

interpreted that members who are married are largely interested in the

formation and promotion of SHGs, since the responsibility of married

members is relatively higher than that of the unmarried members.

P a g e | 198

Chart 5.6a


Married, 95.5%

Unmarried, 1.5% Separated, 3%

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts


P a g e | 199


Nativity.

Table 5.7

Classification of the respondents based on Nativity


(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Chennai 540 90

2 Near Chennai 43 7.2

3 Other part of TN 9 1.5

4 Other 8 1.3


It is clear from the above table that out of the total number of

respondents, 540 respondents’ nativity is Chennai itself constituting 90

per cent; 43 respondents have come from nearby Chennai constituting

7.2 per cent; 9 respondents have come from other parts of Tamil Nadu

constituting 1.3 per cent and only a meagre 8 per cent of the

respondents’ nativity comes under the head “others”. Thus, the highest

number of respondents’ nativity is Chennai and the lowest number of

respondents’ nativity belongs to other parts of Tamil Nadu or other

state.

It is observed that there are members whose native is Chennai,

need more improvement economically and socially, and this influenced

them in joining and promoting SHGs resulting in empowerment.

P a g e | 200

Chart 5.7a

Classification of the respondents based on nativity

90%

7%

2%1%

Classification of the respondents based on nativity

Chennai

Near Chennai

other part of TN

Other

P a g e | 201


family type.

Table 5.8

Classification of the respondents based on family type


(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Nuclear 441 73.5

2 Joint 159 26.5


From the above table it is evident that 441 respondents

constituting 73.5 per cent belong to nuclear families and the remaining

159 respondents who constitute 26.5 per cent belong to joint families.

Thus the highest numbers of respondents are in the nuclear type

families.

It is observed from the above table that the members of both

nuclear family and joint family are interested in SHG formation.

A peculiar feature is more membership of nuclear family members;

these members are also showing interest in SHGs because of their

interest in socio economic empowerment.

P a g e | 202

Chart 5.8a


Nuclear

Joint

73.5%

26.5%

Percentage

Fam

ily t

ype


P a g e | 203


the size of the family.

Table 5.9

Classification of the respondents based on the size of the family

S. No Particulars

No. of

respondents

(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Single 9 1.5

2 2 to 4 377 62.8

3 5 to 7 179 29.8

4 8 & above 35 5.8



respondents, 377 respondents constituting 62.8 per cent which is the

highest, have family members ranging from 2 to 4, followed by 179

respondents constituting 29.8 per cent, with 5 to 7 family members; 35

respondents constituting 5.8 per cent with 8 and above family members

and only 9 respondents constituting 1.5 per cent are not having any

other member in their family except themselves.

P a g e | 204

Chart 5.9a

Classification of the respondents based on the size of the family

P a g e | 205


the type of house.

Table 5.10

Classification of the respondents based on the type of house

S. No. Particulars

No. of

respondents

(n=600)

Percentage

(100%)

1 Thatched 348 58

2 Asbestos 140 23.3

3 Concrete house 76 12.7

4 Others 36 6


The above table reveals that out of the sample respondents 58

per cent are residing in thatched type of the houses; 23.3 per cent of the

respondents are residing in asbestos type houses; 12. 7 per cent of the

respondents are residing in concrete houses and only 6 per cent of the

respondents’ are living in other type of houses like shed.

Therefore it is crystal clear that the highest percentage of the

respondents depicting 58 per cent live in thatched houses and only 12.7

per cent of the respondents live in concrete houses, which is

comparatively low. It is important to note, that 6 per cent of the

respondents are living in temporary shed. From the nature of houses

where the respondents are living, it is crystal clear that respondents are

economically backward and are in need of measures to improve their

socio-economic conditions. They ascertained SHGs as the best module.

P a g e | 206

Chart 5.10a


58%

23.3%12.7%

6%0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Thatched Asbestos Concrete house Others

Per

cen

tage

Type of house


P a g e | 207


their family income.

Table 5.11

Classification of the respondents based on their family income

S. No. Particulars No. of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Below 5000 189 31.5

2 5001 to 10000

317 52.8

3 10001 to 15000

59 9.8

4 15001 & above

35 5.8



respondents’ family, 52.8% belong to 5001 - 10000 income group;

31.5% belong to below 5000 income group; 9.8% belong to 10001 to

15000 income group and the remaining 5.8% of the respondents

belong to 15001 & above income group. Thus, the maximum number of

respondents belongs to the income group of 5001 to 10000

constituting 52.8%.

So it is inferred that respondents who are member of SHGs, on

an average, are getting very low income which stimulated them to

become the members of the SHGs with an aim to improve their socio

economic condition and attain empowerment.

P a g e | 208

Chart 5.11a


31%

53%

10%

6%

16%


Below 5000

5001 to 10000

10001 to 15000

15001 & above

P a g e | 209

Functioning and Working of SHGs

The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level of the

respondents towards the functioning and working of SHGs.

Table 5.12

Satisfactory level of the respondents towards the functioning and

working of SHGs

Functioning and Working of SHGs in terms of Conduct of Meeting, Record of Proceedings, Transparency and Formation and Management of SHGs

S.No. Statements Variables Nature of the responses

Strongly Agree

Agree No

opinion Disagree

Strongly Disagree

a) Meeting is conducted regularly

Conduct of Meeting

154 (25.7%)

131 (21.8%)

125 (20.8%)

121 (20.2%)

69 (11.5%)

b)

Members Attend meeting with spirit and involvement

207 (34.5%)

138 (23%)

131 (21.8%)

79 (13.2%)

45 (7.5%)

c)

There is no absenteeism in attending the meeting

215 (35.8%)

180 (30%)

118 (19.7%)

68 (11.3%)

19 (3.2%)

d)

Proper action is taken against the default to fails to attend the meeting

192 (32%)

177 (29.5%)

168 (28%)

56 (9.3%)

7 (1.2%)

e) I am attending meetings regularly

202 (33.7%)

176 (29.3%)

127 (21.2%)

75 (12.5%)

20 (3.3%)

a) Documentation is done in order

Record of Proceedings

243 (40.5%)

141 (23.5%)

89 (14.8%)

83 (13.8%)

44 (7.3%)

b) Minutes are recorded

238 (39.7%)

169 (28.2%)

144 (24%)

37 (6.2%)

12 (2%)

c)

There is a checking and review of Accounts

225 (37.5%)

115 (19.2%)

105 (17.5%)

90 (15%)

65 (10.8%)

d)

Recording of Accounts as per the guidelines

292 (48.7%)

138 (23%)

126 (21%)

26 (4.3%)

18 (3%)

P a g e | 210

e) I am involved in recording of proceedings

239 (39.8%)

163 (27.2%)

105 (17.5%)

50 (8.3%)

43 (7.2%)

a)

There is an access to the Document of the group

Transparency

359 (59.8%)

127 (21.2%)

50 (8.3%)

37 (6.2%)

27 (4.5%)

b)

Exercise of duties and responsibilities is in order

248 (41.3%)

115 (19.2%)

99 (16.5%)

94 (15.7%)

44 (7.3%)

c)

Calculations and computation is clear and understandable

257 (42.8%)

141 (23.5%)

80 (13.3%)

65 (10.8%)

57 (9.5%)

d) Objectives of the SHGs are clearly explained

228 (38%)

172 (28.7%)

155 (25.8%)

21 (3.5%)

24 (4%)

e)

I am capable of answering the questions related to SHGs

185 (30.8%)

184 (30.7%)

140 (23.3%)

47 (7.8%)

44 (7.3%)

a)

I have knowledge on initiating the formation

Formation and

Management of

SHGs

152 (25.3%)

136 (22.7%)

132 (22%)

99 (16.5%)

81 (13.5%)

b) I know the procedures for formation

258 (43%)

166 (27.7%)

112 (18.7%)

33 (5.5%)

31 (5.2%)

c)

I am very much clear about the regulations of SHGs

223 (37.2%)

165 (27.5%)

104 (17.3%)

88 (14.7%)

20 (3.3%)

d) I am aware of general function of SHGs

265 (44.2%)

144 (24%)

138 (23%)

35 (5.8%)

18 (3%)

e) Procedure for repayment is well understood

212 (35.3%)

165 (27.5%)

110 (18.3%)

68 (11.3%)

45 (7.5%)


The table describes the respondents’ opinion on the functioning

and working of SHGs. In order to extract information and analyze the

Functioning and Working of SHGs, the researcher constructed

statements which are grouped such as Conduct of Meeting, Record of

Proceedings, Transparency and Formation and management of SHGs.

Views of the respondents are summarized which are closely and

directly associated with Functioning and Working of SHGs.

P a g e | 211

1. Conduct of Meeting;

a) Out of the total sample respondents, 25.7 per cent of the

respondents strongly agreed that the meeting is

conducted regularly; another 21.8 per cent of the

respondents agreed with the regularity of the meetings.

Only 11.5 per cent of the respondents expressed

“strongly disagreed” for the regularity of the conduct of

meeting. Therefore, it is very much clear that meeting is

conducted regularly.

b) Among the total respondents, 34.5 per cent of the

respondents “strongly agree” followed by 23 per cent of

the respondents who “agree” that members attend

meeting with their spirit and involvement. Only 7.5 per

cent of the respondents strongly “disagree” to the

statement “Members attend meeting with spirit and

involvement”.

c) The highest percentage of respondents (35.8 per cent)

strongly agrees and another 30 per cent of the

respondents agree that there is no absenteeism. Only

3.2 per cent of the respondents viewed “strongly

disagreed” for the no absenteeism in attending the

meeting. Therefore, it is very much clear that meeting is

conducted with fewer absentees regularly.

d) The highest percentage of the respondents (32) strongly

agrees and 29.5 per cent of the respondents agree with

the statement that proper action is taken against the

defaulters from attending the meeting.

P a g e | 212

e) Of the total, 33.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly

agree” and 29.3 per cent of the respondents agree that

they are attending meeting regularly.

2. Record of proceedings;

a) Among the total, 40.5 per cent of the respondents

strongly agree which is the highest and 23.5 per cent of

the respondents agree with the statement that

documentation is done in order.

b) 39.7 per cent of the respondents strongly agree and

28.2 per cent of the respondents agree with the

statement that minutes are recorded properly. Only 2

per cent of the respondents strongly disagree with the

proper recording of minutes.

c) For the statement “There is a checking and reviewing

of the accounts”, 37.5 percentage of the respondents

strongly agree which is the highest and 19.2 per cent

agree and only 10.8 per cent of the respondents

strongly disagree.

d) The highest percentage of the respondents (48.7%)

strongly agrees and 23% per cent of the respondents

agrees with the statement that accounts are recorded as

per guidelines. Only 3 per cent of the respondents

strongly disagree with the proper recording of minutes.

e) 39.8 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and

27.2 per cent of the respondents “agree” that they are

involved in recording of proceedings.

P a g e | 213

3. Transparency

a) 59.8 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and

21.2 per cent of the respondents “agree” with the

statement that they have an access to the Document of

the group. Only 4.5 per cent of the respondents strongly

disagree with the statement an access to the Document

of the group.

b) The highest percentage of the respondents (41.3%)

strongly agrees and 19.2% per cent of the respondents

agrees with the statement that exercise of duties and

responsibilities is in order. Only 3 per cent of the

respondents strongly disagree with the view that the

exercise of duties and a responsibility is in order.

c) 42.8 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and

23.5 per cent of the respondents “agree” that

calculations and computation are clear and

understandable.

d) For the statement “Objectives of the SHGs are clearly

explained”, 38 percentage of the respondents strongly

agree which is the highest and 28.7 per cent agree and

only 10.8 per cent of the respondents strongly disagree.

e) 30.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agree and

30.7 per cent of the respondents agree with the

statement “I am capable of answering the questions

related to SHGs”.

P a g e | 214

4. Formation and Management of SHGs

a) 25.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and


statement “I have knowledge on initiating the formation”.

b) 43 per cent of the respondents strongly agree and 22.7

per cent of the respondents agree with the statement “I

know the procedures for formation”.

c) 37.2 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and


statement “I am very much clear about the regulations of

SHGs”. Only 3.3 per cent of the respondents strongly

disagree with their clarity about the regulations of SHGs.

d) The highest percentage of the respondents (44.2%)

strongly agrees and 24% per cent of the respondents

agrees with the statement “I am aware of general

function of SHGs”. Only 3 per cent of the respondents

strongly disagree with the awareness of general function

of SHGs.

e) For the statement “Procedure for repayment is well

understood”, 35.3 percentage of the respondents

strongly agree which is the highest and 27.5 per cent

agree and only 7.5 per cent of the respondents strongly

disagree.

P a g e | 215

Monthly Income and Expenditure of the Respondents

The given below table shows monthly income of the respondents

before and after their membership in SHGs.

Table 5.13

Monthly income of the respondents before and after their

membership in SHGs

S. No.

Range of Income Before Membership

% of Respondents

Range of Income After Membership

% of Respondents

1 Below 2000 381 (63.5%) Below 3000 101 (16.8%)

2 2001 to 3000 160 (26.7%) 3001 to 4000 212 (35.3%)

3 3001 to 4000 43 (7.2%) 4001 to 5000 155 (25.8%)

4 Above 4000 16 (2.7%) Above 5000 132 (22%)


Out of the total respondents, before membership 63.5 per cent of

the respondents which is the highest earned the monthly income below

2,000, whereas after membership the highest percentage of the

respondents (35.3%) earned income ranging from 3001 to 4000.

Likewise before membership, 2.7 percentage of the respondents earned

monthly income above 4000, which is the lowest whereas after

membership the lowest 16.8 per cent of the respondents earned

monthly income below 3000.

Similarly the second largest per centage of the respondents

earned income ranging from 2001 to 3000 constituting 26.7 per cent.

On the other hand after membership, the second largest percentage of

the respondents earned monthly income ranging from 3001 to 4000

constituting 35.3 per centage. Therefore, it is crystal clear that

respondents’ income has increased after their membership reasonably

in comparison with economic condition before membership, resulting in

economic empowerment.

P a g e | 216

The given below table shows monthly expenditure of the respondents

before and after their membership in SHGs on Basic Needs.

Table 5.14

Monthly expenditure of the respondents before and after their

membership in SHGs on basic needs

Before Membership After Membership

Basic Needs

Range of Income % of Respondents

Range of Income % of Respondents

1 Food

Below 2000 333 (55.5%) Below 2000 122 (20.3%)

2001- 3000 125 (20.8%) 2001- 3000 170 (28.3%)

3001- 4000 94 (15.7%) 3001- 4000 206 (34.3%)

Above 4000 48 (8%) Above 4000 102 (17%)

2 Housing

Below 2000 333 (55.5%) Below 2000 142(23.7%)

2001- 3000 162 (27%) 2001- 3000 93(15.5%)

3001- 4000 57(9.5%) 3001- 4000 210 (35%)

Above 4000 48 (8%) Above 4000 155(25.8%)

3 Clothing

Below 2000 340(56.7%) Below 2000 146(24.3%)

2001- 3000 108 (18%) 2001- 3000 104(17.3%)

3001- 4000 75(12.5%) 3001- 4000 198 (33%)

Above 4000 77(12.8%) Above 4000 152(25.3%)


1. Food:

Out of the total respondents, 55.5 percent of the respondents

were able to spend less than 2000 per month on food which is the

highest before their membership; where as 34.3 per cent of the

respondents are spending ranging from 3001 to 4000 on food after

their membership which is the highest of all. Similarly, 20.8 per cent of

the respondents, the second largest were able to spend ranging from

2001 to 3000 before their membership. On the other hand, 28.3 per

cent, the second largest number of the respondents, were spending on

food ranging from 2001 to 3000. Before membership, only 8 per

cent of the respondents which is the lowest of all spent above 4000

P a g e | 217

on food. But after membership, the members spending on food above

4000 constitute 17 per cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is

crystal clear that SHG members after their membership could spend

sufficiently higher than what was spent before membership.

2. Housing:

Out of the total sample respondents, 55.5 percent of the

respondents were able to spend less than 2000 per month on housing

which is the highest before their membership, where as 35 per cent of

the respondents are spending ranging from 3001 to 4000 on housing

after their membership which is the highest of all. Similarly, 27 per cent

of the respondents, the second largest were able to spend ranging from

2001 to 3000 before their membership. On the other hand, 25.8 per

cent, the second largest number of the respondents, were spending on

housing, ranging from above 4000 after membership. Before

membership, only 8 per cent of the respondents which is the lowest of

all spent above 4000 on housing. But after membership, the members

spending on housing, ranging from 2001 - 3000 constitute 15.5 per

cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is crystal clear that SHG

members after their membership could spend sufficiently higher than

what was spent before membership.

3. Clothing:

Out of the total sample respondents, 56.7 percent of the respondents

were able to spend less than 2000 per month on housing which is the

highest before their membership; where as 33 per cent of the

respondents are spending ranging from 3001 to 4000 on clothing

after their membership which is the highest of all. Similarly, 12.8 per

cent of the respondents, the second largest were able to spend ranging

P a g e | 218

from 4000 and above before their membership. On the other hand,

25.3 per cent, the second largest number of the respondents, were

spending on clothing ranging from above 4000 after membership.

Before membership, only 18 per cent of the respondents which is the

lowest of all spent ranging from 2001 to 3000 on clothing. But after

membership, the members spending on clothing ranging from 2001 -

3000 constitute 17.3 per cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is

crystal clear that SHG members after their membership could spend

sufficiently higher than what was spent before membership.

Chart 5.14 a

Monthly expenditure of the respondents before and after their

membership in SHGs on basic needs

P a g e | 219

The table given below focuses the satisfactory level on the attribute of

expenditure incurred on other needs by the SHG members.

Table 5.15

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of expenditure incurred on

other needs by the Respondents

S.No.

Attribute of Eexpenditure incurred on other

needs

Responses

SA A N D SD

1

Education ( Become capable to spend on education)

150 (25%)

238 (39.7%)

130 (21.7%)

39 (6.5%)

43 (7.2%)

2

Entertainment ( Become Capable to spend on Entertainment)

166 (27.7%)

146 (24.3%)

147 (24.5%)

96 (16%)

45 (7.5%)

3

Use of Transport (Become Capable to use Transport)

135 (22.5%)

175 (29.2%)

152 (25.3%)

113 (18.8%)

25 (4.2%)

4 Scope for increase in expenditure on clothing

195 (32.5%)

186 (31%)

154 (25.7%)

43 (7.2%)

22 (3.7%)

5

Asset creation is possible (Housing)

217 (36.2%)

170 (28.3%)

99 (16.5%)

89 (14.8%)

25 (4.2%)


SA – Strongly Agree, A – Agree, N – No opinion, D – Disagree, SD – Strongly

Disagree.

1. Education;

The highest percentage of respondents (39.7 per cent) agrees

and another 25 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they

have become capable to spend on education. Only 3.2 per cent of the

respondents “strongly disagreed” with the capability to spend on

education. Therefore, it is very much clear that that they have become

capable to spend on education.

P a g e | 220

2. Entertainment;

For the statement “SHG members are capable to spend on

entertainment”, 27.7 percentage of the respondents strongly agree

which is the highest and 24.3 per cent agree and only 7.5 per cent of

the respondents strongly disagree. Therefore, it demonstrates that they

have become capable to spend on entertainment.

3. Use of Transport

Out of the total sample respondents, 29.2 per cent of the

respondents agree that the use of transport has become possible,

another 22.5 per cent of the respondents strongly agree with the

capability to use transportation. Only 4.2 per cent of the respondents

“strongly disagreed” with the capacity of using transportation. Therefore,

it is very much clear that they are capable of using transportation.

4. Scope for increase in income generation in future:

The highest percentage of the respondents (32.5) strongly

agrees and 31 per cent of the respondents agrees with the statement

that there is a scope for increase in income generation in future.

5. Asset creation is possible:

Among the total respondents, 36.2 per cent of the respondents

“strongly agree” followed by 28.3 per cent of the respondents who

“agree” that members’ Asset creation is possible. Only 4.2 per cent of

the respondents strongly “disagree” with the statement “Members Asset

creation is possible”.

P a g e | 221

The table given below explains the satisfactory level on the attribute of

social empowerment by the SHG members.

Table 5.16

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of social empowerment by the

SHG members

S.No Attribute of Social

Empowerment

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Community Participation

a) Knowledge for Community Participation

266 (44.3%)

127 (21.2%)

83 (13.8%)

90 (15%)

34 (5.7%)

b) Ability to move with society

124 (20.7%)

138 (23%)

162 (27%)

142 (23.7%)

34 (5.7%)

2 Social Reasoning

a) Understanding Expectations

207 (34.5%)

114 (19%)

115 (19.2%)

147 (24.5%)

17 (2.8%)

b) Living by Reasoning

204 (34%)

116 (19.3%)

127 (21.2%)

93 (15.5%)

60 (10%)

3 Social analysis

a) Knowledge for Social Analysis

220 (36.7%)

130 (21.7%)

100 (16.7%)

88 (14.7%)

62 (10.3%)

b) Knowledge for the optimum use of resources

178 (29.7%)

182 (30.3%)

124 (20.7%)

93 (15.5%)

23 (3.8%)

4 Health and Hygienic Practice

a) Knowledge on Health and Hygienic Practices

153 (25.5%)

238 (39.7%)

89 (14.8%)

42 (7%)

78 (13% )

b) Sense of Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking water, Electricity, Drainage facilities)

192 (32%)

128 (21.3%)

115 (19.2%)

69 (11.5%)

96 (16%)

P a g e | 222

5 Culture and Civilization

a) Sense of ideal understanding of different culture and Civilization

319 (53.2%)

125 (20.8%)

102 (17%)

34 (5.7%)

20 (3.3%)

b) Knowledge on Cultural and Civilization

226 (37.7%)

128 (21.3%)

134 (22.3%)

80 (13.3%)

32 (5.3%)


The above table demonstrates that to assess the social

empowerment of self help group members, the researcher framed two

variables each under five factors namely Community participation,

Social Reasoning, Social analysis, Health and Hygienic Practice and

Culture and Civilization.

1. Community participation:

a) Knowledge for Community Participation:


respondents strongly agreed that they are knowledgeable for

Community Participation; another 21.2 per cent of the

respondents agree with being knowledgeable for Community

Participation. Only 5.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly

disagreed” with Knowledge for the Community Participation.

Therefore, it is very much clear that they are knowledgeable

for Community Participation.

b) Ability to move with society:

For the statement “Ability to move with society”, 27 percentage

of the respondents have not registered any opinion about the

ability to move with society which is the highest and 23.7 per

cent of the respondents disagree and only 23 per cent of the

P a g e | 223

respondents agree. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of

the respondents have to improve their ability to move with

society.

2. Social Reasoning:

a) Understanding Expectations:


agrees and 19 per cent of the respondents agrees with the

statement that they are Understanding Expectations.

b) Living by reasoning:

Among the total respondents, 34 per cent of the respondents

“strongly agree” followed by 21.2 per cent of the respondents

who have no opinion on the view that they are living by

reasoning. Only 10 per cent of the respondents strongly

“disagree” with the statement “Living by reasoning”.

3. Social analysis:

a) Knowledge for social Analysis:

The highest percentage of respondents (36.7 per cent)

strongly agrees and another 21.7 per cent of the respondents

agrees that they have Knowledge for social Analysis. Only

10.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with

their knowledge of social Analysis. Therefore, it is very much

clear that that they have become knowledgeable for social

analysis.

P a g e | 224

b) Knowledge for the optimum use of resources:

Among the total, 30.3 per cent of the respondents agree and

29.7 per cent of the respondents strongly agree with the

statement that they are knowledgeable for the optimum use of

resources.

4. Health and Hygienic Practice:

a) Knowledge on health and hygienic practices:

Of the total, 39.7 per cent of the respondents “agree” and 25.5

per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” that they have

Knowledge on health and hygienic practices.

b) Sense of Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet

Facilities, Drinking water, Electricity, Drainage facilities):

Out of the total sample respondents, 32 per cent of the

respondents strongly agreed that they have Sense of

Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking

water, Electricity, Drainage facilities); another 21.3 per cent of

the respondents agree with the Sense of Possessing

Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking water,

Electricity, Drainage facilities). Only 16 per cent of the

respondents “strongly disagreed” with Sense of Possessing

Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking water,

Electricity, Drainage facilities). Therefore, it is very much clear

that they have sense of Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet

Facilities, Drinking water, Electricity, Drainage facilities).

P a g e | 225

5. Culture and Civilization:

a) Sense of ideal understanding of different culture and

civilization:

For the statement “Sense of ideal understanding of different

culture and Civilization”, 53.2 percentage of the respondents

have strongly agreed that they have Sense of ideal

understanding of different culture and Civilization which is the

highest and 20.8 per cent of the respondents agree and only

3.3 per cent of the respondents strongly disagree. Therefore, it

demonstrates that majority of the respondents have the sense

of ideal understanding of different culture and civilization.

b) Knowledge on Cultural and Civilization:


agrees and 21.3 per cent of the respondents agrees with the

statement that they are Knowledgeable on Cultural and

Civilization.

P a g e | 226

The table given below presents the satisfactory level on the attribute of

awareness creation by the SHG members.

Table 5.17

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of awareness creation by

the SHG members

S.No. Attribute of Awareness

Creation

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Knowledge on Schemes

a) Knowledge on Govt. Schemes

246 (41%)

162 (27%)

119 (19.8%)

40 (6.7%)

33 (5.5%)

b) Knowledge on Insurance facilities

108 (18%)

219 (36.5%)

156 (26%)

97 (16.2%)

20 (3.3%)

2 Knowledge on Rights and privileges

a) Knowledge on constitutional rights

135 (22.5%)

190 (31.7%)

180 (30%)

45 (7.5%)

50 (8.3%)

b) Knowledge on civil rights

201 (33.5%)

163 (27.2%)

97 (16.2%)

48 (8%)

91 (15.2%)

3 Knowledge on Development

a) Knowledge on political environment

170 (28.3%)

164 (27.3%)

113 (18.8%)

82 (13.7%)

71 (11.8%)

b) knowledge on pollution Control

193 (32.2%)

150 (25%)

122 (20.3%)

55 (9.2%)

80 (13.3%)

4 Knowledge on Employability

a) Creation of reasoning power

157 (26.2%)

216 (36%)

48 (8%)

94 (15.7%)

85 (14.2%)

b) Knowledge on progressive thoughts

200 (33.3%)

155 (25.8%)

163 (27.2%)

18 (3%)

64 (10.7%)

5 Knowledge on integration and survival

a) Knowledge on social evils

228 (38%)

170 (28.3%)

107 (17.8)

49 (8.2 )

46 (7.7)

b) Understanding the importance of Professional Development

224 (37.3%)

182 (30.3%)

128 (21.3%)

3 (.5%)

63 (10.5%)


P a g e | 227

1. Knowledge on Schemes:

a) Knowledge on Govt. Schemes:


respondents strongly agreed that they are knowledgeable on

Govt. Schemes; another 27 per cent of the respondents agree

with being knowledgeable on Govt. Schemes. Only 5.5 per

cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with being

knowledgeable on Govt. Schemes. Therefore, it is very much

clear that they are knowledgeable on Govt. Schemes.

b) Knowledge on Insurance facilities:

For the statement “Knowledge on Insurance facilities”, 36.5

percentage of the respondents have agreed with the opinion

that they have Knowledge on Insurance facilities which is the

highest and 18 per cent of the respondents have strongly

agreed that they are Knowledgeable on Insurance facilities

and only 3.3 per cent of the respondents disagree. Therefore,

it demonstrates that majority of the respondents have

Knowledge on Insurance facilities.

2. Knowledge on Rights and privileges:

a) Knowledge on constitutional rights:

The highest percentage of the respondents (31.7) agrees with

the view that they have knowledge on constitutional rights and

unexpectedly 30 per cent of the respondents which is the

second largest number have no opinion on the ground that

they have knowledge on constitutional rights but 22.5 per cent

of the respondents strongly agree with the statement that they

are Knowledgeable on constitutional rights.

P a g e | 228

b) Knowledge on civil rights:



agrees that they have Knowledge on civil rights. Only 15.2

per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with their

knowledge on civil rights. Therefore, it is very much clear that

that they have become knowledgeable on civil rights.

3. Knowledge on Development:

a) Knowledge on political environment:

Among the total, 28.3 per cent of the respondents strongly

agree and 27.3 per cent of the respondents agree with the

statement that they are knowledgeable on political

environment. And, only 11.8 per cent of the respondents

strongly disagreed with the statement “Knowledge on political

environment”.

b) Knowledge on Pollution Control:

Of the total number of respondents, 32.2 per cent of the

respondents strongly agree and 25 per cent of the

respondents agree with the statement that they have

“Knowledge on Pollution Control”.

4. Knowledge on Employability:

a) Creation of reasoning power:


respondents agreed and another 26.2 per cent of the

respondents strongly agreed with the view that they have the

knowledge on creation of reasoning power. Only 14.2 per cent

of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the knowledge on

P a g e | 229

creation of reasoning power. Therefore, it is very much clear

that majority of the respondents are knowledgeable on

creation of reasoning power.

b) Knowledge on progressive thoughts:

Among the total respondents, 33.3 per cent of the respondents

“strongly agree” followed by 27.2 per cent of the respondents

who have no opinion on the view that they have Knowledge on

progressive thoughts. Only 10.7 per cent of the respondents

“strongly disagree” with the statement “Knowledge on

progressive thoughts”.

5. Knowledge on integration and survival:

a) Knowledge on social evils:


respondents strongly agreed that they are knowledgeable on

social evils; another 28.3 per cent of the respondents agree

with the knowledgeable on social evils. Only 7.7 per cent of

the respondents “strongly disagreed” with being

knowledgeable on social evils. Therefore, it is very much clear

that majority of the respondents are knowledgeable on social

evils.

b) Understanding the importance of Professional

Development:

For the statement “Understanding the importance of

Professional Development”, 37.3 percentage of the

respondents have strongly agreed with the opinion that

majority of the respondents Understand the importance of

Professional Development which is the highest; another 30.3

P a g e | 230

per cent of the respondents have agreed that they Understand

the importance of Professional Development and only 10.5 per

cent of the respondents disagreed. Therefore, it is crystal clear

that majority of the respondents Understand the importance of

Professional Development.

The table given below depicts the satisfactory level on the attribute of

skills and competency by the Respondents.

Table 5.18

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of skills and competency

by the Respondents

S.No. Skills and Competency Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Managerial Skills

a) There is an acquisition of Managerial Skills

193 (32.2%)

184 (30.7%)

141 (23.5%)

22 (3.7%)

60 (10%)

b) Application of managerial Skills is learnt

374 (62.3%)

191 (%31.8)

11 (1.8%)

20 (3.3%)

4 (.7%)

2 Coordination and control

a) Effect of coordination and control is understood

310 (51.7%)

125 (20.8%)

73 (12.2%)

58 (9.7%)

34 (5.7%)

b) There is an improved application of Coordination and Control

346 (57.7%)

160 (26.7%)

37 (6.2%)

45 (7.5%)

12 (2%)

3 Leadership Qualities

a) Qualities like Initiation, interaction,flexibility,Adaptability, Adjustability acquired

308 (51.3%)

122 (20.3%)

91 (15.2%)

58 (9.7%)

21 (3.5%)

b) Acquired the traits of good consultant

280 (46.7%)

161 (26.8%)

91 (15.2%)

36 (6%)

32 (5.3%)

4 Group Dynamism

a) Effect of Group Interaction is understood

234 (39%)

198 (33%)

83 (13.8%)

63 (10.5%)

22 (3.7%)

b) Decision Making ability acquired 274 (45.7%)

210 (35%)

37 (6.2%)

37 (6.2%)

42 (7%)

5 Communication

a) Able to have effective communication

314 (52.3%)

157 (26.2%)

52 (8.7%)

65 (10.8%)

12 (2%)

b) Animating nature developed 253 (42.2%)

219 (36.5%)

91 (15.2%)

18 (3%)

19 (3.2%)


P a g e | 231

1. Managerial Skills:

a) There is an acquisition of managerial skills:


agrees and 30.7 per cent of the respondents agrees with the

statement that there is an acquisition of Managerial Skills.

b) Application of managerial skills is learnt:

For the statement “Application of managerial Skills is learnt”,

62.3 percentage of the respondents have strongly agreed with

the opinion that they have learnt Application of managerial

Skills which is the highest and 31.8 per cent of the

respondents agreed with the view that they have learnt

managerial Skills. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of

the respondents have learnt the Application of managerial

Skills.

2. Coordination and control:

a) Effect of coordination and control is understood:


respondents strongly agreed that they have understood the

Effect of coordination and control; another 20.8 per cent of the

respondents agreed with the effect of coordination and control.

Only 5.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with

the effect of coordination and control. Therefore, it is very

much clear that majority of the respondents have understood

the effect of coordination and control.

P a g e | 232

b) There is an improved application of coordination and

control:



agrees that they have an improved application of Coordination

and Control. Only 2 per cent of the respondents “strongly

disagreed” with their improved application of Coordination and

Control. Therefore, it is very much clear that that they have an

improved application of coordination and control.

3. Leadership Qualities:

a) Qualities like Initiation, interaction, flexibility,

Adaptability, Adjustability acquired:


agree and 20.3 per cent of the respondents agree with the

statement that they have acquired the qualities like Initiation,

interaction, flexibility, Adaptability, and Adjustability. And, only

3.5 per cent of the respondents strongly disagreed with the

statement that they have acquired the qualities like Initiation,

interaction, flexibility, Adaptability, and Adjustability.

b) Acquired the traits of good consultant:


respondents strongly agree and 26.8 per cent of the

respondents agree with the statement that they have

“Acquired the traits of good consultant”. Only 5.3 per cent of

the respondents have strongly disagreed with the statement

that they have “Acquired the traits of good consultant”.

P a g e | 233

4. Group Dynamism:

a) Effect of Group Interaction is understood:

The highest percentage of the respondents (39) strongly

agrees and 33 per cent of the respondents agrees with the

statement that an effect of group interaction is understood.

Only 3.7 per cent of the respondents disagreed that they have

understood the effect of Group Interaction.

b) Decision Making ability acquired:

For the statement “Decision Making ability acquired”, 45.7

percentage of the respondents have strongly agreed with the

opinion that they have acquired Decision Making ability which

is the highest and 35 per cent of the respondents agreed with

the view that they have acquired Decision Making ability.

Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the respondents

have acquired Decision Making ability.

5. Communication:

a) Able to have effective communication:


respondents strongly agree that they are able to have effective

communication; another 26.2 per cent of the respondents

agree that they are able to have effective communication. Only

2 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with their

able effective communication. Therefore, it is very much clear

that majority of the respondents are able to have effective

communication.

P a g e | 234

c) Animating nature developed:



agrees that their Animating nature developed. Only 3.2 per

cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” that their

animating nature has not developed. Therefore, it is very

much clear that that they have an improved application of

Coordination and Control.

The table given below reveals classification of the respondents based

on savings

Table 5.19

Classification of the respondents based on savings

S. No

Savings

Before Membership After Membership

No. of

Resp.

% of

Resp.

No. of

Resp.

% of

Resp.

1 Less than 200 298 49.7% 121 20.2%

2 201 to 300 166 27.7% 71 11.8%

3 301 to 400 49 8.2% 74 12.3%

4 401 to 500 43 7.2% 143 23.8%

5 501 & above 44 7.3% 191 31.8%



respondents were able to save less than 200 per month which is the

highest before their membership, where as 31.8 per cent of the

respondents were able to save 501 and above after their membership

which is the highest of all. Similarly, 27.7 per cent of the respondents,

the second largest were able to save an amount from 201 to 300

before their membership. On the other hand, 23.8 per cent, the second

P a g e | 235

largest number of the respondents had, savings ranging from 401 to

500. Before membership, only7.2 per cent of the respondents which is

the lowest of all, had savings from 401 to 500. But after

membership, the members saving 201 to 300 constitute 11.8 per

cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is crystal clear that SHG

members after their membership could save sufficiently higher than

what was saved before their membership.

Chart 5.19 a

Classification of the respondents based on savings

P a g e | 236

The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level on the attribute

of factors for the success of SHGs.

Table 5.20

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of factors for the

success of SHGs

S.No. Factors for the

success of SHGs

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Good Management

and Animation

323

(53.8%)

157

(26.2%)

24

(4%)

43

(7.2%)

53

(8.8%)

2 Proper Training and

Guidelines

309

(51.5%)

199

(33.2%)

19

(3.2%)

41

(6.8%)

32

(5.3%)

3 Interest and Attitude

245

(40.8%)

237

(39.5%)

71

(11.8%)

16

(2.7%)

31

(5.2%)

4 Stimulation and

Encouragement

234

(39%)

194

(32.3%)

86

(14.3%)

54

(9%)

32

(5.3%)

5 Best source of Income

238

(39.7%)

229

(38.2%)

58

(9.7%)

31

(5.2%)

44

(7.3%)

6 Scope to reach the

greater height

330

(55%)

158

(26.3%)

31

(5.2%)

39

(6.5%)

42

(7%)


1. Good Management and Animation:


respondents strongly agreed, and another 26.2 per cent of the

respondents agreed that the factors for their success of SHGs are

good management and animation. Only 8.8 per cent of the

respondents expressed “strongly disagreed” with the statement

“good management and animation”. Therefore, it is very much

clear that majority of the respondents opined that the factor for

the success of their SHG is “good management and animation”.

P a g e | 237

2. Proper Training and Guidelines:

For the statement “Proper Training and Guidelines”, 51.5

percentage of the respondents strongly agreed with the opinion

that the factors for their success of SHGs are Proper Training and

Guidelines which is the highest and 33.2 per cent of the

respondents agreed with the Proper Training and Guidelines.

Only 5.3 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the proper

training and guidelines. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of

the respondents consider Proper Training and Guidelines as the

factors for their success of SHGs.

3. Interest and Attitude:


agreed and 39.5 per cent of the respondents agreed with the

statement that their Interest and Attitudes are factors for the

success of SHGs. Only 5.2 per cent of the respondents disagreed

that Interest and Attitudes are factors for the success of SHGs.

4. Stimulation and Encouragement:

Among the total, 39 per cent of the respondents strongly

agreed and 32.3 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed with

the statement that Stimulation and Encouragement are factors for

the success of SHGs. And, only 5.3 per cent of the respondents

are disagreed with the statement that Stimulation and

Encouragement are factors for the success of SHGs.

5. Best source of Income:


strongly agreed and another 38.2 per cent of the respondents

P a g e | 238

agreed that the Best source of Income is the factor for the

success of SHGs. Only 7.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly

disagreed” with the view that the best source of income are

factors for the success. Therefore, it is very much clear that the

best source of income is the factor for success of SHGs.

6. Scope to reach the greater height:

Of the total number of respondents, 55 per cent of the

respondents strongly agreed and 26.3 per cent of the

respondents agreed with the statement that they have “Scope to

reach the greater height”. Only 7 per cent of the respondents

have strongly disagreed with the statement that they have “Scope

to reach the greater height”.


of problems faced by SHGs and its members (external problems) in

getting loans.

Table 5.21

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of problems faced by SHGs

and its members (external problems) in getting loans

S.No. External problems faced in getting loans

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Too much of procedures

306 (51%)

151 (25.2%)

59 (9.8%)

38 (6.3%)

46 (7.7%)

2 Heavy interest rates 262

(43.7%) 201

(33.5%) 73

(12.2%) 61

(10.2%) 3

(.5%)

3 Unsuitable working hours

329 (54.8%)

136 (22.7%)

50 (8.3%)

19 (3.2%)

66 (11%)

4 No proximity of Banking centre

295 (49.2%)

185 (30.8%)

42 (7%)

22 (3.7%)

56 (9.3%)

5 Officials are not 240 206 77 19 58

P a g e | 239

friendly and encouraging

(40%) (34.3%) (12.8%) (3.2%) (9.7%)

6 “Too much of margin money”

278 (46.3%)

163 (27.2%)

52 (8.7%)

68 (11.3%)

39 (6.5%)

7 Deferred disbursement of Loanoan

320 (53.3%)

166 (27.7%)

20 (3.3%)

83 (13.8%)

11 (1.8%)

8 Incurrence of heavy transaction cost

261 (43.5%)

166 (27.7%)

60 (10%)

69 (11.5%)

44 (7.3%)


1. Too much of procedures:

The highest percentage of the respondents (51%) strongly


statement that due to too much of procedures, members of the

SHGs face problems in getting loans. Only 7.7 per cent of the

respondents disagreed that members of the SHGs face problem

due to too much of procedures.

2. Heavy interest rates:


respondents strongly agree and 33.5 per cent of the respondents

agree with the statement that heavy interest rate of the bank is

the difficulty faced by the members of SHGs in getting loans. Only

0.5 per cent of the respondents have strongly disagreed with the

statement that due to higher interest rate they face problem in

getting loan.

3. Unsuitable working hours:


respondents strongly agreed, and another 22.7 per cent of the

respondents agreed that a problem faced by the members of

SHG is the unsuitable working hours of Banks. Only 11 per cent

P a g e | 240

of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the statement “good

management and animation”. Therefore, it is very much clear that

majority of the respondents opined that the factors for the

success of their SHG is “good management and animation”.

4. No proximity of banking centre:


strongly agreed and another 30.8 per cent of the respondents

agreed that the problem faced by the members of SHG is no

proximity of banking centres. Only 9.3 per cent of the respondents

“strongly disagreed” that the problem faced by members of SHG

is not proximity of banking centres. Therefore, it is very much

clear that problems faced by members of SHG are not the

proximity of banking centres.

5. Officials are not friendly and encouraging:

For the statement “Officials are not friendly and

encouraging”, 40 percentage of the respondents have strongly


opinion that problems faced by members of SHG is “that Bank

officials are not friendly and encouraging” which is the highest of

all responses. Only 9.7 per cent of the respondents disagreed

with the view that the officials are not friendly and encouraging.


consider that the problem faced by members of the SHG is that

officials are not friendly and encouraging.

P a g e | 241

6. “Too much of margin money”:


agree and 27.2 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that

problems faced by members of the SHG in getting loan is “Too

much of margin money”. And, only 6.5 per cent of the

respondents disagreed with the “Too much of margin money”.

7. Deferred disbursement of Loan:

The highest percentage of the respondents (53.3%)

strongly agreed and 27.7 per cent of the respondents agreed with

the statement that “Deferred disbursement of Loan” is the

problem faced by members of SHGs in getting loan. Only 1.8 per

cent of the respondents disagreed with deferred disbursement of

Loan.

8. Incurrence of heavy transaction cost:



agree with the statement “Incurrence of heavy transaction cost” is

the problem faced by members of SHGs in getting loan. Only 7.3

per cent of the respondents have strongly disagreed “Incurrence

of heavy transaction cost” is the problem faced by the members

of SHG in getting loan.

P a g e | 242


of constraints of SHGs and its members

Table 5.22

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of constraints of SHGs and

its members

S.No.

Attribute of

constraints of SHGs

and its members

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Lack of co-operation

and Co-ordination

338

(56.3%)

142

(23.7%)

43

(7.2%)

61

(10.2%)

16

(2.7%)

2 Insufficient

documentation

329

(54.8%)

185

(30.8%)

22

(3.7%)

30

(5%)

34

(5.7%)

3 Low Operating Skills 290

(48.3%)

181

(30.2%)

60

(10%)

16

(2.7%)

53

(8.8%)

4 Less understanding

of Regulations

313

(52.2%)

174

(29%)

21

(3.5%)

43

(7.2%)

49

(8.2%)

5 Ignorance 342

(57%)

166

(27.7%)

45

(7.5%)

25

(4.2%)

22

(3.7%)

6 Unfamiliarity of

banking Habits

291

(48.5%)

169

(28.2%)

63

(10.5%)

63

(10.5%)

14

(2.3%)

7 Communication

problem

313

(52.2%)

168

(28%)

24

(4%)

70

(11.7%)

25

(4.2%)

8 Lack of Leadership

Qualities

285

(47.5%)

167

(27.8%)

49

(8.2%)

41

(6.8%)

58

(9.7%)


1. Lack of co-operation and co-ordination:

The highest percentage of the respondents (56.3%) strongly


statement that Lack of co-operation and Co-ordination are the

constraints of SHGs and its members. Only 2.7 per cent of the

P a g e | 243

respondents strongly disagreed that Lack of co-operation and Co-

ordination are constraints of SHGs and its members.

2. Insufficient documentation:



agree with the statement that insufficient documentation is the

constraint of SHGs and its members. Only 5.7 per cent of the

respondents have strongly disagreed with the insufficient

documentation.

3. Low Operating Skills:


respondents strongly agreed and, another 30.2 per cent of the

respondents agreed that Low Operating Skills are Constraints of

SHGs and its members. Only 8.8 per cent of the respondents

“strongly disagreed” with the statement that “Low Operating

Skills” are constraints of SHGs and its members. Therefore, it is

very much clear that majority of the respondents opined that the

Low Operating Skills are Constraints of SHGs and its members.

4. Less understanding of Regulations:

The highest percentage of respondents (52.2 per cent) strongly

agrees and another 29 per cent of the respondents agree that the

constraints of SHGs and its members are Less understanding of

Regulations. Only 8.2 per cent of the respondents “strongly

disagreed” that the constraints of SHGs and its members are less

understanding of regulations. Therefore, it is very much clear that

P a g e | 244

constraints of SHGs and its members are because of less

understanding of regulations.

5. Ignorance:

Among the total, 57 per cent of the respondents strongly agree

and 27.7 per cent of the respondents agree that ignorance is the

Constraint of SHGs and its members. And, only 3.7 per cent of

the respondents strongly disagreed that the ignorance is

Constraint of SHGs and its members.

6. Unfamiliarity of banking Habits:

For the statement “Unfamiliarity of banking Habits”, 48.5

percentage of the respondents strongly agreed and 28.2 per cent

of the respondents agreed with the opinion that “Unfamiliarity of

banking Habits” are Constraints of SHGs and its members which

is the highest of all responses. Only 2.3 per cent of the

respondents strongly disagreed with the Unfamiliarity of banking

Habits. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the

respondents consider the Unfamiliarity of banking Habits as the

constraints of SHGs and its members.

7. Communication problem:


agrees and 28 per cent of the respondents agrees that

communication problem is the constraint of SHGs and its

members. Only 4.2 percent of the respondents disagree that

communication problem is constraint of SHGs and its members.

P a g e | 245

8. Lack of Leadership Qualities:



agree with the statement “lack of leadership qualities” is

constraint of SHGs and its members. Only 9.7 per cent of the

respondents have strongly disagreed that “lack of leadership

qualities” is constraint of SHGs and its members.


of causes for delayed repayment of loans

Table 5.23

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of causes for delayed

repayment of loans

S.No Causes for delayed

repayment of loans

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Delayed collection from

members

357

(59.5%)

153

(25.5%)

40

(6.7%)

26

(4.3%)

24

(4%)

2 Low level of

marketability

317

(52.8%)

140

(23.3%)

51

(8.5%)

33

(5.5%)

59

(9.8%)

3 Lethargy 307

(51.2%)

162

(27%)

56

(9.3%)

58

(9.7%)

17

(2.8%)

4 Improper utilization of

funds

271

(45.2%)

187

(31.2%)

53

(8.8%)

25

(4.2%)

64

(10.7%)

5 Not adhering to the

purpose of loan

298

(49.7%)

199

(33.2%)

16

(2.7%)

16

(2.7%)

71

(11.8%)


P a g e | 246

1. Delayed collection from members:


agreed and 25.5 percent of the respondents agreed with the

statement that the cause for the delayed repayment of loan is

delayed collection from members. Only 4 per cent of the

respondents disagreed that the cause for the delayed repayment

of loan is delayed collection from members.

2. Low level of marketability:



agree with the statement that the low level of marketability is the

cause for delayed repayment of loan. Only 9.8 per cent of the

respondents have strongly disagreed with the statement that the

low level marketability is the cause for the delayed repayment due

to higher interest rate.

3. Lethargy:


respondents strongly agreed, and another 27 per cent of the

respondents agreed that the cause for delayed repayment of loan

is their lethargy. Only 2.8 per cent of the respondents expressed

“strongly disagreed” with the statement “lethargy is the cause for

delayed repayment of loan”. Therefore, it is very much clear that

the majority of the respondents opined that the cause for delayed

repayment of loan is “lethargy”.

P a g e | 247

4. Improper utilization of funds:


agreed and another 31.2 per cent of the respondents agreed that

the cause for delayed repayment of loan is improper utilization of

funds. And, 10.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed”

that the cause for delayed repayment of loan is improper

utilization of funds. Therefore, it is very much clear that improper

utilization of funds is the cause for delayed repayment of loans.

5. Not adhering to the purpose of loan:

For the statement “Not adhering to the purpose of loan”, 49.7

percentage of the respondents have strongly agreed and 33.2 per

cent of the respondents agreed with the opinion that the cause for

the delayed repayment of loan is “not adhering to the purpose of

loan” which is the highest of all responses. Only 11.8 per cent of

the respondents disagreed with not adhering to the purpose of

loan. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the respondents

consider that the cause for the delayed repayment of loan is “not

adhering to the purpose of loan”.

P a g e | 248


of assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office.

Table 5.24

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of assistance received from

NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office.

S.No Assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir

Thittam Office

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 Assistance by Initiation is good

313 (52.2%)

138 (23%)

49 (8.2%)

51 (8.5%)

49 (8.2%)

2 Assistance by Mediation is good

305 (50.8%)

161 (26.8%)

53 (8.8%)

13 (2.2%)

68 (11.3%)

3 Assistance by encouragement and support is remarkable

304 (50.7%)

138 (23%)

65 (10.8%)

47 (7.8%)

46 (7.7%)

4 Assistance by training is useful

304 (50.7%)

141 (23.5%)

72 (12%)

34 (5.7%)

49 (8.2%)

5 Assistance in getting loan is appreciable

291 (48.5%)

172 (28.7%)

31 (5.2%)

54 (9%)

52 (8.7%)

6 Assistance in getting raw materials

303 (50.5%)

200 (33.3%)

14 (2.3%)

25 (4.2%)

58 (9.7%)

7 Assistance in capacity building

280 (46.7%)

194 (32.3%)

49 (8.2%)

29 (4.8%)

48 (8%)

8 Assistance for participation

254 (42.3%)

175 (29.2%)

77 (12.8%)

23 (3.8%)

71 (11.8%)

9 Strengthens decision making

270 (45%)

195 (32.5%)

42 (7%)

31 (5.2%)

62 (10.3%)

10 Promotes Marketability

329 (54.8%)

141 (23.5%)

40 (6.7%)

25 (4.2%)

65 (10.8%)


1. Assistance by initiation is good:


agreed and 23 per cent of the respondents agreed with the

statement that assistance by Initiation is good. Only 8.2 per cent

of the respondents disagreed that assistance given by NGOs /

Mahalir Thittam regarding initiation is good.

P a g e | 249

2. Assistance by mediation is good:



agree with the statement that Assistance by Mediation is good.

And, 11.3 per cent of the respondents have strongly disagreed

with the statement that assistance by mediation is good.

3. Assistance by encouragement and support is remarkable:


respondents strongly agreed, another 23 per cent of the

respondents agreed that assistance by encouragement and

support is remarkable. Only 7.7 per cent of the respondents

“strongly disagreed” with the statement “assistance by

encouragement and support is remarkable”. Therefore, it is very

much clear that “assistance by encouragement and support is

remarkable”.

4. Assistance by training is useful:


agreed and another 23.5 per cent of the respondents agreed that

assistance received from NGOs / Mahalirm Thittam Office by

training is useful. And, 8.2 per cent of the respondents “strongly

disagreed” that the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalirm

Thittam Office by training is useful. Therefore, it is very much

clear that assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office

by training is useful.

P a g e | 250

5. Assistance in getting loan is appreciable:

For the statement “assistance in getting loan is appreciable”, 48.5

percentage of the respondents strongly agreed and 28.7 per cent

of the respondents agreed with the opinion that assistance

received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office by getting loan is

appreciable which is the highest of all responses. Only 8.7per

cent of the respondents disagreed that assistance received from

NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office by getting loan is appreciable.


considers that assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam

Office by getting loan is appreciable.

6. Assistance in getting raw materials:



statement that the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir

Thittam Office is getting raw materials. Only 9.7 per cent of the

respondents disagreed that the assistance received from NGOs /

Mahalir Thittam Office is getting raw materials.

7. Assistance in capacity building:


respondents “strongly agreed” and 32.3 per cent of the

respondents “agree” to the statement that the assistance received

from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office is capacity building. Only 8

per cent of the respondents have “strongly disagreed” to the

statement that the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir

Thittam Office is capacity building.

P a g e | 251

8. Assistance for participation:


respondents “strongly agreed” another 29.2 percent of the

respondents “agree” that the assistance received from NGOs /

Mahalir Thittam Office is for the active “Participation”. Only 11.8

percent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the

statement the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam

Office is for the active “Participation”. Therefore, it is very much

clear that majority of the respondents opined that the assistance

received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office is for the active

“Participation”.

9. Strengthens decision making:

The highest percentage of respondents (45 percent) “strongly

agreed” another 32.5 percent of the respondents “agreed” that the

assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office

Strengthens decision making ability of the respondents. And, 10.3

percent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” that the

assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office

“Strengthens decision making” ability of the respondents.

Therefore, it is very much clear that the assistance received from

NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office “Strengthens decision making”

ability of the respondents.

10. Promotes Marketability:

For the statement “Promotes Marketability”, 54.8 percentage of

the respondents “strongly agreed” and 23.5 percent of the

respondents “agreed” that the assistance received from NGOs /

Mahalir Thittam Office “Promotes Marketability” of the

P a g e | 252

respondents which is the highest of all responses. Only 10.8

percent of the respondents “disagreed” with the statement.

Therefore, it demonstrates that the assistance received from

NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office “Promotes Marketability”.


of opinion on services of the banks

Table 5.25

Satisfactory level towards the attribute of opinion on services of

the banks

S.No.

Attributes of opinion on Services

of the Banks

Responses

SA A N D SD

1 There is an adequacy of loan level

323 (53.8%)

149 (24.8%)

35 (5.8%)

21 (3.5%)

72 (12%)

2 Loan is granted on time (timeliness)

304 (50.7%)

208 (34.7%)

28 (4.7%)

23 (3.8%)

37 (6.2%)

3 No. of days taken for sanctioning the loan is very much minimum

279 (46.5%)

192 (32%)

55 (9.2%)

14 (2.3%)

60 (10%)

4 There is a reasonable flexibility in recovering the loan

242 (40.3%)

207 (34.5%)

71 (11.8%)

23 (3.8%)

57 (9.5%)

5 Duration for repayment is sufficient

251 (41.8%)

205 (34.2%)

65 (10.8%)

17 (2.8%)

62 (10.3%)


It is quite remarkable that out of the total number of respondents

“there is an adequacy of loan level”, 53.8% strongly agreed with the

statement “there is an adequacy of loan level”; 24.8% agreed; 12% are

strongly dissatisfied, 3.5% disagreed and only 3.5% of the respondents

strongly disagreed with the statement.

P a g e | 253

For the statement “Loan is granted on time (timeliness)”, 50.7

percentage of the respondents “strongly agreed” and 34.7 per cent of

the respondents agreed with the opinion on services of the bank that

“loans are granted on time” which is the highest of all responses. Only

3.8 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the services of banks on

timeliness of loans. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the

respondents consider that “banks grant loans timely”.

Out of the total sample respondents, 46.5% of the respondents

“strongly agreed” another 32% of the respondents “agreed” that the

number of days taken for sanctioning the loan is very much minimum.

Only 2.3% of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the statement

“the number of days taken for sanctioning the loan is very much

minimum”. Therefore, it is very much clear that the majority of the

respondents opined that the number of days taken for sanctioning the

loan is very much minimum.

Of the total number of respondents, 40.3% of the respondents

“strongly agreed” and 34.5% of the respondents “agreed” with the

statement that “there is a reasonable flexibility in recovering the loan”.

And, 3.8% of the respondents have disagreed, and 9.5% of the

respondents have “strongly disagreed” with the statement that “there is

a reasonable flexibility in recovering the loan”.

The highest percentage of respondents (41.8%) “strongly

agreed” another 34.2% of the respondents “agreed” that the duration for

repayment is sufficient. And, 2.8% of the respondents “disagreed”, and

10.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” that the duration

for repayment is sufficient. Therefore, it is very much clear that the

duration for repayment is sufficient in services rendered by the bank.

P a g e | 254


frequency of loan borrowed.

Table 5.26

Classification of the respondents based on frequency of

loan borrowed


respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 One 323 53.8

2 Two 146 24.3

3 Three 56 9.3

4 Four 49 8.2

5 More than four 26 4.3


The table shows that 53.8% of the respondents have taken one

time only; 24% of them have taken two times; 9.3% have taken three

times loans, 8.2% have four times loans and only 4.3% of the

respondents have taken loan for more than five times. Thus, the

majority of the respondents have taken the loans for the first time and

the least percent of the respondents only have taken for more than four

times after the formation of their self-help group.

P a g e | 255

Chart 5.26a

Classification of the respondents based on frequency of

loan borrowed

54%

25%

9%

8%

4%

Classification of the respondents based on frequency of loan

borrowed

One

Two

Three

Four

More than four

P a g e | 256


Ownership.

Table 5.27

Classification of the respondents based on Ownership


respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Proprietors 127 21.2

2 Partners 473 78.8



respondents, 78.8% of the respondents are proprietors of their business

and 21.2% of the respondents are one of the partners of their business.

Therefore, it is perceived that there is an entrepreneurial development

leading to empowerment.

P a g e | 257

Chart 5.27 a

Classification of the respondents based on Ownership

P a g e | 258


sources for knowledge of SHGs

Table 5.28

Classification of the respondents based on sources for knowledge

of SHGs


respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Nearby SHG 226 37.7

2 Through NGOs 183 30.5

3 Through Govt. 126 21

4 Through Friends 25 4.2

5 Through Local Leaders

40 6.7



respondents, 37.7% came to know about SHG through nearby SHG

which is the highest; 30.5% through NGOs; 21% through Government

officials; 6.7% through local leaders and 4.2% knew through their

friends. Thus, the maximum number of respondents knew the concept

and activities of SHGs through nearby SHGs.

P a g e | 259

Chart 5.28 a

Classification of the respondents based on sources for knowledge

of SHGs

P a g e | 260


reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs

Table 5.29

Classification of the respondents based on reasons for joining and

continuing in SHGs


respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Survival 157 26.2

2 Growth 179 29.8

3 Awareness 188 31.3

4 Motive 50 8.3

5 Social Gathering 26 4.3


The above table demonstrates that 31.3% of the respondents

have joined and continued in SHGs for awareness; 29.8% of them for

growth; 26.2% for their survival; 8.3% for motive and only 4.3% for

social gathering. Thus, the highest 31.3% of the respondents have

joined and continued in SHGs for awareness and the least number of

respondents for social gathering.

P a g e | 261

Table 5.29 a

Classification of the respondents based on reasons for joining and

continuing in SHGs

P a g e | 262

The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based

on their various dimensions of functions of SHGs.

Table 5.30

Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions

of functioning and working of SHGs

S.No. Particulars No. of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Conduct of Meeting

Low 383 63.8

High 217 36.2

Mean:18.37 / Median:19.00 / S.D.: 2.999 / Min.: 8 / Max.: 24

2 Record of Proceedings

Low 325 54.2

High 275 45.8


3 Transparency

Low 325 54.2

High 275 45.8


4 Formation and management of SHGs

Low 367 61.2

High 233 38.8


5 Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs

Low 332 55.3

High 268 44.7



The above table shows that 63.8% of the respondents have a low

level of conduct of meeting and the remaining (36.2%) of the

respondents have a high level of regularity, spirit and involvement and

no absenteeism in the meeting. It is clear that 54.2% of the respondents

P a g e | 263

were in low level and remaining 45.8% of the respondents were at high

level of Documentation, recording of minutes, checking and review of

Accounts, recording of accounts as per the guidelines and in recording

of proceedings in the meeting.

With regard to transparency 54.2% of the respondents were in

low level and remaining 45.8% of the respondents were at high level of

an access to the document of the group, exercise of duties and

responsibilities, clearly understandable calculations and computation,

Exercise of duties and responsibilities, Calculations and Computation,

well explained Objectives of the SHGs and capable of answering the

questions related to SHGs. 61.2% of the respondents were in low level

and remaining 38.8% of the respondents were at high level of

knowledge on initiating the formation, procedures for formation and

regulations of SHGs, general function of SHGs and procedure for

repayment.

With regard to the distribution of the respondents and their

various dimensions of functions of SHGs are concerned, 55.3% of the

respondents are in low level and 44.7% of the respondents are in high

level. The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 75.82;

Median score is 77.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.727. The minimum

admitted count level from the given five point scale questions is 53 and

the maximum admitted count by the respondents is 89.

P a g e | 264

Chart 5.30a


of functions of SHGs

P a g e | 265


on their overall expenditure incurred (other).

Table 5.31

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall expenditure

incurred (other) on other needs

S. No Particulars No. of respondents

(n=600) Percentage

(100%)

1 Low 358 59.7

2 High 242 40.3

Mean:18.24 / Median:19.00 / S.D.:3.121 / Min.:8 / Max.:25


In relation to overall expenditure incurred (other), 59.7% of the

respondents spend low level and 40.3% of them spend higher level on

their other needs like education, entertainment, use of transport, scope

for increase in income generation in future and asset creation. The

overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 18.24; Median

score is 19.00 and standard deviation is 3.121. The minimum admitted

count level from the given five point scale questions is 8 and the

maximum admitted count by the respondents is 25.

P a g e | 266

Chart 5.31a

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall expenditure

incurred (other)

Low High

59.7%

40.3%

Classification of the respondents based on their overall expenditure incurred (other)

P a g e | 267


on their various dimensions of social empowerment.

Table 5.32


of social empowerment

S.No. Particulars No.of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Community participation

Low 322 53.7

High 278 46.3


2 Social Reasoning

Low 446 74.3

High 154 25.7


3 Social analysis

Low 312 52

High 288 48



Low 411 68.5

High 189 31.5


5 Culture and Civilization

Low 396 66

High 204 34


6 Overall social empowerment

Low 348 58

High 252 42




level and the remaining (46.3%) of the respondents have a high level of

knowledge for community participation and the ability to move with

P a g e | 268

society. It is clear that 74.3% of the respondents were in low level and

remaining 25.7% of the respondents were at high level of social

reasoning in the view of understanding expectations and living by

reasoning.

With regard to social analysis, 52% of the respondents were in

low level and remaining 48% of the respondents were at high level of

knowledge for social analysis and Knowledge for the optimum use of

resources. From the above table, 68.5% of the respondents were in low

level and remaining 31.5% of the respondents were at high level of

knowledge on health and hygienic practices and sense of possessing

essentials for living (toilet facilities, drinking water, electricity and

drainage facilities).

In relation to culture and civilization, 66% of the respondents have

low level and 34% of them experience higher level of sense of ideal

understanding of different culture and civilization and knowledge on

culture and civilization.


various dimensions of social empowerment of SHGs, 58% of the

respondents are in low level and 42% of the respondents are in high

level. The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 36.36;




P a g e | 269

Chart 5.32a


of social empowerment

53.7%

74.3%52%

68.5%66% 58%

46.3%

25.7%48%

31.5%34% 42%

Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions of social empowerment

Low High

P a g e | 270


on their various dimensions of awareness creation.

Table 5.33


of awareness creation

S. No

Particulars No. of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Knowledge on Schemes

Low 346 57.7

High 254 42.3

Mean:7.41/ Median:8.00 / S.D.:1.716 / Min.:2 / Max.:10

2 Knowledge on Rights and

privileges

Low 375 62.5

High 225 37.5


3 Knowledge on Development

Low 364 60.7

High 236 39.3


4 Knowledge on Employability

Low 338 56.3

High 262 43.7


5 Knowledge on integration and

survival

Low 302 50.3

High 298 49.7


6 Overall awareness creation

Low 311 51.8

High 289 48.2

Mean:36.26 / Median:39.00 / S.D.:8.728/ Min.:19/ Max.:50



level and the remaining (42.3%) of the respondents have a high level of

P a g e | 271

Knowledge on Govt. Schemes and Knowledge on Insurance facilities. It

is clear that 62.5% of the respondents were in low level and remaining

37.5% of the respondents were at high level of Knowledge on

constitutional rights and Knowledge on civil rights.

With regard to Knowledge on Development, 60.7% of the

respondents were in low level and remaining 39.3% of the respondents

were at high level of Knowledge on political environment and knowledge

on pollution Control. From the above table, 56.3% of the respondents


level of knowledge on creation of reasoning power and Knowledge on

progressive thoughts.

In relation to knowledge on integration and survival, 50.3% of the

respondents have low level and 49.7% of them experience higher level

of Knowledge on social evils and Understanding the importance of

professional development.


various dimensions of awareness creation, 51.8% of the respondents

are in low level and 48.2% of the respondents are in high level. The

overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 36.26; Median

score is 39.00 and standard deviation is 8.728. The minimum admitted



P a g e | 272

Chart 5.33a


of awareness creation

Knowledge on Schemes

Knowledge on Rights and privileges

Knowledge on Development

Knowledge on Employability

Knowledge on integration and survival

Overall awareness creation

57.7

62.5

60.7

56.3

50.3

51.8

42.3

37.5

39.3

43.7

49.7

48.2

Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions of awareness

creation

Low High

P a g e | 273


on their various dimensions of skills and competency.

Table 5.34


of skills and competency

S. No

Particulars No.of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Managerial Skills

Low 315 52.5

High 285 47.5

Mean:8.23 / Median: 8.00/ S.D.: 1.249 / Min.:4 / Max.: 10

2 Coordination and control

Low 387 64.5

High 213 35.5

Mean:8.34 / Median: 9.00 / S.D.: 1.959 / Min.:2 / Max.: 10

3 Leadership Qualities

Low 398 66.3

High 202 33.7


4 Group Dynamism

Low 326 54.3

High 274 45.7


5 Communication

Low 425 70.8

High 175 29.2


6 Overall skills and competency

Low 330 55

High 270 45




level and the remaining (47.5%) of the respondents had a high level of

an acquisition of Managerial Skills and application of Managerial Skills.

P a g e | 274

It is clear that 64.5% of the respondents were in low level and remaining

35.5% of the respondents were at high level of effective coordination

and control and improved application of Coordination and Control.

With regard to Leadership Qualities, 66.3% of the respondents


level of acquired qualities like Initiation, interaction, flexibility,

adaptability, adjustability and acquired traits of good consultant. From

the above table, 54.3% of the respondents were in low level and

remaining 45.7% of the respondents were at high level of Effective

Group Interaction and decision making ability.

In relation to communication, 70.8% of the respondents have low

level and 29.2% of them experience higher level of ability to have

effective communication.


various dimensions of skills and competency, 55% of the respondents

are in low level and 45% of the respondents are in high level. The

overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 40.94%; Median

score is 44.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.439. The minimum admitted



P a g e | 275

Chart 5.34a


of skills and competency

52.5%

64.5% 66.3%

54.3%

70.8%

55%

47.5%

35.5% 33.7%

45.7%

29.2%

45%

Managerial Skills Coordination and control

Leadership Qualities

Group Dynamism Communication Overall skills and competency

Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions of skill and competency

Low High

P a g e | 276


on their overall factors for the success of SHG's.

Table 5.35

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall factors for

the success of SHG's

S. No

Particulars No. of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Low 337 56.2

2 High 263 43.8



From the above table with regard to the distribution of the

respondents and overall factors for the success of SHG's, 56.2% of the

respondents are in low level and 43.8% of the respondents are in high

level of overall factors for the success of SHGs such as Good

Management and Animation skill, Proper Training and Guidelines,

Interest and Attitude, Stimulation and Encouragement, Best source of

Income and Scope to reach the greater height. The overall mean score

for both levels (High and Low) is 24.40%; Median score is 26.00 and

Standard Deviation is 5.948. The minimum admitted count level from

the given five point scale questions is 6 and the maximum admitted

count by the respondents is 30.

P a g e | 277

Chart 5.35a



56.2%

43.8%

Low High



P a g e | 278


on their overall external problems.

Table 5.36

Distribution of the respondents based on their

overall external problems

S. No

Particulars No. of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Low 303 50.5

2 High 297 49.5



It is crystal clear from the above table with regard to the

distribution of the respondents and their overall external problems, that

50.5% of the respondents are in low level and 49.5% of the respondents

are in high level of overall external problems faced by SHGs and its

members in getting loans such as too much of procedures, heavy

interest rates, unsuitable working hours, no proximity of banking centre,

officials not being friendly and encouraging, “Too much of margin

money”, Deferred disbursement of Loan and Incurrence of heavy

transaction cost. The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low)

is 15.78%; Median score is 13.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.589. The

minimum admitted count level from the given five point scale questions

is 8 and the maximum admitted count by the respondents is 38.

P a g e | 279

Chart 5.36a

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall

external problems

Low High

50.5%

49.5%

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall external problems

P a g e | 280


on their overall constraints of SHG's and its members.

Table 5.37

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall constraints

of SHG's and its members

S. No

Particulars No.of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Low 311 51.8

2 High 289 48.2



The above table reveals with regard to the distribution of the

respondents and their overall constraints of SHG's and its members,

that 51.8% of the respondents are in low level and 48.2% of the

respondents are in high level of overall constraints of SHG's and its

members in getting loans such as lack of co-operation and co-

ordination, insufficient documentation, low operating skills, less

understanding of regulations, ignorance, unfamiliarity of banking habits,

communication problem and lack of leadership qualities . The overall

mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 14.90; Median score is

13.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.308. The minimum admitted count

level from the given five point scale questions is 8 and the maximum

admitted count by the respondents is 39.

P a g e | 281

Chart 5.37a

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall constraints

of SHG's and its members

Low51.8%

High48.2%

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall constraints of SHG's and its

members

P a g e | 282


on their overall causes for delayed repayment of loans.

Table 5.38

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall causes for

delayed repayment of loans

S. No

Particulars No.of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Low 343 57.2

2 High 257 42.8



The above table demonstrates with regard to the distribution of

the respondents and their overall causes for delayed repayment of

loans, that 57.2% of the respondents are in low level and 42.8% of the

respondents are in high level of overall causes for delayed repayment of

loans such as delayed collection from members, low level of

marketability, lethargy, improper utilization of funds and not adhering to

the purpose of loan.

The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 9.48.




P a g e | 283

Chart 5.38a

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall causes for

delayed repayment of loans

57.2%

42.8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Low

High

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall causes for delayed repayment

of loans

P a g e | 284


on the overall assistance received from NGOs / Mathi office.

Table 5.39

Distribution of the respondents based on the overall assistance

received from NGOs / Mathi office

S. No

Particulars No. of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Low 328 54.7

2 High 272 45.3



It is clear from the above table with regard to the distribution of

the respondents and their overall assistance received from NGOs /

MATHI office, that 54.7% of the respondents are in low level and 45.3%

of the respondents are in high level of overall assistance received from

NGOs / MATHI office such as initiation, mediation, training, assistance

in getting Loan, encouragement and support. The overall mean score

for both levels (High and Low) is 40.16. Median score is 44.00 and

Standard Deviation is 11.348. The minimum admitted count level from

the given five point scale questions is 10 and the maximum admitted

count by the respondents is 50.

P a g e | 285

Chart 5.39a

Distribution of the respondents based on the overall assistance

received from NGOs / Mathi office

Low54.7%

High45.3%

0%

0%

Classification of the respondents based on their overall assistance received

from NGOs / Mathi office

P a g e | 286


on their overall opinion on services of the banks.

Table 5.40

Distribution of the respondents based on their overall opinion on

services of the banks

S .No

Particulars No.of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Low 353 58.8

2 High 247 41.2



It reveals from the above table with regard to the distribution of

the respondents and overall opinion on services of the banks, that

58.8% of the respondents are in low level and 41.2% of the respondents

are in high level of overall opinion on services of the banks such as

adequacy of loan, timeliness, days taken for sanctioning, flexibility and

Duration for repayment.

The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 20.14,




P a g e | 287

Table 5.41

Distribution of the respondents based on their activities involved

in SHGs

S. No

Particulars No. of

respondents (n=600)

Percentage (100%)

1 Embroidering 158 26.3

2 Fish Vendor 114 19

3 Confectionary(Snacks) 19 3.2

4 Masaala Preparation and Sales

20 3.3

5 Consignment of saree sales 12 2

6 Jute basket spinning 26 4.3

7 Fruits Vendor 29 4.8

8 Share Auto Business 4 .7

9 Waste paper Mart 6 1

10 Juice Centre 10 1.7

11 Iron scrap collection and sales 4 .7

12 Cane water sales 20 3.3

13 Napkin Making and Sales 9 1.5

14 Bamboo Basket Making 11 1.8

15 Painting 14 2.3

16 Centering Work 45 7.5

17 Flower Vendor 53 8.8

18 Vegetable Vendors 35 5.8

19 Creches 5 .8

20 Others 6 1


The table demonstrates that the respondents are doing various

nature of the trade activities like Embroidering, Fish Vendor,

Confectionary (Snacks), Masala Preparation and Sales, Consignment of

saree sales, Jute basket spinning, Fruits Vendor, Share Auto Business,

Waste paper Mart, Juice Centre, Iron scrap collection and sales, Cane

P a g e | 288

water sales, Napkin Making and Sales, Bamboo Basket Making,

Painting, Centering Work and Flower Vendor.

It is clear that out of the total number of respondents, 26.3 per

cent of the respondents are of the Embroidering nature of trade activity;

19 per cent of the respondents doing as Fish Vendors, 8.8 per cent of

the respondents doing flower vending business, 7.5 per cent of the

respondents doing centring work, 5.8 percent of the respondents doing

vegetable vending, 4.8 per cent doing fruits vending, 4.3 per cent doing

jute basket spinning, 3.3 per cent doing cane water business and

masala preparation and sales, 3.2 per cent doing confectionary

(snacks) sales, 2.3 per cent doing painting work, 2 per cent doing

consignment of sari sales, 1.8 per cent Bamboo Basket Making

business, 1.7 per cent doing Juice Centre, 1.5 doing Napkin Making and

Sales, 1 per cent of the respondents doing very rare trade activities like

Waste paper Mart and others , 0.8 per cent running the crèches and

only 0.7 per cent doing Iron scrap collection and sales and Share Auto

Business.

P a g e | 289

Chart 5.41a

Distribution of the respondents based on their activities involved in

SHGs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Emb

roid

eri

ng

Fish

Ve

nd

or

Co

nfe

ctio

nar

y(Sn

acks

)

Mas

ala

Pre

par

atio

n a

nd

Sal

es

Co

nsi

gnm

en

t o

f sa

ree

sal

es

Jute

bas

ket

spin

nin

g

Fru

its

Ve

nd

or

Shar

e A

uto

Bu

sin

ess

Was

te p

ape

r M

art

Juic

e C

en

tre

Iro

n s

crap

co

llect

ion

an

d s

ale

s

Can

e w

ate

r sa

les

Nap

kin

Mak

ing

and

Sal

es

Bam

bo

o B

aske

t M

akin

g

Pai

nti

ng

Ce

nte

rin

g W

ork

Flo

we

r V

en

do

r

Ve

geta

ble

Ve

nd

ors

Cre

che

s

oth

ers

26.3

19

3.2 3.3 24.3 4.8

0.7 1 1.7 0.73.3

1.5 1.8 2.3

7.5 8.85.8

0.8 1

P a g e | 290

TEST OF HYPOTHESES

In this section, the hypotheses formulated are verified and tested

using the various statistical techniques and inferences are drawn based

on results.

One-way ANOVA TEST

The hypothesis given below is tested using One Way ANOVA test.

Hypothesis – 1

Research Hypothesis

H1: There is significant difference between educational qualification of

the respondents and their overall functioning and working of SHGs.

Null Hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between educational qualification

of the respondents and their overall functioning and working of SHGs.

Table 5.42

One-way ANOVA difference between Educational qualification of

the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs

S.No Educational Qualification

Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical inference

1 Conduct of Meeting F = 2.933 P > 0.05

Not Significant

Between Groups

104.187 4 26.047

G1(n=155) 18.27 3.155

G2(n=234) 18.37 2.952

G3(n=171) 18.58 2.841

G4(n=27) 18.89 2.044

G5(n=13) 15.77 4.475

Within Groups

5283.932 595 8.881

P a g e | 291


F = .814 P > 0.05

Not Significant

Between Groups

31.759 4 7.940

G1(n=155) 19.00 2.810

G2(n=234) 19.40 3.193

G3(n=171) 19.40 3.026

G4(n=27) 18.89 3.826

G5(n=13) 18.38 4.770

Within Groups

5802.741 595 9.753

3 Transparency

F = .589 P > 0.05

Not Significant

Between Groups

26.711 4 6.678

G1(n=155) 19.32 3.417

G2(n=234) 19.63 3.301

G3(n=171) 19.18 3.353

G4(n=27) 19.00 3.340

G5(n=13) 19.69 4.151

Within Groups

6744.674 595 11.336


F = .816 P > 0.05

Not Significant

Between Groups

34.723 4 8.681

G1(n=155) 18.56 3.428

G2(n=234) 18.87 3.129

G3(n=171) 19.05 3.212

G4(n=27) 18.07 3.980

G5(n=13) 18.92 2.465

Within Groups

6329.462 595 10.638


F = 1.201 P > 0.05

Not Significant

Between Groups

286.510 4 71.628

G1(n=155) 75.15 7.525

G2(n=234) 76.26 7.416

G3(n=171) 76.20 7.733

G4(n=27) 74.85 9.646

G5(n=13) 72.77 10.639

Within Groups

35477.408 595 59.626

G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 = Graduate

P a g e | 292

P = .020/ .516 / .671 / .515 / .309 Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level Inference The calculated value is F = 1.201 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated

value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is

rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.

Findings

The above table shows that there is no significant difference between

educational qualification of the respondents and their overall functioning

and working of SHGs. It is further inferred that respondents have to

have proper educational facilities which would improve their overall

functioning and working of SHGs.

P a g e | 293

Chi - Square Test

The hypothesis given below is tested using Chi – Square test.

Hypothesis – 2

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant association between activity of the respondents

and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs.

Null hypothesis

Ho: There is no significant association between activity of the

respondents and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs.

Table 5.43

Association between activity of the respondents and their reasons

for joining and continuing in SHGs.

S.No Activity

Reasons for Joining and continuing in SHGs

Statistical

inference Survival

(n=157)

Growth

(n=179)

Awareness

(n=188)

Motive

(n=50)

social

gather

(n=26)

1 Embroidering 52(33.1%) 41(22.9%) 42(22.3%) 13(26%) 10(38.5%)

X2=149.658

Df = 76

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

2 Fish Vendor 26(16.6%) 48(26.8%) 29(15.4%) 9(18%) 2(7.7%)

3 Confectionary(Snacks) 2(1.3%) 8(4.5%) 5(2.7%) 3(6%) 1(3.8%)

4 Masala Preparation

and Sales 4(2.5%) 0 16(8.5%) 0 0

5 Consignment of saree

sales 4(2.5%) 4(2.2%) 3(1.6%) 1(2%) 0

6 Jute basket spinning 8(5.1%) 3(1.7%) 12(6.4%) 2(4%) 1(3.8%)

7 Fruits Vendor 11(7%) 7(3.9%) 7(3.7%) 2(4%) 2(7.7%)

8 Share Auto Business 1(.6%) 3(1.7%) 0 0 0

P a g e | 294

9 Waste paper Mart 1(.6%) 1(.6%) 2(1.1%) 2(4%) 0

10 Juice Centre 4(2.5%) 2(1.1%) 0 2(4%) 2(7.7%)

11 Iron scrap collection

and sales 1(.6%) 1(.6%) 1(.5%) 1(2%) 0

12 Cane water sales 2(1.3%) 1(.6%) 14(7.4%) 1(2%) 2(7.7%)

13 Napkin Making and

Sales 1(.6%) 1(.6%) 6(3.2%) 1(2%) 0

14 Bamboo Basket

Making 2(1.3%) 0 8(4.3%) 0 1(3.8%)

15 Painting 0 3(1.7%) 9(4.8%) 1(2%) 1(3.8%)

16 Centering Work 10(6.4%) 19(10.6%) 14(7.4%) 2(4%) 0

17 Flower Vendor 20(12.7%) 23(12.8%) 6(3.2%) 2(4%) 2(7.7%)

18 Vegetable Vendors 7(4.5%) 9(5%) 12(6.4%) 5(10%) 2(7.7%)

19 Creches 1(.6%) 2(1.1%) 1(.5%) 1(2%) 0

20 Others 0 3(1.7%) 1(.5%) 2(4%) 0

Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level

Inference

The calculated value X2=149.658 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance

in all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the table value.

Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is

accepted.

Findings

The above table shows that there is no significance association

between activity of the respondents and their reasons for joining and

continuing in SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table

value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is

accepted.

P a g e | 295

Hypothesis – 3

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant association between age of the respondents


Null hypothesis

Ho: There is no significant association between age of the respondents


Table 5.44

Association between Age of the respondents and their Reasons for

Joining and continuing in SHGs.

S.No

Reasons

for

Joining

and

continuing

in SHGs

Age

Statistical

inference

Below

30yrs

(n=196)

31 to

40yrs

(n=210)

41 to

50yrs

(n=146)

51yrs &

above

(n=48)

1 Survival 56(28.6%) 48(22.9%) 32(21.9%) 21(43.8%) X2=23.063

Df = 12

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

2 Growth 59(30.1%) 71(33.8%) 34(23.3%) 15(31.3%)

3 awareness 57(29.1%) 66(31.4%) 54(37%) 11(22.9%)

4 motive 18(9.2%) 16(7.6%) 16(11%) 0

5 social

gathering 6(3.1%) 9(4.3%) 10(6.8%) 1(2.1%)


P a g e | 296

Inference

The calculated value X2 =23.063 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance

in all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the table value.


accepted.

Findings

The above table shows that there is no significant association

between age of the respondents and their reasons for joining and

continuing in SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table


accepted.

Hypothesis – 4

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant association between education of the

respondents and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHG.

Null hypothesis

There is no significant association between education of the

respondents and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHG.

P a g e | 297

Table 5.45

Association between Education of the respondents and their Reasons

for joining and continuing in SHG.

S.No

Reasons for joining

and continuing in SHG

Educational Level

Statistical inference

Illiterate (n=155)

Primary (n=234)

High School (n=171)

Hsc (n=27)

Graduate (n=13)

1 Survival 36

(23.2%) 70

(70%) 42

(24.6%) 6

(22.2%) 3

(23.1%)

X2=17.063 Df = 16 P > 0.05

Not Significant

2 Growth 51

(32.9%) 64

(27.4%) 46

(26.9%) 11

(40.7%) 7

(53.8%)

3 awareness 44

(28.4%) 75

(32.1%) 59

(34.5%) 8

(29.6%) 2

(15.4%)

4 Motive 12

(7.7%) 19

(8.1%) 17

(9.9%) 1

(3.7%) 1

(7.7%)

5 Social gathering

12 (7.7%)

6 (2.6%)

7 (4.1%)

1 (3.7%)

0


Inference

The calculated value X2 =17.063 and (P > 0.05) shows no

significance in all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the

table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null

hypothesis is accepted.

Findings

The above table shows that there is no significant association

between education of the respondents and their reasons for joining and

continuing in SHG. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table


accepted.

P a g e | 298

One Way ANOVA TEST


Hypothesis – 5

Research Hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between age of the respondents

and their overall factors for the success of SHG's.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between age of the respondents

and their overall factors for the success of SHG's.

Table 5.46

Oneway Anova difference between Age wise of the respondents

and Overall factors for the success of SHG's.

S.No

Overall

factors for

the success

of SHG's

Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical

inference

1 Between

Groups 72.666 3 24.222

F = .683

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

G1(n=196) 24.41 6.049

G2(n=210) 24.63 5.664

G3(n=146) 23.86 6.595

G4(n=48) 25.02 4.555

Within Groups 21121.334 596 35.438

G1= Below 30yrs/ G2 = 31 to 40yrs/ G3 = 41 to 50yrs/ G4 = 51yrs & above P = .562

Source: computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level

P a g e | 299

Inference

The calculated value is F = .683 and (P<0.05). Hence, the

calculated value is greater than the table value. Therefore, the research

hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.

Findings


the age of the respondents and their Overall factors for the success of

SHG's. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value. So the

research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.

Chi - Square Test


Hypothesis – 6

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant association between the age of the

respondents and their overall skills and competency of SHGs.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant association between the age of the

respondents and their overall skills and competency of SHGs.

P a g e | 300

Table 5.47

Association between the age of the respondents and their overall

skills and competency of SHGs.

S.No. Skills and

Competency

Age

Statistical

Inference

Below

30yrs

(n=196)

31 to

40yrs

(n=210)

41 to

50yrs

(n=146)

51yrs &

above

(n=48)

1 Managerial Skills X2=3.675

Df = 3

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Low 101(51.5%) 106(50.5%) 86(58.9%) 22(45.8%)

High 95(48.5%) 104(49.5%) 60(41.1%) 26(54.2%)

2 Coordination and control X2=.859

Df = 3

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Low 125(63.8%) 138(65.7%) 91(62.3%) 33(68.8%)

High 71(36.2%) 72(34.3%) 55(37.7%) 15(31.3%)

3 Leadership Qualities X2=.981

Df = 3

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Low 132(67.3%) 139(66.2%) 93(63.7%) 34(70.8%)

High 64(32.7%) 71(33.8%) 53(36.3%) 14(29.2%)

4 Group Dynamism X2=1.944

Df = 3

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Low 103(52.6%) 119(56.7%) 75(51.4%) 29(60.4%)

High 93(47.4%) 91(43.3%) 71(48.6%) 19(39.6%)

5 Communication X2=5.974

Df = 3

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Low 141(71.9%) 158(75.2%) 97(66.4%) 29(60.4%)

High 55(28.1%) 52(24.8%) 49(33.6%) 19(39.6%)

P a g e | 301

6 Overall skills and competency X2=1.073

Df = 3

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Low 106(54.1%) 112(53.3%) 83(56.8%) 29(60.4%)

High 90(45.9%) 98(46.7%) 63(43.2%) 19(39.6%)


Inference

The calculated value X2=1.073 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance in

all the level of results. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the

table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null


Findings

The above table shows that there is no significant association between

the age of the respondents and their overall skills and competency of

SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value. So the

research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.

Inter – Correlation Matrix Test

The hypothesis given below is tested using Inter – Correlation Matrix test.

Hypothesis – 7

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between skills and competency

factors of the SHGs - Communication and Group Dynamism.

P a g e | 302

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between skills and competency

factors of the SHGs - Communication and Group Dynamism.

Table 5.48

Inter Correlation matrix for the skills and competency of the

Respondents

Skills and

Competency

Manage

Skills

Coord -

and

control

Leadership

Qualities

Group

Dynamism Communi

Overall

skills and

competency

Managerial Skills 1 .283(**) .183(**) .115(**) .159(**) .364(**)

Coordination and

control .283(**) 1 .849(**) .730(**) .720(**) .924(**)

Leadership

Qualities .183(**) .849(**) 1 .710(**) .688(**) .898(**)

Group Dynamism .115(**) .730(**) .710(**) 1 .763(**) .867(**)

Communication .159(**) .720(**) .688(**) .763(**) 1 .856(**)

Overall skills and

Competency .364(**) .924(**) .898(**) .867(**) .856(**) 1

N 600 600 600 600 600 600

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Inference

S. No Group Dynamism Correlation value Statis. Inference

1 Communication .763(**) P < 0.01 significant

The calculated value is .763(**) and (P<0.01). Hence, the

calculated value is less than the table value. Therefore null hypothesis

is rejected and the research hypothesis is accepted.

Findings

It is apparent that, the level of significance is between the factors

of Overall skills and competency. It is further inferred that Managerial

P a g e | 303

Skills, Coordination and control, Leadership Qualities, Group

Dynamism, and Communication are strongly significant in the overall

skills and competency of the SHG members and they have strong

relationship with each other variables and are closely interrelated

among the all other variables significantly at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST

The hypothesis given below is tested using Kruskal-Wallis Test.

Hypothesis – 8

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between no. of loan borrowed by the

respondents and their overall functioning and working of the SHG’s.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between no. of loan borrowed by

the respondents and their overall functioning and working of the SHG’s.

Table 5.49

Kruskal-Wallis Test difference between no. of loan borrowed by the

respondents and their overall functioning and working of the SHG’s

Loan borrowed N Mean Rank

Conduct of Meeting

One 323 307.21

Two 146 268.86

Three 56 291.46

Four 49 342.15

More than four 26 335.81

P a g e | 304


One 323 307.00

Two 146 271.75

Three 56 296.90

Four 49 345.43


Transparency

One 323 287.83

Two 146 332.48

Three 56 294.27

Four 49 272.11


Formation and management of SHGs

One 323 290.61

Two 146 289.99

Three 56 328.21

Four 49 316.61


Overall Functioning and Working of

SHGs

One 323 297.76

Two 146 284.15

Three 56 292.16

Four 49 337.09


P a g e | 305

Test Statistics (a,b)

Conduct of

Meeting


Transparency

Formation and

management of SHGs

Overall Functioning

and Working of

SHGs

Chi-Square

9.547 7.910 9.950 10.997 8.571

Df 4 4 4 4 4

Asymp. Sig.

.049 .095 .041 .027 .073

a Kruskal Wallis Test

b Grouping Variable: loan borrowed

Findings

The above table shows that there is a significant difference

between no. of loan borrowed by the respondents and their overall

functioning and working of the SHG’s. Hence, the calculated value is

less than table value. So the research hypothesis is accepted and the

null hypothesis is rejected.

One-way ANOVA

The hypothesis given below is tested using One-way ANOVA test.

Hypothesis – 9

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between Nature of the group

Activities of the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of

SHGs.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between Nature of the group

Activities of the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of

SHGs.

P a g e | 306

Table 5.50

One-way ANOVA difference between Nature of the group Activities

of the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs.

S.No. Variables Mean S.D SS Df MS

Statistical

inference


Between Groups 492.955 19 25.945

F = 3.074

P < 0.05

Significant

G1(n=158) 17.91 3.309

G2(n=114) 18.06 3.199

G3(n=19) 18.11 2.580

G4(n=20) 20.85 1.785

G5(n=12) 19.75 1.865

G6(n=26) 18.15 2.738

G7(n=29) 18.62 2.624

G8(n=4) 18.50 2.082

G9(n=6) 20.17 2.137

G10(n=10) 17.20 3.190

G11(n=4) 17.25 3.948

G12(n=20) 19.95 1.504

G13(n=9) 20.78 1.856

G14(n=11) 18.73 3.003

G15(n=14) 19.93 2.336

G16(n=45) 18.33 2.532

G17(n=53) 17.09 3.260

G18(n=35) 19.23 2.030

G19(n=5) 19.40 2.302

G20(n=6) 19.33 1.966

Within Groups 4895.164 580 8.440

P a g e | 307


F = 1.733

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=158) 18.44 3.135

G2(n=114) 19.36 3.278

G3(n=19) 19.84 2.478

G4(n=20) 19.10 2.245

G5(n=12) 19.67 4.008

G6(n=26) 19.88 2.503

G7(n=29) 19.86 3.170

G8(n=4) 17.50 4.203

G9(n=6) 19.50 3.937

G10(n=10) 18.80 2.440

G11(n=4) 19.25 .957

G12(n=20) 20.75 3.210

G13(n=9) 21.44 3.245

G14(n=11) 21.00 2.608

G15(n=14) 20.07 2.200

G16(n=45) 19.16 3.191

G17(n=53) 18.91 3.564

G18(n=35) 19.46 2.214

G19(n=5) 19.60 3.362

G20(n=6) 21.17 2.229

Within Groups 5521.126 580 9.519

Transparency F = 1.006

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=158) 19.40 3.491

G2(n=114) 19.66 3.120

G3(n=19) 19.68 3.215

G4(n=20) 19.50 2.724

G5(n=12) 20.42 4.400

P a g e | 308

G6(n=26) 19.42 2.701

G7(n=29) 19.14 3.777

G8(n=4) 19.75 4.573

G9(n=6) 17.83 2.639

G10(n=10) 20.00 3.232

G11(n=4) 19.50 2.887

G12(n=20) 17.65 2.059

G13(n=9) 17.56 2.555

G14(n=11) 20.27 2.195

G15(n=14) 18.00 2.909

G16(n=45) 19.27 3.440

G17(n=53) 19.51 4.379

G18(n=35) 19.31 3.270

G19(n=5) 21.80 .837

G20(n=6) 21.00 2.366

Within Groups 6555.280 580 11.302

Formation and management of SHGs

F = 1.243

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=158) 18.81 3.279

G2(n=114) 18.17 3.065

G3(n=19) 19.11 3.928

G4(n=20) 20.85 1.348

G5(n=12) 19.42 2.644

G6(n=26) 19.62 3.238

G7(n=29) 18.48 3.334

G8(n=4) 20.00 .816

G9(n=6) 16.83 3.312

G10(n=10) 17.80 4.417

G11(n=4) 19.25 2.754

G12(n=20) 18.70 3.045

P a g e | 309

G13(n=9) 18.00 3.000

G14(n=11) 20.09 1.868

G15(n=14) 19.21 2.190

G16(n=45) 18.47 4.398

G17(n=53) 18.83 3.657

G18(n=35) 19.49 2.306

G19(n=5) 18.20 2.864

G20(n=6) 19.50 2.881

Within Groups 6115.153 580 10.543

Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs

F = 1.505

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Between Groups 1680.526 19 88.449

G1(n=158) 74.56 8.153

G2(n=114) 75.25 7.563

G3(n=19) 76.74 7.248

G4(n=20) 80.30 2.638

G5(n=12) 79.25 8.313

G6(n=26) 77.08 6.675

G7(n=29) 76.10 7.862

G8(n=4) 75.75 9.845

G9(n=6) 74.33 5.465

G10(n=10) 73.80 9.636

G11(n=4) 75.25 2.872

G12(n=20) 77.05 5.624

G13(n=9) 77.78 7.172

G14(n=11) 80.09 3.885

G15(n=14) 77.21 4.758

G16(n=45) 75.22 8.166

G17(n=53) 74.34 10.130

G18(n=35) 77.49 5.982

G19(n=5) 79.00 5.148

P a g e | 310

G20(n=6) 81.00 5.477

Within Groups 34083.393 580 58.764

P = .000 / .028 / .451 / .217 / .077

G1 = Embroidering/ G2 = Fish Vendor / G3 = Confectionary(Snacks) / G4 =

Masala / Preparation and Sales/ G5 = Consignment of saree sales / G6 = Jute

basket spinning/ G7 = Fruits Vendor / G8 = Share Auto Business / G9 = Waste

paper Mart / G10 = Juice Centre / G11=Iron scrap collection and sales /

G12=Cane water sales/ G13=Napkin Making and Sales / G14=Bamboo Basket

Making / G15=Painting/ G16=Centering Work/ G17=Flower Vendor/

G18=Vegetable Vendors/ G19=Creches/ G20=others

Inference The calculated value is F = 1.505 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated



Findings


Nature of the group activities of the respondents and Overall

Functioning and Working of SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is

greater than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the

null hypothesis is accepted.

Hypothesis – 10

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the Nature of the group

Activities of the respondents and Overall External Problems.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the Nature of the group

Activities of the respondents and Overall External Problems.

P a g e | 311

Table 5.51

One-way ANOVA difference between Nature of the group Activities

of the respondents and Overall External Problems.

S.No Variables Mean S.D SS Df MS

Statistical

inference

1 Overall External Problems

Between Groups 2304.726 19 121.301

F = 2.185

P < 0.05

Significant

G1(n=158) 16.64 7.708

G2(n=114) 15.03 6.949

G3(n=19) 19.42 9.365

G4(n=20) 9.55 2.946

G5(n=12) 14.17 3.298

G6(n=26) 14.35 7.059

G7(n=29) 16.24 7.661

G8(n=4) 16.75 3.862

G9(n=6) 23.50 12.973

G10(n=10) 16.40 8.383

G11(n=4) 19.25 12.420

G12(n=20) 13.95 10.195

G13(n=9) 12.22 9.497

G14(n=11) 14.00 7.603

G15(n=14) 14.86 8.411

G16(n=45) 16.13 6.469

G17(n=53) 15.32 4.441

G18(n=35) 16.63 8.499

G19(n=5) 21.00 11.874

G20(n=6) 21.33 10.912

Within Groups 32195.673 580 55.510

P = .003

P a g e | 312

G1 = Embroidering/ G2 = Fish Vendor / G3 = Confectionary(Snacks) / G4 =

Masala / Preparation and Sales/ G5 = Consignment of saree sales / G6 = Jute

basket spinning/ G7 = Fruits Vendor / G8 = Share Auto Business / G9 = Waste

paper Mart / G10 = Juice Centre / G11=Iron scrap collection and sales /

G12=Cane water sales/ G13=Napkin Making and Sales / G14=Bamboo Basket

Making / G15=Painting/ G16=Centering Work/ G17=Flower Vendor/

G18=Vegetable Vendors/ G19=Creches/ G20=others

Inference

The calculated value is F = 2.185 and P > 0.05. Hence, the

calculated value is less than table value. Therefore, the research

hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is rejected.

Findings

The above table shows that there is a significant difference

between the Nature of the group Activities of the respondents and the

Overall External Problems. Hence, the calculated value is lesser than

table value. So the research hypothesis is accepted and the null

hypothesis is rejected.

TEST OF OTHER HYPOTHESES

T’ test

The hypothesis given below is tested using T’ test.

Hypothesis – 11

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the Type of ownership and

their Overall External Problems of SHG's.

P a g e | 313

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the Type of ownership

and their Overall External Problems of SHG's.

Table 5.52

Difference between Type of ownership and their Overall External

Problems of SHG's.

Overall External Problems Mean S.D Statistical

inference

Proprietors (n=127) 27.20 6.383 T = 30.485

P < 0.05

Significant Partners (n=473) 12.72 4.212

P = .000

Inference

The calculated value of student ‘t’ test shows significant difference in the

results. Hence, the calculated value is less than the table value.

Therefore, the research hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis

is rejected.

Findings

The above table shows that there is a significant difference between the

Type of ownership and their Overall External Problems of SHG's.

Hence, the calculated value is lesser than table value. So the research

hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is rejected.

P a g e | 314

Chi - Square Test


Hypothesis – 12

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant association between the age of the

respondents and their Overall External Problems in Getting Loans of

SHG's.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant association between the age of the

respondents and their Overall External Problems in Getting Loans of

SHG's.

Table 5.53

Association between the age of the respondents and their Overall

External Problems in Getting Loans of SHG's.

S.No.

External Problems

in Getting Loans

Age Statistical Inference

1 Overall External

Problems

Below 30yrs

(n=196)

31 to 40yrs (n=210)

41 to 50yrs

(n=146)

51yrs & above (n=48)

Low 103

(52.6%) 104

(49.5%) 68

(46.6%)

28 (58.3%)

X2=2.488 Df = 3

P > 0.05 Not

Significant

High 93

(47.4%) 106

(50.5%) 78

(53.4%) 20

(41.7%)


P a g e | 315

Inference

The calculated value X2=2.488 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance in

all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the table value.


accepted.

Findings

The above table shows that there is no significant association between

the age of the respondents and their Overall External Problems in

Getting Loans of SHG's. Hence, the calculated value is greater than

table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null


One Way ANOVA TEST


Hypothesis – 13

Research Hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the educational

qualification of the respondents and their overall social empowerment.

Null Hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the educational

qualification of the respondents and their overall social empowerment.

P a g e | 316

Table 5.54

One-way ANOVA difference between the educational qualification

of the respondents and their overall social empowerment.

S.No Community participation


Between Groups

4.007 4 1.002

F = .361 P > 0.05 Not Significant

G1(n=155) 7.00 1.721

G2(n=234) 7.17 1.650

G3(n=171) 7.20 1.612

G4(n=27) 7.07 1.639

G5(n=13) 7.08 2.060

Within Groups 1653.111 595 2.778

Social Reasoning


Between Groups

10.666 4 2.667

G1(n=155) 6.94 2.004

G2(n=234) 7.10 1.989

G3(n=171) 7.18 1.813

G4(n=27) 7.11 1.908

G5(n=13) 7.77 1.739

Within Groups 2229.727 595 3.747

Social analysis


Between Groups

5.926 4 1.481

G1(n=155) 7.32 1.747

G2(n=234) 7.29 1.738

G3(n=171) 7.25 1.690

G4(n=27) 7.07 1.730

G5(n=13) 6.69 2.594

Within Groups 1817.993 595 3.055

Health and Hygienic Practice

F = 1.752 P > 0.05 Not Significant

Between Groups

40.786 4 10.196

G1(n=155) 7.29 2.307

G2(n=234) 7.04 2.389

G3(n=171) 6.68 2.479

G4(n=27) 6.56 2.665

G5(n=13) 7.62 2.631

Within Groups 3462.199 595 5.819

P a g e | 317

Culture and Civilization


Between Groups

27.841 4 6.960

G1(n=155) 8.07 1.612

G2(n=234) 7.91 1.633

G3(n=171) 7.58 1.619

G4(n=27) 7.93 1.900

G5(n=13) 8.62 1.325

Within Groups 1581.784 595 2.658

Overall social empowerment


Between Groups

89.296 4 22.324

G1(n=155) 36.63 5.365

G2(n=234) 36.51 5.112

G3(n=171) 35.89 4.779

G4(n=27) 35.74 4.629

G5(n=13) 37.77 6.870

Within Groups 15526.378 595 26.095 G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 = Graduate

P = .837 / .584 / .747 / .137 / .034 / .490


Inference The calculated value is F = .855 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated



Findings


the educational qualification of the respondents and their overall social

empowerment. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value.

So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is

accepted.

P a g e | 318

One-way ANOVA

Hypothesis – 14

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the Educational

qualification of the respondents and their Overall External Problems.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the Educational

qualification of the respondents and their Overall External Problems.

Table 5.55

One-way ANOVA difference between the Educational qualification

of the respondents and Overall External Problems.

S.No Overall External Problems


Between Groups

263.304 4 65.826


G1(n=155) 15.61 7.531

G2(n=234) 15.13 7.361

G3(n=171) 16.68 7.998

G4(n=27) 16.63 7.938

G5(n=13) 15.92 5.515

Within Groups

34237.095 595 57.541

G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 =

Graduate P = .335


P a g e | 319

Inference The calculated value is F = 1.144 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated



Findings


the Educational qualification of the respondents and their Overall

External Problems. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table


accepted.

Hypothesis – 15

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the Educational

qualification of the respondents and the Overall assistance received

from NGOs / Mathi office.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between Educational qualification

of the respondents and their Overall assistance received from NGOs /

Mathi office.

P a g e | 320

Table 5.56

One-way ANOVA difference between Educational qualification of

the respondents and the Overall assistance received from NGOs /

Mathi office.

S.No

Overall assistance received from NGOs / Mathi office


Between Groups

344.054 4 86.014


G1(n=155) 40.08 11.568

G2(n=234) 40.89 11.099

G3(n=171) 39.11 11.748

G4(n=27) 40.07 11.685

G5(n=13) 41.69 6.263

Within Groups

76796.531 595 129.070

G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 = Graduate

P = .616





Findings


the Educational qualification of the respondents and their Overall

assistance received from NGOs / Mathi office. Hence, the calculated

value is greater than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected

and the null hypothesis is accepted.

P a g e | 321

Hypothesis – 16

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the Monthly Income of the

family of the respondents and the Overall Functioning and Working of

SHGs.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the Monthly Income of the

family of the respondents and the Overall Functioning and Working of

SHGs.

Table 5.57

One-way ANOVA difference between the monthly Income of the

family of the respondents and Overall Functioning and

Working of SHGs.

S.No Income Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical inference



Between Groups

9.607 3 3.202

G1(n=189) 18.24 2.999

G2(n=317) 18.45 2.913

G3(n=59) 18.19 3.511

G4(n=35) 18.63 2.931

Within Groups 5378.512 596 9.024



Between Groups

12.768 3 4.256

G1(n=189) 19.35 3.107

G2(n=317) 19.26 3.196

G3(n=59) 18.83 2.872

G4(n=35) 19.37 2.971

Within Groups 5821.732 596 9.768

P a g e | 322

3 Transparency


Between Groups

37.205 3 12.402

G1(n=189) 19.30 3.323

G2(n=317) 19.60 3.257

G3(n=59) 18.88 3.710

G4(n=35) 18.94 3.865

Within Groups 6734.180 596 11.299



Between Groups

4.464 3 1.488

G1(n=189) 18.91 3.038

G2(n=317) 18.79 3.354

G3(n=59) 18.64 3.305

G4(n=35) 18.66 3.581

Within Groups 6359.721 596 10.671



Between Groups

121.957 3 40.652

G1(n=189) 75.80 7.268

G2(n=317) 76.09 7.625

G3(n=59) 74.54 8.815

G4(n=35) 75.60 9.127

Within Groups 35641.962 596 59.802

G1 = Below 5000/ G2 = 5001 to 10000 / G3 = 10001 to 15000/ G4 =

15001 & above

P = .786/ .728 / .350 / .936 / .565

Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level Inference The calculated value is F = .680 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated



P a g e | 323

Findings


the monthly Income of the family of the respondents and the Overall

Functioning and Working of SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is

greater than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the

null hypothesis is accepted.

Hypothesis – 17

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the monthly Income of the

family of the respondents and the overall social empowerment.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the monthly Income of the


Table 5.58

One-way ANOVA difference between the monthly Income of the


S.No Variables


inference

1 Community participation F = .269

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

Between Groups 2.244 3 .748

G1(n=189) 7.06 1.736

G2(n=317) 7.16 1.627

G3(n=59) 7.08 1.684

P a g e | 324

G4(n=35) 7.29 1.601

Within Groups 1654.874 596 2.777

2 Social Reasoning

F = 1.073

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=189) 6.99 2.001

G2(n=317) 7.21 1.918

G3(n=59) 6.78 1.876

G4(n=35) 7.17 1.790

Within Groups 2228.360 596 3.739

3 Social analysis

F = .781

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=189) 7.19 1.846

G2(n=317) 7.35 1.682

G3(n=59) 7.02 1.843

G4(n=35) 7.29 1.582

Within Groups 1816.777 596 3.048


F = .578

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=189) 7.01 2.367

G2(n=317) 7.08 2.433

G3(n=59) 6.69 2.458

G4(n=35) 6.71 2.539

Within Groups 3492.829 596 5.860

5 Culture and Civilization F = 1.223

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=189) 8.01 1.537

G2(n=317) 7.87 1.685

G3(n=59) 7.64 1.448

P a g e | 325

G4(n=35) 7.57 2.004

Within Groups 1599.773 596 2.684

6 Overall social empowerment

F = 1.438

P > 0.05

Not

Significant


G1(n=189) 36.25 5.216

G2(n=317) 36.67 5.009

G3(n=59) 35.22 5.389

G4(n=35) 36.03 4.774

Within Groups 15503.472 596 26.013

G1 = Below 5000/ G2 = 5001 to 10000 / G3 = 10001 to 15000/ G4 =

15001 & above

P = .847/ .360 / .505 / .630 / .300 / .231

Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level Inference The calculated value is F = 1.438 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated



Findings


the monthly Income of the family of the respondents and the overall

social empowerment. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table


accepted.

P a g e | 326

Hypothesis – 18

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the monthly Income of the

family of the respondents and the Overall factors for the success of

SHGs.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the monthly Income of the

family of the respondents and the Overall factors for the success of

SHGs.

Table 5.59

One-way ANOVA difference between the monthly income of the

family of the respondents and the overall factors for the

success of SHGs.

Overall

factors for

the success

of SHG's


inference


F = .679

P > 0.05

Not

Significant

G1(n=189) 24.66 5.956

G2(n=317) 24.48 5.798

G3(n=59) 23.64 6.761

G4(n=35) 23.57 5.893

Within Groups 21121.859 596 35.439

G1 = Below 5000/ G2 = 5001 to 10000 / G3 = 10001 to 15000/

G4 = 15001 & above P = .565

Source: Computed from Primary Data

Not Significant at 5 percent level

P a g e | 327




Findings


the monthly Income of the family of the respondents and the Overall

factors for the success of SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater

than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null


Friedman Test

The hypothesis given below is tested using Friedman Test.

Hypothesis – 19

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between before and after income

earned and expenditure incurred on food, house and cloth.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between before and after income

earned and expenditure incurred on food, house and cloth.

P a g e | 328

Table 5.60

Friedman test difference between before and after income earned

and expenditure incurred on food, house and cloth.

Ranks Mean

Rank Mean S.D Min Max

Statistical

inference

Monthly income

before

membership

3.16 1.49 .744 1 4

X2=1039.544

Df = 7

P < 0.05

Significant

Monthly income

after membership 5.44 2.53 1.014 1 4

Food before

membership 3.64 1.76 .988 1 4

Food after

membership 5.26 2.48 .999 1 4

House before

membership 3.53 1.70 .939 1 4

House after

membership 5.58 2.63 1.107 1 4

Cloth before

membership 3.86 1.82 1.083 1 4

Cloth after

membership 5.54 2.59 1.112 1 4

Inference

The calculated value of Friedman test shows significant difference in the

results between before and after income earned and expenditure

incurred on food, house and cloth. Hence, the calculated value is less

than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is accepted and

the null hypothesis is rejected.

P a g e | 329

Findings

The above table shows that there is a significant difference between

before and after income earned and expenditure incurred on food,

house and cloth. Hence, the calculated value is lesser than table value.

So the research hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is

rejected.

Hypothesis – 20

Research hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents

and their Overall skills and competency.

Null hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the age of the

respondents and their Overall skills and competency.

Table 5.61

One-way ANOVA difference between the age of the respondents

and Overall skills and competency

S.No Managerial

Skills Mean S.D SS Df MS

Statistical inference



G1(n=196) 8.23 1.315

G2(n=210) 8.33 1.155

G3(n=146) 8.05 1.275

G4(n=48) 8.31 1.274

Within Groups 927.745 596 1.557

Coordination and control



G1(n=196) 8.38 1.995

G2(n=210) 8.38 1.819

P a g e | 330

G3(n=146) 8.15 2.214

G4(n=48) 8.52 1.544

Within Groups 2290.489 596 3.843

Leadership Qualities



G1(n=196) 8.13 2.103

G2(n=210) 8.09 2.182

G3(n=146) 7.99 2.298

G4(n=48) 8.33 1.917

Within Groups 2796.471 596 4.692

Group Dynamism



G1(n=196) 8.07 2.012

G2(n=210) 7.95 1.937

G3(n=146) 7.89 2.232

G4(n=48) 8.19 1.709

Within Groups 2432.983 596 4.082

Communication



G1(n=196) 8.22 1.805

G2(n=210) 8.27 1.601

G3(n=146) 8.16 1.908

G4(n=48) 8.85 1.321

Within Groups 1781.129 596 2.988

Overall skills and competency



G1(n=196) 41.04 7.604

G2(n=210) 41.02 7.073

G3(n=146) 40.25 8.086

G4(n=48) 42.21 6.161

Within Groups 32993.594 596 55.358

G1= Below 30yrs/ G2 = 31 to 40yrs/ G3 = 41 to 50yrs/ G4 = 51yrs &

above

P = .211 / .583 / .799 / .748 / .104 / .437


P a g e | 331

Inference The calculated value is F = F = .908 and P > 0.05. Hence, the

calculated value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research

hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.

Findings

The above table shows that there is no significant difference

between the age of the respondents and their Overall skills and

competency. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value. So

the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.

The next chapter exposes all findings of the study, suggestions

and recommendation to the SHG members, to the organisations, to the

policy makers and to the Government, conclusion and scope for future

Research.

chapter v analysis and interpretation of...

Documents