impact assessment of the district poverty initiative ... · pdf filethe study impact...

1

Impact Assessment of the

District Poverty Initiative Project

Rajasthan

Surjit Singh Radheyshyam Sharma

Supported by

Raj Agarwal

Institute of Development Studies 8 B Jhalana Institutional Area

Jaipur 302 004

2

Preface

The study Impact Assessment of the District Poverty Initiative Project, Rajasthan is commissioned by the

State Project Monitoring Unit of the District Project Initiative Project (DPIP) assisted by the

World Bank with the objective to study the impact of the DPIP and suggest some possible future

directions for the second phase of the project if implemented. The DPIP addresses

multidimensional aspects of poverty that includes mobilizing and empowering the poor and help

them to develop strong grassroots organizations that facilitate access to and participation in

democratic and development processes; expand the involvement of the poor in economic activities by

improving their capacities, skills, access to social and economic infrastructure and services and employment

opportunities; and supporting small scale sub-projects that are priority chosen, planned and

implemented by the poor.

The Impact assessment has covered only a select number of Indicators identified in the Base Line

Survey (BLS) conducted earlier by the Institute. The Survey was conducted in all seven districts

of the DPIP and covered around 1100 households.

We find that the economic returns from the Sub Project Activities are reasonable; varying across

the projects. Dairy projects have been able to generate regular income flows due to significant

forward linkages. In others, returns are linked to local demand and environment and group

dynamics appears to be playing a role. The impact can also be seen in terms of increased

incomes, reduced family sizes, creation of assets, and enhanced women participation in decision

making. There are however, many lessons to be learnt in the processes and outcomes. There

many grey areas where added efforts and more systematic approach to issues would have led

better performance. All stakeholders have something to learn because all were found wanting.

Any intervention of such magnitude is bound to have varied experiences for different

stakeholders. It appears that enroute modifications are necessary to achieve better results. Poor

have limited capacity to realize fuller gains from such interventions. Sustainability of assets and

skills would go a long way in future to help poor get out poverty. Clusters need to be formed to

help create demands and service supply channels. State has its limitations and civil society

involvement can go to an extent; their capacities in terms of manpower and interventions are

3

limited too. Panchayati Raj Institutions only keep checks and balances as the rural communities

are increasing at crossroads to share limited gains that accrue from such interventions. Tuch

programs need to synergize with other on-going activities in the village. Systems needs to made

simple that can be easily adopted.

We are thankful to the Director, State Project Management Unit of the DPIP, the District

Project Management Units, the Non-Governmental Organizations involved in the DPIP and the

World Bank staff who helped us during the course of the study. We would particularly like to

thank Dr. Asmeen Khan and Dr. Puja Dutta from the World Bank and Shri Abhay Kumar, Shri

K.L. Meena, Shri R.K. Nag and Shri Vikas Sharma from the DPIP Rajasthan for bearing with us.

We place on record support of all the respondents and active involvement of field staff in

assisting in such a gigantic task. Errors if any are ours.

Surjit Singh Radheyshyam Sharma

4

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 CIG and Non-CIG Households: A Comparison 13 Chapter 3 Household Level Changes: A Comparison with Baseline 69 Chapter 4 Sub Project Activities: Performance and Directions 122 Chapter 5 Some Reflections of Stakeholders 136 Chapter 6 Conclusions 145 Annexures i

5

Chapter 1

Introduction This study is commissioned by the State Project Monitoring Unit of the District Project

Initiative Project (DPIP) assisted by the World Bank with the objective to study the impact of

the DPIP and suggest possible future directions of the project to help revise, if necessary, the

strategy being pursued. This was proposed to be done by using a selected number of

Indicators identified in the Base Line Survey (BLS) conducted in 2001 at the inception of the

DPIP. We begin with a brief background of the DPIP.

The District Poverty Initiative Project

The DPIP recognizes that poverty has multidimensional characteristics, not confined to

income poverty alone but extending into the social environment in which the poor strive for

an existence. The stated development objective of the DPIP is “to improve economic

opportunities, living standards and social status of the poor”.

The District Poverty Initiatives Project (DPIP) directs its interventions towards:

• Mobilizing and empowering the poor and help them to develop strong grassroots

organizations that facilitate access to and participation in democratic and development

processes;

• Improve the abilities of non-government, government and panchayati raj institutions to

hear, reach and serve poor clients, i.e. to function in a more inclusive and participatory

manner;

• Expand the involvement of the poor in economic activities by improving their capacities,

skills, access to social and economic infrastructure and services and employment

opportunities;

6

• Supporting small scale sub-projects that are priority chosen, planned and implemented by

the poor;

About the Project

The District Poverty Initiative Project (DPIP) was initiated by the Government of Rajasthan

in July 2000. The Project, with support from The World Bank, aims to alleviate poverty in

selected districts through organizing people around a common economic activity into

Common Interest Groups (CIGs) and raising their livelihood opportunities. The project is

implemented in 7 districts, namely Baran, Churu, Dausa, Dholpur, Jhalawar, Rajsamand and

Tonk.

Project Objectives

The project aims at improving the levels of economic activity, productivity and income of

targeted 100000 BPL families of 7039 villages of seven selected districts. The project is being

implemented through Non Government Organizations (NGO) by forming Common Interest

Groups (CIGS) and allowing them to select and implement a sub-project of economic/ social

benefit. These sub-projects may be of community Infrastructures, Land Based, Social

Services or Income Generating in nature.

The long term goal of the project is to reduce poverty in the 7 selected poorest districts in the

state. The project development objective is to improve the economic opportunities, living

standards and the social status of the poor in the selected villages of these districts.

Project Outlay

The total project cost as per project appraisal document (PAD) was Rs.643.63 crore, but due

to dollar deviator the present cost is Rs.610.00 crore. The project financing comprises of 80

per cent contribution by World Bank, 15 per cent by State government and 5 per cent by

beneficiaries. The incurred expenditure is reimbursed by the World Bank. The level of

beneficiary contribution is sector specific and 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the total sub-

project cost.

Physical and Financial Progress

Up to October 2007, 94 NGOs in 5885 villages and RCDF in 2190 villages are facilitating

implementation of DPIP. Rural Non Farm Development Agency (RUDA) was also brought in

7

for skill up-gradation in the Non-farm Micro-enterprise sector. The training and capacity

building of partner NGOs, their staff, PRI's and DPIP staff was taken up on war footing

through the assistance of Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj Sansthan .The project implementation

process was also simplified. Up to October 2007, 247868 poor families have formed 23060

Common Interest Groups (including 6283 Women CIGs having 96113 Women members). Up

to October 2007, 20785 Sub-Projects with a total cost of Rs.609.61 crore have been

sanctioned. This includes Rs.513.37 crore as DPIP component and Rs.96.24 crore as

beneficiary component.

Activity- wise Sub-project taken up by Beneficiaries (up to October 2007)

The sub-project selected by CIG's may be of income generating, community infrastructure,

and land based or social services in nature. Up to October 2007, 20785 sub-projects have been

sanctioned and they are:

Income Generating 66.77 per cent (13945 Nos)

Dairy 18.57 per cent (3860 Nos) Goat rearing 18.45 per cent (3835 Nos) Other 29.75 per cent (6183 Nos)

Land Base 10.32 per cent (2146 Nos) Community Infrastructure 21.14 per cent (4393 Nos)

By NGO 6.27 per cent (1303 Nos) Van Jan Shakti (Sahariya) 0.87 per cent (181 Nos) By Gram Panchayat 14.00 per cent (2909 Nos)

Social Services 1.77 per cent (368 Nos) The income generating activities are mainly livestock (dairy, goat/ sheep rearing) and micro-

enterprise, (like leather works, stitching, tent house, carpet & dhurry weaving etc.). Land

based activities mainly consist of anicuts, horticulture, watershed development, social forestry

etc. In community infrastructure works CIGs/ gram panchayats have built need based link

roads, drinking water wells, anganwadi centers, health sub-centers, school rooms, community

building etc; under the social service sector toilet blocks, housing for sahariyas, health camps,

have been taken up.

With a view to provide support to the project activities and the beneficiaries, the project has

entered into agreements/tie ups with the following Support Institutions:

8

RCDF: 1711 CIGs formed by RCDF have been sanctioned up to October end 2007.

RCDF shall provide the following facilities to benefit the CIG members

To link the CIGs with DCSs and milk route for marketing & help them get the bonus every

year.

To provide them AMT, veterinary first aid training, veterinary services (vaccination dozing

etc.)

To distribute quality seed of improved grasses.

To provide insurance cover under financial scheme and provide

Saras Kavach Yojna to CIG members

Rural Non Farm Development Agency (RUDA): Rural Non Farm Development Agency

(RUDA)– Rajasthan has been involved since a long period in organizing and upgrading skills

of persons/organizations associated with micro-enterprises in the non-farm sector. DPIP has

entered into an agreement with RUDA for providing skill training to 401 Micro-enterprise

based CIGs. It is hoped that RUDA's experience in the Non-farm sector shall go a long way in

upgrading skills of CIG members and help them to sustain their micro enterprises and develop

entrepreneurship.

IGPR& GVS: Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj and Gramin Vikas Sansthan is the lead

training institute of the State for providing training to PRIs and rural development

functionaries, IGPR&GVS has been engaged for providing training to DPIP and NGO

functionaries for better implementation of the project objectives. The institute has played a

vital role in sensitization of all functionaries covered under the project. Till date IGPR&GVS

has organized 110 training/workshops for 4249 members of DPIP & NGO functionaries.

NABARD (NABCONS) (Micro- finance & Micro- insurance ): Working capital being

essential for the survival and growth of micro-enterprises, an agreement for training and

providing of working capital to CIGs has been signed with NABARD (NABCONS).

BASIX: In order to provide sustainable market linkages and cater to the micro-finance

needs of the CIGs, agreements with leading institutions, BASIX has been signed.

9

MART - Hat ( Development ): MART New Delhi has been working on a 2 year

assignment in Tonk and Jhalawar districts since Nov. 2005 as a strategic support partner for

carrying out participatory livelihoods survey for identification of major economic activities

based on local resources, skills, infrastructure and markets. MART would provide field- based

support to DPMU, NGOs and CIGs for livelihoods promotion, business plans, market

linkages and promotion of weekly markets/ haats. MART would also prepare capacity

building plan and conduct exercises on entrepreneurship, livelihoods and marketing for

DPMU, NGOs, Community Facilitators and CIGs.

KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA (KVK): Krishi Vigyan Kendra has been involved to work

as District capacity building unit. In the District Capacity Building unit the scientist of KVK

of different discipline has to play a major role particularly in Agriculture & Livestock

BAIF: RRIDMA institute has been engaged for Pasture Development and Paravet

with AI training for livestock. The RRIDMA has imparted training to the offices of DPMU,

NGOs specialist and some Panchayati Raj members in Sarpanch for Pasture Development.

The BAIF will impart the training to youth for paravet & AI who will work as local Institute

in the villages for livestock development.

MNIT: Malviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur is working with DPIP for

beginning as environmental consultant. MNIT has been engaged to provide awareness about

environment to different stake holders, preparation of Manual for environmental screening. It

visits the project area and provides suggestions on environmental issue for improvement in

local environmental quality.

On the basis of feed-back received from the field, experience gained by the DPMUs and

SPMU and recommendations made by the two World Bank missions several changes were

made between October 2002 and February 2005 for streamlining the sub-project and appraisal

process. These changes were also made with a view to empower the CIG.

Purchase of milch cattle, sheep, goats, etc. allowed under DPIP

Release of sanctioned amount process simplified

Savings encouraged

Sanctioning power revised

Rapid and detailed Appraisal

10

Simplification of Economic Appraisal of Sub-Project

Unit cost of milch animals revised

The project’s approach is to

* Empower disadvantaged people by organizing them in active groups

* Create opportunities for income security to rural poor

* Promote more effective and accountable village institutions including the District and

Gram Panchayats.

The project aims to change the condition of the poor in terms of their skills and lack of

organization and the lack of community control over the design, implementation and financial

management of programs.

The project was thus designed on the basis of a decentralized and demand-based approach. In

order to achieve the above project objectives, the project has adopted the following approach.

* Empower disadvantaged groups by placing funds under the direct control of groups in

their bank accounts;

* Ensure that groups based on their need can select and develop sub-projects that are in

consonance with project objectives;

* Support and strengthen groups with common needs and problems

* Ensure group participation and monitor group processes and provide approval to sub

project on the basis of democratic, healthy and participatory decision making

processes.

* Develop feeling of ownership, create credibility and foster a culture of local financing,

cost recovery and user charges by requiring commonality cash contributions for sub

projects and creation of group and village funds.

* Strengthen local governments at the district and village level by giving them

responsibility for budgeting, disbursement of funds and monitoring of group activities;

11

* Ensure transparency, widespread information, communication and learning about the

project’s and group’s performance, successes and failures through formal and informal

mechanisms.

The tools used to achieve these objectives are 'empowerment', 'sub project activities',

'developing capacities and skills', and 'developing abilities of institutions'. The impact

evaluation is not as much about the processes of using the tools as it is about assessing the

impact of these tools on meeting the project objectives. Thus the impact evaluation would

assess, for example, improvement of social status and how much of the same is due to

'empowerment'; increase in income and the contribution of SPAs therein; improved economic

opportunities due to skill enhancement; and so on.

Design of the Impact Evaluation Study

For providing a data base, a baseline survey was conducted in 2001-02 and afterwards a

periodical evaluation was done in middle of the project as a mid- term interim evaluation in

2004. The present impact evaluation is evaluates the impact of the project interventions upon

the socio-economic status of the targeted families of the seven selected districts of the state.

This present study aims to evaluating the household-level impact of the project interventions.

Of particular interest to the program managers is the extent to which project benefits reach the

targeted group and the impact these benefits have on their welfare. But measuring project

outcomes is not enough as there may be other factors or events that are correlated with

outcomes but are not caused by the project. And thus there is a need to estimate the

counterfactual, that is, what would have happened had the project never taken place. Impact

evaluation could also explore unintended outcomes, positive or negative. Another question of

interest is whether program design could be modified to improve impact.

Before identifying the main outcomes of DPIP, we define unit of analysis as entities from

which it is important to gather information for the purposes of this study. Each unit is

important for assessing the type of impacts and associated variables that we want to identify.

But units of analysis are also important for defining crucial aspects of the evaluation method,

for instance, the type of control group that it will use, or the level at which matching

procedures need to be made to generate good estimations of impacts. The main units of

12

analysis for measuring impacts in this study are: (i) households; (ii)

interventions/projects/facilities; (iii) villages.

Objectives of the Evaluation Study

The main objectives are:

To assess the changes in socio-economic indicators of welfare that are directly

attributable to project interventions, i.e., participation in sub-project activities

To examine the transmission channels through which project interventions are

hypothesized to have an impact on households (e.g., through increased in access to

utilization of economic services, credit and market; improved social capital, etc.)

Based on the above-expected outcomes and the analysis of impact channels, we are going to

prepare the main set of impact indicators for each type of subproject. The choice of indicators

is constrained by the design of the baseline survey.

Methodology

The design of the impact evaluation is not straightforward given the constraints imposed by

the design of the baseline survey. The main constraint is that almost all villages set up as

controls in the baseline survey have been already covered by the DPIP. This is because the

control villages were supposed to be those that would receive the intervention in the final

phase of the project. Instead, these have already received the project intervention and cannot

serve as true controls. As a result, the baseline sample for each DPIP district is composed of

poorest and richest villages, geographically clustered in each district, depending on the

implementation phase. This raises an additional concern regarding the representativeness of

the baseline sample at district and the project levels. In addition, at the household-level, the

sampled households in the selected villages are not entirely comparable as these include BPL

households (in principle, eligible for the program) and APL households (not eligible for the

program but likely to be quite different from the BPL households in characteristics).

Given these constraints, we propose a comprehensive evaluation assesses what components

have worked and what have not, the length of exposure to the program and the heterogeneity

across space, using a mixed strategy of quantitative and qualitative evaluation as follows.

13

The quantitative evaluation seeks to estimate the impacts of multiple treatments– i.e.,

different components, different exposures, different modes of facilitation and different

districts. The general question that this part of the evaluation attempts to answer is what has

worked (categories), how (the quality of the facilitation), where (districts) and when (length

of exposure to the program). The methods used provide estimation of multiple treatments and

a regression discontinuity design (World Bank has been provided data to conduct this part of

the analysis as was decided during the various discussions). The latter will estimate the

marginal effect of participating in the program. This estimation provides comparison of BPL

and APL households on either side of an estimated threshold value (estimated using the

baseline data to construct a poverty index based on the probability of being poor).

The qualitative evaluation seeks to understand how and why CIGs members were able to

improve or not their social and economic status through participation in DPIP. Some of the

questions answered here include: Why do some CIGs are inactive while others are active and

continue working as a group? How important is the role of NGOs and service providers? In

what ways do district managers promote the effectiveness of the Program? How important is

the quality of the implementation of the program?

Sample Selection

Quantitative evaluation: In the baseline survey conducted in 2001 covered 12 project

villages and 8 control villages in each district. In each village, 15 APL households and 25

BPL households were randomly selected for the survey. Therefore, 300 APL and 500 BPL

households were covered in each district and in seven districts 2100 APL and 3500 BPL

households were covered.

In the impact assessment survey in 2007, 140 villages were to be repeated, but only 74

villages were revisited (table 1.1). The remaining 66 villages were selected from phases II, III

and IV covered by DPIP. The list of these villages was provided by DPIP-SPMU.

In the 74 villages, same households were traced out in the impact survey. Out of these 30

households could not be covered as the heads were not found due to migration of entire

family or death. Thus, out of the total sample 30 households are reduced (table 1.2). In the

new 66 villages, the same procedure as in the baseline was adopted to select the households.

This means 15 APL and 25 BPL households in each village.

14

Table 1.1: Sample Household Number and Village BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Total District Village APL BPL Total Village APL BPL Total Village APL BPL Total Baran 11 161 273 434 9 135 225 360 20 296 498 794 Churu 10 149 249 398 10 150 250 400 20 299 499 798 Dausa 12 180 300 480 8 120 200 320 20 300 500 800 Dholpur 13 193 324 517 7 105 175 280 20 298 499 797 Jhalawar 9 132 210 342 11 165 275 440 20 297 485 782 Rajsamand 11 165 275 440 9 135 225 360 20 300 500 800 Tonk 8 120 199 319 12 180 300 480 20 300 499 799 Total 74 1100 1830 2930 66 990 1650 2640 140 2090 3480 5570 Note: BLS- base Line survey and NBLS- non-baseline survey. 140 quantitative survey villages. Table 1.2: Households that could not be surveyed District APL BPL Total Baran 4 2 6 Churu 1 1 2 Dausa 0 0 0 Dholpur 2 1 3 Jhalawar 3 15 18 Rajsamand 0 0 0 Tonk 0 1 1 Total 10 20 30 Note: Households (30) were replaced as the baseline households were not available for survey due to migration, death etc.

Qualitative evaluation: The sampling framework is as follows. For each district, we

have stratified the sample by type of SPAs, exposure to the program and NGOs performance.

The sample size is as depicted in table 1.3. (list was provided by DPIP-SPMU). The method

used mainly focuses on groups (at CIG level) and interviews (at individual and village level).

Of the 98 villages, 54 villages were also covered in baseline 2001 survey. The other 44

villages are part of phases II, III and IV of DPIP (also see table 1.4 for FGDs). Table 1.3: Qualitative Survey Village District BLS NBLS Total Baran 9 4 13 Churu 9 4 13 Dausa 7 6 13 Dholpur 7 9 16 Jhalawar 10 10 20 Rajsamand 2 5 7 Tonk 10 6 16 Total 54 44 98 Note: BLS- base Line survey and NBLS- non-baseline survey. Table 1.4: District-wise FGDs and Interview for Survey District No. of FGDs Baran 22 Jhalawar 34 Churu 24 Rajsamand 21 Dausa 26 Tonk 33 Dholpur 32 Total 192

15

Survey Instruments

The survey has adopted a mix of qualitative and quantitative research tools.

Quantitative data including household and village questionnaires were used to assess socio-

economic impacts are measured at the household level (which includes specific measures

coming from individual members of the household). Generally, this survey is applied to the

head of the house, and also to some specific members in some designs (for instance, to

household members who belong to project CIG groups). The village survey presents local

village context. The household questionnaires also include a short SPA module (categorized

by the four major types of sub-project activities) that has been collected from those

households that have participated in the project.

Qualitative data including key informant interviews and focus group discussions were used to

understand in greater detail the main issues in program implementation. The key informant

interviews have been used to elicit information from qualified individuals on some attributes

of the intervention (the facility, or the service) or about features of the village and its

members. This include sarpanch, community accountant, bank manager, cluster president,

representatives from selected NGOs, key service providers (e.g. RCDF), those responsible for

the maintenance of a facility, representatives of NGOs, etc. Some aspects covered in the

FGDs are strengths and sustainability of CIGs, satisfaction levels with the project, level of

convergence with other program, and so on to better understand the reasons for the results

observed in the quantitative impact evaluation.

All the instruments were preceded by a pilot survey to test and subsequently revised in light

of the findings of the pilot test, with the proviso that certain key outcome indicators remain

consistent with those in the baseline survey.

Selection and Training of Field Staff

Selection of the staff was done as per the norms of the Institute.

The training of the staff was organized in the Institute and resource persons from DPIP-

SPMU and the Institute was used. They were explained what DPIP is initially and then each

question of the various questionnaires was discussed and explained. A pilot schedule was

filed by all investigators to ascertain the understanding of the questions. From the selected

16

individuals, experienced persons were assigned supervisory role. Two types of teams were

formed- one for qualitative and the other for quantitative.

The coordinators and supervisors did regular checking of filled schedules in the field itself.

To save time, simultaneously data entry was also initiated though extra manpower. Thus, the

field work and data entry was completed within two months time. A report was also prepared.

17

Chapter 2

CIG and Non-CIG Households: A Comparison

In this chapter we discuss CIG member households and compared them with non-CIG member households. A

CIG member household mean that a member of the household is part of DPIP- SPA. Both these households are

BPL households. As a BPL household is linked to DPIP though SPA, it would observe changes in many of its

characteristics. Its income would change, assets position would improve, agriculture production would improve,

dependence on casual labour would reduce and education and health of the households would improve. Household Features

The head of are largely male across districts for both groups of households (table 2.1). However, female headed

households are also quite significant in the sense that the proportion ranges between a low of 5.43 percent in

Jhalawar and a high of 15.20 percent in Dholpur in case of CIG households, while the corresponding proportion

is 7.73 percent in Baran and 20.20 in Tonk.

Table 2.1: Sex of the Head of the Household --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sex Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Household Male 89.87 91.30 85.83 84.80 94.57 92.42 88.00 89.10 621 Female 10.13 8.70 14.17 15.20 5.43 7.58 12.00 10.90 76 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Household Male 92.27 88.81 83.89 83.42 83.05 87.56 79.80 86.05 975 Female 7.73 11.19 16.11 16.58 16.95 12.44 20.20 13.95 158 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Majority of the heads are married across the districts. There are few unmarried heads too. Tonk has 13 percent

CIG member household heads who are widows and 3.8 percent Baran are also widows (table 2.2). Tonk also has

one widower. Among the non-CIG member households, again in Tonk 12.12 percent are widows with another 2

percent widowers and separated.

Table 2.2: Marital Status of the Head ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Marital status Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIG Member Household

18

Married 96.20 99.13 99.17 100 98.91 98.48 85.00 96.84 675 Unmarried 0.87 0.83 1.09 1.52 1.00 0.72 5 Widow 3.80 13.00 2.30 16 Widower 1.00 0.14 1 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Household Married 97.94 98.51 98.89 94.47 94.92 99.04 82.83 96.12 1089 Unmarried 1.03 1.49 1.11 5.53 5.08 0.96 1.01 2.29 26 Widow 0.52 12.12 1.15 13 Widower 0.52 2.02 0.26 3 Separated 2.02 0.18 2 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.3 shows that each district different caste groups dominating among CIG member households. For

instance in Baran it is scheduled tribe (48.84%), in Churu and Dausa, it is scheduled caste (52.17% and 42.5%

respectively), OBC in Dholpur (55.20%) and OBC and scheduled caste in Jhalawar (70.66%). It is more

homogenous distribution in Rajsamand and OBC in Tonk district. In case of non-CIG member households, a

similar pattern is observed for caste configurations. This reveals that poor are from scheduled caste, tribes and

also from OBC groups. The proportion of poor coming from general category is relatively less, though the

percentage varies from a low of 2.53 percent in Baran and to a high of 24.24 percent in Rajsamand in case of

CIG member households, while this percentage varies from a low of 5.67 percent in Baran and to a high of 23.73

percent in Jhalawar in case of non-CIG member households.

The family in case of CIG and non-CIG groups is largely nuclear with varying proportions.

The households are mainly male-headed in all the districts for both the groups. It is also noticed women-headed

households are quite significant in some of the districts like Rajsamand, Tonk, Churu and Dausa in case of CIG

group and in Tonk, Churu, Dausa and Rajsamand. It may be pointed out here that in most districts the proportion

of women headed households is greater than 10 percent of all households covered.

Table 2.3: Caste, Family Type and Type of Household --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Caste CIG Member Households General 2.53 19.13 14.17 7.20 18.48 24.24 11.00 13.49 94 OBC 26.58 27.83 16.67 55.20 36.96 15.15 47.00 33.43 233 SC 24.05 52.17 42.50 24.00 33.70 28.79 28.00 34.15 238 ST 46.84 0.87 26.67 13.60 10.87 31.82 14.00 18.94 132 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 NON-CIG Member Households General 5.67 11.94 11.67 13.07 23.73 18.18 13.13 13.50 153 OBC 30.41 35.07 27.22 35.18 36.44 20.10 44.44 31.24 354 SC 28.87 52.99 36.11 37.19 28.81 20.10 30.30 32.83 372 ST 35.05 25.00 14.57 11.02 41.63 12.12 22.42 254 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 Family Type CIG Member Households Nuclear 94.94 93.04 85.83 95.20 97.83 95.45 83.00 91.82 640 Joint 5.06 6.96 14.17 4.80 2.17 4.55 17.00 8.18 57 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697

19

NON-CIG Member Households Nuclear 88.14 97.01 88.33 91.46 96.61 95.69 81.82 91.53 1037 Joint 11.86 2.99 11.67 8.54 3.39 4.31 18.18 8.47 96 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 Household Type CIG Member Households Man 92.41 86.96 86.67 89.60 93.48 83.33 85.00 88.24 615 Women 6.33 13.04 11.67 10.40 5.43 16.67 15.00 11.19 78 Differently 1.27 1.67 1.09 0.57 4 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Man 92.78 79.85 85.00 88.94 86.44 84.69 77.78 85.88 973 Women 4.64 18.66 13.89 10.55 12.71 13.88 20.20 12.71 144 Differently 2.58 1.49 1.11 0.50 0.85 1.44 2.02 1.41 16 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all BPL households are really in category of poor households. Investigators reported that there better off

households in BPL category. Table 2.4 shows that a large percentage of households are really BPL households

and this proportion varies from a low of 79.0 percent in Tonk to a high of 98.48 percent in Rajsamand. In all the

districts 90.1 percent CIG member households is really BPL as per the perception of the investigator. In case of

non-CIG member households, the proportions vary between a minimum of 71.86 percent in Dholpur and a

maximum of 88.81 percent in Churu. The overall proportion for all districts is 79.52 percent. This shows that

non BPL households also try to enlist themselves as BPL households in order to get the benefits.

Table 2.4: Investigator’s Perception on BPL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households Yes 91.14 88.70 89.17 92.80 94.57 98.48 79.00 90.10 628 No 7.59 9.57 9.17 4.80 5.43 1.52 18.00 8.32 58 NA 1.27 1.74 1.67 2.40 3.00 1.58 11 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Yes 75.26 88.81 83.89 71.86 74.58 85.17 76.77 79.52 901 No 19.07 5.22 6.11 3.02 13.56 2.87 11.11 8.30 94 NA 5.67 5.97 10.00 25.13 11.86 11.96 12.12 12.18 138 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Rajasthan a poor family can have a few types of ration cards viz., BPL card, Antoday and APL cards. Table

2.5 reveals that from 54.43 percent in Baran to 80.3 percent in Rajsamand have BPL card amongst the CIG

member households. There is large number of these households with Antoday cards also across the districts with

Baran at the top with 44.30 percent households. Some also have APL cards. Of the non-CIG member

households, 40.3 percent households in Churu and 58.59 percent in Tonk have BPL card, while between 12.12

percent households in Tonk and 24.63 percent households in Churu have Antoday card. A large proportion

ranging between 14.83 percent in Rajsamand and 34.33 percent in Churu have APL card.

Table 2.5: Possession of a Ration Card by Type --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ration card Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households BPL 54.43 60.87 73.33 66.40 76.09 80.30 80.00 69.87 487

20

Antoday 44.30 32.17 23.33 32.80 19.57 19.70 15.00 26.83 187 APL 1.27 6.09 2.50 0.80 4.35 4.00 2.87 20 None 0.87 0.83 1.00 0.43 3 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households BPL 42.78 40.30 56.11 53.77 54.24 57.89 58.59 51.90 588 Antoday 31.96 24.63 13.89 16.08 18.64 23.92 12.12 20.83 236 APL 23.20 34.33 27.78 26.13 22.03 14.83 24.24 24.18 274 None 2.06 0.75 2.22 4.02 5.08 3.35 5.05 3.09 35 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Family Size

Table 2.6 presents information on size of the household. It is found that the average household size is the lowest

at 4.3 in Jhalawar and the highest in Dausa and Dholpur at 5.8 persons for CIG member households. The

minimum household size of 4.2 is found in Jhalawar compared to maximum size of 5.4 in Dausa. It is found that

across the districts, the household size is smaller in Non-CIG households compared to CIG households. Churu,

Dausa and Dholpur observed increase in household size in CIG member households, while it increased in Churu,

Tonk and Dholpur in case of non-CIG households.

Table 2.6: Household Size (No.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ District 2001 2007 Changes % CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Baran 5.49 5.13 5.15 4.91 -6.22 -4.22 Churu 5.38 4.79 5.57 5.05 3.39 5.45 Dausa 5.51 5.47 5.81 5.43 5.45 -0.61 Dholpur 5.56 5.24 5.79 5.31 4.17 1.34 Jhalawar 4.71 4.35 4.34 4.15 -7.85 -4.48 Rajsamand 5.11 5.09 5.08 4.62 -0.59 -9.30 Tonk 5.32 5.04 5.30 5.17 -0.38 2.61 Total 5.32 5.07 5.35 4.97 0.57 -1.88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main Occupation of Head of the Household

Among the CIG member households, the main occupation of the head of the household, construction/ casual

labour (28.3%) followed by agriculture and animal husbandry (27.5%) and agriculture (10.8%), table 2.7. Across

districts, the dominant occupations are: construction/casual labour in Baran, Dausa, Dholpur and Rajsamand,

while it is agriculture and animal husbandry in Churu, Tonk and Jhalawar. The main occupation that dominants

in each district has a percentage of 29.1 percent in Baran, 40 percent in Churu, 35 percent in Dausa, 28 percent in

Dholpur, 38 percent in Jhalawar, 43.9 percent in Rajsamand and 32 percent in Tonk. In case of non-CIG member

households, the main occupation is construction/ casual labour in all the districts and the proportion varies

between a low of 27.3 percent in Tonk and 41.6 percent in Rajsamand. The other important occupation is

agriculture and animal husbandry across districts.

21

Table 2.7: Main Occupation of the Head of the Household

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupations Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIG Member Households Domestic Work 2.5 4.3 6.7 9.6 2.2 4.5 8.0 5.7 Agriculture & Animal Husbandry 21.5 40.0 20.8 16.8 38.0 24.2 32.0 27.5 Agriculture 15.2 7.0 13.3 4 16.3 7.6 14.0 10.8 Animal Husbandry 1.3 0.8 2.4 3.0 1.1 Agriculture Labourer 11.4 2.6 2.5 0.8 21.7 4.6 5.6 Mining & Quarrying 0.8 27.2 5.0 Construction/Casual Labour 29.1 28.7 35.0 28.0 10.9 43.9 25.0 28.3 Blacksmith 1.3 0.9 0.3 Weaver 2.5 0.8 0.6 Tanners/Shoemaker 2.5 1.0 0.4 Barber 1.6 0.3 Tailor 0.9 1.7 0.4 Grocery Shop 0.9 3.0 0.4 Tea Shop 1.0 0.1 Auto Repair 1.5 0.1 Carpenter 1.7 1.0 0.4 Potter 1.7 3.3 0.7 Traditional Yachak 1.3 2.2 1.0 0.6 Driver 1.3 1.7 4.5 5.0 1.6 Priest 1.1 1.5 1.0 0.4 Sweeper 1.1 0.1 Rickshaw puller 0.8 1.6 0.4 Service 1.7 7.5 4.8 2.2 1.0 2.9 Cattle Grazing 2.6 1.0 0.6 Disabled 5.1 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.4 Non-worker 1.3 4.3 4.2 1.1 3.0 4.0 2.6 Others 6.3 1.7 0.8 1.5 1.0 1.4 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 79 115 120 125 92 66 100 697

Non-CIG Member Households Domestic Work 5.7 3.0 8.9 9.5 5.9 5.7 10.1 7.0 Agriculture & Animal Husbandry 20.1 26.1 9.4 14.6 24.6 21.5 23.2 19.2 Agriculture 12.4 13.4 17.8 5.5 5.1 5.3 5.1 9.4 Animal Husbandry 1.5 0.7 2.2 1.5 5.1 1.0 2.0 1.9 Agriculture Labourer 12.4 0.7 2.8 1.0 14.4 3.8 4.0 5.4 Mining & Quarrying 0.5 2.2 13.1 0.5 2.8 Construction/Casual Labour 29.9 37.3 31.1 36.7 28.0 41.6 27.3 33.9 Blacksmith 0.6 0.1 Weaver 1.7 0.8 0.4 Tanners/Shoemaker 1.0 0.1 Tokri, Jhadu, pankha 0.6 2.9 1.0 0.7 Barber 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 2.0 0.7 Washerman 1.0 0.1 Tailor 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 Grocery Shop 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 Tea Shop 0.5 0.1

22

Halwai 0.7 0.5 0.2 Carpenter 1.5 0.7 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.7 Potter 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.3 Traditional Yachak 1.0 3.3 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 Driver 2.2 0.6 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 Priest 2.1 0.8 1.0 2.0 0.8 Sweeper 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.5 Contractor 1.5 0.5 0.3 Rickshaw puller 0.7 2.2 4.0 1.1 Camel cart Operator 1.0 0.1 Service 1.5 3.0 2.8 1.5 5.1 3.8 5.1 3.0 Retired 0.7 0.1 Cattle Grazer 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.4 2.0 0.8 Non-worker, seeking job 0.7 0.1 Disabled 2.1 0.7 2.8 3.0 1.7 1.9 3.0 2.2 Non-worker 1.0 1.5 6.7 2.5 3.4 4.8 4.0 3.4 Others 3.6 3.7 2.0 1.9 1.8 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 194 134 180 199 118 209 99 1133 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsidiary Occupation

The heads also reported secondary occupation they are engaged in during the years. This occupation takes less

than six months of their time in a year. Here 17 percent of CIG member households heads do not have any

subsidiary occupation and 21 percent in case of Non-CIG member household heads (table 2.8). In case of CIG

household heads, the most important subsidiary is domestic work in Baran, construction/casual labour in Churu,

Tonk and Jhalawar, agriculture and animal husbandry in Dausa and Dholpur, while it is agriculture in

Rajsamand. The proportion though varies significantly across districts of the major subsidiary occupation.

In case of non-CIG household heads, the major subsidiary occupation is domestic work in Baran, Jhalawar and

Dholpur, agriculture and animal husbandry in Churu, Dausa, Rajsamand and Tonk. Around 40 percent of heads

reported domestic work as subsidiary occupation in Jhalawar and 26.4 percent in Dholpur for CIG member

households. There are, thus, some variations in main and subsidiary occupations of heads across districts and

two groups.

Migration

Has DPIP helped in migration control? Table 2.9 reveals that only 12.6 percent reported migration during the last

one year among CIG member household heads, while this proportion was 12.2 percent in case of non-CIG

household heads. Among CIG households, migration is high in Dausa at 34.2 percent followed by 15.2 percent

in Baran, 12.2 percent in Churu. There is no migration reported in Jhalawar. In case of non-CIG households,

heads reported a similar pattern though with a higher proportion across district except Baran. This means that

DPIP has been able to control migration to some extent.

Table 2.8: Subsidiary Occupation of the Head of the Household

23

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupations Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIG Member Households NA/NR 10.1 14.8 3.3 26.4 18.5 15.2 29.0 16.9 Domestic Work 31.6 11.3 8.3 20.0 10.9 19.7 10.0 15.2 Agriculture & Animal Husbandry 17.7 30.4 33.3 29.6 9.8 22.7 17.0 24.0 Agriculture 5.1 2.6 15.8 4.0 3.3 24.2 6.0 8.0 Animal Husbandry 8.9 9.2 9.6 5.4 1.5 2.0 5.5 Agriculture Labourer 6.3 1.7 19.6 3.0 7.0 4.9 Mining & Quarrying 1.6 0.3 Construction/Casual Labour 13.9 33.0 15.0 5.6 23.9 7.6 18.0 17.1 Blacksmith 2.0 0.3 Weaver 0.8 0.1 Tanner/Shoemaker 1.0 0.1 Tailor 0.8 0.1 Grocery Shop 1.1 2.0 0.4 Carpenter 0.8 1.0 0.3 Traditional Yachak 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.4 Driver 2.0 0.3 Priest 1.7 0.3 Rickshaw Puller 2.5 0.4 Camel cart Operator 0.9 0.1 Cattle Grazer 0.9 0.8 3.3 2.0 1.0 Non-worker Seeking Job 0.8 0.1 Disable 1.3 1.7 0.4 Non-workers 2.5 1.1 3.0 0.9 Others 3.8 0.9 2.5 1.6 1.3 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 79 115 120 125 92 66 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households NA/NR 5.2 20.1 8.3 33.2 39.0 19.6 31.3 20.8 Domestic Work 42.8 17.9 10.6 23.1 17.8 20.1 10.1 21.6 Agriculture & Animal Husbandry 20.1 35.1 21.1 15.1 8.5 33.0 19.2 22.2 Agriculture 7.7 6.7 11.1 8.5 5.9 12.9 10.1 9.3 Animal Husbandry 6.7 0.7 6.7 7.0 5.9 3.8 2.0 5.0 Agriculture Labourer 4.1 7.2 1.0 8.5 3.8 6.1 4.1 Mining & Quarrying 1.1 0.2 Construction/Casual Labour 11.9 17.2 13.3 7.5 11.9 5.7 11.1 10.8 Weaver 1.1 0.2 Tokri/Jhadu/Pankha maker 1.7 0.3 Barber 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 Tailor 0.6 0.5 0.2 Puncture Shop 1.0 0.1 Grocery Shop 0.5 0.1 Halwai 0.5 1.0 0.2 Carpenter 1.7 0.3 Traditional Yachak 1.7 0.5 1.0 0.4 Priest 0.8 0.1 Sweeper 1.1 0.5 0.3 Rickshaw Puller 0.6 0.1 Service 0.6 1.0 0.2 Retired 0.5 0.1 Cloth Shop 0.6 0.1

24

Cattle Grazer 0.5 1.0 0.2 Disabled 1.7 0.3 Non-workers 0.7 5.6 0.5 1.1 Others 2.4 1.0 1.0 0.8 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 194 134 180 199 118 209 99 1133 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.9: Migration during the Year Before the Survey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIG Member Households Yes 15.2 12.2 34.2 7.2 3.0 10.0 12.6 No 84.8 87.8 65.8 92.8 100 97.0 90.0 87.4 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 79 115 120 125 92 66 100 697 NON-CIG Member Households Yes 8.2 18.7 30.0 8.0 3.4 5.7 11.1 12.2 No 91.8 81.3 70.0 92.0 96.6 94.3 88.9 87.8 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 194 134 180 199 118 209 99 1133 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Casual Labour

There is no casual labour reported outside the village in Rajsamand and Tonk for both the groups (table 2.10). In

other districts, casual labour outside the village is more in case of non-CIG household heads. Of the 697 CIG

member households, 160 reported casual labour outside the village and 54 are from Dholpur. In Baran, of the

reporting 29 households, majority do casual labour outside the village for less than 90 days in a year, while of

the 40 such households in Churu, 32 do up to 100 days casual labour outside the village. In Dausa, the casual

labour is more spread out that is some households do casual labour for more than 270 days in a year. In Dholpur,

majority do casual labour work for more than 180 days, while of the 14 households in Jhalawar, 10 do casual

labour outside the village for less than 40 days. Therefore, data shows wide variations across districts. In case of

non-CIG member households, except for Dholpur and Dausa, in other districts the majority of household head do

casual labour work outside the village for less than 120 days. In Jhalawar all the reporting heads of households

do casual labour for less than 60 days in a year. This depends on availability outside the village too near the

village. Dholpur provides avenues of work in mines, while Dausa is near Jaipur where work is available. Table 2.10: Casual Labour outside the Village (Days last Year) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Days Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households 10 1 1 20 1 1 22 1 1 30 4 2 2 3 11

25

40 3 7 10 50 2 6 8 60 5 3 2 1 1 12 70 1 3 1 5 80 3 5 8 90 5 3 3 4 15 100 1 8 2 11 120 1 3 5 3 12 130 2 2 140 1 1 150 1 2 2 3 1 9 160 1 1 170 1 1 180 2 8 10 200 2 8 10 210 2 2 240 3 6 9 250 2 2 265 1 1 270 1 1 300 14 14 365 2 2 Total 29 40 23 54 14 160 NON-CIG Member Households 10 1 1 20 2 1 1 4 30 4 3 1 2 10 40 2 2 4 50 2 4 1 2 9 60 3 2 2 1 8 70 3 1 4 80 1 1 1 1 4 85 1 1 90 10 4 1 15 100 2 1 1 4 120 11 3 2 6 22 130 2 2 140 1 1 2 145 1 1 150 3 1 4 8 160 1 1 180 2 1 1 15 19 200 1 3 4 4 12 210 7 7 240 1 10 11 250 2 2 300 11 11 Total 42 29 17 67 7 162 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What wages do they earn? Only 67 heads reported wages in case of CIG member households (table 2.11). The

mean earnings are Rs.12477 and the minimum average income reported is in Baran at Rs.4616 while it is

maximum in Dholpur at Rs.22357. It is also observed that majority in Baran and Jhalawar earn Rs.5000 or less,

but majority in Dholpur and Dausa earn Rs.10000 or more. In case of Non-CIG household heads, the average

income from this source is Rs.11901 and it is lowest in Jhalawar at Rs.2586 and maximum in Dholpur at

Rs.18709. Except for Churu, in all other districts, the average earning is lower that CIG member households.

Majority of reporting heads in Baran earn Rs.5000 or less per year while majority in Dholpur earn Rs.10000 or

more.

Table 2.11: Wages Earned from Casual Labour (Rs.000’pa) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rs.000 Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Total -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26

CIG Member Households < 5 19 13 4 2 11 49 % 65.5 32.5 17.4 3.7 78.6 30.6 5-10 9 19 6 8 2 44 % 31.0 47.5 26.1 14.8 14.3 27.5 10+ 1 8 13 44 1 67 % 3.4 20.0 56.5 81.5 7.1 41.9 Total 29 40 23 54 14 160 Mean Rs. 4616 7775 12600 22357 3886 12477 NoN-CIG Member Households < 5 32 9 2 8 7 58 % 76.2 31.0 11.8 11.9 100 35.8 5- 10 7 9 7 9 32 % 16.7 31.0 41.2 13.4 19.8 10 + 3 11 8 50 72 % 7.1 37.9 47.1 74.6 44.4 Total 42 29 17 67 7 162 Mean Rs. 4390 10338 10129 18709 2586 11901 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health Awareness

Table 2.12 shows that majority of heads are not aware about HIV/AIDS. The maximum proportion of 50.4

percent Dholpur are aware of HIV/AIDS, but 22.73 percent in Rajsamand on the other hand are aware of

HIV/AIDS among CIG member households heads. Among the non-CIG member household heads, it is again

Dholpur district that outscores other districts, but with lower percentage compared to CIG member households.

The minimum awareness is in Churu.

Table 2.12: Awareness about HIV/AIDS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households HIV/AIDS Yes 31.65 23.48 39.17 50.40 33.70 22.73 31.00 34.29 239 No 68.35 76.52 60.83 49.60 66.30 77.27 69.00 65.71 458 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Yes 36.60 22.39 27.22 45.23 27.12 28.71 31.31 32.04 363 No 63.40 77.61 72.78 54.77 72.88 71.29 68.69 67.96 770 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the household have a health insurance cover? As expected across districts for both categories of households

very few have health insurance coverage (table 2.13). In case of CIG member households, the health cover varies

from none in Jhalawar to 9.0 percent in Rajsamand. In case of non-CIG member households, the proportions are

lower with 0.48 percent households in Rajsamand and 3.89 percent in Dausa.

Table 2.13: Is the Family Covered by Health Insurance Scheme

27

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households Yes 4.35 1.67 1.60 2.17 9.00 2.87 20 No 98.73 80.00 95.00 97.60 79.35 92.42 72.00 87.80 612 Don’t Know 1.27 15.65 3.33 0.80 18.48 7.58 19.00 9.33 65 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Yes 3.09 2.99 3.89 3.52 1.69 0.48 3.03 2.65 30 No 91.75 77.61 90.56 94.97 77.12 90.43 76.77 87.38 990 Don’t Know 5.15 19.40 5.56 1.51 21.19 9.09 20.20 9.97 113 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access to health facilities is a problem in rural areas in Rajasthan, though things have improved over the years.

Table 2.14 shows that of the 697 CIG member households, 56.1 percent in Rajsamand reported in case of illness/

injury required health service is always obtainale. In Baran, 62 percent households, 58.3 percent in Churu and

55 percent in Dausa reported that in case of illness/injury the required health service is available most of the

time. In Dholpur, Jhalawar, Rajsamand and Tonk the required health services are available most of the time,

while significant proportion reported such services are available sometimes in Jhalawar (43.5%), Baran

(29.11%), Churu (29.57%) and Tonk (33%).

In case of non-CIG member households, health services are largely available most of the time and sometimes

across the districts with Baran outscoring all other districts with 93.3 percent households reporting it and the

lowest percentage is in Dholpur at 66.33 percent. It is thus found that most rural households have access to

health emergencies facilities.

What is the most important factor that makes it difficult to obtain treatment for an illness or injury? Table 2.15

provides an answer to this question.

Table 2.14: If anyone in the Household was Ill/Injured and He/She always be able to obtain Required Health Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households Always 7.59 7.83 10.00 18.40 18.48 56.06 25.00 18.51 129 Most of the time 62.03 58.26 55.00 38.40 38.04 37.88 32.00 46.20 322 Sometimes 29.11 29.57 21.67 24.80 43.48 4.55 33.00 27.26 190 Rarely 1.27 4.35 7.50 18.40 1.52 4.00 6.17 43 Never 5.83 6.00 1.87 13 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Always 6.70 4.48 13.33 18.59 20.34 26.32 13.13 15.18 172 Most of the time 79.90 54.48 46.11 45.73 50.85 42.58 42.42 52.34 593 Sometimes 13.40 28.36 30.56 20.60 28.81 25.84 32.32 24.71 280 Rarely 12.69 3.89 15.08 5.26 4.04 6.09 69 Never 6.11 8.08 1.68 19 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The response varies across districts. For instance, it is expensive /cannot afford situation in Baran (68.7%) and

Rajsamand (75%) for majority of CIG households, while it is poor medical facilities in Churu (69.23%), Dausa

28

(61.9%) and Jhalawar (100%). In Tonk, both expensive treatment (42%) and poor medical facilities (48.84%) are

the most important factors in obtaining treatment. The other responses relate to medical facilities are too far and

they are often closed at inconvenient hour. In case of Non-CIG households, medical facilities are of poor quality

is the most important factor reported across districts with the exception of Dholpur where 39.44 percent

households reported it. Thus we find that though facilities are available they are of poor quality and at a distance.

Table 2.15: Most Important Factor in Obtaining Treatment for an Illness/ Injury ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households 1 66.67 20.51 7.14 25.93 75.00 41.86 25.20 62 2 20.83 16.67 11.11 9.30 8.94 22 3 12.50 69.23 61.90 29.63 100.00 25.00 48.84 54.47 134 4 10.26 14.29 33.33 11.38 28 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 246 Non- CIG Member Households 1 73.08 3.64 8.22 25.35 2.94 15.38 31.82 19.02 70 2 15.38 9.09 13.70 9.86 18.46 9.09 11.41 42 3 11.54 67.27 76.71 39.44 97.06 61.54 56.82 60.33 222 4 20.00 1.37 25.35 4.62 2.27 9.24 34 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 368 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1- treatment too expensive/cannot afford it; 2- medical facilities are too far; 3- medical facilities of Poor quality; 4- facilities have inconvenient hours or are often closed; 5- ethnic, caste, racial, religious bias.

Source of Irrigation

The respondents have different sources of irrigation wherever it is available. Some use multiple sources. There

are 282 CIG households (of 697) reporting irrigation source compared to 394 non-CIG households (of 1133).

Table 2.16 shows that In Baran district both canal water and purchased water are major sources (62.72%), while

in Churu it is tank and well with electric pumpset used as a source. In Dausa, most use well water with diesel and

electricity pumpsets (95.46%). In Dholpur, water is purchased and also drawn from wells with diesel pumpset

for most cases. In other districts, the source of irrigation is well where water is drawn with diesel pumpset,

electricity or animals. In case of non-CIG households, the source is well in most states, though canal water is

important in Tonk. Water from well is drawn using various powers like diesel, electricity and animal power. In

Baran and Dholpur around 40 percent households purchase water for irrigation.

Is the source a shared source? Table 2.17 reveal that of the 282 CIG households, 155 share the irrigation source,

while of the 394 non-CIG households, 177 households share a source. The source is shared between two

households to 20 households and in most cases it is two to five households sharing a share in both the categories

of households.

29

Table 2.16: Source of Irrigation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIG Member Households Canal 30.30 1.79 14.29 37.50 22.03 14.54 41 Tank 8.57 8.47 2.84 8 Well 3.03 1.79 18.75 1.69 3.55 10 Well-diesel 6.06 34.85 48.21 51.43 21.88 45.76 36.88 104 Well-electric21.21 60.61 11.43 12.50 22.03 24.11 68 Purchased 42.42 1.52 46.43 14.29 16.31 46 14 6.25 0.71 2 25 100 0.35 1 51 3.13 0.35 1 56 1.79 0.35 1 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 282 Non-CIG Member Households Canal 15.28 4.92 18.18 31.15 24.39 16.75 66 Tank 0.82 4.88 0.76 3 Well 1.35 1.64 18.03 2.44 6.35 25 Well-diesel 12.50 37.84 40.98 59.09 27.87 51.22 32.99 130 Well-electric26.39 47.30 11.48 9.09 15.57 17.07 22.59 89 Purchased 41.67 100 13.51 39.34 13.64 1.64 18.02 71 13 0.82 0.25 1 14 1.64 3.28 1.27 5 46 1.39 0.25 1 51 0.82 0.25 1 54 2.78 0.51 2 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 394 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: 13-canal and well- drawl by animal power; 14- canal and well- diesel pumpset; 25- tank and well- electric Pumpset; 51- well- electric pumpset and canal; 54- well-electric pumpset and well- diesel pumpset; 56- well- electric pumpset and purchased water.

On quality of water of the source- well, the response reveals that (table 2.18) in majority cases water is sweet in

both the group of households. There are few cases of water being saline and brackish in Tonk, Rajsamand and

Dausa. Table 2.19 shows that largely there is no problem of water availability in most districts, but Churu,

Rajsamand, baran and Dausa have more than 70 percent heads reporting water availability in case of CIG

member households, while only in Churu in case of Non-CIG households this is so. However, Dholpur along

with Dauas do have some problem of availability.

Table 2.17: Number Households Sharing a Source ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. Sharing Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Household 0 78.79 18.18 57.14 45.71 46.88 44.07 45.04 127 1 3.03 10.61 8.57 15.63 1.69 6.03 17

30

2 7.58 5.36 17.14 9.38 10.17 8.16 23 3 15.15 8.93 8.57 12.50 15.25 10.99 31 4 9.09 100 16.67 14.29 8.57 3.13 8.47 11.35 32 5 9.09 6.06 10.71 2.86 9.38 8.47 7.80 22 6 1.52 1.79 2.86 6.78 2.48 7 7 7.58 1.79 2.13 6 8 1.52 5.71 1.06 3 10 1.52 3.13 5.08 1.77 5 12 4.55 1.06 3 13 3.03 0.71 2 20 6.06 1.42 4 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 282 Total 33 1 66 56 35 32 59 282 Non-CIG Household 0 68.06 100 40.54 59.02 68.18 54.10 46.34 55.08 217 1 2.78 4.55 8.20 3.30 13 2 13.89 8.11 11.48 9.09 17.21 12.20 12.94 51 3 9.72 13.51 6.56 4.55 4.92 7.32 7.87 31 4 4.17 21.62 14.75 13.64 5.74 14.63 11.17 44 5 1.39 4.05 1.64 4.10 7.32 3.30 13 6 2.70 1.64 2.44 1.27 5 7 1.35 4.88 0.76 3 8 2.70 0.51 2 9 1.35 0.25 1 10 1.35 4.92 0.82 4.88 1.78 7 12 1.35 0.25 1 20 1.35 1.64 3.28 1.52 6 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 394 Total 72 2 74 61 22 122 41 394 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2.18: Water Quality ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households Sweet 32 1 65 56 35 29 55 273 Saline 1 1 3 3 8 Brackish 1 1 Total 33 1 66 56 35 32 59 282 Non-CIG Member Households Sweet 72 2 71 61 22 117 38 383 Saline 3 5 2 10 Brackish 1 1 Total 72 2 74 61 22 122 41 394 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2.19: Water Availability --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households NA 2.86 1.43 27.12 5.71 12.50 4.84 9.18 27 Yes 71.43 100 70.00 37.29 68.57 81.25 50.00 60.54 178 No 25.71 28.57 35.59 25.71 6.25 45.16 30.27 89 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 294 Total 35 1 70 59 35 32 62 294 Non-CIG Member Households NA 10.27 7.69 16.11 1.46 8.20 2.73 8.35 90

31

Yes 56.76 100 63.94 47.78 67.88 69.92 48.18 60.39 651 No 32.97 28.37 36.11 30.66 21.88 49.09 31.26 337 Total 185 2 208 180 137 256 110 1078 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1078 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very few CIG households have mortgaged their land- (8 households and 16 non-CIG households), table 2.20. Table 2.20: Have you Mortgaged the Land in Last Five Years ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member households 2 1 5 8 Non-CIG households 3 1 3 1 3 2 3 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household Food Security

It was enquired as to what happens to food grain production. This is important from household security angle. It

is found by many studies that poor households are net buyers of food grains, they sell part of the domestic

produce to fulfil immediate cash. It is found that (table 2.21) CIG member households keep food grains to the

extent of 100 percent are 41 percent in Baran, 66 percent in Churu, 70.13 percent in Dausa, 42.47 percent in

Dholpur, 34.62 percent in Jhalawar, 50 percent in Rajsamand and 56.92 percent in Tonk.

Similarly, 100 percent food grains are kept for domestic consumption by non-CIG households by 49 percent

households in Baran, 72.81 percent households in Churu, 78.13 percent households in Dausa, 49.50 percent in

Dholpur, 48.89 percent in Jhalawar, 39.61 percent in Rajsamand and 64.15 percent in Tonk. Thus, we find that

across districts, households hold varying proportion of food grains produced by them. The rest they sell for cash

needs as there is surplus and also in some cases out of debt to moneylenders.

32

Table 2.21: Percentage of Foodgrains Kept for Home Consumption ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-CIG member Households 10 2.27 2.74 1.92 2.00 1.54 1.34 6 12 1.37 0.22 1 15 1.37 2.00 0.45 2 16 2.27 0.22 1 20 11.36 2.27 2.60 5.48 5.77 2.00 4.62 4.45 20 24 2.27 0.22 1 25 2.74 1.54 0.67 3 30 6.82 5.68 3.90 2.74 1.92 2.00 3.08 3.79 17 33 1.37 1.54 0.45 2 35 2.27 1.37 1.54 0.67 3 40 11.36 1.14 3.90 6.85 5.77 6.00 3.08 4.90 22 45 2.00 0.22 1 50 18.18 19.32 12.99 9.59 3.85 8.00 15.38 12.92 58 60 2.27 1.14 2.60 2.74 1.92 4.00 6.15 2.90 13 70 2.60 9.59 19.23 8.00 3.08 5.57 25 75 2.74 3.85 1.54 1.11 5 80 3.41 1.30 5.48 19.23 14.00 5.57 25 90 1.14 1.37 1.92 0.67 3 100 40.91 65.91 70.13 42.47 34.62 50.00 56.92 53.67 241 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 449 Total 44 88 77 73 52 50 65 449 Non-CIG member Households 10 4.00 1.75 1.04 1.98 1.30 1.66 11 11 1.00 0.15 1 12 2.00 0.99 0.65 0.60 4 14 1.00 0.15 1 15 2.00 0.99 0.45 3 20 4.00 1.75 5.94 4.44 6.49 3.62 24 25 3.00 2.97 3.25 3.77 1.96 13 28 1.00 0.15 1 30 6.00 4.39 2.08 6.93 4.44 7.14 5.66 5.43 36 35 2.00 0.99 0.65 0.60 4 40 8.00 2.63 2.08 8.91 6.67 9.09 5.66 6.33 42 45 0.65 0.15 1 50 11.00 13.16 7.29 5.94 11.04 5.66 8.90 59 58 1.00 0.15 1 60 2.00 1.75 3.13 3.96 4.44 1.30 1.89 2.41 16 70 0.88 2.08 4.95 17.78 5.19 7.55 4.22 28 75 3.96 0.60 4 80 3.00 0.88 3.13 1.98 13.33 11.04 5.66 5.28 35 90 1.04 2.60 0.75 5 100 49.00 72.81 78.13 49.50 48.89 39.61 64.15 56.41 374 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 663 Total 100 114 96 101 45 154 53 663 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is thus important to know how long domestic production last for consumption. Table 2.18 shows that they are

available for 12 months for 75 percent households in Baran, 28.41 percent in Churu, 40.26 percent in Duasa,

67.12 percent in Dholpur, 61.54 percent in Jhalawar, 66 percent in Rajsamand, 50.77 percent in Tonk. This

means that in all districts, the domestic production is not sufficient for 12 months, though this situation is severe

in Churu, Dausa and Tonk. This reflect vulnerable situation of even CIG member households.

Table 2.22: Foodgrains Available for Months for Consumption after Production ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33

Months Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIG member Households 1 4.55 2.27 2.00 1.11 5 2 10.23 3.90 2.74 6.00 6.15 4.68 21 3 4.55 4.55 5.19 2.74 3.85 8.00 9.23 5.35 24 4 17.05 9.09 4.11 3.85 4.00 4.62 7.13 32 5 4.55 5.68 3.90 2.74 1.92 4.00 3.08 3.79 17 6 4.55 12.50 23.38 9.59 3.85 12.31 10.69 48 7 10.23 1.30 8.22 3.08 4.01 18 8 4.55 3.90 1.37 1.92 4.00 6.15 3.34 15 9 1.14 0.22 1 10 4.55 3.41 7.79 23.08 6.00 4.62 6.46 29 11 2.27 1.30 1.37 0.67 3 12 75.00 28.41 40.26 67.12 61.54 66.00 50.77 52.56 236 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 449 Total 44 88 77 73 52 50 65 449 Non-CIG member Households 1 1.00 1.75 1.04 0.65 1.89 0.90 6 2 1.00 7.02 4.95 2.60 5.66 3.17 21 3 10.53 7.29 1.98 2.22 0.65 5.66 3.92 26 4 1.00 10.53 6.25 17.82 11.11 3.90 7.55 7.84 52 5 13.16 6.25 2.97 0.00 3.90 7.55 5.13 34 6 5.00 10.53 9.38 6.93 4.44 4.55 5.66 6.79 45 7 1.00 7.02 5.21 3.96 0.00 1.30 3.77 3.32 22 8 3.00 6.14 5.21 1.98 4.44 2.60 9.43 4.22 28 9 1.75 1.04 0.99 4.55 1.66 11 10 1.00 2.63 4.17 0.99 24.44 6.49 5.66 4.98 33 11 0.65 0.15 1 12 87.00 28.95 54.17 57.43 53.33 68.18 47.17 57.92 384 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 663 Total 100 114 96 101 45 154 53 663 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case of non-CIG member households, 87 percent households in Baran, 28.95 percent in Churu, 54.17 percent

in Duasa, 57.43 percent in Dholpur, 53.33 percent in Jhalawar, 68.18 percent in Rajsamand and 47.17 percent

in Tonk have food grains available for 12 months. Though non-CIG houselds are relatively better off in this

regard, a large proportion of households with varying intensity are vulnerable to household food security

situation.

If human food security is at stake, what about animal fodder. Table 2.23 reveals that between 76.47 percent CIG

households in Churu and 95.65 percent in Dausa keep 100 percent of domestic production of fodder for own

animals.

Table 2.23: Percentage of Fodder Kept for Domestic Consumption of Animals ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households 10 2.35 10.94 4.92 2.88 12 20 5.88 4.00 2.27 1.92 8 25 1.64 0.24 1 30 1.64 0.24 1 40 4.65 2.35 1.45 2.27 1.64 1.68 7 50 5.88 3.13 2.00 4.55 4.92 3.13 13 60 9.30 2.35 2.90 1.92 8 70 2.35 0.48 2

34

75 1.64 0.24 1 80 1.18 2.00 3.28 0.96 4 90 1.18 1.56 0.48 2 100 86.05 76.47 95.65 84.38 92.00 90.91 80.33 85.82 357 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 416 Total 43 85 69 64 50 44 61 416 Non-CIG Member Households 10 1.04 1.28 2.74 0.75 4.17 1.28 7 11 2.08 0.18 1 12 1.04 0.18 1 19 1.28 0.18 1 20 1.18 2.08 2.94 1.50 4.17 1.46 8 25 1.37 0.18 1 30 1.18 1.28 2.08 0.55 3 35 1.04 0.18 1 40 3.53 1.04 2.94 2.08 1.10 6 50 2.35 4.17 2.56 8.22 2.94 3.01 4.17 3.84 21 60 1.04 1.28 3.76 1.28 7 70 2.08 1.28 1.37 0.75 0.91 5 72 1.18 0.18 1 75 2.35 0.37 2 80 1.18 2.94 0.37 2 90 0.75 0.18 1 100 87.06 86.46 91.03 86.30 88.24 89.47 81.25 87.57 479 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 547 Total 85 96 78 73 34 133 48 547 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case of non-CIG member households, these proportions are 87.06 percent in Baran, 86.46 percent in Churu,

91.03 percent in Duasa, 86.30 percent in Dholpur, 88.24 percent in Jhalawar, 89.47 percent in Rajsamand and

81.25 percent in Tonk. This means that for large proportion of households, domestic production of fodder is

available for own consumption.

And for how many months fodder is available? Fodder stock is available for 12 months for 72.09 percent CIG

member households in Baran, 40 percent in Churu, 47.83 percent in Dausa, 32.81 percent in Dholpur, 82

percent in Jhalawar, 70.45 percent in Rajsamand and 77.05 percent in Tonk (table 2.24). In case of non-CIG

member households, fodder is available for 12 months in 76.47 households in Baran, 43.75 percent in Churu,

52.56 percent in Dausa, 28.77 percent in Dholpur, 67.65 percent in Jhalawar, 61.65 percent in Rajsamand and

58.33 percent in Tonk. Relatively CIG member households are better off in this regard compared to non-CIG

households in all districts except for Baran, Churu and Dausa.

Table 2.24: Fodder Stock for Months for Domestic Consumption of Animals ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Months Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG Member Households 1 3.53 4.35 1.56 2.00 2.27 2.16 9 2 2.33 8.24 4.35 3.13 6.00 4.55 3.28 4.81 20 3 9.30 7.06 5.80 7.81 2.00 2.27 1.64 5.29 22 4 6.98 7.06 8.70 3.13 2.00 6.82 1.64 5.29 22 5 12.94 2.90 4.69 2.00 6.82 1.64 5.05 21 6 2.33 14.12 8.70 14.06 3.28 7.21 30 7 2.90 1.64 0.72 3 8 6.98 7.06 14.49 29.69 4.55 3.28 10.10 42 10 3.13 4.00 2.27 6.56 2.16 9 12 72.09 40.00 47.83 32.81 82.00 70.45 77.05 57.21 238

35

Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 416 Total 43 85 69 64 50 44 61 416 Non-CIG Member Households 1 1.04 1.28 6.85 1.50 4.17 2.01 11 2 3.53 4.17 7.69 5.48 9.02 4.17 5.67 31 3 3.53 6.25 6.85 5.88 2.26 3.47 19 4 4.71 7.29 10.26 8.22 5.88 3.76 6.25 6.40 35 5 2.35 7.29 1.28 8.22 7.52 6.25 5.30 29 6 2.35 14.58 5.13 6.85 5.88 2.26 4.17 5.85 32 7 1.18 3.13 1.37 0.75 1.10 6 8 3.53 3.13 17.95 23.29 14.71 7.52 10.42 10.42 57 9 2.35 1.04 1.28 1.37 1.50 1.28 7 10 8.33 2.56 2.26 6.25 2.93 16 11 2.74 0.37 2 12 76.47 43.75 52.56 28.77 67.65 61.65 58.33 55.21 302 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 547 Total 85 96 78 73 34 133 48 547 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means there is not sufficient fodder with BPL households that last the whole year.

Common Property Resources

Poor households depend up on common property resources a lot, but slowly due encroachment and other factors,

the access to common property resources is getting limited. Table 2.25 shows that majority of CIG and non-CIG

households depend up on common property resources for fuel wood and grazing and grass collection, though the

proportions vary across districts. With regard to fruits it is hardly there, though Churu district is an exception. It

means that poor households can rely on common property resources for sustenance. It is important that they have

access to such resources in rural areas.

Table 2.25: Collection of Common Property Resources -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fuel Wood CIG Member Households Yes 81.01 71.30 50.00 63.20 84.78 78.79 79.00 70.88 494 No 18.99 28.70 50.00 36.80 15.22 21.21 21.00 29.12 203 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Yes 80.41 70.90 43.33 54.27 82.20 86.12 81.82 70.17 795 No 19.59 29.10 56.67 45.73 17.80 13.88 18.18 29.83 338 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 Fruits CIG Member Households Yes 17.39 4.00 3.59 25 No 100 82.61 100 96.00 100 100 100 96.41 672 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Yes 11.94 0.56 2.01 1.91 2.21 25 No 100 88.06 99.44 97.99 100 98.09 100 97.79 1108 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 Grass/grazing of Animals CIG Member Households

36

Yes 65.82 77.39 44.17 47.20 72.83 69.70 69.00 62.41 435 No 34.18 22.61 55.83 52.80 27.17 30.30 31.00 37.59 262 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG Member Households Yes 55 75.37 27.22 24.12 41 71.29 56 49.16 557 No 45 24.63 72.78 75.88 59 28.71 44 50.84 576 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agricultural Inputs

As we are looking at poor households, it is important to understand if they have access to local institutional

support in agriculture production. Table 2.26 reveals that CIG and non-CIG member households in Tonk and

Jhalawar are able to have access to cooperative society for agriculture inputs. So dependence on open market is

visible across districts and that too in cash. This means if the household does not have cash it would not be using

inputs fully or partially. Own resources too are relied on quite significantly. Cash is important for poor

households and this has implication for activities promoted through DPIP for poor. These activities should be

able to provide regular cash flows for poor to obtain benefits from DPIP.

Table 2.26: Sources of Agricultural Inputs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cooperative Society CIG member Households Yes 3.85 2.15 2.27 5.19 32.14 5.66 25.00 9.86 48 No 96.15 97.85 97.73 94.81 67.86 94.34 75.00 90.14 439 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 487 Credit 1 2 18 4 25 Cash 1 2 4 3 13 23 Total 2 2 2 4 18 3 17 48 Non-CIG member Households Yes 5.69 0.85 2.80 6.48 28.07 13.53 25.40 9.80 73 No 94.31 99.15 97.20 93.52 71.93 86.47 74.60 90.20 672 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 745 Total 123 117 107 108 57 170 63 745 Credit 3 13 14 10 40 Cash 4 1 3 7 3 9 6 33 Total 7 1 3 7 16 23 16 73 Open Market CIG member Households Yes 78.85 73.12 86.21 93.42 98.21 86.79 86.36 85.51 413 No 21.15 26.88 13.79 6.58 1.79 13.21 13.64 14.49 70 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 483 Total 52 93 87 76 56 53 66 483 Credit 2.44 8.82 10.67 14.55 6.52 21.05 9.20 38 Cash 97.56 91.18 89.33 100 85.45 93.48 78.95 90.80 375 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 413 Total 41 68 75 71 55 46 57 413 Non-CIG member Households Yes 86.18 75.21 85.98 89.81 94.74 84.71 80.65 84.81 631 No 13.82 24.79 14.02 10.19 5.26 15.29 19.35 15.19 113 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 744 Total 123 117 107 108 57 170 62 744 Credit 1.89 10.87 4.12 16.67 20.14 8.00 9.19 58 Cash 98.11 100 89.13 95.88 83.33 79.86 92.00 90.81 573 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 631 Total 106 88 92 97 54 144 50 631 Own Source

37

CIG member Households Yes 59.62 60.22 26.44 18.42 39.29 49.06 25.37 39.05 189 No 40.38 39.78 73.56 81.58 60.71 50.94 74.63 60.95 295 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 484 Total 52 93 87 76 56 53 67 484 Credit 2 14 1 17 Cash 31 56 21 14 8 26 16 172 Total 31 56 23 14 22 26 17 189 Non-CIG member Households Yes 65.85 64.96 25.23 14.81 31.58 43.53 24.19 41.26 307 No 34.15 35.04 74.77 85.19 68.42 56.47 75.81 58.74 437 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 744 Total 123 117 107 108 57 170 62 744 Credit 1 1 9 16 27 Cash 80 76 26 16 9 58 15 280 Total 81 76 27 16 18 74 15 307 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Agriculture Output Is Sold

Table 2.27 shows that given the discussion above it is not surprising that agricultural produce is sold to debtors.

Among CIG households, the proportion is as high as 38.98 percent in Jhalawar and as low as 1.89 percent in

Rajsamand. Among non-CIG households, (only 18 households) 46.55 percent of Jhalawar’s households sell their

produce to debtors followed by 28.13 percent in Tonk compared to only 2.83 percent in Dholpur.

Table 2.27: Sale of Agricultural Output (Sold to Debtors) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households Yes 13.46 5.38 10.23 1.30 38.98 1.89 22.54 16 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 No. 52 93 88 77 59 53 71 493 Non-CIG member Households Yes 7.32 3.42 4.81 2.83 46.55 11.56 28.13 18 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 No. 123 117 104 106 58 173 64 745 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is also noticed that CIG households, sell their produce to local trader with varying proportions (table 2.28).

There are 58.1 percent in Churu followed by 47.5 percent in Jhalawar do so and the minimum percent is

observed in Dausa (21.6%). Among the non-CIG households this proportion of households is 55.6 percent in

Churu and 22.1 percent in Dausa. Role of representatives of companies is very limited. It also depends up on the

marketable surplus with poor households, which is largely very small.

Agriculture output that is sold outside the village is largely to private traders and representatives of companies

(table 2.29). Across the districts, 48.08 percent in Baran, 65.59 percent in Churu, 79.55 percent in Dausa, 59.74

percent in Dholpur, 74.57 percent in Jhalawar, 67.93 percent in Rajsamand and 66.20 percent in Tonk sell their

produce to private traders and representatives of companies. Krishi Upaj Mandi (KUM) is more common in

Baran followed by Dholpur. In case of Non-CIG households, a similar pattern is observed with varying degree

across districts. This reflects on relationship of poor producers with private traders who lend them money when

needed. DPIP in this case has not been able to control this situation.

38

Table 2.28: Sale of Agricultural Output (within Village) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households Local Traders 25.0 58.1 21.6 26.0 47.5 28.3 29.6 21 Rep.of Co. 1.9 2.2 1.1 3.9 6.8 4.2 3 NA 73.1 39.8 77.3 70.1 45.8 71.7 66.2 47 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 52 93 88 77 59 53 71 493 Non-CIG member Households Local Traders 36.6 55.6 22.1 30.2 39.7 41.6 34.4 22 Rep.of Co. 5.7 2.6 2.9 2.8 3.5 1.2 14.1 9 NA 57.7 41.9 75.0 67.0 56.9 57.2 51.6 33 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 123 117 104 106 58 173 64 745 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2.29: Sale of Agricultural Output (Outside Village) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households KUM 51.92 34.41 20.45 40.26 25.42 32.08 33.80 24 Pvt. trader 17.31 30.11 6.82 9.09 52.54 13.21 22.54 16 Rep. Co. 30.77 35.48 72.73 50.65 22.03 54.72 43.66 31 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 52 93 88 77 59 53 71 493 Non-CIG member Households KUM 52.85 22.22 6.73 33.96 18.97 34.10 35.94 23 Pvt. trader 17.07 35.90 12.50 9.43 43.10 16.76 23.44 15 Rep. of Co. 30.08 41.88 80.77 56.60 37.93 49.13 40.63 26 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 745 Total 123 117 104 106 58 173 64 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Animal Husbandry

It is invariably found that insurance of animals is not common in rural India yet. However, under DPIP, animal

activities provided insurance cover to animals. Table 2.30 shows that majority of CIG households did not had the

animal insurance cover with the exception of Jhalawar. It is much less the case with non-CIG households.

39

Table 2.30: Whether Animals are covered by Insurance Schemes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households Yes 38.00 18.81 41.56 38.67 57.97 27.45 32.50 35.59 No 60.00 77.23 55.84 60.00 37.68 72.55 55.00 60.24 Don’t Know 2.00 3.96 2.60 1.33 4.35 12.50 4.17 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 50 101 77 75 69 51 80 503 Non-CIG member Households Yes 2.61 8.93 5.13 3.87 7.58 4.09 No 96.52 86.54 88.39 93.59 90.74 94.84 81.82 91.08 Don’t Know 0.87 13.46 2.68 1.28 9.26 1.29 10.61 4.82 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 115 104 112 78 54 155 66 684 Who Treat the Sick Animals CIG member Households Govt. Vet. 70.00 47.52 62.34 42.67 86.96 43.14 77.50 61.03 Pvt. Vet. 20.00 29.70 9.09 33.33 5.80 35.29 11.25 20.48 Traditional Vet. 10.00 22.77 28.57 24.00 7.25 21.57 11.25 18.49 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 50 101 77 75 69 51 80 503 CIG member Households Govt. Vet. 59.13 40.38 46.43 46.15 68.52 57.42 62.12 53.36 Pvt. Vet. 20.87 44.23 22.32 42.31 11.11 32.26 16.67 28.51 Traditional Vet. 20.00 15.38 31.25 11.54 20.37 10.32 21.21 18.13 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 115 104 112 78 54 155 66 684 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who treats the sick animals? Table 2.31 reveals that it is largely the government veterinarian followed by private

veterinarian and traditional veterinarian with varying proportions of households reporting across districts. A similar

is more or less the case with non-CIG households.

Animals too are affected by worms and it affects the milk yield. For this purpose, regular de-worming is done. It is

estimated that with de-worming approximately 0.5 to 1.5 litres of milk yield increases per day. It appears that de-

worming is not very common in the districts; the percentage varies between 43.59 percent in Tonk and 1.98 percent

in Churu (table 2.31). The percentage is higher among non-CIG households, though none reported it in Churu. The

pattern is similar with varying proportions. The highest proportion of households is in Jhalawar (50.94%) and the

least in Dausa (23.15%). The periodicity of de-worming is quarterly or more. In some cases it is seasonal.

Table 2.31: Whether Animals are De-wormed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households Yes 20.00 1.98 34.25 31.08 60.29 31.25 43.59 30.49 150

40

Total 50 101 73 74 68 48 78 492 492 Periodicity Monthly 12.00 4.35 12.20 20.00 29.41 14.67 22 Quarterly 50.00 8.00 34.78 9.76 32.35 17.33 26 Half-yearly 32.00 43.48 70.73 20.00 32.35 40.67 61 Seasonal 100 50.00 48.00 17.39 7.32 60.00 5.88 27.33 41 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 Total 10 2 25 23 41 15 34 150 Non-CIG member Households Yes 40.35 23.15 28.21 50.94 28.86 29.23 27.12 182 Total 114 104 108 78 53 149 65 671 671 Periodicity Monthly 4.55 4.65 21.05 3.85 7 Quarterly 4.00 13.64 11.11 6.98 5.26 6.04 11 Half-yearly 16.00 59.09 81.48 62.79 52.63 41.76 76 Seasonal 100 80.00 22.73 7.41 25.58 21.05 48.35 88 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 182 Total 46 25 22 27 43 19 182 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has the milk yield improved with de-worming? Yes milk yield has increased across districts for both groups of

households (table 2.32). However, Jhalawar and Baran tops the list.

Table 2.32: Whether Animals Milk Increased Due to De-worming ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households Yes 80.00 72.00 21.74 95.12 26.67 58.82 62.67 94 Total 10 2 25 23 41 15 34 150 150 CIG member Households Yes 87.00 52.00 36.36 74.07 58.14 57.89 64.29 117 Total 46 25 22 27 43 19 182 182 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Households do sell milk. In Dholpur 80 percent of the CIG households reported so followed by Jhalawar, Dausa

and Tonk (table 2.33). In case of non-CIG households, the proportion of households selling milk is 81.61 percent

in Dholpur, followed by Jhalawar, Tonk and Dausa.

Table 2.33: Milk Sold By the Household ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households Yes 4.88 13.33 54.24 80.00 61.90 7.89 45.00 41.97 183 Total 41 90 59 85 63 38 60 436 436 Non-CIG member Households Yes 7.89 3.95 34.78 81.61 62.79 28.93 44.74 35.88 183 Total 76 76 69 87 43 121 38 510 510 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Milk sale is a regular source of cash flow into a poor household. Table 2.34 shows that milk is sold to three

buyers viz., locally to milk vendors, cooperative dairy and private dairy. There are 136 CIG households selling

41

milk and the average annual income earned from selling milk is Rs.5400 in Baran and Rs.21395 in Dholpur at

the local level, while the milk sold to cooperative dairy fetches on an average Rs.11115 in Jhalawar and

Rs.39000 in Dholpur, though fewer households sell milk to cooperative dairy. Private dairy also returns lower

average income from milk sale. It ranges between Rs.3600 in Baran to Rs.21288 in Dausa. So highest average

income earned is from cooperative followed by local vendor and then private dairy. In case of non-CIG

households, large number sell to local vendors followed by private dairy and then cooperative dairy. The income

earned is also in the same pattern. There are however inter-district variations.

Table 2.34: Milk Sold (Rs.pa) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- District Local Coop Private Local Coop Private CIG Households Nn-CIG Households ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baran Mean 5400 3600 6650 19200 14460 N 1 1 3 1 2

Churu Mean 11900 15200 9970 5760 6600 N 3 3 6 1 2

Dausa Mean 16602 21024 21288 12266 11658 16726 N 11 11 10 14 4 5

Dholpur Mean 21395 39600 16376 10800 N 64 2 70 1

Jhalawar Mean 8471 11115 15300 9815 7680 8000 N 32 2 4 19 5 3

Rajsamand Mean 10800 9734 12860 N 3 33 2

Tonk Mean 15773 20340 11760 16023 8050 N 22 4 1 15 2

Total Mean 16496 20893 15876 13496 10028 12418 N 136 22 22 155 12 15

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidation of Assets

As the poor households are cash starved mostly, then in case of emergency must be liquidating their assets like

house, land, animals etc. Table 2.35 shows that major causes of liquidation are illness, debt, social ceremonies’

expenses and purchase of other durable assets. House liquidation is reported by only two CIG households- one

each in Baran and Dholpur. It was disposed off by 8 non-CIG households in Dausa, Dholpur, Jhalawar and

Tonk. Land has been disposed off by 17 CIG households in Baran, Churu, Dausa, Dholpur and Rajsamand and

the major reason has been debt and illness. In case of non-CIG households, 103 households sold the land for

social ceremonies, debt, and illness in Baran, Churu, Dausa, Dholpur, Jhalwar, Rajsamnd and Tonk. Churu and

Dholpur have more households selling land compared to other districts.

There are 102 CIG households which have sold their animals to tide over crisis in the family due to purchase an

asset, repay the debt and pay for illness and social ceremonies. This has not been done by non-CIG households;

only in Baran, Dholpur and Tonk it happened. Not many households have sold jewellery; a few households in

Baran and Dholpur, Tonk and Dausa. This shows that of the seven districts, some are more vulnerable and even

DPIP intervention has not been able to help retain assets with these poor families.

Table 2.35: Reasons for Liquidation of Assets -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reasons Baran Dholpur Total

42

House CIG member Households Due to Illness 1 1 Other Durable 1 1 Total 1 1 2 Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Total Non-CIG member Households Due to Illness 1 1 2 Debt 1 1 1 3 Social Ceremony 1 1 1 3 Total 3 2 1 2 8 Land CIG member Households Due to Illness 1 1 1 2 5 Debt 2 4 1 7 Social Ceremony 1 1 To invest in other assets 3 1 4 Total 3 1 6 6 1 17 Non-CIG member Household Due to Illness 2 5 4 2 4 4 21 Education 2 1 1 4 Debt 4 3 5 4 1 4 2 23 Social Ceremony 3 5 6 19 1 34 To invest in other Assets3 9 1 2 6 21 Total 12 24 15 27 5 11 9 103 Animals CIG member Households Due to Illness 1 5 1 4 2 2 15 Education 1 5 1 7 Debt 3 1 4 4 4 2 18 Social Ceremony 1 2 3 7 2 15 Purchase of Asset 26 3 2 2 10 4 47 Total 32 16 10 17 2 16 9 102 Non-CIG member Households Baran Dholpur Tonk Total Due to Illness 1 1 Education 1 1 Social Ceremony 2 2 Purchase of Asset 1 1 Total 1 3 1 5 Jewellery CIG member Households Due to Illness 2 2 Social Ceremony 1 1 Purchase of Asset 1 1 Total 1 1 2 4 Baran Dausa Total Non-CIG member Households Education 3 3 Social Ceremony 1 1 Purchase of Asset 1 1 Total 4 1 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beneficiary of Programs Besides, DPIP, poor household have been benefited by various rural programs. Table 2.36 shows that among

CIG member households, Indra Awas Yojana (IAY) beneficiaries are mainly in Churu and to a lesser extent in

Baran, Dausa and Dholpur. In case of non-CIG households, Churu tops with 31.34 percent.

43

Across districts, the percentage of households engaged in famine relief work varies from a low of 2.17 percent in

Jhalawar and a high of 27.83 percent in Churu among CIG households and ranging between 2.51 percent in

Dholpur and 26.87 percent in Churu.

NREGA is new program that is geared to affect many on-going programs in rural India. DPIP households are

also involved in NREGA works. Expectedly, mostly in Jhalawar and Tonk both CIG and Non-CIG households

are engaged in NREGA.

There are hardly any household getting old-age pension benefits across the districts and group of households.

Table 2.36: Beneficiary of Any Program ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IAY CIG member Households Yes 12.66 52.17 17.50 19.20 2.17 6.06 8.00 18.51 129 No 87.34 47.83 82.50 80.80 97.83 93.94 92.00 81.49 568 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Number 79 115 120 125 92 66 100 697 Non-CIG member Household Yes 11.34 31.34 8.89 8.04 5.08 5.74 7.07 10.68 121 No 88.66 68.66 91.11 91.96 94.92 94.26 92.93 89.32 1012 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 194 134 180 199 118 209 99 1133 Famine Relief Work CIG member Household Yes 21.52 27.83 16.67 6.40 2.17 18.18 34.00 17.93 125 No 78.48 72.17 83.33 93.60 97.83 81.82 66.00 82.07 572 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG member Household Yes 24.23 26.87 8.33 2.51 2.54 9.57 22.22 13.06 148 No 75.77 73.13 91.67 97.49 97.46 90.43 77.78 86.94 985 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 NREGA CIG member Household Yes 1.27 1.67 39.13 1.52 26.00 9.47 66 No 98.73 100 98.33 100 60.87 98.48 74.00 90.53 631 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG member Household Yes 42.37 1.44 17.17 6.18 70 No 100 100 100 100 57.63 98.56 82.83 93.82 1063 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 Old-age Benefit CIG member Household Yes 2.53 1.67 2.17 3.00 2.15 15 No 97.47 98.33 97.83 100 97.00 97.85 682 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 697 Non-CIG member Household Yes 2.06 2.99 4.44 2.01 0.85 1.44 2.02 2.29 26 No 98 97 96 98 99.15 98.56 97.98 97.71 1107 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 Number 194 134 180 199 118 209 99 1133 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44

Crisis in Households It was enquired as to what do the households do to overcome any financial crisis. Table shows that a poor household faces financial crisis because of accident, sudden illness, adult death, livestock death, pest attack on crops, drought, fire, Mirtyubhoj etc. In case of CIG member households, the major crisis event is sudden illness in Dausa and livestock death in Baran. Most districts reported no crisis (table 2.37). The same is the case with non-CIG households. Table 2.37: Crisis/ Shock a Household Faced ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households None 73.42 80.00 98.91 85.00 86.51 603 Accident 0.83 4.00 1.29 9 Sudden Illness 5.06 10.00 6.00 4.73 33 Adult Death 2.53 1.00 1.00 7 Livestock Death 11.39 5.83 2.00 3.16 22 Pest Attack 1.27 0.29 2 Drought 0.29 2 Fire 0.83 0.14 1 Mirtyubhoj 2.00 0.43 3 Marriage of Daughter 6.33 2.50 1.09 2.15 15 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 697 Total 79 115 120 125 92 66 100 697 Non-CIG member Households None 67.01 82.09 87.78 91.46 97.46 92.34 83.84 85.70 971 Accident 0.52 2.24 2.22 1.51 0.85 4.04 1.41 16 Sudden Illness 18.56 5.22 7.22 3.02 0.85 5.74 2.02 6.80 77 Adult Death 2.06 2.24 0.96 2.02 0.97 11 Surgery 1.55 0.75 0.35 4 Job Loss 1.55 0.26 3 Livestock Death 1.55 1.49 1.11 1.51 0.85 0.48 1.06 12 Pest Attack 0.50 1.01 0.18 2 Drought 4.48 0.48 1.01 0.71 8 Flood 0.56 0.09 1 Fire 0.56 0.09 1 Mirtyubhoj 1.01 1.01 0.26 3 Marriage of Daughter 7.22 1.49 0.56 1.01 5.05 2.12 24 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 CIG member Households None 100 98.33 100 99.43 693 Accident 0.83 0.14 1 Job Loss 0.83 0.29 2 Livestock Death 0.14 1 Percent 100 100 100 100 697 Total 79 115 120 125 92 66 100 697 None 99.48 99.25 98.89 98.99 98.99 99.29 1125 Non-CIG member Households Accident 0.52 0.09 1 Job Loss 0.75 1.11 1.01 0.44 5 Livestock Death 1.01 0.09 1 Marriage of Daughter 0.09 1 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 1133 Total 194 134 180 199 118 209 99 1133 Financial Cost-1 CIG member Households Yes 90.48 73.33 91.67 100 100 100 86.67 84 Total 21 15 24 10 1 8 15 94 Non-CIG member Households Yes 95.31 100 45.45 70.59 75.00 87.50 133 Total 64 24 22 17 3 16 16 162

45

For any crisis, financial assistance is sought (table 2.38). Those reporting, loan in Churu, savings in Dausa, public works in Baran and Jhalawar are important sources households rely on among CIG households. In case of non-CIG households, besides the above cited sources, family savings/friends are important to rely on. Table 2.38: Crisis/ Shock Coping Financial Mechanism ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Items Baran Churu Dausa Dholpur Jhalawar Rajsamand Tonk Percent Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIG member Households Took Loan 10.53 81.82 22.73 70.00 50.00 84.62 45.24 38 Used Saving 42.11 9.09 45.45 37.50 26.19 22 Reduced Consumption 5.26 9.09 3.57 3 Sold Assets 9.09 9.09 10.00 4.76 4 Family/Friends Support 5.26 4.55 10.00 12.50 15.38 7.14 6 Worked Outside the Village 9.09 2.38 2 Worked on Public Works 36.84 10.00 100 10.71 9 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 84 Total 19 11 22 10 1 8 13 84 Non-CIG member Households Took Loan 3.28 83.33 75.00 8.33 71.43 31.58 42 Used Savings 24.59 12.50 20.00 50.00 19.55 26 Reduced Consumption 10.00 0.75 1 Sold Assets 9.84 20.00 6.02 8 Family/ Friends Support 50.82 4.17 20.00 16.67 25.00 7.14 30.08 40 Worked Outside the Village 4.92 10.00 8.33 7.14 4.51 6 Increased Work 4.92 20.00 8.33 7.14 5.26 7 Worked on Public Works 1.64 8.33 7.14 2.26 3 Percent 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 133 Total 61 24 10 12 12 14 133 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impact of DPIP through Quantitative Information

In this section we look at many indicators that reflect on impact of DPIP, especially those which have been

linked to this program. The households that have CIG members are compared during the period. All values are at

constant 1999-2000 prices.

Income Changes

Table 2.39 shows that number of households with agriculture as a source of income increased in 2007 compared

to 2001 across districts for CIG member households, but for non-CIG households, the increase occurred in all

districts except Dausa and Dholpur. This means that among CIG member households, more households are

engaged in agricultural activities. It is also found that average annual income accruing from agriculture for CIG

member households increased from 49 percent in Dholpur and 472 percent in Churu.

Table 2.39: Changes in Average Income from Agriculture by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 7564 8262 13593 16469 80 99 N 36 57 53 123

Churu Mean 1899 2472 10861 9679 472 292 N 46 61 92 118

Dausa Mean 4869 5007 7965 7162 64 43 N 71 102 84 98

Dholpur Mean 6939 6453 10340 9317 49 44 N 92 121 76 101

46

Jhalawar Mean 4086 5307 9403 11196 130 111 N 40 40 58 58

Rajsamand Mean 1605 1979 7249 9516 352 381 N 27 77 54 161

Tonk Mean 4271 3938 12458 9107 192 131 N 62 38 67 57

Total Mean 4854 4894 10219 10490 111 114 N 374 496 484 716

It must be pointed out that 2001 was a drought year and Churu is semi-arid district. However, agriculture income

increased at a higher rate across districts except Rajsamand and Baran. Ceteris paribus, this is a positive impact

of DPIP land-based intervention.

Income from Animal Husbandry

Under DPIP, goats and buffaloes are purchased by groups. Dairy activities are important income generators in

rural Rajasthan and with Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation tie-up forward linkages and also backward

linkages were strengthen in terms of assured sale of milk produced and cattle-feed etc. Table 2.40 reveals that in

2007 compared to 2001, the number of CIG member households increased who have income from animal

husbandry across districts, but more significantly in Churu, Dausa and Jhalawar. Average income from animal

husbandry activities has increased in 2007 over 2001 across districts for CIG member households and the

increase range between 87 percent in Dholpur and 237 percent in 2007. It is also observed that increases have

been higher in CIG member households across districts compared to non-CIG member households except for

Jhalawar. This again, ceteris paribus, is a positive change due to DPIP interventions.

Income from Wage Labour within the Village As the project aimed at removal of poverty, it is expected that most surveyed households must have been

engaged in wage labour too. DPIP dependent households must observe a decline in this source as a positive sign

of intervention. Table 2.41 finds that number of CIG member households having wage labour income from

within the village reduced in Dausa, Dholpur and Jhalawar, while the average annual income from this source

increased between 7 percent in Tonk and 81 percent in Dholpur. These increases, however, are lower in Baran,

Churu, Dausa and Tonk in CIG member households compared to non-CIG households. One can say that DPIP

interventions have not been able to totally eliminate dependence of CIG member households on wage labour

within the village. However, in some districts it did help compared to non-CIG member households.

Table 2.40: Changes in Average Income from Animal Husbandry by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 2008 2966 5283 6300 163 112 N 18 42 58 115

Churu Mean 2507 2890 8438 7915 237 174 N 68 73 101 106

Dausa Mean 4986 4431 11199 6304 125 42 N 56 89 89 94

Dholpur Mean 6558 7060 12258 9043 87 28 N 83 110 84 87

Jhalawar Mean 3296 1769 6674 5272 103 198 N 38 34 74 52

Rajsamand Mean 1774 2509 4348 4941 145 97 N 43 138 51 140

Tonk Mean 3930 4527 8246 7875 110 74

47

N 59 66 68 53 Total Mean 4010 4007 8498 6686 112 67 N 365 552 525 647

Income from Wage Labour outside the Village

In most of the districts covered by DPIP, there has been a tendency to go outside the village to earn livelihood.

Has this tendency reduced? Table 2.42 reveals that number of CIG member households having wage labour

income from outside the village reduced in Churu, Dausa, and Jhalawar and remained the same in Dholpur,

while the average annual income from this source declined in Baran, Jhalawar and Churu, but increased in Tonk,

Dholpur and Rajsamand. One can say that DPIP interventions have not been able to totally eliminate dependence

of CIG member households on wage labour outside the village in half the districts. It does reflect on the fact that

DPIP based activities alone are not sufficient to help poor households sustain. They are still relying on many

other activities and wage labour is one of them whether within the village or outside the village.

Table 2.41: Changes in Average Income from Wage Labour within the Village (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 7387 7205 9874 11576 34 61 N 62 154 63 146

Churu Mean 6512 6031 8589 9390 32 56 N 71 73 84 79

Dausa Mean 7175 6292 8079 7844 13 25 N 61 58 56 84

Dholpur Mean 4936 5886 8948 5900 81 - N 76 107 35 56

Jhalawar Mean 7339 8003 9170 8916 25 11 N 78 88 72 95

Rajsamand Mean 8810 8854 10756 10077 22 14 N 53 145 48 127

Tonk Mean 7813 7903 8349 8330 7 5 N 73 71 80 68

Total Mean 7053 7319 9027 9335 28 28 N 474 696 438 655

Table 2.42: Changes in Average Income from Wage Labour outside the Village (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 8376 8265 6206 9771 -26 18 N 31 68 37 75

Churu Mean 9390 9430 7878 8777 -16 -7 N 75 76 55 39

Dausa Mean 10117 12993 14281 11663 41 -10 N 50 79 42 60

Dholpur Mean 8702 10514 19908 19156 129 82 N 84 118 84 114

Jhalawar Mean 6308 6665 4033 4672 -36 -30 N 55 68 25 24

Rajsamand Mean 10192 9100 12024 11255 18 24 N 28 103 29 82

Tonk Mean 8413 8381 11696 8397 39 N 38 26 37 22

Total Mean 8733 9580 12354 12448 41 30 N 361 538 309 416

48

Salary Income

There are few households that have some members with jobs that earn them regular salaries. In 2001, there were

51 CIG member households while this number went down to 41 in 2007 (table 2.43). The same is the case with

nonCIG member households. Across the districts the number is small of salary earning households. In Baran, the

number was 5 in 2001 that fell to 4 by 2007. In Churu, Dausa, Rajsamand and Dholpur the number of such CIG

member households reduced. Similar pattern is observed in case of nonCIG households.

Table 2.43: Changes in Average Income from Salaries by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 14208 10819 11073 25188 -22 133 N 5 5 4 8

Churu Mean 21359 21337 49411 30418 131 43 N 13 21 5 7

Dausa Mean 27605 24191 17272 10747 -37 -56 N 6 11 5 7

Dholpur Mean 21400 17456 15639 28275 -27 62 N 7 18 6 9

Jhalawar Mean 8221 10758 12056 17714 47 65 N 1 4 8 13

Rajsamand Mean 20704 29798 22257 29120 8 -2 N 13 33 5 24

Tonk Mean 21245 23342 16867 31902 -21 37 N 6 6 8 8

Total Mean 20960 22948 19859 25375 -5 11 N 51 98 41 76

In 2001, among the CIG member households, the average annual income from salaries ranged between Rs.8221

in Jhalawar to Rs.27605 in Dausa. In 2007, the range was Rs.11073 in Baran and Rs.49411 in Churu. However,

Baran, Dausa, Dholpur and Tonk a decline is observed in this source of income among CIG member households

and in Dausa and Rajsamand among nonCIG member households. There could be varied reasons for this change

like young family members joining the labour market as salaried employees, older ones retiring, lost temporary

job and so on. However, nonCIG member households have fared better in this regard. This could also mean that

DPIP has helped CIG member households have income in the village and temporary jobs have been given up or

CIG member himself has given up job for self-employment in the village.

Household Industry Income

There were 15 CIG member households in 2001 that were engaged in household industry and this number fell to

7 in 2007.Such nonCIG households were 39 in 2001, but reduced to 10 in 2007. Table 2.44 shows that the

average annual income has reduced across districts among CIG member households except Churu where it

improved by 144 percent. In case of nonCIG member households, in Baran and Churu the average income

improved while in other districts it declined. The income from this source itself has not been much; Rs.5045 in

Tonk and Rs.13354 in Baran. It is also that only few families have this source of income. Mortality rate of

household industry without any institutional support also is very high in rural areas.

Table 2.44: Changes in Average Income from Household Industry by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 16915 10474 13354 16322 -21 56

49

N 3 5 1 2 Churu Mean 3045 20501 7419 22752 144 11 N 1 5 1 3

Dausa Mean 8844 10426 7419 -100 -29 N 7 11 2

Dholpur Mean 10656 5074 -100 -100 N 2 1

Jhalawar Mean 2436 -100 N 1

Rajsamand Mean 6089 29192 9645 -100 -67 N 1 11 2

Tonk Mean 12788 6191 5045 4451 -61 -28 N 5 5 5 1

Total Mean 10897 16132 6571 13948 -40 -14 N 19 39 7 10

Income from Retail Business (Petty Shops)

This source of income is also for 8 CIG member households in 2001 and 15 in 2007. Such nonCIG households

are 23. Table 2.45 shows that among CIG member households there is decline in average annual income across

districts. However, this is not the case among nonCIG member households. Some CIG households that have this

source of income earn fairly reasonable income (Rs.35611 in Churu). It is also observed that it has become a

source of income in Churu and Dausa for CIG households in 2007, while in Dholpur the households lost this

source of income.

Table 2.45: Changes in Average Income from Retail Business (Petty Shop) (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 4567 9134 2968 10758 -35 18 N 2 5 1 3

Churu Mean 15731 35611 13354 -15 N 2 1 1

Dausa Mean 13016 7419 13354 3 N 4 2 4

Dholpur Mean 24357 11502 18733 -100 63 N 1 3 4

Jhalawar Mean 12179 14208 11870 16693 -3 17 N 1 4 2 2

Rajsamand Mean 40596 37619 21515 19290 -47 -49 N 1 3 5 3

Tonk Mean 18471 9134 10016 20167 -46 121 N 3 2 4 6

Total Mean 17710 15290 14986 16793 -15 10 N 8 23 15 23

Famine Relief Work Income

It appears that there many households that earn income by working in famine works and now it could be

NREGA. However, the annual average income earned is only marginal. Table 2.46 reveals that among the CIG

member households, this source of income is largely in Rajsamand and Tonk (34 and 42 households

respectively). The average annual income ranges between Rs.1365 in Tonk in 2001 among CIG households and

Rs.6292 in Churu. In 2007, Baran and Rajsamand had no CIG household reporting this income. This could be

positive impact of DPIP in these districts. In Churu, the CIG household number increased significantly and in

Dholpur, Dausa, Jhalawar and Tonk the number of households increased too. This has happened when 2001 was

a drought year and 2007 was a good year. This has one implication that the DPIP income and income from other

sources is not enough for the households to sustain and so some households do venture into relief works to have

50

additional income. Also, there could be demand for additional income for some activity within the household.

There are always some days in the year when a household is short of income.

Table 2.46: Changes in Average Income from Famine Works by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 2030 5147 2968 -100 -42 N 3 7 18

Churu Mean 6292 5058 2358 2989 -63 -41 N 3 6 27 25

Dausa Mean 507 1979 4072 1430 702 -28 N 2 2 16 15

Dholpur Mean 3175 5718 N 9 7

Jhalawar Mean 1712 1495 2965 3088 73 107 N 9 15 26 30

Rajsamand Mean 1373 1481 7894 -100 433 N 34 107 5

Tonk Mean 1365 1885 2172 3966 59 110 N 42 40 47 33

Total Mean 1563 1845 2692 3403 72 84 N 93 177 125 133

Income from Hiring out Tractor

There were 9 CIG member households that owned tractors and earned income by hiring it out in 2001 and this

number reduced to 6 in 2007. These CIG households are in Baran, Churu, Dausa, Dholpur, Rajsamand and

Tonk. A decline in non-CIG households is also observed. However, the annual average income earned is

significant for these households (table 2.47). The average annual income for CIG households was Rs.3248 in

Tonk and Rs.27402 in Dholpur in 2001, while the range was Rs.8903 in Dausa and Rs.35611 in Churu in 2007.

In Churu and Tonk, an increase in this income is observed among CIG households, while increase in Rajsamand

only for nonCIG households. This again is a marginal source as far as all DPIP linked households are concerned

and if the household owns a tractor it is not BPL household as discussed earlier in this chapter.

Table 2.47: Changes in Average Income from Hiring out Tractor by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 20298 30447 14838 -100 -51 N 1 1 1

Churu Mean 10834 14858 35611 229 -100 N 4 5 1

Dausa Mean 8903 N 1

Dholpur Mean 27402 76117 19290 -30 -100 N 2 2 2

Rajsamand Mean 19959 22257 12 N 3 2

Tonk Mean 3248 10149 12056 271 -100 N 2 1 2

Total Mean 13881 27250 17868 19784 29 -27 N 9 12 6 3

Income from Hiring Out Bullocks

There were only 17 CIG households that had income by hiring out bullocks and expectedly 17 such households

among non-CIG households (table 2.48). These CIG households were in all districts except Rajsamand and

Jhalawar in 2001, but in 2007 there were households in these districts that hired out bullocks. However, there

51

was no such household in Baran, Dausa, Dholpur and Tonk. A decline in non-CIG households is also observed.

However, the annual average income earned is significant for some households (Rs.16322 in Churu in 2007), but

is also low as in Rajsamand (Rs.1113). It is also in Churu that income from this source has increased by 36

percent.

Income Land Leased Out

Some of the households linked to DPIP had land. In 2001 there were 14 such CIG member households and this

number declined to 7 in 2007; a positive impact of DPIP on these households one can say (table 2.49). In case of

non-CIG households, the number of households also decline from 39 to 19. In only Dausa and Tonk, the income

from leasing out land increased in case of CIG member households. As there are not many households doing it,

the income reported is marginal only. However, there more households in Tonk leasing out land compared to

other districts.

Table 2.48: Changes in Average Income from Hiring out of Bullocks (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 2368 3045 -100 -100 N 3 5

Churu Mean 12034 7815 16322 9014 36 15 N 7 5 4 4

Dausa Mean 4060 3045 -100 -100 N 2 2

Dholpur Mean 5074 4060 -100 -100 N 1 1

Jhalawar Mean 4451 N 2

Rajsamand Mean 5582 1113 1039 -81 N 2 2 5

Tonk Mean 3298 3806 -100 -100 N 4 2

Total Mean 6925 4895 9552 4583 38 -6 N 17 17 8 9

Table 2.49: Changes in Average Income from Leasing out Land Village (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 6171 5775 7271 -100 26 N 5 10 2

Churu Mean 10961 3710 -100 N 1 1

Dausa Mean 4060 8627 6959 71 -100 N 2 6 1

Dholpur Mean 3045 3806 2495 -100 -34 N 2 2 2

Jhalawar Mean 1979 5704 5193 8656 162 52 N 1 5 1 3

Rajsamand Mean 2030 3958 7254 -100 83 N 1 7 9

Tonk Mean 1573 2870 5468 7419 248 159 N 2 9 5 2

Total Mean 4513 5107 5642 6807 25 33 N 14 39 7 19

Income from Fruit Trees

52

Only 6 CIG member households in 2001 had some income from fruit trees and this number fell to 5 in 2007

(table 2.50). The average annual income from this source varies between Rs.2226 in Tonk and Rs.12983 in

Dholpur (in 2001 it was Rs.1319). Non-CIG households are more into horticultural activities and income across

districts has increased in 2007 as against 2001.

Income from Firewood Sale

Income from selling firewood collected from forests is reported in 2007 by 7 CIG member households and the

income ranges between Rs.3833 in Baran and Rs.4451 in Dausa. However, I case of non-CIG households, the

average income varies between Rs.1558 in Dausa and Rs.7419 in Tonk (table 2.51).

Table 2.50: Changes in Average Income from Fruit Trees Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 4060 -100 N 1

Dausa Mean 3339 2689 N 1 4

Dholpur Mean 1319 1928 12983 5564 884 189 N 4 5 2 2

Rajsamand Mean 6597 2445 8272 -100 238 N 2 22 12

Tonk Mean 2226 N 2

Total Mean 3078 2410 6751 6731 119 179 N 6 28 5 18

Table 2.51: Changes in Average Income from Selling

Firewood Village by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2007 CIG NonCIG Baran Mean 3833 5592 N 3 8

Dausa Mean 4451 1558 N 3 4

Jhalawar Mean 3710 N 1

Rajsamand Mean 6084 N 1

Tonk Mean 7419 N 1

Total Mean 4610 4340 N 7 14

Income from Traditional Yachak

Traditionally in Rajasthan certain caste groups were dependent on Yachak (social begging) and in the sample

there were 39 CIG member households in 2001 and this number declined to 10 in 2007 (table 2.52). As regards

the average income across the districts, a decline is observed in all districts in case of CIG member households.

However, in Dholpur this source is significant.

Table 2.52: Changes in Average Income from Traditional Yachak Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG

53

Baran Mean 4398 4451 5935 35 N 9 2 2

Churu Mean 8119 1522 -100 -100 N 1 1

Dausa Mean 5007 10903 4080 6051 -19 -45 N 6 7 2 9

Dholpur Mean 1015 22328 4080 -100 -82 N 1 2 2

Jhalawar Mean 4757 5968 4637 7419 -3 24 N 8 3 4 2

Rajsamand Mean 11773 12106 20773 -100 72 N 5 10 2

Tonk Mean 5409 5468 3710 11129 -31 104 N 8 8 2 1

Total Mean 6185 8619 4303 7889 -30 -8 N 29 40 10 18

Income from Other Sources

This is mixed income source for 109 CIG member households in 2007 when it supported 84 households in 2001

(table 2.53). In case of non-CIG households, the number has reduced to 165 in 2007 from 175 in 2001. The

average annual income from this source in case of CIG member households, ranged between Rs.5106 in

Jhalawar and Rs.12353 in Dholpur in 2001, while in 2007, the range was Rs.5054 in Jhalawar and Rs.14833 in

Churu. Of the 7 districts, 3 observed a decline in average income. Rajsamand shows significant increase in this

income compared to other districts.

Table 2.53: Changes in Average Income from Other Sources by Type of Households (Rs. pa) District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 9867 10054 8552 8932 -13 -11 N 20 57 19 31

Churu Mean 12682 16597 14833 13219 17 -20 N 12 13 11 11

Dausa Mean 10232 9921 14677 11140 43 12 N 11 24 9 31

Dholpur Mean 12353 14438 6024 17443 -51 21 N 7 15 10 28

Jhalawar Mean 5106 4871 5054 5226 -1 7 N 8 9 25 18

Rajsamand Mean 6260 13183 15761 16780 152 27 N 13 37 9 16

Tonk Mean 6967 7378 8604 4909 23 -33 N 13 20 26 29

Total Mean 9064 10987 9265 10738 2 -2 N 84 175 109 164

Total Household Income

Finally table 2.54 presents total household income. It is found that average annual CIG member household

income improved from Rs.18362 in 2001 to Rs.32668 in 2007; an increase of 78 percent. Data shows that total

household income of CIG member households increased across districts and the increase ranges between 60

percent in Baran to 112 percent in Churu. The average income varies between Rs.28772 in Baran and Rs.39392

in Churu. There are four districts have higher average income compared to all districts average in 2007 in case of

CIG households. In Baran district only the non-CIG household average income has observed a higher increase.

This reflects on DPIP intervention. Also in 2001, it was only Baran, Jhalawar and Tonk, the average CIG

54

household income was higher than non-CIG household average income, but in 2007, it is lower only in Baran

and Rajsamand. This is a clear indication of positive role played by DPIP.

Table 2.54: Total Income (Rs.pa) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Districts 2001 2007 Changes % CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baran 17959 16373 28772 31436 60 92 Churu 18558 19853 39392 37021 112 86 Dausa 16887 17487 34049 26672 102 53 Dholpur 21144 21188 35047 30056 66 42 Jhalawar 14400 13940 23498 20843 63 50 Rajsamand 21124 24246 29425 29649 39 22 Tonk 18567 17491 33960 28291 83 62 Total 18362 19100 32668 29390 78 54 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per Capita Income

An important indicator of improvement in household’s economic status is improvement in its per capita income.

Appendices 2.1 through 2.10 show that where there is direct impact visible of DPIP intervention the per capita

income has improved. For instance, across the districts per capita income from agriculture has improved for CIG

households. So has been the case with per capita income generated from animal husbandry activities. These

changes have been marked in most districts and little less significant in others like Rajsamand.

Per capita income wage labour within the district has improved in all districts except Dausa and Dholpur, while

per capita income from wage labour outside the village in these districts has improved. This reflects on the

opportunities available to villagers in two districts outside the village. Dausa is near Jaipur and there are many

opportunities for a people to find daily work in the city which gives them higher remuneration than within the

village. Dholpur has mining sector that provide opportunity to villagers to work outside. The road construction

has also facilitated this. Mobility of people improves with roads and there are better transport facilities available

now. This also to a large extent is a positive development.

Per capita income from salaries has shown a mixed picture. It is also observed it is also not very significant

source of income. There are few households across the districts that have salary income. Some might have lost a

job or got a temporary job as is observed in an earlier section on occupation of the head.

Household industry is largely driven by demand for its product/service. DPIP had made intervention in this

sector, but the per capita income has seen only marginal improvements. It rather fell in Baran for CIG

households. In case of Non-CIG households the experience has been worse in most districts.

Per capita income from retail business in most districts had declined while in others it has marginally improved.

It depends on the scale of operation. With higher incomes and better infrastructure, people become mobile and so

have access to markets in the towns where possibly the goods are cheaper. This does affect local petty business.

55

Per capita income from famine works also declined in most districts. This is a positive impact of DPIP

intervention in the sense that DPIP activities have given flexibility to people to make choices. Jhalawar and Tonk

that have observed improvement marginally in per capita income is due to NREGA.

Per capita income from other sources has improved for CIG households in few districts while reduced in others.

This is a mixed impact of DPIP.

Change in Land Holdings and Cultivable Area

This is another indicator that reflects on improvement in households’ economic status. In rural when incomes

improve, people tend to venture into non-farm activities. Some may lease in land. But chances are that land may

be leased out too. Table 2.55 shows that land holdings in case CIG households has decline across districts. As

these households are poor households, with non-farm activities through DPIP, the charm to hold small piece of

land is not profitable. The lease-out of land is visible as we have seen from income being generated from this

activity. It appears that land is not seen as good source of income by many households.

Table 2.54: Total Land Area (bighas) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- District 2001 2007 Changes % CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baran 6.31 7.13 3.53 4.51 -44 -37 Churu 9.90 11.15 8.23 9.08 -17 -19 Dausa 2.89 2.98 1.92 1.75 -34 -41 Dholpur 2.42 2.62 2.30 1.29 -5 -51 Jhalawar 3.91 3.81 2.09 2.33 -47 -39 Rajsamand 2.72 3.57 2.43 2.72 -11 -24 Tonk 4.78 5.25 4.47 4.32 -6 -18 Total 4.72 5.06 3.65 3.47 -23 -31 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2.55: Area Cultivable (Bigha) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- District 2001 2007 Changes % CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baran 6 6 5 7 -8 6 Churu 10 11 10 10 7 -6 Dausa 3 3 2 2 -13 -8 Dholpur 2 3 4 2 53 -17 Jhalawar 3 4 3 4 -3 18 Rajsamand 2 2 2 3 29 22 Tonk 4 5 6 6 35 20 Total 4 5 5 5 14 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Area cultivable has increased in Churu, Dholpur, Rajsamand and Tonk in case of CIG households, while it has

increased in Baran, Jhalawar, Rajsamand and Tonk in case of Non-CIG households (table 2.55). These changes

cannot be entirely ascribed to DPIP. Also, irrigated area across districts has increased for both CIG and non-CIG

56

households. The change has been to an extent of 29 percent in Dausa and 505 percent in Dholpur in case of CIG

households (table 2.56). The impact of this visible in increase in income from agriculture as discussed.

Table 2.56: Area Irrigated (bighas) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 2007 Changes% CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baran 2 1 5 7 128 354 Churu 0 0 2 0 -100 Dausa 2 2 3 2 29 15 Dholpur 1 1 4 2 505 245 Jhalawar 1 1 3 6 147 478 Rajsamand 1 1 3 3 178 106 Tonk 2 2 5 4 201 185 Total 1 1 4 4 211 215 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes in Animal Assets

Table 2.57 shows that holding of cow by CIG households have declined across districts, though it increased in

Baran, Jhalawar and Tonk districts in case on non-CIG member households. In all the cow population with CIG

households declined from 391 in 2001 to 241 in 2007. This does reflect on DPIP dairy sector intervention. There

is a clear shift from cow to other animals.

Table 2.57: Number of Cows District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 2 2 2 2 -11 4 N 39 91 31 86

Churu Mean 1 1 1 1 -16 -9 N 41 38 33 31

Dausa Mean 1 1 1 1 -2 -22 N 26 66 14 35

Dholpur Mean 1 1 1 1 0 -18 N 9 23 3 4

Jhalawar Mean 1 1 1 2 -3 29 N 40 49 23 33

Rajsamand Mean 2 1 1 1 -22 -14 N 26 85 14 56

Tonk Mean 2 1 2 2 -28 36 N 53 41 50 33

Total Mean 2 2 1 2 -14 6 Sum 391 599 241 451 -38 -25 N 234 393 168 278

As mentioned above, there is an increase in number of she buffaloes across districts with the exception of Dausa

in case of CIG households and decline in number in case of non-CIG households in all districts except Churu,

Jhalawar, and Rajsamand (table 2.58). This is a positive role of DPIP due to dairy sector intervention.

Table 2.58: Number of She buffaloes District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 1 2 1 2 19 -6 N 8 27 12 27

Churu Mean 1 1 1 1 29 8 N 12 23 38 28

Dausa Mean 1 1 1 1 -15 -11 N 57 74 75 54

57

Dholpur Mean 1 1 2 1 45 -6 N 74 107 75 79

Jhalawar Mean 1 1 2 2 59 43 N 11 11 50 18

Rajsamand Mean 1 1 1 1 2 19 N 21 55 19 67

Tonk Mean 1 2 2 1 32 -12 N 37 34 43 38

Total Mean 1 1 2 1 20 0 Sum 285 437 484 410 70 -6 N 220 331 312 311

The increase in she buffalo mean increase in miching animals. Table 2.59 shows that except for Baran, in all

other districts milching bufflaoes’ number has increased in case of CIG households. The increase has been from

6 percent in Rajsamand to 45 percent in Tonk. The total number of milching buffaloes in 2001 were 209 and this

number has increased to 390 in CIG households. In case of non-CIG households, the decline is observed across

districts except for Baran and Rajsamand.

Table 2.59: Number of Milching buffaloes District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG No-nCIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 1 1 1 1 -13 40 N 4 18 12 25 Churu Mean 1 1 1 1 34 -1 N 12 21 35 27 Dausa Mean 1 1 1 1 11 -4 N 54 73 68 48 Dholpur Mean 1 1 2 1 43 -5 N 74 106 74 75 Jhalawar Mean 1 1 1 1 17 -6 N 7 8 47 17 Rajsamand Mean 1 1 1 1 6 13 N 9 28 17 60 Tonk Mean 1 1 2 1 45 -1 N 30 25 34 31 Total Mean 1 1 1 1 24 1 Sum 209 319 390 326 N 190 279 287 283

The number of goats too has increased in all districts except for Rajsamand (table 2.60). It could be because in

Rajasmand buffalo is preferred over goat by CIG households. The total number of goats with CIG households is

1341 in 2007, up from 833 in 2001. In case of Non-CIG households, the number of goats have declined in all

districts but for Churu; a semi-arid region. The difference between CIG and non-CIG reflects on DPIP

intervention which is positive.

Table 2.60: Number of Goats District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 5 8 8 8 64 -3 N 22 37 32 27 Churu Mean 3 3 7 3 148 17 N 79 76 70 81 Dausa Mean 2 3 4 2 85 -38 N 37 53 29 37 Dholpur Mean 2 3 3 2 45 -31 N 12 21 9 9 Jhalawar Mean 3 3 3 2 26 -26 N 28 29 21 18

58

Rajsamand Mean 3 3 2 2 -25 -37 N 43 132 28 74 Tonk Mean 4 3 7 3 70 -2 N 47 48 42 29 Total Mean 3 3 6 3 87 -13 Sum 833 1365 1341 828 61 -39 N 268 396 231 275

It is observed that bullock population with CIG households declined from 114 in 2001 to 37 in 2007 and in case

of non-CIG households from 192 in 2001 to 92 in 2007. The same is the case with camel population. It declined

from 23 in 2001 to 8 in 2007 in case of CIG households and from 17 in 2001 to 5 in 2007 in case of non-CIG

households (appendices 2.11 and 2.12). These trends are in pattern with overall livestock changes occurring in

Rajasthan.

Changes in Important Crops

In this section we look at some important crops like wheat, bajra and maize. Appendices 2.13 to 2.20.

Agriculture in most areas is rain-fed and 2001 was a drought area. Therefore, in 2007, the area changed for

major cereal crops and so did the production. It is found that average area under wheat increased in all districts

except Churu and Baran in case of CIG households and in all districts for non-CIG households (Churu is an

exception). This increase in area is reflected in increase in average production across districts which increased

significantly.

In case of bajra, average area increased in all districts except for Jhalawar and Tonk. This is part of general

change at the state level. Production of bajra on an average increased across districts.

In case of Maize, in many districts it was not grown in 2007, but was part of the cropping pattern in 2001. It is

visible in production also.

Looking at these crops we find that crop production especially of cereals has observed negative changes.

Conclusions

It may be state here that the DPIP has made positive changes largely in households linked to it in terms of

income and other indicators. It must also be recognized that village economy is an open economy where any

intervention like DPIP may not affect all the households in the village. This may happen even in case of

community projects like roads and watershed. There are basic features of a household like its size, adult children

ratio, education and skill levels, base- situation in terms of asset position. Per capita incomes have increased in

2001 over 2007. It may also happen that an asset created through a program like DPIP is serviced by the whole

family. A buffalo is a household asset and not of any individual within a household. The whole family looks

after it. This gives flexibility to the concerned person to venture out to earn additional income from other

sources. This is the reason why we observe the changes that have occurred in CIG households. In most cases, the

value of the asset has been more than the credit/ finance made available to him/her. The year 2001 was a drought

year and most of the changes we observed are reflection of that also.

59

Appendix 2.1: Per Capita Agricultural Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 627 473 1770 2126 Churu 141 235 1561 1687 Dausa 523 519 960 718 Dholpur 919 749 1085 891 Jhalawar 377 414 1367 1325 Rajsamand 129 143 1168 1588 Tonk 498 300 1575 1014 Total 489 423 1325 1334 Appendix 2.2: Per Capita Animal Husbandry Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 83 125 753 760 Churu 275 329 1332 1239 Dausa 422 401 1430 606 Dholpur 783 745 1422 745 Jhalawar 289 117 1238 559 Rajsamand 226 325 662 717 Tonk 436 599 1058 815 Total 394 385 1195 768 Appendix 2.3: Per Capita Wage Labour within Village Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 1055 1115 1528 1773 Churu 747 686 1127 1096 Dausa 662 371 649 674 Dholpur 540 604 433 313 Jhalawar 1322 1373 1655 1729 Rajsamand 1386 1207 1541 1326 Tonk 1072 1125 1260 1106 Total 901 888 1059 1086 Appendix 2.4: Per Capita Wage Labour outside Village Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 598 565 564 769 Churu 1138 1116 677 506 Dausa 765 1043 861 716 Dholpur 1052 1191 2310 2068 Jhalawar 801 884 253 229 Rajsamand 847 881 1041 956 Tonk 601 437 817 361 Total 850 898 1023 920

60

Appendix 2.5: Per Capita Salaries Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 14 36 0 56 Churu 30 47 99 110 Dausa 2 4 93 22 Dholpur 0 0 39 38 Jhalawar 36 44 193 189 Rajsamand 139 149 0 41 Tonk 108 151 193 256 Total 39 57 90 80 Appendix 2.6: Per Capita HHI Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 47 31 0 16 Churu 70 116 56 0 Dausa 0 0 13 0 Dholpur 79 146 53 0 Jhalawar 0 0 0 0 Rajsamand 0 56 0 46 Tonk 12 20 45 0 Total 34 57 29 11 Appendix 2.7: Per Capita Retail Business Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 16 15 0 0 Churu 136 61 102 53 Dausa 12 6 0 0 Dholpur 7 4 0 0 Jhalawar 0 0 22 0 Rajsamand 0 10 7 5 Tonk 25 15 0 0 Total 32 15 20 7 Appendix 2.8: Per Capita Famine Works Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 71 58 0 15 Churu 18 0 0 5 Dausa 12 53 10 0 Dholpur 9 7 0 5 Jhalawar 5 56 13 53 Rajsamand 6 26 0 68 Tonk 6 52 52 29 Total 17 35 11 23

61

Appendix 2.9: Per Capita Land Leased Out Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 117 53 33 34 Churu 5 160 12 101 Dausa 94 117 0 15 Dholpur 31 5 0 0 Jhalawar 0 5 0 0 Rajsamand 18 302 0 20 Tonk 120 62 48 9 Total 56 110 12 25 Appendix 2.10: Per Capita Other Sources Income Rs. Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non CIG CIG Non CIG Baran 455 576 399 291 Churu 246 336 255 215 Dausa 170 242 190 353 Dholpur 124 208 83 462 Jhalawar 94 85 317 192 Rajsamand 241 458 423 278 Tonk 170 296 422 278 Total 205 335 271 313 Appendix 2.11: Number of bullocks

District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran Mean 2 2 2 2 6 11 N 19 43 7 14 Churu Mean 1 -100 N 1 Dausa Mean 2 2 2 29 -100 N 9 10 1 Dholpur Mean 2 2 -100 -100 N 1 3 Jhalawar Mean 1 2 1 1 -11 -40 N 17 9 4 2 Rajsamand Mean 2 2 2 2 13 12 N 10 40 5 33 Tonk Mean 2 2 2 2 3 29 N 13 11 4 2 Total Mean 2 2 2 2 7 10 Sum 114 192 37 92 -68 -52 N 69 117 21 51

62

Appendix 2.12: Number of camel District 2001 2007 Percent Change CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Churu Mean 1 1 1 1 0 -31 N 12 11 8 4 Dausa Mean 1 1 1 -100 0 N 7 5 1 Rajsamand Mean 1 -100 N 1 Tonk Mean 1 1 -100 -100 N 3 1 Total Mean 1 1 1 1 0 -23 Sum 23 22 8 5 -65 -77 N 23 17 8 5

Appendix 2.13: Wheat Area in bighas District 2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 3.65 4.52 3.62 5.70 Churu 15.00 9.00 Dausa 2.03 2.18 2.31 2.31 Dholpur 1.04 0.70 3.16 1.93 Jhalawar 0.54 0.51 1.97 3.80 Rajsamand 0.43 1.26 2.45 2.72 Tonk 2.13 1.85 2.47 2.21 Total 1.43 1.33 2.64 3.14 Appendix 2.14: Wheat production in quintals Districts 2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 11.29 11.87 17.47 26.66 Churu 5.00 Dausa 8.15 7.57 10.67 10.16 Dholpur 7.44 6.56 10.40 12.08 Jhalawar 2.61 3.92 9.50 17.13 Rajsamand 0.62 0.68 10.68 11.57 Tonk 3.41 5.05 17.09 9.76 Total 5.88 5.17 12.28 14.62

Appendix 2.15: Bajra Area in bighas

2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Churu 6.75 7.61 4.45 5.39 Dausa 1.87 1.93 1.91 1.98 Dholpur 1.59 1.68 3.18 1.96 Jhalawar 0.09 0.02 0.05 Rajsamand 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.09 Tonk 1.86 1.73 1.72 1.70 Total 2.65 2.58 1.93 1.57

63

Appendix 2.16: Bajra Production in quintals 2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.67 Churu 1.46 1.78 5.84 5.77 Dausa 2.50 3.09 7.45 5.49 Dholpur 3.74 4.13 10.17 8.77 Jhalawar 0.13 0.07 6.00 0.00 Rajsamand 0.00 0.01 8.00 12.33 Tonk 1.95 1.92 6.84 7.71 Total 2.08 2.10 7.59 6.88

Appendix 2.17: Bajra: Area in bighas 2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Churu 6.75 7.61 4.45 5.39 Dausa 1.87 1.93 1.91 1.98 Dholpur 1.59 1.68 3.18 1.96 Jhalawar 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.00 Rajsamand 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.09 Tonk 1.86 1.73 1.72 1.70 Total 2.65 2.58 1.93 1.57 Appendix 2.18: Bajra production in quintals 2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.67 Churu 1.46 1.78 5.84 5.77

Dausa 2.50 3.09 7.45 5.49 Dholpur 3.74 4.13 10.17 8.77 Jhalawar 0.13 0.07 6.00 0.00 Rajsamand 0.00 0.01 8.00 12.33 Tonk 1.95 1.92 6.84 7.71 Total 2.08 2.10 7.59 6.88 Appendix 2.19: Maize Area in bighas 2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 0.00 0.00 1.00 Churu 0.30 0.23 5.00 Dausa 1.75 1.00 1.00 Dholpur 0.00 0.00 Jhalawar 0.83 0.37 1.60 2.13 Rajsamand 1.25 1.61 2.41 2.49 Tonk 1.40 1.92 1.65 2.20 Total 0.68 0.81 1.97 2.41

64

Appendix 2.20: Maize production in quintals 2001 2007 CIG Non-CIG CIG Non-CIG Baran 0.00 0.00 3.00 Churu 0.75 0.50 3.00 Dausa 2.59 1.50 2.00 Jhalawar 2.04 0.53 5.54 7.26 Rajsamand 0.60 0.64 7.79 8.69 Tonk 1.77 1.50 3.62 2.60 Total 0.82 0.41 6.31 8.19

65

Chapter 3

Household Level Changes: A Comparison with Base Line

This chapter looks at the changing profile of households in baseline villages and also present

non-base line village households. It attempts to compare changes that might have taken place

since the base line survey due to intervention of DPIP in the selected districts. We do expect

the family size to reduce, family income has improved, income from various activities like

salaried jobs, animal husbandry and other sources of income. There have been direct and

indirect influences of DPIP interventions within a village. For instance, creation of

infrastructure might have impacted the poverty situation of the households positively; creation

of social infrastructure might have led to better quality of life, irrigation potential might have

improved, consumption expenditure might have gone up. It is also expected that social capital

of the households has increased; there is greater participation in community activities and

democratic institutions. All values discussed in this chapter are constant 1999-2000 prices.

This discussion relates to APL and BPL households that includes CIG members. It may be

mentioned here that identification of BPL household is not fault free. There has been lot of

controversy regarding the BPL survey across states and even in Rajasthan. In the first

instance, basic household features are discussed.

Household Information

In this section we present the basic features of surveyed household, both baseline and non-

baseline households. We are not presenting information pertaining to non-baseline household

here as the responses are more or in the same direction (however data is presented in

annexure).

Caste

66

Data shows that among APL households scheduled tribe representation is low with the

exception of Dausa and Baran districts and scheduled tribe representation is highest in Churu

at 21.5 percent (table 3.1). OBC representation is above 31 percent in all the districts. In case

of BPL households, scheduled caste households as expected has higher representation; the

highest being 52.6 percent in Churu. Table 3.1: Households by CASTE District General OBC SC ST General OBC SC ST APL BPL Baran 5.0 54.0 9.3 31.7 4.8 29.3 27.5 38.5 Churu 18.8 59.7 21.5 15.3 31.7 52.6 0.4 Dausa 13.3 30.6 17.8 38.3 12.7 23.0 38.7 25.7 Dholpur 25.9 36.8 18.7 18.7 10.8 42.9 32.1 14.2 Jhalawar 37.9 39.4 15.2 7.6 21.4 36.7 31.0 11.0 Rajsamand 46.1 36.4 6.1 11.5 19.6 18.9 22.2 39.3 Tonk 15.0 60.0 13.3 11.7 12.1 45.7 29.1 13.1 Total 23.1 44.2 14.6 18.1 13.5 32.1 33.3 21.1

Type of Family

Baseline village households have largely nuclear families across districts, though APL

proportions are lower than BPL proportions. The districts of Jhalawar and Tonk though have

one-quarter of APL families that are joint, while Dausa and Tonk have respectively 13 and 18

percent households that have joint families (table 3.2). Table 3.2: Type of Family District Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint APL BPL Baran 87.0 13.0 90.1 9.9 Churu 79.9 20.1 95.2 4.8 Dausa 77.8 22.2 87.3 12.7 Dholpur 84.5 15.5 92.9 7.1 Jhalawar 73.5 26.5 97.1 2.9 Rajsamand 88.5 11.5 95.6 4.4 Tonk 74.2 25.8 82.4 17.6 Total 81.3 18.7 91.6 8.4

Type of Household

Majority of APL and BPL households are male headed households, though Churu has 13

percent women headed households (APL category) and in case of BPL households excepting

Baran other districts have 10 percent or more households that women headed; highest

proportion coming from Tonk (17.6%)(table 3.3). Table 3.3: Type of Household (headed) District Male Female Differently Male Female Differently APL BPL Baran 92.5 6.2 1.2 92.7 5.1 2.2 Churu 87.9 12.1 83.1 16.1 0.8

67

Dausa 95.6 4.4 85.7 13.0 1.3 Dholpur 94.8 4.1 1.0 89.2 10.5 0.3 Jhalawar 97.0 3.0 89.5 9.5 1.0 Rajsamand 95.8 2.4 1.8 84.4 14.5 1.1 Tonk 92.5 7.5 81.4 17.6 1.0 Total 93.8 5.5 0.6 86.8 12.1 1.1

Poverty Category of Households

Of the 2930 baseline households, 1100 are APL (37.5%) and 1830 are BPL (62.5%). These

proportions are almost similar across districts (table 3.4). Table 3.4: Number of Households by Poverty Category District APL BPL Total Baran 37.1 62.9 434 Churu 37.4 62.6 398 Dausa 37.5 62.5 480 Dholpur 37.3 62.7 517 Jhalawar 38.6 61.4 342 Rajsamand 37.5 62.5 440 Tonk 37.6 62.4 319 Total 37.5 62.5 2930

The investigators found that a large percentage of households are really BPL households and

this proportion varies from a low of 77.9 percent in Tonk to a high of 88.8 percent in Churu

(table 3.5). In all the districts 83.6 percent households is really BPL as per the perception of

the investigator. This shows that non BPL households also try to enlist themselves as BPL

households in order to get the benefits. Table 3.5: Investigator’s Perspective in BPL Families Districts No. % Baran 218 79.9 Churu 221 88.8 Dausa 258 86.0 Dholpur 259 79.9 Jhalawar 175 83.3 Rajsamand 243 88.4 Tonk 155 77.9 Total 1529 83.6

Possessing of a Card

It was enquired as to what type of ration card these families possess? It is found that baseline

families have BPL card, Antodaya card and APL card. A large percentage of households APL

households have APL card with very few households possessing BPL and Antodaya cards. In

case of BPL households, majority possess BPL card and this proportion varies between 46.2

percent in Baran to a 69.3 percent in Tonk (table 3.6). These households also have Antodaya

card and the highest percentage of such households are in Baran and the least in Tonk- 13.6

percent. It is also noticed that BPL families have APL card. Table 3.6: Whether the Household Possess a Ration Card

68

District BPL Antoday APL None BPL Antoday APL None APL BPL Baran 2.5 96.9 0.6 46.2 35.5 16.8 1.5 Churu 1.3 98.0 0.7 49.8 28.1 21.3 0.8 Dausa 0.6 99.4 63.0 17.7 17.7 1.7 Dholpur 0.5 99.5 58.6 22.5 16.4 2.5 Jhalawar 100.0 63.8 19.0 14.3 2.9 Rajsamand 1.8 0.6 97.6 63.3 22.9 11.3 2.5 Tonk 3.3 0.8 89.2 6.7 69.3 13.6 14.1 3.0 Total 0.9 0.6 97.5 0.9 58.7 23.1 16.1 2.1

Food Adequacy

It was enquired as to whether all members of the household get sufficient food daily around

the year? In all households across the districts all members of the household do get sufficient

food daily around the year. In BPL families with the exception of 6.7 percent in Dausa, 3.5

percent in Tonk and 7.1 percent in Jhalawar (depends on the season) all members of the

household get sufficient food daily around the year (table 3.7). On the question whether the

household compared to other people in the village eats better, about the same or worse, the

response reveals that majority of households eat the same more or less with relatively higher

percentage of APL households eating better than others. In case of BPL households,

households do eat worse than other; the proportion varies between 2.8 percent in Churu and

11.0 percent in Jhalawar (table 3.8). This shows that compared to APL households BPL

households are worse off in eating. Table 3.7: Issue of Food Adequacy: Do all members of the HH get sufficient food daily round the year District Yes No Depends Yes No Depends On the season on the season APL BPL Baran 100.0 100.0 Churu 100.0 100.0 Dausa 96.1 3.9 99.7 0.3 Dholpur 99.5 0.5 93.3 6.7 Jhalawar 97.7 0.8 1.5 92.9 7.1 Rajsamand 100.0 100.0 Tonk 100.0 95.5 1.0 3.5 Total 99.0 0.1 0.9 97.5 0.2 2.3 Table 3.8: Compared to Other People in the Village, do you think your HH eats Better About the Worse Better About the Worse Same same APL BPL Baran 6.8 92.5 0.6 4.4 87.5 8.1 Churu 40.3 59.1 0.7 10.4 86.7 2.8 Dausa 15.6 80.0 4.4 9.7 82.0 8.3 Dholpur 28.5 71.0 0.5 12.7 82.1 5.2 Jhalawar 16.7 81.1 2.3 2.9 86.2 11.0 Rajsamand 20.6 78.8 0.6 1.8 93.5 4.7 Tonk 34.2 65.8 9.5 80.4 10.1 Total 22.8 75.8 1.4 7.5 85.5 6.9

69

Households and DPIP Sub-projects

It was enquired whether the village received any benefit from DPIP program, with the

exception of Dausa where 16.1 percent APL households reported that they have not benefited

from DPIP intervention, in all other cases across the districts benefits of DPIP have gone to

the village (table 3.9). Of course, not many have gained from DPIP groups directly. What is

the response of BPL households? Majority across the district reported that village has

benefited from DPIP sub-projects, while there is mixed picture when we look at DPIP groups.

The gains are better compared to APL families and that is what the project was expected to

achieve. Table 3.9: Benefits from DPIP by Village Village Benefited DPIP Groups Village Benefited DPIP Groups Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No APL BPL Baran 99.4 0.6 1.2 98.8 99.3 0.7 28.9 71.1 Churu 99.3 0.7 0.7 99.3 98.8 1.2 46.2 53.8 Dausa 83.9 16.1 2.8 97.2 84.7 15.3 40.0 60.0 Dholpur 100.0 2.1 97.9 99.1 0.9 38.6 61.4 Jhalawar 99.2 0.8 100.0 99.0 1.0 43.8 56.2 Rajsamand 100.0 100.0 99.6 0.4 24.0 76.0 Tonk 93.3 6.7 3.3 96.7 95.0 5.0 50.8 49.2 Total 96.4 3.6 1.5 98.5 96.3 3.7 38.1 61.9

It was also asked whether due to DPIP the economic and social situation in the village has

changed in last 5 years? The response reveals that DPIP has positively impacted the economic

and social situation in the village as reported by both APL and BPL households (table 3.10).

However, it is noticed that negative responses in case of APL households varies between 7.3

percent in Dholpur and 30.5 percent in Dausa compared to 7.9 percent in Tonk and 32.1

percent in Rajsamand in case of BPL households.

Has the household received any benefit from DPIP? The APL households directly have not

received largely nay benefit from DPIP, while 24.0 percent BPL households in Rajsamand

and 50.3 percent households in Tonk did get benefits from DPIP (table 3.11). Table 3.10: Economic and Social Situation Improved District Yes No NoR Yes No NoR APL BPL Baran 82.5 17.5 71.6 28.4 Churu 95.3 4.7 88.2 9.8 2.0 Dausa 69.5 30.5 77.6 19.7 2.8 Dholpur 92.7 7.3 86.9 13.1 Jhalawar 77.1 22.9 87.5 12.5 Rajsamand 78.2 21.8 91.5 7.9 0.5 Tonk 88.4 10.7 0.9 67.9 32.1 Total 83.6 16.3 0.1 81.0 18.3 0.7

70

Table 3.11: Has the Household Received Any Benefit from DPIP District Yes No Yes No APL BPL Baran 1.2 98.8 28.9 71.1 Churu 0.7 99.3 46.2 53.8 Dausa 2.8 97.2 40.0 60.0 Dholpur 2.1 97.9 38.6 61.4 Jhalawar 100.0 43.8 56.2 Rajsamand 100.0 24.0 76.0 Tonk 3.3 96.7 50.3 49.7 Total 1.5 98.5 38.1 61.9

There are four types of sub-projects viz., livestock, land-based activity, community

infrastructure and non-farm services. The household responses are recorded in table 3.12.

It was enquired as to whether the household had participated in any of the meetings organized

to select the SPA- the response reveals that of the APL households, the proportion of

households participating in meetings varies from a low of 50.0 percent in Baran and a high of

100.0 percent in Churu, Dholpur and Tonk. In Rajasamand and Jhalawar none of the

households participated in any of the meetings (table 3.13). In case of BPL households, the

proportion of households range from a low of 63.9 percent in Baran and a high of 95.1

percent in Dholpur.

Have they received training from DPIP? It is found that a significant percentage reported in

affirmative in both APL and BPL households, though inter-district variations are there. Are

they still active members of CIG? It appears that a higher percentage of APL households have

members who are active members of CIGs compared to BPL households.

Table 2.32: Type of Sub-projects (SPA) Livestock Land-based Community On-farm NoR Activity infrastructure services APL Baran 50.0 50.0 Churu 100.0 Dausa 33.3 33.3 33.3 Dholpur 100.0 Tonk 75.0 25.0 Total 64.3 14.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 BPL Baran 59.7 23.6 16.7 Churu 89.4 2.9 3.8 2.9 1.0 Dausa 84.7 6.3 9.0 Dholpur 96.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 Jhalawar 73.0 4.5 6.7 15.7 Rajsamand 61.3 27.4 4.8 6.5 Tonk 67.0 22.7 8.2 2.1 Total 78.6 10.8 4.9 5.6 0.2

71

Table 3.13: Relation with SPAs Meeting Training Active CIG Meeting Training Active CIG to select from DPIP member to select from member SPA SPA DPIP APL BPL Baran 50.0 50.0 100.0 63.9 56.9 65.3 Churu 100.0 100.0 100.0 72.1 72.1 66.3 Dausa 66.7 66.7 33.3 84.7 65.8 64.9 Dholpur 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.1 89.4 82.9 Tonk 100.0 50.0 50.0 74.2 76.3 75.3 Jhalawar 88.8 74.2 77.5 Rajsamand 74.2 79.0 61.3 Total 85.7 71.4 71.4 80.4 74.2 71.4

It was found out that why they were not still active members of CIGs anymore? The response

reveals that in case of APL households, the response was forthcoming in two districts viz.,

Dausa and Tonk and the reasons given are did not get along with the other CIG members and

did not have time to attend meetings in Tonk and did not have time to attend meetings in

Dausa. In case of BPL households, the major reason cited was did not have time to attend

meetings in most districts but for Tonk (table 3.14). In Churu and Tonk districts, the reason

cited was that the group never was neither stable nor cohesive, while other reasons were not

of much significance. This reflects on the process of group formation itself. Poor invariably

have to spend more time to meet both ends and group not being homogeneous.

It was also asked as to if DPIP has helped in improving households economic situation, held it

at the same level and deteriorated during last 5 years. The first response is that DPIP has

improved the economic situation across districts and poverty categories (APL/BPL). A

significant proportion among BPL households also reported that economic situation has

remained the same and this proportion varies from a low of 16.7 percent in Baran and a high

of 43.5 percent in Rajasamand (table 3.15). Table 3.14: Why Not Active Member of CIG Anymore 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Dausa 100.0 Tonk 50.0 50.0 Total 25.0 75.0 BPL Baran 20.0 76.0 4.0 Churu 5.7 48.6 5.7 34.3 5.7 Dausa 5.1 48.7 10.3 23.1 5.1 7.7 Dholpur 4.8 61.9 4.8 28.6 Jhalawar 5.0 85.0 5.0 5.0 Rajsamand 62.5 12.5 4.2 20.8 Tonk 4.2 29.2 45.8 12.5 8.3 Total 6.4 56.9 4.8 18.6 4.8 8.5 Note: 1- Did not get along with the other CIG members; 2- did not have time to attend meetings; 3- did not like to work in groups; 4- group never was neither stable nor cohesive; 5- never got a sanction; 6- combination of all.

72

Table 3.15: Household Economic Situation Improved during last 5 years District Improved Stayed Improved Stayed Deteriorated the same the same APL BPL Baran 100.0 83.3 16.7 Churu 100.0 78.8 20.2 1.0 Dausa 66.7 33.3 60.4 38.7 0.9 Dholpur 75.0 25.0 74.8 24.4 0.8 Jhalawar 68.5 30.3 1.1 Rajsamand 56.5 43.5 Tonk 50.0 50.0 71.1 27.8 1.0 Total 71.4 28.6 70.8 28.4 0.8

What are the natures of Benefits? The responses of households were solicited on annual

income, access to credit, social status and participation in gram sabha and ward sabha. Data

shows that APL household as expected fare better on these factors. In Baran and Churu

districts, annual income increase and increase in credit access is better for higher proportion

of BPL households, while in case of increase in social status and participation in gram sabhas,

BPL households lag behind APL households (table 3.16).

Gender Relations in the Households

DPIP in its training made efforts to build awareness of poor households and creating greater

gender sensitivity. In this regard certain questions were asked from the households. Who

takes decisions on cropping pattern sending boy to schools, sending girl to school, choice of

employment of the wife, participation in ward sabha, participation in caste panchayat, interact

with outsiders, use money earned by husband, use money earned by wife, have another child,

looking after sick of the house etc. The responses are as expected which are more reflecting

the social behaviour in rural areas (appendices tables 3.1 to 3.13). In all these decisions, men

of the household have a better say. Only marginally across states, women take decisions.

There are occasions when both men and women take decisions. One needs to understand how

the rural society behaves with respect to gender issues. For instance, the issue of cropping

pattern is more determined by household needs and number of animals with the household

and annual requirements. Any rural household would not like to buy food grains for domestic

consumption. Most of times, it is a family decisions and it reflected by responses we have got.

Mother definitely likes to send the girl child to school. The training programme of DPIP

would influence much how a household takes decisions. It is too early to reflect on changes as

there are other factors that determine such decisions. Table 3.16: Nature of Benefits District Annual Credit Status Gram Annual Credit Status Gram

73

Income Access Social sabha Income Access Social sabha APL BPL Baran 24.2 22.4 16.8 10.6 54.6 30.8 14.7 20.5 Churu 45.6 44.3 45.6 43.6 47.0 47.4 40.2 36.1 Dausa 41.7 28.9 28.9 25.6 38.0 24.0 25.7 16.0 Dholpur 67.4 56.5 58.5 29.0 49.4 38.3 37.3 28.1 Jhalawar 84.8 68.9 64.4 56.1 50.0 40.0 42.9 38.1 Rajsamand 66.7 61.8 63.0 41.8 48.0 33.8 29.8 19.6 Tonk 60.8 56.7 55.8 45.8 53.3 50.3 55.3 49.7 Total 55.2 47.6 46.9 34.7 48.3 36.9 33.9 28.3

Roles and Responsibilities in the Household

Along range of role related questions were asked from cooking to cleaning cow sheds.

Appendices 3.14 to 3.31 reveal that cooking, cleaning, washing, fuel collection, fodder

collection, water fetching, infant care, child care, old age care, animal shed cleaning, milching

of animals, threshing are mainly in the domain of females, both adult and child, while crop

related activities are in the domain of males. Women also significantly contribute to crop

husbandry. It is thus revealed that women in rural areas have participation in wide range of

activities.

Do Women Go Alone Out of the House

Women empowerment can also be judged from amount of freedom they have within the

household. In rural setting, in the DPIP districts, we find that both APL and BPL household

women go out alone to market place, health centre, visiting friends and meetings in the

village. The proportions do vary across districts and poverty categories (table 3.17). We find

that BPL household women have greater freedom in mobility alone. Table 3.17: Do the Women go alone of the House Market Health Friends Meetings Market Health Friends Meetings Place centre visiting village Place centre visiting village APL BPL Baran 61.49 62.73 27.33 4.97 63.37 62.64 52.01 17.95 Churu 50.34 51.01 28.19 28.19 53.82 52.61 31.33 32.13 Dausa 57.22 58.33 42.22 16.67 55.67 55.33 45.33 22.33 Dholpur 48.19 37.82 41.97 5.70 60.80 38.27 59.57 22.22 Jhalawar 57.58 78.03 71.97 59.09 79.05 88.10 70.48 47.62 Rajsamand 44.24 44.24 26.67 1.82 62.91 60.36 45.09 19.64 Tonk 61.67 68.33 65.00 38.33 62.31 63.32 65.83 38.19 Total 53.91 55.73 41.82 19.82 61.97 58.42 52.02 27.21

Measuring Social Capital

74

Various questions concerning social capital among DPIP households were asked. It is found

that in distress situation the households fend for themselves in search of employment and also

rely on kinship relationships irrespective of the fact whether the household is APL or BPL.

No one does anything for protecting common pasturelands, old customs are followed, village

leaders/powerful takes the decisions. When poor man’s land is encroached, he is left alone

mainly or he takes help of caste panchayat and support of kins. Here, APL households rely

more on kinship relations. When women are molested, kins and caste panchayat play a

dominant role. The same is more or less the case when liquor consumption is the issue. It is

the close family that tries to take corrective measures as it is directly affected. On government

corruption issue, those who are directly affected take action alone. In some districts the issue

is raised in gram sabha, but that again is linked to activities being undertaken within the

village. When children are not enrolled in school, no one is concerned it seems. What comes

out is despite intervention of programs like DPIP, individual sin rural society are largely left

to fend for itself and in this poor are greater sufferers. The community role appears to be

limited by a variety of factors. There is no doubt that caste relations and kinship relations do

have an important role to play which is grate social capital with assists the poor in villages.

Do men and women participate in caste panchayat meetings? Table shows that men

participation is much higher in caste panchayats across districts and APL and BPL households

(table 3.18). Table 3.18 : Do men and women participate in caste panchayat meetings Men Women Men Women APL BPL Baran 48.39 6.45 66.97 1.83 Churu 57.66 0.90 53.70 0.62 Dausa 100.00 44.44 56.52 17.39 Dholpur 88.99 1.83 82.51 8.74 Jhalawar 8.33 38.46 Rajsamand 72.73 89.01 Tonk 40.00 20.00 83.33 33.33 Total 64.85 2.72 70.83 4.55

Income Changes in Base Line and Non-baseline Households

In the ensuing section, we look at the various types of incomes that DPIP related households

have. All values are constant 1999-2000 prices. These incomes pertain to all households

surveyed, irrespective of whether they participate in DPIP or not. It includes households that

have CIG members.

75

Agriculture Income

The average income from agricultural activities for the APL households has declined in Baran

and Dholpur while there is improvement in agricultural income across the districts.

Rajsamand has observed maximum increase in agriculture income compared to all other

districts in both APL and BPL households (table 3.19). If we ascribed all the changes to

DPIP, then there has been a significant jump in income from agricultural activities across

districts for BPL households. Table 3.19: Average Agriculture Income Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % Districts APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 46738 2723 42449 15603 53616 15642 -9.2 473.1 Churu 7049 1063 30034 10197 26360 13083 326.1 859.1 Dausa 11507 2883 13258 7533 10127 5414 15.2 161.2 Dholpur 32837 4380 21703 9756 13419 8962 -33.9 122.7 Jhalawar 22413 1789 42718 10300 40711 12836 90.6 475.6 Rajsamand 2769 712 26703 8946 24834 8635 864.2 1157.2 Tonk 23823 2083 30070 10918 30921 10186 26.2 424.3 Total 21281 2354 29005 10381 30047 10821 36.3 340.9

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Agriculture Income Rs.

Baran Dausa Jhalawar Tonk

Districts

Agriculture Income Rs.

BLS 2001 APLBLS 2001 BPLBLS 2007 APLBLS 2007 BPLNBLS 2007 APLNBLS 2007 BPL

If we look at the agricultural income in case of non-base line households in 2007, the average

income is higher for APL families across the districts. This is true for baseline households in

2007 and 2001. This shows that though there has been improvement in income of BPL

households, the differences between APL and BPL has not narrowed.

Income from Animal Husbandry Activities

76

One major intervention of DPIP has been development of dairy activities. CIG members have

purchased goats and buffaloes. With the assistance of Rajasthan Diary Cooperative

Federation, linkages were established. We find that across the districts, average income in

case of BPL households has not only increased, but these positive changes are better that

those occurring in APL households across the districts. It appears that Baran district has

performed better than all other districts and it is followed by Jhalawar (table 3.20). The lowest

improvement is observed in Dholpur district. If we look at the animal husbandry income in

case of non-base line households in 2007, the average income is higher for APL families

across the districts. This is true for baseline households in 2007 and 2001. This shows that

though there has been improvement in income of BPL households, the differences between

APL and BPL has not narrowed. The situation has though improved in a few districts. Table 3.20: Average Income from Animal Husbandry Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % Districts APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 6539 589 7168 5959 5804 3855 9.6 912.3 Churu 6421 1703 10860 8170 9497 7911 69.1 379.8 Dausa 6316 2268 11879 8684 11890 9308 88.1 283.0 Dholpur 12704 4077 15812 10623 13294 11434 24.5 160.6 Jhalawar 2507 883 8780 6095 10317 7721 250.2 590.5 Rajsamand 3887 1537 7334 4783 7193 5766 88.7 211.3 Tonk 9285 2667 12658 8084 11130 6853 36.3 203.1 Total 6994 2039 10795 7498 9664 7498 54.4 267.6

0

2000400060008000

10000

120001400016000

Rs.


Districts

Animal Husbandry Income Rs.


Wage Labour Income

77

Some households also still engage themselves as wage labourers both within the village and

outside the village. A priori, with the DPIP intervention, this component should go down. We

observed that in 2007 against 2001, in BPL households Churu, Dausa and Dholpur districts

have witnessed significant increase in wage labour income and in other districts the increase

have been lower (table 3.21). It is interesting to observe that increases in wage labour income

of APL households has been greater compared to BPL households. This one can ascribe as a

positive impact of DPIP in the sense that it has reduced dependence on wage labour income

for such households. However, districts like Churu still observe wage labour income for BPL

households being higher than APL households. One can also say that space vacated by BPL

households has been captured by APL households within the village. Another notable sign is

that compared to BLS 2001, BLS 2007 shows average income from wage labour going in

opposite direction, which is that in 2001 across districts wage labour income was higher but

reversal took place in 2007 except for Churu. Table 3.21: Average Wage Labour Income within the Village Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Chnages % Districts APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 2244 5742 12741 11063 12476 12440 467.7 92.7 Churu 1740 3874 9708 8977 8644 10454 457.9 131.7 Dausa 2184 2702 11855 7938 6780 9040 442.7 193.7 Dholpur 1418 3102 9286 7073 6459 7153 554.8 128.0 Jhalawar 1608 6080 5640 9026 4891 7545 250.7 48.5 Rajsamand 2244 6367 12945 10263 7924 9466 477.0 61.2 Tonk 1694 5686 7257 8341 8175 8358 328.4 46.7 Total 1885 4659 9825 9212 8021 9447 421.1 97.7

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Rs.


Districts

Wage Labour Income Rs.


78

Now looking at the wage labour income from outside the village, data shows two major

observations- one that increases in BPL wage labour income is lower compared to APL

households; and second that in Churu and Jhalawar the increases are only marginal. This

again shows that BPL households are less engaged in wage labour now than before. Here, like

wage labour income within the village, reversal has taken place meaning that average wage

labour outside the village in 2001 was lower in case of APL households, but in 2007 it the

other way around in most districts (table 3.22). This is a positive development if looked from

DPIP perspective. For non-baseline households, not much difference between wage labour

income from outside the village between APL and BPL households, though in most districts,

the average wage labour income is higher in case of APL households.

Table 3.22: Average Wage Labour Income from outside the Village Rs. Districts BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 1836 3010 12909 8594 7309 8558 603.0 185.5 Churu 3644 6098 9581 8251 9233 7322 162.9 35.3 Dausa 3869 5159 15574 12741 13526 13343 302.5 146.9 Dholpur 2000 6085 20026 19475 17075 17945 901.4 220.0 Jhalawar 1220 3810 6557 4346 9136 8133 437.4 14.1 Rajsamand 3862 4446 21916 11456 9069 8974 467.4 157.7 Tonk 611 2702 10370 10466 7479 9343 1598.2 287.4 Total 2526 4587 15364 12408 10972 10573 508.3 170.5

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Rs.


Districts

Wage Labour Income Outside the Village Rs.


Income from Famine Works Some families do work on famine works to supplement family income. DPIP has a mixed

impact on this. This is because in economic distress each household would react differently

given its asset endowments. There is a significant increase in this income for BPL households,

79

though this is more so in drought prone districts like Dausa, Dholpur and Rajsamand.

However, APL households have higher average income in 2007 compared to 2001 across

districts as against BPL households (table 3.23). In case of non-baseline households in 2007,

BPL households have much lower famine relief income compared to APL households. Baran

district has the highest famine relief income for APL households across districts in 2007 when

in 2001 this income was non-existent. It is also the case that not all households participate in

such works. Table 3.23: Average Income Wages from Famine Relief Works Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % Districts APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 154 55643 2968 15728 1760 1823.6 Churu 211 17219 2661 2621 2312 1159.8 Dausa 83 17 3575 2794 8958 1934 4224.3 16584.2 Dholpur 443 4287 2180 Jhalawar 6 180 2714 3031 3023 2662 45158.5 1582.0 Rajsamand 235 746 7894 14344 2383 -100.0 958.5 Tonk 97 667 2392 2912 4087 2203 2366.0 336.5 Total 61 261 4453 3059 4707 2316 7239.1 1073.6

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Rs.


Districts

famine Relief Income Rs.


Income from Hired Out Assets Assets once created in rural areas are not optimally utilized. There are hired out given the

economic situation of the household. In agrarian economy when cost of having assets like

tractor or bullocks is high, people prefer to hire them from within the village. This activity

generates additional income for the household.

On an average we find that by hiring out a tractor, the income generated is Rs.18506 for BPL

household and Rs.33065 for APL household. This income varies across districts. Table 3.24

80

shows that in 2007 compared to 2001, BPL households have much higher average income

through hiring out a tractor in all districts; none have it in Jhalawar. On the whole for both

APL and BPL households, tractor is generation higher incomes in 2007 as against 2001. For

non-baseline households in 2007, APL households are earning higher income than the BPL

households. Table 3.24: Average Income from Hiring Out Tractor Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % Districts APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 3264 186 14838 14838 23370 354.7 7882.8 Churu 1544 505 36601 35612 25225 14838 2269.9 6954.1 Dausa 2001 23494 8903 14838 18548 1073.9 Dholpur 5531 639 27203 19290 8903 391.8 2918.7 Jhalawar 1230 19502 15368 8903 1485.3 Rajsamand 3887 218 107576 22257 24112 22257 2667.4 10121.9 Tonk 11811 84 20773 12056 17346 20349 75.9 14314.3 Total 4033 250 33065 18506 18035 18817 719.8 7316.0

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Rs.


Districts

Hired Out Tractor Income Rs.


If you do not have a tractor, then bullocks are also hired out. This source generated only

marginal income in 2001 for both APL and BPL households, but in 2007, APL households

have reasonable income in all districts except Dholpur. In Churu district, BPL households

have high income from bullocks (table 3.25). There is no household in Baran, Dausa, Dholpur

and Tonk. It must be stated here that both these assets are hired out more for non-agricultural

purposes than agricultural purposes and that too by limited number of households. However,

this shows that even BPL households possess a tractor and bullocks. This reflects on the

selection of BPL households itself. One can say that such households may be marginal and

small farmers. In 2007, a bullock pair generated an income of Rs.6922 for BPL household and

81

Rs.3768 for APL household. For non-baseline BPL households, this average income is much

higher at Rs.9085 and that for APL households is Rs.3478. Table 3.25: Average Income from Hiring out Bullocks Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Difference % District APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 279 82 4575 2040 1539.3 -100.0 Churu 2195 529 10016 12668 9200 14553 356.2 2293.7 Dausa 86 48 2968 13354 3370.1 -100.0 Dholpur 126 28 -100.0 -100.0 Jhalawar 4 2819 4451 2123 2920 73317.8 Rajsamand 117 41 1113 1060 2349 852.2 2510.9 Tonk 178 105 4451 2077 20402 2406.3 -100.0 Total 394 111 3768 6922 3478 9085 855.5 6137.8

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Rs.


Districts

Income from Hiring Out Bullock Rs.

BLs 2001 APLBLs 2001 BPLBLS 2007 APLBLS 2007 BPLNBLS 2007NBLS 2007

Income from Land Leased Out It is a tendency of very small land holders to lease out their because of lack of resources to till

the land and also due to lack of inputs like water. Others are also lease out land. The average

rent income for all districts comes to Rs.29264 for APL households in 2007 (BLS 20070 and

Rs.6025 for BPL households (BLS 2007) (table 3.26). It is shown that in 2007 compared to

2001, rent income from leased out land has significantly gone up in all districts for BPL and

APL households, though the increase is much higher in case of APL households. This may be

because APL households on an average leasing out higher area as they possess higher area. It

is also seen that tendency to lease out land appears to have gained importance in 2007

compared to baseline year 2001. This could be because rent for leased out land has gone up

significantly over the years; land being a scarce commodity. In case of non-baseline

households in 2007, in all districts except for Churu and Rajsamand for BPL households the

82

average rent income is Rs.7084 with a low of Rs.5750 in Dausa and Rs.8070 in Tonk. In case

of APL households, the rent income from land is higher at Rs.10924 and it is done only in

three districts viz., Churu, Jhalawar and Tonk; highest income accruing in Jhalawar. This rent

income could be the reflection to what use the land can be put to. Table 3.26: Average Income from Leased out Land Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 890 325 7271 6306 Churu 118 47 7419 3710 18548 Dausa 66 202 4192 6959 5750 Dholpur 158 42 9768 2495 7382 Jhalawar 541 145 14149 7790 25967 7295 Rajsamand 381 108 11685 7254 Tonk 1288 146 29264 6025 3368 8070 Total 451 145 15328 6493 10924 7094

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Income from Leased Out Land Rs.


Income from Farm Fruit Trees Another source of income for some households is sale of output of orchards. It was not of any

significance in 2001 (BLS 2001 households), but became significant for APL households

(BLS 2007) in Dholpur, Jhalawar and Rajsamand districts (table 3.27). BPL households earn

much lower income from this source on an average in most districts. For non-baseline

households this income does form a significant one with all district average of Rs.11870 for

APL households and Rs.10387 for BPL households. Again districts like Dholpur, Jhalawar

and Rajsamand are important. Can we ascribe these changes to activities undertaken with

DPIP intervention is hard to say. Table 3.27: Average Income from Orchard Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007

83

APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 15 6863 Dausa 4080 2819 4266 2968 Dholpur 200 46 11659 9274 14838 11129 Jhalawar 14838 33880 10881 Rajsamand 1012 244 14640 8272 7419 16693 Tonk 2226 Total 189 47 12310 6735 11870 10387

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Rajsamand Total

Districts

Income from Orchard Rs.


Income from Wood Sale This is a source of income in tribal districts traditionally. Poor tribal sell firewood to meet

their family requirements. Here again, BLS 2007 gives improved income situation for both

APL and BPL households, though surprisingly the average income from this source is higher

for BPL households than APL households (table 3.28). It is also the case with non-baseline

BPL households. What can we deduce from this? One thing is clear it is not a contribution of

DPIP, rather poor are still dependent on livelihood in tribal districts on sale of forest produce.

Why one says this is because forest produce is not part or linked to DPIP intervention. This

has a policy question for a project like DPIP that people need to be supported for traditional

activities. Poor have already development forward channels for such products and feel

comfortable. This is reflected in focus group discussions and also responses of various

stakeholders like CFs, CIG members and panchayat members. What was required was to

build capacity of such poor people to add value to the product they sell at present which was

not done. Table 3.28: Average Income from Selling of Wood Rs. Districts BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL

84

Baran 70 4 5935 5112 5824 6677 Churu 37 890 Dausa 193 205 4031 2798 5015 4192 Dholpur 1484 Jhalawar 154 3710 1484 3322 Rajsamand 907 53 4600 6084 3710 Tonk 254 69 7419 Total 231 50 4027 4430 4658 3776

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Income from Selling Wood Rs.


Income from Household Industry Rajasthan traditional has household industry like handicrafts. Rural women and artisans have

been engaged in small scale production and repair activities in an agrarian set up. Artisans

have been a support for agriculturists in rural India and Rajasthan. We find that in 2001 (BLS

2001) in Rajsamand APL households had sizeable income from household industry and BPL

households too, but much lower income (table 3.29). In 2007 (BLS 2007), one observes a

quantum jump in this income for both APL and BPL households. But surprisingly, APL

households in Baran, Dausa, Jhalawar and Rajsamand reported no income from this source. It

could because the income was only marginal and the activity has been closed down. In Churu,

Dholpur and Tonk this source has shown improved incomes for APL households (BLS 2007).

On the other hand, BPL households (BLS 2007) lost out on this income in Dholpur and

Jhalawar. In other districts, there is improvement in income from household industries. For

non-baseline households, both APL and BPL, household industry is an important source of

income; average income for APL is Rs.50728 and for BPL it is Rs.7087 (almost the same as

what NREGA gives for 100 days employment). Table 3.29: Average Income from Household Industry Rs.

85

BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 159 378 15333 3370 Churu 453 18548 18919 123898 5496 Dausa 114 595 7419 7419 Dholpur 810 81 74191 Jhalawar 832 12 31160 6910 Rajsamand 8505 1190 9645 22443 22257 Tonk 753 477 13354 4946 37095 11351 Total 1662 462 31160 10910 50728 7087

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Income from Household Industry Rs.


Income from Retail/Petty Shops Table 3.30 shows that income from retails/ petty shops is quite significant in most districts in

2007 (BLS 2007) and in Churu and Dholpur income of BPL households is higher compared

to APL households. There is significant improvement in this income in 2007 compared to

2001 for BPL households and this could be ascribed to DPIP intervention of micro

enterprises. On an average, APL household in 2007 (BLS 2007) earned Rs.26339 when a

BPL household earned Rs.21674. In case of non-baseline households, except for Jhalawar, in

all other districts the average income is above Rs.11000 in APL households and Rs.13250 in

BPL households. Table 3.30: Average Income from Retail Shop Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % District APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 514 201 17435 11875 44196 15402 3293.4 5815.3 Churu 2846 135 22134 33000 26439 19290 677.7 24339.0 Dausa 2246 175 21763 15333 15011 14838 868.8 8646.9 Dholpur 1031 182 21939 25250 11129 14838 2028.7 13798.1 Jhalawar 329 24112 19250 8408 5087 5757.7 Rajsamand 3875 558 34128 27875 23029 23556 780.7 4895.5

86

Tonk 5184 370 27541 21710 20160 13253 431.2 5763.4 Total 2150 272 26339 21674 23577 13376 1124.9 7856.3

05000

1000015000200002500030000350004000045000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Income from Retail Shop Rs


Income from Traditional Yachak

This source of income also became important in 2007 for both BLS and NBLS households.

However, this source of income is not available in all districts. This source is more important

for APL households than BPL households (table 3.31). Table 3.31: Average Traditional Yachak Income Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 32 145 15580 5193 14838 Churu 26 41 14246 8161 1948 Dausa 1693 358 15085 5692 14838 13818 Dholpur 141 4080 Jhalawar 4 266 5564 Rajsamand 1033 654 21515 20773 5317 Tonk 723 437 8903 6183 18053 10813 Total 523 289 29231 6608 13354 9515

87

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Traditional Yackak Income Rs.


Income from Salaried Jobs

In many families now compared to earlier times, someone or the other is employed in a

salaried job. The increase in this source is quite significant as salaries tend to increase with

price rise (dearness allowances are given twice a year). Sharper increases are observed in case

of BPL households (comparing BLS 2001 and BLS 2007) (table 3.32). On an average, a APL

household gets Rs.61249 a year from salaries and a BPL household gets Rs.23442. For non-

baseline households, the corresponding incomes are Rs.44175 for APL household and

Rs.18794 for a BPL household. Across districts for APL (both BLS and NBLS households),

this source generates much higher income on an average. Table 3.32: Average Salaried Income Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Differences % District APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 2186 458 34234 20483 63269 19045 1466.2 4368.6 Churu 25189 3115 69873 38332 38988 21572 177.4 1130.6 Dausa 8058 1454 57541 13466 25151 17813 614.1 826.3 Dholpur 11348 1432 76570 23221 17806 19155 574.8 1521.4 Jhalawar 6248 244 45716 15559 44015 19943 631.7 6275.0 Rajsamand 22136 4555 48694 27937 51553 22823 120.0 513.4 Tonk 14922 1344 66430 24384 40706 12007 345.2 1713.9 Total 12632 1832 61249 23442 44175 18794 384.9 1179.5

88

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Salaried Income Rs.


Income from Other Sources

For BPL households this source is not relatively important though does constitute a

significant income source across districts with some variability. Jhalawar, Baran and Tonk

have lower income from these sources compared to other districts for BPL households (BLS

2007) (table 3.33). The same is more or less the case with non-baseline BPL households in

2007. APL households show that they have better access to many sources of income. For APL

households this source gives more than double the income for BPL households. It is also

shown from the data that in the same situation APL households do earn higher incomes from

such sources. There are household level differences like education, assets and health that lead

to this type of situation. So DPIP like programs should address to these differences to give an

edge to poor people. Table 3.33: Average Other Income Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 2294 2822 18721 8787 14789 10962 716.1 211.4 Churu 4982 1579 23980 14026 31383 14023 381.3 788.2 Dausa 1785 1181 33080 11936 15988 11260 1753.6 911.0 Dholpur 5059 935 13623 14438 16322 14482 169.3 1443.6 Jhalawar 515 403 14096 5126 22214 7394 2636.4 1171.0 Rajsamand 5506 2070 46304 16413 15998 11780 741.0 693.0 Tonk 3310 1197 10977 6656 12393 9601 231.6 456.2 Total 3427 1482 23994 10150 20902 11011 600.0 584.8

89

05000

100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Other Incomes Rs.


Expenditure Behaviour

Clothing

After addressing the income changes in 2007 over 2001, we turn to expenditure pattern of

these households. The way incomes have improved, expenditure should also go up at the

given level of these families. We first look at expenditure on clothing. Data shows a decline in

expenditure between 2001 and 2007 across districts (table 3.34). The decline in this

expenditure is sharper in case of APl households compared to BPL households and this is

expected. As incomes of poor go up they tend to spend more on such items after meeting

expenditure on food items. On an average, a APL household expends Rs.1481 on clothing and

a BPL household expends slightly lower amount of Rs.1311 (BLS 2007). The expenditures

have reduced by half almost since 2001. This can also be attributed to rising prices. For non-

baseline households in 2007, the average expenditure on clothing was Rs.1289 (APL) and

Rs.1000 (BPL). There are not much differences across districts. Table 3.34: Average Expenditure on Clothing Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % Districts APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 5045 1964 1766 1456 1620 1272 -65.0 -25.9 Churu 4938 2716 1464 1212 1219 985 -70.4 -55.4 Dausa 4198 2429 1389 1417 1363 919 -66.9 -41.7 Dholpur 4251 2593 1186 1351 905 1003 -72.1 -47.9 Jhalawar 4228 2017 1181 1050 1267 844 -72.1 -47.9 Rajsamand 4026 2102 1886 1416 1380 1078 -53.2 -32.6 Tonk 4926 1957 1501 1141 1224 943 -69.5 -41.7 Total 4484 2276 1481 1311 1289 1000 -67.0 -42.4

90

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Clothing Expenditure Rs.


Footwear Like clothing this item is not purchased every day, there is seasonality attached to it rural

areas. Traditionally people would buy them after money from harvest arrive. As the rural

incomes have gone up, the table shows the expenditure pattern on footwear. Across the board,

expenditure on footwear has gone down since 2001. APL households on an average tend to

spend little more than BPL households (table 3.35). It is surprising that APL households are

expending less on footwear. It is also surprising in case of non-baseline households this

expenditure is lower than BLS households in 2007 across districts; more so in case of APL

households but also in most cases in BPL households. In rural areas, the tendency now is to

go in for plastic based shoes which cost less than leather shoe. Table 3.35: Average Expenditure on Footwear Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Differences % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 1089 504 730 446 544 464 -32.9 -11.5 Churu 1164 773 508 337 404 343 -56.3 -56.4 Dausa 1061 680 571 370 482 345 -46.2 -45.5 Dholpur 1133 684 605 537 525 508 -46.6 -21.5 Jhalawar 1012 543 501 252 492 346 -50.5 -53.5 Rajsamand 1308 688 825 436 648 430 -36.9 -36.7 Tonk 1579 700 498 310 436 312 -68.5 -55.8 Total 1180 654 618 399 501 388 -47.6 -38.9

91

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Expenditure of Footwear Rs.


Cosmetics

Cosmetics like powder, facial cream, shops etc have entered the rural household consumption

basket. On an average, a APL household in 2007 expended Rs.561 while a BPL household

expended Rs.331 (BLS 2007) (table 3.36). In 2001, these expenses were higher for APL

households. Baran, Dholpur and Rajsamand observed an increase in expenditure on cosmetics

for APL households, while in case of BPL households, Baran, Dholpur and Rajsamand

observed an increase in expenditure. But these increases have been more than double the APL

changes.

Table 3.36: Average Expenditure on Cosmetics Rs.

District BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 534 261 558 282 408 362 4.5 8.1 Churu 789 471 493 248 299 312 -37.6 -47.3 Dausa 629 344 435 307 399 321 -30.8 -10.6 Dholpur 595 332 678 492 767 499 14.0 48.3 Jhalawar 591 284 488 202 320 236 -17.4 -28.6 Rajsamand 507 223 758 437 501 385 49.5 95.9 Tonk 969 332 373 230 394 229 -61.5 -30.5 Total 644 319 561 331 424 325 -12.9 3.8

92

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Expenditure on Cosmetics Rs.

BLS 2001 APLBLS 2001 BPLBLs 2007 APLBLs 2007 BPLNBLS 2007 APLNBLS 2007 BPL

Social Gifts

It is surprising that expenditure on gifts for social purposes has gone down in all districts

expect Rajsamand for APL households and in Jhalawar, Rajsamand and Tonk in case of BPL

households (table 3.37). This is with the tradition of tribal community’s social relations. It is

also surprising that APLs spend more than BPL; it is not the case in Rajsamand (non-baseline

households). The results of table show that DPIP has been able help reduce this expenditure,

if one can say so. If it is true then DPIP has contributed to a social cause. This must have

reduced borrowing for this purpose. Table 3.37: Average Expenditure of Gifts in Social Relations Rs.

Districts BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 1974 857 1353 827 1426 615 -31.5 -3.5 Churu 2097 992 1979 804 2105 802 -5.6 -19.0 Dausa 1472 896 789 562 969 438 -46.4 -37.3 Dholpur 1249 661 898 605 804 500 -28.1 -8.6 Jhalawar 1499 544 1417 550 1012 673 -5.5 1.3 Rajsamand 817 401 2796 889 888 1225 242.3 121.4 Tonk 1429 585 1315 1076 1726 789 -8.0 83.9 Total 1481 703 1514 738 1297 744 2.2 4.9

93

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Expenditure on Social Obligations Rs.


Pilgrimages In Rural India, the rural communities have been finding ways to get out of agricultural

activities. For instance, on Amavas day, farmers do not engage themselves in agricultural

activities. On this day they visit religious places and make purchases for their household.

There has also been a tendency recently to go to religious places in groups. Closer home,

village temple offerings on various days is an expense. Table 3.38 shows that rural

communities are more god fearing and spend on an average Rs.580 (APL household) and

Rs.286 (BPL household (BLS 2007). Poor tend to spend less compared to better off

compatriots. It is surprising that in 2007 over 2001, all APL households except in Dausa,

Churu, Rajsamand and Tonk are expending more on religious activities, while BPL

households in Baran, Dholpur, Rajsamand and Tonk are expending more on religious

activities. The non-baseline APL households, on an average, spend Rs.690 on pilgrimages

compared to Rs.304 in case of BPL households. Poor households spend less on pilgrimages; it

is expected given the income levels.

Table 3.38: Average Expenditure on Pilgrimages Rs.

BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Differences % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 579 147 954 198 2072 169 64.76 35.19 Churu 654 459 769 217 743 325 17.67 -52.63 Dausa 624 210 489 209 317 135 -21.51 -0.56 Dholpur 330 90 305 376 360 280 -7.70 319.13 Jhalawar 290 159 212 155 299 268 -26.82 -2.25

94

Rajsamand 323 121 1025 231 355 407 216.90 90.91 Tonk 573 168 273 515 668 438 -52.34 207.70 Total 490 173 580 286 690 304 18.23 65.53

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Expenditure on Pilgrimages Rs.


Electricity This expenditure is there where power is available. This expenditure has increased

significantly in 2007 over 2001 (table 3.39). Poor as expected spend less than other

households. The significant increases in expenditure on electricity could also be due to the

fact that activities promoted under DPIP require power to operate and so these households are

now spending more on power consumption. Table 3.39: Average Expenditure on Electricity Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Differences % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 739 87 2314 1092 1994 1365 213.0 1147.8 Churu 1613 1396 1964 1513 2285 1458 21.7 8.4 Dausa 604 118 2026 1004 1490 1117 235.4 751.4 Dholpur 895 180 1843 1085 1261 816 106.0 503.8 Jhalawar 1985 404 2441 1661 2359 1685 23.0 311.4 Rajsamand 1636 478 2409 1444 1680 1505 47.3 202.1 Tonk 1318 252 1807 1339 1857 1280 37.1 431.5 Total 1121 270 2138 1337 1994 1413 90.7 394.8

95

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Expenditure on Electricty Rs.


Ceremonies Rural areas have still well entrenched customs that require expenditures irrespective of

income status of households. Table 3.40 shows that APL households spend a higher amount

of money on ceremonies compared to BPL households. It is also surprisingly shown by the

data in 2007 over 2001, there is a fall in this expenditure in all districts except for Jhalawar in

case of APL households, but declined for BPL households in all districts. Table 3.40: Average Expenditure on Ceremonies Rs. BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Differences % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPl Baran 1357 445 726 148 334 215 -46.5 -66.7 Churu 1106 1981 1090 950 1883 763 -1.4 -52.0 Dausa 1905 767 894 414 563 186 -53.1 -46.0 Dholpur 1149 721 345 295 233 262 -70.0 -59.0 Jhalawar 791 733 1645 910 1572 1208 107.9 24.2 Rajsamand 5448 2090 2122 637 1257 652 -61.0 -69.5 Tonk 6460 1558 1352 698 1402 718 -79.1 -55.2 Total 2784 1143 1169 604 1254 661 -58.0 -47.2

96

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Rs.

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Expenditure on Ceremonies Rs.


This above expenditure behaviour is dependent in household size and type too. We find that

(table 3.41) most households are nuclear family largely among APL households in baseline

and non-baseline households. The average household size has reduced in 2007 over 2001

(table 3.42) across districts, which would be impacting on consumption pattern of the

household.

Table 3.41: Type of Family BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBSL 2007 APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL District Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint Nuclear Joint Baran 100 61 227 46 140 21 246 27 129 6 214 11 Churu 81 68 212 37 119 30 237 12 143 7 231 19 Dausa 95 85 227 73 140 40 262 38 114 6 185 15 Dholpur 139 54 292 32 163 30 301 23 103 2 160 15 Jhalawar 79 53 185 25 97 35 204 6 146 19 256 19 Rajsamand 86 79 195 80 146 19 263 12 116 19 206 19 Tonk 54 66 131 68 89 31 164 35 135 45 250 50 Total 634 466 1469 361 894 206 1677 153 886 104 1502 148

97

Table 3.42: Average Household size (No.) BLS 2007 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 6.65 5.23 5.58 4.98 5.4 5.13 -16.1 -4.8 Churu 6.75 5.06 6.67 5.29 5.59 5.75 -1.2 4.5 Dausa 7.53 5.48 6.56 5.58 5.29 5.39 -12.9 1.8 Dholpur 6.49 5.36 5.79 5.49 4.64 5.78 -10.8 2.4 Jhalawar 5.95 4.50 5.34 4.23 4.88 4.33 -10.3 -6.0 Rajsamand 6.20 5.09 5.04 4.73 5.07 4.78 -18.7 -7.1 Tonk 7.32 5.18 6.88 5.24 5.49 5.04 -6.0 1.2 Total 6.70 5.16 5.96 5.12 5.22 5.13 -11.0 -0.8 HHs 1100 1830 1100 1830 990 1650

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Number

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Household Size (No.)

BLS 2007 APL BLS 2007 BPL BLS 2007 APL BLS 2007 BPL NBLS 2007 APL NBLS 2007 BPL

Land Holding Changes

The average land size has reduced across districts and poverty categories (APL and BPL)

(table 3.43). In Rajsamand, there is marginal increase in land size for APL households, but for

BPL households, increase has occurred in Dholpur and Tonk. Table 3.43: Average Land Size District BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 25.20 6.85 19.93 6.27 10.66 3.10 -20.9 -8.5 Churu 34.13 10.59 31.94 10.20 23.21 12.06 -6.4 -3.7 Dausa 6.28 2.94 5.55 2.66 3.07 1.65 -11.5 -9.5 Dholpur 10.44 2.53 6.39 2.83 2.40 1.75 -38.8 11.8 Jhalawar 15.47 3.86 12.65 3.83 8.07 2.32 -18.3 -0.7 Rajsamand 9.59 3.35 9.71 3.14 6.01 2.76 1.3 -6.3 Tonk 32.33 4.99 27.77 5.95 9.61 3.71 -14.1 19.3 Total 17.92 4.92 15.49 5.00 9.51 4.07 -13.6 1.7

98

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Bighas

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Holding Size (No.)


Area Cultivable has also gone down in 2007 over 2001 with the exception of Rajsamand

district for APL households and surprisingly gone up for BPL households in all districts

except for Churu and Dausa (table 3.44). Table 3.44: Average Area Cultivable (Bighas) Districts BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Changes % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 23.70 6.04 19.21 6.18 13.42 4.74 -18.9 2.3 Churu 32.44 10.26 31.68 10.20 24.51 13.97 -2.3 -0.6 Dausa 5.77 2.73 5.35 2.46 4.15 2.05 -7.3 -9.9 Dholpur 10.43 2.53 6.24 2.79 3.19 2.22 -40.2 10.3 Jhalawar 13.99 3.51 11.76 3.79 8.79 3.51 -15.9 8.0 Rajsamand 5.99 2.24 8.19 2.79 6.56 3.24 36.7 24.6 Tonk 29.30 4.59 23.14 5.87 10.23 4.34 -21.0 27.9 Total 16.33 4.45 14.49 4.90 10.95 5.29 -11.3 10.1

99

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Bighas

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Area Cultivable Bighas

BLS2001 APL APLBLS2001 APL BPLBLS 2007 APLBLS 2007 BPLNBLS 2007 APLNBLS 2007 BPL

Is there any impact of DPIP on irrigated area? Table 3.45 shows that irrigated area for BPL

households have increased across districts, but for APL households, it has increased in all

districts except for Churu (expectedly) and Dhoplur. Table 3.45: Average Area Irrigated (Bighas) District BLS 2001 BLS 2007 NBLS 2007 Differences % APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL APL BPL Baran 17.19 1.70 21.13 6.15 15.60 5.07 22.9 261.8 Churu 0.13 0.09 2.00 12.60 36.0 -100.0 2122.2 Dausa 4.67 2.10 4.75 2.54 4.11 2.02 1.7 21.0 Dholpur 7.90 0.64 6.24 2.99 3.61 2.66 -21.0 367.2 Jhalawar 9.30 1.16 11.04 4.27 9.42 3.97 18.7 268.1 Rajsamand 4.22 1.23 7.78 2.72 6.46 3.82 84.4 121.1 Tonk 10.80 1.63 16.42 4.81 10.41 4.01 52.0 195.1 Total 7.69 1.19 10.72 3.72 9.09 3.80 39.4 212.6

100

0

510

15

2025

30

3540

Area Bighas

Baran Dholpur Tonk

Districts

Area Irrigated Bighas


101

Appendices Appendix Table 3.1: Decision on Cropping Pattern 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 16.77 4.35 2.48 0.00 68.32 8.07 Churu 42.28 28.19 4.70 0.00 21.48 3.36 Dausa 37.22 18.89 2.78 0.56 24.44 16.11 Dholpur 44.04 15.54 3.63 0.00 27.98 8.81 Jhalawar 37.12 4.55 1.52 0.00 50.00 6.82 Rajsamand 32.73 12.73 2.42 0.00 46.06 6.06 Tonk 45.00 15.83 0.83 0.00 31.67 6.67 36.27 14.45 2.73 0.09 38.18 8.27 BPL Baran 23.08 16.85 1.47 0.00 24.18 34.43 Churu 30.52 30.52 6.83 0.40 24.50 7.23 Dausa 24.33 12.00 6.33 1.67 23.67 32.00 Dholpur 22.22 15.12 4.63 0.62 21.91 35.49 Jhalawar 25.71 8.57 1.90 0.00 23.33 40.48 Rajsamand 29.09 14.55 4.73 0.36 36.36 14.91 Tonk 32.16 20.10 4.02 0.00 24.62 19.10 26.34 16.67 4.37 0.49 25.52 26.61 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable. Appendix Table 3.2: Decision on Sending Boy to School 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 8.70 5.59 2.48 0.00 62.11 21.12 Churu 46.31 15.44 4.70 0.00 20.13 13.42 Dausa 28.33 23.33 5.56 1.11 34.44 7.22 Dholpur 16.06 14.51 4.66 0.00 43.52 21.24 Jhalawar 6.06 18.18 0.76 0.00 46.21 28.79 Rajsamand 12.12 9.09 1.82 0.00 43.64 33.33 Tonk 29.17 21.67 2.50 0.00 44.17 2.50 20.73 15.18 3.36 0.18 42.00 18.55 BPL Baran 21.98 18.32 1.83 0.00 37.36 20.51 Churu 27.31 24.50 5.22 0.00 21.29 21.69 Dausa 24.33 19.67 9.33 1.00 35.67 10.00 Dholpur 15.74 17.28 8.02 0.62 35.49 22.84 Jhalawar 22.86 8.57 2.86 0.00 38.57 27.14 Rajsamand 25.82 9.09 4.36 0.36 28.36 32.00 Tonk 27.64 20.10 7.04 0.00 26.63 18.59 23.28 16.89 5.68 0.33 32.19 21.64 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable.

102

Appendix Table 3.3: Decision on Sending Girl to School 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 7.45 4.97 1.24 0.00 50.93 35.40 Churu 41.61 15.44 4.70 0.00 16.11 22.15 Dausa 29.44 21.67 4.44 0.56 35.00 8.89 Dholpur 11.40 13.47 3.11 0.00 37.31 34.72 Jhalawar 3.79 16.67 0.76 0.00 43.18 35.61 Rajsamand 9.09 7.27 1.82 0.00 37.58 44.24 Tonk 15.83 20.00 2.50 0.00 50.00 11.67 17.09 14.00 2.73 0.09 38.18 27.91 BPL Baran 19.41 17.95 1.47 0.00 34.07 27.11 Churu 23.29 21.29 4.82 0.00 18.07 32.53 Dausa 23.00 18.67 9.00 1.33 33.67 14.33 Dholpur 14.81 14.20 5.86 0.62 36.42 28.09 Jhalawar 13.81 5.24 1.43 0.00 35.24 44.29 Rajsamand 21.09 9.45 3.64 0.00 25.45 40.36 Tonk 25.13 20.10 6.03 0.00 25.63 23.12 19.95 15.36 4.75 0.33 30.16 29.45 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable. Appendix Table 3.4: Decision on Choice of Employment of Wife 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 2.48 5.59 1.24 0.00 46.58 44.10 Churu 42.28 13.42 3.36 0.67 30.20 10.07 Dausa 28.33 19.44 3.89 1.67 33.33 13.33 Dholpur 25.39 4.15 11.92 4.66 20.73 33.16 Jhalawar 26.52 23.48 3.03 0.00 40.91 6.06 Rajsamand 15.15 15.76 2.42 0.00 32.12 34.55 Tonk 24.17 19.17 3.33 0.00 44.17 9.17 23.27 13.82 4.45 1.18 34.55 22.73 BPL Baran 19.05 11.36 2.56 0.00 40.66 26.37 Churu 23.29 12.85 6.83 0.00 44.98 12.05 Dausa 25.67 16.67 8.67 2.67 32.33 14.00 Dholpur 15.43 10.19 23.77 1.85 25.00 23.77 Jhalawar 35.24 15.24 6.19 0.48 31.90 10.95 Rajsamand 33.82 9.82 6.18 0.00 30.18 20.00 Tonk 26.13 18.59 7.54 1.01 32.66 14.07 24.92 13.22 9.40 0.93 33.66 17.87 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable.

103

Appendix Table 3.5: Decision on Participation in Gram/Ward Sabha 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 20.50 6.21 1.24 0.00 4.35 67.70 Churu 65.77 13.42 3.36 0.67 6.71 10.07 Dausa 56.11 6.11 1.11 0.00 11.67 25.00 Dholpur 68.39 3.11 0.00 0.00 15.54 12.95 Jhalawar 60.61 6.82 2.27 0.00 27.27 3.03 Rajsamand 45.45 15.15 1.82 0.00 13.94 23.64 Tonk 48.33 10.00 1.67 0.00 30.83 9.17 52.45 8.45 1.55 0.09 14.91 22.55 BPL Baran 50.92 15.02 2.20 0.00 2.93 28.94 Churu 59.44 12.05 5.22 0.00 9.24 14.06 Dausa 45.33 10.00 8.00 0.67 10.00 26.00 Dholpur 54.94 2.47 10.19 0.93 17.28 14.20 Jhalawar 70.95 7.14 4.76 0.00 10.00 7.14 Rajsamand 61.09 9.45 6.18 0.00 9.82 13.45 Tonk 47.74 13.07 6.03 0.00 12.06 21.11 55.36 9.62 6.28 0.27 10.33 18.14 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable. Appendix Table 3.6: Decision on Participation in Caste Panchayat 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 22.36 6.21 1.24 0.00 3.11 67.08 Churu 61.07 14.09 2.68 0.67 5.37 16.11 Dausa 62.22 5.00 1.11 0.00 11.67 20.00 Dholpur 71.50 8.29 0.00 0.00 13.47 6.74 Jhalawar 57.58 6.06 2.27 0.00 29.55 4.55 Rajsamand 46.06 13.94 1.82 0.00 14.55 23.64 Tonk 50.00 9.17 1.67 0.00 30.00 9.17 53.55 8.91 1.45 0.09 14.45 21.55 BPL Baran 53.48 13.92 2.20 0.00 2.93 27.47 Churu 62.25 11.24 5.22 0.00 6.43 14.86 Dausa 50.67 8.67 7.33 0.67 10.33 22.33 Dholpur 58.64 4.94 9.57 0.31 15.43 11.11 Jhalawar 69.52 7.14 6.19 0.00 13.33 3.81 Rajsamand 60.36 8.73 6.18 0.00 10.55 14.18 Tonk 47.24 13.57 6.53 0.00 13.07 19.60 57.32 9.51 6.28 0.16 10.27 16.45 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable.

104

Appendix Table 3.7: Decision to Interact with Outsiders 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 51.55 6.83 2.48 0.00 8.70 30.43 Churu 48.99 19.46 2.68 0.67 26.17 2.01 Dausa 42.22 17.22 1.67 0.56 30.00 8.33 Dholpur 37.82 17.62 1.55 0.00 39.90 3.11 Jhalawar 44.70 12.12 1.52 0.00 37.12 4.55 Rajsamand 33.33 14.55 2.42 0.00 41.21 8.48 Tonk 31.67 19.17 2.50 0.83 44.17 1.67 41.55 15.27 2.09 0.27 32.18 8.64 BPL Baran 50.55 13.92 3.30 0.00 23.81 8.42 Churu 35.34 19.68 5.62 0.00 36.14 3.21 Dausa 37.67 19.00 7.67 1.33 21.00 13.33 Dholpur 37.04 19.14 11.11 0.62 30.86 1.23 Jhalawar 36.67 4.29 5.24 0.00 51.43 2.38 Rajsamand 50.91 11.64 7.27 0.00 26.91 3.27 Tonk 36.18 23.62 7.54 0.00 21.61 11.06 40.87 16.07 6.99 0.33 29.67 6.07 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable. Appendix Table 3.8: Decision on Using Money Earned by Husband 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 42.24 3.73 1.24 0.00 27.33 25.47 Churu 20.13 17.45 2.01 0.00 57.05 3.36 Dausa 29.44 27.78 1.67 0.56 35.56 5.00 Dholpur 27.46 0.52 0.00 0.00 65.80 6.22 Jhalawar 50.76 13.64 1.52 0.00 31.06 3.03 Rajsamand 28.48 9.70 2.42 0.00 52.73 6.67 Tonk 22.50 23.33 2.50 0.00 50.83 0.83 31.36 13.18 1.55 0.09 46.27 7.55 BPL Baran 47.62 10.62 2.20 0.00 32.23 7.33 Churu 16.47 17.27 4.82 0.00 57.03 4.42 Dausa 31.00 17.00 4.33 1.00 39.33 7.33 Dholpur 21.30 4.01 4.63 0.00 60.80 9.26 Jhalawar 46.67 7.14 2.38 0.00 38.10 5.71 Rajsamand 38.55 9.09 2.55 0.00 41.45 8.36 Tonk 26.13 21.61 5.53 0.00 40.70 6.03 32.19 11.97 3.77 0.16 44.81 7.10 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable.

105

Appendix Table 3.8: Decision on Using Money Earned by Wife 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 12.42 1.86 2.48 0.00 47.83 35.40 Churu 16.78 12.08 2.68 0.67 53.69 14.09 Dausa 22.22 21.67 1.67 2.78 39.44 12.22 Dholpur 26.42 0.52 3.11 6.22 27.46 36.27 Jhalawar 46.97 17.42 2.27 0.00 26.52 6.82 Rajsamand 16.36 10.30 3.64 1.21 46.67 21.82 Tonk 19.17 22.50 3.33 0.00 48.33 6.67 22.55 11.64 2.73 1.82 41.00 20.27 BPL Baran 38.10 6.59 2.93 0.00 41.76 10.62 Churu 9.64 13.65 6.02 0.00 54.22 16.47 Dausa 23.33 14.67 7.67 1.67 41.00 11.67 Dholpur 11.73 0.62 12.04 4.94 48.15 22.53 Jhalawar 37.62 9.05 7.14 0.00 39.52 6.67 Rajsamand 24.36 8.00 5.82 0.73 49.09 12.00 Tonk 22.11 20.10 5.53 0.50 39.20 12.56 23.28 9.78 6.94 1.31 45.03 13.66 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable. Appendix Table 3.9: Decision on Having an Additional Child 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 12.42 1.24 1.24 0.00 68.32 16.77 Churu 22.15 12.75 2.68 0.00 53.69 8.72 Dausa 18.33 17.78 1.67 0.56 53.33 8.33 Dholpur 12.44 0.00 0.52 0.00 66.84 20.21 Jhalawar 34.09 3.03 1.52 0.00 42.42 18.94 Rajsamand 7.27 4.85 1.21 0.00 63.03 23.64 Tonk 20.83 15.00 2.50 0.00 56.67 5.00 17.45 7.55 1.55 0.09 58.45 14.91 BPL Baran 20.15 17.95 2.20 0.00 50.92 8.79 Churu 11.24 13.25 4.42 0.00 55.02 16.06 Dausa 22.33 12.00 6.67 1.00 48.33 9.67 Dholpur 6.79 0.00 6.48 0.00 68.83 17.90 Jhalawar 27.14 2.38 0.48 0.00 52.86 17.14 Rajsamand 17.82 8.73 2.55 0.00 53.09 17.82 Tonk 21.61 14.07 4.02 0.50 39.20 20.60 17.54 9.56 4.04 0.22 53.50 15.14 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable.

106

Appendix Table 3.10: Decision on When Male Member is Sick 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 25.47 3.73 2.48 0.00 66.46 1.86 Churu 34.23 20.13 3.36 0.00 40.94 1.34 Dausa 35.56 11.11 2.22 0.56 47.22 3.33 Dholpur 25.91 0.52 1.55 0.00 66.32 5.70 Jhalawar 43.18 25.76 3.03 0.00 27.27 0.76 Rajsamand 29.70 10.91 3.03 0.00 53.33 3.03 Tonk 25.00 23.33 1.67 0.00 49.17 0.83 31.09 12.45 2.45 0.09 51.27 2.64 BPL Baran 61.54 9.89 3.66 0.00 23.81 1.10 Churu 20.08 29.32 6.83 0.00 43.37 0.40 Dausa 28.33 14.67 8.00 0.67 44.67 3.67 Dholpur 14.20 1.23 9.88 0.62 70.37 3.70 Jhalawar 49.52 4.76 4.76 0.00 38.10 2.86 Rajsamand 46.91 9.09 5.45 0.00 34.91 3.64 Tonk 28.64 25.13 6.03 0.50 35.18 4.52 34.92 12.73 6.56 0.27 42.68 2.84 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable. Appendix Table 3.11: Decision on When Female Member Is Sick 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 26.71 3.73 2.48 0.00 65.22 1.86 Churu 35.57 20.81 4.03 0.00 38.26 1.34 Dausa 33.89 9.44 2.78 1.67 50.00 2.22 Dholpur 25.91 0.00 4.15 0.52 64.77 4.66 Jhalawar 41.67 25.76 3.03 0.00 27.27 2.27 Rajsamand 29.70 9.70 2.42 0.00 54.55 3.64 Tonk 24.17 24.17 1.67 0.00 50.00 0.00 30.91 12.09 3.00 0.36 51.18 2.45 BPL Baran 62.27 7.69 4.03 0.00 24.18 1.83 Churu 20.08 29.32 6.83 0.40 41.77 1.61 Dausa 28.00 12.00 9.00 1.33 46.00 3.67 Dholpur 12.65 0.31 10.80 1.23 69.75 5.25 Jhalawar 46.67 4.76 7.14 0.00 38.57 2.86 Rajsamand 45.82 6.55 6.18 0.00 37.82 3.64 Tonk 29.65 25.13 6.03 0.50 34.17 4.52 34.32 11.42 7.32 0.55 43.01 3.39 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable.

107

Appendix Table 3.12: Decision on Meeting Social Obligations 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 28.57 7.45 2.48 0.00 29.81 31.68 Churu 61.74 10.74 3.36 0.00 19.46 4.70 Dausa 47.78 12.22 1.11 0.56 34.44 3.89 Dholpur 50.78 20.21 2.59 0.00 26.42 0.00 Jhalawar 72.73 21.97 3.03 0.00 0.76 1.52 Rajsamand 49.70 15.15 3.03 0.00 22.42 9.70 Tonk 35.83 20.00 2.50 0.00 36.67 5.00 49.36 15.18 2.55 0.09 24.73 8.09 BPL Baran 67.77 13.19 3.30 0.00 8.79 6.96 Churu 58.23 14.06 5.62 0.40 17.27 4.42 Dausa 39.33 15.67 9.00 0.67 26.67 8.67 Dholpur 24.38 16.05 12.04 0.62 46.60 0.31 Jhalawar 53.81 20.00 6.67 0.00 18.57 0.95 Rajsamand 53.09 16.36 6.55 0.00 20.36 3.64 Tonk 47.74 14.57 5.53 0.00 20.60 11.56 48.14 15.63 7.21 0.27 23.72 5.03 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable. Appendix Table 3.13: Decision on Purchase in the Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 24.84 4.35 2.48 0.00 36.65 31.68 Churu 35.57 21.48 3.36 0.00 38.93 0.67 Dausa 45.00 12.22 1.67 0.00 35.56 5.56 Dholpur 48.70 12.44 2.59 0.00 36.27 0.00 Jhalawar 64.39 9.85 3.03 0.00 21.21 1.52 Rajsamand 44.24 13.33 3.03 0.00 29.70 9.70 Tonk 23.33 23.33 2.50 0.83 50.00 0.00 41.27 13.45 2.64 0.09 35.27 7.27 BPL Baran 61.17 12.82 3.30 0.00 15.02 7.69 Churu 23.29 23.69 6.83 0.00 45.78 0.40 Dausa 39.67 8.33 8.33 0.33 35.00 8.33 Dholpur 25.00 4.01 11.42 0.31 59.26 0.00 Jhalawar 45.24 15.71 7.62 0.00 31.43 0.00 Rajsamand 41.82 9.45 6.18 0.00 38.91 3.64 Tonk 44.22 13.57 6.03 0.00 32.66 3.52 39.51 11.91 7.27 0.11 37.70 3.50 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; 6- not applicable.

108

Appendix Table 3.14: Who Does the Cooking Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 3.11 98.14 0.62 28.57 Churu 4.03 96.64 4.03 32.89 Dausa 9.44 93.89 6.67 43.89 Dholpur 7.77 96.89 6.22 34.20 Jhalawar 1.52 97.73 1.52 26.52 Rajsamand 2.42 97.58 4.24 28.48 Tonk 0.83 96.67 4.17 48.33 4.55 96.73 4.09 34.55 BPL Baran 3.66 93.41 2.93 22.71 Churu 6.43 96.39 3.61 35.34 Dausa 10.00 93.00 5.67 40.00 Dholpur 14.51 93.52 10.19 29.63 Jhalawar 5.24 93.81 3.33 30.95 Rajsamand5.45 94.91 5.45 21.82 Tonk 5.53 95.48 2.01 36.68 7.65 94.26 5.08 30.82 Appendix Table 3.15: Who Does the Washing Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 57.14 98.14 44.72 37.89 Churu 48.32 95.97 38.26 40.27 Dausa 37.22 93.33 32.78 44.44 Dholpur 42.49 95.85 33.68 38.34 Jhalawar 32.58 98.48 26.52 29.55 Rajsamand 38.18 94.55 27.27 31.52 Tonk 27.50 95.00 26.67 53.33 41.09 95.82 33.18 39.09 BPL Baran 58.24 93.04 43.59 32.60 Churu 54.62 96.39 35.34 43.37 Dausa 39.33 93.33 30.00 45.00 Dholpur 44.14 92.59 32.41 35.19 Jhalawar 38.10 92.86 31.43 36.67 Rajsamand 46.18 94.55 28.73 28.00 Tonk 33.67 95.48 20.10 43.22 45.36 93.93 32.08 37.49

109

Appendix Table 3.16: Who Does the Collection of Fuel Male female Boy Girl APL Baran 50.31 92.55 29.19 27.33 Churu 56.38 89.93 36.91 40.27 Dausa 42.22 83.33 21.67 29.44 Dholpur 33.16 84.46 22.80 34.20 Jhalawar 43.94 81.82 21.21 18.18 Rajsamand 43.64 83.64 24.85 22.42 Tonk 22.50 90.00 22.50 50.83 42.00 86.36 25.55 31.36 BPL Baran 56.78 87.18 38.83 24.18 Churu 54.62 93.17 33.73 46.99 Dausa 34.33 79.67 30.33 31.33 Dholpur 45.37 79.01 35.19 32.41 Jhalawar 36.67 90.95 24.29 31.43 Rajsamand 52.73 85.09 28.36 25.09 Tonk 34.17 89.95 20.10 42.21 45.41 85.74 30.82 32.84 Appendix Table 3.17: Who Does the Collection of Fodder Poverty Indicator male Feamle Boy Girl APL Baran 56.52 89.44 30.43 21.12 Churu 58.39 87.25 38.93 36.91 Dausa 50.00 75.56 26.11 22.78 Dholpur 37.82 78.24 21.24 28.50 Jhalawar 45.45 69.70 25.76 10.61 Rajsamand 43.64 69.09 23.03 15.76 Tonk 34.17 89.17 26.67 48.33 46.73 79.45 27.18 25.73 BPL Baran 48.35 76.56 33.70 18.32 Churu 65.06 86.35 43.78 44.58 Dausa 36.67 68.00 24.00 27.33 Dholpur 36.42 57.72 27.16 26.85 Jhalawar 25.24 69.05 15.71 26.19 Rajsamand 50.91 78.18 24.73 21.45 Tonk 39.70 83.92 22.61 38.19 43.39 73.33 27.70 28.42 Appendix Table 3.18: Who Brings Water Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 81.99 95.65 62.11 35.40 Churu 44.97 91.95 34.90 46.31 Dausa 43.89 85.56 34.44 36.67 Dholpur 50.26 93.26 35.23 36.79 Jhalawar 24.24 88.64 21.21 31.06 Rajsamand 57.58 91.52 37.58 31.52 Tonk 20.83 92.50 24.17 53.33 47.91 91.27 36.45 38.18 BPL Baran 61.54 91.58 47.99 35.53 Churu 49.40 91.16 39.76 46.18 Dausa 33.00 81.33 30.33 39.33 Dholpur 45.37 89.20 35.80 33.95 Jhalawar 25.71 91.90 20.95 37.14 Rajsamand 52.36 90.91 29.09 28.36 Tonk 32.16 91.96 21.61 41.21 43.66 89.40 33.01 37.05 Appendix Table 3.19: Who Takes Care of Infants Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 60.87 49.07 27.33 8.07 Churu 41.61 71.81 17.45 20.81 Dausa 27.22 62.78 15.00 22.78

110

Dholpur 37.82 64.25 24.87 22.28 Jhalawar 42.42 71.97 13.64 10.61 Rajsamand 53.33 63.64 24.24 12.73 Tonk 20.00 75.00 16.67 41.67 40.91 64.82 20.27 19.36 BPL Baran 26.01 64.10 19.41 13.55 Churu 28.51 46.59 7.23 15.26 Dausa 23.33 58.33 13.67 22.33 Dholpur 25.62 56.17 16.36 20.37 Jhalawar 27.62 78.10 8.57 22.38 Rajsamand 38.18 68.73 14.91 13.82 Tonk 26.63 66.33 12.56 28.14 27.92 61.91 13.61 19.07 Appendix Table 3.20: Child Care Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 45.34 61.49 27.33 8.07 Churu 42.28 70.47 15.44 18.12 Dausa 32.22 70.56 17.22 25.56 Dholpur 52.85 74.61 30.57 23.32 Jhalawar 49.24 65.15 15.15 7.58 Rajsamand 58.18 67.88 22.42 9.70 Tonk 30.83 81.67 24.17 43.33 44.91 70.09 22.09 19.00 BPL Baran 34.80 65.93 25.27 18.68 Churu 38.55 54.62 8.84 11.65 Dausa 27.33 63.33 21.00 25.00 Dholpur 38.27 67.28 17.90 19.44 Jhalawar 37.14 72.86 12.38 22.38 Rajsamand 40.73 66.55 11.64 14.18 Tonk 29.15 63.82 13.07 27.14 35.25 64.86 16.17 19.56 Appendix Table 3.21: Old Age Care Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 48.45 54.04 24.84 9.32 Churu 40.94 62.42 23.49 26.17 Dausa 49.44 56.67 26.11 21.11 Dholpur 36.79 61.66 34.20 19.69 Jhalawar 43.18 56.82 30.30 15.15 Rajsamand 49.09 58.18 31.52 12.12 Tonk 36.67 76.67 34.17 45.00 43.73 60.36 29.18 20.36 BPL Baran 49.45 54.58 27.84 10.99 Churu 28.11 41.77 16.06 15.66 Dausa 38.67 52.00 24.67 23.00 Dholpur 19.44 44.75 24.07 20.68 Jhalawar 25.71 57.62 21.43 24.76 Rajsamand 35.64 53.09 20.36 13.82 Tonk 28.64 53.27 16.08 23.62 32.40 50.66 21.91 18.69 Appendix Table 3.22: Who Does the Ploughing Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 83.23 32.30 39.75 6.21 Churu 69.80 13.42 10.07 3.36 Dausa 60.56 28.89 15.00 8.89 Dholpur 70.98 36.27 27.46 5.18 Jhalawar 81.82 9.09 28.79 1.52 Rajsamand 70.30 27.27 21.82 1.82 Tonk 60.83 43.33 33.33 18.33 71.00 27.55 24.82 6.18

111

BPL Baran 51.28 10.26 15.02 1.83 Churu 63.05 14.86 11.65 3.21 Dausa 43.33 22.67 12.67 9.33 Dholpur 42.59 33.64 19.75 5.56 Jhalawar 52.38 34.76 25.24 14.29 Rajsamand 61.82 30.18 13.45 2.91 Tonk 45.73 19.10 12.56 6.53 51.15 23.83 15.68 6.01 Appendix Table 3.23: Who Does the Sowing Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 85.09 39.75 39.13 6.21 Churu 75.84 29.53 15.44 6.71 Dausa 65.56 43.33 20.56 10.56 Dholpur 79.79 64.77 38.34 10.36 Jhalawar 86.36 33.33 32.58 3.03 Rajsamand 76.97 41.82 26.67 3.64 Tonk 70.00 52.50 43.33 20.83 77.00 44.27 30.55 8.55 BPL Baran 56.78 20.88 15.75 1.83 Churu 67.87 23.69 13.65 4.42 Dausa 46.67 31.67 12.67 10.33 Dholpur 49.38 43.52 24.69 6.48 Jhalawar 57.14 50.48 29.05 15.24 Rajsamand 67.64 42.91 17.82 6.18 Tonk 52.76 37.19 19.60 11.56 56.56 35.52 18.80 7.65 Appendix Table 3.24: Who Does the Irrigation Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 88.82 68.32 44.72 10.56 Churu 57.72 28.86 16.11 4.70 Dausa 69.44 58.33 27.78 16.11 Dholpur 75.65 61.14 37.82 8.81 Jhalawar 85.61 56.06 37.12 7.58 Rajsamand 73.33 50.30 27.88 6.67 Tonk 75.00 59.17 45.00 25.00 74.91 54.91 33.45 11.00 BPL Baran 52.75 39.19 21.98 5.13 Churu 42.97 24.50 12.85 5.22 Dausa 49.00 40.67 17.67 12.33 Dholpur 41.98 38.58 20.99 6.17 Jhalawar 55.71 49.52 30.95 17.14 Rajsamand 68.00 50.91 20.36 8.00 Tonk 55.78 40.20 24.12 10.55 51.86 40.38 20.87 8.91 Appendix Table 3.25: Who Does the Interculture Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 88.82 54.66 37.27 8.07 Churu 81.88 57.05 39.60 16.78 Dausa 66.67 59.44 22.78 15.00 Dholpur 82.90 78.24 40.93 9.84 Jhalawar 84.85 65.91 41.67 7.58 Rajsamand 75.76 56.36 30.91 9.09 Tonk 78.33 65.83 56.67 29.17 79.64 62.73 37.55 13.09 BPL Baran 56.78 49.08 24.18 7.33 Churu 77.91 56.63 32.93 19.28 Dausa 43.67 39.00 17.67 11.33 Dholpur 49.38 44.14 22.84 6.79 Jhalawar 60.95 56.67 34.76 18.10

112

Rajsamand 70.91 57.45 23.64 10.91 Tonk 56.78 39.70 25.63 10.05 58.80 48.69 25.36 11.58 Appendix Table 3.26: Who Does the harvesting Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 89.44 54.66 39.75 8.70 Churu 83.22 69.80 41.61 17.45 Dausa 65.56 60.56 27.22 16.67 Dholpur 81.87 77.72 41.45 11.40 Jhalawar 84.85 67.42 45.45 10.61 Rajsamand 75.15 58.79 31.52 10.91 Tonk 80.00 69.17 56.67 29.17 79.64 65.45 39.55 14.45 BPL Baran 57.51 47.62 26.01 9.52 Churu 81.53 66.67 36.14 18.47 Dausa 45.00 38.67 19.67 13.33 Dholpur 50.62 48.15 23.15 8.02 Jhalawar 60.95 57.14 33.81 17.62 Rajsamand 72.00 60.00 24.73 11.64 Tonk 61.31 46.73 28.64 11.56 60.49 51.69 26.83 12.57 Appendix Table 3.27: Who Does the Threshing Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 88.20 73.91 45.34 21.12 Churu 83.89 78.52 44.30 20.13 Dausa 68.89 55.00 27.78 13.33 Dholpur 79.79 71.50 40.93 10.36 Jhalawar 86.36 71.97 46.97 14.39 Rajsamand 78.18 62.42 31.52 9.70 Tonk 80.00 70.83 57.50 33.33 80.36 68.73 41.00 16.64 BPL Baran 57.51 44.69 25.27 9.52 Churu 82.73 73.49 37.35 17.67 Dausa 46.67 40.67 20.67 13.33 Dholpur 50.62 42.28 22.53 7.10 Jhalawar 61.90 56.67 35.24 19.05 Rajsamand 72.00 60.00 24.36 11.27 Tonk 63.32 51.76 30.15 15.08 61.26 51.97 27.21 12.79 Appendix Table 3.28: Who Does the Medbandi Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 81.99 39.75 34.16 9.32 Churu 77.18 60.40 32.89 13.42 Dausa 67.22 25.56 22.22 6.67 Dholpur 78.24 32.64 35.75 4.15 Jhalawar 82.58 25.00 38.64 6.06 Rajsamand 75.76 36.97 29.70 5.45 Tonk 77.50 58.33 43.33 21.67 76.91 38.82 33.18 8.91 BPL Baran 55.31 20.88 19.78 4.03 Churu 73.49 53.41 25.30 8.43 Dausa 44.00 19.00 18.00 5.67 Dholpur 49.07 32.72 19.14 3.70 Jhalawar 55.71 38.57 30.00 16.67 Rajsamand 69.09 46.55 23.27 9.82 Tonk 63.32 39.70 24.62 12.56 57.81 35.03 22.35 8.09 Appendix Table 3.29: Who Does the Animal Grazing

113

Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 41.61 63.35 39.75 22.36 Churu 58.39 80.54 39.60 27.52 Dausa 42.78 62.22 30.00 20.56 Dholpur 50.78 72.54 25.39 21.24 Jhalawar 76.52 43.94 36.36 15.15 Rajsamand 45.45 60.61 26.06 15.15 Tonk 75.00 73.33 60.00 32.50 54.09 65.45 35.36 21.73 BPL Baran 24.18 50.55 33.70 23.44 Churu 66.67 82.73 46.59 32.13 Dausa 28.00 59.00 25.00 29.00 Dholpur 41.67 52.47 25.00 20.68 Jhalawar 59.52 51.43 37.14 22.86 Rajsamand 55.64 65.45 32.00 21.45 Tonk 62.81 53.77 35.68 25.63 46.67 59.34 32.84 24.92 Appendix Table 3.30: Who Does the Milching of Animals Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 8.70 80.75 4.35 18.01 Churu 24.83 88.59 11.41 23.49 Dausa 29.44 72.78 11.67 20.00 Dholpur 39.38 74.09 16.06 15.03 Jhalawar 73.48 73.48 34.09 10.61 Rajsamand 31.52 70.30 10.91 13.33 Tonk 55.83 84.17 41.67 32.50 36.00 77.27 17.18 18.55 BPL Baran 12.09 61.90 5.13 14.65 Churu 36.14 87.95 13.25 21.69 Dausa 22.67 65.67 11.33 25.00 Dholpur 37.96 54.01 17.90 15.43 Jhalawar 52.38 60.48 27.62 22.86 Rajsamand 39.27 74.55 20.73 17.45 Tonk 47.24 73.87 20.10 23.62 34.21 67.70 16.07 19.78 Appendix Table 3.31: Who Does the Cleaning of Animal Shed Male Female Boy Girl APL Baran 6.83 81.99 8.70 33.54 Churu 18.79 87.92 10.07 45.64 Dausa 18.33 70.56 12.78 43.33 Dholpur 39.38 74.09 15.54 43.01 Jhalawar 27.27 78.79 17.42 31.06 Rajsamand 21.21 72.12 11.52 32.73 Tonk 43.33 82.50 38.33 55.83 24.64 77.73 15.45 40.45 BPL Baran 14.29 64.84 19.78 27.84 Churu 27.71 85.94 8.43 51.41 Dausa 15.67 66.67 11.67 41.00 Dholpur 38.58 53.70 18.21 36.73 Jhalawar 36.19 64.29 23.33 39.05 Rajsamand 28.73 77.82 16.00 28.36 Tonk 31.66 73.37 18.59 42.71 Total 27.21 68.85 16.34 37.76 Appendix Table 3.32: Who Comes Forward To Deal With Distress Situation 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 APL Baran 34.16 21.74 19.25 17.39 5.59 0.62 1.24

114

Churu 47.65 24.16 16.78 4.70 4.70 2.01 0.00 Dausa 40.00 26.11 13.89 10.56 7.22 0.56 1.67 Dholpur 30.57 48.19 9.84 4.66 5.70 1.04 0.00 Jhalawar 80.30 15.91 2.27 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 Rajsamand 40.61 35.76 7.88 8.48 5.45 1.82 0.00 Tonk 35.83 29.17 23.33 5.00 2.50 3.33 0.83 Total 43.00 29.64 13.09 7.55 4.73 1.45 0.55 BPL Baran 71.43 13.92 8.79 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 Churu 49.00 24.50 14.86 8.03 2.01 1.61 0.00 Dausa 41.33 22.00 18.67 10.33 4.33 2.67 0.67 Dholpur 29.63 36.42 21.60 10.80 0.93 0.62 0.00 Jhalawar 39.52 35.24 20.00 4.29 0.00 0.95 0.00 Rajsamand 56.00 17.45 12.00 10.18 4.36 0.00 0.00 Tonk 54.27 16.58 13.07 5.03 7.54 3.52 0.00 Total 48.20 23.93 15.74 7.70 3.06 1.26 0.11 Note: 1- Every person would deal with the problem individually and migrate for work; 2- kins among themselves; 3- the sarpanch and other members of panchayat; 4- all village leaders acting together; 5- entire village; 8- don’t know/ not sure; 9- refused to reply.

115

Appendix Table 3.33: Who in the Village Looks after Common Pastures 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 APL Baran 17.39 18.63 17.39 18.63 9.94 17.39 0.62 Churu 42.28 27.52 16.11 8.72 2.68 2.68 0.00 Dausa 23.89 15.00 23.33 12.22 8.89 10.56 6.11 Dholpur 15.03 51.30 14.51 9.33 6.22 1.55 2.07 Jhalawar 34.09 3.79 40.15 12.88 1.52 7.58 0.00 Rajsamand 24.24 26.67 18.79 10.91 6.06 12.12 1.21 Tonk 31.67 24.17 19.17 15.83 4.17 2.50 2.50 Total 26.00 25.00 20.82 12.45 5.91 7.91 1.91 BPL Baran 41.39 16.12 13.92 3.66 2.56 22.34 0.00 Churu 50.20 25.30 10.84 8.84 2.01 2.81 0.00 Dausa 21.33 16.33 22.33 13.00 6.33 17.33 3.33 Dholpur 25.00 26.54 30.56 13.89 0.62 1.54 1.85 Jhalawar 27.62 9.05 20.95 24.76 5.71 11.90 0.00 Rajsamand 24.00 15.64 22.55 14.18 4.00 18.55 1.09 Tonk 40.70 14.07 10.55 20.60 8.04 5.03 1.01 Total 32.13 18.14 19.56 13.55 3.93 11.53 1.15 Notes: 1- no one does anything for protecting these lands; 2- there are old customs that are followed here; 3- our leaders take decisions that we follow; 4- a village committee exists that takes decisions jointly; 5- we all discuss and jointly decide what is to be done; don’t know; 9- refused to reply. Appendix Table 3.34: Poor Man’s Land Encroached, Who takes Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 APL Baran 29.19 26.09 9.32 13.04 6.21 8.70 6.21 Churu 50.34 5.37 20.13 11.41 6.71 2.01 4.03 Dausa 35.56 21.67 13.89 12.78 5.00 6.67 2.22 Dholpur 10.36 41.45 19.17 17.62 4.15 5.70 1.04 Jhalawar 17.42 21.21 22.73 23.48 10.61 0.76 3.79 Rajsamand 18.18 36.36 21.21 9.09 7.88 2.42 4.24 Tonk 20.83 21.67 12.50 28.33 8.33 3.33 3.33 Total 25.82 25.73 17.00 15.91 6.73 4.45 3.45 BPL Baran 60.44 9.89 17.58 3.66 3.30 1.10 3.66 Churu 58.63 8.03 14.06 10.44 4.02 1.20 3.61 Dausa 24.33 22.33 15.33 19.67 6.33 3.67 6.00 Dholpur 12.65 26.23 26.54 25.62 4.94 0.93 2.78 Jhalawar 15.71 29.05 14.76 15.24 18.57 4.29 2.38 Rajsamand 31.27 18.55 15.64 18.91 10.18 1.82 2.91 Tonk 25.63 17.59 17.09 15.08 10.05 10.05 3.52 Total 32.51 18.91 17.65 15.96 7.70 2.95 3.61 Notes: 1- The person would deal with the problem individually; 2- kins would support and get land vacated; 3- the caste Panchayat would support and get land vacated; 4- sarpanch and other members get land vacated; 5- all village leaders Acting together and get the land vacated; 6- entire village gets the land vacated; 8- don’t know.

116

Appendix Table 3.35: If Women is Molested, Who comes Forward 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 APL Baran 10.56 44.10 13.66 8.07 9.94 0.00 12.42 Churu 21.48 35.57 26.85 10.07 2.01 0.00 4.03 Dausa 7.22 43.33 30.00 12.22 2.78 0.00 2.22 Dholpur 3.63 49.74 25.91 16.06 2.59 0.00 1.55 Jhalawar 0.00 65.91 12.12 16.67 1.52 0.00 2.27 Rajsamand 4.85 53.94 17.58 14.55 4.24 0.00 3.03 Tonk 5.00 29.17 28.33 27.50 5.00 0.00 4.17 7.55 46.27 22.27 14.55 4.00 0.00 4.18 BPL Baran 20.15 52.01 11.36 4.40 2.56 0.00 9.52 Churu 19.68 34.94 27.31 11.24 1.61 0.00 5.22 Dausa 8.00 42.00 27.00 11.67 3.33 0.33 6.00 Dholpur 2.16 40.43 33.95 16.05 4.01 0.00 2.16 Jhalawar 0.00 39.05 26.19 25.71 8.10 0.00 0.95 Rajsamand 7.27 47.27 20.73 12.73 5.45 0.36 4.73 Tonk 8.54 40.20 30.15 12.56 4.02 0.00 4.02 Total 9.40 42.51 25.25 13.17 4.04 0.11 4.75 Note: 1- family would keep quit; 2- kins; 3- caste panchayat; 4- village panchayat; 5- majority of women in village; 8- don’t know; 9- refused to reply.

117

Chapter 4

Sub- Project Activities: Performance and Directions

In this chapter we try to analyze the sub-project activities. The field survey in 2007-08 covered 272 sub group activities in five main areas across the

districts. Distribution of these activities reveals that the highest number is in Jhalawar

followed by Dholpur and Dausa. The least number are in Rajsamand.

Of the five activities, 54 percent are animal based/ dairy based followed by micro enterprises,

infrastructure and land based activities (table 4.1). Social service activities constitute only

around 5 percent. Table 4.1: Type of Activities --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISTRICT Animal Infrastru Land based Micro Social Total Husbandry -structure enterprise service NO. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baran 44.8 20.7 10.3 24.1 29 Churu 26.9 15.4 19.2 19.2 19.2 26 Dholpur 88.1 2.4 9.5 42 Dausa 39.0 4.9 22.0 17.1 17.1 41 Jhalawar 60.3 24.7 1.4 13.7 73 Rajsamand 26.1 8.7 43.5 21.7 23 Tonk 60.5 2.6 15.8 18.4 2.6 38 Percent 53.7 12.5 12.5 16.5 4.8 272 Number 146 34 34 45 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total CIG members involved in 272 activities are 2805; on an average 10.3 members per

CIG. The maximum numbers of members are in animal husbandry (1634) and the least

number in social service activities (table 4.2). Of these members, 1416 are females and the

rest males. On an average, women are based in animal husbandry, infrastructure projects and

micro enterprises, while in other activities more men on average are engaged.

118

Table 4.2: Average Number of CIG Members by Sex ACTIVITY Male Female Total Member Animal Mean 6.95 7.54 11.19 N 107 118 146 Sum 744 890 1634 Infra Mean 6.84 8.05 10.00 N 25 21 34 Sum 171 169 340 Land Mean 7.21 3.39 8.74 N 28 28 34 Sum 202 95 297 Micro Mean 8.35 8.54 9.38 N 26 24 45 Sum 217 205 422 social Mean 7.86 5.18 8.62 N 7 11 13 Sum 55 57 112 Total Mean 7.20 7.01 10.31 N 193 202 272 Sum 1389 1416 2805

At the district level, there are 12 CIGs which do not have women members and also men as

members. There are inter- district gender variations.

Further, 30.1 percent of CIGs are male exclusive and 34.2 percent female exclusive with 35.7

percent mixed in nature (table 4.3). Across districts in Baran, Jhalawar, Rajsamand and Tonk,

the proportion of exclusive male CIGs is higher than the exclusive female CIGs. Mixed

groups are more predominant in Churu, Dholpur and Rajsamand districts, relative to other

districts. Table 4.3: Type of Group District Male Female Mixed Total Baran 51.7 31.0 17.2 29 Churu 15.4 42.3 42.3 26 Dholpur 4.8 52.4 42.9 42 Dousa 19.5 39.0 41.5 41 Jhalawar 38.4 26.0 35.6 73 Rajsama 47.8 13.0 39.1 23 Tonk 36.8 34.2 28.9 38 Total 30.1 34.2 35.7 272 82 93 97 There are a few NGOs across districts which have more CIGs supported by them and they are

IIRD, Bait, PFT, RCUF and Cecoedecon.

119

Type of SPA

In Baran district, 65.52 percent SPA are income generating, 42.31 percent in Churu, 97.62

percent in Dholpur, 56.1 percent in Dausa 73.97 percent in Jhalawar, 47.83 percent in

Rajasamand and 78.95 percent in Tonk.

In Baran, the second most important SPA is infrastructure, Land based, infrastructure and

social services based in Churu; land based in Dausa, infrastructure in Jhalawar and land based

in Rajasamand and Tonk. This shows that Churu has been more balanced in such

interventions compared to other districts which have relied on one or two SPAs.

Who are the partners in SPAs? This information is available for 44 SPAs. It is revealed that

RCDF tops followed by RUDA, BASIX and others.

Across districts scheduled caste as a social group predominates, though in Dholpur, Churu

and Tonk scheduled tribes are significant.

Income generating SPAs too predominate across districts, though in Churu half the SPAs are

also non-income generating ones.

Except for Churu, Tonk and Dausa, BPL category out number non BPL category households.

Did the NGO/DPM organized awareness meeting in the village? Only in 21 cases the

response was positive.

Did NGO/DPM organized awareness meeting in the village? It appears that in Dholpur and to

lesser extent in Jhalawar meetings were not organized. In all other districts, overwhelming

proportion reported that meetings were organized. In Churu, Rajsamand and Tonk, a greater

proportion revealed that meetings with PRIs members were held.

To some extent in Rajsamand and Tonk relatively reportedly slogan for all posters writing in

the village was done.

120

Finally, all the methods were not used in Baran, Dausa and to a large extent in Jhalawar and

Dholpur. In other districts, some or the other method was deployed for building awareness on

DPIP.

Did the NGO/village entry team discuss infrastructure facilities, social resources, need

assessment, social evils like dowry etc. The response shows that in Rajsamand and Tonk and

to a lesser extent in Churu, infrastructure facilities available in the village were discussed. In

Dholpur 57.14 percent and 41.1 percent in Jhalawar reported that discussions were held.

Social resources of the village were discussed in Rajasamand, Tonk with lesser extent in

Churu followed by Dholpur.

Need assessment of the village was largely discussed in Rajsamand followed by Tonk, Churu

and Dholpur. In other districts not much importance was given.

A similar pattern is observed in case of social evils like dowry, though with lower intensity.

Women Participation

What was the extent of participation of women in awareness meetings? The response was

scaled as up to 20 percent, 21 to 50 percent, 51 plus. The response reveals that across districts,

a significant proportion with varied intensity women participation was between 21 to 50

percent in awareness meetings. It is only in Rajasamand, Tonk and Churu around one-fourth

reported women participation to the extent of 51 percent and above.

CIG Formation

How was CIG formed? The first question was whether the individuals approached CF/PFT

and asked to join a particular group. The response shows that except for Baran and Jhalawar

in all other districts below 37 percent affirmed it. Were some villagers approached by CF/PFT

to join a group? The response shows that only in Baran, Dausa and Jhalawar little more than

half the CIGs affirmed that is happened.

Was the information regarding the project given in a gram sabha? The response revealed that

it occurred to some extent in Tonk and Churu (46% plus).

121

Were the villagers informed about the project in the gram sabha, given the option of joining

different groups, formed group there and then? The response reveals that except for Baran,

Dausa and Jhalawar in all other districts the proportion was 64 percent plus.

Whether specific villagers were informed by the CF first and then a gram sabha was held.

This largely did not happen across districts. Besides, available options were hardly discussed

in gram sabha. CF largely failed to give any information in any of the districts.

On issue of who facilitated the group formation, the response reveals that NGO’s role is

limited; though in Dholpur 16.7 percent affirmed it. The role of CF/PPT as facilitator was

largely acknowledged in Baran, Dholpur, Dausa and Jhalawar. In other districts though

CF/PPTs did help in group formation, the role was limited. It however, emerges that in Baran

and Tonk quite a significant percentage of groups were formed their own. The role of PRI has

been negligible. A combination of all the above facilitator was quite visible in Churu,

Rajsamand, Tonk and Dholpur.

The selection of President and treasurer of the group was largely across the districts through

common acceptance.

There is a mixed response to the question on time taken for group formation. Most groups

were formed in a month’s time followed more than a month and fortnight. Very few groups

were reportedly formed within a week.

On the issue of bank account opening for the group, it is found that 63.41 percent in Dausa to

78.57 percent in Dholpur CF, president and treasurer helped in opening the account. President

of the group was active in Baran, Dausa and Jhalawar (more than one fifth groups). All CIG

members were also instrumental in opening the bank account (4.11% in Jhalawar and 15.79%

in Tonk). Treasurer has a limited role in this as widely reported.

Group Functioning

Few questions were asked from the group members on functioning of the groups. It was found

that most groups in Churu, Dholpur, Dausa, Tonk and Rajsamand only did saving and no

loaning. However, 5.26 percent groups in Tonk to 53.42 percent groups in Jhalawar only CIG

formation took place and no savings. Groups did not get into activities like saving and loaning

122

only for consumption purposes. This means groups performed a limited function in all

districts except Tonk followed by Rajsamand and Churu.

Loans for consumption purposes were given by 69.1 percent groups in Dholpur followed by

51.2 percent in Dausa and 31.0 percent in Baran. In other districts, the proportion ranged

between a low of 5.26 percent in Tonk and 21.92 percent in Jhalawar. Defaulters were very

few as reported in Dausa. Churu, Jhalawar, Baran and Dholpur. In all, in 12 groups across the

districts reported default by members.

Amount of Monthly Savings

A large number -77 groups reported no monthly savings by members. Another 7 groups

reported per member monthly saving of Re.1 to Rs.5. In Baran district, 24.1 percent groups

saved Rs.50 per member per month followed by 10.3 percent groups saving Rs.100. In Churu,

majority of groups saved Rs.20, though a few saved Rs.50 also. In Dholpur, majority of

groups saved Rs.40 or less, while in Dausa, 34.2 percent saved Rs.50 per month per member.

The saving ranged between Re.1 to Rs.25. There were 14.63 percent groups saving Rs.100. In

Jhalawar, 35.62 percent reportedly saved Rs.50, while 56.52 percent groups in Rajsamand

saved Rs.20 and half the groups in Tonk did so too.

Regularity of Deposits

It is found that with the exception of Baran and Jhalawar, in all other districts, all the,

members deposited on time or more than 90 percent did so. Very few groups reported 70 to

90 percent members depositing saving on time. In Dausa, 17.1 percent groups did report that

less than 70 percent members deposited savings on time.

In Dholpur 66.7 percent groups regularly held meetings every fortnight; 73.1 percent in Churu

held meetings every month; 37.9 percent in Baran held meeting irregularly while 34.5 percent

held meetings every month. In Dausa, 41.5 percent groups held meetings every month with

36.6 percent being irregular. In Jhalawar, 32.9 percent met every month, but 37 percent were

irregular. In Rajsamand, 86.96 percent groups met regularly every month, while 94.74 percent

in Tonk did so .Monthly meeting seems to be the emerging trend.

What is the attendance level in these meetings? In Churu, Dholpur, Dausa and Tonk more

than fifty percent groups reported 70-90 percent attendance. More than 90 percent attendance

123

is reported in 10.34 percent groups in Baran to 42.86 percent in Dholpur. Less than 70 percent

attendance is reported in Baran mainly (44.83%), Dausa, Jhalawar and Rajsamand.

In Dholpur and Tonk register is all written and updated in less than 10 percent groups, while

in other districts the percent age varies between 23.1 percent in Churu to 43.5 percent in

Rajsamand. Some written and updated records are maintained by 90.5 percent groups in

Dholpur and 20.6 percent in Jhalawar. Records are mostly not written or updated in the range

of 5.48 percent groups in Jhalawar and 23.68 percent in Tonk.

Compared to groups in Tonk, in all other districts there is only moderate unity among

members. In Baran district, about one-tenth groups had weak unity among members.

Total Awareness of group’s work is highest in Jhalawar (26% groups) and the least in Baran

(6.9% groups). In case where more then 90 percent members are aware of group’s work,

Dholpur has 52.38 percent groups compared to 10.34 percent groups in Baran. Are 70 to 90

percent members aware of group’s work, the response reveals that 34.48 percent groups in

Baran reported so followed by Dausa, Tonk, Jhalawar, Churu and Rajsamand. A sizeable

percentage of groups across the district reported that less than 70 percent of members are

aware of group’s work.

In Baran, Dausa and Jhalawar around 60 percent groups reported that CF maintain the register

and other CIG records. President performs this role in 86 percent groups in Dholpur, 45

percent groups in Tonk, 39 percent groups in Rajsamand, 34.6 percent groups in Churu.

Treasurers and CIG members have hardly any role in this except in Tonk where 16 percent of

groups reportedly had CIGs doing this job. So it is mainly the President and CF who maintain

records.

Moderate to weak discrimination is reported in most groups across districts Discrimination is

significant in Dholpur.

Is there inter-loaning facility within the groups? The response reveals that it exists in 64.3

percent groups in Dholpur, 51.2 percent groups in Dausa, 21.9 percent groups in Jhalawar,

17.24 percent groups in Baran and the least in Tonk (5.3% groups).

124

Decision making in SPA

What was the process of finalizing the sub-project proposal?

Decided by CF/NGO or others, but not by group members– the response was affirmative in

26.7 percent groups in Baran, 15.4 percent in Churu, 26.2 percent in Dholpur, 17.1 percent in

Dausa, 21.9 percent in Jhalawar, were in Rajsamand and 7.9 percent in Tonk. At the

aggregate level, 47 groups of 272 reported so.

Decided by CF/NGO or others with a few, but not all group members– the response varied

between 5.26 percent groups in Tonk and 28.8 percent groups in Jhalawar in affirmative.

Again only 50 groups at the aggregate level said so.

Group members discussed a few given options, selected one option, and finalized the

proposal with the NGO-provided expert– the response was in affirmative in 43.9 percent

groups in Dausa and 78.3 percent groups in Rajsamand. In all, this happened in 161 groups of

the 272 groups.

Group members discussed a few given options with NGO– provided experts jointly selected

one option and finalized the proposal with the expert– the response was yes varying from no

group in Baran and 23.7 percent groups in Tonk. In all, only 22 groups said so.

Group members discussed all proposal options with NGO- provided experts, short listed a

few options, jointly selected one option and finalized the proposal with the expert. The

response was in affirmative in only 4 districts and response varied between a low of the 1.4

percent groups in Jhalawar to a high of 13.16 percent groups in Tonk in all, 11 groups

affirmed it.

Was a discussion held among the CIG member to select SPA– all the groups in Rajsamand

and Tonk affirmed it. In other districts, the response varied between 79.5 percent groups in

Jhalawar and 89.7 percent groups in Baran. In all, 231 groups affirmed that discussions were

held.

125

Is there any conversation between traditional occupation and SPA– it largely happened in

Baran, Dholpur and Tonk. In other districts, the proportion of group varied between 19.23

percent in Churu to 61.64 percent in Jhalawar.

Do the members of CIG know the total cost of the project? In Churu and Rajsamand none of

the groups reported that all members had the knowledge, while in other districts awareness

reported was 2.38 percent groups in Dholpur and 24.39 percent groups in Dausa.

On the issue of facilitation in SPA selection and proposal submission, it is revealed that CF

has not visited the group since the sub project proposal is as submitted on 15.32 per cent

groups in Jhalawar followed by 13.04 percent groups in Rajsamand and none in Dholpur and

Tonk. This means that CF did under take facilitation in large percent age of groups across

districts.

It is also observed that 46.34 percent groups reported that CF comes but not regularly and did

not provide all the required information in Dausa followed by 38.4 percent groups in

Jhalawar, 24.1 percent groups in Baran and just 4.76 percent groups in Dholpur. This means

though CFs did facilitate submission of sub project proposal, though they largely did not

provide all the necessary information.

CF performed average facilitation in terms of coming regularly, giving all the required

information, teaching how to open bank accounts and maintain account books in 12.9 percent

of groups in Dholpur, 86.8 percent groups in Tonk, 69.2 percent groups in Churu and about

39 percent groups in Dausa.

Did CF provide good facilitation in terms of all members knowing the date of visit of CF in

advance, knew when awareness and training programmes are to be held, the response was in

affirmative in 2.44 percent groups in Dausa and 21.05 percent groups in Tonk. On performing

this role CFs largely were found wanting.

Did CF provide excellent facilitation in terms of him teaching the group as to how to get

information from government offices and how to resolve conflicts without the group; the

response was in negative – only 2.44 percent groups in Dausa reported CF did this

facilitation.

126

Given these responses, CFs was not affective in facilitation. The limited role performed also

reflects on CF, attitude, skills, and involvement with the groups. This evaluation should also

be an on-going process.

Income through SPA

We find that of the 272 SPA, 225 generated income and it totaled Rs.157.31 lakh which

means Rs.9151 per benefited member and Rs.69914 per SPA (table 4.4). It is also observed

that Animal husbandry SPAs generated higher income per member and also per SPA. It is

followed by land-based SPA activities. The minimum income per member is generated in

micro-enterprises; only Rs.2284. This is the result of forward linkages been established

through dairy federation. There is assured price for output- milk. Table 4.4: SPA Income Rs. SPA Activities No of SPA Members SPA Income Per Member Per SPA Benefited Income Income Animal based 146 1470 14347246 9760 98269 Micro- enterprise 45 66 150740 2284 3350 Land based 34 183 1232757 6736 36258 Total 225 1719 15730743 9151 69914

02 0 0 04 0 0 06 0 0 08 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

R s .

A n i m a lB a s e d

T o t a l

S P A A c t i v i t y

P e r M e m b e r In c o m e f r o m S P A R s .

P e r M e m b e r

Additional Observations

The survey reveals that not all CIGs in SPAs are active and most of them belong to micro-

enterprises, animal husbandry and land based.

Among the micro-enterprises, nearly 18 percent are CIGS are not functional.

127

It may also be pointed out the selection of SPA was done without keeping in mind the choice

of the CIG members in most cases.

It took lot of time in formation of CIGs and getting their approval. It also took time for

purchase of assets. In the meantime the individuals lost interest in the CIG and it got

disbanded in quite a few places.

Also assets purchased largely have not been in tune with choice of the CIG members and

there was shortfall in assets that were made available and quality was questionable in large

number of cases.

CIG was provided training which was a merely a formality and many issues were left out. It

in the sense was an incomplete training that did not fully help in the running of activity.

There was limited contact between CIG and DPMU/DPC after training.

There has been lack of market linkages that were developed. Most CIGs faced marketing

problems.

There is lot of competition in the market and without proper design training, product is not

saleable.

In most micro enterprises, assets were of locally made and they became non-functional soon.

Assets were purchased through functionaries of NGOs, which led to purchase of poor quality

assets.

There are 11 percent inactive CIGs in animal husbandry SPA.

There has been a problem of insurance claim settlement after the death of the animal.

Bulk purchase from cattle fairs and haats led to purchase of poor quality animals.

In Baran, there was a problem of contribution by saharia community. In most cases, either the

NGO or landlord of the village deposited the amount and appropriated the assets later.

128

Full cost was not paid for all assets which led to many problems like borrowing from

moneylenders etc.

The poor relation between GO and NGO also created problems in purchase of assets and

provision of utilization certificates and completion certificates. This led to a lag in asset

availability and so did not lead to income generation.

In case of buffaloes, both the animals were not given together. In fact both the animals should

have been provided at the same time.

It is difficult to say whether land based SPA is active or not because even if one member of

the CIG is working, the SPA is active.

The strategy of providing an engine to 3-4 people, does not lead to active SPA because most

of the time they are not living together and different components get distributed.

Lack of rains lead to less water in the anicut and so poor crop.

In Rajsamand area, barren land was converted into cultivable land. But due to lack of water

and slow growth of plantation, the benefits did not accrue immediately.

As land of each CIG member is invariably not at the same site, registration of well and its

location becomes a problem.

There is another reason for CIG being non-active, that is water table going down and failure

of crops.

Case Studies

It was though pertinent to present few case studies that are successful. In this section we

present few of them.

Goatry

129

Village Nayagaon, located 25 kms from Tonk district headquarters. It is under gram

Panchayat Kakord in Uniara Block. There nearly 70 households in the village. The

main caste groups are- gujar, meena, viashnava, rajput, lohar and bhils. The main

occupation of the villagers is agriculture and animal husbandry. Among CIG groups,

a CIG named Bajrang was formed which related to goatry. It had five BPL families

coming from vaishnava pujari. They own land between 2- 4 bighas each. They are

traditionally priests. All CIG members had limited incomes and had incurred debt

overtime. The NGO and CF formed and got approved the CIG in 2003. They selected

goat rearing as activity. The group regularly saved Rs.2400 annually and deposited

the amount with the bank. The group was provided with Rs.119500 of which subsidy

amounted to Rs.23400 and Rs.96100 by DPIP for purchase of 15+1 goats per

member. This was tough task for the members, but they did not loose heart. At present

each member has 18-20 goats. The annual income per member is Rs.15000-20000. All

have constructed pucca houses now and have started sending children to school

especially girls. All of them shifted away from traditional occupation and were able to

supplement their income and got rid of debt.

Bee-keeping

In village Sunderpur in gram Panchayat Kashimpur is located at a distance of 25 kms

from district headquarter, there are 230 households. The main caste groups are-

Rajputs, Brahmins, Jatav, Harijan, Gadaria etc. There are about 120 BPL families in

the village. DPIP formed 8 CIGs comprising of buffaloes, goatry and bee-keeping. In

a CIG named Bajrang, there are 9 males and 3 feamles from BPL families. Most of the

CIG members are literate and also some educated up to primary level. All have same

economic status despite the caste grouping. All have around 1-3 bighas of land. CIG

selected bee-keeping SPA. It was formed and approved in August 2004. The first

installment was given to the CIG in December 2005. Each member had 10 boxes and

so the group had 120 boxes. DPIP have them Rs.367335 and the contribution of

members was Rs.40815. Thus total amount the CIG had was Rs.408150. Till

December 2007, the group earned net income of Rs.12000-15000 per member. Only

two members move out with boxes who are paid extra for this. Thus, members without

expending any time earn a good amount. The invested amount was recovered within

two years.

130

Chapter 5

Some Reflections of Stakeholders

One of the important component of the DPIP has been involvement of various types of institutions and

individual. The role and performance of these affect the overall performance of the program. Focus group

discussions and interview were held with many of the stakeholders. This chapter presents the view that emerged

from such interactions that bearing on the program.

C.F

The selection of BPL should rest with Institution/ Executing Agency. BPL list should form the basis of selection

of Gram Sabha members.

• Across the state subsidy on livestock activities is 20 percent. It should be rather based on economic base

of the area. Backward regions should have only 10 percent subsidy element and more so for goat

rearing activity because only relatively poor buy it.

• Government should directly pay the salary of CF. Agencies allegedly does not pay according to task

accomplished. It is argued that when less remuneration is paid, CFs do not work honestly.

• The area of operation of CF should be increased to 5 gram panchayats. Remuneration should be paid as

per the area of operation.

• The size of the group should be small to be effective. This is more so in case of enterprises. The

effective strength of the group should be 5-7 to have proper coordination between the individuals.

• CF model is supposed it better compared to PFT, as CF is local person with understanding of local

conditions etc.

Sarpanch

• Groups should be formed with knowledge of gram sabha. This is because it can help in screening of

needy individuals and linking them with gram sabha.

131

• It was also felt that verification of groups formed should be done by the panchayat.

• BPL list should not be sole the basis of selection of group members. Using P1 selection of needy

persons should be done.

• Group should meet under the chairmanship of ward panch regularly once a month without fail.

• The record of the group from the beginning should be with the panchayat. There should be yearly

evaluation of the group by the panchayat.

• The selection of the activities should be done in presence of panchayat members. This would help in

restraining any imposition of activity on the group.

• There should be annual training of panchayat members on the project/ activities. Members should be

involved right from the beginning of the program and their awareness should be built.

• Panchayat should have record of all developmental activities undertaken through the program.

DPM

• All NGOs should be bound under the program to first undertake PRA/PLA in concerned villages to

prepare plans, which are need based. For this purpose NGO should be provided with additional funds.

• The selection of CF should be done at the time of PRA/PLA being undertaken by NGO and opinion of

villagers should be taken into consideration. This would help in associating CF with the program right

from the beginning.

• Clusters should be formed in all blocks. All groups within the cluster should meet once in three months

at least. It is argued that information sharing should be done in presence of DPMU staff.

• All purchases should be outside the state/district. This helps in 100 percent purchase and improvement

in breed.

• There should be no role of NGO and the Vet in purchase of animals. Individual preferences should be

given value.

• Purchase should be done only through state level societies as this would help in reducing middlemen.

132

• All works/tasks should be undertaken with the help of NGO, as they understand the local situation

better. NGO perform better than GO.

• There should be a role assigned to DPMU in selection of NGO. There has to be some uniformity is

thinking of both.

• Preference be given to NGOs already working in a district and have experience in activities being

undertaken. The example of RCDF is cited.

• A NGO should be given limited villages or number of households to operate. Higher the number lower

is the efficiency.

• In order to have quality-based work, NGO should be assigned salary based tasks. However, targets till

need to be fixed.

• There should be periodic monitoring of NGO staff and NGO should have experienced staff.

• Institutions like RUDA should be associated with the program right from the beginning. Pre-entry

workshops should be organized wherein NGOs and DPMU are links are established. At present

organizations like BasiX are working at variant of DPMU. At present such organizations are sending

reports directly bypassing DPMU.

• There is no provision for training of staff of DPMU in the program. There should be orientation

program for a week to two weeks.

• All employees of DPMU should be in same grade irrespective of deputation. (this is a call for a

separate cadre).

• The staff of DPMU should be increased. One manager should have at least a three member staff.

• The responsibility of appointing contract staff in DPMU should on DPM and not on placement agency.

• There should be incentive for extra work for DPMU staff.

• There should be experienced persons appointed as DPM and managers. They should have rural

background. They should be appointed for at least three years or full time. These positions should not

be kept vacant for long.

• At the block level, there should be an M & L level branch of DPMU.

133

• Every three months there should be a meeting of DPMUs at the SPD level to review the progress.

• Circulars should not be periodically changed. Field workers loose confidence and take time to adjust

and so work suffers.

• SPD and managers should not be changed periodically. Each posting should be for minimum three

years.

• SPMU should be able to provide solutions to problems /queries within 15 days.

• SPMU should give preference to quality of work performed right from the beginning. At times,

preference to quantity leads to poor quality.

NGO

• It is felt that CF model is better compared to PFT model, as CF is a local person linked to the rural

setting and environment.

• The size of the group should be restricted to 5-7 members. More people hinder the cohesion of the

group.

• After the formation of the group, it should undertake the SHG task for at least two years. This means

savings and linkage for first year and for another one-year evaluation of repayment of the group be

done. This would help in screening the members of the group.

• The options on activities are put before the proven groups so that members could make choices.

• At the time of group formation, there should be no mention of sub-project activities.

• At time of selecting the activity, traditional jobs of individual should be kept in view. The activity

should be coherent with traditional activities of individuals. Thus, chance of failure gets limited.

• There should not be limit fixed on having only one activity in a village of similar nature. Imposition of

activities should be avoided.

• After the selection of the activity, the funds should be released within a month. It would help building

confidence of the members.

• The subsidy should be increased to 25 percent and paid through the bank. The argument is that if one-

fourth were the subsidy, then members would have greater responsibility/ attachment towards the asset.

134

• Fixed assets should be made available individually. Group assets create divisions.

• Efforts should be to cover the full cost of the asset.

• CIG members should be trained twice in project period and their income review should be done by the

agencies.

• There should be a district nodal agency overseeing all tasks.

• There should be a link institution between DPMU and NGOs. The nodal agency should have the

responsibility for raw material, training and market linkages.

• The tasks of NGO should be clearly defined in the beginning. Attempt should be not to revise the

guidelines periodically. It hinders the work culture of such organizations.

• There should be only one time contract with the NGO. No periodic extensions should be given. Output

should be clearly defined.

• The remuneration of NGO staff should go directly to their bank account to avoid corruption.

• NGO should have regular staff for the project and the DPC should be fixed. It should not be changed

periodically.

• NGO should not be bound to employ all types of experts with qualifications. They should be allowed to

use in-house experts on the subject. For instance, if the NGO is not working on micro enterprise, why

they should employ experts for micro enterprises.

• There should be annual training programs for NGO staff of the project.

• Line departments should be made accountable for the program. Files are held up in line departments for

long. A minimum time of 15 days should be fixed for clearing of all files.

• Circulars should be local condition based.

PRI

• At the time of formation of groups only BPL list should be the basis. Also P1 should be used to screen

needy individuals.

135

• Group formation should be done under the gram sabha supervision only. It would help in screening

needy people again. Verification could also be done by the panchayat.

• Regular meeting of the groups be held under the chairmanship of ward panches every month.

• Regular training of PRIs should be done on the aspects of the program every year.

• Panchayat members should have records of all developmental activities being undertaken.

General Comments of Villagers

• Villagers feel that the program is good as it provides lots of flexibility to poor individuals involved in

the program to choose activities.

• There was lees awareness about the program in Baran District. Most villagers took it as government

loan, which they have to repay latter. Only BPL individual s had greater awareness.

• Most people desire community and infrastructure activities because the whole village benefits.

• Most villagers argued that very needy are not benefited. This they argue is reflected by the list of

selected individuals. The selection of BPL family itself is faulty.

• Villagers feel that there is now division of the village into APL and BPL. APL families now have

started considering themselves poor. The impact of all this is that now APL families also try to get

themselves enlisted as BPL through all means.

• Villagers openly criticized the functioning of CF. They argued that CF is not honest and a villain. It was

also argued that many a cases BPLs were left out and CF using P1 linked their known persons with the

program.

• Villagers also alleged corruption by CF in purchases. They had invariably purchased asset from known

firms and took commission. This at times also led to higher cost for the asset.

• Villagers argued that selection of beneficiaries/ individuals should be done by outside agencies.

• Villagers also were not happy about the way selection of CF is made. They pointed out that agency

selected those individuals suitable to it. The selection should be through the gram sabha.

• Most activities were not selected keeping group’s choice. Activities have been imposed on the groups.

Traditional jobs should get weight-age in selection of activities.

This discussion reveals the interests of various groups/ stakeholders. Some of the suggestions are appropriate

that can help in better functioning of the DPIP.

136

Chapter 6

Conclusions DPIP in Rajasthan has been a major initiative in the recent times to eradicate poverty in rural Rajasthan. It has been a concerted effort that saw serious planning and involvement at the grass root level. The project was launched in seven districts in 2000. It started with social assessment in the first phase. Social assessment was done through the help of NGOs in the seven districts. Since then the project has seen many ups and down and varied types of modifications. It linked livelihood activities, capacity building, awareness building, gender relations and involvement of major institutions like NABARD and Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation. The objectives of the projects were quite ambitious. The various stakeholders had different way of looking at the whole project and the outcomes are at times exogenously determined. The group concept was central to the project. CIGs became a vehicle to achieve the objectives of the project. The processes in this regards became an integral part of the project. The group formation, its functioning and role of facilitators became vital in achieving the desired results. Many corrections were also applied during the course of implementation of the project. In the initial phases of the project, the mixed guidelines and delay in these guidelines in reaching the lowest level did create problems and slowed down the processes. For instance, the whole method of group formation by NGOs in the initial stages created problems for all. At the end of 7 years period, one can say that there are mixed results of the project. We find that the economic returns from the Sub Project Activities are reasonable; varying across the projects. Dairy projects have been able to generate regular income flows due to significant forward linkages. In others, returns are linked to local demand and environment and group dynamics appears to be playing a role. The impact can also be seen in terms of increased incomes, reduced family sizes, creation of assets, and enhanced women participation in decision making. More specifically, the average income of the CIG member household increased from Rs.18362 from the baseline year 2001 to Rs.32668, while that of the control group, non-CIG member households, increased from Rs.19100 to Rs.29390 during the same period. This shows that DPIP linked households observed higher increase. CIG households sell their produce to local trader largely due to lower marketable surplus compared to other groups. A higher proportion of CIG households sell milk in Churu and Dausa while in other districts relatively lower proportion sells milk compared to non-CIG households. But the percentage selling milk in Dholpur and Jhalawar is higher than 62 percent. The average income earned from selling milk by CIG household is Rs.16496 locally compared to Rs.13496 in case of non-CIG household. CIG households earn higher income by selling to cooperative sector compared to non-CIG households.

137

The main source of income besides, DPIP activity is agriculture, wage labour, casual labour and animal husbandry. There has been an increase of 15-18 percent in agriculture income across districts. Wage labour outside the district has grown in some districts. In most districts per capita income has improved from all sources. The average land held by CIG household has declined from 4.72 bighas to 3.65 bighas and it declined from 5.06 bighas to 3.47 bighas in case of non-CIG households. Here again, CIG households have performed better. Area cultivable has gone up from 4 to 5 bighas in case of CIG households Area irrigated has improved from 1 bigha to 4 bighas for CIG households. Number cows and goats have declined, while number of buffaloes has increased due to DPIP for CIG households. A similar pattern of change is observed in case of BPL and APL households in the study. Around 18 percent of SPAs in micro enterprises are inactive. Around 11 percent SPAs are inactive in case of animal husbandry activity. Animal based SPAs have generated Rs.9760 per member compared to Rs.2284 in case of micro-enterprises and Rs.6736 in case of land based SPAs. Per SPA income turns out to be Rs.98269 for animal SPA followed by Rs.36258 in case of land-based SPA and Rs.3350 in case of micro-enterprise SPA. Gender relations have improved and so has the social capital. Health and education profile of the households have also improved. Household size has declined in Baran, Jhalawar, Rajsamand and Tonk districts. Migration in most districts has reduced in case of CIG households compared to non-CIG households. Across the districts among CIG member households, households with kucha house have declined and pucca rooms have increased (197 households in 2001 to 380 households in 2007). CIG households with toilets too have increased from 17 to 87 during 2001-2007 and increase is across districts. CIG households with animal sheds increased from 362 in 2001 to 472 and increase is across districts. CIG households with electricity connections also went up from 71 to 162 and increase is across districts. CIG households with fan doubled during the period, though a decline is observed in Baran district. CIG households with radio more doubled to 204 in 2007, but number went down in Churu and Tonk. CIG households with telephone increased from3 in 2001 to 118 in 2007 and increase is across districts. Similar increases are observed in other assets like television,

138

watches, bicycles, sprinklers, chaff cutters, but declines are observed in carts, diesel pumpsets, and other agricultural implements. Suggestions There are many lessons to be learnt in the processes and outcomes. There are many grey areas where added efforts and more systematic approach to issues would have led to better performance. All stakeholders have something to learn because all were found wanting. Any intervention of such a magnitude is bound to have varied experiences for different stakeholders. It appears that enroute modifications are necessary to achieve better results. Poor have limited capacity to realize fuller gains from such interventions. Sustainability of assets and skills would go a long way in future to help poor get out poverty. Clusters need to be formed to help create demands and service supply channels. State has its limitations and civil society involvement can go to an extent; their capacities in terms of manpower and interventions are limited too. Panchayati Raj Institutions can only keep checks and balances as the rural communities are increasingly at crossroads to share limited gains that accrue from such interventions. Such programs need to synergize with other on-going activities in the village. Systems needs to made simple that can be easily adopted. Capacity building component has been weak, greater thinking and dedication is required. The whole training procedure is not result oriented, but more of a formality. Training has to be better designed. The group formation process appeared to be more adhoc, rather than reflecting sound group formation theory and processes. Not all NGOs have equal capacity to form groups that are to be income generating ones in the end. No where it appeared that skill mapping was done of individuals and market survey was done to facilitate activities. Here facilitating institutions has not performed the required role. Dairy sector is easier than other sectors because for a primary producer the effort ends with sale of milk, but in other micro enterprises forward linkages at times are to be developed and they may also keep changing with changing demand. The task also is not easy. It must be recognized that poor are not a homogeneous group. Any planning and intervention must keep this in focus. There is a need to have a re-look at the tendering procedure for groups. The present procedure has a danger of corruption creeping in. Not for all trades/ activities/ assets tenders can be obtained. Asset costs should be fully met. Circulars should be simple and few. There have instances been where more problems were created than solving them. Clarity is must of procedures for better results. The externalities generated by infrastructure projects should be capitalized. The flow of inward services should be effectively used. DPIP should be meshed with programs like NREGA to create infrastructure that can be used by CIGs.

139

Subsidy should be reduced and should have regional variations. Poor households at times cannot pay it. First savings should be promoted and it would help in consolidation of the group. There should be proper monitoring at the district level using trained staff and personnel. Periodic trainings programs should be planned; one time training does not help much. Effective involvement of PRIs members is desired from the beginning in selection of the poor people. A core team at the block level should verify the credential and status of the poor as at present 18-20 percent of BPL are not actually BPL. Documentation should be advised to all groups. It can help in error corrections. A committee comprising of all stakeholders should do the purchasing. It could be at block level or even at lower level. A representative of DPMU should be involved. Physical verification of assets should be periodically done. DPMU staff should be especially trained and have minimum 3 years tenure and their evaluation should also be done. Group meetings should be enforced and register be maintained. It should be binding. The size of the group should be flexible and attempt should be to have greater homogeneity within the group. As far as possible, the choice of activity should be left to the CIG members. However, choice- making can be facilitated through increased knowledge/ information which DPMU can undertake. Finally, DPIP has made positive impact on economic and social status of the beneficiaries. It did face problems in the processes that impacted the outcomes to an extent. However, still miles to go before real poor are able to have sustainable livelihoods.

140

Annexures

Tables Relating to Non baseline Village Households

Caste of the Households General OBC SC ST Total APL Baran 17.0 42.2 29.6 11.1 135 Churu 21.3 56.0 22.0 0.7 150 Dausa 27.5 43.3 21.7 7.5 120 Dholpur 25.7 17.1 29.5 27.6 105 Jhalawar 27.3 51.5 5.5 15.8 165 Rajsamand 8.9 59.3 23.0 8.9 135 Tonk 17.8 65.6 14.4 2.2 180 20.6 49.9 19.8 9.7 990 BPL Baran 4.9 46.7 26.2 22.2 225 Churu 9.2 49.6 41.2 0.0 250 Dausa 18.0 51.5 26.0 4.5 200 Dholpur 8.6 32.6 31.4 27.4 175 Jhalawar 22.2 34.5 23.3 20.0 275 Rajsamand 7.6 41.8 26.2 24.4 225 Tonk 8.7 48.7 34.7 8.0 300 11.5 43.9 30.1 14.6 1650 Type of Family of the Households Nuclear Joint APL Baran 95.6 4.4 135 Churu 95.3 4.7 150 Dausa 95.0 5.0 120 Dholpur 98.1 1.9 105 Jhalawar 88.5 11.5 165 Rajsamand 85.9 14.1 135 Tonk 75.0 25.0 180 89.5 10.5 990 BPL Baran 95.1 4.9 225 Churu 92.4 7.6 250 Dausa 92.5 7.5 200 Dholpur 91.4 8.6 175 Jhalawar 93.1 6.9 275 Rajsamand 91.6 8.4 225 Tonk 83.3 16.7 300 91.0 9.0 1650

141

Type of Household Man Women Differently APL Baran 97.0 1.5 1.5 135 Churu 98.7 0.7 0.7 150 Dausa 97.5 2.5 0.0 120 Dholpur 96.2 2.9 1.0 105 Jhalawar 99.4 0.6 0.0 165 Rajsamand 89.6 9.6 0.7 135 Tonk 96.1 3.9 0.0 180 96.5 3.0 0.5 990 BPL Baran 89.3 5.8 4.9 225 Churu 82.4 17.6 0.0 250 Dausa 88.0 11.0 1.0 200 Dholpur 90.3 9.7 0.0 175 Jhalawar 92.0 7.3 0.7 275 Rajsamand 84.4 13.8 1.8 225 Tonk 91.0 8.7 0.3 300 88.3 10.5 1.2 1650 Family by Poverty Category APL Baran 100.0 135 Churu 100.0 150 Dausa 100.0 120 Dholpur 100.0 105 Jhalawar 100.0 165 Rajsamand 99.3 0.7 135 Tonk 100.0 0.0 180 99.9 0.1 990 BPL Baran 100.0 225 Churu 100.0 250 Dausa 100.0 200 Dholpur 100.0 175 Jhalawar 100.0 275 Rajsamand 100.0 225 Tonk 100.0 300 100.0 1650 Does the Household Have Ration Card Yes BPL Antoday APL None APL Baran 6.7 0.7 0.7 97.0 1.5 135 Churu 0.7 0.7 0.7 98.7 0.0 150 Dausa 0.8 0.8 0.0 99.2 0.0 120 Dholpur 0.0 1.0 0.0 99.0 0.0 105 Jhalawar 6.1 0.6 0.0 98.8 0.6 165 Rajsamand 0.0 0.7 0.0 99.3 0.0 135 Tonk 10.6 3.9 1.7 91.7 2.8 180 4.0 1.3 0.5 97.4 0.8 990 BPL Baran 85.8 54.2 34.2 11.1 0.4 225 Churu 91.2 68.0 28.4 3.6 0.0 250 Dausa 82.5 71.0 18.5 10.0 0.5 200 Dholpur 93.1 81.1 17.1 1.7 0.0 175 Jhalawar 85.1 64.4 10.9 20.0 4.7 275 Rajsamand 93.3 77.8 18.2 4.0 0.0 225 Tonk 85.3 67.7 11.3 18.7 2.3 300 87.8 68.5 19.4 10.7 1.3 1650 Women Go Alone To Following Places Visiting Village MARKET HEALTH FRIENDS MEETINGS Total Place Centre Relatives & gatherings

142

APL Baran 65.2 63.0 32.6 1.5 135 Churu 72.0 72.7 37.3 42.0 150 Dausa 57.5 55.0 41.7 15.0 120 Dholpur 45.7 39.0 49.5 22.9 105 Jhalawar 63.6 84.8 77.6 54.5 165 Rajsamand 48.9 64.4 60.7 7.4 135 Tonk 56.7 57.8 62.2 36.1 180 59.2 63.8 52.9 27.5 990 BPL Baran 70.7 66.2 39.6 7.1 225 Churu 36.8 37.6 30.4 29.2 250 Dausa 59.5 55.0 47.0 18.0 200 Dholpur 64.0 34.3 57.1 10.9 175 Jhalawar 68.7 83.6 65.5 40.0 275 Rajsamand 50.7 57.3 48.0 24.4 225 Tonk 54.0 57.3 57.3 29.0 300 57.4 57.2 49.6 24.0 1650 Who Takes the Decisions on CROPPING Pattern 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 37.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 30.4 25.9 135 Churu 43.3 23.3 0.0 0.0 28.0 5.3 150 Dausa 31.7 10.0 1.7 0.0 20.0 36.7 120 Dholpur 35.2 7.6 0.0 0.0 30.5 26.7 105 Jhalawar 38.8 8.5 0.6 0.0 37.6 14.5 165 Rajsamand 40.0 16.3 0.7 0.0 33.3 9.6 135 Tonk 43.9 22.8 1.7 0.0 21.7 10.0 180 39.1 14.2 0.7 0.0 28.8 17.2 990 BPL Baran 25.8 14.2 0.9 0.0 25.8 33.3 225 Churu 36.0 31.2 6.0 0.4 20.4 6.0 250 Dausa 30.0 18.0 4.0 0.5 21.5 26.0 200 Dholpur 21.1 24.0 6.9 0.0 29.7 18.3 175 Jhalawar 23.3 9.5 1.1 0.0 32.7 33.5 275 Rajsamand 26.2 21.3 4.4 0.0 29.3 18.7 225 Tonk 38.7 17.7 2.3 0.0 25.7 15.7 300 29.3 19.1 3.5 0.1 26.5 21.5 1650 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; and 6- not applicable.

143

Who Takes the Decisions on Sending Boy to School 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 20.0 5.9 1.5 0.0 54.8 17.8 135 Churu 37.3 20.7 0.0 0.0 18.7 23.3 150 Dausa 27.5 22.5 2.5 0.0 35.0 12.5 120 Dholpur 14.3 5.7 3.8 0.0 49.5 26.7 105 Jhalawar 14.5 4.8 1.8 0.0 59.4 19.4 165 Rajsamand 29.6 16.3 0.7 0.0 34.8 18.5 135 Tonk 41.7 22.2 1.1 0.0 24.4 10.6 180 27.3 14.3 1.5 0.0 38.9 18.0 990 BPL Baran 20.9 15.1 2.2 0.0 41.8 20.0 225 Churu 38.4 19.6 6.4 0.0 20.0 15.6 250 Dausa 19.5 27.5 6.5 0.0 37.0 9.5 200 Dholpur 17.1 22.9 5.7 0.0 34.9 19.4 175 Jhalawar 17.5 10.2 2.5 0.0 42.2 27.6 275 Rajsamand 25.3 16.9 2.7 0.0 32.4 22.7 225 Tonk 32.0 18.0 4.0 0.3 27.7 18.0 300 25.0 18.1 4.2 0.1 33.4 19.3 1650 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; and 6- not applicable. Who Takes the Decisions on Sending Girl to School 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 18.5 5.9 1.5 0.0 50.4 23.7 135 Churu 30.7 14.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 41.3 150 Dausa 23.3 23.3 4.2 0.0 33.3 15.8 120 Dholpur 9.5 8.6 3.8 0.0 42.9 35.2 105 Jhalawar 9.1 5.5 1.8 0.0 50.3 33.3 165 Rajsamand 25.9 15.6 0.7 0.0 33.3 24.4 135 Tonk 32.2 20.6 1.1 0.0 27.2 18.9 180 21.9 13.4 1.7 0.0 35.5 27.5 990 BPL Baran 18.7 14.7 0.9 0.0 37.8 28.0 225 Churu 35.2 16.8 6.0 0.0 18.0 24.0 250 Dausa 17.5 28.0 5.5 0.0 36.5 12.5 200 Dholpur 14.9 21.1 4.6 0.0 32.6 26.9 175 Jhalawar 12.4 8.0 2.2 0.0 33.5 44.0 275 Rajsamand 24.9 12.4 3.1 0.0 27.1 32.4 225 Tonk 30.3 15.7 3.7 0.3 28.3 21.7 300 22.5 16.1 3.6 0.1 30.2 27.5 1650 Note: 1- men alone; 2- mainly men but also women; 3- women alone; 4- mainly women but also men; 5- both; and 6- not applicable.

144

Who Takes the Decisions on Choice of Employment of the Wife 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 23.0 0.7 1.5 0.0 50.4 24.4 135 Churu 18.7 8.0 0.7 0.0 57.3 15.3 150 Dausa 28.3 16.7 7.5 0.8 28.3 18.3 120 Dholpur 21.0 0.0 15.2 1.0 25.7 37.1 105 Jhalawar 20.6 17.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 2.4 165 Rajsamand 26.7 17.0 0.7 0.0 40.7 14.8 135 Tonk 31.7 20.6 1.1 0.0 32.2 14.4 180 24.4 12.2 3.1 0.2 43.1 16.9 990 BPL Baran 11.6 6.7 2.2 0.0 53.3 26.2 225 Churu 38.0 15.2 8.4 0.0 34.4 4.0 250 Dausa 25.0 21.5 9.0 2.5 32.0 10.0 200 Dholpur 13.7 9.1 21.1 0.6 33.7 21.7 175 Jhalawar 25.5 21.5 4.0 0.0 42.9 6.2 275 Rajsamand 39.6 19.1 4.4 0.0 22.7 14.2 225 Tonk 32.3 13.3 3.3 0.0 40.3 10.7 300 27.3 15.4 6.8 0.4 37.5 12.6 1650 Who Takes the Decisions on Participation in Ward Sabha/Gram Sabha 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 65.2 4.4 1.5 0.0 2.2 26.7 135 Churu 68.7 6.0 2.0 0.0 8.0 15.3 150 Dausa 50.8 5.8 1.7 0.0 5.8 35.8 120 Dholpur 63.8 2.9 2.9 0.0 22.9 7.6 105 Jhalawar 43.6 7.9 0.0 0.0 47.3 1.2 165 Rajsamand 54.8 7.4 0.7 0.0 21.5 15.6 135 Tonk 60.0 8.9 1.7 0.0 20.0 9.4 180 57.9 6.5 1.4 0.0 19.1 15.2 990 BPL Baran 36.0 12.9 1.3 0.0 1.8 48.0 225 Churu 57.6 12.0 4.8 0.0 11.6 14.0 250 Dausa 48.5 16.5 3.5 0.0 4.5 27.0 200 Dholpur 50.9 3.4 4.0 0.0 19.4 22.3 175 Jhalawar 68.0 12.7 2.9 0.0 12.0 4.4 275 Rajsamand 56.9 19.1 4.0 0.0 8.0 12.0 225 Tonk 51.7 8.3 3.0 0.3 17.7 19.0 300 53.4 12.2 3.3 0.1 10.9 20.1 1650

145

Who Takes the Decisions on Participation in Caste Panchayat 1 2 3 5 6 APL Baran 69.6 3.0 1.5 1.5 24.4 135 Churu 68.7 6.7 0.7 8.0 16.0 150 Dausa 50.8 8.3 2.5 8.3 30.0 120 Dholpur 65.7 4.8 3.8 22.9 2.9 105 Jhalawar 46.1 6.1 0.0 45.5 2.4 165 Rajsamand 55.6 8.1 0.7 21.5 14.1 135 Tonk 57.8 8.3 1.7 19.4 12.8 180 58.8 6.6 1.4 18.9 14.3 990 BPL Baran 36.4 12.4 1.3 2.2 47.6 225 Churu 52.4 11.2 5.2 9.2 22.0 250 Dausa 52.0 14.0 3.5 6.0 24.5 200 Dholpur 60.0 6.9 4.0 16.0 13.1 175 Jhalawar 65.8 13.8 4.7 12.7 2.9 275 Rajsamand 60.0 17.3 4.0 7.1 11.6 225 Tonk 52.7 9.0 2.7 18.7 17.0 300 54.3 12.1 3.6 10.6 19.3 1650 Who Takes the Decisions on Interaction with Outsiders 1 2 3 4 5 APL Baran 75.6 4.4 1.5 17.8 0.7 135 Churu 36.0 14.7 0.7 43.3 5.3 150 Dausa 45.8 17.5 4.2 26.7 5.8 120 Dholpur 37.1 4.8 2.9 53.3 1.9 105 Jhalawar 37.0 2.4 0.0 59.4 1.2 165 Rajsamand 54.8 8.1 0.7 34.1 2.2 135 Tonk 40.0 19.4 2.2 35.6 2.8 180 46.2 10.5 1.6 38.9 2.8 990 BPL Baran 50.2 12.4 2.2 19.1 16.0 225 Churu 45.2 19.2 6.4 26.4 2.8 250 Dausa 39.0 22.0 5.0 24.5 9.5 200 Dholpur 37.7 26.9 7.4 27.4 0.6 175 Jhalawar 36.0 8.4 4.4 48.7 2.5 275 Rajsamand 41.3 20.9 4.4 28.4 4.9 225 Tonk 40.7 14.3 2.3 36.3 6.3 300 41.5 17.0 4.4 31.1 6.1 1650

146

Who Takes the Decisions on Using Money Earned by Husband 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 64.4 4.4 2.2 0.0 27.4 1.5 135 Churu 12.7 10.7 1.3 0.0 72.0 3.3 150 Dausa 38.3 18.3 1.7 0.0 35.0 6.7 120 Dholpur 28.6 1.0 1.9 0.0 61.9 6.7 105 Jhalawar 44.2 18.2 0.6 0.0 35.8 1.2 165 Rajsamand 31.9 21.5 0.7 0.0 45.2 0.7 135 Tonk 31.7 18.9 1.1 0.6 46.7 1.1 180 35.9 13.9 1.3 0.1 46.1 2.7 990 BPL Baran 39.6 12.9 1.8 0.0 35.6 10.2 225 Churu 28.0 16.0 4.0 0.0 48.8 3.2 250 Dausa 35.0 22.0 3.0 0.0 33.5 6.5 200 Dholpur 22.3 1.1 2.3 0.0 65.1 9.1 175 Jhalawar 47.6 11.6 0.0 0.0 34.9 5.8 275 Rajsamand 39.1 16.9 3.6 0.0 36.0 4.4 225 Tonk 29.7 19.0 2.7 0.3 44.3 4.0 300 34.9 14.7 2.4 0.1 42.0 5.9 1650 Who Takes the Decisions on Using Money Earned by Wife 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 43.7 2.2 2.2 0.0 40.0 11.9 135 Churu 6.7 8.7 1.3 0.0 64.0 19.3 150 Dausa 25.0 10.8 5.0 0.8 36.7 21.7 120 Dholpur 23.8 0.0 5.7 1.0 40.0 29.5 105 Jhalawar 40.0 21.2 0.6 0.0 34.5 3.6 165 Rajsamand 32.6 16.3 0.7 0.0 42.2 8.1 135 Tonk 20.6 19.4 1.7 0.6 48.9 8.9 180 27.4 12.2 2.2 0.3 44.2 13.6 990 BPL Baran 25.3 7.1 2.2 0.0 50.7 14.7 225 Churu 22.4 16.0 6.8 0.0 46.0 8.8 250 Dausa 27.0 18.5 6.0 0.5 38.5 9.5 200 Dholpur 13.7 0.0 7.4 3.4 54.3 21.1 175 Jhalawar 36.4 15.6 3.3 0.0 38.5 6.2 275 Rajsamand 32.4 14.7 4.4 1.3 40.4 6.7 225 Tonk 24.0 18.7 3.0 0.7 47.3 6.3 300 26.4 13.6 4.5 0.7 44.8 9.8 1650

147

Who Takes the Decisions on Having Another Child 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 28.9 15.6 1.5 0.0 42.2 11.9 135 Churu 6.7 10.7 0.7 0.0 66.7 15.3 150 Dausa 26.7 4.2 2.5 0.0 51.7 15.0 120 Dholpur 4.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 69.5 23.8 105 Jhalawar 38.8 3.6 0.6 0.0 49.7 7.3 165 Rajsamand 23.0 11.9 0.7 0.0 56.3 8.1 135 Tonk 21.7 17.8 2.2 0.0 48.9 9.4 180 22.2 9.7 1.4 0.0 54.3 12.3 990 BPL Baran 15.6 13.3 1.8 0.0 55.6 13.8 225 Churu 24.0 16.8 4.8 0.0 45.2 9.2 250 Dausa 24.0 17.0 4.5 0.0 45.5 9.0 200 Dholpur 10.9 0.6 1.1 0.0 70.3 17.1 175 Jhalawar 20.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 57.8 18.9 275 Rajsamand 19.6 10.2 2.2 0.0 51.1 16.9 225 Tonk 24.0 17.7 2.7 0.7 40.0 15.0 300 20.2 11.6 2.4 0.1 51.3 14.4 1650 Who Takes the Decisions When Male Member of the HH is Sick 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 73.3 2.2 2.2 0.0 22.2 0.0 135 Churu 12.7 25.3 0.7 0.0 59.3 2.0 150 Dausa 34.2 10.0 2.5 0.0 49.2 4.2 120 Dholpur 22.9 1.0 2.9 0.0 64.8 8.6 105 Jhalawar 43.0 15.8 0.6 0.0 38.8 1.8 165 Rajsamand 64.4 21.5 0.7 0.0 12.6 0.7 135 Tonk 28.3 21.7 2.8 0.6 44.4 2.2 180 39.6 14.9 1.7 0.1 41.1 2.5 990 BPL Baran 49.3 12.9 2.2 0.0 34.2 1.3 225 Churu 30.8 22.0 6.4 0.8 39.6 0.4 250 Dausa 28.5 18.0 5.0 0.5 42.5 5.5 200 Dholpur 15.4 0.6 6.3 0.6 72.6 4.6 175 Jhalawar 42.2 11.3 4.0 0.0 40.7 1.8 275 Rajsamand 48.0 11.1 3.1 0.0 34.7 3.1 225 Tonk 31.7 20.3 2.7 0.7 41.3 3.3 300 35.8 14.4 4.1 0.4 42.5 2.7 1650

148

Who Takes the Decisions When Female Member of the HH is Sick 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 75.6 2.2 2.2 0.0 20.0 0.0 135 Churu 12.7 25.3 0.7 0.0 59.3 2.0 150 Dausa 33.3 3.3 6.7 2.5 50.8 3.3 120 Dholpur 23.8 0.0 4.8 1.0 61.0 9.5 105 Jhalawar 43.0 15.2 0.6 0.0 40.0 1.2 165 Rajsamand 64.4 15.6 0.7 0.0 18.5 0.7 135 Tonk 31.7 18.9 1.1 0.6 45.6 2.2 180 40.5 12.6 2.1 0.5 41.8 2.4 990 BPL Baran 48.4 6.7 2.2 0.0 40.9 1.8 225 Churu 30.8 22.0 6.0 0.8 40.0 0.4 250 Dausa 24.0 15.5 7.0 1.5 45.5 6.5 200 Dholpur 14.9 0.0 10.3 0.0 70.9 4.0 175 Jhalawar 41.5 11.3 4.0 0.0 39.3 4.0 275 Rajsamand 48.9 8.9 4.0 0.0 36.4 1.8 225 Tonk 30.7 20.7 2.7 1.0 41.0 4.0 300 34.9 13.0 4.8 0.5 43.6 3.2 1650 Who Takes the Decisions on Meeting Social Obligations 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 75.6 5.9 2.2 0.0 14.8 1.5 135 Churu 69.3 8.7 0.7 0.0 17.3 4.0 150 Dausa 45.0 13.3 3.3 0.0 31.7 6.7 120 Dholpur 49.5 12.4 2.9 0.0 33.3 1.9 105 Jhalawar 64.8 9.7 0.6 0.0 24.8 0.0 165 Rajsamand 83.7 9.6 0.7 0.0 4.4 1.5 135 Tonk 46.1 15.6 1.1 0.6 29.4 7.2 180 62.1 10.8 1.5 0.1 22.1 3.3 990 BPL Baran 50.2 15.6 2.2 0.0 11.1 20.9 225 Churu 53.6 16.4 6.0 0.4 14.8 8.8 250 Dausa 46.5 18.0 5.0 0.0 17.5 13.0 200 Dholpur 25.7 21.1 8.0 0.0 44.6 0.6 175 Jhalawar 55.6 27.3 4.7 0.0 11.6 0.7 275 Rajsamand 52.4 20.0 4.0 0.0 16.9 6.7 225 Tonk 44.7 16.7 3.0 0.3 22.7 12.7 300 47.9 19.3 4.5 0.1 19.0 9.2 1650 Table : Who Takes the Decisions on major Purchase in The HH 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Baran 48.9 2.2 2.2 0.0 45.2 1.5 135 Churu 17.3 27.3 1.3 0.0 52.7 1.3 150 Dausa 42.5 8.3 5.0 0.0 38.3 5.8 120 Dholpur 48.6 10.5 3.8 0.0 36.2 1.0 105 Jhalawar 57.6 15.2 0.6 0.0 26.7 0.0 165 Rajsamand 77.0 7.4 0.7 0.0 13.3 1.5 135 Tonk 46.1 16.7 1.7 0.6 31.1 3.9 180 48.1 13.1 2.0 0.1 34.5 2.1 990 BPL Baran 42.7 10.2 2.2 0.0 23.6 21.3 225 Churu 37.6 30.8 6.0 0.8 24.8 0.0 250 Dausa 38.5 16.0 6.0 0.0 26.5 13.0 200 Dholpur 26.3 6.9 7.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 175 Jhalawar 49.8 15.6 4.7 0.0 29.5 0.4 275 Rajsamand 40.4 23.1 4.0 0.0 26.2 6.2 225 Tonk 40.3 19.7 3.0 0.3 32.3 4.3 300 40.1 18.1 4.6 0.2 30.8 6.2 1650 Have You Participated in Any of the Meetings Organized to Select SPA Yes No Total TRAINING Total ACTIVE Total Received CIG From DPIP member Still Yes No Yes No

149

APL Baran 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 Dausa 100.0 2 100.0 2 100.0 2 Jhalawar 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 Tonk 87.5 12.5 8 75.0 25.0 8 75.0 25.0 8 91.7 8.3 12 83.3 16.7 12 83.3 16.7 12 BPL Baran 82.1 17.9 39 61.5 38.5 39 84.6 15.4 39 Churu 64.9 35.1 188 65.4 34.6 188 71.3 28.7 188 Dausa 89.4 10.6 94 88.3 11.7 94 73.4 26.6 94 Dholpur 97.7 2.3 133 98.5 1.5 133 91.7 8.3 133 Jhalawar 85.0 15.0 193 72.0 28.0 193 87.0 13.0 193 Rajsamand 90.7 9.3 97 81.4 18.6 97 90.7 9.3 97 Tonk 81.6 18.4 179 76.0 24.0 179 73.7 26.3 179 83.0 17.0 923 77.5 22.5 923 80.8 19.2 923 Nature of Benefits in terms of Increase in ANNUAL CREDIT STATUS GRAM STANDARD Total Income Access Social Sabha of living Ward Sabha participation APL Baran 37.8 32.6 25.9 17.0 22.2 135 Churu 20.7 19.3 14.0 15.3 24.0 150 Dausa 26.7 14.2 12.5 10.0 24.2 120 Dholpur 64.8 48.6 48.6 32.4 52.4 105 Jhalawar 93.3 89.1 90.9 77.6 80.6 165 Rajsamand 79.3 74.8 65.9 45.9 51.9 135 Tonk 57.8 57.8 58.9 56.7 55.6 180 55.3 49.8 47.2 38.8 45.8 990 BPL Baran 40.0 23.6 11.6 8.4 26.2 225 Churu 68.0 67.6 62.4 59.2 72.0 250 Dausa 41.0 32.0 32.5 22.5 36.5 200 Dholpur 60.0 40.0 38.9 16.6 42.9 175 Jhalawar 73.8 57.8 60.7 56.7 68.0 275 Rajsamand 62.2 48.0 48.9 40.9 48.0 225 Tonk 68.7 66.3 71.0 61.0 69.0 300 60.4 49.8 48.8 40.7 53.9 1650

150

Reasons for not being Active Member of CIG anymore 1 2 3 4 5 6 APL Tonk 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 BPL Baran 0.0 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 16.7 6 Churu 1.9 38.9 0.0 51.9 0.0 7.4 54 Dausa 0.0 58.3 8.3 20.8 4.2 8.3 24 Dholpur 0.0 54.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.5 11 Jhalawar 4.0 76.0 0.0 16.0 4.0 0.0 25 Rajsamand 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 77.8 0.0 9 Tonk 25.5 34.0 2.1 36.2 2.1 0.0 47 8.0 46.6 2.3 30.7 5.7 6.8 176 Note: 1- you did not get along with the other members; 2- you do not have time To attend meetings; 3- you do not like to work in groups; 4- your group Never was neither stable nor cohesive; 5- you never got a sanctioned SPA; 6- others. Due to DPIP the HH Economic Situation Improved 1 2 3 4 APL Baran 100.0 1 Dausa 100.0 2 Jhalawar 100.0 1 Tonk 75.0 25.0 8 66.7 33.3 12 BPL Baran 53.8 46.2 39 Churu 75.5 22.3 1.6 0.5 188 Dausa 74.5 23.4 2.1 94 Dholpur 78.9 21.1 133 Jhalawar 75.6 24.4 193 Rajsamand 85.6 14.4 97 Tonk 73.7 25.7 0.6 179 75.7 23.5 0.7 0.1 923 Note: 1- improved; 2- stayed the same; 3- deteriorated; 4- NoR. In the Event of Drought and Absence of Employment in the Village – Persons Helping 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 68.9 20.0 8.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 135 Churu 46.7 30.7 19.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 150 Dausa 57.5 10.0 20.8 3.3 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 120 Dholpur 20.0 43.8 20.0 14.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 105 Jhalawar 56.4 24.8 16.4 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 165 Rajsamand 54.1 25.2 16.3 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 135 Tonk 42.8 32.2 15.0 2.8 5.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 180 50.1 26.7 16.4 3.8 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 990 BPL Baran 39.1 27.1 9.3 13.8 7.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 225 Churu 49.2 17.2 15.2 8.8 5.6 0.0 4.0 0.0 250 Dausa 39.0 14.5 28.0 10.0 8.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 200 Dholpur 43.4 34.9 14.3 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 175 Jhalawar 53.5 29.5 13.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 275 Rajsamand 37.8 24.0 24.9 8.9 3.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 225 Tonk 51.7 28.7 10.7 4.0 2.3 0.0 1.7 1.0 300 45.6 25.2 16.1 7.5 3.7 0.0 1.9 0.2 1650 Note: Who Looks after Common Pasturelands in the Village 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 66.7 11.1 7.4 0.7 0.7 0.0 13.3 0.0 135 Churu 32.0 38.7 17.3 6.0 2.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 150

151

Dausa 19.2 15.0 34.2 12.5 5.8 0.0 11.7 1.7 120 Dholpur 11.4 44.8 29.5 11.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 105 Jhalawar 35.8 7.3 28.5 21.2 6.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 165 Rajsamand 39.3 8.9 20.7 14.8 2.2 0.0 14.1 0.0 135 Tonk 33.9 17.2 18.3 20.6 3.9 0.0 3.9 2.2 180 34.9 19.5 21.8 13.0 3.3 0.0 6.7 0.7 990 BPL Baran 32.4 11.1 14.2 10.2 9.3 0.0 22.7 0.0 225 Churu 54.4 18.4 11.2 8.8 2.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 250 Dausa 22.5 12.0 26.0 22.5 4.0 0.0 12.5 0.5 200 Dholpur 33.7 26.3 25.1 11.4 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 175 Jhalawar 32.7 6.9 29.1 17.1 4.4 0.0 9.1 0.7 275 Rajsamand 24.0 26.7 22.2 14.7 7.1 0.0 4.9 0.4 225 Tonk 44.7 13.0 12.0 12.0 3.7 0.0 12.0 2.7 300 35.8 15.7 19.5 13.7 4.6 0.0 9.9 0.7 1650 If the Land of Poor is Encroached upon, who o you think comes forward to deal with this Situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 73.3 19.3 3.7 3.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 135 Churu 57.3 8.0 12.7 14.0 2.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 150 Dausa 31.7 24.2 18.3 11.7 5.0 3.3 4.2 1.7 120 Dholpur 2.9 51.4 20.0 16.2 7.6 0.0 1.0 1.0 105 Jhalawar 3.6 24.8 20.0 27.9 18.2 1.8 3.6 0.0 165 Rajsamand 28.1 28.1 14.1 22.2 3.0 0.7 3.0 0.7 135 Tonk 19.4 28.3 13.9 16.7 8.3 8.9 3.9 0.6 180 30.8 25.4 14.5 16.4 6.7 2.5 3.2 0.5 990 BPL Baran 40.4 17.8 8.0 14.7 7.6 5.3 6.2 0.0 225 Churu 48.4 11.2 12.4 11.2 4.8 2.0 10.0 0.0 250 Dausa 27.0 18.5 22.5 14.0 6.5 2.5 8.0 1.0 200 Dholpur 24.0 22.9 18.3 24.6 6.9 1.1 2.3 0.0 175 Jhalawar 21.5 31.6 15.3 13.8 14.2 1.1 2.5 0.0 275 Rajsamand 17.8 24.0 19.6 19.6 12.4 4.9 1.8 0.0 225 Tonk 32.0 18.0 11.7 18.0 12.3 2.3 5.3 0.3 300 30.5 20.6 15.0 16.2 9.6 2.7 5.2 0.2 1650

152

If A women is molested who do you think would come forward 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 33.3 49.6 10.4 1.5 1.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 135 Churu 17.3 32.0 34.0 9.3 2.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 150 Dausa 7.5 30.8 38.3 14.2 4.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 120 Dholpur 2.9 42.9 31.4 17.1 4.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 105 Jhalawar 0.6 37.0 26.1 30.3 4.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 165 Rajsamand 3.7 65.9 20.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 135 Tonk 14.4 35.6 23.3 18.3 4.4 0.0 2.8 1.1 180 11.6 41.5 25.9 14.3 3.1 0.0 3.0 0.5 990 BPL Baran 16.4 41.8 11.6 8.9 10.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 225 Churu 22.0 30.4 24.0 16.0 1.2 0.0 6.4 0.0 250 Dausa 9.0 39.0 29.5 11.0 4.0 0.0 6.0 1.5 200 Dholpur 2.3 41.1 36.6 12.0 4.6 0.0 2.9 0.6 175 Jhalawar 1.8 45.5 27.3 18.2 4.7 0.0 2.5 0.0 275 Rajsamand 6.2 35.1 28.4 21.8 4.9 0.0 1.8 1.8 225 Tonk 18.7 32.3 20.0 18.3 2.7 0.0 6.7 1.3 300 11.5 37.6 24.7 15.6 4.5 0.0 5.4 0.7 1650 Who in the Village feel their responsibility towards liquor consumption and addicts and take corrective measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 10.4 23.0 20.7 5.9 16.3 0.0 15.6 8.1 135 Churu 24.7 24.0 33.3 4.0 9.3 0.0 4.0 0.7 150 Dausa 4.2 19.2 40.8 15.8 9.2 0.0 8.3 2.5 120 Dholpur 3.8 25.7 47.6 12.4 1.9 0.0 6.7 1.9 105 Jhalawar 1.2 31.5 29.7 28.5 6.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 165 Rajsamand 10.4 17.8 32.6 22.2 9.6 0.0 4.4 3.0 135 Tonk 22.2 27.8 24.4 15.0 6.7 0.0 3.9 0.0 180 11.7 24.5 31.7 15.2 8.5 0.0 6.3 2.1 990 BPL Baran 5.8 20.9 34.2 15.6 16.4 0.0 4.4 2.7 225 Churu 32.0 16.0 18.8 11.2 11.6 0.0 10.4 0.0 250 Dausa 10.0 22.0 34.0 15.0 12.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 200 Dholpur 4.0 34.3 43.4 5.1 3.4 0.0 9.7 0.0 175 Jhalawar 4.4 32.7 37.5 16.7 7.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 275 Rajsamand 8.9 28.4 23.6 20.4 12.0 0.0 4.9 1.8 225 Tonk 35.3 21.3 15.0 16.7 5.7 0.0 5.3 0.7 300 15.6 24.8 28.4 14.8 9.8 0.0 5.8 0.8 1650 If there is a corruption in the government works who responds 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 25.2 24.4 17.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 19.3 10.4 135 Churu 26.7 30.0 16.7 2.0 3.3 0.0 19.3 2.0 150 Dausa 11.7 7.5 22.5 13.3 4.2 0.0 37.5 3.3 120 Dholpur 7.6 17.1 52.4 13.3 3.8 0.0 3.8 1.9 105 Jhalawar 8.5 3.6 32.1 44.2 3.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 165 Rajsamand 10.4 16.3 29.6 25.9 0.7 0.0 13.3 3.7 135 Tonk 20.0 20.0 25.0 14.4 8.9 0.0 10.6 1.1 180 16.2 17.1 27.1 17.2 3.8 0.0 15.7 3.0 990 BPL Baran 7.1 18.7 32.0 10.7 3.1 0.0 24.9 3.6 225 Churu 21.2 25.2 14.4 6.4 2.0 0.0 30.0 0.8 250 Dausa 20.0 12.5 15.5 17.5 3.5 0.0 26.5 4.5 200 Dholpur 12.6 27.4 30.3 13.1 4.6 0.0 10.9 1.1 175 Jhalawar 19.3 5.5 27.6 17.5 4.7 0.0 25.5 0.0 275 Rajsamand 16.0 22.2 28.9 16.0 3.6 0.0 12.0 1.3 225 Tonk 28.7 18.3 17.3 14.0 5.7 0.0 13.7 2.3 300 18.5 18.1 23.3 13.6 3.9 0.0 20.7 1.9 1650 If you wish your work to be done from a government official 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 32.6 26.7 31.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 135 Churu 29.3 26.0 23.3 9.3 1.3 0.0 9.3 1.3 150

153

Dausa 30.8 15.0 24.2 11.7 3.3 0.0 11.7 3.3 120 Dholpur 2.9 25.7 39.0 13.3 3.8 0.0 9.5 5.7 105 Jhalawar 0.0 31.5 41.2 18.8 7.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 165 Rajsamand 13.3 41.5 28.1 8.1 4.4 0.0 3.0 1.5 135 Tonk 9.4 31.1 28.9 18.3 2.2 0.0 8.3 1.7 180 16.5 28.7 30.8 12.7 3.2 0.0 6.4 1.7 990 BPL Baran 18.7 24.9 36.4 14.7 3.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 225 Churu 20.0 38.4 13.6 10.0 2.8 0.0 14.4 0.8 250 Dausa 20.5 23.5 28.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 17.0 2.0 200 Dholpur 17.7 32.0 27.4 10.9 5.1 0.0 6.3 0.6 175 Jhalawar 4.0 40.4 30.2 11.3 6.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 275 Rajsamand 12.0 37.8 28.0 13.3 5.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 225 Tonk 16.7 29.7 27.7 10.0 2.7 0.0 11.3 2.0 300 15.3 32.7 27.2 10.9 4.0 0.0 9.1 0.8 1650 When a government Officer comes in a jeep to a village, it invariably goes to 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 4.4 57.8 11.1 13.3 0.0 0.0 11.9 1.5 135 Churu 8.0 47.3 27.3 5.3 1.3 0.0 10.0 0.7 150 Dausa 0.8 60.8 14.2 7.5 2.5 0.0 11.7 2.5 120 Dholpur 3.8 39.0 21.9 15.2 3.8 0.0 11.4 4.8 105 Jhalawar 0.0 44.2 12.1 26.1 10.9 0.0 6.7 0.0 165 Rajsamand 0.7 55.6 5.2 15.6 1.5 0.0 20.0 1.5 135 Tonk 8.9 37.2 12.2 21.7 5.0 0.0 13.3 1.7 180 4.0 48.3 14.6 15.6 3.8 0.0 12.0 1.6 990 BPL Baran 0.9 49.3 9.8 20.4 5.3 0.0 14.2 0.0 225 Churu 13.6 40.4 20.0 7.2 4.0 0.0 14.4 0.4 250 Dausa 1.0 51.5 14.5 12.5 5.5 0.0 10.0 5.0 200 Dholpur 1.7 56.0 18.3 9.1 7.4 0.0 6.3 1.1 175 Jhalawar 0.7 34.2 9.8 22.2 7.3 0.0 25.5 0.4 275 Rajsamand 1.8 41.8 19.1 18.7 8.0 0.0 9.8 0.9 225 Tonk 9.7 48.3 9.0 11.3 5.7 0.0 13.7 2.3 300 4.6 45.2 13.9 14.7 6.1 0.0 14.1 1.4 1650

154

When a government officer addresses a meeting of the Village 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 0.7 22.2 14.1 23.0 0.0 0.7 20.0 19.3 135 Churu 18.7 26.0 18.0 12.0 0.7 0.0 22.7 2.0 150 Dausa 2.5 14.2 27.5 7.5 5.0 0.0 35.8 7.5 120 Dholpur 2.9 41.0 19.0 18.1 1.9 0.0 14.3 2.9 105 Jhalawar 0.6 11.5 16.4 40.0 21.8 0.0 9.7 0.0 165 Rajsamand 0.7 17.8 11.9 21.5 13.3 0.0 26.7 8.1 135 Tonk 13.9 18.9 20.0 15.6 10.6 0.0 18.3 2.8 180 6.3 20.8 18.0 20.2 8.3 0.1 20.6 5.8 990 BPL Baran 0.0 13.3 35.6 24.9 0.4 0.0 20.0 5.8 225 Churu 18.0 22.8 12.8 8.8 2.0 0.0 34.0 1.6 250 Dausa 4.5 26.5 21.5 12.0 2.5 0.0 26.5 6.5 200 Dholpur 1.7 37.7 13.1 32.0 4.0 0.0 10.9 0.6 175 Jhalawar 0.4 6.2 14.5 22.5 18.5 0.0 37.8 0.0 275 Rajsamand 0.4 23.6 27.1 14.7 8.9 0.0 19.1 6.2 225 Tonk 19.7 18.0 18.3 9.3 8.3 0.0 20.0 6.3 300 7.2 20.0 20.2 17.0 6.9 0.0 24.8 3.9 1650 When a government official is approached by a group of poor people for a development work 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 11.9 40.0 14.8 10.4 0.0 0.0 7.4 15.6 135 Churu 12.0 34.0 25.3 5.3 6.0 0.0 16.0 1.3 150 Dausa 5.8 40.0 14.2 14.2 3.3 0.0 17.5 5.0 120 Dholpur 17.1 36.2 22.9 9.5 3.8 0.0 9.5 1.0 105 Jhalawar 0.0 14.5 67.9 5.5 3.6 0.0 8.5 0.0 165 Rajsamand 8.1 19.3 36.3 16.3 5.2 0.0 8.9 5.9 135 Tonk 13.9 21.7 20.6 15.6 15.0 0.6 10.6 2.2 180 9.6 28.3 30.0 10.9 5.8 0.1 11.1 4.2 990 BPL Baran 4.9 32.0 21.8 28.4 2.2 0.0 4.9 5.8 225 Churu 18.4 16.0 20.4 9.6 11.2 0.0 21.6 2.8 250 Dausa 4.0 31.0 22.5 13.0 2.5 0.0 23.5 3.5 200 Dholpur 9.7 34.9 20.0 5.1 5.1 0.0 19.4 5.7 175 Jhalawar 0.7 20.0 37.8 10.2 5.5 0.0 24.7 1.1 275 Rajsamand 7.6 28.0 28.9 13.3 7.6 0.0 10.7 4.0 225 Tonk 18.7 22.3 24.0 10.3 5.3 0.0 12.3 7.0 300 9.5 25.5 25.5 12.8 5.8 0.0 16.7 4.2 1650

155

If your Children are not enrolled in School, who persuades you to send them to school 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 28.1 55.6 12.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 135 Churu 24.0 59.3 8.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.7 150 Dausa 15.8 59.2 18.3 3.3 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 120 Dholpur 8.6 27.6 52.4 7.6 1.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 105 Jhalawar 1.8 75.2 12.1 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 165 Rajsamand 25.2 57.0 12.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.7 135 Tonk 19.4 60.0 11.7 4.4 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.1 180 17.6 57.9 16.7 4.5 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.4 990 BPL Baran 20.0 67.1 10.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 225 Churu 36.0 45.6 4.8 4.4 1.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 250 Dausa 22.0 54.5 14.0 4.0 2.5 0.0 2.0 1.0 200 Dholpur 36.6 30.3 18.3 5.1 1.7 0.0 6.3 1.7 175 Jhalawar 9.5 73.5 9.1 6.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.4 275 Rajsamand 17.8 54.2 14.7 10.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 225 Tonk 23.3 60.7 7.3 2.0 1.3 0.0 3.3 2.0 300 23.0 56.5 10.7 4.6 1.3 0.0 3.0 0.9 1650 When a Ceremony such as wedding/ mritubhoj is organized who comes to help 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 APL Baran 1.5 43.7 3.0 44.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 135 Churu 12.0 32.0 28.0 18.0 2.0 0.7 6.7 0.7 150 Dausa 5.8 19.2 7.5 37.5 20.8 6.7 2.5 0.0 120 Dholpur 7.6 10.5 25.7 52.4 1.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 105 Jhalawar 0.6 35.8 8.5 33.9 18.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 165 Rajsamand 5.9 23.0 3.7 45.9 18.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 135 Tonk 16.7 28.3 8.9 25.0 12.8 4.4 3.9 0.0 180 7.5 28.5 11.8 35.4 11.9 2.1 2.5 0.3 990 BPL Baran 0.4 30.7 3.6 62.7 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 225 Churu 18.0 18.4 14.0 32.8 7.2 0.8 8.8 0.0 250 Dausa 2.5 20.5 4.5 51.5 14.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 200 Dholpur 4.6 18.9 13.1 56.6 2.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 175 Jhalawar 1.1 51.6 6.2 34.5 4.7 1.1 0.7 0.0 275 Rajsamand 1.3 46.2 11.6 29.3 9.3 0.9 1.3 0.0 225 Tonk 17.3 30.0 8.3 24.0 10.3 2.3 5.0 2.7 300 7.1 31.8 8.7 39.9 7.2 1.9 3.0 0.5 1650

156

Issue of Food Adequacy: Do all members of the HH get sufficient food daily round the year Yes No Depends Total On the ‘ season APL Baran 100.0 0.0 0.0 135 Churu 100.0 0.0 0.0 150 Dausa 98.3 0.0 1.7 120 Dholpur 99.0 1.0 0.0 105 Jhalawar 100.0 0.0 0.0 165 Rajsamand 100.0 0.0 0.0 135 Tonk 100.0 0.0 0.0 180 99.7 0.1 0.2 990 BPL Baran 100.0 0.0 0.0 225 Churu 100.0 0.0 0.0 250 Dausa 90.5 1.0 8.5 200 Dholpur 100.0 0.0 0.0 175 Jhalawar 94.5 0.0 5.5 275 Rajsamand 100.0 0.0 0.0 225 Tonk 98.3 0.0 1.7 300 97.6 0.1 2.2 1650 Compared to Other People in the Village, do you think your HH eats Better About the Worse Total same APL Baran 23.0 76.3 0.7 135 Churu 44.0 54.0 2.0 150 Dausa 7.5 84.2 8.3 120 Dholpur 15.2 83.8 1.0 105 Jhalawar 22.4 75.2 2.4 165 Rajsamand 11.1 88.1 0.7 135 Tonk 32.2 63.3 4.4 180 23.4 73.7 2.8 990 BPL Baran 3.1 93.3 3.6 225 Churu 9.2 85.6 5.2 250 Dausa 7.0 83.5 9.5 200 Dholpur 12.0 85.7 2.3 175 Jhalawar 2.5 93.1 4.4 275 Rajsamand 9.3 85.8 4.9 225 Tonk 15.0 74.3 10.7 300 8.4 85.6 6.0 1650

157

Compared to 5 years ago has the household’s overall standard of living changed Improved Worsened Stayed Total same APL Baran 25.2 2.2 72.6 135 Churu 49.3 0.0 50.7 150 Dausa 11.7 9.2 79.2 120 Dholpur 18.1 3.8 78.1 105 Jhalawar 46.1 0.0 53.9 165 Rajsamand 26.7 13.3 60.0 135 Tonk 41.7 6.7 51.7 180 33.1 4.8 62.0 990 BPL Baran 4.4 7.1 88.4 225 Churu 29.2 6.0 64.8 250 Dausa 14.5 6.5 79.0 200 Dholpur 13.1 11.4 75.4 175 Jhalawar 31.3 2.2 66.5 275 Rajsamand 15.6 1.3 83.1 225 Tonk 39.7 5.3 55.0 300 22.7 5.4 71.9 1650 Compared to 5 years ago has the household’s Employment opportunities changed Improved Worsened Stayed Total same APL Baran 44.4 1.5 54.1 135 Churu 87.3 0.7 12.0 150 Dausa 30.8 10.0 59.2 120 Dholpur 39.0 3.8 57.1 105 Jhalawar 57.6 0.0 42.4 165 Rajsamand 61.5 13.3 25.2 135 Tonk 65.0 6.7 28.3 180 57.0 4.9 38.1 990 BPL Baran 25.3 7.6 67.1 225 Churu 74.4 6.0 19.6 250 Dausa 29.0 6.5 64.5 200 Dholpur 32.0 10.3 57.7 175 Jhalawar 55.3 2.2 42.5 275 Rajsamand 50.2 1.3 48.4 225 Tonk 63.0 4.7 32.3 300 49.2 5.2 45.6 1650

158

Compared to 5 years ago has the household’s Access to credit changed Improved Worsened Stayed Total APL Baran 42.2 2.2 55.6 135 Churu 82.7 0.7 16.7 150 Dausa 24.2 10.8 65.0 120 Dholpur 41.9 1.9 56.2 105 Jhalawar 72.1 0.0 27.9 165 Rajsamand 62.2 13.3 24.4 135 Tonk 60.0 6.7 33.3 180 57.1 4.9 38.0 990 BPL Baran 20.9 6.2 72.9 225 Churu 69.2 6.0 24.8 250 Dausa 22.5 9.5 68.0 200 Dholpur 31.4 10.9 57.7 175 Jhalawar 57.1 2.9 40.0 275 Rajsamand 46.7 0.9 52.4 225 Tonk 56.7 8.0 35.3 300 45.6 6.1 48.3 1650 Compared to 5 years ago has the household’s Personal influence over things in the community that matter to the hh welfare changed Improved Worsened Stayed Total same APL Baran 28.1 2.2 69.6 135 Churu 69.3 0.7 30.0 150 Dausa 17.5 11.7 70.8 120 Dholpur 22.9 2.9 74.3 105 Jhalawar 61.2 0.0 38.8 165 Rajsamand 30.4 9.6 60.0 135 Tonk 55.0 3.3 41.7 180 43.2 4.0 52.7 990 BPL Baran 7.1 6.2 86.7 225 Churu 43.2 6.4 50.4 250 Dausa 15.5 8.5 76.0 200 Dholpur 29.7 8.6 61.7 175 Jhalawar 35.3 2.5 62.2 275 Rajsamand 24.9 1.3 73.8 225 Tonk 53.7 3.3 43.0 300 31.6 5.0 63.5 1650

159

Compared to 5 years ago has the household’s Participation in village decision making changed Improved Worsened Stayed Total same APL Baran 37.8 3.7 58.5 135 Churu 56.0 1.3 42.7 150 Dausa 13.3 11.7 75.0 120 Dholpur 22.9 1.9 75.2 105 Jhalawar 62.4 0.0 37.6 165 Rajsamand 28.1 6.7 65.2 135 Tonk 52.2 2.8 45.0 180 41.4 3.7 54.8 990 BPL Baran 15.1 4.4 80.4 225 Churu 36.8 6.0 57.2 250 Dausa 16.0 7.0 77.0 200 Dholpur 17.1 20.0 62.9 175 Jhalawar 37.8 2.5 59.6 275 Rajsamand 27.6 1.3 71.1 225 Tonk 52.7 3.7 43.7 300 31.0 5.8 63.2 1650 Compared to 5 years ago has the household’s Knowledge about the administration processes that matter to its welfare changed Improved Worsened Stayed Total same APL Baran 26.7 3.7 69.6 135 Churu 55.3 2.0 42.7 150 Dausa 14.2 10.0 75.8 120 Dholpur 22.9 1.9 75.2 105 Jhalawar 59.4 1.2 39.4 165 Rajsamand 27.4 6.7 65.9 135 Tonk 51.1 3.9 45.0 180 39.1 4.0 56.9 990 BPL Baran 6.2 4.4 89.3 225 Churu 38.4 5.6 56.0 250 Dausa 17.5 8.5 74.0 200 Dholpur 16.0 20.6 63.4 175 Jhalawar 36.7 2.9 60.4 275 Rajsamand 22.7 1.3 76.0 225 Tonk 49.0 4.3 46.7 300 28.6 6.1 65.3 1650

160

Have you worked in paternal fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 43.0 57.0 135 Churu 0.0 100.0 150 Dausa 20.0 80.0 120 Dholpur 34.3 65.7 105 Jhalawar 13.3 86.7 165 Rajsamand 11.1 88.9 135 Tonk 22.8 77.2 180 19.8 80.2 990 BPL Baran 38.7 61.3 225 Churu 2.4 97.6 250 Dausa 31.5 68.5 200 Dholpur 31.4 68.6 175 Jhalawar 6.5 93.5 275 Rajsamand 24.4 75.6 225 Tonk 21.3 78.7 300 21.1 78.9 1650 Have you worked in CIG member’s fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 100.0 0.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 0.0 100.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 0.0 100.0 10 6.3 93.8 16 BPL Baran 28.6 71.4 49 Churu 3.1 96.9 196 Dausa 34.7 65.3 95 Dholpur 30.1 69.9 133 Jhalawar 2.6 97.4 195 Rajsamand 16.3 83.7 98 Tonk 8.4 91.6 179 13.7 86.3 945

161

Has the paternal worked on your fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 32.6 67.4 135 Churu 0.0 100.0 150 Dausa 18.3 81.7 120 Dholpur 33.3 66.7 105 Jhalawar 13.3 86.7 165 Rajsamand 10.4 89.6 135 Tonk 22.8 77.2 180 18.0 82.0 990 BPL Baran 37.3 62.7 225 Churu 1.6 98.4 250 Dausa 25.5 74.5 200 Dholpur 33.7 66.3 175 Jhalawar 6.5 93.5 275 Rajsamand 20.0 80.0 225 Tonk 19.3 80.7 300 19.3 80.7 1650 Has the any CIG member worked on your fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 100.0 0.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 0.0 100.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 0.0 100.0 10 6.3 93.8 16 BPL Baran 26.5 73.5 49 Churu 2.6 97.4 196 Dausa 28.4 71.6 95 Dholpur 27.1 72.9 133 Jhalawar 2.6 97.4 195 Rajsamand 14.3 85.7 98 Tonk 8.4 91.6 179 12.2 87.8 945 Have you worked in maternal fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 28.1 71.9 135 Churu 0.0 100.0 150 Dausa 12.5 87.5 120 Dholpur 11.4 88.6 105 Jhalawar 0.6 99.4 165 Rajsamand 8.1 91.9 135 Tonk 11.1 88.9 180 9.8 90.2 990 BPL Baran 24.4 75.6 225 Churu 1.6 98.4 250 Dausa 19.5 80.5 200 Dholpur 6.3 93.7 175 Jhalawar 0.4 99.6 275 Rajsamand 7.1 92.9 225 Tonk 7.7 92.3 300 9.0 91.0 1650 Have you worked in CIG maternal fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 0.0 100.0 1

162

Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 0.0 100.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 0.0 100.0 10 0.0 100.0 16 BPL Baran 16.3 83.7 49 Churu 3.1 96.9 196 Dausa 20.0 80.0 95 Dholpur 8.3 91.7 133 Jhalawar 1.0 99.0 195 Rajsamand 10.2 89.8 98 Tonk 3.9 96.1 179 6.7 93.3 945 Has maternals worked on Your fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 29.6 70.4 135 Churu 0.0 100.0 150 Dausa 13.3 86.7 120 Dholpur 17.1 82.9 105 Jhalawar 0.6 99.4 165 Rajsamand 7.4 92.6 135 Tonk 10.0 90.0 180 10.4 89.6 990 BPL Baran 21.3 78.7 225 Churu 1.6 98.4 250 Dausa 20.0 80.0 200 Dholpur 4.0 96.0 175 Jhalawar 1.8 98.2 275 Rajsamand 7.1 92.9 225 Tonk 7.3 92.7 300 8.6 91.4 1650 Has maternals worked in CIGs fields last year Yes No Total APL Baran 0.0 100.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 0.0 100.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 0.0 100.0 10 0.0 100.0 16 BPL Baran 18.4 81.6 49 Churu 4.6 95.4 196 Dausa 25.3 74.7 95 Dholpur 6.0 94.0 133 Jhalawar 2.6 97.4 195 Rajsamand 14.3 85.7 98 Tonk 5.6 94.4 179 8.4 91.6 945 Do you go to market with agricultural surplus along with Kins Yes No Total APL Baran 17.8 82.2 135 Churu 0.7 99.3 150 Dausa 20.0 80.0 120 Dholpur 29.5 70.5 105 Jhalawar 19.4 80.6 165 Rajsamand 16.3 83.7 135

163

Tonk 22.2 77.8 180 17.6 82.4 990 BPL Baran 22.2 77.8 225 Churu 1.6 98.4 250 Dausa 29.0 71.0 200 Dholpur 14.3 85.7 175 Jhalawar 18.9 81.1 275 Rajsamand 19.6 80.4 225 Tonk 20.7 79.3 300 17.9 82.1 1650 Does the CIGs go to market with agricultural surplus along with Kins Yes No Total APL Baran 0.0 100.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 100.0 0.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 0.0 100.0 10 6.3 93.8 16 BPL Baran 12.2 87.8 49 Churu 6.6 93.4 196 Dausa 25.3 74.7 95 Dholpur 14.3 85.7 133 Jhalawar 20.0 80.0 195 Rajsamand 25.5 74.5 98 Tonk 10.6 89.4 179 15.3 84.7 945 Do the animals of Kins and CIG have common gadaryia Yes No Total APL Baran 29.6 70.4 135 Churu 0.0 100.0 150 Dausa 11.7 88.3 120 Dholpur 30.5 69.5 105 Jhalawar 17.0 83.0 165 Rajsamand 9.6 90.4 135 Tonk 13.3 86.7 180 15.3 84.7 990 BPL Baran 19.6 80.4 225 Churu 2.0 98.0 250 Dausa 24.5 75.5 200 Dholpur 17.7 82.3 175 Jhalawar 21.8 78.2 275 Rajsamand 6.7 93.3 225 Tonk 13.3 86.7 300 14.8 85.2 1650 Do the animals of Kins and CIG have common gadaryia (CIG perspective) Yes No Total APL Baran 0.0 100.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 100.0 0.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 10.0 90.0 10 12.5 87.5 16 BPL Baran 34.7 65.3 49 Churu 8.2 91.8 196

164

Dausa 43.2 56.8 95 Dholpur 20.3 79.7 133 Jhalawar 27.7 72.3 195 Rajsamand 11.2 88.8 98 Tonk 13.4 86.6 179 20.1 79.9 945 Do you migrate with kins and CIG support Yes No Total APL Baran 37.0 63.0 135 Churu 10.7 89.3 150 Dausa 27.5 72.5 120 Dholpur 39.0 61.0 105 Jhalawar 35.2 64.8 165 Rajsamand 28.9 71.1 135 Tonk 30.6 69.4 180 29.5 70.5 990 BPL Baran 15.6 84.4 225 Churu 22.0 78.0 250 Dausa 44.0 56.0 200 Dholpur 29.7 70.3 175 Jhalawar 24.4 75.6 275 Rajsamand 26.2 73.8 225 Tonk 25.3 74.7 300 26.2 73.8 1650 Does the CIG migrate with your support Yes No Total APL Baran 0.0 100.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 0.0 100.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 50.0 50.0 10 31.3 68.8 16 BPL Baran 40.8 59.2 49 Churu 26.0 74.0 196 Dausa 62.1 37.9 95 Dholpur 28.6 71.4 133 Jhalawar 25.6 74.4 195 Rajsamand 33.7 66.3 98 Tonk 29.6 70.4 179 32.2 67.8 945 Do you celebrate Festivals together with kins and CIGs Yes No Total APL Baran 75.6 24.4 135 Churu 23.3 76.7 150 Dausa 55.0 45.0 120 Dholpur 67.6 32.4 105 Jhalawar 73.9 26.1 165 Rajsamand 68.9 31.1 135 Tonk 46.1 53.9 180 57.8 42.2 990 BPL Baran 61.8 38.2 225 Churu 59.6 40.4 250 Dausa 67.5 32.5 200 Dholpur 74.9 25.1 175 Jhalawar 76.4 23.6 275 Rajsamand 68.4 31.6 225

165

Tonk 41.7 58.3 300 63.2 36.8 1650 Does the CIGs celebrate Festivals together with you Yes No Total APL Baran 100.0 0.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 50.0 50.0 2 Jhalawar 100.0 0.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 60.0 40.0 10 56.3 43.8 16 BPL Baran 81.6 18.4 49 Churu 50.0 50.0 196 Dausa 74.7 25.3 95 Dholpur 77.4 22.6 133 Jhalawar 77.9 22.1 195 Rajsamand 75.5 24.5 98 Tonk 41.3 58.7 179 64.8 35.2 945 Is there food Exchange in times of shortages with kins and CIGs Yes No Total APL Baran 72.6 27.4 135 Churu 19.3 80.7 150 Dausa 48.3 51.7 120 Dholpur 65.7 34.3 105 Jhalawar 73.9 26.1 165 Rajsamand 85.9 14.1 135 Tonk 46.7 53.3 180 58.2 41.8 990 BPL Baran 56.4 43.6 225 Churu 64.4 35.6 250 Dausa 58.0 42.0 200 Dholpur 71.4 28.6 175 Jhalawar 75.6 24.4 275 Rajsamand 71.1 28.9 225 Tonk 42.0 58.0 300 62.0 38.0 1650 Do the kins and COG women go out together out of the village Yes No Total APL Baran 72.6 27.4 135 Churu 24.7 75.3 150 Dausa 44.2 55.8 120 Dholpur 43.8 56.2 105 Jhalawar 74.5 25.5 165 Rajsamand 84.4 15.6 135 Tonk 41.1 58.9 180 55.1 44.9 990 BPL Baran 56.0 44.0 225 Churu 65.2 34.8 250 Dausa 52.0 48.0 200 Dholpur 64.6 35.4 175 Jhalawar 70.2 29.8 275 Rajsamand 70.7 29.3 225 Tonk 37.7 62.3 300 58.8 41.2 1650

166

Do you borrow from Kins and CIG members Yes No Total APL Baran 75.6 24.4 135 Churu 23.3 76.7 150 Dausa 41.7 58.3 120 Dholpur 67.6 32.4 105 Jhalawar 64.8 35.2 165 Rajsamand 78.5 21.5 135 Tonk 46.1 53.9 180 56.0 44.0 990 BPL Baran 56.9 43.1 225 Churu 67.6 32.4 250 Dausa 61.0 39.0 200 Dholpur 72.0 28.0 175 Jhalawar 38.9 61.1 275 Rajsamand 67.1 32.9 225 Tonk 43.0 57.0 300 56.5 43.5 1650

167

Does the CIG members borrow from you Yes No. Total APL Baran 100.0 0.0 1 Churu 0.0 100.0 1 Dausa 0.0 100.0 2 Jhalawar 100.0 0.0 1 Rajsamand 0.0 100.0 1 Tonk 60.0 40.0 10 50.0 50.0 16 BPL Baran 79.6 20.4 49 Churu 60.2 39.8 196 Dausa 69.5 30.5 95 Dholpur 77.4 22.6 133 Jhalawar 41.5 58.5 195 Rajsamand 76.5 23.5 98 Tonk 42.5 57.5 179 59.0 41.0 945 Has the interaction been under strain in drought years between you and Kins and CIG Yes No Total APL Baran 43.0 57.0 135 Churu 19.3 80.7 150 Dausa 37.5 62.5 120 Dholpur 66.7 33.3 105 Jhalawar 64.8 35.2 165 Rajsamand 72.6 27.4 135 Tonk 41.7 58.3 180 48.7 51.3 990 BPL Baran 39.6 60.4 225 Churu 66.4 33.6 250 Dausa 47.0 53.0 200 Dholpur 69.7 30.3 175 Jhalawar 37.5 62.5 275 Rajsamand 62.7 37.3 225 Tonk 38.7 61.3 300 50.4 49.6 1650

168

Are you or any member of your family a member of any group Political SHGs User Religious Caste Total Party group group based APL Baran 1.48 0.00 0.74 19.26 57.78 135 Churu 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.67 53.33 150 Dausa 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 120 Dholpur 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.95 42.86 105 Jhalawar 1.21 1.82 0.00 0.00 20.61 165 Rajsamand 0.74 2.22 0.00 0.74 41.48 135 Tonk 3.89 3.89 0.00 0.00 6.11 180 0.00 0.71 0.10 2.93 30.81 990 BPL Baran 0.44 19.56 0.00 11.11 28.00 225 Churu 0.80 9.20 0.00 1.20 75.20 250 Dausa 1.50 4.00 0.00 1.50 5.50 200 Dholpur 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 58.29 175 Jhalawar 0.00 10.91 0.00 0.00 13.09 275 Rajsamand 0.89 3.56 0.00 0.00 44.00 225 Tonk 2.67 40.00 0.00 1.00 5.33 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.12 31.21 1650 Are you or any member of your family a member of any group Village Traders Other DPIP Village Total Tribal business comm. CIG education Develop associa based SHG committee -ment -tion group APL Baran 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 135 Churu 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 150 Dausa 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 2.50 120 Dholpur 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105 Jhalawar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 165 Rajsamand 1.48 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 135 Tonk 1.11 1.11 0.56 5.56 0.00 180 0.71 0.20 0.20 1.62 0.40 990 BPL Baran 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.78 1.78 225 Churu 0.40 0.00 0.00 78.40 0.40 250 Dausa 0.00 0.00 0.50 47.50 0.00 200 Dholpur 0.57 0.00 0.57 76.00 0.57 175 Jhalawar 0.00 0.00 0.36 70.91 0.00 275 Rajsamand 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.56 0.00 225 Tonk 0.33 1.00 0.33 59.67 4.00 300 0.18 0.18 0.24 57.27 1.09 1650

169

Do Participate in Caste Panchayat Men Women Total APL Baran 43.6 1.3 78 Churu 68.8 0.0 80 Dausa 100.0 0.0 1 Dholpur 93.3 0.0 45 Jhalawar 20.6 2.9 34 Rajsamand 64.3 1.8 56 Tonk 41.7 0.0 12 58.8 1.0 306 BPL Baran 66.7 11.1 63 Churu 47.3 1.1 188 Dausa 75.0 16.7 12 Dholpur 87.3 22.5 102 Jhalawar 33.3 19.4 36 Rajsamand 67.7 5.1 99 Tonk 93.8 31.3 16 62.6 9.9 516 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Cooking Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 3.0 97.8 1.5 27.4 135 Churu 3.3 99.3 3.3 25.3 150 Dausa 7.5 94.2 4.2 35.8 120 Dholpur 20.0 94.3 1.9 20.0 105 Jhalawar 1.2 98.8 1.8 26.1 165 Rajsamand 1.5 98.5 0.7 19.3 135 Tonk 5.0 94.4 3.9 30.0 180 5.3 96.9 2.5 26.5 990 BPL Baran 6.2 93.8 0.9 28.4 225 Churu 5.6 97.6 7.2 33.6 250 Dausa 7.0 94.0 3.0 35.5 200 Dholpur 10.9 95.4 6.3 37.1 175 Jhalawar 1.8 95.6 1.5 27.6 275 Rajsamand 5.3 96.4 3.6 24.0 225 Tonk 11.3 96.3 4.7 35.3 300 6.8 95.7 3.8 31.5 1650

170

Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Cleaning Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 7.4 98.5 11.9 36.3 135 Churu 6.7 99.3 4.7 44.7 150 Dausa 11.7 95.0 12.5 38.3 120 Dholpur 40.0 93.3 19.0 28.6 105 Jhalawar 1.8 98.2 6.7 31.5 165 Rajsamand 8.1 97.8 8.1 28.9 135 Tonk 8.9 93.3 7.8 36.1 180 10.7 96.6 9.5 35.2 990 BPL Baran 19.1 93.3 13.8 32.0 225 Churu 19.6 97.2 8.4 42.4 250 Dausa 9.5 92.0 10.5 38.5 200 Dholpur 36.6 95.4 24.0 48.0 175 Jhalawar 4.4 94.9 4.7 33.5 275 Rajsamand 14.2 96.4 13.3 32.9 225 Tonk 18.3 94.7 10.0 41.7 300 16.6 94.9 11.4 38.2 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Washing Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 62.2 95.6 47.4 39.3 135 Churu 67.3 99.3 44.7 34.0 150 Dausa 40.8 92.5 25.8 36.7 120 Dholpur 56.2 92.4 21.9 22.9 105 Jhalawar 36.4 98.2 24.8 31.5 165 Rajsamand 34.8 98.5 18.5 24.4 135 Tonk 34.4 94.4 20.6 33.3 180 46.7 96.1 29.1 32.0 990 BPL Baran 60.0 93.3 43.6 40.0 225 Churu 53.6 97.6 34.8 41.6 250 Dausa 27.0 92.0 28.0 38.0 200 Dholpur 44.0 94.9 29.7 44.0 175 Jhalawar 33.5 94.5 25.8 30.9 275 Rajsamand 50.7 96.0 28.9 31.1 225 Tonk 40.3 93.7 23.3 38.7 300 44.1 94.6 30.2 37.5 1650

171

Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Collection of Fuel Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 55.6 89.6 31.1 26.7 135 Churu 46.7 92.7 28.0 37.3 150 Dausa 23.3 77.5 16.7 19.2 120 Dholpur 44.8 74.3 19.0 17.1 105 Jhalawar 43.0 90.9 21.8 23.6 165 Rajsamand 49.6 85.9 23.7 21.5 135 Tonk 37.8 85.0 18.9 30.0 180 43.0 85.9 22.8 25.8 990 BPL Baran 62.7 88.4 42.2 29.3 225 Churu 50.0 96.0 29.6 43.6 250 Dausa 41.5 86.0 24.5 32.0 200 Dholpur 46.3 90.3 33.7 45.7 175 Jhalawar 29.8 91.6 15.3 25.5 275 Rajsamand 46.7 90.7 29.8 33.3 225 Tonk 39.7 91.7 19.7 38.3 300 44.6 90.9 27.0 35.1 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Collection of Fodder Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 52.6 72.6 22.2 20.0 135 Churu 78.0 86.7 49.3 34.7 150 Dausa 32.5 62.5 21.7 15.8 120 Dholpur 35.2 58.1 15.2 11.4 105 Jhalawar 45.5 80.0 18.8 21.2 165 Rajsamand 44.4 77.8 17.0 15.6 135 Tonk 40.6 80.6 18.3 26.1 180 47.7 75.4 23.5 21.5 990 BPL Baran 54.2 72.9 31.6 21.8 225 Churu 50.0 90.4 32.8 35.6 250 Dausa 48.0 75.5 22.5 26.5 200 Dholpur 54.3 82.9 33.7 38.3 175 Jhalawar 34.2 73.5 16.7 17.1 275 Rajsamand 42.2 82.7 21.8 24.0 225 Tonk 45.7 81.7 22.7 32.3 300 46.3 79.9 25.5 27.6 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Collection of Water Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 65.9 95.6 44.4 37.8 135 Churu 46.0 94.7 36.7 37.3 150 Dausa 34.2 83.3 20.8 27.5 120 Dholpur 60.0 83.8 24.8 21.0 105 Jhalawar 29.1 92.1 19.4 32.1 165 Rajsamand 50.4 93.3 23.7 26.7 135 Tonk 33.9 87.8 20.0 34.4 180 44.3 90.4 26.9 31.6 990 BPL Baran 69.8 92.4 51.6 40.0 225 Churu 53.6 94.8 37.6 40.8 250 Dausa 38.5 87.5 25.0 36.0 200 Dholpur 55.4 86.9 34.9 38.3 175 Jhalawar 19.3 93.5 14.9 29.8 275 Rajsamand 59.1 94.2 27.6 30.7 225 Tonk 33.3 94.0 20.7 40.3 300 45.5 92.3 29.5 36.5 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Infant Care Men Women Boy Girls Total

172

APL Baran 39.3 60.0 16.3 13.3 135 Churu 28.7 46.7 9.3 10.7 150 Dausa 15.0 58.3 6.7 12.5 120 Dholpur 42.9 60.0 13.3 14.3 105 Jhalawar 31.5 80.0 12.7 22.4 165 Rajsamand 40.7 71.1 13.3 11.1 135 Tonk 26.1 77.2 13.3 23.9 180 31.6 65.8 12.2 16.1 990 BPL Baran 41.3 60.4 22.2 13.8 225 Churu 42.4 66.8 22.4 22.4 250 Dausa 25.0 57.0 12.0 18.5 200 Dholpur 35.4 67.4 16.0 30.3 175 Jhalawar 24.4 68.4 9.1 18.2 275 Rajsamand 27.1 68.0 15.6 19.1 225 Tonk 32.3 72.0 15.0 24.3 300 32.5 66.2 15.9 20.8 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Child Care Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 29.6 57.0 12.6 15.6 135 Churu 42.0 58.7 7.3 6.0 150 Dausa 27.5 72.5 13.3 23.3 120 Dholpur 49.5 72.4 12.4 13.3 105 Jhalawar 41.2 72.7 17.6 21.8 165 Rajsamand 42.2 68.9 10.4 9.6 135 Tonk 31.7 76.7 13.9 23.3 180 37.4 68.6 12.6 16.5 990 BPL Baran 41.8 64.9 26.7 18.2 225 Churu 46.4 70.0 21.2 17.2 250 Dausa 32.0 61.0 14.0 22.0 200 Dholpur 43.4 70.3 19.4 27.4 175 Jhalawar 42.2 67.3 7.3 10.5 275 Rajsamand 37.3 72.4 15.1 17.8 225 Tonk 35.7 68.3 13.3 24.7 300 39.8 67.8 16.3 19.3 1650

173

Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Old Age Care Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 31.9 51.1 18.5 10.4 135 Churu 23.3 33.3 14.7 9.3 150 Dausa 35.0 57.5 17.5 13.3 120 Dholpur 24.8 47.6 21.0 11.4 105 Jhalawar 40.6 60.0 17.0 20.0 165 Rajsamand 37.8 54.8 8.1 5.2 135 Tonk 37.8 71.1 16.7 19.4 180 33.5 54.4 16.1 13.2 990 BPL Baran 44.9 52.4 21.8 8.4 225 Churu 42.0 55.2 24.4 21.2 250 Dausa 42.0 54.0 18.0 19.0 200 Dholpur 22.9 51.4 22.3 27.4 175 Jhalawar 30.9 55.6 22.2 15.3 275 Rajsamand 26.7 55.6 19.1 16.4 225 Tonk 35.7 60.0 17.0 20.3 300 35.3 55.3 20.6 18.1 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Ploughing Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 57.8 8.1 12.6 2.2 135 Churu 54.7 9.3 7.3 0.7 150 Dausa 42.5 22.5 8.3 4.2 120 Dholpur 55.2 32.4 9.5 1.9 105 Jhalawar 79.4 25.5 21.2 8.5 165 Rajsamand 56.3 23.0 5.9 0.7 135 Tonk 60.0 35.0 16.7 7.8 180 59.0 22.4 12.2 4.0 990 BPL Baran 50.2 20.0 11.6 3.6 225 Churu 68.0 20.8 12.4 2.8 250 Dausa 52.5 19.5 11.5 10.5 200 Dholpur 61.1 42.3 25.1 15.4 175 Jhalawar 60.7 29.5 21.1 7.3 275 Rajsamand 62.2 29.8 13.8 7.6 225 Tonk 57.7 29.7 15.0 8.0 300 59.1 27.1 15.6 7.5 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Sowing Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 63.0 18.5 14.1 3.0 135 Churu 63.3 17.3 8.0 0.7 150 Dausa 47.5 30.0 11.7 9.2 120 Dholpur 59.0 49.5 15.2 4.8 105 Jhalawar 84.8 48.5 29.1 12.1 165 Rajsamand 70.4 33.3 10.4 3.7 135 Tonk 67.2 49.4 24.4 12.2 180 66.2 35.7 16.9 6.9 990 BPL Baran 55.6 25.8 12.0 3.6 225 Churu 76.4 29.6 18.8 7.2 250 Dausa 53.5 30.0 13.0 9.5 200 Dholpur 67.4 57.7 31.4 17.7 175 Jhalawar 64.7 47.3 26.9 8.0 275 Rajsamand 67.1 42.2 20.4 5.8 225 Tonk 64.7 46.0 18.3 13.3 300 64.5 39.8 20.0 9.2 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Irrigation Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 63.0 33.3 23.0 7.4 135

174

Churu 44.0 22.7 10.0 4.0 150 Dausa 52.5 50.0 17.5 12.5 120 Dholpur 54.3 43.8 13.3 4.8 105 Jhalawar 85.5 68.5 34.5 13.9 165 Rajsamand 67.4 48.9 16.3 6.7 135 Tonk 70.6 52.2 28.3 15.0 180 63.6 46.3 21.3 9.6 990 BPL Baran 54.7 43.6 16.9 6.2 225 Churu 56.8 30.0 17.6 6.0 250 Dausa 54.5 37.5 14.5 11.0 200 Dholpur 56.0 50.9 32.0 12.6 175 Jhalawar 59.3 49.1 30.9 8.7 275 Rajsamand 60.4 41.3 18.7 10.2 225 Tonk 67.7 47.3 22.0 13.0 300 59.0 42.8 21.8 9.6 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Interculture Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 65.2 51.9 25.2 15.6 135 Churu 79.3 58.0 33.3 12.7 150 Dausa 48.3 42.5 20.8 13.3 120 Dholpur 61.9 54.3 18.1 3.8 105 Jhalawar 84.8 76.4 35.2 15.8 165 Rajsamand 74.1 60.7 20.7 10.4 135 Tonk 77.2 55.0 33.3 16.1 180 71.6 57.8 27.7 13.0 990 BPL Baran 55.6 48.4 17.8 9.3 225 Churu 78.4 57.2 32.0 16.8 250 Dausa 56.5 43.5 15.5 13.0 200 Dholpur 68.0 66.9 34.9 17.1 175 Jhalawar 65.8 58.9 33.5 12.7 275 Rajsamand 70.2 56.0 24.9 13.3 225 Tonk 69.0 52.3 22.3 16.0 300 66.6 54.6 25.9 14.1 1650

175

Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Harvesting Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 67.4 46.7 24.4 12.6 135 Churu 84.7 68.7 33.3 12.7 150 Dausa 50.0 45.8 19.2 15.0 120 Dholpur 61.9 52.4 15.2 3.8 105 Jhalawar 85.5 80.0 33.9 18.8 165 Rajsamand 75.6 67.4 23.0 14.8 135 Tonk 79.4 60.0 32.2 16.1 180 73.6 61.3 27.0 13.9 990 BPL Baran 56.9 48.9 23.1 10.2 225 Churu 79.6 64.0 32.0 19.2 250 Dausa 55.0 46.0 15.0 13.5 200 Dholpur 67.4 66.9 33.1 16.6 175 Jhalawar 66.2 60.0 34.5 13.5 275 Rajsamand 75.1 57.3 27.6 13.8 225 Tonk 71.7 55.0 22.0 19.0 300 67.9 56.8 26.8 15.3 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Threshing Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 62.2 43.7 24.4 15.6 135 Churu 84.0 78.7 38.0 14.0 150 Dausa 54.2 45.8 19.2 14.2 120 Dholpur 61.0 47.6 14.3 2.9 105 Jhalawar 86.1 78.8 38.2 20.0 165 Rajsamand 77.0 68.1 24.4 14.1 135 Tonk 77.2 64.4 32.2 18.3 180 73.1 62.6 28.5 14.8 990 BPL Baran 56.0 49.3 24.9 12.0 225 Churu 79.2 73.6 34.4 19.2 250 Dausa 63.0 45.0 16.5 14.0 200 Dholpur 66.9 62.9 35.4 14.3 175 Jhalawar 66.5 60.0 37.1 14.5 275 Rajsamand 72.0 62.2 30.2 12.0 225 Tonk 73.0 63.3 23.3 17.7 300 68.5 60.0 28.9 15.0 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Medbandi Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 54.8 14.1 17.0 7.4 135 Churu 78.7 57.3 26.7 11.3 150 Dausa 55.0 20.0 15.8 5.8 120 Dholpur 61.0 24.8 16.2 1.0 105 Jhalawar 78.2 42.4 29.7 10.3 165 Rajsamand 77.0 43.7 16.3 5.2 135 Tonk 71.1 56.7 27.8 14.4 180 69.0 39.0 22.2 8.6 990 BPL Baran 55.1 25.3 19.1 3.1 225 Churu 66.4 50.4 23.6 11.2 250 Dausa 60.0 32.5 13.5 9.0 200 Dholpur 66.9 39.4 33.1 6.9 175 Jhalawar 61.8 34.2 31.3 7.3 275 Rajsamand 66.2 53.3 28.9 8.0 225 Tonk 69.3 46.3 19.3 11.7 300 63.9 40.6 24.0 8.4 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Animal Grazing Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 28.9 42.2 20.7 18.5 135 Churu 59.3 75.3 42.0 24.0 150

176

Dausa 41.7 55.0 20.0 24.2 120 Dholpur 40.0 45.7 17.1 9.5 105 Jhalawar 77.6 40.0 24.8 10.9 165 Rajsamand 53.3 64.4 23.7 19.3 135 Tonk 66.7 62.2 32.2 18.9 180 54.5 55.5 26.7 18.0 990 BPL Baran 23.1 51.1 24.4 20.0 225 Churu 65.2 82.8 36.8 29.2 250 Dausa 41.5 59.0 20.0 22.0 200 Dholpur 61.7 72.0 39.4 28.6 175 Jhalawar 64.0 50.2 36.0 17.1 275 Rajsamand 62.2 68.4 30.7 20.9 225 Tonk 63.7 59.3 28.7 19.0 300 55.3 62.8 30.9 22.0 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Milching Animal Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 25.2 66.7 3.0 13.3 135 Churu 26.7 82.7 10.7 15.3 150 Dausa 24.2 62.5 7.5 18.3 120 Dholpur 32.4 49.5 8.6 6.7 105 Jhalawar 73.3 74.5 28.5 13.3 165 Rajsamand 38.5 80.0 9.6 12.6 135 Tonk 50.0 72.8 23.3 22.2 180 40.4 71.0 14.1 15.1 990 BPL Baran 7.1 64.4 2.2 16.9 225 Churu 35.6 85.2 15.6 21.6 250 Dausa 29.0 64.0 9.5 19.0 200 Dholpur 45.1 73.1 25.7 18.9 175 Jhalawar 57.8 69.1 29.8 16.7 275 Rajsamand 44.0 78.2 18.2 16.0 225 Tonk 52.3 71.0 20.0 18.7 300 39.8 72.3 17.6 18.2 1650 Roles and Responsibilities in the Household: Cleaning Animal Shed Men Women Boy Girls Total APL Baran 28.1 67.4 10.4 17.0 135 Churu 18.0 85.3 6.0 28.7 150 Dausa 13.3 65.0 5.0 22.5 120 Dholpur 32.4 51.4 8.6 10.5 105 Jhalawar 27.3 79.4 17.6 22.4 165 Rajsamand 25.9 83.0 11.1 20.7 135 Tonk 35.6 75.0 19.4 25.6 180 26.2 73.6 11.8 21.7 990 BPL Baran 9.3 65.8 9.8 19.1 225 Churu 27.2 88.8 12.4 31.6 250 Dausa 23.0 65.5 9.5 23.0 200 Dholpur 48.6 76.0 28.0 32.0 175 Jhalawar 25.1 72.0 17.8 21.5 275 Rajsamand 28.0 79.6 16.9 21.8 225 Tonk 39.3 72.0 15.0 23.3 300 28.5 74.4 15.3 24.4 1650

177

Tables on Asset Position of CIG and non-CIG Households Households Number =N Kutcha room 2001 2007 CIG NONCIG CIG NONCIG Baran N 78 187 76 186 Churu N 99 100 86 92 Dausa N 95 150 94 154 Dholpur N 112 192 108 167 Jhalawar N 91 117 90 115 Rajsamand N 58 176 56 182 Tonk N 99 96 91 96 Total N 632 1018 601 992 Pucca room 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 1 5 20 46 Churu N 61 76 104 114 Dausa N 56 82 83 94 Dholpur N 33 64 83 110 Jhalawar N 6 4 17 21 Rajsamand N 17 75 39 120 Tonk N 23 13 34 22 Total N 197 319 380 527 Toilet 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 0 0 0 0 Churu N 15 16 73 72 Dausa N 2 1 7 4 Dholpur N 0 0 4 18 Jhalawar N 0 1 0 0 Rajsamand N 0 1 2 13 Tonk N 0 1 1 3 Total N 17 20 87 110 Animal shed 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 30 90 53 113 Churu N 63 72 96 87 Dausa N 73 107 78 88 Dholpur N 57 65 70 81 Jhalawar N 36 48 62 60 Rajsamand N 44 155 39 109 Tonk N 59 64 74 69 Total N 362 601 472 607 Electric connection 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 6 12 15 26 Churu N 4 7 53 54 Dausa N 16 15 22 32

178

Dholpur N 5 11 12 18 Jhalawar N 3 6 11 16 Rajsamand N 21 58 24 61 Tonk N 16 15 25 21 Total N 71 124 162 228 Fan 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 9 15 4 6 Churu N 13 16 42 43 Dausa N 6 15 8 12 Dholpur N 4 8 13 16 Jhalawar N 2 2 8 11 Rajsamand N 7 27 10 37 Tonk N 10 11 20 14 Total N 51 94 105 139 Radio 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 12 13 22 83 Churu N 24 16 21 34 Dausa N 7 24 31 35 Dholpur N 13 24 66 80 Jhalawar N 10 11 29 40 Rajsamand N 7 34 20 94 Tonk N 21 20 19 4 Total N 94 142 208 370

Telephone 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 0 0 7 37 Churu N 1 0 19 29 Dausa N 0 0 21 19 Dholpur N 0 0 21 30 Jhalawar N 0 0 11 14 Rajsamand N 1 1 12 50 Tonk N 1 0 27 20 Total N 3 1 118 199 Television 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 3 11 6 7 Churu N 6 4 18 19 Dausa N 4 11 6 17 Dholpur N 0 2 7 13 Jhalawar N 0 1 4 7 Rajsamand N 4 8 6 23

179

Tonk N 6 4 10 8 Total N 23 41 57 94 Watch 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 22 72 56 140 Churu N 61 65 93 102 Dausa N 6 19 61 89 Dholpur N 37 95 83 132 Jhalawar N 41 57 78 87 Rajsamand N 56 162 55 157 Tonk N 85 70 74 57 Total N 308 540 500 764 Bicycle 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 23 61 28 74 Churu N 4 4 14 10 Dausa N 22 46 40 50 Dholpur N 6 23 81 115 Jhalawar N 26 42 64 63 Rajsamand N 25 89 35 97 Tonk N 55 49 49 31 Total N 161 314 311 440 Agricultural implements 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 28 73 33 67 Churu N 97 106 36 52 Dausa N 86 118 29 23 Dholpur N 99 131 13 27 Jhalawar N 55 59 16 6 Rajsamand N 50 153 21 66 Tonk N 72 63 13 6 Total N 487 703 161 247 Cart 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 11 14 5 10 Churu N 8 11 5 4 Dausa N 2 3 0 3 Dholpur N 1 2 0 0 Jhalawar N 3 0 5 1 Rajsamand N 1 2 1 1 Tonk N 10 3 6 1 Total N 36 35 22 20

180

Diesel/ electric pumpset 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 8 9 4 17 Churu N 5 8 0 0 Dausa N 53 78 30 25 Dholpur N 14 15 11 16 Jhalawar N 8 6 19 9 Rajsamand N 6 25 7 25 Tonk N 26 19 27 11 Total N 120 160 98 103 Sprinkler 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 1 0 0 2 Churu N 0 2 0 0 Dausa N 3 1 2 1 Dholpur N 0 1 3 0 Jhalawar N 0 0 3 0 Rajsamand N 0 1 2 3 Tonk N 0 0 0 0 Total N 4 5 10 6 Chaff cutter 2001 2007 CIG NONCIg CIG NONCIg Baran N 0 0 4 3 Churu N 4 5 6 10 Dausa N 5 5 23 19 Dholpur N 32 43 45 48 Jhalawar N 0 1 7 0 Rajsamand N 0 0 0 2 Tonk N 0 0 3 1 Total N 41 54 88 83

impact assessment of the district poverty initiative ... · pdf filethe study impact...

Documents